Poll: global warming

[aaaae]

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.

Is that all information? Or just that supplied by your good self? :D

[Whitti Steve]

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.

Is that all information? Or just that supplied by your good self? :D

Only if it comes from Oxford or Cambridge :wink:

[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.

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.

Check back to the links I've supplied, especially the first one, which you can have only quickly gone through anyway in the time elapsed.....not a side-step, and if you really want to know then I'll find out for you. But the specific answer (or range) will be there for you to find. I'm not springing into action on this as you can work it out from the predictions you mention, but you may have to do some of your own looking rather than rely on someone on a football website to answer all of your questions.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/12/07/2763819.htm

[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.

Is that all information? Or just that supplied by your good self? :D

Only if it comes from Oxford or Cambridge :wink:

Wrong.

None of the links I've supplied recently go to either Oxford or Cambs.

Nature
New Scientist
American Scientist
Science
Reuters
Met Office
IPCC
Guardian
National Geographic
Woods Hole Oceanographic Instit.
Realclimate.org
US Geological Survey

If you don't like the list, supply some of your own.
I believe Exile has some opinion driven blogs he'd like to show you. :lol:

[aaaae]

Nature article:

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

Now scientists have found – not without relief - that they have been fooled by a mirage.

Relief? Why would they be relived if they are interested in the truth? Surely they just want to present us with the facts, whether or not they stack up to their preconceived ideas?

The mysterious post-war ocean cooling is a glitch, a US-British team reports in a paper in this week’s Nature. What most climate researchers were convinced was real is in fact “the result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record,” they write."

Seriously?!! A glitch?

How come? Almost all sea temperature measurements during the Second World War were from US ships. The US crews measured the temperature of the water before it was used to cool the ships engine. When the war was over, British ships resumed their own measurements, but unlike the Americans they measured the temperature of water collected with ordinary buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled on board slightly cooled the water samples. The 1945 temperature drop is nothing else than the result of the sudden but uncorrected change from warm US measurements to cooler UK measurements, the team found."

I am sorry but you can't seriously believe that. The Central England Temperature record (as do many others) also showed this temperature dip. Were they collecting their data in buckets too?

Can I take it that you do not believe that the climate cooled after WWII then?

[aaaae]

Check back to the links I've supplied, especially the first one, which you can have only quickly gone through anyway in the time elapsed.....not a side-step, and if you really want to know then I'll find out for you. But the specific answer (or range) will be there for you to find. I'm not springing into action on this as you can work it out from the predictions you mention, but you may have to do some of your own looking rather than rely on someone on a football website to answer all of your questions.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/12/07/2763819.htm

UTS is the source of all my information. I particularly like the secret astrology section, which allows me to plan my year. :D

Yes you're right I didn't read the links. I'll have a look now.

[ShyTallKnight]

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.

How did 'they' (who?) measure it in 1832? Can we trust the science? Where are the stats. to show there has been no net change in 'natural processes'? Easy statements to make now prove them please :lol:

[SaigonSaddler]

How did 'they' (who?) measure it in 1832?

A range of scientists and research institutions. Partly by measuring the composition of air bubbles trapped in deep ice cores which can go back as far as 700,000 years.

http://www.artofteachingscience.org/?p=75

Can we trust the science?

Yes, any scientfic research is open to analysis by other scientists. It is usual to produce a paper of what you have found, which others can then assess and replicate. There is little controversy about i) how the data is collected and ii) the raw data about the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere.

Where are the stats.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

http://co2unting.com/

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.smoothed.yr20

to show there has been no net change in 'natural processes'?

The main variable natural source is volcanic activity, less than 1% of the CO2 currently released by humans. Other natural processes are equalised within the atmospheric carbon cycle.

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

Gerlach, T.M., 1992, Present-day CO2 emissions from volcanoes: Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 72, No. 23, June 4, 1991, pp. 249, and 254 – 255

Easy statements to make now prove them please.

Statements duly backed up. :wink:

[BathSaddler]

Keep it going, Saigon - you're doing a grand job :wink: .

[aaaae]

Great picture on BBC today -

[SaigonSaddler]

That is a great picture!

Caused by a weather system called the Artic Oscillilation. Before considering it as evidence of global cooling or whatever (not that you were) :wink: Please note that weather (this) and climate are different, and that an area directly south of this, under the influence of another system (currently over the Med - lucky people) is currently experiencing warmer than normal temperatures. Also, 8 of the last 10 years have seen warmer than average summers and earlier than normal springs.

But great picture! :wink:

[Pedagogue]

Please note that weather (this) and climate are different, and that an area directly south of this, under the influence of another system (currently over the Med - lucky people) is currently experiencing warmer than normal temperatures.

Apparently Cyprus is currently experiencing something of a midwinter heatwave. Do you know anybody who might have a villa over there?

[aaaae]

That is a great picture!

Caused by a weather system called the Artic Oscillilation. Before considering it as evidence of global cooling or whatever (not that you were) :wink: Please note that weather (this) and climate are different, and that an area directly south of this, under the influence of another system (currently over the Med - lucky people) is currently experiencing warmer than normal temperatures. Also, 8 of the last 10 years have seen warmer than average summers and earlier than normal springs.

But great picture! :wink:

I agree :D

[sj]

This has been a very good debate and I for one have learnt a lot. It seems to me that both sides of the argument believe that they are right. However, the telling argument is can we trust scientists and their science , and can we trust the peer review process. To what degree have the politicians and big business knobbled the scientists?

Scientist are human they surcome to power and money. Now because the trust has gone we must proceed with due diligence. What this means is that we must follow both the theory and follow the money. We need independent scientists working for independent universities. Can we say with any assurance that any independent people or institutions exist? I thnk not. Blo0dy politics. :(

[Neuromantic]

This has been a very good debate and I for one have learnt a lot. It seems to me that both sides of the argument believe that they are right. However, the telling argument is can we trust scientists and their science , and can we trust the peer review process. To what degree have the politicians and big business knobbled the scientists?

Scientist are human they surcome to power and money. Now because the trust has gone we must proceed with due diligence. What this means is that we must follow both the theory and follow the money. We need independent scientists working for independent universities. Can we say with any assurance that any independent people or institutions exist? I thnk not. Blo0dy politics. :(

I don't succumb to power and money Mr Sj. I have utmost trust in my peers and critique everything put in front of me, that is the scientific process, if it was any other way - then it wouldn't be science.

Of course, there is bad science, like people who believe in 'Global warming' or climate change as I prefer.

Independent institutions do exist, almost every university is independent. Here at Bangor for example, we have a colloborative association of the neurosciences 'Wales Insititute of Cognitive Nueroscience' (which I am a member of), which is an independently funded operation within the Universities of Wales for the betterment of our understanding of neurological function.

The world is good sometimes as well sj, not everything is run by the illuminati or controlled by a master alien race.

[sj]

This has been a very good debate and I for one have learnt a lot. It seems to me that both sides of the argument believe that they are right. However, the telling argument is can we trust scientists and their science , and can we trust the peer review process. To what degree have the politicians and big business knobbled the scientists?

Scientist are human they surcome to power and money. Now because the trust has gone we must proceed with due diligence. What this means is that we must follow both the theory and follow the money. We need independent scientists working for independent universities. Can we say with any assurance that any independent people or institutions exist? I thnk not. Blo0dy politics. :(

I don't succumb to power and money Mr Sj. I have utmost trust in my peers and critique everything put in front of me, that is the scientific process, if it was any other way - then it wouldn't be science.

Of course, there is bad science, like people who believe in 'Global warming' or climate change as I prefer.

Independent institutions do exist, almost every university is independent. Here at Bangor for example, we have a colloborative association of the neurosciences 'Wales Insititute of Cognitive Nueroscience' (which I am a member of), which is an independently funded operation within the Universities of Wales for the betterment of our understanding of neurological function.

The world is good sometimes as well sj, not everything is run by the illuminati or controlled by a master alien race.

Bangor----------- I wish it were true and I think back in the day it was. However, I see so many unquestioning professionals in my line of work, so sadly I do not think it is.

[Whitti Steve]

This has been a very good debate and I for one have learnt a lot. It seems to me that both sides of the argument believe that they are right. However, the telling argument is can we trust scientists and their science , and can we trust the peer review process. To what degree have the politicians and big business knobbled the scientists?

Scientist are human they surcome to power and money. Now because the trust has gone we must proceed with due diligence. What this means is that we must follow both the theory and follow the money. We need independent scientists working for independent universities. Can we say with any assurance that any independent people or institutions exist? I thnk not. Blo0dy politics. :(

I don't succumb to power and money Mr Sj. I have utmost trust in my peers and critique everything put in front of me, that is the scientific process, if it was any other way - then it wouldn't be science.

Of course, there is bad science, like people who believe in 'Global warming' or climate change as I prefer.

Independent institutions do exist, almost every university is independent. Here at Bangor for example, we have a colloborative association of the neurosciences 'Wales Insititute of Cognitive Nueroscience' (which I am a member of), which is an independently funded operation within the Universities of Wales for the betterment of our understanding of neurological function.

The world is good sometimes as well sj, not everything is run by the illuminati or controlled by a master alien race.

Money is behind everything... even universities.

[Neuromantic]

Funding yes... but that's not why I do what I do..It's because I (as well as my peers and supervisors) are fascinated by the Brain - that's the key motivation.

If someone asked me to choose between a million pounds or curing Parkinsons disease, I'd go with finding the cure for Parkinsons'.

[sj]

Funding yes... but that's not why I do what I do..It's because I (as well as my peers and supervisors) are fascinated by the Brain - that's the key motivation.

If someone asked me to choose between a million pounds or curing Parkinsons disease, I'd go with finding the cure for Parkinsons'.

Money, Money, Money; It's a rich a man's world. ------- And that was back in the 80s.


Bamgor--- Dear lad :shock: :shock: :? :cry:

[ciscokid]

This prolonged cold spell we have across Europe was not predicted by the so called government scientists/weather experts. If they are unable to predict weather patterns several months in advance, how can they be taken seriously predicting weather patterns decade's in advance :?: :?: :?:

[SaigonSaddler]

This prolonged cold spell we have across Europe was not predicted by the so called government scientists/weather experts. If they are unable to predict weather patterns several months in advance, how can they be taken seriously predicting weather patterns decade's in advance :?: :?: :?:

An instinctive question, and certainly that's being asked by many people in the UK at the moment.

Firstly climate determines the kind of weather you might have, measured over 30 year periods, weather is what actually effects an area at any particular time.

The current cold snap is attributed to the Arctic Oscillation, a phenomena that switches between low and high pressure over the arctic. Currently it is in a negative phase, sending cold air streaming through from Siberia with resulting high pressure over the UK.

http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html

While the short term forecasts (3-5 day) are generally very accurate and have improved significantly, the medium term forecasts for weather are still subject to probability. The MET office predicted the probability of a cold winter as 1 in 5. In the US, forecasts are generally given as a 40% chance of rain here, an 60% chance of snow-showers there etc.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/science/creating/improvements.html

So the weather went with the 20% probability, which doesn't mean the forecast model needs to be thrown out and redesigned, it just the weather is unpredictable over the medium term.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Climate is different. Climate determines the kind of weather a particular area is subject to. The models used to predict this are far more accurate, as unless they can work in retrospective modelling of historical climate records, they are not used to predict future the climate. Regrettably for the climate change sceptics, no model works unless the manmade CO2 changes, and associated temperature increases, are included in the model. The sceptics have no working model of climate change.

The latest climate models predict similar possible global average temperature changes to models used five or 10 years ago, ranging from 1.6-4.3C (2.9-7.7F) in the current best estimates using a mid-range emissions scenario.

However, we are much more confident about these ranges. Using Hadley Centre models we have even been able to start to assign probabilities to more dangerous high temperature changes at the upper end of this range that could arise if climate turns out to be very sensitive to increased greenhouse gases.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6320515.stm

In conclusion, while the snow and cold are a reminder of how winters used to be in Britain earlier in my lifetime, below the area of effect of the Arctic Oscillation, the weather is much warmer than usual. Also, I don't think anyone would jump to the conclusion that the climate is now cooling just because of a 2-3 week cold snap in a small part of the world.....would they?

[ciscokid]

The point I am trying to make here Saigon is the prediction of weather. Predicting weather several hours in advance is easy with satellite technology; however, in the medium term scientists and weather experts have missed this one, as they do an many occasions.
Looking at the arguments for and against “man made global warming”, I am more convinced that what we are experiencing is a natural cycle of a self regulating unit that spans over millions of years, and not a man made fabrication designed to preserve depleting natural resources.

[Ned_Kelly]

The point I am trying to make here Saigon is the prediction of weather. Predicting weather several hours in advance is easy with satellite technology; however, in the medium term scientists and weather experts have missed this one, as they do an many occasions.
Looking at the arguments for and against “man made global warming”, I am more convinced that what we are experiencing is a natural cycle of a self regulating unit that spans over millions of years, and not a man made fabrication designed to preserve depleting natural resources.

and thats the sticking point of the argument, i and many others just don't believ we are responsible for it. I recall reading or seeing somewhere that the human race is only responsible for 0.1% of the greenhouse gasses they blame on the climate change, if that is correct then it doesn't matter how much they tax us or how much recycling etc we do or change the way we live, we cannot alter thye way the earth acts.
This planet has been through many ice ages and its also been very hot. Oceans have risen so most of the earth we see today was covered and they have also been much, much lower than they are now, as in Sicilly used to be connected to Italy. I believe that the Earths axis has much more to do with global temps than me turning my heating up or driving my car too much. But hey, why should the governments care, as long as we pay enough tax, things will be ok :evil:

[SaigonSaddler]

The point I am trying to make here Saigon is the prediction of weather. Predicting weather several hours in advance is easy with satellite technology; however, in the medium term scientists and weather experts have missed this one, as they do an many occasions.
Looking at the arguments for and against “man made global warming”, I am more convinced that what we are experiencing is a natural cycle of a self regulating unit that spans over millions of years, and not a man made fabrication designed to preserve depleting natural resources.

Predicting weather and climate are completely different, as explained above. A few snow showers and a cold snap in January is weather, which is unpredictable, especially in an island surrounded by many different competing weather systems. In order to draw anything conclusive about climate change, you simply have to look at the whole world, over an extended period of time.

I'm glad you think the earth is warming, as at least you can see the weight of evidence in this regard, which is something that some on here who have in the past belittled your intelligence have failed to grasp.

If you choose to believe that global warming is due to entirely natural processes, then that is your perogative, however I would point out that this position is contrary to the consensus of the scientific community, the institutions whose role it is to look for and make conclusions from the data, and 192 of the world's countries. In addition to this, all the widely published scientific journals and all interested areas of the media, barring the occasional personal opinion of some contributors are also in agreement. There is also no recognised alternative explanation to the fact that manmade CO2 input is increasing the world temperature.

I have on here linked to many of these organisations, journals and resources that repeatedly state the same. Some would have you believe it is some kind of bizarre conspiracy, dating back to 1845 and involving all of the above. No evidence of such a bizarre theory exists of course.

[SaigonSaddler]

The point I am trying to make here Saigon is the prediction of weather. Predicting weather several hours in advance is easy with satellite technology; however, in the medium term scientists and weather experts have missed this one, as they do an many occasions.
Looking at the arguments for and against “man made global warming”, I am more convinced that what we are experiencing is a natural cycle of a self regulating unit that spans over millions of years, and not a man made fabrication designed to preserve depleting natural resources.

and thats the sticking point of the argument, i and many others just don't believ we are responsible for it. I recall reading or seeing somewhere that the human race is only responsible for 0.1% of the greenhouse gasses they blame on the climate change, if that is correct then it doesn't matter how much they tax us or how much recycling etc we do or change the way we live, we cannot alter thye way the earth acts.
This planet has been through many ice ages and its also been very hot. Oceans have risen so most of the earth we see today was covered and they have also been much, much lower than they are now, as in Sicilly used to be connected to Italy. I believe that the Earths axis has much more to do with global temps than me turning my heating up or driving my car too much. But hey, why should the governments care, as long as we pay enough tax, things will be ok :evil:

I'm afraid you have been misinformed, or are remembering the wrong things. I've answered all these points in this thread.

The CO2 input from natural factors is countered by natural processes taking it out. Man's input is in addition to this, and has led to a 35% increase in CO2 since 1832. CO2 warms the atmosphere, which if we weren't putting in wouldn't happen.

1) The science on global warming is confirmed. Only isolated sceptics argue the point, which is why Exile can only link to half-baked blogs, some of whose input is from a single individual.

2) The science on anthropogenic warming is strong enough (90% according to the IPCC) to have convinced the vast majority of the scientific community, which is why I can link to Nature, New Scientist and a host of research institutions, government agencies that state the same. The sceptics in this area cannot. Their line is to denegrate the data/interpretations as fake. Not just some, but all of it. They cannot supply their own, which again is why Exile hasn't provided any and presumably why he's not posting anymore.

Policy is being made on this area now, which just shows how far it's moved on from just discussing it. The science is clear and valid, so you just get a few squirmers, similar to those that didn't believe the earth was round, in evolution, in continental drift or a range of other (now) accepted (scientifically) facts.

[Neuromantic]

Right then Saigon, you say Exile has provided no evidence, I thought I would have a go!

First of all, a major problem with the 'data' collected by these so called global warming scientists is the grea possibility that they have committed a Type I error. The actual timing of the recording of min/max temperatures on a day can massively bias results. I.e only taking recording at 12 noon, and 3am in the morning, versus morning, afternoon and evening fluctuations. Seems a bit interesting to me! Evidence here: http://www.john-daly.com/tob/TOBSUM.HTM.

This data set here is from the United States Historical Climatology Network http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html#COMPARE . Synopsis? Serious adjustments need to be made to any 'data' to stop bias in observation of temperatures. As you can see, this is an official government source.

Moving on, let's look at the CO2 measurement problems. Scientists examining the Vostok Ice core's for historic climatology noted:

'Using semiempirical models of densification applied to past Vostok climate conditions, Barnola et al. (1991) reported that the age difference between air and ice may be ~6000 years during the coldest periods instead of ~4000 years, as previously assumed.'

Hmmm. So a 2000 year difference in actual versus hypothetical scores - which means again, the analysis of CO2 emissions in antiquity cannot be very accurate. There is a letter here: http://www.john-daly.com/zjiceco2.htm from Prof. Jaworowski, who is the Chair of the Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection.

As you noted Saigon, there is a myth that CO2 records show there is a 25% increase in emissions. That letter is evidence to the contrary.

To explain this, in short, the CO2 emissions are not accurate and have to be corrected. The Professor found that in comparison data examined in 1890, is actual concurrent with cycles now. It is best shown on a graph.



This graph shows some data from Siple in the Antarctic (left side clear squares) and on the left data from Manoa in Hawaii. Now if the Global warming hypothesis is to be believed, then in 1890, CO2 should be around 290ppmv, however as the data needs correcting (due to the age of air - see source), if the corrected data is graphed again we are left with:


This then shows that data from 1890 in Siple, is the same as that of modern Hawaii - i.e the red herring 328ppmv Global Warming scientists waffle on about. This completely refutes the man-made warming hypothesis, as the data from 1890 is the same as 1973 (83 age of air difference).

The conclusion is also quite damning:

The basis of most of the IPCC conclusions on anthropogenic causes and on projections of climatic change is the assumption of low level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere. This assumption, based on glaciological studies, is false. Therefore IPCC projections should not be used for national and global economic planning. The climatically inefficient and economically disastrous Kyoto Protocol, based on IPCC projections, was correctly defined by President George W. Bush as "fatally flawed". This criticism was recently followed by the President of Russia Vladimir V. Putin. I hope that their rational views might save the world from enormous damage that could be induced by implementing recommendations based on distorted science.

I think the most daming evidence is this:



This graph shows average mean temperature temporally versus actual temperatures yearly, for the sea surface temperature. As you can see, we are nowhere near the medieval warm period's temperatures. How can that be? If global warming alarmists posit that we are cuasing climate change, then how do they account for higher temperatures pre-industrial in age ??? in 2000, we were just under the average temperature for the last 3000 years - ergo no man made global warming.

This graph: http://

Further damns the global warming alarmists by clearly showing that the trend for glacier area shortening was happening before the use of hdro-carbons. The trend actually continues perfectly, and also stops (decreases) in 2000.

This graph brings another player into the rebuttal: Solar activity (which influences the Magnetic Heliosphere).



As you can see, Arctic air temperature almost perfectly quadratically correlates (superimposes) itself on solar activity. It's quite an easy hypothesis to understand: Greater solar activity, higher temperature = warmer earth.

Just thought I'd throw a bit of evidence into the mix for you Saigon ;) .

[SaigonSaddler]

What do we have we here?

Some information on measurement bias, which you think the measurements taken by all the scientists collecting data may be subject to. Don't you think data capture is subject to peer review? :shock:

Zbigniew Jaworowski is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw.

Jaworowski worked on ice cores in 1992 and 1994, suggesting that long term CO2 readings are as a result of structural changes of the ice with depth and by postcoring processes.

However, Jaworowski's views are rejected by the scientific community. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone of ice. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone. "...Some of (Jaworowski's) statements are drastically wrong from the physical point of view".

Jaworowski suggests that we are entering a new ice age but when approached to see if he would bet on future cooling, Jaworowski denied making any prediction, stating "I do not make my own detailed projections. In my paper I referred the reader to B&M paper, and that is all."

Jaworowski has also written that the movement to remove lead from gasoline was based on a "stupid and fraudulent myth," and that lead levels in the human bloodstream are not significantly affected by the use of leaded gasoline.

Surprised he hasn't surfaced until now, as he is often wheeled out by the sceptics, but his findings were rejected as unsound way back in 1994, and he has yet to re-emerge with any other supporting evidence and has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. Not sure I would want someone that controversial in my corner! :D

The solar graphs are from a sceptics' blog (Last update 18 months ago, so good that they're keeping up to date), which is not peer reviewed by anyone but the author. Blogs are not evidence and the solar link to earth warming does not explain the recent warming pattern. Solar induced climate change has certainly receded as a viable explanation since the 1930s and it will be difficult for you to find any information in respected journals supporting that blog.

An analysis of the records of all of the Sun's activities over the past few decades - such as sunspot cycles and magnetic fields - shows that since 1985 solar activity has decreased significantly, while global warming has continued to increase.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html

Adler, Robert (6 May 2000). "Don't blame the Sun". New Scientist. newscientist.com/article.ns.

Lockwood, Mike; Claus Fröhlich (2007). "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature"

[Neuromantic]

So it boils down to Data Misconduct versus Peer Review issues! :mrgreen:

[SaigonSaddler]

So it boils down to Data Misconduct versus Peer Review issues! :mrgreen:

There is a bizarre train of thought that the data collection is wrong, either because the many 1000s of scientists collecting it are idiotic (as you summised) , or because they are deliberately and collectively misrepresenting their findings in the biggest fraud known to mankind (and have been since 1845) which is Exile's punt.

Then the interpretation of the data is wrong, for roughly the same reasons. No-one has broken cover on this yet, Dan Brown and the Masons have nothing on these chaps have they?

Assuming for a second, that neither of these things are going on, a pertinent question is that where are the articles in respected journals that cast doubt on the current scientific conclusions? Where are the papers? Why are the things that were debatable 10 or 20 or more years ago, but have since been settled (solar warming, the Mann hockey stick debate, the results from isolated weather stations, and a handful of other minor sticking points) still being brought up by contrarians to denegrate the evidence and interpretations now?

I could post something new everyday, to show how warming is happening across every continent in the world. In the meantime, here's some more info on the dangers of accepting solar forcing..... :wink:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

[ShyTallKnight]

So it boils down to Data Misconduct versus Peer Review issues! :mrgreen:

There is a bizarre train of thought that the data collection is wrong, either because the many 1000s of scientists collecting it are idiotic (as you summised) , or because they are deliberately and collectively misrepresenting their findings in the biggest fraud known to mankind (and have been since 1845) which is Exile's punt.

Then the interpretation of the data is wrong, for roughly the same reasons. No-one has broken cover on this yet, Dan Brown and the Masons have nothing on these chaps have they?

Assuming for a second, that neither of these things are going on, a pertinent question is that where are the articles in respected journals that cast doubt on the current scientific conclusions? Where are the papers? Why are the things that were debatable 10 or 20 or more years ago, but have since been settled (solar warming, the Mann hockey stick debate, the results from isolated weather stations, and a handful of other minor sticking points) still being brought up by contrarians to denegrate the evidence and interpretations now?

I could post something new everyday, to show how warming is happening across every continent in the world. In the meantime, here's some more info on the dangers of accepting solar forcing..... :wink:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

Youm a bore on this Saigon - because I don't believe you and your data and I did a degree in history :mrgreen: