|
Post by nickrr on Sept 13, 2012 13:25:05 GMT 1
As far as I can see neither did I?
Concerning AGW you come across as "don't want to know". Which is part of the point I was making. You appear to uncritically promote anything that goes against AGW while remaining highly critical of anything that supports AGW.
We know with a high degree of certainly (isotopic evidence etc) that this is the case.
We know with a high degree of certainty that this isn't the main cause of CO2 rise in the atmosphere.
On the evidence that you already have, what do you think is the rough probability that AGW might be true?
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 13, 2012 13:39:26 GMT 1
If you are trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then you're already beyond the pale.
The sunspot cycle runs over a period of 11 years so it can't account for temperature rises over decades! In any case please provide some evidence. Anyone can make empty assertions.
This is due to increased particulates in the atmosphere which cause cooling (and which incidentally are still ameliorating the effect of increased CO2). It's well known and well explained.
The only Uranus cycle I'm aware of is some astrological nonsense. Surely you don't mean this?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 13, 2012 14:59:16 GMT 1
If you are trying to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then you're already beyond the pale. How and where have I done that? What I'm trying to deny is that we know how the behaviour of this greenhouse gas relates to the temperature of the Earth, or its atmosphere. Modelled mathematically or even in the laboratory, it should heat up both. In the real world, there are various other crucial factors entering into the situation - heat sinks, fluid dynamics, cloud formation, feedback mechanisms: some now but only recently known, others doubtlessly unknown - it's a vastly more complicated situation than the maths describe, or the lab can duplicate. It's perfectly plausible that increased CO2 in the atmosphere might cool the Earth, not warm it, given these complexities. What is certain is that it doesn't do what the maths or the lab models - the troposphere is far cooler than it should be, and getting cooler, not warmer; and the global temp rise is nowhere near as large as calculated. You're aware of this, aren't you? There are many sunspot cycles. The 11 or 22 (averaged out over centuries) is merely the shortest, most obvious of them. Evidence for what? You can google "sunspot cycle" can't you? I'm very willing to debate, or even argue - but I'm not here to educate you. It's a wild guess, nothing more. Particulates from what? Why between those years and not the fifty years before, or for that matter the recent decades after? Where were the particulates during the Little Ice Age, if that's the explanation? I've no idea what you're referring to. There is no Uranus cycle in astrology, nonsensical or otherwise. I mean the standard cycles of Uranus caused by its orbital period, in relation to the other planets with which it's in resonance - Jupiter and Neptune, most significantly, though conveniently it's most readable from its relation with Pluto, with which its phase-locked - that rhythm just happens to be in current step with that 40-45 year warm-cool cycle. These rhythms drive the sunspot cycle - all of them, not just the 11 year one you've heard about. Those cycles in turn drive the rhythms of the Earth's temperature, going back as far as records stretch. If you don't know anything about these matters, I suggest you start with this paper, which I happened to have posted here in the dim and distant past (#10): radio4scienceboards.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=gensci&thread=953&page=1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2012 16:54:53 GMT 1
Thanks for linking back to that thread, Mr Sonde!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 13, 2012 17:40:14 GMT 1
nickrr, I would bet an awful lot of money on the fact that I have read FAR more than you ever have or ever will on research into climate. So what if I present the findings which contradict the "consensus"? That's the way scientific knowledge proceeds. I have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in so doing and neither do all the thousands of genuine scientists worldwide who are busy beavering away at "normal" climate science, i.e trying to understand natural variation instead of begging the question over CO2 by assuming known what is merely under investigation. Do I believe there is slight warming going on? The satellite data points that way but it is certainly not outside the bounds of historical natural variation. The cause is certainly not settled. There may be a bit of AGW. On the other hand, any AGW fraction of warming may be counteracted by negative feedback in the form of clouds. Only a slight percentage change in cloud cover can easily counteract all the CO2 induced warming you are so confident exists. Oceans warm (for whatever reason), water evaporates, clouds form, sunshine is diminished. Negative feedback! QED. Simples. Another scenario! Temperatures warm (for whatever reason), CO2 outgasses from the oceans and CO2 outgasses from the soil (especially volcanic soils). Is this dangerous? I don't think so. The plants thrive on it.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 15, 2012 19:48:57 GMT 1
An apercue from Judith Curry of Georgia Tech who states on her own blog curryja | September 15, 2012 at 1:13 pm | Reply judithcurry.com/2012/09/15/bs-detectors/#comment-239926The problem is when too much confidence is ascribed to the conclusions, in the face of obvious holes in the knowledge. And those pointing out holes in the knowledge are described as ‘deniers.’ Get that, nickrr? Even tenured climatology professors share my viewpoint!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 16, 2012 23:38:49 GMT 1
by Herman Alexander Pope The Arctic has an ocean flowing through it. The Antarctic has an ocean flowing around it. The Northern Hemisphere has the most land. The Arctic controls the temperature of Earth. The Antarctic does help with this and there is a phase shift. The ocean currents do link the north and south. It does snow more when oceans are warm and it does snow less when oceans are cold. This is true in the north and in the south. I have talked about the north above so I will say a few words about the south. When oceans are cold the snow falls on ice shelves in the Antarctic and the snow does melt in summer. When oceans are warm there is less ice around the Antarctic and the snow does fall on land and does not melt in summer. The Antarctic does get snow added on top and lost at the sides. This has been in good balance for ten thousand years or the ice core data would show something different. Arctic Ice Melt Could Mean More Extreme Winters For U.S. And Europe www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/arctic-ice-melt-extreme-weather_n_1878833.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009The warmer Arctic and the colder more extreme snows in the mid-latitudes is exactly what is happening. That is Ewing and Donn Climate Theory. The snow that cools earth does fall in the mid-latitudes and around the arctic. The snow that does fall in the mid-latitudes and between the arctic and the mid-latitudes does make a difference. There was a lot of ice in mid-latitudes during the little ice age. The snow that caused the little ice age fell when the arctic was open during the Medieval Warm Period. That is what caused the little ice age. It snows when it is warm and that causes cold. ...The snow falls when the arctic is warm, it piles up at the heads of glaciers while the tails of glaciers are still retreating. They advance later and mak it appear that ice volume is increasing later. Watch the snow that will fall soon. Earth is warm now and the tails of glaciers are still retreating and land temperatures will still go up in summer. The arctic is open and the snows are falling and the winters have more snow and cold. Ice volume is building and after this typical period, similar to the Medieval Warm Period or Roman Warm Period, the ice will advance and cool the earth, land and ocean and the earth will go into the next cool period, similar to the little ice age. Then the arctic will freeze and turn off the source for moisture and the extra snow will stop. Look at the history because the history is the future. The arctic is not warm because the ice has melted. The ice melted because warm ocean water melted the ice and allowed the arctic to get warmer. The warm oceans and open arctic will keep the snow falling until there is enough ice volume to cause the next cool period. It snows when the arctic is open and it doesn’t snow when the arctic is closed. This does keep the temperature of Earth well bounded and it is this simple. The temperature that Arctic Sea Ice melts and freezes is the set point for Earth’s Thermostat! more here popesclimatetheory.com/
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 17, 2012 10:19:55 GMT 1
An interesting account of how the current 2.6 million year ice-age started with the closing of the Isthmus of Panama How the Isthmus of Panama Put Ice in the Arctic Drifting continents open and close gateways between oceans and shift Earth's climatewww.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=2508I think this article should convince most people that it is ocean circulation that is in the driving seat of climate change not man.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 17, 2012 12:48:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 18, 2012 21:20:50 GMT 1
It's really quite amusing to see deniers desperately trying to find alternative explanations for the bleeding obvious.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 19, 2012 8:20:05 GMT 1
It was once "bleeding obvious" that the earth was the centre of the universe, nickrr.
If this is the best you can offer in the way of debate I suggest you stick to Greenpeace and WWF blogs.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 19, 2012 9:19:43 GMT 1
James Cripwell on Climate Etc ...if we look at Antarctic sea ice extent at the same time we look at Arctic sea ice extent, it is absolutely clear the whatever is happening in the Arctic, it is regional. There is no case to be made that the record low levels of Arctic sea ice have anything to do with CAGW and increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Whatever the cause is of a massive melt of Arctic sea ice this year, it is completely natural. judithcurry.com/2012/09/18/skeptics-make-your-best-case-part-ii/#comment-241417
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 20, 2012 19:26:20 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 21, 2012 7:43:18 GMT 1
I suppose this is based on the maxim that if you're going to tell a lie you might as well make it a big one. We know that CO2 has increased due to human emissions. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas which causes the atmosphere to warm. We know that the Arctic has warmed significantly faster than the rest of the world. We know that ice melts when it gets warmer. All this is supported by vast amounts of evidence. Here's just one link to get you started. www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/overview.shtmlIt's not difficult if you approach it with an open mind.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 9:24:43 GMT 1
|
|