Archaeologica.org

(are not known outside of climatological circles. )

Why not? Are they shy?

(which if anything proves that theoretical physicists are not qualified to comment on climatology )

Precisely my point Steve but it does not stop them and people tend to belives the big names.
As regards Cherry Picking Steve I shall remember that and I guarantee that it will come back to haunt you!

I shall remember that and I guarantee that it will come back to haunt you!

hmmm
first poltergeists and now words haunting me
perhaps you should change your name to Dr Abraham Van Helsing Digit

Digit wrote:(The time lag is debated, but this is nonetheless irrelevant. No-one has ever claimed that interglacials are caused by rising levels of CO2. )

So what did? Till you can explain that how on Earth can you ignore the possibility that the sequence is repeating?
8 winters spaced 12 months apart would at least suggest that a 9th one will follow or logic at least vanishes!

I agree. But equally, since we don't know what they were, we cannot just assume that the same processes are at play today either.

"What is causing climate change?"

"Same as caused past climate change, like the ice ages"

"What caused the ice ages?"

"Dunno"

Digit wrote:(are not known outside of climatological circles. )

Why not? Are they shy?

Why should they be known? They're scientists, not rock stars

How many palaeontologists do you think the average man in the street could name?* And dinosaurs are a lot more popular and sexy that studying gas in ice cores or the effects of pollution on cloud formation.

* PS Ross out of Friends doesn't count

(we cannot just assume that the same processes are at play today either.)

I'm not suggesting that anything be assumed, I said that it should not be ignored, and on the GW Skeptics forum that is exactly what 'Occam' states, so it is the view of some and as I informed him, that's bad science.
No Essan, they are not pop stars as you say, but why in this heated debate are the climatologists then the only ones not getting their 15 mins of fame on TV?
Surely this debate would be better served if they did come out of hiding?

Digit wrote: why in this heated debate are the climatologists then the only ones not getting their 15 mins of fame on TV?
Surely this debate would be better served if they did come out of hiding?

They're not exactly in hiding ....... but there are thousands of them all around the world.

One or two get prominence, just as happens in all areas of science all the time. Most are content with writing papers which get published in journals like Science, Nature, Climate etc A few appear in documentaries or write books (like Richard Alley for example) - but even so, they're hardly ever going to be household names.

When bird flu was a big issue, how many virologists did you see on the news? And how many can you remember?

Equally Essan a few years ago we had more 'experts' on AIDs than sufferers, show people grant money and they will take it. If these climatologists had 'Proof' I would prefer them to come forward with it rather than have to check the qualifications of those who are doing the shouting for them. When you get people like Hawking making unverified statements the climatologists should understand that their case is not being helped.
Using the net there appears to be as many antis as pros in this line but at the moment the totally unqualified G&D merchants, 'do gooders', and loud mouthed politicos looking to the next election have managed to supress any alternative views.
I would love to see this all disproved just to see how they would all fall over backwards to convince us they really knew better all along.

Equally Essan a few years ago we had more 'experts' on AIDs than sufferers, show people grant money and they will take it.

how many aids experts can you name Digit
Dr Ruth doesn't count

Dr Ruth an aids expert? You mean like Hawking being a climate expert do you?

http://astore.amazon.co.uk/medical-book ... 0826406254

Dr Ruth's Encyclopedia Of Sex By Ruth Westheimer wrote:Synopsis
Covers abortion, AIDS, artificial insemination, birth control, sexual behavio impotence, infertility, miscarriage, prostitution, pregnancy, and sexual health.

anyone ever notice how usually sexperts are so ugly they couldnt get laid in a brothel
i think thats why they're sexperts
they spend more time thinking about it than doing it
thats my irrefutable theory anyway

Oh my God! Marduk you're ruining my day. Stop being sensible Damn it!

Essan! Thought you might find this of interest.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Sc ... /N8/C3.jsp

Essan wrote:Currently 0.0385%

And check back next year it may be higher, may be lower. It fluctuates though the general trend has been increasing.

It's always been regarded as the most significant, in part due to it's longevity compared to others like methane. However, it's true the water vapour is the most common greenhouse gas.

If by longevity you mean chemical stability, true, but water vapor has more affect on global temperatures than Co2 according to many atmospheric models. This is what I mean by significance.

Human contributions equate to about 25% of the total current level of CO2.

According to Shimel et al the following volumes of atmosphere Co2 are released:
Vegetation (land) 60gt
Soil and detritus 60gt
Ocean surface 90gt
Total non man-made release to atmosphere - 210gt

Man-made all sources 7.1gt (ca. 1990 figure)
About 45% stays airborne but ignoring that, man-made is still only 3.3% of the total.

The time lag is debated, but this is nonetheless irrelevant. No-one has ever claimed that interglacials are caused by rising levels of CO2.

This is true, but they are now claiming the opposite. Why? The lag was based on actual samples of air trapped in the ice core, which means, thanks to Co2 longevity, they were able to directly measure it.

How does this match with the Holocene Climatric Optimum and the MWP - when (supposedly in the latter case) the Earth was warmer than today and yet CO2 levels remained pretty constant.

When I have more time I may be able to post a link that shows a different result. As I recall the correlation held, but this was a time when it was significantly hotter than now, iirc. The total amount of Co2 is fairly constant on a whole (including stored gas). This may show there are limits on how much gas is released due to natural effects.

It's near certain that increases in atmospheric CO2 are down to human activity and the science says that for a doubling of CO2 we should see a 1c temp rise.

Yes and the model which predicts this is in error. The present exponential Co2 rise has resulted in about 1/2c temp. rise.

The question is whether natural factors are also changing the climate, and if so, what the respective contributions of human activity and nature are, what feedbacks will occur and what may happen in future.

The other issue is the media hysteria and political cynicism - the latter resulting in taxes being introduced when it's plain they will have no impact on climate change etc

Meanwhile, there are numerous other ways in which humans are affecting climate change ...... These are the Inconvenient Truths which both sides prefer to ignore. (Apparently, blaming Brazil, Indonesia and Uganda for climate change is not deemed politically acceptable, even when it's the truth)

I agree with you 100%.

The following link shows some more recent trends:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Gosh, you guys have all convinced me.

From now on, I'm not going to ever get sucked in by those darn scientists.

Dubya is Truth!

john