------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Patred_Cow]

You see there's sense in that. The scientific establishment would be incredibly weakened if there was nobody challenging it. Sometimes though it seems like it's just being done for the sake of it. Challenge it when there are grounds to, I'm all for that and I advocate doing so myself but I just fail to see the grounds for it here at the moment. The time may come but there's no value in jumping the gun.

and integrity and trust kind of go hand in hand. one breeds or even destroys the other.

[Paradox]

[quote="Patred_Cow"]

You do not need to agree with me but I would appreciate it if your arguments against my views were reasonable and based on something truly tangible.

You are the one fixated on a diagnosis and cure. I simply believe we need a second opinion.

[Patred_Cow]

Not really. You were advocating abandoning this theory in favour of most any other theory. Second opinions are what science is all about! It's there to be challenged, that's the basis of it. We need second opinions and every report confirming this evidence is a second opinion as is every one that disagrees with it. We don't need to encourage a second opinion because they're rolling in all the time. I'm not even promoting cure, diagnosis is something that interests me and it is clear from your desire for a second opinion that diagnosis is what you're driving at too.

[Patred_Cow]

Paradox:

I'll take a 90% probability and run with it

Is that not the figure the IPCC recently gave us? A figure which they've been gradually raising as the relationship becomes more clear..

[Skeptic]

Simple said :

Skeptic please commercially funded research is always reported biased to show what the company wants to show, or is never reported at all if its bad. The man has been paid by a company who have openly admitted they paid money to skew science.

Ever heard of the falsifiability principle? It is a very basic scientific principle.

All scientific ideas, including global warming alarmist ideas, must be put to the test by people who are trying to prove them false. This action ultimately strengthens any ideas that happen to be correct. It eliminates ideas that are wrong.

In other words, climatology needs sceptics like Prof Michaels who will test certain dogmas with an intention of proving them wrong.

Anyway, it is totally wrong to pursue debate in this thread or anywhere else by character assassination. You have no more idea than anyone else as to how competent and honest Prof. Michaels is. You are simply quoting some probably nasty individual who chooses to sling mud. As I said before, the only thing that mud slinging proves, is that the slinger is an asshole.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Patred_Cow

Not really. You were advocating abandoning this theory in favour of most any other theory. Second opinions are what science is all about! It's there to be challenged, that's the basis of it. We need second opinions and every report confirming this evidence is a second opinion as is every one that disagrees with it. We don't need to encourage a second opinion because they're rolling in all the time. I'm not even promoting cure, diagnosis is something that interests me and it is clear from your desire for a second opinion that diagnosis is what you're driving at too.

Hi P.C.,

I meant 'second opinion' in a different context. However, I do see that we are on the same page in some respects. That is why I was surprised by your defensiveness.

I am defending the middle ground which is where this issue should (in my opinion) remain until the results of current studies sheds more light on our situation. By combating both sides of the aisle and pointing out a need for elaboration on many new theories and hypotheses I believe I am forwarding a worthwhile cause. My position is not indefensible, nor is yours. This lends credence to my belief about a middle ground.

You missed my point on the 90% figure. I think it is meaningless coming from the IPCC. IMO the figure should be at 20-30% which does not exclude the possibility that we are affecting the climate.

We are going to disagree and this is healthy. I apologize if I have offended you and look forward to continued exploration of this mystery.

What a time we live in!

Good night,

Paradox

[Paradox]

Freeze 'condemned Neanderthals'

Light shed on Southern Ocean climate change link

Outback dust may slow climate change: scientists

[Simple]

Come on Simple.... We don't know if we're warming or cooling...or both. regionally we are experiencing extremes but chaos does not support your view.

I have to correct this we don't whether a cooling event may be triggered next due the amount of fresh cold water entering the oceans but we do know that the last 30years warming at ~0.2C a decade has occured and this is fast, very fast, the fastest I can find from reports. The same degree of rise over a 1000 years is rapid and thats only once CO2 has chipped in and all the natural forcings must have been present in the past even if we don't even know them all yet they were present.

The civilisation losses tend to be regional although Peru seems particularly prone as the EL Nino imposes its local effects. Also localised warming in Greenland would have a massive local effect and global sea levels effect, add in the ice sheet over North America and all the floods etc can be explained by a hot North cold South.

Man has been arround for 3 million years and has therefore survived several climate changes and has built civilisations for 5-6000 at least and have therefore witnessed several changes in climate although I'm not aware of a world wide loss despite the potential of flooding as the large North American Ice sheets melt.

Putting all the natural forcings into the models that are proving reasonably accurate only produce the warming we are witnessing by adding in man's CO2 amplified by the H2O and relative humidity thing. CO2 is a strong positive forcing in the current balance of forcings and therefore putting more into the atmosphere seems to be tempting providence to me and oil will run out one day so why not just try to go zero GHG now and leave a legacy our decandants can build on.

[Simple]

Michaels has also engaged in controversy regarding the impact of CFCs on the ozone layer. In particular, he has criticised predictions of thinning of the ozone layer over the Arctic, and of increasing ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the earth, in the absence of a phaseout CFC emissions. The Montreal Protocol of 1987 required such a phaseout.

The scientific controversy over the relationship between CFCs and the ozone layer was resolved by 1995, when the Nobel Prize for Chemistry was awarded to Paul Crutzen , Mario Molina, and Sherwood Rowland for their work on the formation and decomposition of ozone. However, Michaels continued to criticise the CFC phaseout as late as 2001 [10].


Reference: Michaels, P.J., S.F. Singer, and P.C. Knappenberger, "Analyzing ultraviolet-B radiation--is there a trend?", Science, 264, 1341-1342, May 27 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Michaels

All this has to do with basic physics, which isn't real hard to understand. It has been known since 1872 that as we emit more and more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere, each increment results in less and less warming. In other words, the first changes produce the most warming, and subsequent ones produce a bit less, and so on. But we also assume carbon dioxide continues to go into the atmosphere at an ever-increasing rate. In other words, the increase from year-to-year isn't constant, but itself is increasing. The effect of increasing the rate of carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with the fact that more and more carbon dioxide produces less and less warming compels our climate projections for the future warming to be pretty much a straight line. Translation: Once human beings start to warm the climate, they do so at a constant rate.

http://washingtontimes.com/commentar...5235-5134r.htm

This is a correct statement yet allows a total misconception. The easiest analogy is insulation in the building. The first 10mm of insulation put on a wall creates the largest percentage difference in preventing heat from passing out the house. However when you add the next 10mm the effect of the first 10mm doesn't dissappear it gets added on. As more and more is added the percentage saving of heat loss through the wall decreases for every 10mm. Therefore if you have a lot on already say a metre adding another 10mm makes a negligible difference. However if you plot a graph of thickness against effect at first there is a steep increase in effect which then platos and after which adding further insulation has very little effect, however adding insulation in the steep part of the graph has a large effect or we would all insulate our homes with only 10mm of insulation.

Now carbon dioxide concentrations are still in the very steep part of the graph and therefore although adding an extra 10ppm now has less effect than adding 10ppm did in the 1950's it still has a considerable effect and this is effect is well accounted for in the models. Also remember that a lot of the extra heat has been taken up the Ocean's (80%) and a lot is being taken up by the latent heat of melting at present, and SO2 was effetively shielding us from 1940-1990, and most warming didn't start to occur until the late 70's early 80's and has accelerated.

After about 700-1000ppm adding extra CO2 has hardly any extra (and remember what Micheals is talking about is extra effects not overall actual effects) effect at all on the overall warming forcing of CO2 but it doesn't decrease it at all either its just the overall postive foricing effect tends to eventually plateau. This why the world in the past quite happily had concentrations of CO2 in the thousands and was cold as a CO2 conc of 4000ppm million has an overall similiar warming effect as say a 1000ppm.

The way he puts it one could think that putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere causes less and less warming to occur, whereas in reality the more CO2 you add its effect is always added to what is already there i.e. it is accumulative and the more you add the more warming you get always espeacially in the steep part of graph, which is where the CO2 concentrations are currently in. Also remember 1.6w/m2 is a large forcing and will continue to increase as we put more CO2 into the atmosphere its just the percentage increase in the overall foricng decreases for the same amount of CO2 added the higher CO2 levels get, not that the overall forcing decreases any and this relationship is well known and used in the models which have been verified against observation.

He clearly was wrong about ozone skeptic, and if look up his colleagues on papers like Singer they have been wrong also about glacial melt etc.

The science is out there in none commercially funded research and there is a fairly clear cause and effect that has been verified in the laboratory, in CPU models and in direct observation. I am not trying to be alarmist Skeptic its just the actual facts are alarming and if it wasn't for skewed science being presented to the public maybe we would have done something about by now. Unfortuneately of course we have all become very attached to our high carbon lifestyles and will beleive anything not to give it up despite that the fact that the alternative good be actually better if we worked on it properly and together.

[Simple]

Hi P,

There are swings in the world's temperature it seems that can be quite large and rapid, several degrees over a thousand years or so. These swings are due to the combined effects of all the natural forcings following the naturally oscillation in the sun's intensity that is known to change on several different time scales, 11 years, 22 years, to thousands of years and so on.

These oscillations in the world's temperature cause feedback mechanisms to be activated that accelerate the rate of warming or cooling and amplify the effect of the sun.

Is it the case do you think that the larger and more rapid the oscillation one way the more rapid the swing back, very hot to very cold quickly, over thousand years or so?

If that is the case even though CO2 is currently amplifying hot trends a sudden cooling of the sea could cause a large increase in CO2 absorption dropping that forcing, closing the NAD, sudden Ice sheet formation or at least sudden increases in snow area, leading to increase albedo, and a rapid cooling, which could tie in with a drop in sun's intensity that is about to happen after 2012.

This scenario may not happen although either way putting more CO2 into the atmosphere if the NAD remains intact will cause a massive heating or it will accelerate the Greenland Ice Sheet melt to such an extent that we get a missive cooling, either way though CO2 will be making it worse?

A paradox cold swing due to intensive warming maybe??