|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 21, 2012 9:59:46 GMT 1
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. None of these is evidence of "anthropogenic" or even "global" warming, nickrr. "Global warming" is a statistical construct merely. The globe actually warms and cools on a regional and local basis that the variation in CO2 comes nowhere close to tracking. For sure, the purported "polar" amplification is not happening at the South Pole! Knowing that something happens does not tell us why. Various phenomena have been "known" and even predictable before they were ever understood. In particular, knowledge of the carbon cycle, where CO2 it comes from and where it goes, is a bit of a mystery if truth be told. "When it gets warmer". Ay, there's the rub. That is precisely what YOU don't have a handle on and never will since you blinker yourself with a preoccupation with CO2. Why not give a little consideration to "sunshine hours", for example? Even when "sunshine hours" are acknowledged to be increasing, and new research from China and Spain show they have been, the cause is still not REALLY understood. Is it the solar wind from an "active sun" driving off galactic radiation, warming the tropical oceans a little more than usual and the warmth then carried northward by ocean currents? Or is it a still inexplicable random shift in the trade winds across the equatorial Pacific blowing the clouds away triggered perhaps by a particular orientation of cyclones? All these things are interconnected, nickrr, in feedback loops and no-one really know what causes what, so stop pretending. What is known is that the top two meters of the ocean contain more heat than the entire atmosphere and this warmth comes direct from the sun not from any IR "back radiation" from CO2. Let's have a bit less of the tail wagging the dog, please, nickrr. YOU could start widening YOUR understanding of heat transport with this www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2012/state-of-the-climate-2011-ocean-heat and then read this very lucid account of El Nino/La Nina "Who Turned on the Heat" by Bob Tisdale pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/09/04/announcement-bob-tisdales-new-book-who-turned-on-the-heat-the-unsuspected-global-warming-culprit-el-nino-southern-oscillation/ Enquiring minds, with a little more mental agility that you, nickrr, want credible answers not assertions. An open mind is precisely what you lack. "Begging the question" is what comes to mind. In case you have trouble with that phrase, it means assuming already known that which is under investigation.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 22, 2012 18:37:25 GMT 1
We do. And methane, and water vapour.
No, we do not. It's a hypothesis that has yet to be confirmed in any way. As a scientific theory, it's actually been disconfirmed - the predictions arising from its simple mathematical basis have been way off the mark. Something else is going on, of far more powerful significance - that's all we know.
There are obvious thermodynamical reasons for that.
We also know that the measured rise in atmospheric temp is not adequate to account for such melting. It's a result of warmth in ocean currents, evidently. We know that this warmth is a result of an increasingly active sun for the past 150 years - in particular, the past 40 years. This additional heat then gets transported to the Arctic, and is dumped into the atmosphere. We know that this arises primarily from the ENSO cycle, El Ninos and La Ninas - all this correlates very closely with the temperature record, of both the oceans and the atmosphere. We also know that this correlates with the planetary orbits vis-a-vis the Sun, producing long-term cyclic dances around the barycentre, driving the sunspot cycles.
What else do we know? We know that the unusually active sun that has primarily caused the warming global temps of the past century has now reversed into an unusually queiscent phase, that is going to last for at least 30 years, according to all heliomagnetic indications. We know that the primary ocean current driver for the warming of the Arctic has also recently reversed, from a warming to a cooling cycle. We know that the El Nino/La Nina proportion has also recently reversed, from a known warming effect to its contrary.
Everything we know, therefore, indicates that we have just entered into a decades long cooling phase. Ocean temps and Arctic melting will obviously lag behind this start, because of the immense amount of excess heat it has to disspipate from the preceding warming cycle. The first indication will be in atmospheric temps, particularly in the troposphere. These confirm the indications - we've entered a cool cycle. Looking at the principal drivers of that cycle, the heavy planets, would produce a conservative estimate that this cycle will last for at least 90 years.
All the data corroborates this complex hypothesis. All the data contradicts the simple hypothesis that global warming has been due to CO2 emissions (though this may have been a minor contributing factor - or may not: either way, it's insignificant.)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2012 20:01:16 GMT 1
Well, stated!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 22, 2012 20:45:30 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by nickrr on Sept 23, 2012 20:11:13 GMT 1
mrsonde,
You appear even battier than the other deniers around here. Someone who thinks that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is not even worth debating with.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 24, 2012 4:08:18 GMT 1
mrsonde, You appear even battier than the other deniers around here. Someone who thinks that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas is not even worth debating with. And you appear to have a very limited attention span. Ten days exhausts it, it would seem. I repeat: But I can understand why you don't want to debate the matter. I would be reluctant too, if all I had in my armoury was a centuries-old theory whose predictions have consistently proven incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 24, 2012 21:35:21 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2012 11:20:05 GMT 1
Here is me, (back of my head anyway) on a visit to the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge yesterday. Accompanied by two other real enthusiasts for understanding climate, (one to them a retired glaciologist and former colleague of the Director) I spent more than three hours with Prof Dowdeswell and had a fascinating insight into polar research and into the views of a real empirical researcher into what is happening at the Poles. VERY hard to get a handle on, unsurprisingly, since we are only scraping at the surface of understanding. Can models predict climate one hundred years into the future? The verdict from the Prof, no chance! Will the planet's climate in 5 thousand years, courtesy of the Milankovitch cycles, be a LOT colder than today? Very likely! Altogether, what we expected we were going encounter, we did - a very reasonable man who certainly did not call sceptics "deniers" and is willing to acknowledge the role of natural variation . See also this account of our visit. tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/visit-to-scott-polar-research-institute/#more-8606
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 25, 2012 13:58:29 GMT 1
Here is me, (back of my head anyway) on a visit to the Scott Polar Research Institute in Cambridge yesterday. Accompanied by two other real enthusiasts for understanding climate, one to them a retired glaciologist and former colleague of the Director, I spent more than three hours with Prof Dowdeswell and had a fascinating insight into polar research and into the views of a real empirical researcher into what is happening at the Poles. VERY hard to get a handle on, unsurprisingly, since we are only scraping at the surface of understanding. Can models predict climate one hundred years into the future? The verdict from the Prof, No chance! Will the planet's climate in 5 thousand years, courtesy of the Milankovitch cycles, be a LOT colder than today? Very likely! Altogether, what we expected we were going encounter, we did - a very reasonable man who certainly did not call sceptics "deniers" and is willing to acknowledge the role of natural variation . See also this account of our visit. tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/visit-to-scott-polar-research-institute/#more-8606Very interesting, Marchesa. I'd have liked to have been there. (This is significantly different from "I'd liked to have been there" or "I'd have liked to be there", in case Jean is following your peregrinations.) Does the centre study the magnetic poles too? I'm increasingly convinced, the more I look into it, that the shifts in pole axes and changes in the strength and shape of the geomagnetic field are one of the most important key factors (amongst several others) that "normal" climate science has overlooked. I don't just mean historically, for millenial term reconstruction, for which it's crucial. I mean on a day-to-day and certainly decades long basis. One of the things I'd like to ask him was how he accounts for the fact that less than ten thousand years ago, in the depths of an extensive Ice Age, there were temperate plants growing widespread in the Antarctic, and buttercups being eaten by temperate zone mammals well within the present Arctic Circle.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2012 16:23:27 GMT 1
From RonC on Bishop Hill Warmists and skeptics look at the world through very different lenses. Warmists see positive feedbacks and tipping points everywhere, and the Arctic is one of their big ones. Skeptics see negative feedbacks characteristic of a climate system oscillating between stable states.
This year's melt is exciting because maybe, just maybe, Nature is conducting an experiment in the Arctic from which we can learn. A step-change of 8% reduction of ice extent from the previous 2007 low presents an opportunity to test over the coming years how the climate responds: either accelerating the melting, or recovering the ice. Also, we shall see how the weather is impacted by more open water this year.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 25, 2012 16:30:02 GMT 1
Mr Sonde, there is a blogger called Vukcevic who is very keen on Global Geo Magnetic Flux changes and the relationship to temperature and solar radiation. Google him!
We did not get on to the subject of the magnetic poles yesterday, alas (not that I would have understood it if we did).
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 4:21:00 GMT 1
Mr Sonde, there is a blogger called Vukcevic who is very keen on Global Magnetic Flux changes and the relationship to temperature and solar radiation. Google him! Thankyou. I shall. Now - what's going on with them at the moment is genuine reason to be worried. Nothing in it for the greens though, so at least we can be thankful for that.
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 26, 2012 4:30:46 GMT 1
Though, on second thoughts, that won't stop them claiming it's all down to steel and electricity production, no doubt, and the world desperately needs an urgent return to the Stone Age. Run by them, of course - through appropriate gender-balanced committee consultation, naturally.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 26, 2012 18:23:26 GMT 1
Not only "gender-balanced", Mr Sonde. We don't want to discriminate against anyone at all, do we?
|
|
|
Post by mrsonde on Sept 27, 2012 23:24:27 GMT 1
Ummmm...Plebs. I'm fed up with all them plebs.
|
|