How you were swindled from the truth - the great global warming swindle lies debunked for good

I have already awnsered that question before... It is for the simple fact that there must be other factors linked to Climate Change which control CO2 levels.

Climate Changes are not always exactly the same.

Why is it that sometimes Climate Change happens faster than at other times?...

Why is it that some of the past Climate Changes have been within a decade, yet at others it has taken hundreds of years for it to occur?...

Simply because as i said, the factors that affect the climate, and CO2 levels as well as other GHGs are different in every Climate Change.

As i already excerpted from a research paper, during the last three deglaciations and after hundreds of years of warming CO2 levels have increased from 80 ppm, to 100ppm.... and this current warming started happening right after the Little Ice Age, and lo and behold, centuries later CO2 levels started increasing.

Yes, mankind has been releasing CO2, but there is no conclusive evidence, despite the numbers you keep pulling out of your behind, that most of the CO2 increase was caused by human activities.

If we also look at other past Climate Changes we see that CO2 has always lagged temperatures, despite the claims of some.

Remember that little graph which shows CO2 in correlation to temperatures for the last 600 million years?

If CO2 causes as much warming as some claim it does, why is it that they do not coincide when looking at the overal timeline of CO2 and temperatures during millions of years?



And if we look at both temperature and CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years, we see that CO2 lags temperatures, sometimes the lag is 80 years, sometimes the lag is 800, and as I remember the longest lag has been 1,200 years. Why does the lag of CO2 differ so much between Climate Changes?

Why does CO2 only increase after warming has been ongoing for decades or even hundreds of years when looking at the last 100,000 years?

BTW, one more thing, you always seem to forget that there have been some natural factors which affect the climate and are happening now, but the last time they happened was over 780,000 years ago.

I am talking about the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, the last time the Earth magnetic field was as weak as it is now was around 780,000 years ago.



That is just an example of a factor which does affect Climate Change and it hasn't happened for at least 780,000 years.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

First of all proof of climate changes of the past, and even abrupt climate changes is not primarily based on ice core analysis.

No? What other proxies do we have then?

Description
The climate record for the past 100,000 years clearly indicates that the climate system has undergone periodic and often extreme shifts, sometimes in as little as a decade or less.

I guess based on records from the paleolithic met office is it?

Or, just possibly, it's a reference to Alley's ice core analysis

Just do a search on the RWP Essan, it is common knowledge that event did not last as long as the MWP or the current warming cycle...

I'm not talking about duration - I'm asking why you refer to it as an example of Abrupt Climate Change.

Originally posted by Essan
Much higher? Data please? I know many places experienced higher temps during the Holocene Climatic Optimum (c10-6kya) - although it seems not all places at the same time. I'm not aware for evidence of significantly higher temps since.

....i have given data from Africa, North America/Canada, Japan, China, and several European countries in which these events were recorded in the geological record as having occurred at about the same time globally....

Er, my question was evidence of such warming subsequent to the mid Holocene ..... Or are you saying you have data showing that all of these regions have experienced higher temps than today during the RWP or MWP?

The five-hundred-year reconstruction is characterised by a temperature increase of approximately 0.5 K, with most of the warming occurring in the 19th and 20th centuries. The 17th century was the coolest interval of the five-century reconstruction.

The warming of Australia over the past five
centuries is only about half that experienced by the continents of the Northern Hemisphere in the same time interval.

Following the train of thought of the AGW crowd i guess the above proves that the current warming event is not global huh?....

Actually, I'd say it's a predominantly N Hemisphere event Largely because the S Hemisphere is dominated by ocean and Antarctica.


But none of this answers my questions about abrupt climate change. You have provided no evidence for abrupt climate change other than ice cores, no evidence of research into such matters other than that carried out by those who support AGW theory, no evidence for non catastrophic causes of it, and no evidence that the RWP and MWP saw warming occur at a faster rate than today.


All in all, the whole side issue of Abrupt Climate Change is a red herring. And it's main relevance in modern climate discussion revolves around the possibility of catastrophic ice melt in the Arctic causing a repeat of the 8.2 kya event occurring in the near future!

Originally posted by Muaddib
And if we look at both temperature and CO2 levels for the last 100,000 years, we see that CO2 lags temperatures, sometimes the lag is 80 years, sometimes the lag is 800, and as I remember the longest lag has been 1,200 years. Why does the lag of CO2 differ so much between Climate Changes?

Well we do have to assume that ice core analysis is correct - especially given that most of those involved in it also support AGW - so their reliability might be in question

But seriously, I thought everyone knew that temp can affect CO2 and CO2 can affect temp - change one and the other changes.

Now, it's possible on that basis that current rises in CO2 - as in the past - are caused by rises in temp. But in that case, where is all the extra CO2 being produced by human activity going? And, indeed, why is CO2 rising ahead of and faster than temp?

btw on that chart of past temp/CO2 that you keep posting, the CO2 and Tempo record for the past 500,000 years would look like this:

Temp ------------
CO2 ------------

In other words, the scale isn't sufficient to show the difference between an ice age and an interglacial. So why show it? We all know that temp and CO2 are affected by things like continental configuration and solar brilliance and when these were totally difference, so too were temp and CO2. But what's the relevance of showing changes on timescales of millions of years when we're talking timescales of decades?

The fact that there was a different relationship between CO2 and temp when there were no living things on the planet and the sun's output was half what it is today really doesn't have the slightest, teeniset, weeniest bit of relevance

BTW, one more thing, you always seem to forget that there have been some natural factors which affect the climate and are happening now, but the last time they happened was over 780,000 years ago.

I am talking about the weakening of the Earth's magnetic field, the last time the Earth magnetic field was as weak as it is now was around 780,000 years ago.

That is just an example of a factor which does affect Climate Change and it hasn't happened for at least 780,000 years.

Unfortunately we don't have any [proxy data to determine whether the last magnetic reversal affected climate, or if so, in what ways. So I'm not sure why you mention this?

Originally posted by Essan

No? What other proxies do we have then?

Tree rings, stalagmites, Radiocarbon-dated lake sediments, radiocarbon-dated ocean sediments, sediment organic matter, diatom-inferred lakewater pH, chironomid-inferred July air temperatures, the annual rings of calcium carbonate grown by certain corals, etc.

Need me to name more?

Originally posted by Essan
I guess based on records from the paleolithic met office is it?

Or, just possibly, it's a reference to Alley's ice core analysis

Buy the book and read it if you want to find out.

Originally posted by Essan
I'm not talking about duration - I'm asking why you refer to it as an example of Abrupt Climate Change.

I didn't say it was an abrupt event.... i said it happened faster than the current Climate Change we are undergoing, and was faster than the MWP, and that can be easily corroborated by the known fact that the RWP was not only warmer than the MWP and today, but temperatures reached their highest point in less time than during the MWP or the current warming....

The Roman Warming Event or Roman Warming Period started around 250 AD, and ended in 450 AD....that's two hundred years... The Medieval Warming event lasted more than twice the RWP, and it took longer to reach the higher temperatures, and the present warming event is still ongoing and it has been going for 400-500 years, if we take into account that for some parts of the world the warming started in the 1500s.

Do you understand now why i said the Roman Warm Event was faster than the present warming event, or than the Medieval Warm Event?

Originally posted by Essan

Er, my question was evidence of such warming subsequent to the mid Holocene ..... Or are you saying you have data showing that all of these regions have experienced higher temps than today during the RWP or MWP?

.....I just gave several excerpts from research done around the world and some of them state these events were global, and others state the RWP and the MWP were warmer than it is today....

Originally posted by Essan
Actually, I'd say it's a predominantly N Hemisphere event

Largely because the S Hemisphere is dominated by ocean and Antarctica.

The South Hemisphere also warms, but it takes longer because as you said, there is more water in the southern hemisphere, which takes longer to warm.

Originally posted by Essan
But none of this answers my questions about abrupt climate change. You have provided no evidence for abrupt climate change other than ice cores, no evidence of research into such matters other than that carried out by those who support AGW theory, no evidence for non catastrophic causes of it, and no evidence that the RWP and MWP saw warming occur at a faster rate than today.

.... excuse me?.... Dr. Akasofu is not an AGW believer... and i have presented dozens of research work which proves either you are blind, or you alongside with melatonin try to dismiss all research which refutes your claims because you don't want to accept the fact that you are wrong....

Originally posted by Essan
All in all, the whole side issue of Abrupt Climate Change is a red herring. And it's main relevance in modern climate discussion revolves around the possibility of catastrophic ice melt in the Arctic causing a repeat of the 8.2 kya event occurring in the near future!

All in all, the red herring is being presented by you and some others such as melatonin.... You are presented with evidence which destroys your religion, because that's what it appears to be, and you try to dismiss it and will probably continue to try to dismiss it until the day you die.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
You are presented with evidence which destroys your religion, because that's what it appears to be, and you try to dismiss it and will probably continue to try to dismiss it until the day you die.

I used to call myself a Climate Sceptic - until I discovered that many of the so-called sceptics weren't interested in the truth at all, had firmly made up their minds, automatically refuted anything that dares question their dogmatic beliefs and, min short, were no different to those who subscribe to catastrophic AGW........ so you could say that my religion has already been destroyed

However ...... for the references you cited with regards the RWP and MWP being warmer in some places than today. I was honestly unaware of that research (in my defence I don't really look at much stuff after about 5,000 year ago as my main interest is with regards the ice ages). Although I did still question the supposed rapidity of temp rises in the RWP.

Remember also that for such things we're reliant on proxy data - such as that used by Mann etal


I think Melatonin makes a good point about CO2 levels though - I'm sure I may have mentioned it myself on past occasions too - if CO2 is linked to temp, why did CO2 levels not rise when it was warmer during the RWP and MWP? Or, indeed, as I'm sure I've asked before, during the early/mid Holocene when even AGWites like Hansen acknowledge it was at least as warm as today?

The only explanation is that current CO2 levels are determined by human activity.

Which in turn means that, unless we can prove Arrhenius wrong, temps should also be rising.....

Originally posted by Essan

Well we do have to assume that ice core analysis is correct - especially given that most of those involved in it also support AGW - so their reliability might be in question

That's a claim of yours which you have yet to present proof that you are right...

Originally posted by Essan
But seriously, I thought everyone knew that temp can affect CO2 and CO2 can affect temp - change one and the other changes.

I thought everyone knew that CO2 do not affect temperatures as much as you and some others claim... such as the fact that imitating conditions in the U.S. midwest and doubling CO2 to 760 ppm would only increase temperatures by a whooping 0.014C...

I have presented this in the past, and i am sure you have seen it but somehow you forgotten again, if you want to see it again just do a search on the forums...

Originally posted by Essan
Now, it's possible on that basis that current rises in CO2 - as in the past - are caused by rises in temp. But in that case, where is all the extra CO2 being produced by human activity going? And, indeed, why is CO2 rising ahead of and faster than temp?

Oh my, oh my...where has all the CO2 gone to in the past?... if CO2 wasn't absorbed by the oceans, lakes, soil, trees, bamboo, etc etc we would be having over 7,380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now wouldn't we?

Originally posted by Essan
In other words, the scale isn't sufficient to show the difference between an ice age and an interglacial. So why show it? We all know that temp and CO2 are affected by things like continental configuration and solar brilliance and when these were totally difference, so too were temp and CO2. But what's the relevance of showing changes on timescales of millions of years when we're talking timescales of decades?

If CO2 does the warming you and some others claim it does then it wouldn't matter how many million of years ago it was that CO2 levels were higher than they are today...tempreratures should be increasing dramatically as well...but we don't see that neither looking at temp vs CO2 in timescales of millions of years, and we don't see that either in timescales of thousands of years, nor decades...

Why was it that during the 1940s, during the height of weapons production and WWII that temperatures were cooler meanwhile CO2 levels were increasing?....

And that was not the only time when during the present warming event CO2 levels were high yet the climate was fluctuation between warm and cold....

Originally posted by Essan
The fact that there was a different relationship between CO2 and temp when there were no living things on the planet and the sun's output was half what it is today really doesn't have the slightest, teeniset, weeniest bit of relevance

The fact that even if we look at temperature and CO2 in the last 60 years and find that temperatures have been cooler for years when CO2 levels were increasing, and temperatures were fluctuating when CO2 were constantly rising "doesn't have the slightest, teeniest, weeniest bit of relevance" heh?

Originally posted by Essan
Unfortunately we don't have any [proxy data to determine whether the last magnetic reversal affected climate, or if so, in what ways. So I'm not sure why you mention this?

Really?.....

Geomagnetic Links to Climate Change and Orbital Cycles

Abstract

Years of speculation, newly recognized mechanisms for interactions, and a sparse but expanding number of observations support some form of link between geomagnetic field variability and climate change and/or orbital cycles.
...........................

adsabs.harvard.edu...

Originally posted by Essan

I think Melatonin makes a good point about CO2 levels though - I'm sure I may have mentioned it myself on past occasions too - if CO2 is linked to temp, why did CO2 levels not rise when it was warmer during the RWP and MWP? Or, indeed, as I'm sure I've asked before, during the early/mid Holocene when even AGWites like Hansen acknowledge it was at least as warm as today?

The only explanation is that current CO2 levels are determined by human activity.

Au cointraire mon ami, if the rise of CO2 levels causes as much warming as some claim, then we would have seen that everytime CO2 levels increase warming should increase dramatically, but that does not happen, and that's without counting the fact that temperatures always rise for several decades, centuries, and sometimes even after over a millenia before CO2 levels rise.

Why were we going through a cool period when CO2 levels were dramatically increasing during the 1940s?...

Why is it that "most of the warming happened up an until the 1940s", then it was relatively cooler until the 1980s then it started to get warmer again, meanwhile CO2 levels were constantly rising since the 1860s?

Originally posted by Essan
Which in turn means that, unless we can prove Arrhenius wrong, temps should also be rising.....

As if scientists haven't been proven wrong in the past....

Arrhenius did very little work on climatology and geophysics, and his theories relied greatly on the observation and experiments of other scientists.

Arrhenius was a good scientist for his time, but that does not mean all his theories are right.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Essan

I used to call myself a Climate Sceptic -
..................

I kind of doubt anyone could be a "climate skeptic". You doubt the climate?

I think you mean you were an AGW skeptic, which you might say so now but i kind of doubt it sorry to say.

I can't see any real AGW skeptic changing his mind so quick, when you yourself have even stated in this thread you were not aware of much of the research i excerpted, and I don't remember you ever being an AGW skeptic at any time during the time you have been in the forums.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by Essan

Well we do have to assume that ice core analysis is correct - especially given that most of those involved in it also support AGW - so their reliability might be in question

That's a claim of yours which you have yet to present proof that you are right...

As you well know the idea of Abrupt Climate Change originated with Richard Alley's analysis of the Greenland ice cores. Alley contributed to the IPCC 4AR on this very subject.

I'm not personally aware of anyone who has studied ice cores who directly refutes AGW theory.

Originally posted by Essan
But seriously, I thought everyone knew that temp can affect CO2 and CO2 can affect temp - change one and the other changes.

I thought everyone knew that CO2 do not affect temperatures as much as you and some others claim... such as the fact that imitating conditions in the U.S. midwest and doubling CO2 to 760 ppm would only increase temperatures by a whooping 0.014C...

Not aware of that research - but that's one small part of one small region of the world - and we all know that global warming doesn't mean that everywhere necessarily get warmer.

btw if what you say is true, it suggests even more strongly that human activity is directly responsible for late 20th century warming in the USA - re Minnis etal 2003 - aircraft contrails could explain all the observed warming, and if we assume on this basis that increased CO2 doesn't then it seems even more likely.

Originally posted by Essan
Now, it's possible on that basis that current rises in CO2 - as in the past - are caused by rises in temp. But in that case, where is all the extra CO2 being produced by human activity going? And, indeed, why is CO2 rising ahead of and faster than temp?

Oh my, oh my...where has all the CO2 gone to in the past?... if CO2 wasn't absorbed by the oceans, lakes, soil, trees, bamboo, etc etc we would be having over 7,380 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere right now wouldn't we?

Ah yes, the carbon cycle. Which one can add to without having any effect eh? Anyway, if extra human produced CO2 is so absorbed, why isn;t the extra CO2 released by the oceans in accordance with the 'CO2 first' theory?

We know that more CO2 is being released from somewhere than can be absorbed, because CO2 levels are rising. We know that humans are releasing more and more CO2 every year. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.

If CO2 does the warming you and some others claim it does then it wouldn't matter how many million of years ago it was that CO2 levels were higher than they are today...tempreratures should be increasing dramatically as well...

No, becasue other factors were different. Without current CO2 levels in the past global temps would have been much, much colder because the sun was colder ....

Why was it that during the 1940s, during the height of weapons production and WWII that temperatures were cooler meanwhile CO2 levels were increasing?....

Sulphur emissions and other pollution - which had a cooling effect greater than the warming effect of the CO2. However, CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere and we've recently reached the stage where the warming effect of CO2 finally outweighs the cooling effect of sulphur etc.

Originally posted by Essan
Unfortunately we don't have any [proxy data to determine whether the last magnetic reversal affected climate, or if so, in what ways. So I'm not sure why you mention this?

Really?.....

Geomagnetic Links to Climate Change and Orbital Cycles

Abstract

Years of speculation, newly recognized mechanisms for interactions, and a sparse but expanding number of observations support some form of link between geomagnetic field variability and climate change and/or orbital cycles.
...........................

"some form of link" "and/or orbital cycles" - hardly conclusive


(I actually think you're likely to be right. But I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say so)



The difference between you and I is that you've made up your mind whereas I remain sceptical

Edit I should say that I remain sceptical about many assertions made by those who believe and those who oppose AGW. I am not sceptical about humans causing regional climate change. On that I'm now quite certain.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by Essan]

Originally posted by Muaddib

I kind of doubt anyone could be a "climate skeptic". You doubt the climate?

One uses it in a colloquial sense, being a long time member of the Yahoo climatesceptics group along with many leading sceptics of AGW

I believe that CO2 is rising due to human activity and that in time it will have an impact on global temps - though not that advocated by supporters of AGW . I also consider other human activity to be more important with regards climate change. However various natural oscillations are also involved and the exact relationship is extremely complicated.

And I prefer the term Multi Regional Climate Change rather than AGW - which is so misleading (some people still think it means the whole world gets warmer every year! ).


Incidently, I'm not the only sceptic who spends most of his time arguing with other 'sceptics' - my friend Hans Erren does too. I think it's because we're not quite so dogmatic about it all

Originally posted by Muaddib
I have already awnsered that question before... It is for the simple fact that there must be other factors linked to Climate Change which control CO2 levels.

Ah so, now playing the 'who knows' card for why climate change in the past 2000 years didn't lead to CO2 increases, give up on trying to associate this one with a little bit of warming in the 1600s. You have no reason to think it would. Just total ad-hoc BS. We know where the CO2 is coming from.

We know that glacial cycles are associated with changes in CO2. We see it repeatedly in the proxies. We also see that current CO2 levels are greater than anytime in the last 650,000 at least by about 30%. Think of all those periods like the MWP during inter-glacials over 650,000 years, and apparently not ONE led to +380ppm levels of C02. In fact, CO2 has barely been above 300ppm in all that time.

Again, just for effect. Not ONE period during interglacial in at least 650,000 years.

We also see a number of periods were CO2 doesn't lag temperatures. Just like currently.

Weaker magnetic field = more cosmic rays = cooler climate. According to the likes of Svensmark. I guess we should look forward to whenever this happens. Pity the cosmic ray data shows nowt.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by melatonin]

Just cos I like muaddib so much, I got him a present...



leg-end:

(Fig. 2b). Vertical and horizontal error bars correspond to standard deviations of intensity means and age brackets of the dated sites, respectively. The geomagnetic field intensity variations in Paris deduced from geomagnetic field models [28] from 1850 onwards are indicated by small crosses. Climatic variations during the past millennium deduced from retreats and advances of the Alpine glaciers (i.e. from the Grosser Aletsch and Groner glaciers [24]) are shown in Fig. 2c. Cooling periods are indicated in Fig. 2a and b by shaded bands (see text for further explanation; note that we consider for the past millennium the cooling period extents discussed in ref. [4]).

Y. Gallet, A. Genevey, F. Fluteau, Does Earth's magnetic field secular variation control centennial climate change ? Earth and Planetary Science Letters Volume 236, Issues 1-2, 30 July 2005, Pages 339-347

Don't say I never do anything for you muaddib. When you're next in Cuba, you can pick me up some of those fancy cigars

A quick perusal of the data from 1820'ish years onwards is worthwhile.

Enjoy.

And cos I'm in a playful mood...





Come on muaddib. Write your stuff up. You know it makes sense. Then you could send people your paper, rather than repeatedly post the same stuff over and over. Got to save time and effort in the long run, you might even be labelled the new Galileo.

[edit on 16-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Essan

As you well know the idea of Abrupt Climate Change originated with Richard Alley's analysis of the Greenland ice cores. Alley contributed to the IPCC 4AR on this very subject.

I am failing to see exactly what relevance does it have who did or did not discover the concept of Abrupt Climate Change... but if you actually want to give credence to anyone about the discovery on Abrupt Climate Change, there have been many scientists, mostly metereologists who in the early decades of the 20th century especulated about the possibility of Abrupt Climate Change, but it was in 1925 that climate expert C. E. P. Brooks made a more concise theory about Abrupt Climate Change.

Anyways...there are several proxies used to study Climate Change and or Abrupt Climate Change, and based on all the research some other members and I have presented several times in these forums there is actually more evidence that contradicts the AGW claim, than evidence which supports it.

Originally posted by Essan
I'm not personally aware of anyone who has studied ice cores who directly refutes AGW theory.

How exactly do you think that gives any more credence to the AGW claim?

Originally posted by Essan
Not aware of that research - but that's one small part of one small region of the world - and we all know that global warming doesn't mean that everywhere necessarily get warmer.

Ah, so CO2 magically only warms dramatically some parts of the world while other parts of the world have no significant warming due to CO2... I guess that makes sense to you and melatonin.

Originally posted by Essan
btw if what you say is true, it suggests even more strongly that human activity is directly responsible for late 20th century warming in the USA - re Minnis etal 2003 - aircraft contrails could explain all the observed warming, and if we assume on this basis that increased CO2 doesn't then it seems even more likely.

do you make up stuff as you go along?... Have you already forgotten the research done for 6 years which shows cirrus clouds are decreasing instead of increasing? High flying aircraft also can form cirrus clouds if they persist long enough, and the AGW crowd claimed because we have more aircraft flying this would cause more warming, yet the oposite is happening.

Originally posted by Essan

Ah yes, the carbon cycle. Which one can add to without having any effect eh? Anyway, if extra human produced CO2 is so absorbed, why isn;t the extra CO2 released by the oceans in accordance with the 'CO2 first' theory?

Again, it does have "an insignificant" effect, it hasn't been proven to have any significant effect despite the claims of some.

Water vapor accounts for 90% - 98% of the greenhouse gas effect, yet i don't see you trying to blame it for Global Warming...maybe it has to do with the fact that 99.9% of water vapor being produced is known to be natural...

Originally posted by Essan
We know that more CO2 is being released from somewhere than can be absorbed, because CO2 levels are rising. We know that humans are releasing more and more CO2 every year. Doesn't take a genius to put 2 and 2 together.

We know that after glaciations warming events do occur, which increases CO2 naturally 80 ppm to 100 ppm. The last three deglaciations show this.

The current warming started right after the Little Ice Age, temperatures have been increasing since the 1600s for most of the world and in some areas of the world the warming started in the 1500s, over 260 -360 years later CO2 levels began to increase, when temperatures had been increasing without any help from CO2 for 260-360 years.

Since after the past three deglaciations there has always been warming which has been on going for a few hundred years, and then CO2 levels increased "naturally up to 100 ppm", and since the Earth just came out of another deglaciation after the LIA, "it does not take a genious to realize that the increase in CO2 levels which happen to be 100 ppm, is mostly natural, since that's exactly what has happened during the last 3 deglaciations.

Originally posted by Essan
No, becasue other factors were different. Without current CO2 levels in the past global temps would have been much, much colder because the sun was colder ....

A claim with no evidence to corroborate it...

Anyways, the current Solar Cycle is supposed to be up to 50% stronger than the last 4 Solar Cycles, but Solar Cycle # 25, which peaks in 2020, is predicted to be the weakest in centuries. This means all the claims from the AGW crowd that by the year 2100 temperatures are going to be up to 7F are BS, we will most probably go into another LIA event or an event similar to the LIA.

Originally posted by Essan
Sulphur emissions and other pollution - which had a cooling effect greater than the warming effect of the CO2. However, CO2 lasts longer in the atmosphere and we've recently reached the stage where the warming effect of CO2 finally outweighs the cooling effect of sulphur etc.

Nope, first of all you still have given any evidence that CO2 causes the warming that you and some others claim it does.

Second you, among some others, are still dismissing and ignoring the fact that during warming cycles water vapor amounts increase more than most other GHGs, and it is known that not only does water vapor retains more than twice the amount of heat than CO2 does, but it also exists in greater quantities in the atmosphere.

Most of the warming being caused by GHGs is because of water vapor, not CO2.

Originally posted by Essan
"some form of link" "and/or orbital cycles" - hardly conclusive

(I actually think you're likely to be right. But I don't think there's sufficient evidence to say so)

Essan, we know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field is in a weaker state which Earth hasn't experienced in 780,000 years, we also know for a fact that the Sun's magnetic field is also weakening, and we know for a fact that for example during the LIA, when there were only a few rare sunspots, the magnetic field of the Sun was weak, the climate on Earth was affected and Earth was ushered into the Little Ice Age.

The Sun's magnetic field is again weakening, but now we have to add the fact that the Earth's own magnetic field is also weakening, and btw the EArth's magnetic field has been weakening since 1845.

Here is another research which shows that the Sun's magnetic field also affect Earth.

We are getting a double whammy from what happened during the LIA by around 2017-2028 give or take a couple years.

New investigations of a tiny star in the constellation of Pegasus have provided a novel insight into the Sun and its potential impact on Earth.
An international team of astronomers[1] have developed a new understanding of how stars, including the Sun, generate their magnetic fields. The new finding may help develop further understanding of how changes in the magnetic field of the Sun impact on Earth's climate. The researchers from France, Scotland and the USA made a crucial discovery when studying a small ultra-cool star 20 light-years from the Sun. The researchers used new methods to make the first magnetic map of the star, and found that this ultra-cool star has a very simple magnetic field, much like that of the Earth.

They explained: "Studying magnetic fields of stars is a novel way of studying the magnetic field of our Sun. Although it always looks the same, the Sun is variable, and the changes in its magnetic field, although small, appear to affect the Earth's climate. Scientists think that a well-documented decrease in the Sun's magnetic activity is the most probable cause of the Little Ice Age, the cool period that prevailed on Earth from the 15th to the 18th century."
The star, named V374 Pegasi, lies about 20 light-years from the Sun, in the constellation of Pegasus. Although it is one of the Sun's closest stellar neighbours - much nearer to us than most of the stars visible in the night sky - V374 Peg is more than 100 times too faint to see with the unaided eye. It is an ultra-cool star, one-third of the size of the Sun, with a surface temperature of only 2900 C, in contrast to the Sun's 5500 C.

www.cfht.hawaii.edu...

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Muaddib]

BTW melatonin...

I prefer this sort of graph....



Ah, one more thing, I didn't make any of that stuff up "melatonin"...everything I say i back with research and i don't pull it from my behind like you do most of the time.

You don't want to accept any research which destroys your religion, i am not the one trying to blame Global Warming/ Climate Change on mankind, you are...

I guess you must think people have to be as naive as you are when you stated that "you leave politicians the decision on what to do", or something to that accord...

I guess people have to dismiss all the research which shows this imaginary claim of AGW of yours and some others is complete BS, and people have to accept the "flawed/rigged research by Mann, Wang, Jones et al"....or that people have to accept the math and figures you keep pulling from your behind all the time...not even Mann would dare to make some of the claims you have made, about anthropogenic CO2 being 95% - 100% the cause of the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.... You are the one who obviously wants to write up some of that stuff you pull out of nowhere....

[edit on 17-8-2007 by Muaddib]

Originally posted by Muaddib
Have you already forgotten the research done for 6 years which shows cirrus clouds are decreasing instead of increasing?

Obviously you've forgotten that the research you refer to showed that in the past, warm period in the tropics resulted in decreased cirrus clouds in the tropics ......

Of course, most manmade cirrus clouds occur at higher latitudes

High flying aircraft also can form cirrus clouds if they persist long enough, and the AGW crowd claimed because we have more aircraft flying this would cause more warming, yet the oposite is happening.

Are you saying that it's getting colder then?

Since after the past three deglaciations there has always been warming which has been on going for a few hundred years, and then CO2 levels increased "naturally up to 100 ppm", and since the Earth just came out of another deglaciation after the LIA, "it does not take a genious to realize that the increase in CO2 levels which happen to be 100 ppm, is mostly natural, since that's exactly what has happened during the last 3 deglaciations.

Except the LIA wasn't a glaciation and there was no drop in CO2 levels associated with it, as is the case during glacials

Nope, first of all you still have given any evidence that CO2 causes the warming that you and some others claim it does.

I thought you understood the theory ) And by 'some others' I guess you mean all the world's leading climatologists? Try reading a book on global warming, there are plenty in the bookshops. They'll explain the theory better than me.

(the fact I think the theory is not entirely right, and that CO2 is not the primary cause of climate change, being neither here nor there )

Essan, we know for a fact that the Earth's magnetic field is in a weaker state which Earth hasn't experienced in 780,000 years,

I don't know that for a fact. There have been a number geomagnetic excursions since the last full reversal and I'd have thought the magnetic field would have been weaker than today during such events?

you might be interested in the latest alledged revision of climate data, which apparently went unreported by the media.

www.dailytech.com...

My earlier column this week detailed the work of a volunteer team to assess problems with US temperature data used for climate modeling. One of these people is Steve McIntyre, who operates the site climateaudit.org. While inspecting historical temperature graphs, he noticed a strange discontinuity, or "jump" in many locations, all occurring around the time of January, 2000.

These graphs were created by NASA's Reto Ruedy and James Hansen (who shot to fame when he accused the administration of trying to censor his views on climate change). Hansen refused to provide McKintyre with the algorithm used to generate graph data, so McKintyre reverse-engineered it. The result appeared to be a Y2K bug in the handling of the raw data.

alternative source: newsbusters.org...


i admit that i have not seen any official announcement of the fac,t although i have originally found out about these rather late 'corrections' in the local news and a quick search did not yield much.

if this is true, which should be easily established with a bit of patience, the whole AGW argument has been demolished to its core, however.

Originally posted by Muaddib
BTW melatonin...

I prefer this sort of graph....

Why?

Doesn't tell us much about the work the french dudes are doing on geomagnetism. You know the group whose conference abstract you posted earlier.

Like trying to pin jello to the wall, as the american saying goes.

Originally posted by Long Lance
if this is true, which should be easily established with a bit of patience, the whole AGW argument has been demolished to its core, however.

Joking, yeah? It was a pretty insignificant alteration in the data. Quite embarrassing for the NASA dudes at Goddard, but says nothing about the AGW argument.

It's a bit like saying that the adjustments to the Christy et al. satellite data which went from no trend to warming means that AGW is certainly true.

Both arguments are pretty naff.

[edit on 17-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin
Why?

hummm, i don't know...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that because it shows the persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene?.... but instead of course melatonin wants to show us a graph for Paris as if that proves his point...

Originally posted by Muaddib
hummm, i don't know...perhaps it has something to do with the fact that because it shows the persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene?.... but instead of course melatonin wants to show us a graph for Paris as if that proves his point...

Well, if the discussion at that point was about solar influence on holocene climate, then maybe it would make sense.

Otherwise, it would make more sense to present data taken from a paper from authors whose work you were trying to use to make a point. Looking further into research you thought was relevant and was quoting makes perfect sense, no?

Which I did, just for you. But you decided to ignore it and go on another digression.



[edit on 17-8-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Long Lance
you might be interested in the latest alledged revision of climate data, which apparently went unreported by the media.

Thanks for the link Long Lance.

Oh and btw, it appears that slowly but surely the international community is waking up to the fact that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were Global Events despite the hard work by Mann et al to try to dismiss these Climate Change events continuously.

I have presented several articles from around the world which say those were global events. Here is another one that i hadn't seen before.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 June 13; 103(24): 8937–8942.
Published online 2006 June 1. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.
Copyright © 2006 by The National Academy of Sciences of the USA
Geology
Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes
P. J. Polissar,*† M. B. Abbott,‡ A. P. Wolfe,§ M. Bezada,¶ V. Rull,‖ and R. S. Bradley*
*Department of Geosciences, Morrill Science Center, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003;
‡Geology and Planetary Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260;
§Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E3;
¶Departamento de Ciencias de la Tierra, Universidad Pedagógica Experimental Libertador, Avenida Paez, El Paraíso, Caracas, Venezuela; and
‖Departament de Biologia Animal, Vegetal, i Ecologia, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, 08193 Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain
†To whom correspondence should be sent at the present address: Department of Geosciences, 411 Deike Building, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802., E-mail: [email protected]
Communicated by H. E. Wright, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, April 17, 2006.
Author contributions: M.B.A., A.P.W., and R.S.B. designed research; P.J.P., M.B.A., A.P.W., M.B., and V.R. performed research; P.J.P., M.B.A., M.B., V.R., and R.S.B. analyzed data; and P.J.P., M.B.A., A.P.W., and V.R. wrote the paper.
Received June 20, 2005.
.....................
During the past millennium, significant climatic fluctuations have occurred. Prominent among these is the Little Ice Age (LIA), recognized in historical records (e.g., ref. 1) and documented in proxy climate records from many locations (2). Although the LIA was a significant global event (3), its causes and regional differences in the timing and climatic response remain unclear (2, 4). This uncertainty is particularly true in the tropics, where well dated records with sufficient temporal resolution to resolve decadal changes in climate are sparse (2). Better knowledge of tropical climate during the LIA will help determine its causes and aid in the prediction of future climatic change.

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

I wonder when Mann et al, and their crowd of faithful followers are going to stop trying to claim differently.

Perhaps their continuous dismissal of these events being global have somehting to do with the fact that once the AGW crowd accepts what the rest of the world knows not only that the RWP, the MWP and the LIA were global events, but that Climate Change is a natural cycle, their AGW claim will crumble like a deck of cards.

[edit on 18-8-2007 by Muaddib]