Still irrelevant
As soon as it becomes clear that the Sun has more to do with climate change than anything our puny civilisation can throw at it, the wheels will finally come of the global warming gravy train. So it is little wonder that those with snouts in the trough will do anything to play down the effect of the Sun to ensure that man-made CO2 becomes the only “control knob” on the climate system.
Just as “we must get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, now we have “we must get rid of the Little Ice Age”. And finally, they’ve worked out how: blame volcanoes (with a little help from a computer model, naturally):
The Little Ice Age was caused by the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions, and sustained by changes in Arctic ice cover, scientists conclude. [Note that Black says “was caused by” not “may have been caused by” – clearly no doubt here – Ed]
An international research team studied ancient plants from Iceland and Canada, and sediments carried by glaciers.
They say a series of eruptions just before 1300 lowered Arctic temperatures enough for ice sheets to expand.
Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, they say this would have kept the Earth cool for centuries.
The exact definition of the Little Ice Age is disputed [not to mention its very existence by some, like Michael Mann – Ed]. While many studies suggest temperatures fell globally in the 1500s, others suggest the Arctic and sub-Arctic began cooling several centuries previously.
The global dip in temperatures was less than 1C, but parts of Europe cooled more, particularly in winter, with the River Thames in London iced thickly enough to be traversable on foot.
What caused it has been uncertain. The new study, led by Gifford Miller at the University of Colorado at Boulder, US, links back to a series of four explosive volcanic eruptions between about 1250 and 1300 in the tropics, which would have blasted huge clouds of sulphate particles into the upper atmosphere.
But here’s the clincher:
Aerosols from volcanic eruptions usually cool the climate for just a few years.
When the researchers plugged in the sequence of eruptions into a computer model of climate, they found that the short but intense burst of cooling was enough to initiate growth of summer ice sheets around the Arctic Ocean, as well as glaciers.
The extra ice in turn reflected more solar radiation back into space, and weakened the Atlantic ocean circulation commonly known as the Gulf Stream.
“It’s easy to calculate how much colder you could get with volcanoes; but that has no permanence, the skies soon clear,” Dr Miller told BBC News.
“And it was climate modelling that showed how sea ice exports into the North Atlantic set up this self-sustaining feedback process, and that’s how a perturbation of decades can result in a climate shift of centuries.” (source)
When you see the phrase “plugged into a computer model” you know what you’re dealing with.
But “phew” at least for now. What a relief. The headbangers can go on ignoring the Sun and collecting the funding. For now…
Australian Climate Madness 
LOL!
I think that these people really believe the computer models. I used to think that they were just trying to con us. Now I think that they really believe this stuff.
No mention of the CO2 released by the same eruptions.. apparently the climate isn’t as sensitive to the volcanic CO2 as it is the human CO2
How on Earth could 186 billion tons of CO2(global) have the diabolical effect on the climate that 6 billion(man made)tons now come where’s your sense of guilt guys.We are all gona die because of 3% of global (natural) CO2, oh please
put $1 in the bank at 3% compound interest for 30 years and increases by 242%. Put a 20 litre/minute garden hose in an olympic pool with a 500 litre per second circulation rate and will eventually overflow.
Have a look at the fact that co2 has risen 90 ppm over 150 years before a temp rise vs the natural cycle of 80 ppm over 15,000 FOLLOWING a temp rise. The current rise in CO2 have never occurred before during an interglacial and it ‘s never risen anywhere near as fast.
Blind Freddy can see that humans have dramatically affected atmospheric CO2 – the only debate is how much will that effect temperature.
So that’s how.
“humans have dramatically affected atmospheric CO2”
Dramatically affected??? Dear oh dear. Quite frankly (un)balanced you’re rantings are not only starting to get boring …they’re becoming absurd as well. I think it’s high time for your afternoon nap. Why don’t you go and have a lie down before you blow a fuse?
I take you have some quality evidence that either;
* CO2 has NOT risen 90 ppm over 150 years
* or that rises of 90 ppm over 150 years are normal during interglacial
* even that rises of 150 ppm over 150 years have been part of the natural cycle at any point in the last 1,000,000 years.
Rather than ad hominem attacks and over blown guffaws – could please provide some actual information to support your position. dare I say it, put up or shut up. All you seem to offer is abuse.
“All you seem to offer is abuse.”
That’s a big call (un)Balanced?
I’ve been poking fun at you, in a good natured way, I’ll admit to that.
You can’t handle it? tsk tsk. Perhaps you should go back to your sandpit..
Mr Loaded Dog
How about a science based response to my 3 bullet points hit me – I can’t wait.
It fails to mention, they also consulted the official ouija board at Al Gore’s parlor.
[Note that Black says “was caused by” not “may have been caused by” – clearly no doubt here – Ed]
This certainty of the warmenists is nothing less than astounding. Surely this is another religion based on faith…and faith alone. Warming (in lieu of righteousness) by faith as it were.
Did they take into account the effects of sea cucumber turd? I certainly hope so…
Labor and the Greens are just wrapping up their Trust arrangements for the pending retirement.
“What if” goes mad. These alleged scientists are really pissing me off today. They already have their conclusions before they ask the question and explore and investigate properly.
As I recall, someone had to find an appropriate crater before anyone believed Louis Alvarez about a space rock wiping out the dinosaurs.
I guess any volcanoes anywhere will do for this tripe–just like my barbecue will kill the polar bears.
I note with interest that you dismiss the potential that Solar variation is only a minor forcing. Let me guess – you’ll support any assertion (peer reviewed or not) that warming is all about solar variation, (not that you blokes have consistent position on anything – because while some assert that solar activity has been high – others doubt the temp records and suggest there has been no warming anyway). And no doubt you will reject out-of-hand any evidence that Solar variation is small, regardless of the quality of the evidence.
Volcanoes – I have an email from 2002 in which Plimer a) says the ice core data is good b) but, while he took the effort to write a long email, he would not/could not explain; that while the ice core record did record massive eruptions like Taupo (ie dust in the core, aerosols and the cooling) BUT they recorded barely a blip in CO2 and nothing at all enduring, not even that massive eruption. He even specifically told me to look at Taupo – it’s like he didn’t do that very obvious check that himself…. 10 years later – he still runs the “one volcanoe can ruin your day” line but still cannot/will not answer why the CO2 record does not support his assertion But hey don’t let that massive hole in his logic deter you from repeating the baseless assertion about volcanic CO2.
MWP – is broadly accepted by AGW. The key about the MWP is that is was warm for a long period, allowing ice to melt. The assertion is that while we are as warm now or warmer that the MWP – the very simple reason Ice has not yet thawed is that we have only been so for 20-40 years, so the Ice has not yet had time to melt (unlike the first 200 years of the 400 year MWP). And even if if the temp now, is only as warm as the MWP – the other key issue is the rate of change, which is way higher than the MWP.
And – don’t let the good evidence that the Little Ice Age was not global, bother you either. Just dismiss it, assume it’s wrong, because it does not support your case.
“Just don’t tell me the debate is over” – there does not seem to be a genuine debate going on here. I don’t see any even inquisitive discussion of the issues that clearly oppose sceptic case and how they can be addressed – just unconditional support for anything that doubts AGW and unconditional rejection of anything that supports AGW.
As Snowchi has pointed out previously, key questions about the sceptic argument are just ignored and left unanswered. The sceptic argument centers around and exploits both uncertainty and natural variation, and while it dismisses any counter evidence as fraud and conspiracy it fails to provide any alternative ORIGINAL peer reviewed research to support it’s case, (eg just one alternative temperature record or just one alternative CO2 record would be a start).
My mind remains open – here for example is a paper (not yet peer reviewed) that puts modern warming into context, with some of the past variations, showing that current warming (though some of you deny that) it is POSSIBLY normal.
Click to access Neukom_et_al_2010.pdf
I note that a) it does not show the early 2000s warming and does not comment the rate of change. I note it has been cited by sceptics without recognition of the meaning increased uncertainty beyond 1,000 AD. Before you jump onto it has sceptic evidence, note that it clearly supports the MWP (but so does the IPCC) and re-asserts the IPCC position that at 2,000 were about as warm as the MWP, (which some of you oppose).
I’m eagerly awaiting the peer review – because it may provide evidence that climate sensitivity is on the lower side and that would be a good thing, (though one has to be careful – because there is still good evidence otherwise), but it adds to the body of work that builds the probability curves used by the IPCC, (which also accepts there is a possibility that climate sensitivity will be low).
Do you go to RealClimate or Skeptical Science (or indeed the IPCC) and say “I note with interest that you dismiss the potential that Solar variation is a major forcing. Let me guess – you’ll support any assertion (peer reviewed or not) that warming isn’t about solar variation etc etc”. Somehow I doubt it 😉
No, I do not reject evidence out of hand (unlike most warmist sites), I have an open mind too. But all climate websites take a position – ours is one of deep suspicion of the politically driven “consensus”, including the value of peer-review (or pal-review as it should more accurately be called). And always remember that it’s the other side that are the ones urging drastic action, not us. Whether you like it or not, the burden of proof falls squarely on them.
If the Sun’s activity declines substantially over the next few decades, we will discover the true effect on our climate – one way or the other.
One final point, I welcome your comments challenging what is written here (apart from your occasional snide remarks – make your points politely please) as they add to the debate, and that is what I believe is the most important thing.
Ok. I’m sorry If I get snide at times, it just very frustrating when for instance there are assertions that Volcano CO2 emissions far exceed human, when there is no theory or basic observational evidence to support it. yet it’s repeated ad nauseum. (AGW does have rising temp and CO2 even if you don’t believe it, but there is NOTHING supporting the volcanic CO2 argument and prima facie ice core evidence directly opposing it). Worse, the key proponent hasn’t bothered producing any evidence either.
It’s frustrating that I’ve not yet heard from a sceptic that realises that over the last 11 glaciations (800,000 years) temp rose AHEAD of CO2 by 800 years, over a period of 15,000 years AND that what we are seeing now is a CO2 rise of 90 ppm over 150 years, NOT preceded by a temp rise, during an interglacial; this is radical and simply has not occurred before. I’ve not heard a sceptic address this issue. What is the natural cause one in a million year event that has supposedly by sheer arse, occurred in perfect synchronicity with industrialisation. This is one of the elephants in the room not addressed by sceptics.
Yes – I rely on peer review – because the there is a vast body of knowledge required here and no one person knows it all. Carter, Plimer et al – all provide evidence of that.
I accept the idea that there is the potential for political interference in peak bodies – but I find it highly unlikely that it should affect every single peak body on the planet similarly. I would expect some to be influenced the other way given a) the number of right wing governments and b) the extremely good business case for proving AGW wrong. This is why I personally would consider it very significant if just one peak body joined your side of the debate. But not one has. This issue is another inadequately addressed elephant.
I wrote ant essay on “the greenhouse effect” as it was then called in 1988 (at a time when I was un-enquiringly right wing – I’ve since discovered that ideologies are fundamentally un-pragmatic ) as part of a physics project, which I selected because it sounded interesting – solar forcing was being looked at then. It has been considered again and again. But just like AGW – there is not even one peak body that has come out and said they have got even just the solar component wrong. I have not read any peer reviewed evidence that the AGW position on solar forcing is wrong.
Like it or not, the $23 a ton carbon price will shut down la Trobe brown coal – that will indeed have a dramatic impact on Oz CO2. Black coal is unaffected until about $40 a ton. the intent is to start shutting down coal and it will do that. So the assertion that a carbon price is ineffectual in terms of anthropogenic CO2 is baseless. Yes you can argue it wont affect the climate – because you don’t believe – but the carbon price will do what is intended in terms of Oz emissions.
Act on something you say is unproven – what about the obvious risk management argument? Another elephant.
And here is another elephant;
“And always remember that it’s the other side that are the ones urging drastic action, not us. Whether you like it or not, the burden of proof falls squarely on them.”
I suspect that that regardless what the other side presents, you won’t accept it because you are already relying on a highly improbable global conspiracy theory that relies on left wing influences in long term right wing governments and ignores the fact that there is a multi-trillion dollar business case to prove AGW wrong. This reliance on a naive argument – is indeed an issue that leads to snideness on my part. I should avoid it, but I’m only human and I have to type fast, no time for crafting etc. I’m not using the term naive pejoratively here either – I’ve not read a single comprehensive attempt to explain this all encompassing conspiracy that defies strong motives to break it.
I think history will say that humans did increased CO2 and that modern warming did occur – I think where the AGW debate will be won or lost will be on the issue of the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 – very fundamental physics tells us CO2 will add heat – but it’s a complex system and when all the shouting is over – sensitivity might be low or it might be horribly high. the latter is worth avoiding if it’s at all possible and heck – our limited resources would last longer too and that is not a bad thing.
Personally, climate sensitivity is where a rational sceptic argument should focus, I think that is where AGWs greatest weakness lies.
I’m only going to respond to a few of these points. Firstly, even if you assume high sensitivity to CO2, any reduction in Australian emissions is STILL pointless, because of our paltry contribution to the global total. Whether I “believe” or not is irrelevant.
Secondly, like you I get frustrated, but in my case it’s because nobody from the consensus side has publicly acknowledged the significance of Climategate and the fact that scientific integrity in climate science is FUBAR. Deleting emails, avoiding FOI, threatening journals – it’s all swept under the carpet with laughable excuses like “taken out of context”, “normal cut and thrust” of scientific discourse. That, quite frankly, is utter bullshit.
Thirdly, this has nothing to do with Left or Right – any political influence in science is damaging, and I have never claimed it was a left-wing conspiracy – a straw man if ever I saw one.
Finally, I agree that climate sensitivity is the key issue. I have said that all along. I have never “denied” that man-made emissions have some effect on the climate, but it’s all about magnitude relative to natural drivers. So there’s something we can perhaps agree on.
Simon,
I agree that “Climategate” was a disaster for the reputation of AGW science. And that following 7 reviews that found no major flaw in the science, the scientific community has dismissed it and just hoped everybody would just forget about it. It’s been handled badly. But short of agreeing with you – I’m not sure what they could do to gain you trust.
Straw man? Really? How many times has the peak body consensus been blamed by septics on a left driven political interference? In any case, why on earth would th right interfere to support AGW? that doesn’t make sense.
Simon; even If you accept that East Anglia were/are willfully deceptive, are you suggesting that every other peak body on the planet is also being willfully deceptive? Mars rovers etc provide positive proof that are not stupid, know their physics and that their peer review works. So single peak body as bad as East Anglia? Not one is honest?
Why has not the massive funding available for anti-AGW pull just one across the line?
Why would the peak bodies of Russia, South Africa, China, Mexico, Germany and Japan all formally support the willful deception? If you answer nothing else, please explain this.
“Act on something you say is unproven – what about the obvious risk management argument? Another elephant.”
The “risk management argument” ??? Oh please. You must take us for fools.
Principles of risk management
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) identifies the following as an important principle of risk management:
Risk management should:
[PLEASE NOTE] – create value – resources expended to mitigate risk should generally exceed the consequence of inaction, or (as in value engineering), the gain should exceed the pain.
THE GAIN SHOULD EXCEED THE PAIN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management
There is clearly insufficient evidence to tax the hell out of us by implying AGW is a risk management issue. Are you sure you’re not a comedian?
Will we be seeing a tax to mitigate meteor strike based on your interpretation of the “risk management” approach?
By the way “balanced” your mask of alleged impartiality barely covers your religious fervour.
I don’t give a toss what your religion is, but pay your own tithes and offerings please…
In the context of every single peak body on the planet, bar none, supporting AGW – the risk management approach is sound.
That you suggest it’s BS confirms that believe the is no risk you are wrong.
There are those like Rupert Murdoch – who are unsure about AGW – but suggest that action should be taken until proven otherwise. “Earth deserves the benefit of the doubt”..
BTW Loaded Dog – I preume the only way to prove my impartiality would be to agree with you, because every body who doesn’t is a mindless fool, eh?
My my “balanced” You have been busy here today haven’t you?
So much preaching in your latest rantings. But then again, it’s a planetary emergency isn’t it. Got to “spread that gospel”
Here’s a thought. Do you think you’ll get any “converts” here or are we all just heretics damned to hell…err I mean a globe “warming” out of control?
hahaha. You do amuse me…
Nope. I’m not here to convert, but to learn. Which I am doing, thank you. I just enjoy debate and learning. It’s a hobby – It’s better than watching TV in a hotel room.
Majority popular opinion is what matters in terms of elections and policy. You guys are not the swinging voters of AGW. I’m not trying to convert you. It would be like trying win Liberal votes and an MUA bbq. I’m not that unrealistic or narcissistic.
“Nope. I’m not here to convert, but to learn. Which I am doing, thank you.”
Really? How fascinating. Please elaborate. What have you learned (un)balanced?
What have you learned (un)balanced?
Heaps thank you.
* I’d missed Mullers mishandling of the the BEST project – thanks to Bruce for that.
* Simon’s perspective on Climategate was instructive – I’d read the 7 reviews looking to see if the science was actually flawed, and I noted too that the Joint Academies of Russia, China, Japan South Africa etc hadn’t changed their position – so I concluded that the science was intact. But what I’ve missed is the massive damage done to credibility and that the peak bodies need to work to rebuild trust and engage with the public more openly…
* Discussion with Simon christalised to me that sensitivity is where the intelligent debate will be won and lost.
* I stumbled upon new peer reviewed science pointing to lower sensitivity and posted it above, (it will contribute to the next IPCC probability curve)
* I’ve also seen more recent stuff on solar activity, the annual CO2 satellite measurement trends and a whole bunch of other stuff read while researching referenced responses.
I could list all of it but it would be even more boring and self indulgent than it has already been – but you did ask.
“Heaps thank you.”
Why it’s been our pleasure I’m sure (un)balanced. After all, we’re here to help the uninformed.
BTW – references to warmists on this site are often impolite. I’ve been accused of slandering Carter – but some of the things that have been said about many climate scientists are extremely impolite, to put it mildly.
I suspect, that my tone is in part, a reaction to that. but either way, that tone does not improve the debate.
I have thought however, that if you blokes sat in a room with some of the people you have lambasted – you would probably find that most of them are reasonable and intelligent. it would be instructive for them too – I often cringe at the way many scientists put their case.
Let’s not get into a debate about which side is worst at demonising the other (I think you’d lose – remember Hansen’s “crimes against humanity”?).
Remember non-Lord Monkton’s Hitler youth reference?
“Remember non-Lord Monkton’s Hitler youth reference?”
Errrrr…yes…I do…and having seen the footage of the incident he’s referring to and footage of the Hitler youth I’d say he’s pretty close to the mark.
You disagree? hahaha.
you truly ARE amusing…
@Balanced … It’s one thing to add to the debate [snip – must be fair here! Simon]
“Just dismiss it, assume it’s wrong, because it does not support your case.”
Hahaha. Just for the record Mr “Balanced.” My “case” is that I don’t subscribe to the position of a HUGE worldwide tax and trading system that ludicrously claims to address the climate of this planet based on half arsed evidence. Especially when senior members of the beloved IPCC are on record saying its a wealth redistribution program.
“But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” (IPCC global governance knob Ottmar Edenhofer) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/18/ipcc-official-“climate-policy-is-redistributing-the-worlds-wealth”/
You believe what you like buddy, but I personally prefer to see some hard evidence before parting with my hard earned. There’s a name for people who pay up without question..and this is about WAY more than just the climate…
I guess when you’ve only got two dials (GHG and volcanic aerosols) to turn you spin them for all their worth.
Where’s the problem here? If volcanoes caused the the Earth to cool and the Little Ice Age then that’s perfect.
According to the Royal Society, climate change will be responsible for more volcanic eruptions, “Climate change could spark more ‘hazardous’ geological events such as volcanoes, earthquakes and landslides … In papers published by the Royal Society, researches warned that melting ice, sea level rises – predicted consequences of rising temperatures – could affect the Earths crust.”
More heat = more volcanoes = more cooling. Perfect!
G’day,
I tend not to believe this whole AGW thing either but can somebody please have a look at the latest NASA report regarding total Solar Input VS Earths energy output into space, and that it has remained constant regardless of the record two year Solar minimum.
Is there something to this? NASA is usually a pretty credible source.
Here is the link to the findings.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/energy-budget.html
You have to look at the accuracy of the measurements very carefully. The incident and emission radiance measurements are good to about 1%. The energy imbalance that is global warming is about 0.1%. You’d need a precision in the range of 0.01% to adequately detect the global warming (or cooling) signal. Then if you notice that global average temperatures may vary by as much as 0.8 C from year to year, the emissivity necessarily changes with the earth’s temperature as well because you are just looking at black body radiation. It seems like this should be easy but its not.
Sean,
Actually they have it as 0.58 +/- 0.15 – you can’t see this in the press release. So they make the credible claim that they have the accuracy.
here is the full paper
Click to access acp-11-13421-2011.pdf
Here is one of the critiques of their paper as part to of the peer review;
Click to access acpd-11-C10419-2011.pdf
Here is their line by line response;
Click to access acpd-11-C12481-2011.pdf
Hi PB,
Yes NASA is usually a credible source, but Not when the source is that of a pro cAGW activist named James Hansen.
The suns energy signature does match that of earths extremely well, there is a nasa database of sun spots that has had it’s funding terminated, but you can still get the data and use it in excel to compare it with any temperature record and records of major volcanoes.
The cooling caused by major volcanoes can be clearly seen in the data and even the effects of major eruptions do not last as long as Mr Black suggests, Mr Black also believes that aerosols from China has caused the cessation of the rise in global temps over the last 15 years (which he has be severely criticized for including by Prof. Judith Curry) using Blacks own logic, the planets climate would be so sensitive that if one super volcanic eruption were to happen the entire planet would be done-for, but there have been many super volcanic eruptions in the past and the climate has always rapidly recovered.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch.shtml
Just to to clarify what I meant above, volcanoes can be clearly seen in the Instrumental Temperature data NOT the sunspot data. 🙂
Thanks Sparks
That clears things up a bit. I’ll have to look into this James Hansen bloke, in the end I guess NASA is still a Govt funded Beaurocracy, who supply the data to be interpreted…
That’s sensible PB. Blithely, Accept Sparks (qualifications unknown) own personal analysis over NASA’s opinion. But Sparks is probably right because he agrees with you.
“But Sparks is probably right because he agrees with you.”
Hmmm…I assume this is an example of you “learning” (un)balanced? After all, you do love to learn don’t you? It’s one of your hobbies as I recall and it’s far better than sitting in front of the tv..right?
Sparks,
You can’t have it both ways. Either NASA is credible or it’s not.
NASA – not HANSEN – NASA formally supports AGW!
Thanks for your confidence ‘Balanced’, I am glad I have you to think for me and help me make up my own mind. You can stop gloating now and wipe that self important smug grin off your face.
I have indeed looked up James Hansen, and it appears he was arrested in November last year for his efforts. He has been heavily criticised by fellow scientists for his alarmism and making things appear far worse than they actually are. In fact NASA had gagged him for several years, until he complained and they lifted that order last year.
So NASA provides some data and he interpretes it. An interpretation that not all scientists agree with. NASA is not without its own beaurocratic bungling problems either, just look at the state of the US space program currently. Nobody (organisations included) is perfect, which is why I asked the question in the first place.
But its OK you have at least provided some links to the peer review and Hansens answers, but its OK ‘Balanced’, if its all the same with you I will make up my own damn mind based on broad evidence from as many sources as I can find.
One piece of evidence does not a case make, so you can hop off your high horse, and stop replying to your own posts.
BTW since you mentioned qualifcations, care to put yours on the table? You have bagged everyone on here from your position of obvious supremacy…..
I’m not so presumptuous as to assume that I know more about atmospheric physics than those that have spent a career committed to it, working in groups of others similarly experienced in organizations for whom it’s their core business.
You will note that I do not draw ANY of my own scientific conclusions – I rely on the opinions of people that know far more about this than I do.
I another post I was talking to a Geophysicists that started ranting to me after reading Carter. I started my response to him by asking – “What are the chances of me wandering into you field of expertise and discovering something very fundamental that your entire profession has missed and then being able to summarize this point so that other lay people could get their heads around it in 1/2 an hour?” he said I couldn’t. He said – Gee – I haven’t fully though this through have I…..
There is a lot to know here and it’s naeive and somewhat narcissistic to think that lay people, like myself have their heads around all the complexities. This is why I often email lead scientists asking questions and seeking clarifications.
I am not actually making up my own mind on the science (if not the politics and the potential flaws in peak bodies)- I’m relying on the opinions of those that know more than me – It’s a formula that has worked very well for me in business.
“I rely on the opinions of people that know far more about this than I do.”
Sure you do (un)balanced.
People that like…errr Bob Carter and Piers Corbyn to name just two.
Isn’t that right (un)balanced?
Hang on. You’re a “consensus” person aren’t you? Oh, I’m terribly sorry…my mistake. cough cough Galileo..
Oh by the way (un)balanced. Don’t feel too bad. Sheep are consensus persons too. So you’re not alone..
I said “Yes NASA is usually a credible source” and James Hansen is a pro cAGW activist, It is accurate.
Is the source of information coming from James Hansen or Nasa?
make your own mind up!
NASA formally Supports AGW. Hansen is peer reviewed by NASA. If NASA was not happy with his paper, it wouldn’t be published in peer reviewed form – which it is. S0, Hansen is dinky di NASA approved.
BTW – here is a NASA review of the Hansen silencing incident resulting from political interference. This political interference was actually attempting to PLAY DOWN AGW – more evidence as to why you should ask yourselves why no peak body agrees with you. Not even the Russians. Not even peak bodies under anti-AGW political interference.
Click to access OI_STI_Summary.pdf
Ian Plimer, non-Lord Monkton and Bob Carter are all activists – but you trust their demonstrably flawed (see previous posts) , un-peer reviewed science.
Why then does it matter that Hansen is an activist? Your logic is not consistent. It’s OK for a sceptic to be an activist but not OK for an AGW supporter to be an activist?
The reason Hansen is an activist – is that on the basis of what he’s seen, his judgment is that we are in trouble – big trouble – in that context, looking at it from his perspective, he is doing everything he humanly can to address what he believes is a genuine risk. You may not agree with him, but I note you are not pragmatic enough to at least respect him for standing up for what he believes in …
Mr Loaded Dog
a) Note my qualification above – ” those that have spent a career committed to it, working in groups of others similarly experienced in organizations for whom it’s their core business”
Ian Plimer and Bob Carter – do not in any way fit into this category. they have spent their distinguished careers in areas out side climate research. See the Plimer/contrarian for prima facie evidence of their basic blunders in this field.
Mr Loaded Dog
“Sheep are consensus persons too.”
What you don’t know – is that I make a living out of questioning the way people do things. Nobody who knows me thinks I’m a sheep – rather the opposite. We do, what we do, differently to everybody in our space and it works.
Critically, to understand complex processes and to test our thinking, we hire grey haired subject matter experts – they know these processes like nobody else. Compared to them, beginners and lay people do not have a clue. The climate is only more complex and for this reason, I see it as only logical to seek the guidance of such people. Hence my reliance on the types I have previously described.
“Compared to them, beginners and lay people do not have a clue.”
What an arrogant, presumptuous and religiously flavoured statement Mr (un)Balanced. Perhaps you might “critically analyse” yourself.
Here’s something that might help your investigation.
You have NO idea who I am or what my field is yet you presume to find it necessary to boast of your “qualifications” to boost your case.
So amusing…
Mr Loaded Dog.
Please note that my last comment here was in direct response to your multiple sad hominem assertion that I am somehow a mindless follower. My response was only in indicate that a) I am not and b) where I do challenge perceptions, I rely on the knowledge of the best available process experts.
Until now (see the mild one above above) I have not made any personal judgments of you, despite your numerous personal attacks on me, which do not, in my opinion, contribute to the debate.
1 “Please note that my last comment here was in direct response to your multiple sad hominem assertion”
It’s a pity you find them “sad” because I find them…and you…quite amusing.
2 “that I am somehow a mindless follower.”
hahaha. I’ve been following your responses above and contrary to your attempts to present yourself as “balanced” you are indeed quite clearly demonstrating that you are nothing more than a conceited, mindless follower.
I can’t be bothered cocking my leg on any more of your replies on this thread (un)Balanced. It’s called wasting time.
But consider your posts marked…
The only trouble with the volcano-LIA link is that T and solar output coincide so well. Kind of like claiming its colder at night because on some nights there are less clouds and heat escapes- yes sometimes there are less clouds, but that’s not the primary reason its colder at night than in the day.
Poor old sun, never gets the recognition it deserves, its Galileo all over again. And the reason why is the same as in Galileo’s days, because bureaucrats and bureacratic-minded scientists cant control the sun, so its no use recognising or appreciating its central importance.
Balanced January 31, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Re your assertion that:
“The assertion is that while we are as warm now or warmer that the MWP – the very simple reason Ice has not yet thawed is that we have only been so for 20-40 years, so the Ice has not yet had time to melt (unlike the first 200 years of the 400 year MWP).”
If you go to Norway as I did last year, walk up to one of the glaciers, while walking up you will come to a point where the glacier had reached some 200 years ago. Then you have to walk for another kilometer or two to reach the glacier. So your “20-40 years..not yet had time to melt” is just a lie that the warmist blogs you are have indoctrinated your brain with.
I would recommend that you go for a walk……………..
You’ve missed the point. Not that I’m at all sure how your glacier having melted now opposes AGW.
The extent of the ice sheet in Greenland was significantly less during the MWP allowing settlement in the south.
BTW – I’m talking ice sheets not glaciers and I’m talking about temp relative to the MWP. Not modern glacier retreat.
Balanced,
You should not just defer to authority on AGW, you seem like a smart person. There is some simple math you can do on a pocket calculator to dimension GW and estimate sensitivity for yourself. Try these
1. Over the last 100 PPM rise in CO2 global temps rose about 0.6 deg C, now the IPCC estimates say each doubling of CO2 causes about 3 degrees of temperature rise, and they also assert that the Temp to CO2 relationship follows a log law, so each linear rise in CO2 causes less than the last by the natural logarithm of the change. This IPCC are therefore saying the next 370 PPM will cause 3 degrees temperature rise. Because of the log law most rise must occur with the earliest change and the IPCC are therefore theorising that about 1 degree will occur for the next 100 PPM. Now ask yourself, if the last 100 PPM caused 0.6 deg, how can the next 100PPM cause 1 degrees if the relationship follows a log law? The next 100 PPM must cause LESS than the last 0.6 degree rise.
Note that as we are comparing apples to apples, including all feedbacks, this comparison takes into account all the feedbacks – so please don’t just yell feedback…
2. Science asserts that the total greenhouse warming for the planet from all sources (including all feedbacks) is about 33 degrees. We can estimate a maximum limit to CO2 warming by postulating what would happen if the atmosphere were 100 % CO2. Currently CO2 absorbs 85% of all the radiation in its stop band, leaving 15%. Therefore it can change by 15/85 or 17% of its current value. After this there is no more radiation to absorb, and the warming stops.
If we assume that CO2 controls ALL the 33 degree warming then the total greehouse effect aught to be able to increase by 17% of 33 degrees which is about 5.2 degrees, remembering that this assumes the atmosphere is 100% CO2 and that CO2 causes ALL the 33 degree warming so far. Now the IPCC reckons we can increase warming by more than this, before we even get to 1600 PPM or 0.0016 of the atmosphere being CO2!
Again, all the feedbacks are active in the 33 degree figure and so extrapolating the rise so far, to that of 100% CO2 also includes feedbacks.
Clearly this shows a disconnect with the observed warming so far (33 deg) and the IPCC official sensitivity.
3. The history of the earth acording to geologists started with a largely CO2 atmosphere (maybe 0.98 CO2) which after the birth of life has been gradually scaled back over the millenia to as little as 0.00028. The migration long term is just one way, toward a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. Given this is our gelogical history, how can anyone assert that there are tipping points that lead back to where we started, clearly the biosphere is biassed greatly toward a Nitrogen/Oxygen atmosphere and couldn’t disruptively switch back to a CO2 atmosphere while life still exists on the planet. Remember – it got from 0.98 right down to 0.00028 all by itself, despite the gigatons of CO2 pouring into the biosphere every year. If anything we should be worried that natural CO2 emissions will decline and life will be extinguished through plant starvation. The heralded 280 PPM pre industrial figure bandied about is perilously close to that.
Check this yourself, do the sums on your pocket calculator or in excel. Don’t believe the higher authorities, do it yourself.
I used to be a believer until I did this simple math and looked at the geologic past, until someone can adequately explain why my simple math doesn’t stack up, and how we can suddenly tip back to a CO2 atmosphere given that the driver is clearly biassed heavilly to Nitrogen/Oxygen for all CO2 concentrations up to 0.98 CO2 Atmosphere, I will remain sceptical.
Do the math, and until someone explains the contradictions to you, you should also remain sceptical…
Bob
@Balanced
“Hansen is peer reviewed by NASA”
James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and who is a proponent of AGW and a known activist against human energy consumption, What’s that you say? He is peer reviewed by NASA the very same organization which he has influence in as a director, without even pointing out the obvious that Hansen’s “man made global warming” predictions have been WRONG, you have an issue when I say “Yes NASA is usually a credible source, but Not when the source is that of a pro cAGW activist named James Hansen.”.
That’s a remarkable position to take!
“That’s a remarkable position to take!”
Not really. After all “balanced” actually believes the theory of AGW has credibility.
That very fact should dispel any surprise you may find at any “position” he takes.