Climate Change & Global Warming

[Skunnered]

^^^I recall reading somewhere about a recent theory that cosmic particles from sun spots might affect the formation of water vapour droplets, which in turn might affect cloud formation, and in turn could affect global temperatures. This was a different approach from previous studies which looked at the direct heating effect from the energy from sun spots. Unfortunately, I can't remember where I saw this, and can't find it any more.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^ Cosmic rays. I've seen that one, and it's debunked here.

 

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

[Njugle]

Water vapor is a highly variable gas and has long been recognized as an important player in the cocktail of greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, halocarbons, nitrous oxide, and others—that affect climate.

 

Water vapor. I've seen that one. Its is debunked here:

 

Oh, and water vapour is not a greenhouse gas (not being a gas, after all). It does contribute to the natural background greenhouse effect, but only as a feedback, not as a forcing agent like CO2. There has always been a water based greenhouse effect even before humans evolved, and it varies strictly according to temperature. For a given temperature, the amount of water vapour (and the greenhouse effect it has) is constant, it has not been changed by human influence except as a result of human caused temperature rises, which have been shown to be caused by rising CO2.

 

[paulb]

can we have a bit of warming please.

[Skunnered]

^^^ Cosmic rays. I've seen that one, and it's debunked here.

 

While the link between cosmic rays and cloud cover is yet to be confirmed, more importantly, there has been no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

Ah, yes, I've found it now. Prof. Henrik Svensmark from Denmark.

Well this raises a few points in my mind. First, I don't see the need for the writer of this article to call his theory "the sceptic argument" as it seems to be a valid suggestion, and he doesn't seem to be blasting the AGW concept, just that this could be yet another contributing factor to changes in the earth's climate. And similarly, I don't see why this argument has to be "debunked" as if it had been put forward by some sort of lunatic fringe. "Challenged" or "disproved" perhaps, but "debunked" gives a rather unfavourable impression.

Anyway, if as Svensmark claims, cosmic rays are a contributing factor to temperature change, then that in itself would not necessarily mean that there has to be direct correlation between the cosmic rays measurement and global temperature change, because there are obviously many other factors at play which would disturb the correlation. But what is interesting is the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover up until the 70's. If that is the case, then surely the whole theory can't be thrown out just because the correlation breaks down after the 70's. Surely the line to be taken should be that something else has come into play very strongly at that point to affect cloud cover (not necessarily global temperature directly).

The "Skeptical Science" article says "Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming." OK, so in that case could it be that the effects of CO2 became greater at that time? I don't know, but I would have thought that such a possibility might even strengthen the "warmists" case rather than weaken it. So by "debunking" Svensmark's theory, they may have shot themselves in the foot. Surely a more scientific approach would have been to say "there is clearly some other force affecting climate from the mid 70's onwards, we don't know what it is, but we must investigate this further".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts[/url]

[Greenfingers]

Here we go again.

 

More IPCC claims based on non peer reviewed data. This time its the melting mountain tops.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

 

and then there are the "rising"? global temperatures. This is how they have manipulated them.

 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9758

 

Trust our scientists and politicians............I don't think so.

[Pleepsie]

UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim

 

A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.

 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.

 

The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research†on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.

 

The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.

 

In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall†but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.

 

The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.

 

It said: “Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state. It is more probable that forests will be replaced by ecosystems that have more resistance to multiple stresses caused by temperature increase, droughts and fires, such as tropical savannas.â€

 

Simon Lewis, a Royal Society research fellow at Leeds University who specialises in tropical forest ecology, described the section of Rowell and Moore’s report predicting the potential destruction of large swathes of rainforest as “a messâ€.

 

“The Nature paper is about the interactions of logging damage, fire and periodic droughts, all extremely important in understanding the vulnerability of Amazon forest to drought, but is not related to the vulnerability of these forests to reductions in rainfall,†he said.

 

“In my opinion the Rowell and Moore report should not have been cited; it contains no primary research data.â€

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7009705.ece

 

Another 'mistake' ... another report by the WWF.

 

I wait with bated breath to see how they will explain this away.

[ArabiaTerra]

Here we go again.

 

More IPCC claims based on non peer reviewed data. This time its the melting mountain tops.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Yes, the Himalayan glaciers. Didn't we just discuss this? Yes I think we did. The IPCC got it wrong and they have published a correction. So why are you repeating this?

 

and then there are the "rising"? global temperatures. This is how they have manipulated them.

 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9758

 

Trust our scientists and politicians............I don't think so.

A couple of guys who don't understand how the science works. And a comprehensive takedown here.

 

Honestly, if you keep getting your scientific information from the US main stream media, you will never get an honest picture of what's going on in climate science. The US MSM is owned by the deniers.

[ArabiaTerra]

Ah, yes, I've found it now. Prof. Henrik Svensmark from Denmark.

Well this raises a few points in my mind. First, I don't see the need for the writer of this article to call his theory "the sceptic argument" as it seems to be a valid suggestion, and he doesn't seem to be blasting the AGW concept, just that this could be yet another contributing factor to changes in the earth's climate. And similarly, I don't see why this argument has to be "debunked" as if it had been put forward by some sort of lunatic fringe. "Challenged" or "disproved" perhaps, but "debunked" gives a rather unfavourable impression.

Anyway, if as Svensmark claims, cosmic rays are a contributing factor to temperature change, then that in itself would not necessarily mean that there has to be direct correlation between the cosmic rays measurement and global temperature change, because there are obviously many other factors at play which would disturb the correlation. But what is interesting is the correlation between cosmic rays and cloud cover up until the 70's. If that is the case, then surely the whole theory can't be thrown out just because the correlation breaks down after the 70's. Surely the line to be taken should be that something else has come into play very strongly at that point to affect cloud cover (not necessarily global temperature directly).

The "Skeptical Science" article says "Regardless of whether cosmic rays help form clouds, the trend in cosmic radiation is opposite to that required to cause warming." OK, so in that case could it be that the effects of CO2 became greater at that time? I don't know, but I would have thought that such a possibility might even strengthen the "warmists" case rather than weaken it. So by "debunking" Svensmark's theory, they may have shot themselves in the foot. Surely a more scientific approach would have been to say "there is clearly some other force affecting climate from the mid 70's onwards, we don't know what it is, but we must investigate this further".

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts[/url]

Skunnered, the Skeptical Science article isn't addressing Svensmark's paper directly, but rather the fact that the denier/liars immediately jumped on the paper and started waving it around and claiming that it refuted the entire body of climate science, which it doesn't. Oh and the debunking term was mine not Skeptical Science's.

 

Svensmark's paper was legitimate science, though it's conclusions have been challenged. The deniers response to it was not.

 

WUWT is not and never has been a legitimate source of information. Watts is a denier, not a sceptic.

 

See here:

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/05/nsidc-director-serreze-death-spiral-arctic-ice-wattsupwiththat/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/29/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/11/foxnews-wattsupwiththat-climatedepot-daily-mail-article-on-global-cooling-mojib-latif/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/13/anti-science-blogger-anthony-watts-wattsupwiththat-conflict-of-interest-weather-stations/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/21/are-meteorologists-climate-science-experts-columbia-journalism-review-why-don%E2%80%99t-tv-weathermen-believe-in-global-warming/

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/28/watts-not-to-love-new-study-finds-the-poor-u-s-weather-stations-tend-to-have-a-slight-cool-bias-not-a-warm-one/

[Guest Anonymous]

^ yada yada yada YAWN.

what about Total, yada yada.

what a load of crap AT.

post links to climate change guru's so it must be true.

 

BOLLOX

[oddtablet]

^ yada yada yada YAWN.

what about Total, yada yada.

what a load of crap AT.

post links to climate change guru's so it must be true.

 

BOLLOX

 

Well said

[Carlos]

Which particular bits of the links do you disagree with?

[Greenfingers]

Here we go again.

 

More IPCC claims based on non peer reviewed data. This time its the melting mountain tops.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html

Yes, the Himalayan glaciers. Didn't we just discuss this? Yes I think we did. The IPCC got it wrong and they have published a correction. So why are you repeating this?

 

Sorry AT. You are wrong on this one.

Yes its from the same IPCC report but from a section about ice on mountain tops, not glaciers.

Once again it a "pick and mix" of anecdotal evidence from non peer reviewed publications

 

and then there are the "rising"? global temperatures. This is how they have manipulated them.

 

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=9758

 

Trust our scientists and politicians............I don't think so.

A couple of guys who don't understand how the science works. And a comprehensive takedown here.

 

Honestly, if you keep getting your scientific information from the US main stream media, you will never get an honest picture of what's going on in climate science. The US MSM is owned by the deniers.

 

I think that you will find that the American MSM have been "banging the drum" in support of AGW for a long time now.

Now that they have finally woken up, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that all is not what they were lead to believe it was, is it any wonder that they are now questioning what has really been happening.

Calling everyone who does not believe as you do a "denier" does not help your argument. We are "skeptics".

All we want is an honest and truthful debate but all we get with each passing week are more revelations of lies and deceits.

[ArabiaTerra]

Now that they have finally woken up, in the face of overwhelming evidence

Ok, post one bit of evidence which challenges the core science, just one.

 

I'm not talking about IPCC reports or cherry-picked quotes from hacked e-mails, I'm talking about the core theory that AGW is based on. See if you can find a single flaw in the core scientific theory. I dare you!

 

Oh, and while you're at it, why don't you have a look at ocean acidification and see if you can poke some holes in that too, and explain how that won't be as dangerous as AGW, if not more so.

[DamnSaxon]

The "core science", inasmuch as there is any, when all we are ever fed is the output from unvalidated computer models and scare stories, surely requires that the data from which the science is derived be as true and accurate as the researchers can make it. Since I've been accused of "having trouble believing the data", let me introduce you to somebody who's spent a lot of his spare time scanning through the data I'm supposed to believe.

 

If you haven't, you should read a blog called "Musings from the Chiefio", on Wordpress. This fellow is a professional programmer who by day analyses the financial markets, and in his spare time has shredded every claim made for the accuracy of the data on which the house of cards called "Manmade Global Warming" has been built.

 

He has shown how, over time, the thermometers - mainly in the Northern hemisphere, of course - have "migrated south" - in other words, the "baseline" includes only cooler, more northerly locations, while the later figures include a lot more data from warmer locations - which (surprise!) pushes the average up. He has introduced us to what he calls "The Bolivia Effect" - I'll let him describe it:

 

"One Small Problem with the anomally map. There has not been any thermometer data for Bolivia in GHCN since 1990.

 

None. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Nothing. Empty Set.

 

So just how can it be so Hot Hot Hot! in Bolivia if there is NO data from the last 20 years?

 

Easy. GIStemp “makes it up†from “nearby†thermometers up to 1200 km away. So what is within 1200 km of Bolivia? The beaches of Chili, Peru and the Amazon Jungle.

 

Not exactly the same as snow capped peaks and high cold desert, but hey, you gotta make do with what you have, you know?"

 

He has also calculated that, when you take the various fiddles into account, the introduced "warming" over the last century appears to be about 0.6°C ... funny, I could swear I've heard that figure somewhere before, and been told to worry about it.

 

He has shown how, if you simply take the records from any single long-established weather station and see what's happening in one place, there is no warming to be found. He has shown how the number of thermometers now included in the set used for the records has collapsed so dramatically that there are - speaking in the strictly statistical sense - too few now to serve as a basis for any kind of record keeping, still less prediction.

 

On the KUSI-TV website, here, there's a programme in which "KUSI meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman, John Coleman explains the science and controversy surrounding Global Warming" - segment 4 of the programme is where they discuss the "Bolivia Effect". "Cherry-picked quotes from hacked e-mails"? (they were virtually certainly leaked, btw) - nobody can beat climate catastrophists when it comes to cherry picking. You bet I have trouble believing those figures.

 

Of course, "the Chiefio" isn't a "climate scientist", and nor are iconic weathermen or myself. But then, nor are the "climate scientists", if they're prepared to issue cataclysmic pronouncements on the basis of what they have to know is carefully manicured "data" run through unvalidated mathematical models.

 

Garbage in, garbage out. Move along please, there's no global warming to see here.