Big freeze could signal global warming 'pause

[JamieSymptom]

This thread is very interesting.

I'm still working through the science of this issue myself, and won't give a strong opinion until I feel I have a reasonable grasp of the available evidence (and I do mean evidence, not opinion).

My thanks to the posters in this thread who have provided links to papers, I'm reading those with interest.

However I am rather underwhelmed by the amount of evidence provided by those on the, shall we say, dissident side of the argument. I suspect there's a reason for that, but like I say, I'm still making my own mind up.

[danielost]

I have touched on my belief that we are primarily dealing with a crisis of meaning and psychology when confronting climate change denial. I have just spent a good half hour reading a very thoughtful article on this subject and recommend that others do the same. It is well worth reading right to the end as it displays almost all of the psychological responses discussed in the article. The article as such is not about climate change but about well understood emotional responses to difficult news - it should be read as such.

http://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/brian-davey/mass-psychology-of-climate-change-scientists-need-attitude

At this stage I am well aware that no denier is going to change their position based on my reasoned argument, but a moments reflection on the psychology of our behaviour might give us a slight pause for thought.

Br Cornelius

a reasonable argument based on faulty data is still wrong. the data is wrong because no one who is saying human caused global warming is taking into account all of the natural causes. we say the sun affects the climate, we get the sun doesn't. we say that other planets are warming up, we get there is no proof. we say that the suns radiation output has increased or decreased and we get no proof. but the sun goes through cycles, in two years we will be back at solar maixumus, but the temps are falling right now. as i have stated we are in a downward swing of the 70 year cycle to which means a decrease in radiation output dispite the slight increase from solar maximumus.

we look at the charts that you guys supply and notice the warming and cooling cycle that takes place about ever 150,000 years and we are told that doesn't count either.

so as i said a reasonable argument based on faulty data is still wrong.

should we stop polluting yes. should we get off of dead plants and animals yes. but right now a switch from gas car to electric car only moves the smoke stack and we don't produce enough electric to power up that many cars. our power grid is at maximum and all of it is being used for lights and heat and cooling. so where do we get the extra electric from. can't build more power plants, environmentilists won't let us. solar isn't far enough along to really help. wind is pickled. and can't build any nuke plants again environmentilists won't let us.

[Guest]

a reasonable argument based on faulty data is still wrong. the data is wrong because no one who is saying human caused global warming is taking into account all of the natural causes. we say the sun affects the climate, we get the sun doesn't. we say that other planets are warming up, we get there is no proof. we say that the suns radiation output has increased or decreased and we get no proof. but the sun goes through cycles, in two years we will be back at solar maixumus, but the temps are falling right now. as i have stated we are in a downward swing of the 70 year cycle to which means a decrease in radiation output dispite the slight increase from solar maximumus.

we look at the charts that you guys supply and notice the warming and cooling cycle that takes place about ever 150,000 years and we are told that doesn't count either.

so as i said a reasonable argument based on faulty data is still wrong.

should we stop polluting yes. should we get off of dead plants and animals yes. but right now a switch from gas car to electric car only moves the smoke stack and we don't produce enough electric to power up that many cars. our power grid is at maximum and all of it is being used for lights and heat and cooling. so where do we get the extra electric from. can't build more power plants, environmentilists won't let us. solar isn't far enough along to really help. wind is pickled. and can't build any nuke plants again environmentilists won't let us.

Reduce consumption.

Let us assume (or a brief moment) that Global warming just a proxy word to describe the huge amount of complex environmental problems which overconsumption creates. The solution doesn't change as CO2 is an indicator of consumption. So these problems are causing the current mass extinction which will inevitably have knock on consequences for human survival (we are part of an interconnected ecosystem with no way of predicting what will be the keystone species one which we indirectly relie). So your solution to this historic crisis is do nothing until we have another replacement source of cheap energy. Let me tell you that will not happen before the ecosystems experience systemic collapse and take us with them. Already our oceans are in crisis and since they are the key producers of our atmsophere and a major source of protein for a large part of the worlds population. the forests of the world are been cleared to replace the agricultural land which is been turned to desert from overproduction. The catch with that one is that cleared rainforest rapidly degrades to desert.

So the solution to the problem as been pursued by the UN and our political leaders (however inadequately) address the complex of eco crisis we are currently faced with. So doing nothing and waiting for the magic bullet to solve our problems is frankly insane.

And now back to reality - lay on top of all that the proven reality of AGW.

Br Cornelius

[danielost]

Reduce consumption.

Let us assume (or a brief moment) that Global warming just a proxy word to describe the huge amount of complex environmental problems which overconsumption creates. The solution doesn't change as CO2 is an indicator of consumption. So these problems are causing the current mass extinction which will inevitably have knock on consequences for human survival (we are part of an interconnected ecosystem with no way of predicting what will be the keystone species one which we indirectly relie). So your solution to this historic crisis is do nothing until we have another replacement source of cheap energy. Let me tell you that will not happen before the ecosystems experience systemic collapse and take us with them. Already our oceans are in crisis and since they are the key producers of our atmsophere and a major source of protein for a large part of the worlds population. the forests of the world are been cleared to replace the agricultural land which is been turned to desert from overproduction. The catch with that one is that cleared rainforest rapidly degrades to desert.

So the solution to the problem as been pursued by the UN and our political leaders (however inadequately) address the complex of eco crisis we are currently faced with. So doing nothing and waiting for the magic bullet to solve our problems is frankly insane.

And now back to reality - lay on top of all that the proven reality of AGW.

Br Cornelius

global warming yes. human caused global warming no. and no where did i say wait. we can have clean and safe energy right now. build more nuke plants. if they recycle the nuke waste they end up with dirt. they can also assure that they won't melt down for any reason. the only safety factor not addressed is using it for weapons. but even nuke materail is limited not sure how long it will last even with 100% recycling. but it would give us the breathing room we need to get solar on line. wind will never be very good.

[Guest]

global warming yes. human caused global warming no. and no where did i say wait. we can have clean and safe energy right now. build more nuke plants. if they recycle the nuke waste they end up with dirt. they can also assure that they won't melt down for any reason. the only safety factor not addressed is using it for weapons. but even nuke materail is limited not sure how long it will last even with 100% recycling. but it would give us the breathing room we need to get solar on line. wind will never be very good.

Peak Uranium happens in about 40-50yrs at current consumption rates. Increase demand and that shrinks. There is only one relatively safe system which is the experimental pebble bad design. That is not the major form been sold to the world though - so meltdown and accidents are a very real threat. Waste and decomissioning are issues not yet resolved.

Recycling nuclear waste back into fuel in fast breeder reactors costs more than burying it, and so has been dumped as a viable technology

On top of all that new nuke plants take over a decade to commission and build which is to long.

So no magic bullet there, and over consumption is still an unresolved threat to survival. One example is the huge wastage of potable water in power showers across the developed world - water is a precious resource and it takes energy to produce and to pump to the user where it can be contaminated before flushing down the drain and requiring even more energy to remove the toxins. a simple example but illustrative.

There are no easy solutions to over consumption and the only ones been discussed are the ones which address global warming.

Br Cornelius

Edited January 19, 2010 by Guest

[Eagle Eye]

Reduce consumption.

Let us assume (or a brief moment) that Global warming just a proxy word to describe the huge amount of complex environmental problems which overconsumption creates. The solution doesn't change as CO2 is an indicator of consumption. So these problems are causing the current mass extinction which will inevitably have knock on consequences for human survival (we are part of an interconnected ecosystem with no way of predicting what will be the keystone species one which we indirectly relie). So your solution to this historic crisis is do nothing until we have another replacement source of cheap energy. Let me tell you that will not happen before the ecosystems experience systemic collapse and take us with them. Already our oceans are in crisis and since they are the key producers of our atmsophere and a major source of protein for a large part of the worlds population. the forests of the world are been cleared to replace the agricultural land which is been turned to desert from overproduction. The catch with that one is that cleared rainforest rapidly degrades to desert.

So the solution to the problem as been pursued by the UN and our political leaders (however inadequately) address the complex of eco crisis we are currently faced with. So doing nothing and waiting for the magic bullet to solve our problems is frankly insane.

And now back to reality - lay on top of all that the proven reality of AGW.

Br Cornelius

There is no "proven reality of AGW" - it is a false thing. Never happened. It violates the laws of Thermodymanics -

See - http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

[Mattshark]

There is no "proven reality of AGW" - it is a false thing. Never happened. It violates the laws of Thermodymanics -

See - http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

Again, copied from my other post on this very poor work.

Firstly it assumes that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium, which is patently not true in the slightest, if it was we would not be seeing changes. Accepting this also completely contradicts your points and your claims about water vapour.

Secondly it ascribes the greenhouse effect acts as a heat pump, this is not true at all. The greenhouse effect doesn't create heat, it is about the dissipation of heat and the environment loosing it slowly and as it is losing heat it is not a closed system and hence there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Basically the are trying to a top of the other obvious errors, argue that insulation is impossible.

With such fundamental basic errors you have to assume either extreme incompetence on the authors part of they are trying to produce straw man argument deliberately.

I would also suggest that you actually make your argument more consistent because at present it is rather contradictory rather than constantly telling me how little I know.

[Eagle Eye]

Again, copied from my other post on this very poor work.

Firstly it assumes that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium, which is patently not true in the slightest, if it was we would not be seeing changes. Accepting this also completely contradicts your points and your claims about water vapour.

Secondly it ascribes the greenhouse effect acts as a heat pump, this is not true at all. The greenhouse effect doesn't create heat, it is about the dissipation of heat and the environment loosing it slowly and as it is losing heat it is not a closed system and hence there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics. Basically the are trying to a top of the other obvious errors, argue that insulation is impossible.

With such fundamental basic errors you have to assume either extreme incompetence on the authors part of they are trying to produce straw man argument deliberately.

I would also suggest that you actually make your argument more consistent because at present it is rather contradictory rather than constantly telling me how little I know.

Again, then, please enlighten me, and tell me how AGW breaks the law of Thermodynamics?

[Mattshark]

Again, then, please enlighten me, and tell me how AGW breaks the law of Thermodynamics?

It doesn't, I never said it did.

[Eagle Eye]

It doesn't, I never said it did.

Finally - so AGW is thus invalid and everything under it is invalid as well. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. If you cannot prove it - and no one has - then Thermodynamic laws stand as we all know that the Earth's major greenhouse gas - by far - is water vapor.

[Mattshark]

Finally - so AGW is thus invalid and everything under it is invalid as well. There is no such thing as man-made global warming. If you cannot prove it - and no one has - then Thermodynamic laws stand as we all know that the Earth's major greenhouse gas - by far - is water vapor.

Is the earth a closed system? No.

So how on earth does this law apply?

Please refrain from deliberately misinterpreting my points and using a straw man argument.

[Guest]

There is no "proven reality of AGW" - it is a false thing. Never happened. It violates the laws of Thermodymanics -

See - http://www.schmanck.de/FalsificationSchreuder.pdf

There are no words adequate to describe the incompetence of your contribution to this thread.

Br Cornelius

[Caesar]

There are no words adequate to describe the incompetence of your contribution to this thread.

Br Cornelius

Like you should talk?

[Eagle Eye]

There are no words adequate to describe the incompetence of your contribution to this thread.

Br Cornelius

The laws of Thermodynamics is not "incompetence." I suggest you read the paper to learn about the laws that govern the climate of your own planet.

Read, and understand - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Edited January 19, 2010 by Eagle Eye

[Mattshark]

The laws of Thermodynamics is not "incompetence." I suggest you read the paper to learn about the laws that govern the climate of your own planet.

Read, and understand - http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

And I have rather comprehensively pointed out why that is review is highly incorrect

[embarrasment]

And I have rather comprehensively pointed out why that is review is highly incorrect

Point out one mistake in the paper. Just one!

[danielost]

Point out one mistake in the paper. Just one!

it doesnt agree with mattshark

[embarrasment]

what is wrong with Woods experiment, Matt? On page 33 of "Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics" Woods does an experiment where he surrounds an object with transparent, and radiation absorbing material. He gets the same temperature from each thermometer. What did Wood do wrong? Where is the greenhouse effect?

[Karlis]

FYI -- comments anyone?

-=-=-

The theory of global warming states that greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, therefore an increase in human carbon dioxide emissions could potentially cause a steady rise in temperature. Indeed, Earth’s temperature over the past century of industrialization has risen by about .5 degrees Celsius, but the theory holds that greenhouse warming should be highest in the troposphere, the place where the greenhouse warming effect begins. Utterly confounding global warming temperature models, weather balloon data has shown the opposite; the troposphere has been consistently cooler than surface temperatures. When faced with real atmospheric data, one of the most fundamental assumptions behind climate change due to greenhouse warming absolutely breaks down.

Global warming proponents use data from ice core surveys to show that there is an intimate correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. However, as the 2007 BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle reveals, the alleged correlation is backward. Professor Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa has demonstrated from several ice core surveys that changes in the level of carbon dioxide lag behind corresponding changes in temperature by hundreds of years. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at M.I.T., described the phenomenon thus: “The ocean is the major reservoir [of] carbon dioxide … if you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide.” As the sun becomes increasingly active, it warms the vast oceans which, over a process that takes hundreds of years, release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “The sun is driving climate change,” explains Solar Physicist Piers Corbyn. “Carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”

Link to above excerpts

[Mattshark]

Point out one mistake in the paper. Just one!

I have a pointed out a few already.

[Mattshark]

FYI -- comments anyone?

-=-=-

The theory of global warming states that greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, therefore an increase in human carbon dioxide emissions could potentially cause a steady rise in temperature. Indeed, Earth’s temperature over the past century of industrialization has risen by about .5 degrees Celsius, but the theory holds that greenhouse warming should be highest in the troposphere, the place where the greenhouse warming effect begins. Utterly confounding global warming temperature models, weather balloon data has shown the opposite; the troposphere has been consistently cooler than surface temperatures. When faced with real atmospheric data, one of the most fundamental assumptions behind climate change due to greenhouse warming absolutely breaks down.

Global warming proponents use data from ice core surveys to show that there is an intimate correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. However, as the 2007 BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle reveals, the alleged correlation is backward. Professor Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa has demonstrated from several ice core surveys that changes in the level of carbon dioxide lag behind corresponding changes in temperature by hundreds of years. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at M.I.T., described the phenomenon thus: “The ocean is the major reservoir [of] carbon dioxide … if you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide.” As the sun becomes increasingly active, it warms the vast oceans which, over a process that takes hundreds of years, release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “The sun is driving climate change,” explains Solar Physicist Piers Corbyn. “Carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”

Link to above excerpts

I think your source has a few issues.

1. That documentary has nothing to do with the BBC, it was made by Channel 4

2. They were made by the broadcast standards agency to appologise for misleading and misquoting some of the scientists in the program who had issued a lot of complaints before broadcast.

3. All the graphs in the program stop at 1980. Cherry picking.

4. Carl Wunsch was one of those who issued a complaint of misrepresentation.

5. Eigil Friis-Christensen, who's research was also used made complaints about misrepresentation.

[Mattshark]

what is wrong with Woods experiment, Matt? On page 33 of "Falsication Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Eects Within The Frame Of Physics" Woods does an experiment where he surrounds an object with transparent, and radiation absorbing material. He gets the same temperature from each thermometer. What did Wood do wrong? Where is the greenhouse effect?

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

[Eagle Eye]

FYI -- comments anyone?

-=-=-

The theory of global warming states that greenhouse gasses, like carbon dioxide, trap the sun’s heat in the atmosphere, therefore an increase in human carbon dioxide emissions could potentially cause a steady rise in temperature. Indeed, Earth’s temperature over the past century of industrialization has risen by about .5 degrees Celsius, but the theory holds that greenhouse warming should be highest in the troposphere, the place where the greenhouse warming effect begins. Utterly confounding global warming temperature models, weather balloon data has shown the opposite; the troposphere has been consistently cooler than surface temperatures. When faced with real atmospheric data, one of the most fundamental assumptions behind climate change due to greenhouse warming absolutely breaks down.

Global warming proponents use data from ice core surveys to show that there is an intimate correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. However, as the 2007 BBC documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle reveals, the alleged correlation is backward. Professor Ian Clark from the University of Ottawa has demonstrated from several ice core surveys that changes in the level of carbon dioxide lag behind corresponding changes in temperature by hundreds of years. Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at M.I.T., described the phenomenon thus: “The ocean is the major reservoir [of] carbon dioxide … if you heat the surface of the ocean, it tends to emit carbon dioxide.” As the sun becomes increasingly active, it warms the vast oceans which, over a process that takes hundreds of years, release massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. “The sun is driving climate change,” explains Solar Physicist Piers Corbyn. “Carbon dioxide is irrelevant.”

Link to above excerpts

He's correct. The Sun drives climate change.

[embarrasment]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

Don't dodge the issues. This is a relevant experiment. Your citing is even improper. I gave you a legitimately published paper with a relevant experiment and the page number. I gave you the name of the scientist who conducted the experiment. You can't just give me a URL, and expect the issue to be dismissed. Tell me, or give a proper citation, explaining why Woods experiment is faulty.

[Mattshark]

Don't dodge the issues. This is a relevant experiment. Your citing is even improper. I gave you a legitimately published paper with a relevant experiment and the page number. I gave you the name of the scientist who conducted the experiment. You can't just give me a URL, and expect the issue to be dismissed. Tell me, or give a proper citation, explaining why Woods experiment is faulty.

I didn't dodge the issue, I gave you a link explaining the issues with that analogy and that paper (which is in a low impact journal as a review for a reason) is a joke that is totally reliant on a straw man argument as I have very much explained.

Edited January 20, 2010 by Mattshark