"Co2 has zero effect on global warming"

[Little Fish]

http://rt.com/news/carbon-canada-effect-kyoto-773/

[questionmark]

http://rt.com/news/c...fect-kyoto-773/

He can yaddah all he wants, as long as he cannot demonstrate that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas and that there is another thingy causing it he is about as believable as Clinton when he "did not have sex with that woman".

It is time that these guys stop spouting crap and putting some real science on the table, at which they all have failed miserably so far.

[_Only]

And now people are going to read that article and say they read somewhere that it was proven that Co2 has no harmful effects to the atmosphere.

[MysticStrummer]

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

[Doug1029]

http://rt.com/news/carbon-canada-effect-kyoto-773/

I read your post. I also checked the author: Piers Corbyn's cv is not exactly a long one. He published one article back in 2001. And it was on weather, not climate.

The article you posted is nothing but the carbon cycle. How about some research to back up your ideas?

Really, LF, you can do better than that. There are articles out there that pose some serious questions, but you can't seem to find them.

Doug

[Karlis]

"According to Corbyn, the solar activity – not carbon dioxide – is behind climate change."

Anybody care to disprove Corbyn?

[questionmark]

"According to Corbyn, the solar activity – not carbon dioxide – is behind climate change."

Anybody care to disprove Corbyn?

Besides the little detail that it has been done in this very forum at least 20 times (I know, I know, not everybody has the long memory I have), may I direct you to this article by the BBC of 2008?

Mr. Corbyn is doing but warming up theories that not even climate skeptics dare to use anymore for its glaring absence of factual content.

[Karlis]

Besides the little detail that it has been done in this very forum at least 20 times (I know, I know, not everybody has the long memory I have), may I direct you to this article by the BBC of 2008?

Mr. Corbyn is doing but warming up theories that not even climate skeptics dare to use anymore for its glaring absence of factual content.

Tossing reports back-and-forth is like an endless ping-pog game. Neither side will have a conclusive argument, imo. I am far from expert on climate change, but for the heck of it, here is a report from a Google search: (I'm not sure how authoritative and how acceptable it will be in your eyes.)

~~~ ... (snip) ... 4. Cosmic Radiation, Solar Wind, and Global Cloud Coverage

The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun's activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere's CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark's and Friis-Christensen's result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is

r = 0.95. ... (snip) ...

Source

[questionmark]

Tossing reports back-and-forth is like an endless ping-pog game. Neither side will have a conclusive argument, imo. I am far from expert on climate change, but for the heck of it, here is a report from a Google search: (I'm not sure how authoritative and how acceptable it will be in your eyes.)

~~~ ... (snip) ... 4. Cosmic Radiation, Solar Wind, and Global Cloud Coverage

The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the sun's activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud coverage and cosmic rays, discovered by H. Svensmark and E. Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere's CO2 content doubled, its effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark's and Friis-Christensen's result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6 presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an indirect measure of the strength of galactic and solar cosmic rays. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is

r = 0.95. ... (snip) ...

Source

It is evidently that a higher output of solar energy will lead to an increase in temperatures, and nobody knowing even a little less than the basics (like me) will deny that, the point not taken into account is that the temperature raise is not consistent with solar activity where we can constate: more solar activity the temperature raises, less solar activity and the temperature still raises. So even being as dumb as me you have to conclude that there is something else. And that suddenly somebody decides that sunspots only heat more in odd cycles but not in even numbered cycles to make the theory fit sounds a little fishy...at best (see Alan Cheetam (2009)).

[Neognosis]

Unless this statement has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is meaningless.

This Corbin person also claims to be able to predict daily weather a year in advance. His success rate is 55%.

[questionmark]

Unless this statement has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, it is meaningless.

This Corbin person also claims to be able to predict daily weather a year in advance. His success rate is 55%.

55%? That much?

[liteness]

Just want to point out like I normally do, that, what the Sun is made of and what it's about is still debatable.

I found some better research though. To provide a clearer idea on what those who believe climate change is primarely due to solar activity and/or variations.

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Pacific_sea_surface_temperature-published.pdf

This paper is pretty good, and difficult to refute.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

This here is actually an incredible paper. I hope all who want to understand new theories about the Sun, (not new actually) to read up and continue through the sources.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/10640850/JMP20112600007_31445079.pdf

These are respected scientists with awards and hundreds of peer reviewed papers.

[questionmark]

Just want to point out like I normally do, that, what the Sun is made of and what it's about is still debatable.

I found some better research though. To provide a clearer idea on what those who believe climate change is primarely due to solar activity and/or variations.

http://www.pas.roche...e-published.pdf

This paper is pretty good, and difficult to refute.

Mostly because it does not mention global temperatures but cyclical temperatures in accordance with seasons. Sorry, but it hardly adds anything to this. Nobody disputes that the sun cause temperature raises.

[keithisco]

Are we talking about THIS Piers Corbyn?

At the end of 2007, WeatherAction predicted that temperatures in January could plummet to -17 °C in the Midlands, and that the average temperature for January would be close to freezing. This prediction was dismissed by the Met Office in a Guardian article on 2 January.^[20] After the January prediction proved false, Mr. Corbyn blamed the incorrect forecast on an undefined 'procedural error,' but insisted that the second half of the month, specifically the period of 2127 January, would be very cold, stating on his website:

""The period and forecast maps for the very cold 'dipole' patterns 15-21st Jan will probably be shifted later to 21st- 23rd Jan. Some exceptionally strong blizzard conditiuons (sic) and very strong cold winds are likely in this period. An ongoing similar situation with widespread heavy snow, strong winds and blizzards will continue 24th- 27th Jan."^[21]

The period 2123 January continued very mild for the country as a whole, but with a brief colder interlude for Scotland and the far north of England, with some snow in the Highland and Pennine Mountain regions, not out of the ordinary for January.^[22] The Met Office run Hadley Observation Centre had the CET from the 122 January running at 6.4 °C, or 2.8 °C above normal for the time of year. This made it highly unlikely that Corbyn's very cold January forecast would come to fruition.

The final CET for January 2008 ended up over 3 °C above the standard reference average making the predictions for a cold Jan very poor. In fact it ended up being one of the warmest Januarys since records began

LINK

Edited December 15, 2011 by keithisco

[liteness]

Mostly because it does not mention global temperatures but cyclical temperatures in accordance with seasons. Sorry, but it hardly adds anything to this. Nobody disputes that the sun cause temperature raises.

Uhm..

What do you mean with does not mention global temperatures? And how wouldn't cyclical temperatures not be relevant to climate variations?

[questionmark]

Uhm..

What do you mean with does not mention global temperatures? And how wouldn't cyclical temperatures not be relevant to climate variations?

Because this trend is not cyclical:

The lowest it comes down to in the trend after a new peak is the previous high (since the 1980s). So it cannot be a cyclical but is a tendencial cause. Discounts sun activity, which is cyclical right there.

[liteness]

Because this trend is not cyclical:

The lowest it comes down to in the trend after a new peak is the previous high (since the 1980s). So it cannot be a cyclical but is a tendencial cause. Discounts sun activity, which is cyclical right there.

I do not wish to waste your time but could you elaborate this?

[questionmark]

I do not wish to waste your time but could you elaborate this?

Looking at that graph it is pretty evident (see 5 year mean). After 1980 you follow the graph up, and then follow it down. And you will see that where the down ends it will be near the previous peak and mostly higher.

[liteness]

Looking at that graph it is pretty evident (see 5 year mean). After 1980 you follow the graph up, and then follow it down. And you will see that where the down ends it will be near the previous peak and mostly higher.

A bit cryptic. But thanks, I guess...

I'm not quite sure, or at least I have the feeling that, you perhaps didn't take in the all the papers? I used quite some time trying to understand those papers and you responded incredibly fast after I posted it.

This too is a good paper:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sci_and_techn-glacial_expansion_03-04.pdf

Is it possible that you might have dismissed this research too quick?

[liteness]

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sci_and_techn-glacial_expansion_03-04.pdf

This link (that I previously posted) is probably something you're more used to reading up on.

If you wish, a comment on this from you should be interesting =)

The four links I pasted is enough for any scientist to think twice about our climate science knowledge in the scientific community.

What we know... Is very little.

We must continue to pride ourselves in knowledge and the continuation of accumulating more of it. Instead of pride in thinking we know what is actually going on with the universe.

Edited December 15, 2011 by liteness

[liteness]

http://rt.com/news/carbon-canada-effect-kyoto-773/

This about sums up the other alternative to climate variations/change. Not entirely, but it's a good post =)

[questionmark]

A bit cryptic. But thanks, I guess...

I'm not quite sure, or at least I have the feeling that, you perhaps didn't take in the all the papers? I used quite some time trying to understand those papers and you responded incredibly fast after I posted it.

This too is a good paper:

http://www.geocraft....nsion_03-04.pdf

Is it possible that you might have dismissed this research too quick?

http://www.geocraft....nsion_03-04.pdf

This link (that I previously posted) is probably something you're more used to reading up on.

If you wish, a comment on this from you should be interesting =)

The four links I pasted is enough for any scientist to think twice about our climate science knowledge in the scientific community.

What we know... Is very little.

We must continue to pride ourselves in knowledge and the continuation of accumulating more of it. Instead of pride in thinking we know what is actually going on with the universe.

Yeh, would be pretty impressive were it not for the fact that in the 7 years since that article was written the average temperature had not increased by an additional 0.4 degrees. Problem is that the reality has already passed that article. But if you see a several year lasting temperature fall in the future let me know....

[liteness]

Yeh, would be pretty impressive were it not for the fact that in the 7 years since that article was written the average temperature had not increased by an additional 0.4 degrees. Problem is that the reality has already passed that article. But if you see a several year lasting temperature fall in the future let me know....

This is not meant to be rude in any way. But it seems you are either unable to understand the science presented, or you are ignoring it as it goes against some sort of belief you have that you are not willing to let go off.

That's fine though.

I hope others find time to go through these papers, they are quite valuable to climate science and knowledge about it.

[Doug1029]

This too is a good paper:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/sci_and_techn-glacial_expansion_03-04.pdf

Is it possible that you might have dismissed this research too quick?

First, it's not research. Just another article from a popular magazine.

Second, I recognized the Stephen Schneider quote. It's from an article in Discover Magazine, October 1989. He has the citation wrong. What else did he get wrong?

Third, there was a slight dip in temperatures during the 1960s (That's the last time that Lake Erie froze over.), but I don't recall any peer-reviewed journal saying there was about to be an ice age. That, too, was the product of speculation by misinformed popular writers.

Doug

[Guest]

The Oliver K. Manuel paper.

We have to be suspicious of papers which have an extensive introduction discussing politics before mentioning a word about their actual scientific work. No serious peer review process would accept it - so has it been peer reviewed or is it just a paper dressed up to look like it has or will be. It sort of automatically sets alarm bells ringing and switches off the seriously minded. The second set of alarm bells ring loud when you hear it has been submitted to the Journal Energy & Environment (a notoriously soft touch for a skeptical argument).

Did it ever get published ?

Br Cornelius

Edited December 15, 2011 by Guest