Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

CO2 it says, I dont even disagree. Again you misunderstand the argument, we are talking "man".

There also papers that dispute the ice cores for carbon, I have no idea which is right or wrong, neither do you, plus they fracture when extracted and out gas

Now explain where that CO2 came from, you cant because no one monitors natural syncs

Natural CO2 is proven to not be driven by temp. Temp drives CO2. Your 800.000 year chart shows that fact btw
The question is "is man made CO2, which is a fraction, 5% of all CO2, driving temp?". A full 0.2% of the atmosphere like

 

I mean ffs, man made Co2 has only matched with temp for 18 years.
Sun activity for as long as we have records, 400 years.

It's staring people in the face ffs

 

The conclusion reached by all but the deniers is an unequivocal YES.

 

That's my home insurance ****ed.

Look, this planet, and its flora and fauna, will adjust to whatever. Isn't that the Gaia principle? I appreciate that. But let me come back to my original, naive (?) point : the times they are a changing, we can't control the sun, so why don't we do something about the things we can control? Shouldn't we be looking to wean ourselves off fossil fuels anyway, when we have solar, wind and tidal power there for the taking anyway?

Don't get me wrong, some of these 'Good Life' solutions are bourgeoisie bullshit, quaint and tacky, imho, when we're making our last mines redundant and importing cheap, slave-labour coal from Colombia. But simply chucking up more and more CO2 into a globally warming environment will just accelerate the ineviatable when we need to buy time to make ineviatable adjustments to human habitation, won't it?

Look, I truly can't be arsed getting into human/solar cause of temperature rising, but rising it is, and you yourself don't deny that wil have long-term (beneficial?) changes to the earth's habitat - fertile deserts sounds great. but in the meantime, as we move the human population from coasts and valleys to higher plateaus and erect ever-more expensive flood barriers, can't we try and slow the process just a tad?

 

I'll come back you Donga when I have time, just wanted to pop this in as example of the self delusion of the science.
Here we have the claimed problem that causes a supposed feedback.

please log in to view this image

As can be seen, the IRR comes in and is blocked from escaping, this is not disputed by anyone. But do you notice what is missing from this process.

In case you cant see it, it's the solar IRR that the CO2 blocks, incoming radiation from the sun which prevents warming of the surface #halfscience

 

So you're claiming that the entire premise of CO2 leading to temperature increase is fundamentally wrong then?

The physics is flawed and the theory is therefore incorrect? Is that your basic belief?

 

I'm confused. I'm obviously no expert at this stuff, but I thought that (and global temperature rises) were givens. And i tend to get most of this stuff from the Telegraph, which is definitely NOT on the side of the tree-huggers.

I wish I'd paid more attention to all of this now.

Edit: Wasn't the premise to the reverse of the global snowball theory that volcanic activity increased the CO2 levels and thus led to warming?

 

Anyone seen the fire in the Dubai hotel today, scary what a few chairs and carpets can do

 

Bullshit, literally.
Have you not read any of the posts Sisu has made or even glanced at the documented evidence he has produced, there is a lot of it and, as yet, I have seen nothing to refute it.
Yes he C&Ps, what else can anyone do to get over/prove a point? Do you have anything at all from a source outside IPCC to discredit what he has posted?

 

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.


Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Earth-orbiting satellites and other technological advances have enabled scientists to see the big picture, collecting many different types of information about our planet and its climate on a global scale. This body of data, collected over many years, reveals the signals of a changing climate.

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many instruments flown by NASA. There is no question that increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Ice cores drawn from Greenland, Antarctica, and tropical mountain glaciers show that the Earth’s climate responds to changes in greenhouse gas levels. They also show that in the past, large changes in climate have happened very quickly, geologically-speaking: in tens of years, not in millions or even thousands.3

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling:

• please log in to view this image
  
  Republic of Maldives: Vulnerable to sea level rise. Credit: Chumash Maxim/Shutterstock.com
  
  Sea level rise
  Global sea level rose about 17 centimeters (6.7 inches) in the last century. The rate in the last decade, however, is nearly double that of the last century.4
  
  5Most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s, with the 20 warmest years having occurred since 1981 and with all 10 of the warmest years occurring in the past 12 years.6 Even though the 2000s witnessed a solar output decline resulting in an unusually deep solar minimum in 2007-2009, surface temperatures continue to increase.7
  
  8
  
  9
  
  10
  
  11
  
  12,13 This increase is the result of humans emitting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and hence more being absorbed into the oceans. The amount of carbon dioxide absorbed by the upper layer of the oceans is increasing by about 2 billion tons per year.14,15
  
  16
  
  2281-2306
  
  V. Ramaswamy et.al., “Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling,” Science 311 (24 February 2006), 1138-1141
  
  B.D. Santer et.al., “Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes,” Science vol. 301 (25 July 2003), 479-483.
  
  
• In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.
  
  
• National Research Council (NRC), 2006. Surface Temperature Reconstructions For the Last 2,000 Years. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
  
  
• Church, J. A. and N.J. White (2006), A 20th century acceleration in global sea level rise, Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L01602, doi:10.1029/2005GL024826.
  
  The global sea level estimate described in this work can be downloaded from the CSIRO website.
  
  
• https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/
  
  http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature
  
  http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp
  
  
• T.C. Peterson et.al., "State of the Climate in 2008," Special Supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, v. 90, no. 8, August 2009, pp. S17-S18.
  
  
• I. Allison et.al., The Copenhagen Diagnosis: Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science, UNSW Climate Change Research Center, Sydney, Australia, 2009, p. 11
  
  http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/
  
  http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/ 01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm
  
  
• Levitus, et al, "Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems," Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L07608 (2009).
  
  
• L. Polyak, et.al., “History of Sea Ice in the Arctic,” in Past Climate Variability and Change in the Arctic and at High Latitudes, U.S. Geological Survey, Climate Change Science Program Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.2, January 2009, chapter 7
  
  R. Kwok and D. A. Rothrock, “Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESAT records: 1958-2008,” Geophysical Research Letters, v. 36, paper no. L15501, 2009
  
  http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html
  
  
• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  World Glacier Monitoring Service
  
  
• http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei.html
  
  
• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What is Ocean Acidification?
  
  
• http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean Acidification
  
  
• C. L. Sabine et.al., “The Oceanic Sink for Anthropogenic CO2,” Science vol. 305 (16 July 2004), 367-371
  
  
• Copenhagen Diagnosis, p. 36.
  
  
• National Snow and Ice Data Center
  
  C. Derksen and R. Brown, "Spring snow cover extent reductions in the 2008-2012 period exceeding climate model projections," GRL, 39:L19504
  
  http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/snow_extent.html
  
  Rutgers University Global Snow Lab, Data History Accessed August 29, 2011.
  
  
  
  You guys do the reading, if you are stupid or ignorant enough to deny fact then there is no hope for you.

 

Have you read any of Susu's links or looked at the graphs?
The links you have posted (that work) are either quoting IPCC literature or worded like in such a way as to say "this is fact, be scared".
I am old enough to remember these same people telling us all we were heading for a mini ice age (well over a hundred years into the industrial revolution and well into the age of satellite measuring), they have now conveniently forgotten all that.

 

You have managed to read all my links already?

I doubt you have and just decided that you are right.

 

No mate, just clicked on a few and skimmed them. I decided I was right about 10 years ago

 

Can you explain to me about carbon credits?
You are given a limit to reduce global warming/climate change and you don't use it all (good for the world).
But guess what, you can sell what you don't use to somebody else (because it makes no difference)

 

I envy you (or anyone else in this discussion) that certainty. Just getting back to my newbie questions, is it:

a) beyond doubt that CO2 levels in atmosphere effect the temperature?

b) The climate is warmining, and this effects weather and sea levels?

Truly not trying to be smart nor allocating blame here, just wondering if something is happening, why that is happening, should we do something about it, and can we do something about it.

 

He copied that straight from a site page and didn't read one of those links mate, and has read none of my posts

he called me an oil shill and a carbon shill, me, someone who has been ragging on Oil companies for years

Meanwhile, I know you can be down with sensible argument mate. Note the rise in temp from 1910 to about 1940 .75 degrees, the same rate of warming exactly as 1960 to 2000. Thing is, man made CO2 only correlates with temperature from 1980 to 1998. That's it, at no other point in history has our CO2 correlated with temperature, and for the millions of years record we have, CO2 never matches with temperature as it was 1000s of ppm in ice ages

please log in to view this image

In fact the 1910 and 1940 trend looks slightly greater. The arctic in 1917 was wide open for shipping, you'd not be able to do that today, Canadian expedition in July had to be cancelled in Hudson bay cos they were frozen in like


I don't respond to pasted links he did not read, I post a link and explain the argument and put work into my posts, the 3 minute experts hunt for a link and paste it. Then accuse me of doing that

BTW NASA have changed this data since it was pointed out about the same rates of warming. Still note the plateau from 98 onwards, that is a flat trend

Meanwhile they deny the planet has not warmed in mean temp in 18 years yet there is a huge list of excuses from the IPCC as to why this "pause" happened.

Tobes said this is not true, even though it is backed by several data sets, though not backed by GISS, the single record that backs it.

please log in to view this image

So apparently this is not true but.. the scientists he believes have said it is true. Only NASA GISS fraud say it didn't happen, even the UK CRU data (RAW) says .7 degrees warming in 120 years ffs.
This is copy and pasted, I read much of it, and would happily elaborate on any of it.

Climate scientists excuses for why global warming stopped, that pause that is now claimed never happened

1) Low solar activity <this is hilarious given the amount of time the IPCC said the sun has no real bearing

2) Oceans ate the global warming [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

3) Chinese coal use [debunked]

4) Montreal Protocol

5) What ‘pause’? [debunked] [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

6) Volcanic aerosols [debunked]

7) Stratospheric Water Vapor

8) Faster Pacific trade winds [debunked]

9) Stadium Waves

10) ‘Coincidence!’

11) Pine aerosols

12) It’s “not so unusual” and “no more than natural variability”

13) “Scientists looking at the wrong ‘lousy’ data” http://

14) Cold nights getting colder in Northern Hemisphere

15) We forgot to cherry-pick models in tune with natural variability [debunked]

16) Negative phase of Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation

17) AMOC ocean oscillation

18) “Global brightening” has stopped

19) “Ahistorical media”

20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’ [debunked]

21) Few El Ninos since 1999

22) Temperature variations fall “roughly in the middle of the AR4 model results”

23) “Not scientifically relevant”

24) The wrong type of El Ninos

25) Slower trade winds [debunked]

26) The climate is less sensitive to CO2 than previously thought [see also]

27) PDO and AMO natural cycles and here

28) ENSO

29) Solar cycle driven ocean temperature variations30) Warming Atlantic caused cooling Pacific [paper] [debunked by Trenberth & Wunsch]

31) “Experts simply do not know, and bad luck is one reason”

32) IPCC climate models are too complex, natural variability more important

33) NAO & PDO
34) Solar cycles
35) Scientists forgot “to look at our models and observations and ask questions”

36) The models really do explain the “pause” [debunked] [debunked] [debunked]

37) As soon as the sun, the weather and volcanoes – all natural factors – allow, the world will start warming again. Who knew?

38) Trenberth’s “missing heat” is hiding in the Atlantic, not Pacific as Trenberth claimed
[debunked] [Dr. Curry’s take] [Author: “Every week there’s a new explanation of the hiatus”]

39) “Slowdown” due to “a delayed rebound effect from 1991 Mount Pinatubo aerosols and deep prolonged solar minimum”

40) The “pause” is “probably just barely statistically significant” with 95% confidence:The “slowdown” is “probably just barely statistically significant” and not “meaningful in terms of the public discourse about climate change”

41) Internal variability, because Chinese aerosols can either warm or cool the climate:

The “recent hiatus in global warming is mainly caused by internal variability of the climate” because “anthropogenic aerosol emissions from Europe and North America towards China and India between 1996 and 2010 has surprisingly warmed rather than cooled the global climate.”

[Before this new paper, anthropogenic aerosols were thought to cool the climate or to have minimal effects on climate, but as of now, they “surprisingly warm” the climate]
42) Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’ really is missing and is not “supported by the data itself” in the “real ocean”:

“it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself. Until we clear up whether there has been some kind of accelerated warming at depth in the real ocean, I think these results serve as interesting hypotheses about why the rate of surface warming has slowed-down, but we still lack a definitive answer on this topic.” [Josh Willis]

43) Ocean Variability: [NYT article]

“After some intense work by of the community, there is general agreement that the main driver [of climate the “pause”] is ocean variability. That’s actually quite impressive progress.” [Andrew Dessler]

44) The data showing the missing heat going into the oceans is robust and not robust:

” I think the findings that the heat is going into the Atlantic and Southern Ocean’s is probably pretty robust. However, I will defer to people like Josh Willis who know the data better than I do.”-Andrew Dessler. Debunked by Josh Willis, who Dessler says “knows the data better than I do,” says in the very same NYT article that “it is not clear to me, actually, that an accelerated warming of some…layer of the ocean … is robustly supported by the data itself” – [Josh Willis]

45) We don’t have a theory that fits all of the data:

“Ultimately, the challenge is to come up with the parsimonious theory [of the ‘pause’] that fits all of the data” [Andrew Dessler]

46) We don’t have enough data of natural climate cycles lasting 60-70 years to determine if the “pause” is due to such natural cycles:

“If the cycle has a period of 60-70 years, that means we have one or two cycles of observations. And I don’t think you can much about a cycle with just 1-2 cycles: e.g., what the actual period of the variability is, how regular it is, etc. You really need dozens of cycles to determine what the actual underlying variability looks like. In fact, I don’t think we even know if it IS a cycle.” [Andrew Dessler]

47) Could be pure internal [natural] variability or increased CO2 or both

“this brings up what to me is the real question: how much of the hiatus is pure internal variability and how much is a forced response (from loading the atmosphere with carbon). This paper seems to implicitly take the position that it’s purely internal variability, which I’m not sure is true and might lead to a very different interpretation of the data and estimate of the future.” [Andrew Dessler in an NYT article ]

48) Its either in the Atlantic or Pacific, but definitely not a statistical fluke:

It’s the Atlantic, not Pacific, and “the hiatus in the warming…should not be dismissed as a statistical fluke” [John Michael Wallace]

49) The other papers with excuses for the “pause” are not “science done right”:

” If the science is done right, the calculated uncertainty takes account of this background variation. But none of these papers, Tung, or Trenberth, does that. Overlain on top of this natural behavior is the small, and often shaky, observing systems, both atmosphere and ocean where the shifting places and times and technologies must also produce a change even if none actually occurred. The “hiatus” is likely real, but so what? The fuss is mainly about normal behavior of the climate system.” [Carl Wunsch]

50) The observational data we have is inadequate, but we ignore uncertainty to publish anyway: [Carl Wunsch in an NYT Article]

“The central problem of climate science is to ask what you do and say when your data are, by almost any standard, inadequate? If I spend three years analyzing my data, and the only defensible inference is that “the data are inadequate to answer the question,” how do you publish? How do you get your grant renewed? A common answer is to distort the calculation of the uncertainty, or ignore it all together, and proclaim an exciting story that the New York Times will pick up…How many such stories have been withdrawn years later when enough adequate data became available?”

51) If our models could time-travel back in time, “we could have forecast ‘the pause’ – if we had the tools of the future back then” [NCAR press release]

[Time-traveling, back-to-the-future models debunked] [debunked] [“pause” due to natural variability]

52) ‘Unusual climate anomaly’ of unprecedented deceleration of a secular warming trend [PLOS one Paper macia et al. discussed in European Commission news release here.]

 

Astro went with aerosols but records of volcanic emissions show for 15 years there was almost no eruptions in the southern hemisphere alone, fail. Tobes is claiming the pause never happened. They cant even get their stories straight

 

In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.

PJ posted this This was the paper used by Thatcher to break the coal unions and push for nuclear power and it has been disproven for decades

he is definitely going to Pro CAGW sites for his "knowledge"

Try skeptical science PJ, you might get better propaganda. John Cook et all the 97% maybe? He runs that site, better still John Cook also runs Climate Denial school 101, a training course on how to deal with deniers.

 

I like this one @Tobes Have a read Can elaborate if you wish but do read.
20) “It’s the hottest decade ever” Decadal averages used to hide the ‘pause’

The video is actually funny, but please watch it, see how they scam you in like 2.22 minutes

You will see where your "hottest decade" fits into the historical record

 

And Happy New Year all, have a great and hopefully warm 2016

Canada Montreal, smashed snowfall record, Finland lapland smashed cold record twice this year too, whilst everyone was raging about a warm december from El Nino.

Arctic record inland gains.

#melting

I guess we have to wait till summer for the ice melting claims to reappear.