|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 10, 2011 10:49:03 GMT 1
The comments made by the Met Office in the link provided by MR suggest that the the current solar cycle is mitigating the effects of AGW, not causing it. In the future the effect may be the other way.
I've also never said that all warming is caused by AGW, just that the evidence shows that most of it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 10, 2011 10:54:10 GMT 1
MR
I repeat louise's question:
If you are going to quote them, do us the decency of letting us know who they are.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 10, 2011 16:53:13 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 10, 2011 16:57:22 GMT 1
The sun "mitigates" man's purported effect on the climate? Pull the other one, nickrr! Not everyone is the anthropocentric gull you are. If the sun makes temperatures fall the sun makes temperatures rise. End of story. Perhaps YOU can explain how much of the residual 0.3 degreesC per century (after subtracting the sun's effect according to the latest Met Office U-Turn) is down to anthropogenic emissions of CO2 as distinct from "natural" CO2, greenhouse gases like water vapour and internal forcings like the PDO and cloud cover? Silly girl. You're a one trick pony. Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocentrism |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 10, 2011 18:20:56 GMT 1
The sun "mitigates" Anthropocentrism describes the tendency for human beings to regard themselves as the central and most significant entities in the universe ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AnthropocentrismWell said MM, and it's something else I've learned. and note that I too have found the 'quote button' shame I'm still writing rubbish though, but You can't have everything. StuartG |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 11, 2011 10:30:50 GMT 1
Transcript of Andrew Bolt’s interview with Richard LindzenPosted on July 11, 2011 by Alec Rawls If they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians. Transcript follows: Andrew Bolt: Professor Lindzen, thanks for joining us from Paris. Now our government says we must have a carbon dioxide tax to help stop global warming, which it says is damaging Australia already. Can we start with some basics? First, how much is the planet actually warming? Richard Lindzen: Well… over the century, or maybe 150 years, it may be somewhere between a half and three-quarters of a degree Centigrade. I don’t know what it is locally in Australia. Since ’95 , … 1995, there hasn’t been much warming, certainly not that can be distinguished from noise. AB: Is that warming lower than what the climate alarmists have been telling us to expect? RL: Oh yeah. You have a constant game going on. The IPCC once said that they thought it probable that man’s emissions had accounted for most of the warming over the last 50 years. A more correct statement might have been that according to current models man has accounted for between 2 and 5 times the warming we’ve seen in the last 50 years, and the models have cancelled the difference by arbitrary adjustments, and they call them aerosols, but they vary from model to model and they’re just fudge factors. AB: Now if we see a rise in carbon dioxide emissions as we have, a very big rise, in this last decade or more, but no real warming, what does that say about global warming theory? RL: What is says is that—and it doesn’t uniquely say anything—it says there are certainly other things going on that are just as big. These things like El Nino, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, are giving you as much variability as whatever man is doing, and because of that you can’t even tell if man is doing anything. AB: Can I ask you? If we do get further warming caused by man, will that warming be good for us, or bad? RL: That’s always hard to tell. It will be good for some people, a little worse for others. It will be completely within the range of what human beings have shown they are capable of adapting to and even prospering under. AB: What effect would a carbon dioxide tax in Australia—the aim is to cut emissions by 5% by 2020—what effect would that have on the world’s temperature? RL: I don’t think anyone could possibly detect it even with future technology. It would be nothing, for all practical purposes, and it would be nothing if the whole world did the same. AB: So does it make any sense at all to adopt a tax, or to spend directly on programs to cut emissions? RL: Depends on who you are. For governments, you know, they want taxes and they know people don’t like to pay them, and I think if they can possibly confuse people into thinking they’re doing it save the earth, they’ll do it more willingly. AB: So you’d consider this more a sort of big government measure than anything that could really influence the world’s climate for the good. RL: I think there’s no disagreement in the scientific community that this will have no impact on climate, so it’s purely a matter of government revenue. And, as I say, I mean if they can fool the people into thinking that they really want to pay taxes to save the earth, that’s a dream for politicians. AB: Well, it’s a very depressing scenario you paint, but thank you very much Professor Lindzen for joining us from Paris. I appreciate it. RL: Good luck. Good luck. blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/from_the_bolt_report_today/
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 11, 2011 12:36:38 GMT 1
Most of this quote is actually correct - well done. Unfortunately you spoilt it with the last three words.
The end of the story comes when all factors are taken into consideration and when the human factor is considered the evidence shows that humans are currently warming the planet.
Yet again you have failed to understand a simple concept. The Met Office said that they thought 50% of variability comes from the sun. That doesn't mean that 50% of warming is from the sun. Variability can mean an increase or decrease in temperatures. So it is quite possible that human emissions of CO2 can have the effect of increasing temperature and the sun can have the opposite effect - while still being in accordance with the Met Offices predictions.
Your problem as always is that you are so desperate to interpret data to suit your anti AGW stance that you misinterpret data to suit your preconceptions. You need to start looking at these things more dispassionately.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 11, 2011 12:41:25 GMT 1
I've noticed before that you try to disparage fellow posters by insinuating that they are female. This is not showing much respect for your own gender.
There's some interesting psychology going on here!
|
|
|
|
Post by speakertoanimals on Jul 11, 2011 14:28:21 GMT 1
Except the paper that I have found is talking about TSI increasing over the past century, over and above the usual 11-year cycles.........
Okay, other stuff seems to say early 20th cent warming can be explained as about equal measures changes in solar activity plus CO2. But can't be explained wholly in terms of increased solar activity, and late 20th cent warming is larger and faster.
|
|
|
|
Post by principled on Jul 11, 2011 19:14:59 GMT 1
Marchesa
I suppose there are a couple of ways of looking at the issue of carbon tax in Australia.
At the moment, Australia emits 4*10^8 tonnes of CO2 per year, which equates to 1.3% of the world total. Any reduction in that is not going to even put a dent in total worldwide CO2 as China alone emits nearly 8*10^9 tonnes per year (23% of total) and its INCREASE has been 5*10^9 tonnes in the 10 years since 2000(ie 12.5 times the TOTAL annual output of Australia).
On a per capita basis, China uses around 6 tonnes and Australia 20 tonnes.(UK uses about 8 and France about 6). So the Australian government could say that it wants its citizens to change their lifestyle to bring down usage to -say-the European average of 7. But that is a completely different issue to saying that reducing emissions in Australia by x % is going to have an effect on climate.
Still, at least we have consistency...all politicians are liars!
P
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 11, 2011 20:51:55 GMT 1
So please explain the difference, nickrr, between "variability" and warming/cooling.
|
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Jul 11, 2011 21:16:57 GMT 1
As long as you accept that this variation can lead to warming or cooling then there is no difference.
The problem is that you originally claimed that 50% of recent warming is due to the sun, when the sun's variability has been in the opposite direction. In recent years the sun's variability appears to be mitigating the effects of AGW (if it's doing anything), not contributing towards warming.
|
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 11, 2011 21:40:02 GMT 1
 "Experts demystify link between extreme weather and climate change" DOI: 11 Jul 2011 18:58 www.trust.org/alertnet/news/experts-demystify-link-between-extreme-weather-and-climate-change"“The link between climate change and extreme weather is not so much theoretical as observational,” Fred Guterl, executive editor of monthly magazine Scientific American, told reporters on a conference call late last month. “It’s possible to look at this and really begin to see, in a way that you can measure, that this is not really just business as usual in terms of weather. There really is a climate signal.” " ........ www.pewclimate.org/blog/gulledgej/pew-center-scientific-american-team-explain-climate-change-extreme-weather-link"To summarize, the climate is already changing, the odds of extreme weather have increased because of global warming, and that means the risk of future extreme weather events will continue to rise. The correct response is to manage the risk by adapting to unavoidable changes that are already underway and by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to keep the climate from changing so much that we can’t adapt. It’s good sense informed by good science." |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jul 11, 2011 22:06:32 GMT 1
From Dr. David Stockwell's blog, Niche Modeling, comes word that he has submitted a paper for publication showing that solar activity alone explains the observed global warming since 1950, without need to implicate 'greenhouse gases'. He says: Finally, my hibernation of the last 6 months is coming to an end, with the formal submission to a journal yesterday of the fruits of my labor. The main points: 1. solar forcing is time-integrated and not direct, 2. accumulation of the 0.1W/m2 increase in solar irradiance in the 20th century explains global warming, 3. there is a credible explanation for global warming that does not involve increases in human emissions of greenhouse gasses.  Figure: Cumulative solar irradiance (blue) and volcanic forcing (red) is highly correlated with HadCRU global temperature and explains the trend in temperature since 1950. The direct solar irradiance (orange) is uncorrelated with temperature. There are a lot of other points about the model that no doubt I will get into in time. For the moment, here is the Conclusion. Contrary to the consensus view, the historic temperature record displays high sensitivity to solar variations when related by slow equilibration dynamics. A range of results suggest that incorrect specification of the relationship between forcings and temperature may be at the heart of previous studies finding low correlations of solar variation to temperature. The accumulation model is a credible alternative mechanism for explaining both paleoclimatic temperature variability and present-day warming without recourse to increases in heat-trapping gases produced by human activities. The grounds on which a solar explanation for late 20th century warming is dismissed should be reconsidered. www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/9106-new-paper-shows-global-warming-since-1950-was-due-to-the-sun-------- Well, we'll have to wait and see what "accumulation model" is and what comes out of the peer review process, won't we? |
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Jul 12, 2011 8:01:03 GMT 1
|
|
