Archaeologica.org

Monk! Take a holiday will ya! You're swiping all my arguments!
When I was a manager I sometimes had to make decisions based on things that I personally had little knowledge of. This is the position that politicians are in, so you have to rely on the advice that you are given.
Your decision can then only be as good as the advice that you receive.
GIGO still reigns!
Vietnam.
Afganistan.
Iraq.
Iran.
N Korea.
Sometimes you should definitely shoot the messenger, believe me!

Digit wrote: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.

Okay then, how about the following:-

Richard Alley, Terje Berntsen, Nathaniel L. Bindoff, Zhenlin Chen, Amnat Chidthaisong, Pierre Friedlingstein, Jonathan Gregory,
Gabriele Hegerl, Martin Heimann, Bruce Hewitson, Brian Hoskins, Fortunat Joos, Jean Jouzel, Vladimir Kattsov, Ulrike Lohmann,
Martin Manning, Taroh Matsuno, Mario Molina, Neville Nicholls, Jonathan Overpeck, Dahe Qin, Graciela Raga, Venkatachalam
Ramaswamy, Jiawen Ren, Matilde Rusticucci, Susan Solomon, Richard Somerville, Thomas F. Stocker, Peter Stott, Ronald J.
Stouffer, Penny Whetton, Richard A. Wood, David Wratt
Julie Arblaster, Guy Brasseur, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Kenneth Denman, David W. Fahey, Piers Forster, Eystein Jansen,
Philip D. Jones, Reto Knutti, Hervé Le Treut, Peter Lemke, Gerald Meehl, Philip Mote, David Randall, Dáithí A. Stone, Kevin E.
Trenberth, Jürgen Willebrand, Francis Zwiers

Who provided the data for recently released WP1 SPM from the IPCC.

All of these and many hundreds more have produced papers over the past years showing their evidence.

Forum Monk wrote:

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.

It's not a model, its a physics equation.

Of course, it doesn't include feedback processes - which is where the models come in. Along with the doubts

Well, Essan, a few days ago I was willing to close the book on this issue, and for now I am still convinced that man-made GW is a politcal issue, not a scientific one. In any case, I am never so obstinate to refuse to look at new evidence as it emerges and so I keep a skeptical eye open for new discoveries.

I have seen amazing advances in the science of atmospheric modeling, especially in weather prediction, but considering where we are today with the issue of GW, it is equally amazing how little we seem to know.

It's definitely become a political issue

But there is still a scientific element to it. Although in my opinion the real concerns are regrading the numerous other ways in which human activities affect regional climates other than carbon emissions.

As for modelling - there my concern is that the models are producing the expected results (ie replication of 20th century climate changes) without all the relevant factors being incorporated into the models. Which to me suggest something may well be wrong ....

However, overall I'm concerned with getting the facts known, whereas mostly what the public see are opinions and distortions of facts - from those on all sides of the argument.

Point taken Essan, I could of course obtain a similar lot of names from my phone book!
Let us take one individual, Matilde Rusticucci, this individual is a climate lawyer, what in Hell's name is a climate lawyer?
Also he/she claims to be an expert in global and climate impact, ie, Essan, the results of global change NOT its cause.
I think I'll stick to my phone book!
Also someone on this thread showed that research is on going on alternatives to CO2 being the culprit, ie, they aren't certain, or do you read that activity in some other manner?

From what I hear, much of the current climate research is into areas other than carbon emissions. But that's because the issue has been deemed settled: CO2 is rising because of human activity and it does produce an increase in global temps. The extend of future change remains uncertain, more so when we don't as yet know how else climate may be changing.

btw Rusticci's cv:

http://www.df.uba.ar/users/jaliaga/Gabi ... icucci.htm

Looks like a bona fide climate scientist to me.

Researcher on climate IMPACT Essan, that means he/she studies results. I think we all know the results of GW, what we have been discussing is its cause.
Certainly the UN should be considering its impact, but not dressing up the names as being researchers in its cause. That is plain deception!
Try this one then! Mario Molina, his papers are on CFCs, not CO2.
Also Essan you have made no comment on the earlier post showing that temps rise first followed by CO2, why is that?

Digit wrote:Researcher on climate IMPACT Essan, that means he/she studies results. I think we all know the results of GW, what we have been discussing is its cause.
Certainly the UN should be considering its impact, but not dressing up the names as being researchers in its cause. That is plain deception!
Try this one then! Mario Molina, his papers are on CFCs, not CO2

Look, I just quoted the contributors to the WP1 SPM - I haven't even heard of most of them myself. And anyway, most of the SPM is concerned with future predictions, not causes.

As for Molina - as least that shows the IPCC isn't entirely obsessed with CO2. CFCs are also greenhouse gases

Also Essan you have made no comment on the earlier post showing that temps rise first followed by CO2, why is that?

Simple. Normally, CO2 follows temp rises. That doesn't mean it can't precede them though. The Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) for example appears to have been caused by a sudden increase in greenhouse gases. Other events such as flood basalt eruptions also appear to have caused global warming by increasing co2 concentrations. This was probably what started the chain of events resulting in the PT extinction when around 85% of all species on Earth became extinct.

And obviously current CO2 levels are not due to a rise in temperatures - else previous periods in recent geological times when it was even warmer than today would have resulted in even higher CO2 levels

Therefore the simple question is: what proportion of CO2 is significant from a 'greenhouse effect' perspective?

That said, I'm 100% confident that anthropogenic carbon emission will continue to increase throughout my lifetime and that most efforts to reduce them will simply result in more money in the govt's coffers. Because it has become political. And to some extent the scientists have unwittingly found themselves pawns of the politicians and 'environmentalist' pressure groups like Greenpeace (who are nowadays antithesis of environmentalists IMO, actively campaigning for environmental vandalism like covering unique peat boglands with hundreds of concrete platforms, wind turbines, roads and massive pylons) )

I also suspect in the next ten years it'll be realised that the effects of warming from such gases isn't going to be all that catastrophic after all. But that other human activities - primarily deforestation/land-use changes - are causing increasing erratic weather patterns, particularly in developing nations. Oops ....

(And anyway, most of the SPM is concerned with future predictions, not causes. )

How do you make future predictions for something you don't know the cause of?
Crystal Ball perhaps?
This is the main reason I have doubts, when the first modern suggestion of CO2 GW was mooted in the 70s the climatologists of the day queued up to rubbish the idea.
Then governments increased funding, the rest as they say, is history.

But ALL the arguments depend on the concept of
"If it happend after, it was caused by"
And that just dosn't hold water.
History is full of occurances that happened after something, but with no connection to the previous.

True, but that doesn't mean they should be ignored. The (CO2 is the danger) scenario would hold much more water IF it was shown that there was no connection between previous hot and cold cycles and the current warming.

Digit wrote:
How do you make future predictions for something you don't know the cause of?

Easy. If you believe the cause is simply one of increased atmospheric CO2 and subsequent feedbacks

Of course, if it's not then your predictions may go somewhat awry!

btw not sure where in Wales you are Digit - but you should see the effects of Global Warming on Monday

We experienced GW and Mini ice age this week. It was 70+F on Tues, ice storm today.

March is always a rough month around here.

Today's newspapers are full of stories of trees blossoming early due to the very mild winter and start to March ..... next Tuesday's will be full of blizzards sweeping the country and possibly the most widespread snowfall of the winter!