back to article Low sunspot activity linked to rivers freezing: Mini Ice Age on way?

A team of boffins in Germany say they have found a statistical link between periods of low solar activity and very cold winters in Europe. Some physicists believe that a long period of low solar activity - like the "Maunder Minimum" of the 17th and 18th centuries - could be on the cards in coming decades, so the new research …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Andrew Baines Silver badge
    FAIL

    News?

    Haven't we known this for donkey's years? River Thames freezing over in periods of low sunspots, etc?

    1. Lord Voldemortgage

      Re: News?

      Well, I thought so too.

      I guess the issue here is that an eleven years cycle of sunspot activity has no net effect on a 30 year cycle of climate (I think that's the normal period that climate is measured over) as you will always have two full sunspot cycles in any given climate window.

      But a 30 year long period of low sunspot activity could obviously have a very significant impact on something that is measured over the same span.

      1. Grikath Silver badge
        Boffin

        Re: News?

        Statistics are a great way to get things wrong in a scientifically measurable way, especially when you ignore a cycle which period is not in sync with your model, and is longer than your actual sample frequency, even if it would be steady as a rock.

        Which solar output, which actually drives the whole system, and of which sunspots are but one indicator, is not. Ignore at your own peril.

    2. Mike Richards Silver badge

      Re: News?

      The Thames certainly did freeze during that period and no longer does, but much of that is down to the manmade changes to the lower river. The old London bridge caused the river to pool upstream. When it was replaced, water could flow more freely and was less likely to freeze. Likewise, the construction of the two embankments confined the river to a narrower channel which prevents freezing.

      This study has one shortcoming, they've chosen one river. If they can repeat the trial with another - such as the Danube or the Elbe then the results will be much more significant.

    3. Cavanuk
      Thumb Down

      Re: News?

      No, this isn't news. No climatologist denies solar effects on climate. The worry is that the recent record low sunspot activity DIDN'T lead to another mini ice-age.

  2. Some Beggar

    "Climate scientists of the orthodox, alarmist tendency ... "

    "Strawmen ..."

    There. Fixed that for you.

  3. jhudsy
    FAIL

    Nothing to see here

    "Climate scientists of the orthodox, alarmist tendency say that variability in the Sun has minimal effects if any on the Earth's climate, but Sirocko - like some others - believes it is an important factor."

    Actually, no, Climate scientists say that variability in the Sun has miniaml effects on the Earth's climate after the middle of the 20th century unless there are unknown feedbacks - http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-3.html

    In other words, nothing to see here except Lewis Page's generic preconceptions rolled out in public yet again.

    1. itzman
      FAIL

      Re: Nothing to see here

      Like those unknown feedbacks inherent in the lambda factor of the IPPC carbon based climate model you mean?

      Sheesh. Its a bit rich when one group uses a modelling constant of arbitrary significance to get an answer it wants and then decries another group for doing the same thing.

      http://www.clarewind.org.uk/events-1.php?event=39

      1. jhudsy

        Re: Nothing to see here

        No, that's not what I mean. Climate sensitivity is not a "modelling constant of arbitrary significance", and has very little if anything to do with the portion of the IPCC report I quoted.

  4. nsld
    Paris Hilton

    You can hear

    The AGW crowd choking on organic decaff monkey friendly soya lattes as they read that one.

    They just need to apply the UEA analysis method and simply delete all evidence of this data ;)

  5. bill 36
    Pint

    Nice One

    keep them coming Lewis

  6. Emilio Desalvo

    "Climate is not ruled by one variable," argues the Professor-Doktor. "In fact, it has at least five or six variables..."

    The variables are probably more in the thousands range...

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The variables are probably more in the thousands range..."

      Still the wrong order of magnitude I think: More like needing to model the interactions between every particle in the Earth, the Solar system, cosmic radiation and the gravitational effects of the rest of the galaxy to get a properly accurate model. But meh, 5 or 6 variables is a high enough bar to getting a paper published.

    2. Some Beggar
      Thumb Down

      I can't tell if you're deliberately misunderstanding what the prof is saying, or genuinely don't know what it means to say that a system is ruled by a number of variables. He is not saying that a model needs to be simplistic, he is stating that there are a small number of critical parameters which have a dominant impact on the model. This is the case for pretty much any system you care to name, no matter how complicated. Some parameters are important. Some are less important. Some are so unimportant as to be negligible - although this is risky and always needs to be clearly stated. As you develop a model and compare it with observation, the relative importance of these parameters is adjusted. You might neglect some or re-introduce some. You might concentrate your finite computational and analytical resources on a different set of parameters. It's a thing we boffins call "the scientific method". This research - for all that Lewis desperately wants to cast it as an arrow in the eye of the scientific consensus - is simply a small step in that process.

      tl;dr - can't tell if trolling or stoopid

    3. Ru

      I suspect the missing qualifier was "significant". The number of major influences on global temperatures is probably not that big, and their influence will drown out that of less important factors.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "The variables are probably more in the thousands range"

      Hmmm, or the ~7,000,000,000 range :)

  7. Kharkov
    Coat

    Are we lucky or what?

    The peoples, societies & industries of the world have been blasting out CO2 & other pollutants pretty much non-stop, particularly in the last 50 years or so. Behaviour pretty much guaranteed to send the world's average temperature up a few degrees with much greater variation in weather.

    And Nature, strange & undeservedly benevolent (fingers crossed) as she is, gives us signficantly lower levels of energy from the sun to...

    A: Balance things out exactly. Damn, we're lucky barstewards.

    B: Mitigate the effects of our own pollution. Damn, we're lucky barstewards.

    C: Freeze our brass monkeys off because we didn't pollute enough. Damn, we're unlucky barstewards who didn't pollute enough

    1. OrganicInfo
      Coat

      Re: Are we lucky or what?

      Don't worry, once the solar activity returns to combine with man made effects on the global climate we can look forward to some interesting weather.

      Scorched earth, drought and famine anyone or perahps we can look forward to more extreme weather cycles?

      Mine's the Stillsuit thanks ;)

  8. Refugee from Windows
    Thumb Down

    Drat!

    I'll be snowed in at home, and they'll be no decent HF DX due to the low sunspot count. Never mind, snow cover, good ground conductivity, I'll have to concentrate on 40m then.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    As a layman

    As a layman does it not seem to be completely fucking obvious that the sun has an effect on climate. It being the source of most of the warmth on the surface of the Earth.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: As a layman

      I think Lewis' point is that we'll all freeze to death unless we burn more fossil fuels.

      Or something.

      It's hard to tell sometimes. Basically, he likes to pick sentences out of select articles that reinforce his world view, and then share them with everyone. I'm not quite sure why.

    2. itzman

      Re: As a layman

      Well the problem is that its actual heat output doesn't vary enough to cause more than a minor effect, and neither does orbital eccentricity etc etc. Of course carbon-dyed oxhide doesn't have enough effect on its own either, needing to be multiplied by 'unknown feedback factors' to get to the sort of scary predictions you need to sell crappy windmills to a gullible public.

      So the focus has shifted to the suns magnetosphere and the solar wind which IS associated with sunspots, and the Svensmark proposition is that somehow solar wind interacts with galactic cosmic rays reducing or increasing the density of high energy muons in the lower atmosphere which can act to help cloud nucleation, and therefore increase cloud cover and overall albedo.

      Or something. Its a complex model - far more complex than the CO2 model and therefore harder to sell to the gullible, but it does actually match the general shape of the actual climate (the unhockeysticked one) - right back to aeons ago as the solar system has crossed and recrossed various 'high cosmic ray' parts of the galaxy and these may well be associated with periods of global cooling.

      The final conclusion of the relatively unbiased and rational is that actually no-one has a bloody clue. Hence the need to fudge the results and come up with 'definite consensuses on scary predictions if you want to sell product on the back of it.

      1. Wilco 1
        WTF?

        Re: As a layman

        Climate scientists most certainly do have a bloodly clue, unlike you. Claiming they fudge data without any proof whatsoever is just ridiculous. Scientists have no products to sell, they don't personally benefit from research grants whatever the outcome of their research. As scientists they simply look at the evidence, and there is plenty of it.

        1. Grikath Silver badge

          Re: As a layman

          Dear Wilco 1,

          Thank you for your insight in the world of academia, it is truly enlightening.

          Meanwhile may I humbly raise your attention to this lovely piece of natural real estate I can procure for you at a quite reasonable commission.

          My cousin Prince Ahmed Kwazulu would also like to get in touch with you regarding a matter which would aid his ailing nation in freeing some wrongfully detained revolutionary capital.

          1. Wilco 1

            Re: As a layman

            Thanks, it seems most people have no idea about how science is performed in general. Shame it doesn't pay as much as the oil companies pay bloggers to claim it is all a fraud without doing any research at all.

            And you can keep that real estate you bought, I hope you enjoy it!

        2. AndrueC Silver badge
          Thumb Down

          Re: As a layman

          >Scientists have no products to sell, they don't personally benefit from research grants

          You try and become a successful scientist without exterior funding and see how far you get.

          1. Wilco 1

            Re: As a layman

            What do you mean with "exterior funding"? Most research is funded by government, and funding is never directly to the scientists, but to the university. So there is no money flowing from a grant directly to the scientist's bank accounts.

            1. JGT

              Re: As a layman

              "What do you mean with "exterior funding"?" Funding that comes to scientists from sources external to the university, like government grants.

              "Most research is funded by government..." Agreed.

              "...funding is never directly to the scientists, but to the university." Of course it is paid directly to the university. And the university turns right around and puts it an internal account for the research project.

              "So there is no money flowing from a grant directly to the scientist's bank accounts." The implication is a scientist's personal bank accounts. This is a strawman argument. This is not the situation the previous poster was talking about. He was talking about the flow that you outlined.

              However, since only the scientist that "landed" the grant, or his assignee's, can use the money, it is functionally a bank account.

              No, that isn't right, the scientist has to justify every cent as used for the research project, something he doesn't have to do for his personal bank account.

              1. Wilco 1
                Thumb Up

                Re: As a layman

                Correct, and that was my point. Scientists cannot just use the grant money as if it was their own money, so they can't just pay themselves a big salary from it. The typical claim from deniers is that climate researchers are just doing it to enrich themselves, which is as far from the truth as one can possibly be. The researchers I personally know are pretty badly paid, they do research because they love to do it. If they wanted to earn a lot of money, they would go work in the industry.

          2. Some Beggar

            Re: As a layman

            Hello. Sucessful scientist who never received any "exterior funding" here. What was it you wanted to ask?

            (disclaimer: I did receive a lumping great dollop of "exterior funding" when I took my bag of science out into industry and used it to make actual products ... but that made me a successful entrepreneur rather than a successful scientist)

            1. Some Beggar
              Facepalm

              Re: As a layman

              Does clicking the downvote button on my post magically stop me from existing and providing a counterexample to the previous commentard's silly assertion? Golly.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As a layman

          "They don't benefit personally from research grants." IOh, no? Iif they didn't get the research grants, perhaps they'd have to mug up on "the knowledge" in order to drive taxis, or they could also go burger flipping. Research labs can't employ people who don't bring in grants.

      2. Michael Dunn
        Coat

        Re: As a layman

        "... if you want to sell product on the back of it." Or, heaven forfend, even impose extra taxes on the back of it!

        There's something a little scary about this article - coincidence or not(?) - I sem to remember that the Sirocco is actually a warm (or is it cold?) wind.

        Yes, it's a windcheater.

  10. Wilco 1
    FAIL

    Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/08/23/sunspot_activity_and_rhine_freezing/

    And the spin is just ridiculous, claiming we are entering an ice-age?!? I guess he hasn't seen the hockey stick graph - global temperatures are dramatically up, not down...

  11. Chad H.
    FAIL

    Well

    Good to see that The Register is at least acknowledging that CO2 is a factor in long term trends, even if a medium term and temporary lever is being used to try and combat the credibility of same.

    1. TeeCee Gold badge
      Facepalm

      Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

      Would this be the same hockey-stick graph that's been repeatedly shown to be purest bullshit?

      1. Wilco 1
        Thumb Down

        Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

        No, it's the hockey stick graph confirmed twice by sceptics in the BEST studies. Do you have any links to peer-reviewed research (ie. not your favorite denier blog) proving the hockey stick graph incorrect? I don't think so.

        Noone sane can deny global temperatures aren't up dramatically over the last 50 years. And that despite the sun showing lower activity.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

          BEST had NOTHING to do with the hockey stick graph. BEST covered the instrumentalist temperature record spanning the last 200 years or so. The hockey stick was about temperature proxies like tree rings for the last 1000 years or so.

          The original hockey stick graph is incorrect. It contained statistical errors. Any reference to temperatures of the past 1000 years should rely on newer improved reconstructions.

          1. NomNomNom

            Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

            "instrumentalist" = typo

          2. Wilco 1
            Boffin

            Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

            The BEST studies confirmed the last 200 years, which is the most important part of the hockey stick: dramatic increase in global temperature over the last 50 years. Reconstructions beyond the last 200 years are never perfect and inevitably have rather large error bars. However all proxies used show a rather flat temperature for the last 2000 years. That means the hockey stick graph is still correct.

            http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

            "What the science says...

            Since the hockey stick paper in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. "

            1. nsld
              Mushroom

              Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

              Just a couple of points Wilco

              "200 years" - big deal, remind me again how old the planet is.....

              As I look out of the window on the howling rain in the UK and the much cooler summer temperatures and reflect on the unseasonal flooding this year I ask myself, is this just not another one of the many blips in climate the planet has experienced over billions of years.

              When I think of climate scientists why do I find myself thinking that scientists that try to hide data, delete emails and generally behave fruadulently are not worthy of the title scientist?

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                "As I look out of the window on the howling rain in the UK and the much cooler summer temperatures and reflect on the unseasonal flooding this year I ask myself, is this just not another one of the many blips in climate the planet has experienced over billions of years."

                Interesting question. Possibly we should abstain from burning coal and oil until we know for sure.

                **Upon eating the strange mushroom I found in the woods I wondered if my increased heart rate and sense of dizziness was just another one of the many blips my body has experienced during my life. Meanwhile I reached for another mushroom...**

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                  Britain has weather, not climate!

              2. Wilco 1
                Thumb Down

                Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                Humanity has grown dependent on the current climate and the current sea level. If this changes drastically then many millions of people end up living in underwater cities or find their farmland is now an arid desert. Whether temperature was much higher or much lower many millions of years ago is irrelevant. Today CO2 concentration is higher than at any point in the last 500000 years. What matters to us is how that will change the climate over the next 50 years.

                Yes, I certainly hope current UK weather turns out to be a one-off blip! However given global temperatures are increasing, there is far more energy in the atmosphere, so you'd expect more extreme weather events as a result. Whether what we are experiencing now in the UK is directly caused by AGW is not clear indeed, but if unusual and extreme weather continues then it might well be. For a more clear picture, if you look at arctic ice coverage, you can see a clear trend over the last 30 years:

                http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/arctic.sea.ice.interactive.html

                Note how the more recent years are colored in red and where they are?

                The vast majority of scientists do not hide data, delete email or behave fraudulently. If you're thinking of "ClimateGate", those scientists were cleared of any wrongdoing by 3 separate investigations, and their data has been proven correct and reproduced by the sceptic BEST studies (graphs with both datasets overlaid are nearly identical). If you still believe there was any kind of fraud going on then you likely believe that all climate scientists are frauds and that the whole climage change concept is some kind of global conspiracy by the Illuminati...

                1. nsld

                  Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                  @Wilko

                  Did you read the Muir Russell Report?

                  "15. But we do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display

                  the proper degree of openness, both on the part of the CRU scientists and on the

                  part of the UEA, who failed to recognise not only the significance of statutory

                  requirements but also the risk to the reputation of the University and, indeed, to

                  the credibility of UK climate science."

                  "23. On the allegation that the references in a specific e-mail to a „trick‟ and to

                  „hide the decline‟ in respect of a 1999 WMO report figure show evidence of

                  intent to paint a misleading picture, we find that, given its subsequent iconic

                  significance (not least the use of a similar figure in the IPCC Third

                  Assessment Report), the figure supplied for the WMO Report was

                  misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at

                  some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures

                  should have been made plain – ideally in the figure but certainly clearly

                  described in either the caption or the text."

                  "27. On the allegation that CRU does not appear to have acted in a way

                  consistent with the spirit and intent of the FoIA or EIR, we find that there

                  was unhelpfulness in responding to requests and evidence that e-mails

                  might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a

                  subsequent request be made for them. University senior management should

                  have accepted more responsibility for implementing the required processes for

                  FoIA and EIR compliance."

                  Do you trust scientists caught producing misleading information, deleting emails etc etc?

                  As the report highlighted, openess and probity are critical to credibility, ignore the first two and the latter is destroyed.

                  I am sure there are many very good and very honest climate scientists, but until they speak up and call for the removal of those that do mislead, delete and behave in a manner that brings science into disrepute they too have no credibility.

                  1. Wilco 1
                    Facepalm

                    Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                    Yes, but nothing in the report amounts to fraud or faking the results. What would you do when hounded by repeated FOC requests by a few persistent deniers whose only motive is trying to prove you are part of some sort of conspiracy? I'm not saying that deleting emails was a good call but it is perfectly understandable given the circumstances. But most importantly the underlying science has been proven to be correct and not fraudulent in any way. And one of the good things that came of it is that the datasets have now been made more generally available.

                    Claiming that all climate researchers have lost their credibility just because you don't like the behaviour of some is just ridiculous. I presume you find blogs funded by oil companies more credible somehow?

                    1. Steve Crook

                      Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                      Well, that didn't take long did it? You've already resorted to the 'blogs funded by oil companies' slur. It's interesting in the light of the recent rather laughable Lewandowsky paper, because it seems to me that in fact it's often the true believers that can't let go of the idea that there's this massive fossil fuel based conspiracy.

                      Despite there being no credible evidence of large scale donations to 'denier' blogs or NGOs. By large scale I mean anything that isn't dwarfed by government funding by at least a factor of 100, and probably closer to 1000 on a global scale...

                      Next, you'll be saying the Illuminati or the Masons are involved.

                    2. nsld

                      Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                      Thats why its called "freedom of information", not selective release and the odd deletion.

                      Personally speaking I would have answered the requests as the law requires and I would not have deleted the material, but then I would not have been found guilty of providing misleading information to skew a viewpoint either, in short, unlike yourself honesty and probity are important to me.

                      Of course, just because I dont buy into your brand of kool aid doesnt mean I buy into the Oil companies mantra either, and given my late mother had a solar energy business in the UK in 1975 I have probably seen far more of the arguments, science and other stuff over the years than such learned individuals as your good self.

                      Anyone who thinks its in anyway reasonable to delete emails or other material on something as important as this has shown themselves to have absolutely no credibility.

                      You either deliberately misunderstood my last paragraph of your not the sharpest tool in the shed, I pointed out that there are undoubtedly many honest and upstanding climate scientiests but until they condemn the actions of the UEA researchers they themselves will suffer the same questions over credibility.

                      It comes down to a matter of ethics, the science should answer the question, not be used to fit an agenda.

                      1. Wilco 1

                        Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                        Freedom of information doesn't mean researchers should publish every private email or have every action minutely scrutinized. I'm not aware of any other field of research being bombarded by persistent FOI requests. Researchers should not need to waste their precious time on crackpots and conspiracy theorists. So as I said, it is regrettable but given the circumstances it is quite understandable. Maybe you would have acted differently, but you would have surely regretted it once you've experienced your private emails being publicly quoted out of context to prove some crazy conspiracy theory (and Phil Jones' comments and emails have been taken out of context exactly like that).

                        Given the above, I would not expect that other climate researches ever condemn the behaviour of the UAE researchers - almost all researchers (not just climate ones) would have done the same thing. However that doesn't in any way affect their credibility, or whether they have some sort of an agenda etc. Base your opinion of researchers on the quality of their published papers alone and nothing else. The emails (deleted or not) are not important, the science is.

                        1. Some Beggar

                          Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                          "The emails (deleted or not) are not important, the science is."

                          But the science-doubters don't have any science. That's the thing about science-doubters. The emails and the conspiracy theories and gravy trains are all they've got. They'll keep banging those dreary drums until somebody comes up with some science to justify their position. Or until the heat death of the universe - whichever comes sooner.

                        2. nsld

                          Re: Repeat of the same article, this time the biased variant

                          So its your position that the law of this land in terms of the Freedom of Information act should be selectively applicable?

                          The fact they used private emails to deliberately avoid obligations under the FOIA speaks volumes on both the morals and the ethics of these "scientists" regardless of how good the science is or isnt.

                          As Muir Russel pointed out, had the UEA actually met its obligations under FOIA they would not have been bombarded, they where bombarded because they refused to fulfil the obligations they had under the law.

                          Your broad brush comment that all researchers would behave the same way has no evidence to support it, in fact you have simply made it up to try and justify the actions of those you support. Rather ironic when trying to argue the credibility of something to simply pull something out of the arse of the magic elephant and claim it as a fact when its clearly nothing more than something you have fabricated.

    2. itzman
      Unhappy

      Re: Well

      Even dinosaur fart affects the climate. Everything affects the climate. That's never been the issue.

      the great truisms are

      - climate changes

      - everything affects it.

      And no one has ever 'denied' either of them.

      The issue has been how much any particular thing affects it. And strangely how just one factor - the one factor that is man made and therefore can be used to affect human behaviour in terms of spending other peoples money, has been held to be the One True Thing that changes climate..

      Despite the fact that climate change in the last 2000 years has been minuscule on palaeontological scales.

    3. Grikath Silver badge

      Re: Well

      Actually, even the most hardened climate sceptics of the actual scientific persuasion have never denied that CO2, and quite a number of other bits and bobs, have a *long term* effect on climate.

      The thing is that *long term* involves geological timescales, not the OMGWTFmageddonthinkofthechildrenweregoingtodie alarmist timescale that is touted by the people burning grant money that could be used for real science instead of "validating" the next useless Eco-Tax.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Well

        I don't think effects being on geological time-scales can be assumed anymore

        http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/CO2_history_1024.jpg

  12. johnB
    Childcatcher

    A Choice of Catastrophe

    A s Isaac Asimov pointed out: "The universe isn't hostile, it's merely indifferent".

    The climate is beyond the ability of most (if not all) of us to comprehend, so to fix on a single factor, be that CO2, sunspots, or <your chosen factor goes here> isn't likely to be useful. By continuing to argue over causes (which is valid research) we're missing the wider issue that come what may, the climate will change. Surely the rational approach should be to decide what we need to do to mitigate the potential adverse effects of climate change. (E.g. stop subsidising the insurance policies of homeowners building on coastlines subject to hurricane risk to discourage such development). If, along the way we can reduce substantially CO2 emissions then, on the precautionary principle, that seems a very good idea. But unless the IPCC is way wrong, we're going to have global temperature rises across the whole of this century, at least, irrespective of sunspots, Earth's orbit, passing asteroid clouds or whatever.

  13. speedjunky

    Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

    Man made CO2 significantly affecting the climate is a load of rubbush, the amount of C02 in the atmosphere is 0.13%, then take into account that man made CO2 is a fraction of the aforementioned 0.13% fraction, in other words a fraction of an already small fraction. Plus, CO2 is not the worst greenhouse gas, doesn't it stand to reason that the biggest factors for global warming will not be CO2, but more likely water vapour and even more likely the vast fireball at the centre of our solar system which is 1,000,000 times the size of our earth!!!??!

    More likely CO2 causing significant issues has been invented by mistaken scientists and jumped upon by governments so that can find yet another way to tax us all!!!

    The earth has heated and cooled in cycles over millions of years...always has, always will!!

    1. NomNomNom
      Trollface

      Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

      your comment is "rubbush"

      1. speedjunky

        Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

        Get back to me when you can spell!!

    2. Wilco 1

      Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

      Well that's solved then. I mean you have clearly convinced me and shown how completely wrong all those climate scientists have been. Of course it must be the sun they completely forgot about!

      Or did you forget the joke icon?

      1. speedjunky

        Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

        Whether I have convinced you I couldn't care less.

        Firstly, you refer to ALL those climate scientists, actually not ALL of them agree that man made CO2 has a significant effect. Secondly, yes indeed, you see in many places all this talk about CO2, and no I dont presume for one minute that the sun has been forgotten about, but there seems to be far too much emphasis on man made CO2 with the latest theory of trumped up model to match the theory.

        You are funny by the way.....ha ha

        1. Wilco 1

          Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

          I guessed you wrote that as a joke, but it seems you intended to be serious. You should read up on climate science before you quote numbers like that and make some incorrect conclusions from those. Yes, it only takes a small amount of CO2 to cause warming, that's why it is called a greenhouse gas.

          Well about 99% of climate scientists agree that CO2 has a significant effect. Nobody would claim that CO2 is the ONLY effect, but it is a long-term greenhouse gas which accumulates, unlike water vapour for example (which, unlike CO2, can be both a positive and negative feedback which happen to balance each other out).

          Note that the solar output remains relatively constant over time, and the solar cycles are well known and taken into account. If you want to attribute recent warming to the sun alone then you'd be wrong as we have been going through a solar minimum, so you'd expect to see cooling instead of warming.

          1. speedjunky

            Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

            Look, get back in your box, it is scaremongering people like you that believe anything you read quoting the last rubbish from the scientific community and taking it as absolutely fact....

            99% of scientists do not agree, I dont know where you get you figures from. 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Man made CO2 again I re-iterate is tiny in comparison to other sources and the effect is even smaller alongside other greenhouse gases, even if CO2 is a long term gas.

            We are actually in a global cooling phase (the temperature trend is cooling!), so taking your last paragraph....YES you are correct, thanks for that!

            1. Wilco 1
              Facepalm

              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

              Yes, right, we are in a global cooling phase - the kind of cooling where the temperature rises... Man, you are either off your meds, or are smoking some crazy stuff there.

              It doesn't matter that we only add a small amount of CO2, it accumulates, which is why CO2 levels are now more than 30% higher than they have ever been.

              1. speedjunky
                WTF?

                Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                You want to check you facts mate, check out the HadCRUT figures, which look at a more meaningful sea temps. Not that any of the temp measurements and "extrapolations" are 100% foolproof, but if you disagree point me to your oracle of temperatures that is so GUARANTEED to be correct?

                Sigh, did you do any maths at school, even though the CO2 accumulates, the contribution from man made CO2 is still tiny!!! I appreciate this contribution from man accumulates, but the accumulation of other sources is still miles bigger!!

                1. Wilco 1
                  Thumb Down

                  Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                  The latest HadCRUT4 results are here: http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcrut_diff.jpg. Look at the graph, where do you see any cooling? 2010 is tied with 2005 as the warmest ever years.

                  It doesn't matter the contribution from man made CO2 is relatively small, it doesn't form part of the natural carbon cycle which has been in balance for thousands of years. This extra CO2 is far beyond what nature can absorb naturally as part of the carbon cycle, which is why CO2 is accumulating fast in the atmosphere. And 30% extra from man-made sources is not a small contribution, it's a huge unprecedented change in CO2 concentration.

            2. Wilco 1
              Coat

              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

              Btw here is how deniers "interpret" the data to claim the earth is cooling despite the obvious warming trend:

              http://www.skepticalscience.com/going-down-the-up-escalator-part-1.html

              Funny isn't it?

            3. catprog

              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

              And all 100% of the natural CO2 emissions are then taken back up by nature. Plus some of what we put out. That leaves the only amount accumulating being what we put out.

              1. speedjunky
                WTF?

                Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                catprog....Whhhat?!?!? So you are telling me that nature differentiates between natural CO2 and Manmade CO2 then, or are you telling me that what man outputs is just pushing the natural absorbing process to over capacity!!? You alarmists are making this up as you go along!!!

                1. NomNomNom

                  Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                  catprog's point is that Nature is withdrawing more CO2 from the atmosphere than it's putting into the atmosphere. Therefore Nature cannot be the cause of the CO2 rise in the atmosphere. The oceans are absorbing more CO2 from the atmosphere than they put in, and so is the biosphere.

                  Only man is putting more CO2 into the atmosphere than removing it. Kind of also explains why since the industrial revolution CO2 levels have shot up higher than they've been for 800,000 years.

                2. Wilco 1

                  Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                  Yes we emit twice as much CO2 per year as nature can absorb which is why CO2 is accumulating fast in the atmosphere. Once again, read up on climate research yourself, for example at www.realclimate.org (where several well-known climate researchers write articles) or wwww.skepticalscience.com (which explains all the arguments in clear layman terms).

                  1. speedjunky
                    FAIL

                    Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                    Absolute rubbish, water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect, the contribution from man is absolutely minimal, .

                    Ok, lets go back to the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm, but temperatures were the same as they are today....so if we are only at 380ppm then do we really have something to worry about. I think not.

                    PLus, CO2 lags about 800 years behind temperature changes, CO2 is not the cause of higher temperatures its possibly the effect....!

                    Why dont you go back to reading up on climate research and take an open view on things. The CO2 contribution from man is tiny and therefore its effect is TINY or not at all. As said above man contributes 3% to CO2 emissions, add on to this that the contribution of ALL CO2 in the atmospehere to heat retention is 3.6%, then the contribution of man is 3% of 3.6%, negligable....the maths cannot be denied unless you alarmists want to stick your heads in the sand about the basic facts!!!

                    1. NomNomNom

                      Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                      "Absolute rubbish, water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect"

                      Wrong.

                      "We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect."

                      http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/

                      "Ok, lets go back to the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm, but temperatures were the same as they are today"

                      Sun was fainter back then. It should have been much colder than today. CO2 made it warmer.

                      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08955.html

                      "PLus, CO2 lags about 800 years behind temperature changes, CO2 is not the cause of higher temperatures its possibly the effect....!"

                      Once CO2 starts rising temperature rises even more.

                      "The CO2 contribution from man is tiny and therefore its effect is TINY or not at all."

                      Contribution from man is about 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. That's not tiny. Atmospheric increase is about 15 billion tons per year. Man's emission can more than explain that increase.

                      Man has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 200 years. A 100% increase in CO2 is estimated to cause about 1.5C to 4.5C global warming. That would take Earth to the warmest it's been for millions of years.

                      1. nsld

                        Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                        "Man has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 200 years. A 100% increase in CO2 is estimated to cause about 1.5C to 4.5C global warming."

                        So in 200 years we have increased CO2 enough to potentially increase the overall temperature by 0.5 celcius?

                        Given the many other factors which drive temperature changes on the planet is that actually in anyway significant?

                        After all, when we emerged from the last ice age the average global temperature rose by more than 0.5 C and man wasnt chucking loads of CO2 into the atmosphere was he?

                        Should we reduce emmissions? why not, it cant hurt, but on the flipside should we be trading carbon credits and making small groups of people wealthy off the back of it or using it as an excuse for taxation?

                        1. Wilco 1
                          Boffin

                          Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                          Eh, of course it won't take another 200 years to double CO2 levels, we are emitting far more CO2 than we did 200 years ago, and emissions are still rising fast, so accumulation happens ever faster. Current expectation is doubling of CO2 by around 2050, and tripling by 2100.

                          Global temperatures are already 1 degree warmer on average than 1860 today with only a 30% increase in CO2. Current temperature increase is 0.18 degree per decade, so you'll get your 0.5 degree increase in 27 years, not in 200.

                          Significant? Yes most definitely. So yes we should reduce emissions, and move towards low carbon energy sources. Unfortunately new technology is initially more expensive, so you need to create incentives for people and companies to switch - subsidies and taxes. Wind energy is already at grid parity so you don't need to subsidise it much longer. Solar is not quite there so still requires it for another 5-10 years. Battery technology and electric cars are only starting now, so also need subsidies for a while. Nuclear needs more research before it can become safe and cost effective enough (the AP1000 is a step in the right direction with passive safety, but we still need a good solution for the waste).

                          And we need taxes on CO2 emissions to include the external costs such as deaths due to mining, drilling and pollution, health problems, destruction of mountains and countryside as well as climate change. Given that coal is currently only cheap because it excludes all those external costs, taxation is the only way. Without the carrot&stick approach there is simply no level playing field and no incentive to reduce emissions at all.

                          1. nsld
                            Thumb Up

                            Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                            So we might see (and thats a might) an increase of 1.5 degrees in 200 years is the summary of what you are saying and you claim that this is all due to CO2 emmissions?

                            Wind energy is only any use when the wind blows and unless you have some handy battery banks made from lots or rare earth metals your knackered when the wind does not blow, of course, when the wind does not blow what do you use for energy?

                            Electric cars, requiring the mining of rare earth metals in countries like China and then some electricity to charge them, and what of the environmental cost of recycling all those batteries when they die?

                            Unless you are planning to go back to a hunter gatherer existence your utopian dream is nothing more than an excuse for some financial wizardry on the carbon credits market. The grim reality is, the piece of hardware I wrote this on was made in China, a country that emits like there is no tomorrow just to make the cheaper goods we desire. After all, if you where to pay the true environmental cost for your Apple Mac it would probably cost around £10,000, your Prius (an environmental joke) around £100,000 etc etc.

                            If you think western economies are screwed now just wait till your dream is realised and your wearing furs and hunting with a bow and arrow until your teeth fall out and you die, thats progress for you!

                            1. speedjunky
                              Thumb Up

                              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                              Well said NSLD, I suspect there are some stereotypical Green Party alarmists here, with long beards, cords and driving a Prius!!!!

                            2. Wilco 1
                              Coat

                              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                              No, based on the current measured warming rate (ie. assuming we keep emitting CO2 at the same level), in 80 years global temperatures will be 1.5 degrees warmer than today. That's not a "might", that's pretty much a certainty given we are doing nothing to reduce our CO2 emissions. We'll most likely get warming of 2.5 degrees by 2100.

                              There is always a place where the wind blows, especially for off-shore installations spread around a large country such as the UK, and power generation is typically well aligned with demand, so you don't need much storage. Storage can be pumped or using flow batteries (no precious metals required). Electric cars use tiny amounts of rare metals (unlike existing cars which use platinum catalysts) and efforts are made to reduce those further. Batteries are fully recycled, this is true for both lead-acid as well as lithium-ion.

                              Actually if we did properly tax things based on overall environmental impact then low-power computers (likely not your Mac) and efficient cars (including your Prius) would effectively become cheaper compared to less efficient options.

                              Claiming we all have to go back to the stoneage is just ridiculous. Increasing renewable energy, improving energy efficiency and recycling not only reduces CO2 emissions but pays for itself. On the other hand, if we continue emitting CO2 like there is no tomorrow, then your prediction of the end of our civilization might well come true. Oil will run out eventually, so if we don't start moving towards better alternatives, things will become really bad if it does run out while we still critically rely on it.

                              1. nsld
                                Headmaster

                                Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                                did you really just describe the Prius as efficient? It might be vaguely more efficient around town but do some motorway miles in one and you will see they are typically less efficient than a comparable petrol car thanks to the increased weight, not withstanding the fact the driving experience is hideous.

                                All electric cars are useless outside small city journeys when people would be better off walking, cycling or using public transport, in an ideal world where emissions really mattered personal transport would be on foot or by bike and anything else would be en masse public transport.

                                Indeed its always windy somewhere but unless we have massive overcapacity in wind all over the country your stuffed on that front, unless your going to genetically modify the windmill to have legs so it can follow the wind you will never have enough windmills in enough places, plus those pesky windmills need magnets and coils made from materials you have to dig out of the ground. The only real answer is nuclear power, but again, that carries risks and the nimbies dont like it either.

                                Taxation doesnt work, the corporates pass the cost to the end user/purchaser or trade carbon credits to get round it, and laws, unless globally applied will not work either as countries will ignore it to get an economic advantage.

                                All in all its a shit sandwich being served to the man and woman in the street.

                                1. This post has been deleted by its author

                      2. speedjunky

                        Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                        To NomNomNom (stupid name by the way!!)

                        "We find that water vapor is the dominant substance — responsible for about 50% of the absorption, with clouds responsible for about 25% — and CO2 responsible for 20% of the effect."

                        "http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_05/"

                        Pre-industrial times we had 280ppm of CO2, now we have roughly 390ppm. CO2 is a trace substance and we are talking Parts Per Million here, the increase of one hundred (roughly speaking) parts per million in rediculously small. I still think that the models being used to generate all this scare mongering are looking for carbon to be an issue and of course will find carbon being an issue.

                        "Ok, lets go back to the Ordovician Period 460 million years ago CO2 concentrations were 4400 ppm, but temperatures were the same as they are today"

                        "Sun was fainter back then. It should have been much colder than today. CO2 made it warmer."

                        "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7289/full/nature08955.html"

                        No NO no, unless you were around with a thermometer at that time measuring the surface of the sun then I suggest you cannot use that argument, no-one really knows the temperature of the sun, it is based on a model and an assumption that 100's of millions of years ago the sun will start fainter and gradually get brightter, if the sun was as faint as predicted then there would be no flowing water, but the evidence suggests there was, have you heard of the Faint Young Sun Paradox??? A paradox in this case would suggest that the model or theory does not quite work, something is missing!

                        "PLus, CO2 lags about 800 years behind temperature changes, CO2 is not the cause of higher temperatures its possibly the effect....!"

                        "Once CO2 starts rising temperature rises even more."

                        "The CO2 contribution from man is tiny and therefore its effect is TINY or not at all."

                        "Contribution from man is about 30 billion tons of CO2 a year. That's not tiny. Atmospheric increase is about 15 billion tons per year. Man's emission can more than explain that increase."

                        It is tiny compared to other sources, thats is undeniable!!! The net effect of CO2 and its impact on earth tempereratures is trumped up in models, which are likely to not know every factor that affects earth temperature, the models are no foolproof, possibly the best we have, but still not foolproof

                        "Man has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase by over 30% in the last 200 years. A 100% increase in CO2 is estimated to cause about 1.5C to 4.5C global warming. That would take Earth to the warmest it's been for millions of years."

                        Right, check out this link,

                        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/01/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature/

                        I dont know if this site is credible, you will probably say not, firstly do you dispute the graphs and their figures? If not, then some comments from me:

                        There is no exponential rise or trend, in fact and I accept here that the trend on some graphs shows temperature rising, BUT, looking at some graphs they are level or slowing down in terms of trend (like I said above!!). We are actually on a downward slope for some of the graphs upto 2012, I appreciate this is not a trend, but cooling nonetheless.

                        If you look at the UAH Satellite Based Temp of the Lower Atmospehere it has a Sine Wave type shape and we are actually just commencing the downward slope in 2012, which looks like it could be a long term trend looking at earlier years!!

                        I still maintain you alarmists are making this up, looking too short term, using too many theories and models and not giving nature the chance to play out the cycles that it has performed for 1000's or millions of years!!!

                        1. NomNomNom
                          Trollface

                          Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                          the warming has been proven. This is scientific fact. But fossil fuel interests want to murder our future and our grandchildren at the same time. Did you know fossil fuels were used at Auschwitz?

                          1. speedjunky

                            Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                            NomNomNom,

                            You are releasing CO2 typing this crap!!! So you are killing your own grandchildren!!! What a load of propoganda drivel!!!

                        2. Wilco 1
                          Facepalm

                          Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                          Speedjunkie, you can spend all day trying to claim the amount of CO2 we emit is tiny or that it has had little effect. That's what you wish it to be, but you cannot stop the laws of physics with a wish.

                          That site is rubbish indeed, but it appears the graphs are unedited at least, so I'm not disputing those. However you can't conclude from them that there is any cooling or even a cooling trend. The graph showing global temperatures is up for the most recent years (slightly indeed due to several record years recently), and the graph showing ocean heat content is going up quickly as well. They didn't list CO2 levels but I'm sure you don't deny those are going up fast as well.

                          Calling me an alarmist and looking at the short term is ridiculous when you look at a few graphs and conclude things are cooling based on 1 or 2 years of data... Yes in thousands of years the natural climate cycle will get things back under control as it always has, but that hardly helps us over the next 100 years, does it? The problem is that we emit far more CO2 than nature can absorb, which is why we see it accumulating fast.

                          1. speedjunky
                            Thumb Down

                            Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                            Wilco 1,

                            the amount of CO2 we emit IS tiny compared to other sources, however, I accept there is additional CO2 in the atmosphere, roughly 100ppm which I have said in previous posts!!

                            Steady, you accept my data!! Ok the graphs are good then, but I did NOT conclude that cooling is happening in general, just that some of the graphs seem to be slowing, or flat and the graph I pointed you to clearly shows the TREND getting to the top of its peak and looks like its starting to fall. I agree that some temperatures have moved up, but I argue that this still is not conclusively proven to be CO2 causing this.

                            You are an alarmist, and I did NOT look at 2 years of data and conclude cooling, I did actually say the slope is pointing downwards but it is NOT a trend. The likelyhood is that we wont need to rely so much on fossil fuels in the next 50-100yrs, alternatives are being sought and developed all over the place. The IPCC prediction for fossil fuel usage could be massively floored as they do not have a crystal ball and neither do I, but I suspect it wont be that long that we crack nuclear Fusion, major experiements are already going ahead! It is the alarmists that are looking at the last 100 years and stating that we will continue to burn fossil fuels at ever increased rates.....I think NOT!!!

                            1. speedjunky

                              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                              Wilco,

                              I would like to add that the Kyoto agreement is a load of rubbish too, it harms industry, the man on the street etc etc, for what???? To reduce our tiny CO2 emissions (tiny compared to other sources!)!! But if we look at the maths we again are looking at reducing tiny emissions by a tiny amount....is it really going to have a warming reversal effect???? NO!! Is it going to make any difference??? Especially when it seems a fair few of the countries signed up to it wont meet their targets!!

                              1. Wilco 1

                                Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                                In what way does Kyoto harm us in any way? At the end of the day, energy efficiency and renewable energy is good for us (not just cheaper, also fewer deaths, better health, better environment etc). To argue it is bad for industry when it creates many thousands of jobs in a completely new industry sector is just insane.

                                Will it make a difference, even if say we only did do something in Europe or the UK? Yes, it would have the above benefits. As energy efficiency technology and renewable energy becomes cheaper, other countries will follow. There are lots of countries near the equator which would hugely benefit from cheap solar panels for example.

                                You keep on claiming CO2 emissions are tiny. If they were tiny, why are our emissions accumulating in the atmosphere then? The earth's carbon cycle simply cannot deal with our emissions.

                            2. Wilco 1
                              Thumb Down

                              Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                              Actually the amount of CO2 we emit is large compared to other sources. It is only tiny compared to the total amount of CO2 already locked away in the oceans.

                              I don't see a downward slope in any of the graphs, which in particular do you mean (link)? If the graphs flatten out that doesn't mean it is going to fall afterwards! There are plenty of cases where it flattens out or goes down, sometimes for a decade, only to go up again afterwards. Those oscillations are normal and expected. Yes we currently experience a slightly cooler period after having some record hot years. But that is not evidence that warming is halting, the slope is still up (0.18 degrees per decade).

                              This proves pretty conclusively that CO2 and temperature are closely related over a period of 450000 years: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

                              Yes it would be perfect if we crack fusion soon, but I'm not optimistic given that we have been trying for at least 50 years. So it is not being alarmist to say that we'll continue to burn ever more fossil fuel, especially given that the most polluting countries like China and US are not interested to curtail their CO2 output, and developing countries want to develop further rather than block their growth.

                              1. speedjunky
                                Thumb Down

                                Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                                The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small.

                                The graph I was pointing to was a trend graph, and it looked like it had got to the top of its cycle and was tracing horizontally, if you read my previous messages you will see which one I was pointing to. All I am getting at here is that not all is on the up and up, not all is down either, but it is most certainly not a one straight upwards!!

                                I am not impressed with your graph for the past 450000 years, for the following reasons:

                                1) It is very small considering its to show such a large timespan.

                                2) The blue and red lines cross significantly in such a small graph and its difficult to see what is going on.

                                3) Unless I have mis-understood reading the text, the temperature is an ESTIMATE of OCEAN temperatures, doesn't the Ocean temp change lag behind the ground temp?

                                4) The author of YOUR graph states," the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult"

                                Christ, so the scientists currently trying to crack Fusion should just go home then? are you always this optimistic? it must be a riot at home......oooohh CO2, ooooh we are all gonna die and there are not going to be any technological advances at all between now and the next 100 years that will affect the use of fossil fuels!! 100years is a long time and we are streets ahead with Fusion research. I reckon it will be cracked in the next 25-50yrs. Then you alarmists will have something else to moan about.....oooh the Fusion Reactors they kick out fairy dust and we will have an overload in the atmosphere which will plunge us into fairy dust global cooling!!

                    2. Wilco 1
                      Facepalm

                      Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

                      More denier rubbish, and all your maths are incorrect. What matters is not how much greenhouse gases there naturally are, but how much we are adding to upset the natural balance. It only takes a tiny amount to upset a balance. Given billions of tonnes of CO2 are accumulating in the atmosphere, and we are seeing rapid warming which closely follows the CO2 concentration, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to conclude we alone are responsible for this warming. Those are the undeniable basic facts, but I guess you want to stick your head in the sand as usual rather than educate yourself with the facts.

                      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    3. DanceMan
      FAIL

      Re: Manmade CO2 significantly affecting the climate is rubbish

      "More likely CO2 causing significant issues has been invented by mistaken scientists and jumped upon by governments so that can find yet another way to tax us all!!!"

      So I guess the acidification of the oceans and the killing of coral reefs, the reduction in fish and the great increase in jellyfish are all just inventions also? CO2 has effects beyond climate, but don't let that bother your comfy denials.

  14. Andrew Jones 2
    Thumb Up

    If Global Warming is going to raise the temperature in Scotland...... bring it on!

    1. Some Beggar

      It's arguably more likely to make it colder and wetter.

      (I know ... it's hard to conceive of a Scotland that's colder and wetter ... but them's the breaks)

  15. Curly4
    Go

    Climate change

    So we have climate change. Is it global warming or global cooling or both? Can you tell me?

    1. Wilco 1

      Re: Climate change

      Global average temperatures are up, but that doesn't mean it will get warmer everywhere. Depending on where you are it may mean hotter summers, colder winters, or both. In the most extreme case (if the hot gulf stream shuts down) it means an ice age for the UK and nothern Europe. And the climate is not just about temperature, there is the sea level, bio diversity, rain, and storms to consider as well.

      1. speedjunky
        WTF?

        Re: Climate change

        More alarmist rubbish!!! All you hear from you guys is "if", "maybe", "possibly", because its all guesswork.

        Why do the alarmists and scientists harp on about the shrinking Artic Ice Cap, when the Antarctic is growing!??!?! The whole climate thing is a massive natural process that man can do nothing about, nor should we try.

        1. NomNomNom

          Re: Climate change

          Arctic sea ice is already 2.3 million sqkm below average and is only 2.5 million sqkm away from hitting zero.

          Antarctic sea ice is currently 0.043 sqkm above average and is going nowhere towards zero.

          Last time I checked the UK is a hell of a lot closer to the Arctic than the Antarctic.

        2. Wilco 1
          Mushroom

          Re: Climate change

          Did I ever say "if", "maybe", "possibly"? Give me a quote please. So now we get the "it all natural" denier argument.

          So the CO2 concentration which is far higher than any time in the last 500000 years is all natural? Was the ozone hole all natural? Was acid rain all natural? Is it natural large swathes of rainforest are disappearing? Oceans with few fish left? Next you're going to explain how the Atlantic garbage patch is completely natural too?

  16. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    Of course the sun has an impact on climate. I'm pretty sure there'd be implications for us if it left the main sequence :)

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hang on...

    ...weren't there no sunspots in 2009? Zero, nada, zip? Anyone see the Rhine freeze over? Or the Thames? or the Elbe?

    Didn't think so.

    Looks like that causation link is broken...

  18. Alan Brown Silver badge
    Coat

    solar cycles

    There's the 11-year one we see most clearly.

    There's a 66-year one which interacts with that and at least a half dozen more which have various effects.

    OK, so the Rhine didn't freeze over during 2009. Without all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere, would it have? If it had, would that validate anyone's models? Did not freezing validate someone else's models?

    We're not even close to finding ALL the inputs to the atmospheric heat cycle, let alone validating them, but it's clear that humans have had some effect - the only question is how much.

    Meantime, consider this: Even though sea levels were ~100-150 metres lower than they are now when the current warm cycle started, they're still at least 100 metres lower now than they've been over most of planetary history.

    Lewis is either an ass, or a good journalist able to incite debate. At least it's more civilised on here than amongst the professionals involved in trying to quantify things.

    Mine's the one with a brolly in it. Global warming or not, this is england and you just KNOW it's going to rain sooner or later.

  19. Confuciousmobil
    Pint

    I agree

    ..with every comment made so far.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: I agree

      I disagree

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019