What Do We Think About Climate Change

A 2005 study of the effects of solar irradiance on Arctic temperatures (Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005 [http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL023429.shtml] showed that there is a much stronger correlation between temperatures and solar irradiance than with CO2, as shown in the attached figure.

 

The following figure is from a recent study: “Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection” (Charles D. Camp and Ka Kit Tung, Department of Applied Mathematics, University of Washington, Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 34, 2007)

[http://www.amath.washington.edu/~cdcamp/Pub/Camp_Tung_GRL_2007b.pdf] showing a strong correlation between solar irradiance and temperature. The authors state: “the observed correlation of the spatially filtered surface temperature with the 11-year solar cycle is statistically significant at 99.8% confidence level”.

 

Do you want more....? I can bring in many other studies like those.

But not today. Have a good night.

 

I think this is a great example of the hypocritical nature of your efforts to confuse the readers G
In one post you claim that there is a falling trend to temp in the last few years
in another you present data showing a clearly rising temp trend and argue its caused by solar iradiance
then act as if your fooling anyone
might just be me but it kinda looks like you have no clue what your talking about and have even confused yourself with all this contradictory stuff you post
might think of getting your story straight before you make any more wildly inaccurate claims

cheers
B

shrimpy unbrained weasel ?

nice touch, but it does not speak well about your being caught out over and over again posting self defeating and contradictory arguments

does the term gotcha mean anything in Spanish cause in English its what happens when you post drivel like your last few and then someone points out the hypocrisy of the self defeating arguments

just sayin

 

Hi Boston, I think you are being a tad unreasonable.
The graph that show a falling temperature take the last 10-20 years into account, and are used to discredit the alleged correlation between CO2 and temperature. Rising CO2 should equate to rising temperature but it does not happen.
The upward trend in temperature can be seen when a few centuries are plotted, not a contradiction since no one claims temperatures are not changing, either up or down. The only thing that has any interest is if human activity is to "blame" and such has been discredited a hundred times over.

The desperation of the intrigants in this brave plot, is evident but it will still take the general public a few more years to work out they have been taken for a ride. Until then, we can happily argue points in favour or against, but the AGW hypothesis is doomed.

As for shrimps...I prefer prawns

 

Well, Hoyt...My little experiment didn't work. The babble continues... we even added a few to the cacophony. They can't be educated, they won't shut up, but we''ll get 'em at the polls.

 

let me see if I have your point straight

G posted this graph and claimed a correlation between what is obviously a rising temp trend and solar iradiance

although what it actually shows in a compilation of two graphs of unknown similarities
a trick he has used before
if he were to show each graph in its original format so we could all see the time frame of each it might be more believable but given his past inclinations to post erroneous data I would be hesitant to comment other than to say he is here showing a graph of temp increased that he typically denies are occurring and stating there is a similarity with solar iradiance

he then shows the second graph in a previous post and argues the opposite that temps are dropping and have been for some number of years, a statement that has been shown to be untrue to all but those who "deny" the science



from post 8560


and he posts this after having been informed of the following, which brings into question his ability to comprehend the finer issues involved.

and he posts this after a lengthy discussion were he mindlessly defends (for nearly five pages worth of posts) his use of an improper data set to support his claims that temps are dropping

so a simple review of his statements shows some pretty glaring inconsistencies

as others have clearly pointed out to him

post 8546

a responce at least partly illicited by things like his post 8497

and again he claims in post 8440

so I think there really can be no doubt that these obvious inconsistencies represent an attempt to make dissimilar arguments resting on data he one moment refutes and the next references

kinda looks like an attempt to fool the occasional reader cause anyone actually following along is simply laughing there *** off at this point

cheers to all
B

 

Boston, how can you be so unbrained? It is not only a matter of you not understanding what you read becuase of your simplistic and confused linear mind, but the hodgepodge you do in your head with it! Amazing!

 

OK, after this entertaining diatribes with the unbrained sons of the Church of the Warmnotology here , totally closeminded to admit nothing outside their religion (even if generated at what they call their own camp, like NASA, NOAA, CRU, etc) and unable to minimally understand what is posted because of their prejudices and linear minds, let's go back to keep on bringing here more useful information contradicting the AGW theory and/or falsifying IPCC's work. It would be very nice if more intelligent, better formed members and able to work out numbers by themselves, like Alan, Knut or bntii (where is he?), could take the turn and keep on debating here at a more high and consistent level, instead of having to put up all the time with the tiring clowning around of the unbrained Weasel & Cowboy duetto.

Someting else for the thinking:

Journal article:
A natural constraint to anthropogenic global warming
Authors:
William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, 23 Holroyd Street, Kew, Victoria 3101, Australia
Journal: Energy & Environment
Publisher: Multi Science Publishing
ISSN 0958-305X
Issue Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010
Category: Research Article
DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.225
Pages 225-236
Online Date Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Abstract

"Computer model projections suggest that unconstrained emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by human activity will cause the global average temperature to rise by at least 2 °C and possibly as much as 4.5 °C toward the end of the 21st century as equivalent concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere nearly double. A well-specified analysis of the surface temperature response to global warming presented here suggests that global average surface temperature is unlikely to rise beyond 1 °C. This analysis identifies the rate of increase of evaporation (and latent heat exchange) with temperature at the surface as a critical restraining factor that damps surface temperature response to radiative forcing. It is noted that current computer models of the climate system apparently underestimate the rate of increase of surface evaporation with temperature leading to a gross exaggeration of the surface temperature response to radiative forcing."


Journal Article:
A null hypothesis for CO2
Authors
Roy Clark, Ph.D., 1336 N. Moorpark Road #224, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360 USA
Journal Energy & Environment
Publisher Multi Science Publishing
ISSN 0958-305X
Issue Volume 21, Number 4 / August 2010
Category Research Article
DOI 10.1260/0958-305X.21.4.171
Pages 171-200
Online Date Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Abstract

"Energy transfer at the Earth's surface is examined from first principles. The effects on surface temperature of small changes in the solar constant caused by the sunspot cycle and small increases in downward long wave infrared (LWIR) flux due to a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration are considered in detail. The changes in the solar constant are sufficient to change ocean temperatures and alter the Earth's climate. The surface temperature changes produced by an increase in downward LWIR flux are too small to be measured and cannot cause climate change. The assumptions underlying the use of radiative forcing in climate models are shown to be invalid. A null hypothesis for CO2 is proposed that it is impossible to show that changes in CO2 concentration have caused any climate change, at least since the current composition of the atmosphere was set by ocean photosynthesis about one billion years ago."

 

The attached image is from Ryan Maue from Florida State University and shows a 2-year running measure of global tropical cyclone activity. As you can see, global tropical cyclone activity is presently very low, in fact, as low as it has been in the past 30 years. Here is what Ryan says:

"Global TC Activity remains at 30-year lows at least -- The last 24-months of ACE at 1090 represents a decrease from the previous months and a return to the levels of September 2009...Since Hurricane Katrina (August 2005) and the publication of high-profile papers in Nature and Science, global tropical cyclone ACE has collapsed in half. This continues the now 4-consecutive years global crash in tropical cyclone activity. While the Atlantic on average makes up about 10% of the global, yearly hurricane activity, the other 90% deserves attention and has been significantly depressed since 2007."

Reference:
Ryan N. Maue's 2010 Global Tropical Cyclone Activity Update
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

 

My year 3 Literature teacher would say about your post just one word.
Barrabasadas.

I would in stead like to quote E.A.Poe : "Experience has shown, and a true philosophy will always show, that a vast, perhaps the larger portion of the truth arises from the seemingly irrelevant."
Edgar Allan Poe

CO2 is not and will never be "pollution" but a necessary part of our athmosphere and crucial for human existence. The effect of human produced CO2 equates to the effect on bad odor one rabbit fart in the middle of a 100 Ha field would have.

 

I thought it to be rather obvious, but since you ask...

 

Just me, nagging again. (Boston, even if I'm in your "camp"; I don't "like" screaming... .).

If we assume that the temp, in recent years (500-1000 yrs) have been pretty stable, with good abilities for man to thrive and expand our habitats.
I'd also like to drop references to "geological" measures humans were not around at most of that time, and I believe its our habitat (as in present time) we'd like to keep...

There will still be varations, caused by earth's orbit (round/ elliptical), solar spots, radiation... etc.

But, if we assume that there was some sort of "balance" before industrial times, then we'd also assume that there was the same sort of balance between input/ loss of energy.

Now, CO2 have increased by close to 50%. Most gases in the athmosphere is 2 atoms, 3 or more atoms have other properties.

CO2 properties are here.

Its not difficult to calculate the amount of CO2 caused by burning of oil at the rate of today, The number for coal is more uncertain, but probably close to equal to oil...? And gas, sum up. At least it'll lead to an approx figure. Now its easier to imagine this as a layer of "glass" our our heads. Ok some say that CO2 lasts only for a couple of months, some other say 100 years....choose a number between 1 and 100, it'll still be ugly.

Now, I can't completely ignore Guillermo's arguments, but my gut feeling is that CO2 acts pretty strongly, IF guillermo right on solar spots, external radiation, these are effects that may cause changes that CO2 can act as an amplifier on. I also once calculated (more correct; tried to calculate...) the heat conduuctivity for the complete atmosphere, my approach was that CO2 can't be of any significance for that case... It wasn't not until I did an estimate for the difference between night/ day.... But that was not a valid estimate, in my opinion too much uncertainities for the average day temp, space "temperatures" thicknesses, anything, but I got some numbers (don't recall right now..but trust me, they were not really to be trusted, sorry), Temperatures, are not spot on in my field of competence... Now If I recall correctly, heat transfers in 3 ways; Radiation, conductivity and convection. Daytime / nighttime numbers will be different.

If I'm in my cabin (in the mountains, wintertime) have four blankets, are just comfortable, and the stove is working pretty nice, some variations due to the number of logs. If I get 2 more blankets.... I may be uncomfortably warm...

I still cant completely ignore Guillermo's arguments, but I'm more certain on the fact that we're running a full scale experiment, and we're all in this experiments as inhibitors or accelerators... whether we like it or not.

So, what about "better safe than sorry"?

At some point in time: We'll still have to adapt to a world were oil is getting more and more expensive as the resources are getting more and more limited or difficult to harvest. As early as possible, will no matter how we consider it; climate, resourses or economy, cause the least problem of adaption..

 

Ccx Downsizes

We've all heard the phrase "Money talks"? Less familiar will be "Money walks, when ******** talks".

Reuters reports on that choice of words, though in less direct language.

"Market operator Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE.N) is laying off staff at newly acquired U.S. environmental bourse the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), industry sources told Reuters, citing a lack of U.S. action on climate change.

They said the first round of layoffs began on July 23 and, although the total number of jobs to be cut was unknown, one said around 25 employees, or roughly half CCX's headcount at the time of ICE's acquisition, had already been or were being let go.

ICE would not confirm or comment on the layoffs.

"ICE just came in one day and started hacking away ... We were told the company was restructuring," said one source, who declined to be named.

Another said ICE cut around 20 roles at the CCX late last month, and at least another six high-level layoffs would come before next spring.

ICE bought Climate Exchange plc, owners of the CCX as well as London's European Climate Exchange (ECX), the world's largest marketplace for carbon credits, in April for 395 million pounds ($622 million), despite failed UN climate talks in Copenhagen last December and a lack of U.S. action on climate change.

CLIMATE INACTION

CCX founder Richard Sandor had hoped the exchange would become the hub for a national regulated market for greenhouse gas emissions to be kick-started by a U.S. climate change bill.

But prices for the carbon credits traded on the bourse since its 2003 launch, which were based on voluntary but legally binding emissions reduction commitments by its members, have crashed to around 10 cents a tonne from all-time highs of over $7 in 2008, and trading volumes have largely dried up.

Last week, ICE chairman and CEO Jeff Sprecher said the CCX may be pared due to a lack of profitability and that ICE is now seeking feedback about what to do with the exchange.

ICE's main focus in buying Climate Exchange was the ECX, which handles some 90 percent of exchange-traded carbon credits globally and was largely behind its parent company's maiden pretax profit of 2.2 million pounds in 2009. [ID:nLDE62A2GE]

CCX president and CEO Satish Nandapurkar is reported to be staying at the bourse while ECX head Patrick Birley has said he will leave his post by October. [ID:nLDE6681GD] No other layoffs have been reported at ECX or other Climate Exchange offices.

Sandor will serve as adviser to ICE, company sources said.

Some blamed inaction on climate change by the U.S., the world's number two greenhouse gas emitter, for the job losses.

Although the U.S. has vowed to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and despite the House of Representatives narrowly passing an ambitious climate bill in June 2008, several similar bills have stalled in the Senate in the past year.

"(The layoffs) seem to indicate that this market player thinks any U.S. climate action is still a way off," said commodities house FCStone in a July 27 blog on its website.

"This is unfortunate not only for the climate implications based on U.S. inaction but also for the number of really talented staff the CCX had to let go." (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by James Jukwey)"

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE6791WI20100811

Why am I not surprised? Because CO2 is traded for just 10 cents a ton, that's why.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

Barack Hussein Obama will be spitting blood. He thought it would be a "nice little earner".

http://www.examiner.com/x-14143-Ora...n-Joyce-Foundation-CCX-partners-to-fleece-USA

If only CO2 really could warm the planet, we'd have less to worry about. The summer now appears to be over, north of latitude 80.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

 

Citing every entry in a dictionary is the same thing as not answering at all; it's just being a smart-***.

Let's narrow the question down a little: what would you accept as proof that AGW is real? I suspect an honest answer from you would be, "nothing."