http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Oddly, the link to the abstract in Science, seems to imply the opposite.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

"Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and
low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during
glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate
alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data
overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our results
show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation and support a
substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing Antarctic glaciation,
consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds."

Tim

Tim Downie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/


I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Oddly, the link to the abstract in Science, seems to imply the opposite.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

"Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and
low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during
glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate
alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data
overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our
results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation
and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing
Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds."

Tim
Well that of course is the problem. Every single piece of actual climate
data gets siezeded to

1/. Absolutely prove that global warming is all about CO2 and its much
worse than the worsest thing there ever was or

2/. Shows zero or negative correlation between temperature and CO2.

Its very confusing really.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Tim Downie wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/


I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like
CO2, does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Oddly, the link to the abstract in Science, seems to imply the
opposite. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

"Previously published records of alkenone-based CO2 from high- and
low-latitude ocean localities suggested that CO2 increased during
glaciation, in contradiction to theory. Here, we further investigate
alkenone records and demonstrate that Antarctic and subantarctic data
overestimate atmospheric CO2 levels, biasing long-term trends. Our
results show that CO2 declined before and during Antarctic glaciation
and support a substantial CO2 decrease as the primary agent forcing
Antarctic glaciation, consistent with model-derived CO2 thresholds."

Tim
Well that of course is the problem. Every single piece of actual
climate data gets siezeded to

1/. Absolutely prove that global warming is all about CO2 and its much
worse than the worsest thing there ever was or

2/. Shows zero or negative correlation between temperature and CO2.

Its very confusing really.

I read that abstract as saying that during the period of glaciation in
Antarctica (ie when it was very cold), CO2 was very low. So, that's a
positive correlation between temperature and CO2.

--
Register as an organ donor with the NHS online. It takes 1 minute and
saves you carrying an organ donor card with you.
http://www.uktransplant.org.uk/ukt/h...me_a_donor.jsp

On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

Colin Bignell

On 02/12/2011 11:56, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/


I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...lobal_warming/

But nothing on things like trapped methane that could be released with a
very modest temperate rise.

On another note I came across this.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...r-6270913.html

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!
Congratulations on being a true believer.

On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!
Congratulations on being a true believer.


So you would have it that the report cited at the head of this thread is
a disinterested summary of a piece of scientific research.

As TNP would [not] say in such circumstances - pleeese!

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!
Congratulations on being a true believer.


So you would have it that the report cited at the head of this thread is
a disinterested summary of a piece of scientific research.


You are free - if you have a Science login - to view the original
article and decide for yourself.

I always try to do that if I can.


As TNP would [not] say in such circumstances - pleeese!

On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!

The Register is extremely unreliable on this topic.

They have practically inverted the interpretation of the data that the
researchers have reported in Science by selective misquoting.

The so called Natural Philosopher fell for it hook line and sinker.
Condemned by his own actions as an AGW denier and a dittohead.

Congratulations on being a true believer.

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 02/12/2011 13:22, Martin Brown wrote:

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.

It is a pity that the scientific journals restrict the readership of
anything more than an abstract to those with a subscription. Those of us
on the outside are frequently denied the full story.

--
Roger Chapman

Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:05, dennis@home wrote:


"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...


The Register does seen to have an agenda.

Oh dear, lets trash the source rather than listen to the science, again!

The Register is extremely unreliable on this topic.

They have practically inverted the interpretation of the data that the
researchers have reported in Science by selective misquoting.

The so called Natural Philosopher fell for it hook line and sinker.
Condemned by his own actions as an AGW denier and a dittohead.

Congratulations on being a true believer.

You should always check your sources rather than relying on the garbled
stories that appear in the press or worse in right whinger blogs.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Thank You Martin for showing the innate prejudice and bigotry of the
warmist agenda yet again.


So far:

if it supports global warming, its AGW
If it doesn't its weather.

Now we can add:

If it supports global warming its careful responsible science
If it doesn't its vile lies from big money vested interest published on
right wing blogs...

...despite the fact that it is the renewables industry which DEPENDS on
AGW for its existence.."The global renewable energy market grew by 20.4%
in 2008 to reach a value of $310.5 billion. "

as a random web quote. Which is probably right to an order of magnitude
at least.

Now how many people would lose their jobs and research grants if AGW
suddenly became a side show..


Cui Bono.

Do you work in the renewables industry? Are you an academic on a
research grant? I think we should be told..

On 02/12/2011 12:25, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:56, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/



I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...lobal_warming/

Apparently that being to publish facts that you find unpalatable.

Colin Bignell

On 02/12/2011 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 12:25, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:56, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/




I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...lobal_warming/


Apparently that being to publish facts that you find unpalatable.

If you don't see any bias in the slant The Register gives to its stories
disparaging AGW then there is no hope for you.

In fact the is much less 'agenda' in the link I posted that in those you
choose to pick up on. Peat bogs are unlikely to be much of a threat till
some of them start burning so fiercely that it is impossible to put the
fires out. The peat bog fires we have had recently have proved difficult
to put out but so far at least not impossible on a timescale of days
rather than months or years. Tundra OTOH, which is really little more
than frozen peat bog is supposed to become a rich source as it melts but
that wasn't mentioned even though it is of serious concern to climate
scientists.

Looking at the two articles you cited the pig_melt_clue focuses on the
increased speed of the PIG and has a side swipe with the (to the
deniers) comforting news that Antarctic sea ice has expanded in recent
years) but neglects to explain why the seaward reaches of the glacier
has floated off the undersea ridge that previous restrained it in the
first place or why with the increased speed leaving less time for the
glacier to melt as it moved it hasn't run aground again as soon as the
thicker ice reached the ridge.

With the phytoplankton story we have to ask exactly how much more carbon
is being removed from the atmosphere by this process. "This powerful,
previously unknown "negative feedback" is something of a misnomer.
Plankton are apparently responsible for about 40% of the world's
photosynthesis and particularly important in that they take carbon
permanently (as far as we are concerned) out of circulation unlike land
based photosynthesis where the cycle is often over almost as soon as it
has begun. So how much extra plankton does the melting of more numerous
icebergs add to the total to be found in the sea at any one time and
indeed precisely how many extra icebergs are there in the first place.

--
Roger Chapman

On 02/12/2011 17:41, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 12:25, Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:56, Nightjar wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/





I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

Interesting linked stories there too:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03...lankton_boost/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/06...pig_melt_clue/

The Register does seen to have an agenda.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/11...lobal_warming/



Apparently that being to publish facts that you find unpalatable.

If you don't see any bias in the slant The Register gives to its stories
disparaging AGW then there is no hope for you.

I see a lot more bias in the IPCC report, such as asking contributors
whether they think that human activity has had an influence on climate
change, without any mechanism for ranking how serious they think that
influence has been, failing to give actual figures for the responses
but, instead, grouping them into categories labelled with leading terms,
such as 'likely' (which covers anything from 66% to 95% - a huge gap
with a great potential for being used in a misleading manner) and a
large number of breaches of the protocols that exist to ensure that
reports are unbiased. That is far more serious than any bias in an
online article, as the IPCC report is what governments use to justify
their policies and it should be both unbiased and be seen to be unbiased.

Colin Bignell

On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?


http://sealevel.colorado.edu/content...y-measurements

--
Roger Chapman

On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

You obviously did not look at the original research that this wilfully
misleading piece is based on did you?

It is very interesting to go back to the original source material when
dittoheads trumpet new research and try to spin it for AGW denial.

The original article is in fact strongly along the lines of a CO2
decrease drove major ice formation at the poles. See Perdu Univerity
press release instead of the unreliable (on this topic) TheRegister.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...laciation.html

Basically a fall in CO2 below 600ppm allowed permanent ice to form.
Allowing for some hysteresis that means that it probably won't
completely disappear (at equilibrium) until CO2 levels get somewhat
higher than that. To put it into perspective at the present fossil burn
rate of 20ppm/decade hit we will 600ppm around 2100 (likely sooner).

The original article is in Science and is strongly in support of the
hypothesis that glaciation in the past was driven in large part by CO2
forcing. Annoying this URL is Pay-per-View but it will be in libraries.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not in dispute. Human activities
have pushed up carbon dioxide rapidly, not in dispute. (Of course the
rate may just drop off if the "biodiesel from E.Coli" story in the
recent Hawking programme comes to anything).

Every variation in climate is "Climate Change" and therefore caused by
human activity, which is how it almost invariably is presented even by
people who should know better, that's the premise which I have trouble with.

Newshound wrote:

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not in dispute. Human activities
have pushed up carbon dioxide rapidly, not in dispute. (Of course the
rate may just drop off if the "biodiesel from E.Coli" story in the
recent Hawking programme comes to anything).

Every variation in climate is "Climate Change" and therefore caused by
human activity, which is how it almost invariably is presented even by
people who should know better, that's the premise which I have trouble
with.

And if it isn't global warming, its weather. ;-)

On Dec 2, 12:51*pm, Newshound wrote:
BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not in dispute. Human activities
have pushed up carbon dioxide rapidly, not in dispute. (Of course the
rate may just drop off if the "biodiesel from E.Coli" story in the
recent Hawking programme comes to anything).

Every variation in climate is "Climate Change" and therefore caused by
human activity, which is how it almost invariably is presented even by
people who should know better, that's the premise which I have trouble with.


In order to determine the relative effect oif humans we would need
good computer models of the atmosphere and see if the known output of
CO2 by human endeavours has any effect. Ideally there should be
several such models run by different groups around the world. We
could then see if the human contribution has any effect or whether it
was negligable in comparison to other effects. Intially of course the
models would be simpler and run on less powerful computers but as time
progresses the models would improve and computers would get faster so
the length scales could be reduced and the results become more
certain.

But that is what they did isn't it? and the models all give similar
results and the results have not substantially changed as the models
became more and more sophisticated and computers more powerful and
grid sizes smaller over the last 25 years or so.

Robert

RobertL wrote:
On Dec 2, 12:51 pm, Newshound wrote:
BTW You have crossed the line.
You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, not in dispute. Human activities
have pushed up carbon dioxide rapidly, not in dispute. (Of course the
rate may just drop off if the "biodiesel from E.Coli" story in the
recent Hawking programme comes to anything).

Every variation in climate is "Climate Change" and therefore caused by
human activity, which is how it almost invariably is presented even by
people who should know better, that's the premise which I have trouble with.


In order to determine the relative effect oif humans we would need
good computer models of the atmosphere and see if the known output of
CO2 by human endeavours has any effect. Ideally there should be
several such models run by different groups around the world. We
could then see if the human contribution has any effect or whether it
was negligable in comparison to other effects. Intially of course the
models would be simpler and run on less powerful computers but as time
progresses the models would improve and computers would get faster so
the length scales could be reduced and the results become more
certain.

But that is what they did isn't it? and the models all give similar
results and the results have not substantially changed as the models
became more and more sophisticated and computers more powerful and
grid sizes smaller over the last 25 years or so.


Oddly enough if you solve the same equation in a million ways the
answers all tend to be exactly the same.

That doesn't prove the equation is an accurate representation of
reality. It just proves that people can agree on the rules of
mathematics and actually do sums correctly.

Its that sleight of hand again. No one argues the maths and statistics
is anything other than excellent - its the easy bit to peer review.

What is much more shady is the actual data - particularly reconstructed
historical data which has been subject to extreme controversy - and
whether or not the model actually means anything at all. In other
words, the famous engineers last words as the first car rolls across the
bridge 'the maths says it will stay up, but what did I forget to analyse
at all?'

And then chills with the great examples of omission..the Titanic, the
Comet airliner, the Tacoma narrows bridge..

You cannot model what you are simply not aware of. We now a LOT about
what drives climate, but we don't know it all, unless the warmists are
now claiming omniscience, and the models are all broadly similar.
Suppose there is a missing term that no one is aware of.? It may not ve
Svensmarks Muons, but it could be something else..the dynamics of
turblulent flow are ill understood, and yet we DO know that clouds play
a HUGE part in driving climate, and it would be not unreasonable to
suppose that warmer oceans mean more water vapour with more energy
carrying heat higher into the stratosphere and increasing radiation to
space, this acting as NEGATIVE feedback on climate change forcings - in
a sense the atmoshere 'boils' and helps reduce the impact of
fluctuations in other effects.

Same with the gulf stream 'global warming could switch the gulf stream
off' as so much fresh mel****er pouring off the Arctic blocks surface
level currents that keep the north warm..well excuse me, if that happens
then the polar regions will get cold and freeze up again..and indeed
there is evidence of a periodic oscillation that does just that..
Classic NEGATIVE feedback with a time lag in it.

And yet the IPCC model assumes and depends on POSITIVE feedback.

As it gets warmer, methane + water vapour will be released, it will get
even warmer..etc etc etc.

If so we should have a wildly unstable climate on a historic scale. We
don't.

No, I cant help feeling we haven't go the whole picture, and that the
predictions are well wide of the mark.

But how can you get to a better model if the moment you question the
existing one, you are a 'denier' ?



Robert

On 02/12/2011 16:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

snip

Oddly enough if you solve the same equation in a million ways the
answers all tend to be exactly the same.

That doesn't prove the equation is an accurate representation of
reality. It just proves that people can agree on the rules of
mathematics and actually do sums correctly.

Its that sleight of hand again. No one argues the maths and statistics
is anything other than excellent - its the easy bit to peer review.

Occam's razor.

What is much more shady is the actual data - particularly reconstructed
historical data which has been subject to extreme controversy - and
whether or not the model actually means anything at all. In other words,
the famous engineers last words as the first car rolls across the bridge
'the maths says it will stay up, but what did I forget to analyse at all?'

And then chills with the great examples of omission..the Titanic, the
Comet airliner, the Tacoma narrows bridge..

You cannot model what you are simply not aware of. We now a LOT about
what drives climate, but we don't know it all, unless the warmists are
now claiming omniscience, and the models are all broadly similar.
Suppose there is a missing term that no one is aware of.? It may not ve
Svensmarks Muons, but it could be something else..the dynamics of
turblulent flow are ill understood, and yet we DO know that clouds play
a HUGE part in driving climate, and it would be not unreasonable to
suppose that warmer oceans mean more water vapour with more energy
carrying heat higher into the stratosphere and increasing radiation to
space, this acting as NEGATIVE feedback on climate change forcings - in
a sense the atmoshere 'boils' and helps reduce the impact of
fluctuations in other effects.

It is the fact that as the atmosphere heats up the rate heat is lost to
space increases - the basic feedback mechanism that keeps the Earth's
climate relatively stable.

Same with the gulf stream 'global warming could switch the gulf stream
off' as so much fresh mel****er pouring off the Arctic blocks surface
level currents that keep the north warm..well excuse me, if that happens
then the polar regions will get cold and freeze up again..and indeed
there is evidence of a periodic oscillation that does just that..
Classic NEGATIVE feedback with a time lag in it.

I don't think you have that mechanism quite right but I don't need to
look that up to point out the flaw in your argument. If the cessation of
the Atlantic Conveyor causes the Arctic (is there anything equivalent in
the southern oceans?) to freeze up again then the heat not being
transported from the tropics will make the tropics even hotter.

And yet the IPCC model assumes and depends on POSITIVE feedback.

As it gets warmer, methane + water vapour will be released, it will get
even warmer..etc etc etc.

So you deny such positive feedback mechanisms exist?

If so we should have a wildly unstable climate on a historic scale. We
don't.

Not if the negative feed feedback terms have a bigger effect than the
positive feedback effects.

No, I cant help feeling we haven't go the whole picture, and that the
predictions are well wide of the mark.

Well that nails your colours firmly to the deniers mast.

But how can you get to a better model if the moment you question the
existing one, you are a 'denier' ?

You aren't questioning the model, you are saying point blank "that the
predictions are well wide of the mark".

--
Roger Chapman

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...


Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

Err.. the message is the same.
The article said the ice formed at 600ppm.
It said its 390ppm now.
It isn't likely to have melted until it hits 600ppm.
Where is that different to what you say?

On 02/12/2011 13:09, dennis@home wrote:


"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...


Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

Err.. the message is the same.
The article said the ice formed at 600ppm.
It said its 390ppm now.
It isn't likely to have melted until it hits 600ppm.
Where is that different to what you say?

The report suggests that 600ppm is the threshold below which ice began
to form at the South Pole. The one thing we can be sure of on that basis
is that if/when that level is again reached there will still be plenty
of ice in Antarctica but that is a very different situation to that
implied by Lewis Page's "Not going to melt any time soon, says boffin".
Melting is already under way and it won't take a very big percentage of
the total ice mass turning to water to seriously embarrass major cities
like London or swamp the low lying Pacific islands or a significant part
of Pakistan.

--
Roger Chapman

Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/


I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

You obviously did not look at the original research that this wilfully
misleading piece is based on did you?

It is very interesting to go back to the original source material when
dittoheads trumpet new research and try to spin it for AGW denial.

The original article is in fact strongly along the lines of a CO2
decrease drove major ice formation at the poles. See Perdu Univerity
press release instead of the unreliable (on this topic) TheRegister.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...laciation.html

Basically a fall in CO2 below 600ppm allowed permanent ice to form.
Allowing for some hysteresis that means that it probably won't
completely disappear (at equilibrium) until CO2 levels get somewhat
higher than that. To put it into perspective at the present fossil burn
rate of 20ppm/decade hit we will 600ppm around 2100 (likely sooner).

The original article is in Science and is strongly in support of the
hypothesis that glaciation in the past was driven in large part by CO2
forcing. Annoying this URL is Pay-per-View but it will be in libraries.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and every
straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.


Don't be silly Martin.

Can't take a joke, at the ad hominems again.

I am trying to illustrate something rather different..but that whooshed
past you.

The first thing is the way facts can be twisted to meet agendas, on
BOTH sides.

The second is to illustrate the character if those on the warmist side,
and you are doing a fantastic job of making them out to be bigots.



Regards,
Martin Brown

On 02/12/2011 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/


I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

You obviously did not look at the original research that this wilfully
misleading piece is based on did you?

It is very interesting to go back to the original source material when
dittoheads trumpet new research and try to spin it for AGW denial.

The original article is in fact strongly along the lines of a CO2
decrease drove major ice formation at the poles. See Perdu Univerity
press release instead of the unreliable (on this topic) TheRegister.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...laciation.html

Basically a fall in CO2 below 600ppm allowed permanent ice to form.
Allowing for some hysteresis that means that it probably won't
completely disappear (at equilibrium) until CO2 levels get somewhat
higher than that. To put it into perspective at the present fossil
burn rate of 20ppm/decade hit we will 600ppm around 2100 (likely sooner).

The original article is in Science and is strongly in support of the
hypothesis that glaciation in the past was driven in large part by CO2
forcing. Annoying this URL is Pay-per-View but it will be in libraries.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and
every straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.


Don't be silly Martin.

Can't take a joke, at the ad hominems again.

You pretend it is a joke now that you have been called on it.

I am trying to illustrate something rather different..but that whooshed
past you.

The average member of the public would more than likely be taken in by
that article; as it seems you were despite your protestations now.

The first thing is the way facts can be twisted to meet agendas, on BOTH
sides.

Of course.

The second is to illustrate the character if those on the warmist side,
and you are doing a fantastic job of making them out to be bigots.

I fight fire with fire.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/



I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

You obviously did not look at the original research that this wilfully
misleading piece is based on did you?

It is very interesting to go back to the original source material when
dittoheads trumpet new research and try to spin it for AGW denial.

The original article is in fact strongly along the lines of a CO2
decrease drove major ice formation at the poles. See Perdu Univerity
press release instead of the unreliable (on this topic) TheRegister.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...laciation.html

Basically a fall in CO2 below 600ppm allowed permanent ice to form.
Allowing for some hysteresis that means that it probably won't
completely disappear (at equilibrium) until CO2 levels get somewhat
higher than that. To put it into perspective at the present fossil
burn rate of 20ppm/decade hit we will 600ppm around 2100 (likely
sooner).

The original article is in Science and is strongly in support of the
hypothesis that glaciation in the past was driven in large part by CO2
forcing. Annoying this URL is Pay-per-View but it will be in libraries.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and
every straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.


Don't be silly Martin.

Can't take a joke, at the ad hominems again.

You pretend it is a joke now that you have been called on it.

I am trying to illustrate something rather different..but that whooshed
past you.

The average member of the public would more than likely be taken in by
that article; as it seems you were despite your protestations now.

The first thing is the way facts can be twisted to meet agendas, on BOTH
sides.

Of course.

The second is to illustrate the character if those on the warmist side,
and you are doing a fantastic job of making them out to be bigots.

I fight fire with fire.



Personally I find cold water more effective.

But then I have had experience of putting fires out.

On 3/12/2011 2:41 a.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Can't take a joke, at the ad hominems again.

I am trying to illustrate something rather different..but that whooshed
past you.

The first thing is the way facts can be twisted to meet agendas, on BOTH
sides.

Not very convincing.

Well, the think is about climate change, formerly known as global warming,
is that we don't exactly know what will happen. The way its looking from
trends is that the weather and climate will be more radical, no they will
not all join some NGO and swear to get rid of corruption, I mean that as the
warmer climes heat, the temperature differentials will drive the weather to
extremes and may well result in deserts in one place, and frozen wastes in
others.
It may not after all flood the world by melting all the ice, but may limit
the areas of temperate zones where we can live.
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/

I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2, does
it? Stands to reason dunnit?

On 3/12/2011 3:54 a.m., Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, the think is about climate change, formerly known as global warming,
is that we don't exactly know what will happen. The way its looking from
trends is that the weather and climate will be more radical, no they will
not all join some NGO and swear to get rid of corruption, I mean that as the
warmer climes heat, the temperature differentials will drive the weather to
extremes and may well result in deserts in one place, and frozen wastes in
others.
It may not after all flood the world by melting all the ice, but may limit
the areas of temperate zones where we can live.
Brian


One thing that has always annoyed me about the way people talk about
climate change is that the focus is completely on the negative aspects.
You express concern about change limiting the areas of temperate zone,
but it's quite obvious that the temperate zone expands in some places
(e.g. on its northern fringe), and it's not at all obvious that the net
effect is a reduction.

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer globe,
I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were cooler.
Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few centuries
be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to the costs
of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a separate issue.)

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 3:54 a.m., Brian Gaff wrote:
Well, the think is about climate change, formerly known as global
warming,
is that we don't exactly know what will happen. The way its looking from
trends is that the weather and climate will be more radical, no they will
not all join some NGO and swear to get rid of corruption, I mean that
as the
warmer climes heat, the temperature differentials will drive the
weather to
extremes and may well result in deserts in one place, and frozen
wastes in
others.
It may not after all flood the world by melting all the ice, but
may limit
the areas of temperate zones where we can live.
Brian


One thing that has always annoyed me about the way people talk about
climate change is that the focus is completely on the negative aspects.
You express concern about change limiting the areas of temperate zone,
but it's quite obvious that the temperate zone expands in some places
(e.g. on its northern fringe), and it's not at all obvious that the net
effect is a reduction.

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer globe,
I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were cooler.
Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few centuries
be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to the costs
of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.


The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.


Change is expensive, pure and simple.

On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.


The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.


Change is expensive, pure and simple.


Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.


The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.


Change is expensive, pure and simple.


Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.

Gib: See my tag. Says 'philosopher' right.

Tell me how to decide in *absolute* terms what is better than something
worse.

Is existence better than no existence? for example.

Should we weep for children who will never be born?


I don't do absolute moral judgements: I don't know how. In the end I
don't know what better and worse without a qualifying context really mean.

On 03/12/2011 05:48, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.

The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.

Change is expensive, pure and simple.

Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.

For small amounts of warmer it might be better for a while, but you will
take a hit on fertile river deltas lost to the sea. And large chunks of
the Netherlands, Florida and Norfolk will be under water (and many
capital cities partly abandonned or with expensive flood defences).

Once you start to get to temperature rises in the tropics where plant
growth is seriously impeded either by availability of water, excessive
temperature denaturing crucial enzymes or most likely a combination of
both then all bets are off.

Up to that point plants like sugar cane with C4 metabolism will grow
faster in a warmer world with more CO2. After it gets too hot we lose
productive land to deserts where only specially adapted plants can grow.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 03/12/2011 00:41, Gib Bogle wrote:

One thing that has always annoyed me about the way people talk about
climate change is that the focus is completely on the negative aspects.
You express concern about change limiting the areas of temperate zone,
but it's quite obvious that the temperate zone expands in some places
(e.g. on its northern fringe), and it's not at all obvious that the net
effect is a reduction.

The scientisst tell us that we can cope with a rise of 2C or thereabouts
but it seems to me that anything much above that will cause an abrupt
change to another band of relatively stable temperatures with average
temperature a good deal higher leading to the end of permanent ice just
about everywhere.

So the first thing to worry about is the reduction in land area caused
by the major rise in sea level.

The second is what land would become habitable in a much warmer world.
In the south the temperate zone could be largely pushed into the sea
with Antarctica (almost wholly within the Antarctic circle) still too
cold to colonise. In the north some of the northern plains of Europe and
Asia would be lost to flooding and Greenland is the only large land mass
within the Arctic circle that might be suitable for the large scale
settlement that would be necessary as the desert belt expands northwards.

Thirdly there is at least a possibility that the Tropics become just too
hot to sustain settlement on a large scale basis without necessarily the
tropical rain forest spreading into the desert belts either side of the
tropics.

And finally I am by no means sure that that is the worst case scenario.

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer globe,
I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were cooler.
Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few centuries
be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to the costs
of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a separate issue.)

Homo sapiens evolved in a world that was sometimes considerably colder
than the present and the Eskimos continue to subsist in cold climes so
some would survive just as some would survive if the world got
considerably hotter. I think we must conclude that the human race can
adapt more easily to cold than it can to heat.

Long term climate theory suggests we are overdue for another Ice Age so
to that extent at least AGW is a distraction provided we do not
aggravate the climate enough to push it over the tipping point into the
next temperature band. On the plus side if CO2 is the greenhouse gas
that most sensible people think it is we have a sure-fire way of
combating global cooling. Just pump CO2 into the atmosphere (and hope
that the temperature stabilises before the CO2 concentration reaches a
lethal level or the glaciers the Mediterranean).


--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 03/12/2011 00:41, Gib Bogle wrote:

One thing that has always annoyed me about the way people talk about
climate change is that the focus is completely on the negative aspects.
You express concern about change limiting the areas of temperate zone,
but it's quite obvious that the temperate zone expands in some places
(e.g. on its northern fringe), and it's not at all obvious that the net
effect is a reduction.

The scientisst tell us that we can cope with a rise of 2C or thereabouts
but it seems to me that anything much above that will cause an abrupt
change to another band of relatively stable temperatures with average
temperature a good deal higher leading to the end of permanent ice just
about everywhere.

So the first thing to worry about is the reduction in land area caused
by the major rise in sea level.

The second is what land would become habitable in a much warmer world.
In the south the temperate zone could be largely pushed into the sea
with Antarctica (almost wholly within the Antarctic circle) still too
cold to colonise. In the north some of the northern plains of Europe and
Asia would be lost to flooding and Greenland is the only large land mass
within the Arctic circle that might be suitable for the large scale
settlement that would be necessary as the desert belt expands northwards.

Thirdly there is at least a possibility that the Tropics become just too
hot to sustain settlement on a large scale basis without necessarily the
tropical rain forest spreading into the desert belts either side of the
tropics.

And finally I am by no means sure that that is the worst case scenario.

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer globe,
I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were cooler.
Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few centuries
be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to the costs
of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a separate issue.)

Homo sapiens evolved in a world that was sometimes considerably colder
than the present and the Eskimos continue to subsist in cold climes so
some would survive just as some would survive if the world got
considerably hotter. I think we must conclude that the human race can
adapt more easily to cold than it can to heat.

Long term climate theory

Which theory is that?

Why isn't it incorporated in the One True Model of the IPCC?

suggests we are overdue for another Ice Age so
to that extent at least AGW is a distraction provided we do not
aggravate the climate enough to push it over the tipping point into the
next temperature band. On the plus side if CO2 is the greenhouse gas
that most sensible people think it is we have a sure-fire way of
combating global cooling. Just pump CO2 into the atmosphere (and hope
that the temperature stabilises before the CO2 concentration reaches a
lethal level or the glaciers the Mediterranean).

On 03/12/2011 11:08, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Long term climate theory

Which theory is that?

Milankovitch et al.

Why isn't it incorporated in the One True Model of the IPCC?

how do you know it isn't?

And do the IPCC really have their own model?

--
Roger Chapman