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

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 11:33, 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

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.

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

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.

"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.

"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 13:05, 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

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 13:09, 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

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 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

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. ;-)

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 13:29, Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

Trouble is that the publishers of scientific journals are mercenary
b*stards and want to make insane profits for online access. ISTR Nature
charges $32 per article which makes this one a snip for only $15.

This one also this weeks journal is about the permafrost thawing:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...l/480032a.html

But most large public libraries and any university library should have
Science and Nature on the periodicals shelves so you can grab the date
and issue number online and then go look it up there.

Regards,
Martin Brown

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..

Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same
article in his own website..

I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux
did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval
warm period.

Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..

Sigh.

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.


In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is settled.


That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.

Not taking sides, but *Ding* ..

--
Paul - xxx
"You know, all I wanna do is race .. and all I wanna do is win"
Mark Cavendish, World Champion 2011.

On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:58:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same
article in his own website..

I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux
did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval
warm period.

Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..

Sigh.

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.


In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.


That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.

Remember, for years, it was scientific *fact* that the continents didn't
move.

And that stones did not fall from the sky.

That the earth was the centre of the solar system.

That possession by the devil caused madness.

And while you ponder that, it's worth remembering the fate that befell
some people who might have suggested otherwise.

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 02/12/2011 13:51, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
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.

You wrote the biased subject line to parrot loudly what you thought was
research showing what *YOU WANTED* to see. The article you referenced is
*very* misleading and selectively quotes the original paper with a clear
intent to mislead. There is no doubt about that and they took you in
hook line and sinker. Not very discriminating are you?

So far:

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

Grow up!

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...

A lot of it is. Empty vessels make most sound.
Most of them are still denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and/or
shouting as loud as they can that it isn't happening at all.

..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..

No. I work on software for ultra trace analysis on scientific
instruments that brings me into contact with everyone from academics
dating rocks and ice cores to oil and mineral prospectors, semiconductor
plants, 6x9's metal refiners and nuclear fuel processors. I have seen
plutonium in solution in all of its oxidation states.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 02/12/2011 13:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

It is far too late for you to take that stance. Your recent posts have
been full of your clearly stated personal opinions which are very much
in the deniers camp and your childish mockery of anything that doesn't
match your prejudices doesn't help the cause of science one little bit.

I was on the sceptic side of the fence once (still am really although
you have moved the goalposts so far that there isn't a balanced middle
any more) on the basis that the 3% of CO2 emissions attributable to
human activity was too small to make much difference in the great scheme
of things but since then it has been easy to pull holes in much of what
the deniers put out but much more difficult to quibble about more than a
matter of degree with the warmist agenda.

If the deniers manage to convince the politicians to do nothing and the
warmists are anywhere near correct there is a catastrophe looming in the
not too distant future when the inherently unstable influence of
positive feedback overwhelms the negative feedback that has kept our
climate stable between close limits for so long. The next stable
temperature band is likely to be a lot hotter that the 3.5C they are
bleating about at present. Waterworld it won't be but in a world without
permanent ice anywhere sea level is going to much higher so goodbye
London, New York, much of Pakistan, much of Israel, almost all of the
Arab West Bank and a host of other low lying areas too numerous to
mention. Flooding the Dead Sea area won't do much to alleviate rising
sea level but it could well put an end to Israel's current territorial
ambitions and that really would be seen by all and sundry as a real Act
of God. ;-)

--
Roger Chapman

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

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

TerryJones wrote:
On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 13:58:07 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Roger Chapman wrote:
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.

Oddly enough if you google the author, you will often find the same
article in his own website..

I did that with an earlier article showing how CO2 levels and solar flux
did not vary enough to account for the little ice age or the mediaeval
warm period.

Flatly contradicting earlier studies which said it did..

Sigh.

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.


In short the only thing I am sure of is that there is very little
certainty in the predictions of ANYONE.

Failure to admit this, makes me suspicious at a human level, of those
who want to close all controversy and announce that the science is
settled.


That is deeply disturbing,: Irrespective of whether AGW is wrong,
slightly right or a complete and accurate picture, the way its being
handled is an utter disgrace and has put science back years in terms of
public opinion.

Remember, for years, it was scientific *fact* that the continents didn't
move.

And that stones did not fall from the sky.

That the earth was the centre of the solar system.

That possession by the devil caused madness.

And while you ponder that, it's worth remembering the fate that befell
some people who might have suggested otherwise.

It is perfectly reasonable that those challenging the orthodoxy do so
with a compelling case, but it is equally true that those resisting new
evidence beyond the limits of conservatism, are in the end the ones
reviled by history.


You cannot deny there is something in AGW - but I worry a lot, that
great shifts in climate - greater than those we are seeing today - have
taken place with no apparent changes in it, and great changes have taken
place in it with apparently little impact on climate.

That suggests to me we are not anywhere near the full picture.

BUT to say that immediately gets one painted as a 'denier'..that is NOT
good...the very use of the word implies the person saying it is in some
sense a 'Believer' and that is even worse. This is not science, this is
rhetoric.

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

It is far too late for you to take that stance. Your recent posts have
been full of your clearly stated personal opinions which are very much
in the deniers camp and your childish mockery of anything that doesn't
match your prejudices doesn't help the cause of science one little bit.

Applying the standards of your own mentality to others merely betrays
exactly what it is.


I was on the sceptic side of the fence once (still am really although
you have moved the goalposts so far that there isn't a balanced middle
any more) on the basis that the 3% of CO2 emissions attributable to
human activity was too small to make much difference in the great scheme
of things but since then it has been easy to pull holes in much of what
the deniers put out but much more difficult to quibble about more than a
matter of degree with the warmist agenda.

If the deniers manage to convince the politicians to do nothing and the
warmists are anywhere near correct there is a catastrophe looming in the
not too distant future when the inherently unstable influence of
positive feedback overwhelms the negative feedback that has kept our
climate stable between close limits for so long. The next stable
temperature band is likely to be a lot hotter that the 3.5C they are
bleating about at present. Waterworld it won't be but in a world without
permanent ice anywhere sea level is going to much higher so goodbye
London, New York, much of Pakistan, much of Israel, almost all of the
Arab West Bank and a host of other low lying areas too numerous to
mention. Flooding the Dead Sea area won't do much to alleviate rising
sea level but it could well put an end to Israel's current territorial
ambitions and that really would be seen by all and sundry as a real Act
of God. ;-)


See. Is all deniers versus warmists with you.

No room left for science..at all.

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

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

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

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 02/12/2011 16:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

It is far too late for you to take that stance. Your recent posts have
been full of your clearly stated personal opinions which are very much
in the deniers camp and your childish mockery of anything that doesn't
match your prejudices doesn't help the cause of science one little bit.

Applying the standards of your own mentality to others merely betrays
exactly what it is.

There you go denying everything again - this time that you haven't been
posting opinions that fit cosily in the Lawson camp and that your snide
comments are childish mockery.

I was on the sceptic side of the fence once (still am really although
you have moved the goalposts so far that there isn't a balanced middle
any more) on the basis that the 3% of CO2 emissions attributable to
human activity was too small to make much difference in the great
scheme of things but since then it has been easy to pull holes in much
of what the deniers put out but much more difficult to quibble about
more than a matter of degree with the warmist agenda.

If the deniers manage to convince the politicians to do nothing and
the warmists are anywhere near correct there is a catastrophe looming
in the not too distant future when the inherently unstable influence
of positive feedback overwhelms the negative feedback that has kept
our climate stable between close limits for so long. The next stable
temperature band is likely to be a lot hotter that the 3.5C they are
bleating about at present. Waterworld it won't be but in a world
without permanent ice anywhere sea level is going to much higher so
goodbye London, New York, much of Pakistan, much of Israel, almost all
of the Arab West Bank and a host of other low lying areas too numerous
to mention. Flooding the Dead Sea area won't do much to alleviate
rising sea level but it could well put an end to Israel's current
territorial ambitions and that really would be seen by all and sundry
as a real Act of God. ;-)


See. Is all deniers versus warmists with you.

No room left for science..at all.

As I said above you have moved the goalposts so far to one side that
anyone who really does have a more balanced viewpoint than yourself is
held up to ridicule for being a warmist.

--
Roger Chapman

Roger Chapman wrote:
On 02/12/2011 16:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Despite Martins personal insinuations, I am very much balanced on the
fence. Although playing devils advocate is a good technique to expose
warmist trolls.

It is far too late for you to take that stance. Your recent posts have
been full of your clearly stated personal opinions which are very much
in the deniers camp and your childish mockery of anything that doesn't
match your prejudices doesn't help the cause of science one little bit.

Applying the standards of your own mentality to others merely betrays
exactly what it is.

There you go denying everything again - this time that you haven't been
posting opinions that fit cosily in the Lawson camp and that your snide
comments are childish mockery.

I was on the sceptic side of the fence once (still am really although
you have moved the goalposts so far that there isn't a balanced middle
any more) on the basis that the 3% of CO2 emissions attributable to
human activity was too small to make much difference in the great
scheme of things but since then it has been easy to pull holes in much
of what the deniers put out but much more difficult to quibble about
more than a matter of degree with the warmist agenda.

If the deniers manage to convince the politicians to do nothing and
the warmists are anywhere near correct there is a catastrophe looming
in the not too distant future when the inherently unstable influence
of positive feedback overwhelms the negative feedback that has kept
our climate stable between close limits for so long. The next stable
temperature band is likely to be a lot hotter that the 3.5C they are
bleating about at present. Waterworld it won't be but in a world
without permanent ice anywhere sea level is going to much higher so
goodbye London, New York, much of Pakistan, much of Israel, almost all
of the Arab West Bank and a host of other low lying areas too numerous
to mention. Flooding the Dead Sea area won't do much to alleviate
rising sea level but it could well put an end to Israel's current
territorial ambitions and that really would be seen by all and sundry
as a real Act of God. ;-)


See. Is all deniers versus warmists with you.

No room left for science..at all.

As I said above you have moved the goalposts so far to one side that
anyone who really does have a more balanced viewpoint than yourself is
held up to ridicule for being a warmist.


No, that's your trick.

The moment you started on not about the science, but about 'deniers'
'right wing blogs' you betrayed your true colours.

At which point I assumed I wasn't dealing with a rational human
scientist but an irrational believer..

Whose 'rational' arguments wouldn't cut the mustard.


So YOU can answer the question

"What assurances can you give me that the models on which AGW are based
have not omitted something that is as important if not MORE important
than CO2, and what, if you remove positive feedback for which you have
no proven established mechanism that accounts for it, is the actual
temperature rise predicted (hint: very un-scary) and finally, if this
unwarranted feedback is taken out how do you account for the existing
temperature rises (hint: if the lack of warming since 2000 is all la
nina etc, why not all the warming since 1970 el nino and friends etc etc?).

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 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

On 02/12/2011 17:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

See. Is all deniers versus warmists with you.

No room left for science..at all.

As I said above you have moved the goalposts so far to one side that
anyone who really does have a more balanced viewpoint than yourself is
held up to ridicule for being a warmist.

No, that's your trick.

Now who have I held up to ridicule for being a warmist?

The moment you started on not about the science, but about 'deniers'
'right wing blogs' you betrayed your true colours.

You really are losing touch with reality. The deniers are a force to be
reckoned with because by and large they have no regard for the truth and
facts are there to be manipulated if possible and ignored if they can't.
And I am sure I have never ever used the phrase 'right wing blogs' or
indeed blog.

At which point I assumed I wasn't dealing with a rational human
scientist but an irrational believer..

I trained as an engineer, not a scientist, so I am much more open to
practical propositions than to either abstract theory or belief systems
unconnected with reality.

Whose 'rational' arguments wouldn't cut the mustard

Tis you who is not being rational.

So YOU can answer the question

"What assurances can you give me that the models on which AGW are based
have not omitted something that is as important if not MORE important
than CO2,

Of course there is some degree of uncertainty in what isn't yet known
but scientists have been poring over the question for years so why
hasn't your hypothetical 'more important to climate change than CO2'
process been identified and sorted out long before now. The effect of
CO2 itself is well understood which doesn't leave much room for another
process that does something similar at any strength approaching that of CO2.

and what, if you remove positive feedback for which you have
no proven established mechanism that accounts for it,

As far as I know all the feedback mechanisms are based on sound theory
so you need to spell out which particular mechanisms you find suspect.

is the actual
temperature rise predicted (hint: very un-scary)

Well that is what the deniers say so I wouldn't expect your take to be
any different.

and finally, if this
unwarranted feedback is taken out how do you account

the feedback is only unwarranted in the eyes of a denier.

for the existing
temperature rises (hint: if the lack of warming since 2000 is all la
nina etc, why not all the warming since 1970 el nino and friends etc etc?).

There is no doubt that there has been a slowdown in recent years but the
decade 2001 - 2010 is undoubtedly the warmest decade since records began.

the ENSO is an irregular periodic fluctuation. To even suggest that it
is responsible for a continuing trend suggests desperation on your part.
If you take the temperatures over that decade at face value you actually
do get a slight decline in the second half of the decade compared with
the first but the ENSO was probably responsible for that. If you look at
the number of months when El Nino or La Nina were significant the ratio
for the first half of the decade was 20/2 while for the second half
13/15. ie La Nina went from next to nothing between 2001 and 2005 to
being more dominant from 2006 to 2010.

It is far too early to tell whether this is the top of the curve or just
a minor blip in a relentless rise. The post WW2 drift went on for
several decades before resuming the rise.

--
Roger Chapman

On 02/12/2011 19:16, Tim Streater wrote:

I trained as an engineer, not a scientist, so I am much more open to
practical propositions than to either abstract theory or belief
systems unconnected with reality.

Theory is not abstract. A theory is based on a hypothesis that explains
current observation and that can make *testable* predictions. Relativity
is a good example of this.

A poor choice of words on my part. I was searching for the right word to
express my viewpoint but failed to find it.

What gives you the idea that science has anything to do with belief
systems unconnected with reality?

Nothing. That was poor editing on your part. TNP had said in the line
immediately above:
"At which point I assumed I wasn't dealing with a rational human
scientist but an irrational believer.. "

--
Roger Chapman

"Roger Chapman" wrote in message
...
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.

Welcome to the world of climate change.