Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Trakar]

OK but that is supposition. Do you have the stats to back it up? You suppose that global warming would lead to extinction. On the other hand, it is factual and historic that Ice ages lead to mass extinction.

Actually, it is consistent with the mainstream scientific perspective on these issues. These same perspectives which also seem to state the opposite of what you assert, as well. With the exception of the hyper glaciations associated with slush/snow-ball Earth senarios, glaciations seem to preserve and stimulate adaptive diversity for most existant species (land and sea), whereas periods of excessive heating are closely associated with widespread and significant extinction (land/sea) events.

"A long-term association between global temperature and biodiversity, origination and extinction in the fossil record" - http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/275/1630/47.full

"Comparative Earth History and Late Permian Mass Extinction" - http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/273/5274/452

"Depressed rates of origination and extinction during the late Paleozoic ice age: A new state for the global marine ecosystem" -http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/31/10/877.abstract

 

[aleCcowaN]

Your ABC article makes this claim:

World temperatures are likely to rise by between 3.7°C and 4.5°C by 2100

Whether the calculations and formulae that give that result are believable or not (and that's in my opinion quite debateable), in the near term (over the next 20 years or so), the rise in temperatures will be nowhere near those values. So by 2020 or 2030, even if we believe those long term estimates, the median expected rise in global temperature is only predicted to be a few tenths of °C over what it was in 2000. In fact, as I understand it, the model used to predict those temperatures even overestimates the rise over the near term.

Thus a quiet sun in the next 20 years would indeed *likely* lead to lower global temperatures. Prematurely acting in a draconian fashion over CO2 would not only seriously harm the economy (causing potential discord), but perhaps keep us from doing something technologically smarter down the road to actually address the larger problem. We may waste vast resources that we could have applied with better technology down the road (a lot can change technologically in 2 decades) that would have produced a MUCH better solution.

And besides, a little extra CO2 now might be a good thing to have during a time when the sun, left unchecked, would create another little ice age. In treating a problem that is decades and decades in the future with the urgency that far-left democrats, environmentalists and socialists now want to impose, one may only be creating conditions ripe for famine and war on a major scale over the next several decades. Lower temperatures will harm global food production. Beware of unintended consequences. And keep in mind that the IPCC has stated that a 2 °C rise in global temperatures would actually increase global food production. So more CO2 or temperature rise isn't necessary bad. Not in the near term.

In the shortest term the "temperature" -as if AGW were just temperature- has a trend that is almost not noticeable when compared with "weather". In the shortest term nothing can be done about that trend.

In the long term the climbing temperatures are clear and much can be done. A lot of time for changes, a lot of time and effort is needed to avoid those changes. You propose we do nothing because in the shortest term is not noticeable. It looks like a person receiving a speeding ticket for driving 140km/h. S/he can't argue "but I wasn't arriving yet, I was just 1km from home". That person was fined not for his integral -distance covered- but for his derivative -140km/h-. And that derivative is wrong not because it's against aesthetics or because traffic looks uneven. It's wrong because it's potentially dangerous.

The driver can argue "I needed 140km/h to avoid being crashed by a truck that ignored a stop sign" and if reasonable the driver can go home without opening his wallet. Now it looks like the GW arena seems full of dangerous trucks coming from every corner and we need to speed -to keep emitting GHG- to avoid crashes everywhere. So "prematurely acting" by driving 100Km/h is depicted as dangerous or unaffordable. So the new Maunder Minimum -and the certainty about its causes and its new occurrence- is just around the corner so we can let's-do-nothing-ize the climate change arena. Of course, some cosmic rays can be proposed with the same objective. Or heat can do good for us (Pakistan, Russian and Ukraine are good current examples of that). Or high CO₂ can avoid that a Yellowstone blast freezes us. Summary: any bus get me home provided the bus continue to cough up high amounts of CO₂ into the atmosphere.

As a few tenths of degree are trifles, next winter set the heating at home half degree lower. You won't even notice ...

 

[macdoc]

Whether the calculations and formulae that give that result are believable or not (and that's in my opinion quite debateable), in the near term (over the next 20 years or so), the rise in temperatures will be nowhere near those values. So by 2020 or 2030, even if we believe those long term estimates, the median expected rise in global temperature is only predicted to be a few tenths of °C over what it was in 2000. In fact, as I understand it, the model used to predict those temperatures even overestimates the rise over the near term.

Thus a quiet sun in the next 20 years would indeed *likely* lead to lower global temperatures. Prematurely acting in a draconian fashion over CO2 would not only seriously harm the economy (causing potential discord), but perhaps keep us from doing something technologically smarter down the road to actually address the larger problem. We may waste vast resources that we could have applied with better technology down the road (a lot can change technologically in 2 decades) that would have produced a MUCH better solution.

And besides, a little extra CO2 now might be a good thing to have during a time when the sun, left unchecked, would create another little ice age. In treating a problem that is decades and decades in the future with the urgency that far-left democrats, environmentalists and socialists now want to impose, one may only be creating conditions ripe for famine and war on a major scale over the next several decades. Lower temperatures will harm global food production. Beware of unintended consequences. And keep in mind that the IPCC has stated that a 2 °C rise in global temperatures would actually increase global food production. So more CO2 or temperature rise isn't necessary bad. Not in the near term.

lots of talk - not a single shred of evidence to support your assertion.

On the other hand, bright people at MIT have looked at a set of scenarios based on the use of fossil fuels to date and what continued unrestrained or limited use will bring.

New MIT Study Shows Risks of Climate Change Doubled from Previous Assessment If No Action Taken Now
By Angelique van Engelen

A new landmark study using “the most comprehensive modeling yet” on potential climate change scenarios this century shows that the effects of global warming underestimated by half. A temperature increase of up to 10 degrees Fahrenheit possible by century’s end – unless action is taken now to stop it.

http://www.globalwarmingisreal.com/...imate-change-is-going-to-be-twice-as-extreme/

Humanity inevitably will move off fossil fuel....doing it now accomplishes two things - allows planning and reduces the damage from AGW.
But you seem to prefer to pay unstable regimes for fossil carbon to cook your planet.
Median changes are not indicative of the extremes which an unbalanced energy budget engenders...something you seem to fail to understand.

This is a science forum, not a soapbox for right wing anti-science, AGW denial claptrap.
Provide some evidence for your argument. The is not even a strong case for the sun being the primary LIA driver...there is a stronger case for re-forestation of the new world due to diseases introduced by Europeans

Some reseachers have proposed that human influences on climate began earlier than is normally supposed and that major population declines in Eurasia and the Americas reduced this impact, leading to a cooling trend. William Ruddiman has proposed that somewhat reduced populations of Europe, East Asia, and the Middle East during and after the Black Death caused a decrease in agricultural activity. He suggests reforestation took place, allowing more carbon dioxide uptake from the atmosphere, which may have been a factor in the cooling noted during the Little Ice Age. Ruddiman further hypothesizes that a reduced population in the Americas after European contact in the early 16th century could have had similar effect.[67][68] A 2008 study of sediment cores and soil samples further suggests that carbon-dioxide uptake via reforestation in the Americas could have contributed to the Little Ice Age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age#Decreased_human_populations

as being a major influence as well as vulcanism

Evidence from mountain glaciers does suggest increased glaciation in a number of widely spread regions outside Europe prior to the 20th century, including Alaska, New Zealand and Patagonia. However, the timing of maximum glacial advances in these regions differs considerably, suggesting that they may represent largely independent regional climate changes, not a globally-synchronous increased glaciation. Thus current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this time frame, and the conventional terms of "Little Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period" appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries... [Viewed] hemispherically, the "Little Ice Age" can only be considered as a modest cooling of the Northern Hemisphere during this period of less than 1°C relative to late 20th century levels.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The evidence both theoretical and observed is in - has been for over a decade, even the fossil companies knew it 15 years ago ( seems you overlooked that )
but you in your wisdom claim to know better.

Fortunately the world is moving on....and the AGW denier cadre is in the that small minority with the anti-evo and the world is flat crowd of cranks.

Now do you have some science to back your op/Ed?

or are you denying the physics of AGW now?
How do you account for the fossil fuel company's own scientist confirming the reality of AGW??

How do you account for record global temperatures despite 26 months of sunspot activity at record lows.

 

[CapelDodger]

Whether the calculations and formulae that give that result are believable or not (and that's in my opinion quite debateable) ...

They are certainly credible. They're based on established physics, after all.

... in the near term (over the next 20 years or so), the rise in temperatures will be nowhere near those values. So by 2020 or 2030, even if we believe those long term estimates, the median expected rise in global temperature is only predicted to be a few tenths of °C over what it was in 2000.

Let us know how that works out for you. A "few tenths" does sound like a small number, so maybe it'll have a small effect. Then again, you don't really know how those few global tenths will impact on you.

In fact, as I understand it, the model used to predict those temperatures even overestimates the rise over the near term.[

Which model was that then (as you understand it)?

Thus a quiet sun in the next 20 years would indeed *likely* lead to lower global temperatures.

Again, you can let us know how that works out for you. Most of us here are following the physics, and global temperatures will not be lower (than, say, now) in absolute terms but will be lower than they might have been had the Sun not gone into a long-term sulk.

If it has. Only time will tell.

Prematurely acting in a draconian fashion over CO2 would not only seriously harm the economy (causing potential discord) ...

Which economy? And what does this have to do with science?

There will be no "draconian action" so you can't tell us how that works out for you later. There were those that said Kyoto would bankrupt Europe and Japan, but they're all dead or gone emeritus now.

... but perhaps keep us from doing something technologically smarter down the road ...

"Down the road", that's where "perhaps" lives.

 

[Furcifer]

It ain't all bad:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/09/global-warming-good-news-fewer-big-ocean-storms-possible/1

"A new study out Wednesday in the British journal Nature finds that large, powerful North Atlantic ocean storms should actually become less frequent by the end of the century, due to climate change.

Led by Matthias Zahn of the U.K.'s University of Reading, the study used climate models to show that these North Atlantic storms -- known as polar lows -- may decrease in frequency by as much as 50% by 2100."

 

[Furcifer]

"Antarctic: The reports of my melting have been greatly exaggerated"

"Now according to scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and SRON, the Netherlands Institute for Space Research, most estimates of how fast ice is disappearing from Greenland and the Western Antarctic are twice as high or more than they should be."

 

[bit_pattern]

"Antarctic: The reports of my melting have been greatly exaggerated"

"Now according to scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and SRON, the Netherlands Institute for Space Research, most estimates of how fast ice is disappearing from Greenland and the Western Antarctic are twice as high or more than they should be."

OK, I'm going out on a limb here, I haven't googled anything yet but will in a moment, my prediction is that Lorne Gunter is egregiously misrepresenting what the JPL actually said, as is his form. I'm off to have a look at the study Gunter is pushing, back in ten minutes, in the meantime watch this little clip and see Lorne Gunter's grubby tactics live in action

 

[Furcifer]

Climate change could benefit UK farmers

Climate change and global food shortages could bring unexpected benefits for British farmers in the next two decades, ultimately relieving taxpayers of the burden of subsidising them, Caroline Spelman, environment secretary, has claimed.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=climate+change+could+benefit+uk&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7107a4e6866ad609

ETA: The link is fixed now, the first one in the Google search. I don't know why it wasn't working before (thanks ale)

 

[Furcifer]

Climate change falling off public radar, speakers say

A year after the Copenhagen conference on global warming that failed to produce a comprehensive international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, climate change has taken a back seat to issues such as the recession but continues to influence economic and government policy decisions, the Global Business Forum heard Friday.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Climate+change+falling+public+radar+speakers/3543623/story.html

 

[Furcifer]

A cautionary tale from the Insitution of Engineering and Technology

Green activities 'increase pollution'

"People trying to be green by working from home or shopping online could actually be increasing carbon emissions rather than reducing them, according to a study published yesterday."

More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/green-activities-increase-pollution-2081516.html

 

[aleCcowaN]

Interesting selection

It ain't all bad:

http://content.usatoday.com/communi...g-good-news-fewer-big-ocean-storms-possible/1

"A new study out Wednesday in the British journal Nature finds that large, powerful North Atlantic ocean storms should actually become less frequent by the end of the century, due to climate change.

Led by Matthias Zahn of the U.K.'s University of Reading, the study used climate models to show that these North Atlantic storms -- known as polar lows -- may decrease in frequency by as much as 50% by 2100."

Original article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/abs/nature09388.html

As nobody told that climate change was climate extremization, this could be a side benefit of a warmer Arctic. What I can't figure out is what is it going to be the net effect of less polar lows over Baffin Island and more hurricanes hitting Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

Climate change could benefit UK farmers

Climate change and global food shortages could bring unexpected benefits for British farmers in the next two decades, ultimately relieving taxpayers of the burden of subsidising them, Caroline Spelman, environment secretary, has claimed.

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=...=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=7107a4e6866ad609

ETA: The link is fixed now, the first one in the Google search. I don't know why it wasn't working before (thanks ale)

ale = British alcoholic beverage -as crosswords in Spanish always use-
aleC = that's mE

That link is a jewel. Thanks for bringing it to the debate. It's always of most relevance when a government speculates that a sector dependent upon climate is going to have a boost not owing to a much larger production or a much larger demand worldwide but because "global food shortages" caused by a damaging net global effect of climate change.

Of course, having been the UK a major contributor to the pool of GHG, this article might sound unpleasant. But UK's contributions to solve the problem are also important, so it's all taken care by the political angle.

"Antarctic: The reports of my melting have been greatly exaggerated"

"Now according to scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and SRON, the Netherlands Institute for Space Research, most estimates of how fast ice is disappearing from Greenland and the Western Antarctic are twice as high or more than they should be."

And the next estimates will be higher again, and lower the next ones, and again, and again, so asymptotically we'll finally know the real value within an error margin of 0.1%, and it'll be "an awful lot".

A cautionary tale from the Insitution of Engineering and Technology

Green activities 'increase pollution'

"People trying to be green by working from home or shopping online could actually be increasing carbon emissions rather than reducing them, according to a study published yesterday."

More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...en-activities-increase-pollution-2081516.html

"People trying to be green by working from home or shopping online..."

How does that result in something "green"? Who can believe such thing?

I think the article departs from something in between a label and a fallacy, and then it goes on and on.

Climate change falling off public radar, speakers say

A year after the Copenhagen conference on global warming that failed to produce a comprehensive international agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions, climate change has taken a back seat to issues such as the recession but continues to influence economic and government policy decisions, the Global Business Forum heard Friday.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/busine...ling+public+radar+speakers/3543623/story.html

Republican Hopefuls Deny Global Warming

"All but one of the 48 Republican hopefuls for the Senate mid-term elections in November deny the existence of climate change or oppose action on global warming, according to a report released today."

An interesting article on the number of climate skeptics running for the senate this fall that aren't entirely onboard with AGW.

"Even John McCain, the two-time presidential candidate who worked for years to get climate change legislation through the Senate, has now cooled on the idea, calling a recent cap-and-trade bill a "monstrosity".

This Fall's election in the US should get interesting. It's cooled off considerably, even the Great Lakes which were 5-15 degrees warmer than usual this summer have fallen back to their usual temperature and they're calling for a very cold Winter. This could have an interesting effect on the election in much the same way the unusually cold Winter had an effect in Copenhagen.

The first article explains the other post: In a Machiavellian sense of politics -and Machiavelli was no monster at all- that "The best climate change policy is no climate change policy" says it all. So the not so immoral "climate change is bad but I wanna do nothing about it" is replaced by the worse "it is not happening". And the candidates provide either the "evidence" or the stance or the "I gonna take care of it" that their intended flock require. People always love the leader that says what they want to hear and also exonerate them from any responsibility regarding the content of the speech. The only thing really new is AGW.

​

 

[Trakar]

Better yet, why don't you prove that a few tenths of a degree rise in temperature over the next 20 years (assuming that would happen even with a cooling sun, which I find doubtful given that we already have a post from your side claiming the effect of cooling would be a few tenths of a degree downward movement) cases significant impacts on economy, lives and property. After all, you are the ones who wish to IMPOSE draconian legislation on the rest of us. Seems to me that the obligation to prove anything is in YOUR court.

Though there are impacts, the problem isn't so much the rise in temps over the next 20 years, its the rise over the next century or two. And the causations are cumulative in their effect, with a significant lag between causation and full realization of impact. Additionally there are envronmental feedbacks, which once triggered, will be beyond our capability to substantively ameliorate or reverse. Its not like we can wait 50 years and then see that the impacts are getting worse than we want to deal with, switch to CFLs and immediately go back to more moderate climate conditions.

The impacts are real and have been quantified by the same people we rely upon to conduct these types of assessment routinely, for the most part these are extremely conservative estimates, and we already have some initial surveys indicating that the earlier assessments tend toward underestimating the problem:

"The economics of climate change: the Stern review"

Though a bit conservative in most estimates - but a fairly good summary of the science and an exposition of the economic costs of the problem.

the Lancet study "Managing the health effects of climate change" - http://www.abuhrc.org/Documents/Lancet Climate Change.pdf

Climate change is the biggest global health threat of
the 21st century
Effects of climate change on health will affect most
populations in the next decades and put the lives and
wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk. During
this century, earth’s average surface temperature rises are
likely to exceed the safe threshold of 2°C above
preindustrial average temperature. Rises will be greater at
higher latitudes, with medium-risk scenarios predicting
2–3°C rises by 2090 and 4–5°C rises in northern Canada,
Greenland, and Siberia. In this report, we have outlined
the major threats—both direct and indirect—to global
health from climate change through changing patterns of
disease, water and food insecurity, vulnerable shelter and
human settlements, extreme climatic events, and
population growth and migration. Although vector-borne
diseases will expand their reach and death tolls, especially
among elderly people, will increase because of heatwaves,
the indirect effects of climate change on water, food
security, and extreme climatic events are likely to have the
biggest effect on global health...

"Climate Change Economics: A Meta-Review and Some Suggestions" - http://are.berkeley.edu/courses/ARE...- A Meta-Review and some suggestions_WP07.pdf

"Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces" - http://waterandenergyplanning.org/Publications_PDF/SEI-SID-ClimateEconFourEasyPieces-08.pdf

"Climate Change and the US Economy: The Costs of Inaction" - (Word Document) http://ase.tufts.edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/US_Costs_of_Inaction.doc

(...)In this report, we have measured just a handful of potential damages from climate change to the U.S – hurricanes, residential real estate, energy and water. The likely damages from these four categories of costs could be as high as 1.8 percent of U.S. output in 2100 if business-as-usual emissions are allowed to continue, or as low as 0.3 percent if instead the whole world engages in an ambitious campaign of greenhouse gas reductions. The difference between these two estimates, what we call the cost of inaction, is 1.5 percent of U.S. output in 2100. This is a somber prediction, especially when one recalls all of the economic costs that we have not attempted to estimate – from damage to commercial real estate caused by sea-level rise to the changes in infrastructure that will be necessary as temperatures rise (...)

(note - similar costs today, due to existent climate change impacts are pegged at around 0.025%, IIRC, of US GDP - roughly 3.6 billion USD a year, and is increasing)

"Ethics of Climate Change: Pay Now or Pay More Later" - (Scientific American, May, 2008 - Word Document) - http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/1_0.doc

Many other references available indicative of specific harms and damages. Given your seeming focus on the economics of climate change I weighted this initial sampling of support toward economic evaluations. If you prefer to discuss physical effect issues more directly, I would be happy to redirect my supporting information to that focus.

Now, despite reversing the normal course of discourse, will you support your contentions or merely continue to ask me to provide reference discounting your assertions?

 

[Trakar]

This could have an interesting effect on the election in much the same way the unusually cold Winter had an effect in Copenhagen.

please present support for your assertion that some localized cooler than normal temps in some very small sections of the US are primarily responsible for the failures in Copenhagen to achieve significant progress.

 

[Furcifer]

Original article:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/abs/nature09388.html

As nobody told that climate change was climate extremization, this could be a side benefit of a warmer Arctic. What I can't figure out is what is it going to be the net effect of less polar lows over Baffin Island and more hurricanes hitting Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island.

I think they're still supposed to decrease in number but increase in intensity due to lower temperature differential from land to water.

That link is a jewel. Thanks for bringing it to the debate. It's always of most relevance when a government speculates that a sector dependent upon climate is going to have a boost not owing to a much larger production or a much larger demand worldwide but because "global food shortages" caused by a damaging net global effect of climate change.

Of course, having been the UK a major contributor to the pool of GHG, this article might sound unpleasant. But UK's contributions to solve the problem are also important, so it's all taken care by the political angle.

Welcome to the spin zone

And the next estimates will be higher again, and lower the next ones, and again, and again, so asymptotically we'll finally know the real value within an error margin of 0.1%, and it'll be "an awful lot".

Yes, it's not quite an exact science estimating the size of a giant chunk of ice and snow.

"People trying to be green by working from home or shopping online..."

How does that result in something "green"? Who can believe such thing?

I think the article departs from something in between a label and a fallacy, and then it goes on and on.

It's just another case of damned if you do damned if you don't I'd say. Or possibly a post office conspiracy.

The first article explains the other post: In a Machiavellian sense of politics -and Machiavelli was no monster at all- that "The best climate change policy is no climate change policy" says it all. So the not so immoral "climate change is bad but I wanna do nothing about it" is replaced by the worse "it is not happening". And the candidates provide either the "evidence" or the stance or the "I gonna take care of it" that their intended flock require. People always love the leader that says what they want to hear and also exonerate them from any responsibility regarding the content of the speech. The only thing really new is AGW.

I think Alberta is taking a lot of heat World wide because of the oil sands right now and they've got to do something. What exactly I'm not sure, but ignoring it seems to be popular.

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed off-topic content for moderated thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

A cautionary tale from the Insitution of Engineering and Technology

Green activities 'increase pollution'

"People trying to be green by working from home or shopping online could actually be increasing carbon emissions rather than reducing them, according to a study published yesterday."

More here: http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...en-activities-increase-pollution-2081516.html

That tale's actually from the Independent, not from the IET. Do you have a link to the actual source article? It sounds terriblly amusing.

"Consumers who buy online must order more than 25 items from one retailer, otherwise the impact on the environment is likely to be worse than traditional shopping, research from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) revealed."

Don't most people do their weekly shopping at one store and buy more than 25 items at a time? That seems a bit desperate.

"Working from home can increase domestic energy use by up to 30 per cent ..."

Yes, but there's no office to heat and light and no energy used in transport. Doesn't shake off that sense of desperation, does it?

"and lead people to move further away from their employer, stretching urban sprawl ..."

Hasn't urban sprawl met up in the middle already?

"and causing pollution."

Unlike, say, commuting.


This may explain something :

"The findings came from the IET studying "rebound" effects of activities that are commonly thought to be green."

So the IET report was always going to be about "rebound effects". It may not be as amusing as I thought, and just the Independent's take on it (probably streamed from a newsfeed anyway) that's so funny.

Where did you stream it from, 3bodyproblem? Who's pushing this sort of stuff these days? Not the die-hard "it's not happening" crowd, obviously, but a newer breed of "it's a good thing" boosters.

 

[CoolSceptic]

My reading is that the dominant theories all contain climate excursions caused by increased CO2 and Methane, and also an Anoxic event coincident with that.

And, even assuming the extreme climate sensitivity included in modern climate models are correct, the levels of greenhouse gases could not possibly explain the massive extinction. e.g. this paper.

But you said it yourself (my highlight of your text above): Anoxia was most likely to be the main cause. Anoxia is not climate change, it is anoxia. The fact that a climate event coincided with it is not a big deal: life adapts well to changing climate, not so much to large changes in oxygen levels in the atmosphere. That begs the question, of course, what caused the drop in oxygen levels. There are many possible causes, of which volcanic activity (not climate change) is one of the more likely candidates.

 

[CoolSceptic]

The people who do have the requisite skills are scientists, and its the maority of them who have concluded that AGW is causing the current warming, and that the current warming is going to cause significant problems in a global society that is not used to global climate change at anything like this pace.

The more capable scientists that I know don't do telepathy, so tend to prefer to assess the evidence themselves rather than trying to second guess what other scientists think.

And the fact that you can't come up with a plausible alternative is merely an argument from ignorance / argument from incredulity. There are enough inconsistencies in the data to merit questioning the high sensitivity claims even if we didn't have an alternative. Of course, we do have a viable alternative in some of the H-K stuff I've posted in the past. Unfortunately it is impossible to have a rational discussion on the H-K work on JREF - too many people desperate to disprove it without actually understanding even what it is and what the claims are. Itia are continuing to advance this work as we speak, with a number of publications and presentations in 2010. I can't blame you for not keeping up with it, it is cutting edge stuff

 

[bit_pattern]

Seems that not only was the Wegman report into the infamous "hockey stick" plagiarised, three of Wegman's PhD students committed plagiarism in their theses. Deep Climate has the report.

http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/15/wegman-report-update-part-2-gmu-dissertation-review/

 

[little grey rabbit]

Au revoir, possibly.


Sadly not.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/03/11/2843111.htmSolar minimum won't slow warming: study

A dimming of the Sun to match conditions in the 'Little Ice Age' of the 17th century would only slightly slow global warming, according to new research.

The study, which appears in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, reveals a weakening of solar activity in recent years, linked to fewer sunspots, would cut at most 0.3°C from a projected rise in temperatures by 2100 if it becomes a long-lasting 'Grand Minimum' of brightness.

"The notion that we are heading for a new Little Ice Age if the Sun actually entered a Grand Minimum is wrong," says study lead author Dr Georg Feulner of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.

World temperatures are likely to rise by between 3.7°C and 4.5°C by 2100 if greenhouse gas emissions keep building up - far more than the impact of known shifts in solar output, the study shows.

The Sun has gone through four Grand Minima since the 13th century, including the Maunder Minimum from 1645-1715 that overlapped with the Little Ice Age.

New research is always only provisional.

How what interests me is it actually orthodoxy that the Maunder Minimum was a miminum of solar activity and this was the main cause of the Little Ice Age?

When I tried to state this everyone jumped all over me, but this snippet seems to suggest it is commonly scientifically accepted: that there is a correlation between low sunspot activity, low solar output and cooler temperatures on earth.

Does anyone dispute this?

 

[mailman]

"Antarctic: The reports of my melting have been greatly exaggerated"

"Now according to scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands and SRON, the Netherlands Institute for Space Research, most estimates of how fast ice is disappearing from Greenland and the Western Antarctic are twice as high or more than they should be."

Interesting to see that bloggers are once again driving corrections so called climate scientists should be making as a matter of course. NOAA forced to amend their alarmism TWICE in the last week.

I guess though we should be grateful NOAA made the changes in the first place...after all, Mann still refuses to correct upside down, inside out proxies from papers he published years ago in spite of being alerted to his errors numerous times

As I said earlier...this is no longer about the science but the ego's behind the science!

Mailman