climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Please explain to the forum how come the period of warming graph does not fit the sun spot graph?

You might want to argue the case for the red line version of this graph.

Reconstructed temperature graph for the last 1000 years by several different methods and scientists.

Quote[/b] ]...This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 1000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black...  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....son.png

Follow the link for the full text and links to the original data and research

Here is the one for the last 180 years

Note the warming begins at the end of the 19th century. Note also the blip in temperature at the 1940s was it sunspot activity was it then or the massive increase in industrial carbon fuel use as part of WWII compare the sunspot graphs below.

Odd that human activity coincides with recent temperature changes even to activity of WWII but the sunspot activity don't. Here is a long set of sun spot activity records from that great member of the global warming conspiracy NASA

No no amount a peering makes it fit.

Here is another graph of the temperature change for the last 2000 years maybe that will help

Other than Red kite, Kode and Baff1 can anyone reconcile the graphs?

Here that people? That is the sound of the sunspot explanation crashing an burning.

As to Mars sir we have not been observing it long enough to develop a climactic series of any significance ditto all the rest of the planets though most argue against your explanation.

Secondly explain Baff1 if sunspot activity were anything more than a trigger for climate change, how and when the sunspots lasted the tens of thousands of years required for any historical change period in the paleo climactic record?

In reply to Red kite

As to solutions this is one of those things that is only going to be fixed by international action.

That action will only take place by arguing the case against the current production of CO2 and other green house gases in the the developed world.

Kind Regards walker

[Journeyman 0]

Now explain to us how come that most of those lines show that the 'medieval warm period' was every bit if not warmer than today? Only the black line shows a sudden rise (funny how that was added later)!

I don't recall reports of record co2 levels in the 'medieval warm period'! Or am I missing something?

[redpride 0]

Everybody's husslein for a bucket of dimes , I'll scratch your back , if you scratch mine.

That's my whole outtake on it.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite

On the matter of the black line on the graph I quote my own quote.

Quote[/b] ]...An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black...  

The black line on the graph is the original data and the only instrument data

The black line is the only real instrument readings; the other readings are reconstructed from historical and archaeological data sets.

In other words the black line was not added latter as you would have others believe. It is the other graphs that were added afterwards to investigate the black lines data.

It is original material that caused people to then begin to use methods to look at the historical and archaeological data via dendro, ice cores, pollen counts from datable periods etc. In order see if the data was realy unprecidented.

It is also shown because many of the other methods become less accurate close to the present day and cannot show useful data. The present ice cores for this year they have not formed they are melting too fast. In fact every year the ice cores on glaciers disappear, that is why they go to Antartica nowadays. Dendro is fairly ok but pollen counts are also inaccurate close to deposit. It is also shown so you can see which of the other methods show the most accurate data.

In essence the black line is the control against which all the others must measure up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....son.png

Follow this link (it is the same one I posted with the image) for the full key to the graph and to the list of data sources and original research.

Medieval warm period

On the matter of the The medieval warm period. It is no where near present temperatures. Look at the graph the black line is the only one for the present day.

The Medieval warm period, if it was global and not just a local event, took place over medium period with a slow steady rise in temperature. Generally it is thought to have been an ocean current event like an El ninia.

Your wonderful "medieval warm period was as warm as today" theory was just another bit of science blinding:

1) The medieval warm period was not as hot.

2) You never dealt with the speed of temperature rise the slow temperature rise of the medieval warming period was not even in the same class.

3) You either deliberately or through your own inattention misinformed or misdirected people about which data came first the black line or the other graph lines.

For the record Cyan line is consider the most accurate data ie it follows the instrument data black line the closest not suprisingly it is dendro data from tree rings.

So having shot down your red herring theory that the medieval warming period was just as warm in just as short a time as the present climate event what is your next question?

By the way you still have not answered a single one of my questions, could it be you have not got the answers?

Kind Regards walker

[Journeyman 0]

Medieval warm period

On the matter of the The medieval warm period. It is no where near present temperatures. Look at the graph the black line is the only one for the present day.

The Medieval warm period, if it was global and not just a local event, took place over medium period with a slow steady rise in temperature. Generally it is thought to have been an ocean current event like an El ninia.

Your wonderful "medieval warm period was as warm as today" theory was just another bit of science blinding:

1) The medieval warm period was not as hot.

2) You never dealt with the speed of temperature rise the slow temperature rise of the medieval warming period was not even in the same class.

From the same source as your wonderful graph:

Quote[/b] ]A radiocarbon-dated box core in the Sargasso Sea shows that the sea surface temperature was approximately 1°C cooler than today approximately 400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and approximately 1°C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period)

source.

The fact is that the Earth heated up to at least that of today during that period through entirely natural processes.  In your post you seem to be making me out as some kind of evil deceiver trying to sway people away from your version of events! Try to be a bit more mature about it and I might take you a bit more seriously! I'm merely challenging your take on the subject.

This unprecedented warming seems to have been recorded only over the last few years (according to all the graphs I've seen so far) So either we have got a 'runaway' effect or the current readings are just showing further inaccuracies in the old record history. I am not saying either is true and like I have said in previous posts do believe we have more profound increases in temperatures in recent years too but unlike you I try to quantify things first!

By the way you still have not answered a single one of my questions, could it be you have not got the answers?

Have I not? Please repeat them for me I must have overlooked them I will do my best!

And while we are on the subject please advise on how we should go about preventing any further temperature increases, as you seem such an expert on the subject! Oh and quote:

Quote[/b] ]As to solutions this is one of those things that is only going to be fixed by international action.

That action will only take place by arguing the case against the current production of CO2 and other green house gases in the the developed world.

.... is hardly cutting edge science considering the lengthy debate that we have had on this topic over the last few pages!

[Baff1 0]

Hi all

In reply to Baff1

Please explain to the forum how come the period of warming graph does not fit the sun spot graph?

Because you haven't learnt to read a graph.

They match almost exactly.

LOL!

There isn't really any point looking at graphs, let alone basing your arguments upon them, if you don't know how to use one.

Did I say LOL!

(Hint). Instead of just looking at the pretty shapes they make, try reading the numbers on the scale.

Shall I also explain to the forum how when you say you have personally seen the effects of global warming in your local enviroment, that the local enviroment you have personally seen them on is your television set?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qhWf8v15AU

[Journeyman 0]

Nice one Baff! ... I’ve added that one to my playlist!

So we like graphs? How about this graph of solar activity? Looks like a good a contender as any to me!

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years  .... Linky!

@ walker. Whether co2 is a contributing factor for current trends or not you cannot ignore these statistics! .... Or can you! … Well of course you can because it spoils your theories/beliefs that we are solely to blame for this current warming event!  

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite

I would say nice of you to give me more amunition but I already read this research some 2 or 3 years ago, in Nature I think it was, but thanks for reminding me

I should have been using this to scotch your sunspot claims right at the start.

From the conclusion of your own post

Quote[/b] ]...Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that (*1)solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - (*2) while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research...

My addition of bold and *numbers for clarity of my argument

http://www.mpg.de/english....0041028

as allways follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

(*1)Note the period of high activity is since 1980 the hockeystick is since 1900

(*2)As I keep pointing out if sunspot activity is a very minor input in to global climate change.

And on point (*2) if you had bothered to read your own source you would have noticed the Linky at the bottom which reads:

[1] How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

Quote[/b] ]How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually (*3)high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time...

My addition of bold and *numbers for clarity of my argument

http://www.mpg.de/english....0040802

as allways follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

And your argument crashes and burns yet again from the subtitle answering the question of the title in essence an executive summary

Quote[/b] ]solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

Ibid

(*3)I think your problem has been this; you are confusing high activity with sun spot activity; not the same thing.

Let us move swiftly to the conclusion just to hammer a final nail in to the coffin of this science blinding myth of sunspot activity causing the current global warming.

Quote[/b] ]These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal, gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since, according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field, the significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki, solar physicist and director at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research.

Ibid my use of bold

Sun spots are causing global warming

Hoist by your own petard Red kite

So I am sure being an honest person willing to change your mind, we will have persuaded you as to the error of your ways and you will now once again join your voice to the fight to persuade those in power to reduce current production of CO2 and other green house gases in the developed world.

This will require international action and a consensus of the people of the world that the problem is real and needs to be dealt with. Unless you want the rest of the world to attack those countries for not sorting them selves out? Somehow I do not think you will find that a good solution.

Now to Baff1’s question about personal experience

Quote[/b] ]Shall I also explain to the forum how when you say you have personally seen the effects of global warming in your local enviroment, that the local enviroment you have personally seen them on is your television set?

Personal experience:

My earliest memory is playing snowballs on Christmas day with my father. When I was a kid I used to play in the snow every winter in my home town Doncaster South Yorkshire yes the junction of the Don and Dearn valley where all that flooding was is where I ride my bicycle daily up past the closed down earth centre on the valley toward Barnsley, so yes I saw it personally not just TV.

We used to build snowmen that took all my class mates to roll the ball that formed its base, all the other classes used to build them to. There would be 10 or 12 of them out on the school field. We would see between 6 and 18 inches of snow most years. Some times the snow was so deep the sheep would suffocate in it and cars could not move.

In my home town none of the kids or even those in their 20’s has ever seen such snows.

I have lived and worked most of my adult life in London. I saw the last of the winters with real snow that I remember as a child up in Muswell Hill. The first 3 or 4 years there I used ski at Alexander Palace on the dry slopes but in the winter we used to ski on the snow right along the whole hill in front of the palace; usually for a week or two each year.

Last year in London, as for at least ten or more years, we were wearing T shirts at night through most of the winter and having barbeques in February.

I have been in love with mountains since I was 12 on a first trip to the lakes I am a climber and even work as an instructor. Every year I am in the mountains and every year it is hotter, snow no longer stops on Snowden; Bonington could not train for Everest now as he did 30 or so years ago. Many of the alpine flowers I used to see up there are long gone extinct in the UK others on the verge of it. All the instructors remark about it and are angry at those who say what they see with their own eyes is not so.

In the Alps the glaciers I play on each year, I have to walk further to reach them.

In the Arctic Circle about 15 years ago while climbing and walking on the Kings Path in Northern Sweden on the border with Norway near Narvik, I was using a marked path across the glacier at the start of the walk with my wife and a Czech climber friend. I had occasion to cross this ancient glacier four times in a day. It had been marked on the map for centuries it was some 2 kilometres across. The first time I crossed it noticed the oddly coloured ice it had strange dark green grey tinge to it.

We went up to the mountain hut at the start of the path, most people fly in by helicopter but we decided to walk from the Norwegian border. We had a base camp down a few miles from the railway not far from the border and an excellent lake for fishing. We also wanted to see the Sami people who were herding Reindeer in the next valley to the glacier.

We spent a while at the hut and a storm blew in so we decided to head back down to base camp. We got back down and re-crossed the glacier. When we reached a rescue hut near the valley bottom, where it was only raining a little, I realised I had left my wallet and passport up at the mountain climbing hut. So I left most of my equipment with the others at the rescue hut taking only bare necessities survival bag waterproofs water, chocolate whistle compass etc. I ran back up through an increasingly bad storm rain, then hail, then snow, rain again and back to snow with the wind getting stronger every minute.

By the time I got back to the mountain climbing hut they were tying down the blades of the copters and stacking rocks around the base of the tents and adding other rocks to the guy lines. I burst into the kitchen area of the hut spotted my gear and grabbed it then to every ones surprise headed back down the mountain. The wind was so strong through a narrow pass about 8 feet wide coming toward the glacier that I had to pull my self along the rock face to make headway

On my final crossing of the glacier that day I reached the glacier and it had disappeared!

The whole section of glacier I had crossed three times had been on its last few metres the grey green colour was the rock and the river beneath it. The rains and river water from the storm had been the straw that broke the camels back. A Glacier that had been there since the oldest records and back into Sami history was gone.

I had to cross the river via an ice bridge with no ropes I crapped myself a dozen times. It was the July so there was no danger of me being benighted. When I got down to the rescue hut the local Sami were there just about to send off for the rescue copters. So I saved myself a 10,000 dollar bill by getting there before they called it in.

Over the next few days we could hear the remains of the glacier crashing down like giants having fights with boulders. The Sami were shocked and kept shaking their heads. It would not have been for a few years that they as I began to understand what was happening. Every year now the glaciers get smaller and some more disappear.

So as to personal experience Baff1, I think I have you beaten there.

Kind Regards walker

Post script

I decided to look up the area where glacier had disapeared.

Here are some photgraphs of the area and the moutain climbers hut here.

http://megnoblepeterson.com/photo-050902/index.htm

There is also some photos on that link of what was a glacier on the Abisko side which is a trail we also went up that Glacier was still there back in 1987 when I was there; now I am shocked it too has gone.

Here is some more photgrahs and info on the area and the trails.

http://www.travelnotes.de/scandi/kungs/kungs1.htm

In looking for pictures of the area I found out that Abisko is now one the worlds main sites for studying the permafrost destruction due to global warming. It produces the methane that I was talking about in earlier posts. I guess the Sami must have raised a fuss after their glaciers started to disapear.

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Here's your logic.

******** are increasing.  Temperature is increasing.  Thus, ******** are causing global warming.

Insert "greenhouse gasses" and you have the argument for one side.  Insert sun spots and you have the other.  

And now for a dose of reality.  Insert "ufo sightings."

Ufo sightings have been increasing over time.  Temperature is increasing.  Thus, Ufo sightings are causing global warming.

You can't PROVE I'm wrong.  You can't prove I'm right.  Same with "greenhouse gasses" or sun spots.  

Lets review.  You can't prove ufo's are or are not causing global warming.  You can't prove humans are or are not causing global warming.

Therefore, we are still in the stage of THEORY. Unless you want to abandon the scientific method.

The end

[Journeyman 0]

@ walker why are you posting links to an article that I already linked in my previous post – and read? I read all of it a while back and the conclusion is that solar activity has been dominating our world at a constant high since about 1980

Quote[/b] ] solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980

But I guess that has had ZERO influence on our climate hasn’t it? Why because you cannot accept that there are also natural factors influencing our climate! Why? Because this is no longer a science for you! No it’s a faith and why would anyone want to give up a faith?

You read articles and read into them what you want. I read articles and try and read into them what makes most sense!

Bravo for your mountaineering story! Glaciers don’t just disappear overnight that’s just a load of ‘bollocks’! I’ve been on glaciers too they are shifting all the time but there is not a chance in ‘Timbuktu’ that they can dissolve overnight! What a load of ‘bull’! …. Where are you in those photos?

No, on second thoughts spare me any more lectures! This whole ‘I know it all and you don’t crap’ is just too hilarious!  

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Not only has the UN declared "global warming" real and caused by humans, now it's blamed for war and genocide!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn....57.html

It's not an ethnic conflict pitting Arab militias against black rebels and farmers.  If it were not for global warming, the Arab nomadic herders would never have been forced to take up arms.  

Its not their fault they slaughter each other...its all because of my SUV!

I'm sure someone is hard at work finding climatic changes in the middle east, eastern europe, and parts of asia. That way all of these ethnic conflicts can be blamed on that darned boggey-man named "global warming"!

My pride at being a tree-hugger has turned to shame as the cause of caring about the environment has been soiled.  Environmentalism has become every bit as corrupt as the forces they blame pollution for.

Stop being a suker.  Stop following and take a moment to question your own side.  Maybe then we can meet in the middle, away from all the bullshit and work on sensible change.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite

Quote[/b] ]@ walker why are you posting links to an article that I already linked in my previous post

Because:

* I always try to link to what I quote so people may see whether I am selectively quoting or not eg. being truthful and not trying to blind them with science.

* It is only fair to acknowledge your sources

* If you are going to persuade people it is always better to use information they have misunderstood.

What Red kite says

Quote[/b] ]But I guess that has had ZERO influence on our climate hasn’t it? Why because you cannot accept that there are also natural factors influencing our climate! Why? Because this is no longer a science for you! No it’s a faith and why would anyone want to give up a faith?

And in the Research Red kite originally pointed to:

http://www.mpg.de/english....0041028

as always follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

There is a link entitled.

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

It goes here http://www.mpg.de/english....0040802

as always follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

What the article says in the executive summary at the very start.

Quote[/b] ] solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

What Prof. Sami K. Solanki who did the research that, Red kite quotes out of context, says is his conclusion.

Quote[/b] ]significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki,

Neither I nor any climate change scientist is disputing that sunspots happen. What those scientists including the one you pointed to in YOUR linky is that sunspot activity is not a significant factor in the current global warming period. It does not fit the temperature changes over this period.

I am fully aware that natural events cause climate change I even went through all of them with descriptions of how they work, something you never did

I then went on to explain with supporting materials why each of the natural causes does not fit the current anomaly event. It is why the UK meteorological office labeled it an anomaly in the first place.

In the light of the evidence of real science and not science blinding I have presented. Even to the point of proving I read your source, and that you had misunderstood it, possibly because you were Google hunting through to find something to support your argument and were quoting out of context something to support your view, rather than reading it in full.

Perhaps you wish to withdraw your remarks about me refusing to accept the science because to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to read the case is perhaps the reverse of what you would ascribe to me.

As to the personal experience that Baff1 demanded I present. I did just that.

I am sorry but I was not carrying a camera with me at the time and I was far to busy crapping myself over the fact we had crossed it twice and I had crossed it three times.

Glaciers do not just melt slowly and uniformly. The process is catastrophic and violent. Big chunks fall off the size of blocks of flats and the noise is unbelievable. What looks to you like a car sized block falling off the bottom of say the Glacier du Boissons near Chamonix is suddenly brought into perspective when you look away to continue walking and few seconds later the sound reaches you and your mind does a massive jump as you realise just how big those blocks of ice are.

The glacier I crossed near Laktatjakka had been melting probably since the 1900s. The storm, I was in, was as I said the straw that broke the camel's back.

The water from the river being swollen and flooded probably melted and weakened key sections that were supporting the glacier. I just happened to be there the day it finally came crashing down. When I came back it was a smashed load of office block sized lumps of ice about 25 m plus below where the surface we had walked on. They had originally been a flat glacier top with a path marked across with red and yellow fluorescent poles.

The glacier I crossed near Laktatjakka was a small one not some tens of miles like the Glacier du Boissons but one that was on the map and that the Abisko parks people had placed a marked path across.

This is a photograph of another glacier on the Abisko side of of the mountain

That glacier when I crossed it in 1987 was covering the point where the camera is.

Source for the photograph

http://megnoblepeterson.com/photo-050902/index.htm

As always follow link to see context

Glaciers are retreating at about 200 feet a year the smaller ones retreat faster. I am sorry I have not got photos of the exact glacier it no longer exists and being a small insignificant glacier up in the arctic where there are many other more magnificent glaciers to study probably no one bothered to photograph it.

What I can do is point to these photographs of other glaciers  that are retreating at similar rates.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Hover over the photographs to see before and after shots.

As to Sc@tterbrain!

Yes Sc@tterbrain climate change is big conspiracy between me, most of the worlds Governments, scientists, NASA, ESA, the Russians, Charities, Tree huggers, Lefties, Oil Speculators, Oil Companies and some unknown shadow group trying to drive down the third world all conspiring in a smoky room. And Now the dastardly UN has joined it!

All of whom say Global warming is happening and it is all to stop Sc@tterbrain from driving his SUV.

Kind Regards walker

[Journeyman 0]

What the article says in the executive summary at the very start.

Quote[/b] ] solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

Like I said earlier you read into things what you want to read into them. You then refer to the ‘conclusions’ of the scientists about what ‘they’ think is happening! Why bother reading an entire article at all if you only refer to ‘what they say they think’ is happening at the end?

Let’s have a look at the link you made for me. I’ve read this one too and again we have a ‘what they think’ at the end! This is your scientific approach?

Quote[/b] ]The Sun affects the climate through several physical processes: For one thing, the total radiation, particularly that in the ultraviolet range, varies with solar activity. When many sunspots are visible, the Sun is somewhat brighter than in "quiet" times and radiates considerably more in the ultraviolet. On the other hand, the cosmic ray intensity entering the Earth’s atmosphere varies opposite to the solar activity, since the cosmic ray particles are deflected by the Sun’s magnetic field to a greater or lesser degree. According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.

Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation.

And here is the bit you are clinging on to …

Quote[/b] ]However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

So the scientists conclude that if you put an electric fire in an average room and turn up the heat the room will only continue to get hotter if the electric fire also continues to get hotter! Sorry but common sense not ‘science’ will tell you that that is not the case! The room will continue to get hotter so long as the electric fire is on high! Unlike you I am reading all of the article and drawing my own conclusions. You on the other hand are prepared to accept anything that is concluded by said scientists! Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue!

You’ve already showed us that you can’t read a graph!

Quote[/b] ] Please explain to the forum how come the period of warming graph does not fit the sun spot graph?

LMAO! How can you not see it? .... It fits like a glove right up to 1980. Then from 1980 onwards the temperature goes up the sunspot activity settles back .. but to what level? It is still high! I’ll go back to my common sense statement …

Quote[/b] ] The room will continue to get hotter so long as the electric fire is on high!

… How do you suppose this has happened in the past? …  Were all of our ancestors eating too many beans?

… “And so the scientists conclude that ‘farting' is responsible for global warming!†You would believe that too wouldn’t you! You just believe ‘everything’ you read, you don’t try and analyse it! So much for your ‘scientific blinding’!

(notice I'm adding a few extra smilies this time since I like to treat like with like! )

And I am not saying that co2 is not a factor in global warming either. The last 25 years show us that their could well be a feedback with co2. My 'common sense' statement might not explain everything but it at least challenges your ridiculous hypothesis of 'all or nothing'! I at least have the courage to say that. You on the other hand just can’t take anything that challenges ‘your theory’ that man made co2 is ‘solely’ responsible for this current trend and the very thought that their maybe a far more natural event at least contributing if not forcing this whole episode is just too much for you!

Step down off your high chair and try and debate this in a more mature fashion instead of just ‘bashing’ everything that attempts to challenge your ‘faith’!  

And now for the bit you just keep skimping over! Given what we know ‘might’ be the culprit what are we going to do about it? Should I stop driving my Land Rover because it is contributing to co2? Should I turn off all the appliances in my house too? Maybe I should also stop buying food because it was all transported by that trusty old diesel engine!

Do you seriously believe that any necessary action to reduce co2 to a degree that might have any conceivable affect is not going to cripple the economy? … And what about your ‘co2 feedback’ theory? If the climate is already as warm as the readings suggest then co2 is surely currently being forced from our oceans far faster than we could ever make it! You seem to think you know ‘exactly’ what is the cause of this ‘unprecedented’ warming so what are you going to do about it?

… Do you really have any answers or are you just trying to prove how clever you think you are?  

[simba 0]

Red Kite

your post doesn't make any sense...

your are trying to invalidate Walker points but only prove him right.

Quote[/b] ]

However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

Quote[/b] ]

So the scientists conclude that if you put an electric fire in an average room and turn up the heat the room will only continue to get hotter if the electric fire also continues to get hotter! Sorry but common sense not ‘science’ will tell you that that is not the case! The room will continue to get hotter so long as the electric fire is on high! Unlike you I am reading all of the article and drawing my own conclusions. You on the other hand are prepared to accept anything that is concluded by said scientists! Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue!

I'd choose science over fuzzy logic, thank you.

translated in "common sense" for people that are smarter than science wish proved very effective in highly complicated problems like this :

yes a room will get hotter as long as the heater is on high but will reach a maximum depending on the insulation level, because emmited energy (read energy given by the room to the external envirronement) is direcly proportionnal to Temp^4

If the room is PERFECTLY insulated the room will radiate no energy so will reach million of degrees if we wait long enough.

BUT this is not the case here, the earth isn't perfecly insulated it radiates a lot of energy, in fact it radiates as much as it absorbes as long as the insulation doesn't change !

if you increase Co2 level it will "improve" insulation then the earth will radiate less than it absorbes so will get hotter.

- The glove thing isn't better :

If sunspot activity was the primary factor here, the temp should evolve accordingly but a different curve (i.e Co2) seems to have much more influence...

to sum it up

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

you agree with Walker you just don't want to say it, you perfecly now that Co2 is the predominant factor, but you'd rather keep this going just to try to be right.

And then comes the "if it is true, we can do nothing about it".

think about where pride leads, because right now it's you against science, and you really have nothing solid to propose.

cheers mate, happy to live on this planet with you !

[AgentJonathan 0]

Come now!!!

bottom line

Are you gonna live and have fun, or panic and try being scientifically correct about nothing?

[simba 0]

what is this live and have fun philosophy ?

Can we still live the same way being aware of global warming ?

please think about the consequences.

[AgentJonathan 0]

Oh, I thought! This global warming stuff is bullcrap, and you've fallen victim to a lie! The scientists left out many facts that, of course prove wrong their hypothesis...

The scientists MUST be 100% correct, so they lie to cover truths that they laid to waste themselves...

Why do you care? Are you afraid to die? Don't join the army...

I'm not afraid to die, but I'm not a suicidal idiot that hates life and cares nothing for it...

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

Hi all

In reply to Red kite

Quote[/b] ]@ walker why are you posting links to an article that I already linked in my previous post

Because:

* I always try to link to what I quote so people may see whether I am selectively quoting or not eg. being truthful and not trying to blind them with science.

* It is only fair to acknowledge your sources

* If you are going to persuade people it is always better to use information they have misunderstood.

What Red kite says

Quote[/b] ]But I guess that has had ZERO influence on our climate hasn’t it? Why because you cannot accept that there are also natural factors influencing our climate! Why? Because this is no longer a science for you! No it’s a faith and why would anyone want to give up a faith?

And in the Research Red kite originally pointed to:

http://www.mpg.de/english....0041028

as always follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

There is a link entitled.

How Strongly Does the Sun Influence the Global Climate?

It goes here http://www.mpg.de/english....0040802

as always follow the link for the full story I could be trying to science blind you  

What the article says in the executive summary at the very start.

Quote[/b] ] solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming

What Prof. Sami K. Solanki who did the research that, Red kite quotes out of context, says is his conclusion.

Quote[/b] ]significant increase in the Earth’s temperature since 1980 is indeed to be ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide," says Prof. Sami K. Solanki,

Neither I nor any climate change scientist is disputing that sunspots happen. What those scientists including the one you pointed to in YOUR linky is that sunspot activity is not a significant factor in the current global warming period. It does not fit the temperature changes over this period.

I am fully aware that natural events cause climate change I even went through all of them with descriptions of how they work, something you never did

I then went on to explain with supporting materials why each of the natural causes does not fit the current anomaly event. It is why the UK meteorological office labeled it an anomaly in the first place.

In the light of the evidence of real science and not science blinding I have presented. Even to the point of proving I read your source, and that you had misunderstood it, possibly because you were Google hunting through to find something to support your argument and were quoting out of context something to support your view, rather than reading it in full.

Perhaps you wish to withdraw your remarks about me refusing to accept the science because to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to read the case is perhaps the reverse of what you would ascribe to me.

As to the personal experience that Baff1 demanded I present. I did just that.

I am sorry but I was not carrying a camera with me at the time and I was far to busy crapping myself over the fact we had crossed it twice and I had crossed it three times.

Glaciers do not just melt slowly and uniformly. The process is catastrophic and violent. Big chunks fall off the size of blocks of flats and the noise is unbelievable. What looks to you like a car sized block falling off the bottom of say the Glacier du Boissons near Chamonix is suddenly brought into perspective when you look away to continue walking and few seconds later the sound reaches you and your mind does a massive jump as you realise just how big those blocks of ice are.

The glacier I crossed near Laktatjakka had been melting probably since the 1900s. The storm, I was in, was as I said the straw that broke the camel's back.

The water from the river being swollen and flooded probably melted and weakened key sections that were supporting the glacier. I just happened to be there the day it finally came crashing down. When I came back it was a smashed load of office block sized lumps of ice about 25 m plus below where the surface we had walked on. They had originally been a flat glacier top with a path marked across with red and yellow fluorescent poles.

The glacier I crossed near Laktatjakka was a small one not some tens of miles like the Glacier du Boissons but one that was on the map and that the Abisko parks people had placed a marked path across.

This is a photograph of another glacier on the Abisko side of of the mountain

That glacier when I crossed it in 1987 was covering the point where the camera is.

Source for the photograph

http://megnoblepeterson.com/photo-050902/index.htm

As always follow link to see context

Glaciers are retreating at about 200 feet a year the smaller ones retreat faster. I am sorry I have not got photos of the exact glacier it no longer exists and being a small insignificant glacier up in the arctic where there are many other more magnificent glaciers to study probably no one bothered to photograph it.

What I can do is point to these photographs of other glaciers  that are retreating at similar rates.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

Hover over the photographs to see before and after shots.

As to Sc@tterbrain!

Yes Sc@tterbrain climate change is big conspiracy between me, most of the worlds Governments, scientists, NASA, ESA, the Russians, Charities, Tree huggers, Lefties, Oil Speculators, Oil Companies and some unknown shadow group trying to drive down the third world all conspiring in a smoky room. And Now the dastardly UN has joined it!

All of whom say Global warming is happening and it is all to stop Sc@tterbrain from driving his SUV.

Kind Regards walker

Typical. In the face of logic, you just spew more garbage and speak in circles.

You have ruined a good cause with conjecture and fallacy. You piss on the methods of science that brought us to a better understanding of our place on the earth, and soil the message that could have brought pragmatic change.

You do more to hurt the message you so desperatly espouse.

Well done.

[william1 0]

can't it be that all this sudden worries about the atmosphere is nothing but a excuse to prepare and to make people aware of the next shortage of petroleum ? the goverments just want to reduce the energetic waste while they search for an alternative energy supply . there is nothing more than 30 years of petroleum left

[Sc@tterbrain 0]

can't it be that all this sudden worries about the atmosphere is nothing but a excuse to prepare and to make people aware of the next shortage of petroleum ? the goverments just want to reduce the energetic waste while they search for an alternative energy supply . there is nothing more than 30 years of petroleum left

William, great thought.

I don't know the answer to that, but good question.  It may border on "conspiracy theory," but it's far from a crazy scenario.  (no more far fetched than many of the explanations thus far...)

I know its a topic for a separate thread, but how much in debate is the ammount of oil left?

Anyway, I applaud you for thinking beyond sunspots and "greenhouse" gasses.  Looking at an issue with a broad view, and asking such questions is a rational approach.

Good post

[Gisen 0]

I have to say that Walker is doing a great job of actually presenting evidence and using the scientific method. The deniers have now resorted to name calling and posts which amount to 'Oh yeah?'

I'd like to put in another point: every denier always goes on about the CO2 graph not fitting the temperature graph..... well, that is because CO2 is not the only gas which has an insulating effect on the earth! I'm not sure if there is such a thing, but a graph showing the sum of all groundhouse gas emissions weighted by amount and strength of effect (which would be difficult to produce) would fit the data better.

Also, just because humans are having a major effect on the climate does NOT mean that there are no other factors. None of the real scientists are saying that increased solar emissions won't have an effect, as the deniers have claimed.

[Journeyman 0]

think about where pride leads, because right now it's you against science, and you really have nothing solid to propose.

cheers mate, happy to live on this planet with you !

This has got nothing to do with pride! Until a short while ago I would have been backing up walker all the way, but alas I have seen the light! I still consider myself a ‘tree hugger’ too; environmentalism is part of my job. And back in the early eighties when I was in my 20s I was actively campaigning for Friends of the Earth on several issues including global warming which at the time was nothing more than a ‘cranks’ movement!

Things have evolved since then and now being ‘green’ is no longer considered cranky instead it has become the latest fashion! No longer can the governments ignore it. The ‘green’ vote is now massive! The whole debate about global warming has gone from being a genuine concern amongst a few ‘environmentalists’ to being a whole new movement that has sucked in a new multi million dollar co2 abatement industry forced on by the new ‘green’ fashion movement, forced on by the worlds governments eager to please the voting consensus who in turn have been advised by their now newly funded ‘global warming’ investigative scientists!

So what’s wrong? What is wrong is that there are just too many new incentives to not only keep this issue alive but to continue expanding on it as much as possible, and non of them are for the sake of the environment! And no this is NOT a big conspiracy between most of the worlds Governments, scientists, NASA and ESA all conspiring in a smoky room to stop someone from driving his SUV! That is just being smart! This is about many individuals on all levels of power helping themselves to a slice of the cake! … Helped on by the media who just can’t resist a good disaster story!

The politicians want to keep their voters, the scientists want to keep their funding and now there are thousands of new jobs at stake all connected with this new co2 abatement industry whether in the civil service sector or the manufacturing of all the new plant. And to top it all off we have now given our governments an extra opportunity to tax us all more and give it the new name of (yes you guessed it) environment tax! Fuel can now be taxed more so can big cars etc.

So why not, surely it is a good thing? Well that is a matter of opinion! Firstly how can we trust anymore what we are being told by either our leaders or their funded scientists when they would have so much to loose if they were to tell you anything different than “the climate is warming because of man made co2�  

Even if a group of scientists was to suddenly discover it was all a load of crap (which has quite possibly already happened) I doubt they would even dare speak out, first they would be lynched upon by everyone else and second what a dumb thing to do when they could loose out financially over it! Who would even believe them? Such is the state of affairs now that the oil companies would even get blamed for funding their claims!

It is not a big conspiracy just a chain of events driven by individuals eager to put their own interests first. That is human nature and I don’t blame them either, but unfortunately it has made one big mockery over this whole climate debate! I even doubt that anyone in power believes that the measures that are being brought about to reduce co2 by **% by 20** is going to make the slightest difference to our climate, but they have to do it in order to uphold the fallacy! And ‘we’ are the ones paying for it!

... Just like with all the other science on the net you don’t have to look far to find articles supporting this theory over any other. I’ll point to THIS ONE again!

Anyone who thinks that politicians and their advisors are ‘squeaky-clean’ is living a very sheltered life! I’ve had first hand and second hand experience of how things like this work on a local government level through my work. Whether it is tree preservation order permissions or other planning applications I’ve seen it all! Politicians and their advisors are individuals looking at their own careers and their own best interests not that of you and I. It’s a fact of life and if you don’t know it yet you soon will!

Right Ralph you can PR me now!  

[Gisen 0]

Don't be ridiculous. The amount of money available from oil companies and the governments and nations irrevocably tied to oil power dwarfs the money available for climate studies research, green initiatives and so on by a factor of hundreds if not thousands. That IS a conspiracy theory and not a very convincing one.

Notwithstanding the point that it's complete post-hoc reasoning. How did the 'green' movement get started in the first place then?

You have a total lack of understanding of science. There are always fringe nutjobs of course but when the vast majority of qualified scientists in a field have a consensus on an issue it's because the evidence points that way.

Get real evidence pointing the other way (not the stuff Walker has already demolished, as I said there are always fringe nutjobs) and the scientists will follow the best evidence.

[walker 0]

Hi all

[sARCASM]It is not happening, global warming is just fantasy, in the UK we have not just had the wettest June since records began, my local pub and my cousins and my neighbours houses are not flooded because we have been pumping out CO2, it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

We have not had a run of the wettest and warmest summers on record for the past decade because of CO2 it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

The European mainland is not having for the third time in a decade its highest ever temperatures because of CO2 it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

I have been converted to the Global Warming Denier faith all praise the spotty sun!

Sunspots cause warming that is why the last time we had sunspots at the same level as today according to Red kite's graph which was 1870s when we had... Oh!... Wait a minute?... Err... I just checked we had our coldest winters for a couple of centuries when Sunspots were the same level as today according to Red kite's graph.

But I am still converted to Red kite's faith. NOT!

[/sARCASM]

I know it is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of something that rhymes with wit but I could not resist. You either laugh or you cry after the last few days and laughing even via sarcasm is more fun.

Dear Red kite

Your lack of ability to show knowledge of basic science leads me to believe you are either not scientifically educated OR are so committed to the opinion you espouse that you have lost your ability to consider any other explanation and that it has become a faith for you OR thirdly you are receiving a benefit to present the view you espouse.

I come to this from:

1) Your inability read graphs: you associate the sunspot graph line of your graph:

that does not match temperature as closely as CO2 does; as being the cause of any warming when in fact it seems to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to think to bare no relation what so ever to temperature.

2) Your employment of a pop science documentary to argue your case rather than using science.

3) Your quote out of context of a scientific paper (probably Google hunting a small bit of text to support your view IMHO) and that you then proceed to refuse the papers findings because they don't suit your view.

4) Your basic failure to understand the earth radiates in the IR wavelengths as well as being being a receiver of the suns radiation, thus cooling at more or less the same rate it receives IR. If you had understood the high-school grade science you would not have said

Quote[/b] ]...So the scientists conclude that if you put an electric fire in an average room and turn up the heat the room will only continue to get hotter if the electric fire also continues to get hotter! Sorry but common sense not ‘science’ will tell you that that is not the case! The room will continue to get hotter so long as the electric fire is on high! Unlike you I am reading all of the article and drawing my own conclusions. You on the other hand are prepared to accept anything that is concluded by said scientists! Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue! ...

5) Your inability, following on from the above, to understand  that: Even given some lag in temperature change; caused by an insulation effect and you do not describe what this last 15 years insulator is, that temperatures are rising exponentially for the last 15 year period when sunspot activity is in decline according to your graph; this is not what a lagged effect would do; a lagged effect would have declining rise not an exponential one.

Unless of course the level of insulator is increasing. By the way if you are looking for a global insulator green house gasses are your best bet.

6) Your tendency to misquote scientific research and act as if what you misquote is in some way scientific when it suits your view but to then denigrate scientists and science as charlatans with statements like:

Quote[/b] ]...Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue! ...

when their research does not fit you view, even the very ones who's research you misquote.

7) That you misrepresent others including me in this thread as not understanding that climate change have had natural causes in the past; when it was I and not you who put up each of the other known causes of climate change in the world, in detail and proceeded to show scientificly with evidense why each of them did not apply for this temperature anomaly.

Kind Regards walker

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Hi all

[sARCASM]It is not happening, global warming is just fantasy, in the UK we have not just had the wettest June since records began, my local pub and my cousins and my neighbours houses are not flooded because we have been pumping out CO2, it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

We have not had a run of the wettest and warmest summers on record for the past decade because of CO2 it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

The European mainland is not having for the third time in a decade its highest ever temperatures because of CO2 it is because the sunspot cycle are in their decline period of their cycle and have been for fifteen years.

I have been converted to the Global Warming Denier faith all praise the spotty sun!

Sunspots cause warming that is why the last time we had sunspots at the same level as today according to Red kite's graph which was 1870s when we had... Oh!... Wait a minute?... Err... I just checked we had our coldest winters for a couple of centuries when Sunspots were the same level as today according to Red kite's graph.

But I am still converted to Red kite's faith. NOT!

[/sARCASM]

I know it is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of something that rhymes with wit but I could not resist. You either laugh or you cry after the last few days and laughing even via sarcasm is more fun.

Dear Red kite

Your lack of ability to show knowledge of basic science leads me to believe you are either not scientifically educated OR are so committed to the opinion you espouse that you have lost your ability to consider any other explanation and that it has become a faith for you OR thirdly you are receiving a benefit to present the view you espouse.

I come to this from:

1) Your inability read graphs: you associate the sunspot graph line of your graph:

that does not match temperature as closely as CO2 does; as being the cause of any warming when in fact it seems to anyone with eyes to see and a mind to think to bare no relation what so ever to temperature.

2) Your employment of a pop science documentary to argue your case rather than using science.

3) Your quote out of context of a scientific paper (probably Google hunting a small bit of text to support your view IMHO) and that you then proceed to refuse the papers findings because they don't suit your view.

4) Your basic failure to understand the earth radiates in the IR wavelengths as well as being being a receiver of the suns radiation, thus cooling at more or less the same rate it receives IR. If you had understood the high-school grade science you would not have said

Quote[/b] ]...So the scientists conclude that if you put an electric fire in an average room and turn up the heat the room will only continue to get hotter if the electric fire also continues to get hotter! Sorry but common sense not ‘science’ will tell you that that is not the case! The room will continue to get hotter so long as the electric fire is on high! Unlike you I am reading all of the article and drawing my own conclusions. You on the other hand are prepared to accept anything that is concluded by said scientists! Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue! ...

5) Your inability, following on from the above, to understand that: Even given some lag in temperature change; caused by an insulation effect and you do not describe what this last 15 years insulator is, that temperatures are rising exponentially for the last 15 year period when sunspot activity is in decline according to your graph; this is not what a lagged effect would do; a lagged effect would have declining rise not an exponential one.

Unless of course the level of insulator is increasing. By the way if you are looking for a global insulator green house gasses are your best bet.

6) Your tendency to misquote scientific research and act as if what you misquote is in some way scientific when it suits your view but to then denigrate scientists and science as charlatans with statements like:

Quote[/b] ]...Said scientists that we already know are on a nice little earner over this issue! ...

when their research does not fit you view, even the very ones who's research you misquote.

7) That you misrepresent others including me in this thread as not understanding that climate change have had natural causes in the past; when it was I and not you who put up each of the other known causes of climate change in the world, in detail and proceeded to show scientificly with evidense why each of them did not apply for this temperature anomaly.

Kind Regards walker

Don't be too hard on him. Some people just see conspiracies everywhere

I think it has something to do about not feeling adequate