Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Thanks, Perry. Most interesting article.

I want to highlight this:

"When the history of the global warming movement is written, Peiser says people will see similarities with pastmovements.“A lot of the dynamic needs to be seen in a historical context of apocalyptical mass movements – the anxiety, the fear, the wish for salvation, the need to solve the problem immediately, the concern that the disaster is imminent. All these features resemble previousmovements. And from my reading I think it will sober up and become a more rational debate about problems and solutions. Because that’s what we’ve had through the last 2,000 years – it heats up, it peaks, and then people realise that the solutions are much less radical and more complex than originally thought.”

Cheers.

 

Good morning Guillermo,

This is the phrase that resonated with me.

"Once reality hits you, you are either able to accept it and change your view and to adapt or you are just an autistic politician and you stick to your idea regardless.”

Best wishes,

Perry

 

Guillermo,

A Norwegian solar scientist has been "branded as a climate bully in certain circles." I hope this news does not upset Knut too much.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Ne...limate sceptic and solar expert/1203528336519

Best wishes ,

Perry

 

This guy is also Norwegian.
http://www.climate4you.com/
Beware, Knut...!

Cheers.

 

Yeah, but what's his position? If he's a AGWarmist, I'll not be bothered. That's yesterday's news.

" Presumably, it is more correct to characterize CO2 as a contributing factor for global temperature changes, rather than a dominant factor."

CO2 in atmosphere 0.038% Up by 0.008% since 1979 :idea:

As for sea ice, he uses NSIDC, http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/index.html

but AMSR-E reveals more graph line details. http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent.png

Guillermo, thanks for pointing Ole up. It will be interesting to see how his viewpoint develops. Grist for the mill.

Perry

 

I don't think Ole Humlum is an GWarmist at all . Have you read his "Climate Reflections"? (last page of his site)

 

And from his page on climate models:

"The question therefore remains: If climate models differ in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy?

The answer to this question is discussed by Kiehl (2007). While there exist established data sets for the 20th century evolution of well-mixed greenhouse gases, this is not the case for ozone, aerosols or different natural forcing factors. The only way that the different models (with respect to their sensitivity to changes in greenhouse gasses) all can reproduce the 20th century temperature record is by assuming different 20th century data series for the unknown factors. In essence, the unknown factors in the 20th century used to drive the IPCC climate simulations were chosen to fit the observed temperature trend. This is a classical example of curve fitting or tuning."


Now is this not EXACTLY what I asserted to that self-deluded genius in my post #1227 on the other AGW thread? The models are tweaked to produce a desired result which integrates observed warming with the pre-conceived idea that said warming is caused by (anthropogenic) Co2 additions. Circular reasoning at it finest

Jimbo

 

"to that self-deluded genius" is not necessary language - - - - and all computer modelling is "tweaked" that way so that the model repeats the historical data and hopefully will then project more reliably for future analytical purposes. even a "cray" cannot handle the data throughput necessary for detailed analysis and projection.... The science is still very rough and approximate and so are the machines (computers and measuring inputs)....

Debate the papers and reports by all means - that is how one learns and discovers new of different perceptions of events...A tornado will be described in a different way depending on observer experiences - with the eye passing directly overhead will be in intense and powerfully extreme words, an observer close enough to hear and see less so but in "awe" and one just in sight may use "majesty" and one beyond first hand observation may express serious consolation to the victims - it is all relative but still important and noteworthy....

 

True, but that's not what you hear from the AGW alarmists; for them it's all settled; the debate is over; no serious objections; the 'consensus' is all that matters. Skeptics are no more than 'deniers', akin to holocaust deniers. These are the very words THEY have chosen to use.

BTW, the person at whom my derisive comment was directed well deserved to be insulted thusly for his condescension and arrogance. According to him, it's all so simple that a lab monkey could grasp the gist of it. Yet when pressed he could not make a credible defense of the theory, using either simple or complex arguments.

#&$% him!

Jimbo

 

Not to worry - I suppose I am (in my ageing/old age processes) becoming a peace keeper - still a bit on the agw side but interested in the debate anyway.... - I might learn something if I don't get too excited and start swearing myself

 

Wow, still going strong, this thread, huh?

Reminds me of this:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/open-discussion/drivel-thread-17986-256.html

 

Gotta love them Danes; Denmark is a hotbed of AGW skeptical scientists; many important 'skeptic' papers out of there.

Jimbo

 

And the "Drivel" seems to have had another triple bypass to successfully extend its life.... Contribute to the glory of drivel....

 

two things
Ild like to see this data

and there is a theory of ttl crustal shift proposed by Hapgood/Einstien
that could be a viable alternative theory concerning sudden frieze events like what you note in your statement
you might look into it
its not popular but it makes some good points and accounts for a lot of anomalous data

I havnt chimed in in a while
seemed kinda futile speaking in scientific terms
to an unscientific discussion
but its interesting that the oil agenda is still hard at it
funny how we are not going to discuss the anaerobic stratification of the oceans
after all
it was the cause of the two largest extinction events in the planets history
the kt boundary extinction
and the Permian Triassic extinction
90% of ocean life
70% of land forms
died
everything over a few pounds
gone
its simple history
its not alarmist
not panic
just what happened
and why
we know why
its all in the fossil record
because the oceans became aerobically stratified
sooooooo
what are we doing now
fishing to extinction
polluting to extinction
with ever increasing anoxia events
what happens when
not if
but when
we run out of fish to supplement protein
when jellyfish have taken the niches of the higher forms
we have supplemented the human overpopulation by catching ever more fish from the sea
if you guys want to talk about inarguable human caused effects
just look at the fish catch stats
not much blaming the horrific decline in catch size and quality
on any thing other than overfishing now is there
no way to argue that one eh
soooooo
put fingers back in ears and sing la la la
ignorance is bliss
love
B

 

Boston,

Overfishing along with estuarine destruction/degradation is a REAL threat to humanity and the oceanic (and terrestrial) ecosystems. This has been brought up several times by myself and others. We are burning the candle at both ends here.

But instead of talking about, worrying about, doing something about, THIS problem, we spin our wheels worrying about the false bogeyman of CO2 induced AGW. How silly!

If we are warming because of the greenhouse effect, then why can't anyone find significant warming in the tropical troposphere!!?? that's the place where the theory and models ALL AGREE we should see significant, unmistakable warming. But we do not see it. I'm not going to re-post the data; go back in the thread and find it and you'll see for yourself. Something else has to be causing the warming; that's what the data unequivocally shouts.

Jimbo