Climate Change

[PersianPaladin]

Please.

I just want to settle misunderstandings and ensure that a discussion remains intellectually honest.

Manmade contributions add MILLIONS OF YEARS OF CARBON to the atmosphere in an anamolously short time-period.

I think you also misunderstand the inter-relationships between CO2 and water-vapour.

"Studies show that water vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2 is, in reality, as much as 3°C."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... se-gas.htm

I'm not disputing that cosmic rays have an influence on cloud formation, but to suggest that they over-ride the warming from CO2 - is actually incorrect (as is explained here):-

"Cosmic rays may play a part in helping form clouds. If this is the case, increased cosmic rays would lead to more cloud cover, resulting in a cooling effect. Conversely, decreased cosmic rays would warm the earth. To calculate the maximum possible role of cosmic rays in recent warming, global temperatures were compared to cosmic radiation levels measured by neutron monitors at the Earth's surface. While there was good correlation between cosmic radiation and temperature prior to 1970, the correlation breaks down sharply after 1970. The analysis concludes that "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise. Thus changes in the cosmic ray flux cannot be responsible for more than 15% of the temperature increase" (Krivova 2003)."

and

"Similarly, a comparison of neutron monitor measurements, Beryllium 10 and Carbon 14 isotopes (both proxies for cosmic radiation) with global temperatures found that cosmic rays "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming. "
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic- ... arming.htm


Okay...you can talk about Venus now. But really, if you want to dismiss anthropogenic global warming on earth; please be prepared for rebuttals to any intellectually dishonest claims.

[Lucy Skywalker]

Could we please get back to Lucy Skywalker's original topic?

Hear hear. However, first, a comment from a seasoned expert in climate science - me!

As for the claim that CO2-increases follow temperature-increases - yes, that is correct when you consider natural variation. However, that does not disprove the fact that CO2 feedbacks exacerbate the warming triggered by the natural variations.

It 's not a "fact", it 's an assertion and believe me I have scoured the literature for evidence to back up that assertion and there is none. The website quoted, Skeptical Science, is a remarkable source of disinformation. He's done it very well and I learn a lot from him, especially as I used to believe him once. Now I can answer every single topic he raises. Check me out here if you are really interested - http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Curious.htm - but please discuss further on climate blogs, not here.

Now we've applied the brakes to climate distractions.

First, thanks to everyone, my question in the title of the thread has been answered sufficiently for my needs. Dusty Devil gave me the vital clues in the New Scientist reference and the other.

Second, I've found a paper on Venus that is done by a Velikovsky supporter, whose figures re input and output I can now understand - and I wonder what people here think about it? http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf I've not noticed either here or on Ackerman's website, much sign of interaction with the EU folk here, who seem to represent the real global discussion forum. Does anyone know this paper? Already I realize that although I love the EU concept re. current state of the Universe, I'm just not sure about the reliability of "origins" hypotheses either here or in Ackerman's paper - as yet. I'm also ignorant - am waiting for my copy of Thunderbolts of the Gods so I can see what is actually being said and suggested.

[PersianPaladin]

But you haven't, Lucy. You've merely avoided the issue and facts I've raised.

This is not a world of black and white. There is a lot of grey. There is truth inter-twined with falsehood. It takes effort and intellectual honesty to separate the fact from the misinformation.

And I have serious problems with your promotion of people such as Lord Monckton as remotely credible. Monckton has been exposed as being blatantly dishonest about things that are mentioned in the scientific papers he cites:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o

I think there are agendas on the people who are overtly anti-AGW in their stance. I also think that the pro-AGW stance has been marred by certain grandstanding individuals that exploit a good crisis and undermine the work of the 97% of global atmospheric scientists.

[PersianPaladin]

"It is important not to make the mistake made by Lord Kelvin and argue that there can be no influence of solar variability on climate: indeed, its study is of scientific interest and may well further our understanding of climate behaviour. However, the popular idea (at least on the Internet and in some parts of the media) that solar changes are some kind of alternative to GHG forcing in explaining the rise in surface temperatures has no credibility with almost all climate scientists."

http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... 4/303.full

[PersianPaladin]

And your arguments about relative small proportions are rather misled. Have you discussed this with atmospheric physicsts, paleogeologists, etc?

Not arguments. Only the same data Aadwolf seems to be familiar with.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

As for your claims about cosmic rays - please state how their seedling of clouds relates to the data about CO2 and temperature over the historical record (as found in lithosphere, cryosphere, biosphere empirical findings)?

Again not my claims, only data.

But it would tend to go along like much of the historical records you have linked. Temperature increases *then* the largest CO2 sink (the ocean) releases CO2, which appears in your core samples. Interestingly the historical ice records are a good place to look for cosmic ray flux
http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Researc ... imate.aspx


So given CO2 represents around 3% of greenhouse gases, and man represents about 3% of that, we are presented with the option of looking for *an answer* from man's 0.117% total contribution. Or one could look into the obvious impacts that solar-connected systems has with the 95%+ contribution that water vapor makes? as the sayin goes... "if one was a bettin man"

Unfortunately one cannot tax cosmic rays ...... hmmm... well i guess, not until the talented bureaucrats hand out a few more Nobels to each other and convince the masses to pay-for-flux.

I don't understand why many EU theorists seem to think that plasma cosmology somehow over-rides things at all domains. I think the EU is credible; but I also think the science behind AGW is credible too.

We all come to the table with ideals & biases, which is why we ruthlessly discuss all the data.

The Venus surface temp delema, being yet another example to investigate, at which point we should probably return the thread to topic.

Best,

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous. So, that sort of CO2-derived temperature increase combined with various biosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere, hydrosphere feedbacks results in a global increase of approx 4-6C at the least.

A great talk is given here about climate-system sensitivity in response to CO2 forcing:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTAmfxjg ... re=related

and here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P72XL-yR ... re=related

Our planet has a meta-stable system. Small changes, lead to big moves.

And as for people who say manmade influences do not have a significant effect on climate or weather - just think about the aircraft contrail study as a SMALL local example:-

"Sept. 11-14, 2001, had the biggest diurnal temperature range of any three-day period in the past 30 years," said Carleton. Contrails form when water vapor and particles from jet engine exhaust enter the atmosphere. If the atmospheric temperature is cool enough, and the humidity high enough, the exhaust forms ice crystals that create the contrail. Contrails generally last one to two hours, but can last as long as six.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 075457.htm

[Jarvamundo]

Go start your own thread PP, I think tribal council has spoken... this one is about Venus.


Most interesting site there Skywalker (some familiar investigations ), welcome & thanks for the Venus paper, hadn't seen that one.

[PersianPaladin]

"There is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major factor determining cloud cover. The ionising of air by cosmic rays will impart an electric charge to aerosols, which in theory could encourage them to clump together to form particles large enough for cloud droplets to form around, called "cloud condensation nuclei".

But cloud physicists say it has yet to be shown that such clumping occurs. And even if it does, it seems far-fetched to expect any great effect on the amount of clouds in the atmosphere. Most of the atmosphere, even relatively clean marine air, has plenty of cloud condensation nuclei already."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... ?full=true

"With both mechanisms of ion-induced nucleation, this leads to a 20% change in globally averaged particle nucleation, but only to a 0.05% change in globally averaged CCN. The authors concluded that this was “far too small to make noticeable changes in cloud properties based on either the decadal (solar cycle) or climatic time-scale changes in cosmic rays.” To account for some reported changes in cloud cover, a change in CCN on the order of 10% would be needed."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... smic-rays/

[Jarvamundo]

So why is Pachauri & his lot now changing their tune and deciding to now address cloud cover in their "next" release of models?

Cosmic rays contribute 40 p.c. to global warming: study
A key belief of climate science theology — that a reduction in carbon emissions will take care of the bulk of global warming — has been questioned in a scientific paper released by the Environment Ministry on Monday.
Physicist and the former ISRO chairman, U.R. Rao, has calculated that cosmic rays — which, unlike carbon emissions, cannot be controlled by human activity — have a much larger impact on climate change than The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims.

When Mr. Ramesh sent Dr. Rao's paper to Dr. Pachauri, he replied that the next IPCC report was paying special attention to the impact of cloud cover on global warming.

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/a ... 106044.ece

[PersianPaladin]

A Physicist employed by the Environment Minister of the Second fastest Developing nation declares CO2 is not the largest driver in climate shift? Hmmmmm, Which countries demanded the 'expurgated' version of the TAR4? and why???

The link above has 3 years less data under study so unless we have noted something 'exceptional' over that period that all others have missed I'll wait 'till the peer reviews are in?

I would suggest that folk do the same before jumping to conclusions that 'suit' but do not reflect reality?

The cosmic-ray articles I linked above are not by Pachauri.

[PersianPaladin]

From a 2008 paper by T Sloan and A W Wolfendale:-

"Abstract.

A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays."
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/3/2/024001/fulltext

[Lloyd]

Political Correctness Isn't Science
Global Warming Questions
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 7_3529.pdf
* PS, global warming is better for life than is cooling.
- Manmade chemtrails and EM pollution are more likely to cause warming than is manmade CO2, yet no studies are done on such pollution.
- Warming doesn't raise sea levels, because more moisture ends up on the ice caps.
- Those afraid of CO2 should promote NUCLEAR ENERGY.
- How much manmade pollution from slash and burn practices did it take to cause the global warming 1,000 years ago, when southern Greenland was ice-free and much warmer than now?
- When did hype and alarmism become science? As the interview points out, scientists who believe in global warming exaggerate their claims in order to get politicians to heed them.
- Over 30,000 scientists signed an internet petition against global warming claims.

[davesmith_au]

In an email forwarded to me by a friend, was this gem:

Scary story about Global Warming

Please read all the way to the end!

FLASH NEWS!!!!

The Washington Post

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

Oops. Never mind.

This report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in

The Washington Post - 88 years ago!

(Color and bolding mine for effect)

Hmmmmmmmm....

Cheers, Dave.

[Jarvamundo]

You fail to realise that even if a doubling of CO2 may well only result in about 1.2C global average temp increases - the consequences it has for feedback mechanisms, are really tremendous.

Sure sounds scary, there PP.

Can you give me an empirical example of this "doubling of CO2" causing (leading) the movement of 1.2C?

[Julian Braggins]

Lucy Skywalker said,

“Second, I've found a paper on Venus that is done by a Velikovsky supporter, whose figures re input and output I can now understand - and I wonder what people here think about it? http://www.firmament-chaos.com/papers/fvenuspaper.pdf I've not noticed either here or on Ackerman's website, much sign of interaction with the EU folk here, who seem to represent the real global discussion forum. Does anyone know this paper? Already I realize that although I love the EU concept re. current state of the Universe, I'm just not sure about the reliability of "origins" hypotheses either here or in Ackerman's paper - as yet. I'm also ignorant - am waiting for my copy of Thunderbolts of the Gods so I can see what is actually being said and suggested.”

I read the PDF and found that he managed to account for all the anomalous findings of the various probes using their actual findings without discarding those that didn’t agree with present theory as the mainstream has.
For historical background that makes sense of his claims of recent formation of Venus,

http://www.saturniancosmology.org/

will be well worth the time spent reading it. I have been a fan of yours since reading your handbook, a very concise repudiation of the AGW myth.

[PersianPaladin]

Political Correctness Isn't Science
Global Warming Questions
http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2 ... 7_3529.pdf
* PS, global warming is better for life than is cooling.
- Manmade chemtrails and EM pollution are more likely to cause warming than is manmade CO2, yet no studies are done on such pollution.
- Warming doesn't raise sea levels, because more moisture ends up on the ice caps.
- Those afraid of CO2 should promote NUCLEAR ENERGY.
- How much manmade pollution from slash and burn practices did it take to cause the global warming 1,000 years ago, when southern Greenland was ice-free and much warmer than now?
- When did hype and alarmism become science? As the interview points out, scientists who believe in global warming exaggerate their claims in order to get politicians to heed them.
- Over 30,000 scientists signed an internet petition against global warming claims.

This planet is a meta-stable system. Small changes, lead to big moves. It is an inter-connected system and harmonious. People should not treat it as if it lacks sensitivity. If people think they can remove or increase trace metals in the earth (as an analogy of the sensitivity of proportions) - be prepared for negative results.

I don't see evidence for "chemtrails" except for tin-foil hat wearing Alex Jones listeners. I invite you to show me your peer-reviewed papers proving their existence. A lot of what people see as "chemtrails" are really just contrails. Sure, the US military (and others) have occasionally sprayed people to conduct tests - that's credible. But that needs to be distinguished from the "chemtrails" that people claim to be seeing every other day. I suggest they read up on meteorology, cloud physics, etc. Or better - speak to somebody who knows the subject well.

Warming DOES raise sea levels. An example of rising sea levels over the past 100+ years:-
http://academics.eckerd.edu/instructor/ ... ustain.pdf

Nuclear energy is not an answer to the energy-situation. Please see my detailed examinations of the UK environmental policy green-paper:-
http://hozturner.blogspot.com/2010/06/c ... party.html

I invite you to cite a credible paper detailing (from paleoclimate records - ice-cores, tree-rings, rock-samples, etc) proof that southern Greenland was ice-free 1,000 years ago and how it related to CO2/temperature curves.

Your "30,000" scientist claim is not credible, I'm afraid. You are citing something known as the "Oregon Petition" which has been discredited quite some time ago:-
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti ... n_Petition