Poll: global warming

[SaigonSaddler]

I wonder what side of the climate change debate the New Scientist sits on? It's a shadow of the great magazine it once was, by the way.

So that's the BBC - dismissed (you invited me not to link)
Wiki - dismissed (same)
MET office - dismissed
New Scientist - dismissed
Reuters?
Nature?

Beeb - dismissed for reasons stated.
Wiki - dismissed as run by rabid green Connolley
MET Office - dismissed as chairman is rabid green
Reuters is a press agency. They distribute what they're given. With the amount of money being shovelled into the effects of global warming it's no surprise they release more of that.
Nature - dismissed as run by rabid greens (they get everywhere :wink: )

Don't see what readership has to do with anything. Science is about facts, not who believes what's reported, or consensus.

Did you know that globally, glaciers advanced rapidly and measurably between 1948 and 1979. How's that fit in with global warming?

:D

That's it then. Reject everything that's in the mainstream media or subject to the review of other scientists.

The only possible explanation is that it's a huge conspiracy, involving everyone, all agencies, governments, press agencies, universities and institutions of research. Not that the alternative data is crapulous and riven with holes.

When you come back with meaningful analysis of data, or get someone to publish something in a journal worth reading (maybe that pet Republican senator can raise sum of cash to bribe the media), I'll be right here.

In the meantime 8)

[aaaae]

"Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The final paragraph is particularly ridiculous.

"The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong."

??? WTF?

It is most worrying if what is happening now is the same as has always happened?? What?? We should pray that the AGW theory is right, or we'll be really screwed?? What a joke. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong then eh, we screwed both ways!!

Climate change is happening, it has always happened, it will always happen. We adapt, we have always adapted and we will always adapt. This last paragraph sounds more like Chicken Licken to me. Saigon when was this published in NS?

[SaigonSaddler]

"Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The final paragraph is particularly ridiculous.

"The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong."

??? WTF?

It is most worrying if what is happening now is the same as has always happened?? What?? We should pray that the AGW theory is right, or we'll be really screwed?? What a joke. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong then eh, we screwed both ways!!

Climate change is happening, it has always happened, it will always happen. We adapt, we have always adapted and we will always adapt. This last paragraph sounds more like Chicken Licken to me. Saigon when was this published in NS?

2006 I believe my sceptical friend. :wink:

[aaaae]

"Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The final paragraph is particularly ridiculous.

"The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong."

??? WTF?

It is most worrying if what is happening now is the same as has always happened?? What?? We should pray that the AGW theory is right, or we'll be really screwed?? What a joke. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong then eh, we screwed both ways!!

Climate change is happening, it has always happened, it will always happen. We adapt, we have always adapted and we will always adapt. This last paragraph sounds more like Chicken Licken to me. Saigon when was this published in NS?

2006 I believe my sceptical friend. :wink:

I guessed it must be pre Climategate, as most of the people listed as supporting Mann's view such as Briffa have now been shown to be in cahoots. "Mike, I've got this guy from New Scientist onto me about the hockey stick. Don't worry I'll back you up and stick the knife in to the opposition for you."

[SaigonSaddler]

"Evidence of human involvement comes from many other sources, including climate models."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

The final paragraph is particularly ridiculous.

"The subtext of many attacks on the hockey stick is that if the world was warmer 1000 years than it is now, this shows there is nothing unusual going on and we can all stop worrying. Not so, says Briffa. If the world was warmer 1000 years ago, it would suggest the climate system is very sensitive to outside influences, whether past solar cycles or present accumulating greenhouse gases. "Greater past climate variations imply greater future climate change," he says. From this perspective, it would be most worrying if all the hockey sticks really are wrong."

??? WTF?

It is most worrying if what is happening now is the same as has always happened?? What?? We should pray that the AGW theory is right, or we'll be really screwed?? What a joke. It doesn't matter whether they are right or wrong then eh, we screwed both ways!!

Climate change is happening, it has always happened, it will always happen. We adapt, we have always adapted and we will always adapt. This last paragraph sounds more like Chicken Licken to me. Saigon when was this published in NS?

2006 I believe my sceptical friend. :wink:

I guessed it must be pre Climategate, as most of the people listed as supporting Mann's view such as Briffa have now been shown to be in cahoots. "Mike, I've got this guy from New Scientist onto me about the hockey stick. Don't worry I'll back you up and stick the knife in to the opposition for you."

Cool, and it looks like they've got Scientific American in on the act too :lol: (2nd page for specifics)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

:wink:

[preacher_man]

Cool, and it looks like they've got Scientific American in on the act too :lol: (2nd page for specifics)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

:wink:

I posted this same link on page 1 of this very thread, it was ignored then, so expect the same...

[SaigonSaddler]

Cool, and it looks like they've got Scientific American in on the act too :lol: (2nd page for specifics)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

:wink:

I posted this same link on page 1 of this very thread, it was ignored then, so expect the same...

:mrgreen:

[Exile]

Cool, and it looks like they've got Scientific American in on the act too :lol: (2nd page for specifics)

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=seven-answers-to-climate-contrarian-nonsense

:wink:

I posted this same link on page 1 of this very thread, it was ignored then, so expect the same...

Page 4 actually, and I replied. Still, nothing like changing the past, eh? :wink:

PS - The Unscientific American Article rather relies upon the hypothesis being sound to start with. It's all a bit embarrassing really.

[Exile]

That's it then. Reject everything that's in the mainstream media or subject to the review of other scientists.

The only possible explanation is that it's a huge conspiracy, involving everyone, all agencies, governments, press agencies, universities and institutions of research. Not that the alternative data is crapulous and riven with holes.

When you come back with meaningful analysis of data, or get someone to publish something in a journal worth reading (maybe that pet Republican senator can raise sum of cash to bribe the media), I'll be right here.

In the meantime 8)

The rejection is because all of your referred sources (with the possible exception of Reuters, whose sources predicate mann made warming because that's where the majoirty of research funding goes) show huge bias in their reporting of a highly contentious and globally important subject.

The only possible explanation is they've been sold a pup by various groups with vested interests screaming that the sky is falling in, while the saner and more rational scientists are left whispering in the hurricane-force wind produced by their empty howls of derision.

I've given you heaps of meaningful analysis of data, so I'm not sure why you expect me to repeat myself just now, while you've (still) to provide any evidence for your side of the argument other than ever more stridently repeating that:

* glaciers are shrinking (dealt with by me scientifically)

* ice is melting (dealt with by me scientifically)

* models predict warming (where is it? Dealt with by me scientifically)

* the MET office is great (rubbished by me and their own weather forecasts, made on the same great computer using the same models that have so far failed in their global warming predictions, and they can't even hindcast accurately)

* there's a big list of signatories to a MET office plea for help (trumped by an even bigger list, even though it's about facts not a bogus consensus)

* sea levels are rising (dealt with by me scientifically - they aren't)

* fresh water will kill the Gulf Stream (fresh water makes up less than 2.5% of water on the planet, no chance, and if you're thining of the Arctic, it's been mostly melted before and we've still got a Gulf Stream)

* flooding increases (no it doesn't, but reporting does, and monetary loss has increased because mankind builds more on floodplains these days than in the past, hence it is reported more)

* CRU data must be all right (with no comment on how it is adjusted in computer models to fit a failed hypothesis)

* The Arctic hasn't melted for a long time (the North Pole has been open to shipping at least three times in the last 150 years, with ship's records to prove it, and the Times had to withdraw an advertising campaign last year because they incorrectly stated that the NW Passage was now open to shipping for the first time ever. It wasn't. Finally, ice in the arctic, as shown previously in this thread, has rebounded significantly)

* I know my facts (so do I, and I trust mine more)

* The longest continuous temperate record in the world is rubbish (eh? refer my comments on temperature adjustment and then call the two unadjusted records (central England/Armagh) I post rubbish. have a word with yourself!)

* The modern world functions on probability acquired from evidence (say what? Science is about establishing a hypothesis, gathering enough proof to call it a theory, then opening it up to your peers to pick apart and try to disprove it/improve it/make something else out of it. Never, ever, has science been about "probability. It's about FACT).

* The evidence points in one direction (if the data's been tortured and the funding depends on it, it does, but there's many, many scientific papers, published and not discredited, that point in another direction altogether, and we're still learning - climate is infant science)

Cheers, saigon. I look forward to you ever getting back to me with some serious comments and science links to objective proof that's based on reality not consensus rather than a list of Met Office stooges and a repeated "this is what I believe so it must be so". :wink:

[Exile]

Here's a reason why the mainstream media is rubbish.

Research, published in a reputable journal (geophysical research letters if you must know), and accompanied by the university issuing a press release, which was covered by precisely one independent science blogger and no mainstream media outlets whatsoever. Buried, almost.

Link: does not rely on computations with complex climate models

I'd have thought a lot of people would be interested in that.

The author, Doctor Wolfgang Knorr, was not on the Met Office list.

[sj]

Exile, saigon--- You know I am gatting on a bit, I can remember when I was at university in the 70s that the fear and consesus in the scientific community and in government was that the earth was cooling and the fear an Ice age was just around the corner. It was it really was. they were wrong then and I think they are wrong now.


Also most scientists work within a given paradigm and rather than test that paradigm they carry out all their testing within the said paradigm and they laugh at scientist that question the current paradigm-- is some of this going on now?

[chestersaddler]

Exile, saigon--- You know I am gatting on a bit, I can remember when I was at university in the 70s that the fear and consesus in the scientific community and in government was that the earth was cooling and the fear an Ice age was just around the corner. It was it really was. they were wrong then and I think they are wrong now.


Also most scientists work within a given paradigm and rather than test that paradigm they carry out all their testing within the said paradigm and they laugh at scientist that question the current paradigm-- is some of this going on now?

...and you could never be accused of such a thing regarding politics, could you sj :)

[sj]

:lol: Thanks chester. :D :D

[SaigonSaddler]

That's it then. Reject everything that's in the mainstream media or subject to the review of other scientists.

The only possible explanation is that it's a huge conspiracy, involving everyone, all agencies, governments, press agencies, universities and institutions of research. Not that the alternative data is crapulous and riven with holes.

When you come back with meaningful analysis of data, or get someone to publish something in a journal worth reading (maybe that pet Republican senator can raise sum of cash to bribe the media), I'll be right here.

In the meantime 8)

The rejection is because all of your referred sources (with the possible exception of Reuters, whose sources predicate mann made warming because that's where the majoirty of research funding goes) show huge bias in their reporting of a highly contentious and globally important subject.

The only possible explanation is they've been sold a pup by various groups with vested interests screaming that the sky is falling in, while the saner and more rational scientists are left whispering in the hurricane-force wind produced by their empty howls of derision.

I've given you heaps of meaningful analysis of data, so I'm not sure why you expect me to repeat myself just now, while you've (still) to provide any evidence for your side of the argument other than ever more stridently repeating that:

* glaciers are shrinking (dealt with by me scientifically)

* ice is melting (dealt with by me scientifically)

* models predict warming (where is it? Dealt with by me scientifically)

* the MET office is great (rubbished by me and their own weather forecasts, made on the same great computer using the same models that have so far failed in their global warming predictions, and they can't even hindcast accurately)

* there's a big list of signatories to a MET office plea for help (trumped by an even bigger list, even though it's about facts not a bogus consensus)

* sea levels are rising (dealt with by me scientifically - they aren't)

* fresh water will kill the Gulf Stream (fresh water makes up less than 2.5% of water on the planet, no chance, and if you're thining of the Arctic, it's been mostly melted before and we've still got a Gulf Stream)

* flooding increases (no it doesn't, but reporting does, and monetary loss has increased because mankind builds more on floodplains these days than in the past, hence it is reported more)

* CRU data must be all right (with no comment on how it is adjusted in computer models to fit a failed hypothesis)

* The Arctic hasn't melted for a long time (the North Pole has been open to shipping at least three times in the last 150 years, with ship's records to prove it, and the Times had to withdraw an advertising campaign last year because they incorrectly stated that the NW Passage was now open to shipping for the first time ever. It wasn't. Finally, ice in the arctic, as shown previously in this thread, has rebounded significantly)

* I know my facts (so do I, and I trust mine more)

* The longest continuous temperate record in the world is rubbish (eh? refer my comments on temperature adjustment and then call the two unadjusted records (central England/Armagh) I post rubbish. have a word with yourself!)

* The modern world functions on probability acquired from evidence (say what? Science is about establishing a hypothesis, gathering enough proof to call it a theory, then opening it up to your peers to pick apart and try to disprove it/improve it/make something else out of it. Never, ever, has science been about "probability. It's about FACT).

* The evidence points in one direction (if the data's been tortured and the funding depends on it, it does, but there's many, many scientific papers, published and not discredited, that point in another direction altogether, and we're still learning - climate is infant science)

Cheers, saigon. I look forward to you ever getting back to me with some serious comments and science links to objective proof that's based on reality not consensus rather than a list of Met Office stooges and a repeated "this is what I believe so it must be so". :wink:

:D

Great comeback, and I take my hat off to your willingness to fight to the bitter end. What did you write earlier?

"I have to respect your stubborn loyalty to a discredited idea"

Well, straight back at ya, and with knobs on. I can't imagine quite how frustrating and marginalised you must feel to be living through the intellectual equivalent of the 'invasion of the bodysnatchers'. Some mainstream scientific debates are settled by the positive publication in Nature, New Scientist and other respected journals. The fact that you've made a virtue out of their resistance to the ideas you export makes you a burning martyr in this respect.

As to the 'stuff' you've posted above, the 'stuff' that you have 'dealt with' scientifically, well this is great! At last we have some effective challenge to the fabricated evidence that has been distributed to the masses all this time. All you need to do now is send an e-mail to the blogs you linked to, or better still the pet Republican senator, info-hole? He must have a bit of cash, and hey presto; the whole rotten structure will come crashing down (as Hitler said as he invaded Russia).

Realistically, if you are so sure of yourself, of your facts and interpretations then you are wasted discussing with simpleton me on a football website. Shouldn't you be at the heart of the debate, arguing with the Nature editor about which font to use for your latest crushing critque of the IPCC? Anyway, if you do continue to indulge me, I will be geniunely grateful. Maybe I can learn something at your knee.

In the meantime, do you want me to go through that list and point by point, demolish it as effectively and comprehensively as those articles (with evidence) crushed your banal and jaded hockey stick genuflections, or uprooted your vapid ice melting theorums? By the way, I'm willing to go up to a 1000 NZD and shorten the timeframe, so long as we can negotiate the groundwork.

You have one line, everything is innaccurate, everybody is corrupt, nothing is worth a jot unless it appears in a series of empty blogs that adhere completely to your belief system. The creationists have nothing on you, the global warming SJ of our time!

:mrgreen:

[SaigonSaddler]

* glaciers are shrinking (dealt with by me scientifically)

* ice is melting (dealt with by me scientifically)

I'm going to lump these two together for now, but if you want more extensive coverage of either one then I'd be happy to oblige.

Here's the progressive changes in Arctic sea ice coverage from 1978 to 2008 developed by Ignatius Rigor at the University of Washington, Seattle Applied Physics Lab. If your not sure of the science or the data, you can contact him as he is the primary source, although if you want us both to look at it together then we could do that too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/oct/14/arctic-sea-ice-coverage

Then here's a massive collapse of the Wilkins ice shelf from the British Antarctic Survey, I just know you're going to love this, it has music!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2008/mar/26/antarctica.ice.shelf.wilkins

Here's some direct observation in the field with particular reference both to glacial melt and flooding:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/video/2009/dec/07/copenhagen-nepal-bangladesh

You will see lots of other interesting clips too, including many that address other areas of your list...

I can predict your reaction, so if you can supply anything similar (I like video) in direct support like I have just done, then that would be great. Cheers!

[SaigonSaddler]

Here's a reason why the mainstream media is rubbish.

Research, published in a reputable journal (geophysical research letters if you must know), and accompanied by the university issuing a press release, which was covered by precisely one independent science blogger and no mainstream media outlets whatsoever. Buried, almost.

Link: does not rely on computations with complex climate models

I'd have thought a lot of people would be interested in that.

The author, Doctor Wolfgang Knorr, was not on the Met Office list.

Now that is a good article and one that I can respect. It's a good start, covering one small (but important) area of climate change. As the author says himself, it needs more work, so please don't rush to dismiss the entire warming framework on one study (you wouldn't let me do that would you). If you were to come up with more stuff of this calibre then I would take you more seriously.

[SaigonSaddler]

* sea levels are rising (dealt with by me scientifically - they aren't)

* flooding increases (no it doesn't, but reporting does, and monetary loss has increased because mankind builds more on floodplains these days than in the past, hence it is reported more)

Not according to this:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18022014

According to the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), sea levels have been rising about 3 mm per year since 1993 – totalling a 200 mm increase (7.87 inches) in global averaged sea level since 1870. The data has been gathered from an impressive range of sources:

Currently, more than 10000 manned and automatic surface weather stations, 1000 upper-air stations, over 7000 ships, more than 100 moored and 1000 drifting buoys, hundreds of weather radars and over 3000 specially equipped commercial aircraft measure key parameters of the atmosphere, land and ocean surface every day. The space-based component of the WMO Observing System contains operational polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites and also R&D environmental satellites complementing ground-based global observations. These activities are coordinated within the Global Observing System (GOS) of the World Weather Watch (WWW) of WMO. Several WMO Programmes sponsor or participate in the operation of several global observing systems. Other global observing systems, e.g. the global hydrological networks (WHYCOS), function principally on a national or regional level.

* fresh water will kill the Gulf Stream (fresh water makes up less than 2.5% of water on the planet, no chance, and if you're thining of the Arctic, it's been mostly melted before and we've still got a Gulf Stream)

At the end of the last Ice Age, when the ice sheet covering North America melted, the sudden increase in fresh water reduced the salinity of the north Atlantic surface water and therefore less 'dense water' sank and moved towards the equator. This reduced, or even shut-down completely, the warm Gulf Stream. Temperatures in north-west Europe fell by 5C in just a few decades.

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?cid=9986&pid=12455&tid=282

National Geographic article on climate change over the last decade.

Includes interesting links to the loss of both arctic and antarctic ice, the processes at work and other climatic effects:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091208-climate-change-decade.html

Might I invite you to make sure of the facts before stating things like 'I know my facts'.

[sj]

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/ ... icle/7860/



For Exile and Saigon to read.---------------Where do you stand on this, I'm with it. Humanity is underrated. James Lovelock's Gaia is little more than neo-Malthusian he hates people when we need to love them along with their CO2. Saigon. your are just a little Neo-Malthusian.

[aaaae]

This is a really interesting debate, but I think we can cut everything out apart from one question.

Forget what is happening to glaciers, arctic ice sheets, ocean currents and rising sea levels.

There is just one question that needs to be answered, to end the debate. Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause runaway warming?

All the rest is just irrelevant, to a degree. For the AGW theory to be correct, CO2 has to be proven to be a powerful greenhouse gas. As far as I can see having trawled the internet (authoritative I know), what evidence there is contradicts this, for example periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere (10 times more) which have coincided with periods of Ice Age.

Saigon, I'd love to see any evidence if you can provide it and I am more than willing to be persuaded to your point of view if you can let me have it. All I can find are models predicting runaway warming with more CO2, which are worthless really.

[SaigonSaddler]

This is a really interesting debate, but I think we can cut everything out apart from one question.

Forget what is happening to glaciers, arctic ice sheets, ocean currents and rising sea levels.

There is just one question that needs to be answered, to end the debate. Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause runaway warming?

All the rest is just irrelevant, to a degree. For the AGW theory to be correct, CO2 has to be proven to be a powerful greenhouse gas. As far as I can see having trawled the internet (authoritative I know), what evidence there is contradicts this, for example periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere (10 times more) which have coincided with periods of Ice Age.

Saigon, I'd love to see any evidence if you can provide it and I am more than willing to be persuaded to your point of view if you can let me have it. All I can find are models predicting runaway warming with more CO2, which are worthless really.

Interesting question, but surely people in general would be more interested in if climate change (and the associated features you mention) is actually happening. That is the difference between everyone else here and Exile - who contests that climate change as we know it is not even going on. No sea level rise, no polar ice melting, no glacial melting, and no global temperature rise.

The cause is what you and I have been debating, somewhat side-tracked of late by other concerns.

Firstly, the fact that CO2 causes warming was established back in 1859, further confirmed in 1896 as having a role in the atmosphere. Link here: for the ins and outs:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/simple.htm#L_M018

I've heard that this is generally accepted by all areas of science, but I'm not sure where Exile sits with this.

The natural situation is that CO2 produced from volcanic activity and other processes is offset by the processes that lock CO2 up, plant growth for example. The difference is the man-made CO2 from various industrial sources, the burning of fossil fuels. Even this trace amount of CO2 is causing atmospheric change by warming up the atmosphere as it is an extra CO2 burden.

Link here to point to human influences:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/how-do-we-know-that-recent-cosub2sub-increases-are-due-to-human-activities-updated/

After the physics then comes the measurement. The US Geological Survey has found that from 1832 CO2 in the atmosphere rose from 284 parts per million (ppm) to 388 ppm. Assuming you don't think that these have fabricated the analysis, it seems a fairly straightforward procedure to take this measurement, especially as it would have been subject to peer review.

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

So, CO2 causes warming.
Mankind has added extra CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mankind is responsible for the extra warming, models of which predict the increase and corresponding warming, rise in sea level. I hope you find this useful. Do you think warming is happening by the way?

[ShyTallKnight]

This is a really interesting debate, but I think we can cut everything out apart from one question.

Forget what is happening to glaciers, arctic ice sheets, ocean currents and rising sea levels.

There is just one question that needs to be answered, to end the debate. Does increased CO2 in the atmosphere cause runaway warming?

All the rest is just irrelevant, to a degree. For the AGW theory to be correct, CO2 has to be proven to be a powerful greenhouse gas. As far as I can see having trawled the internet (authoritative I know), what evidence there is contradicts this, for example periods of much higher CO2 in the atmosphere (10 times more) which have coincided with periods of Ice Age.

Saigon, I'd love to see any evidence if you can provide it and I am more than willing to be persuaded to your point of view if you can let me have it. All I can find are models predicting runaway warming with more CO2, which are worthless really.

And what proportion (percent) of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made and of that proportion what are the creators and their relative percentages :?:

[aaaae]

OK yes - I can see that CO2 causes warming and is a "green house" gas.

I can see that mankind has added extra CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and actually that the warmer the planet gets the more natural CO2 will be in the atmosphere, as it is released from solution in the sea, and frozen tundra defrosts).

Yes I do think warming has happened, from 1970's to now (although it has stalled at this level for the last 10 years). But I also believe that cooling occurred from the 1940's to the 1970's whilst man made CO2 increased.

The question I need answered to make up my mind, is will the earth warm in direct proportion to the increase in CO2, or does the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming gas wane as the concentration increases?

[aaaae]

And what proportion (percent) of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made and of that proportion what are the creators and their relative percentages :?:

Yes that's a good point. What proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been as a result of warming, not man made.

[SaigonSaddler]

And what proportion (percent) of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made and of that proportion what are the creators and their relative percentages :?:

Yes that's a good point. What proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been as a result of warming, not man made.

35% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1832. This is purely from man-made sources as it is in addition to the natural processes which balance out - there has been no dramatic rise in volcanic activity for example.

[aaaae]

And what proportion (percent) of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made and of that proportion what are the creators and their relative percentages :?:

Yes that's a good point. What proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been as a result of warming, not man made.

35% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1832. This is purely from man-made sources as it is in addition to the natural processes which balance out - there has been no dramatic rise in volcanic activity for example.

Out of interest, how do you explain the post war cooling, when man made CO2 levels were increasing?

[Fray Bentos is God!]

Can I just say this is one of the most interesting threads on here... Keep it up kids.

I don't know which side of the fence to park myself on to be honest.

[SaigonSaddler]

OK yes - I can see that CO2 causes warming and is a "green house" gas.

I can see that mankind has added extra CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and actually that the warmer the planet gets the more natural CO2 will be in the atmosphere, as it is released from solution in the sea, and frozen tundra defrosts).

Yes I do think warming has happened, from 1970's to now (although it has stalled at this level for the last 10 years). But I also believe that cooling occurred from the 1940's to the 1970's whilst man made CO2 increased.

The question I need answered to make up my mind, is will the earth warm in direct proportion to the increase in CO2, or does the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming gas wane as the concentration increases?

1998 was indeed the warmest year, but this doesn't mean warming has stopped, only paused:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Co2 is set to increase for a very long time, simply because of the 6, 7, 8, 9 billion people that inhabit it. Industry in countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia and others will see to this, even if Europe and the rest of the developed world and it's population was to float off into space.

It's safe to assume that with CO2 causing warming as it does, more CO2 will produce more warming. Water vapour reaches a kind of greenhouse max potential in that it doesn't hang around long in the atmosphere, unlike CO2. The models you refer to take account of the increase in CO2 and subsequent increase in warming, with associated implications for polar ice, glacial ice, sea level rise and land warming.

[SaigonSaddler]

And what proportion (percent) of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made and of that proportion what are the creators and their relative percentages :?:

Yes that's a good point. What proportion of the increase in atmospheric CO2 has been as a result of warming, not man made.

35% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since 1832. This is purely from man-made sources as it is in addition to the natural processes which balance out - there has been no dramatic rise in volcanic activity for example.

Out of interest, how do you explain the post war cooling, when man made CO2 levels were increasing?

Nature article:

http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/05/postworld_war_ii_cooling_a_mir.html

[aaaae]

OK yes - I can see that CO2 causes warming and is a "green house" gas.

I can see that mankind has added extra CO2 to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and actually that the warmer the planet gets the more natural CO2 will be in the atmosphere, as it is released from solution in the sea, and frozen tundra defrosts).

Yes I do think warming has happened, from 1970's to now (although it has stalled at this level for the last 10 years). But I also believe that cooling occurred from the 1940's to the 1970's whilst man made CO2 increased.

The question I need answered to make up my mind, is will the earth warm in direct proportion to the increase in CO2, or does the effectiveness of CO2 as a warming gas wane as the concentration increases?

1998 was indeed the warmest year, but this doesn't mean warming has stopped, only paused:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/

Co2 is set to increase for a very long time, simply because of the 6, 7, 8, 9 billion people that inhabit it. Industry in countries like China, India, Brazil, Russia and others will see to this, even if Europe and the rest of the developed world and it's population was to float off into space.

It's safe to assume that with CO2 causing warming as it does, more CO2 will produce more warming. Water vapour reaches a kind of greenhouse max potential in that it doesn't hang around long in the atmosphere, unlike CO2. The models you refer to take account of the increase in CO2 and subsequent increase in warming, with associated implications for polar ice, glacial ice, sea level rise and land warming.

I'm not satisfied with assumptions! :D

There has to be a maximum temperature increase that can be reached due to CO2 in the atmosphere. This could be very small, 0.000001 degrees C, or very large 10,000 degrees C. Of course it's somewhere in between, but where?

All the computer models make an assumption of what this is, and these assumptions produce results showing high or low increases in temperature, depending on who created the model. As far as I can see, it's putting the cart before the horse. Like someone saying that they have produced a model to predict where Walsall will finish in the table and have made an assumption that they will get an average of 2.97 points per game.

[SaigonSaddler]

Can I just say this is one of the most interesting threads on here... Keep it up kids.

I don't know which side of the fence to park myself on to be honest.

My advice would be to judge the information supplied on here with care.