Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[Bioluminescence]

We have a 'Cut and Paste' Queen to reign with our King.
 

Here we get to the nub.

The loony environmental fringe that grew up in the seventies (kicked off by The Limits of Growth was it?) could safely be ignored and allowed to live at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. Along came 'Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming' and provided a 'big stick' to get their warped view of a future adopted. Hence their willful refusal to believe the evidence of their own eyes and their own intelligence and this almost psychotic deference to 'Authority'.

This is not ignorance. Whatever my views of them are, Bio and Rojo are clearly intelligent and well educated. Their stance is clearly politically motivated. I've enjoyed these posts because it's prompted me to dig deeper into the science - which is where my interest lies.

The internet really is a wonderful development. I've recently found myself downloading the original data (NOAA and Argo) and seeing for myself what's true, what's exaggerated, and what's plain lies.

I'll do a post later on to briefly sum up my argument re a 'Missing Variable Bias' and try and ask one simple question of Bio - hope she can give an honest answer on the basis of her own education, intelligence and 'Common Sense'.

How about addressing the points Jonathan Adler makes rather than labelling me a copy and paste queen because I have copied and pasted precisely one article? An article which addresses your fears that any measure will have dire consequences for the economy.

I'm not politically motivated. I stick to the science. I have no strong opinion on what should be done - I simply try to explain what publishing scientists are saying and correct long-debunked myths that appear regularly on these threads.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Whatever my views of them are, Bio and Rojo are clearly intelligent and well educated. Their stance is clearly politically motivated. I've enjoyed these posts because it's prompted me to dig deeper into the science - which is where my interest lies.

In my summation they seem of average intelligence, clearly well read but poorly educated. But I suspect I have a much broader definition of the term educated.

I am quite quite sure they have much worse things to say about me. 

[Bioluminescence]

In my summation they seem of average intelligence, clearly well read but poorly educated. But I suspect I have a much broader definition of the term educated.

I am quite quite sure they have much worse things to say about me. 

Said without a hint of irony no doubt.

In what way is evaluating all the evidence 'poorly educated', as opposed to making unsubstantiated claims and trying to belittle others because you don't agree with what they're saying, for example?

[Devon Red]

The loony environmental fringe that grew up in the seventies (kicked off by The Limits of Growth was it?) could safely be ignored and allowed to live at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. Along came 'Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming' and provided a 'big stick' to get their warped view of a future adopted. Hence their willful refusal to believe the evidence of their own eyes and their own intelligence and this almost psychotic deference to 'Authority'.

I can tell it's harvest season, straw men are being constructed all over this thread. The Limits of Growth warned against the risks associated with peak oil, population rises and an economic system based on infinate growth constrained by a planet with finite resources. They made limited and cautious predictions some of which were solid, some not so solid. It was written in 1972, near the beginning of computer modelling. We know a lot more now than we did then. What exactly do you take issue with? That fossil fuels will run out and it's better to encourage the development of new technologies now rather than later?

[Devon Red]

Yep but if a gypsy was to turn up at your door and wave some crystals over your head before informing you that you had to stop drinking or you would die of liver failure would you? Im sure she could produce plenty of evidence about other people who had drunk too much and died following her prediction but you wouldnt do it because you wouldnt trust her enough to do it.

If you can model what is going to happen with the weather exactly a month from now I might have some confidence in your model. If you could tell me a year from you could have enough evidence to convince industry round the world to change.

But you can't because the science is nowhere near close to doing that. You know that. I know that. so putting more burdens on industry is directly harmful.

But imagine you COULD predict to the nth degree what what happen - you would then have to deciede what to do about it. In simple terms if you make everyone more energy efficient you make it cheaper to live. That encourages population growth.

BUt really none of that matters. Its just dressing up the lefty agenda in another guise to push it down people's throats. You mock people for questiooing the scientists yet feel free to dictate how poepl should run their businesses and what effect green taxes will have on them.

I suppose its a questin of balance - feel free to give up what you want but before you can expect other people to do the same you need a convincing argument.

Currently you're nowhere near.

I say world's foremost experts, you say gypsy waving crystals. I think you're just on a wind up and determined to keep constructing those straw men.

You said yourself that weather and climate are not the same thing, yet you contradict yourself again by trying to make them comparable. Even if any comparison was valid, the difficulty in predicting weather doesn't make it unworthy of our best efforts.

As I've said, your version of a convincing argument is so extreme that it sets an impossible benchmark. To answer your previous question, no I certainly can't tell you the exact date that a new fuel technology will emerge. I can argue that the more political and economic incentives we enact to pursue this technology, the quicker it will emerge.

Anyway, I'm taking a break from this for a while. Difficult to keep it civil when the two of you carry on creating these ridiculous caricatures.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Said without a hint of irony no doubt.

In what way is evaluating all the evidence 'poorly educated', as opposed to making unsubstantiated claims and trying to belittle others because you don't agree with what they're saying, for example?

I use "educated" in the sense of your world view. And that's my point you're not evaluating all the evidence - you have a deep focus in a narrow field (in my view). As I said it's just my view but I don't consider someone to be truly educatede unless they have some wisdom too. I don't see much evidence of that. Not trying to offend - just my view.

[Bioluminescence]

I use "educated" in the sense of your world view. And that's my point you're not evaluating all the evidence - you have a deep focus in a narrow field (in my view). As I said it's just my view but I don't consider someone to be truly educatede unless they have some wisdom too. I don't see much evidence of that. Not trying to offend - just my view.

So what I have said that is not wise?

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

I say world's foremost experts, you say gypsy waving crystals. I think you're just on a wind up and determined to keep constructing those straw men.

You said yourself that weather and climate are not the same thing, yet you contradict yourself again by trying to make them comparable. Even if any comparison was valid, the difficulty in predicting weather doesn't make it unworthy of our best efforts.

As I've said, your version of a convincing argument is so extreme that it sets an impossible benchmark. To answer your previous question, no I certainly can't tell you the exact date that a new fuel technology will emerge. I can argue that the more political and economic incentives we enact to pursue this technology, the quicker it will emerge.

Anyway, I'm taking a break from this for a while. Difficult to keep it civil when the two of you carry on creating these ridiculous caricatures.

Yes weather and climate are comparable but not the same.

OK then take the economy - much easier to model than any of the two examples above. Can any of the "world's foremost experts" predict what level the FTSE will close at this time next year? No.

Why?

Because it currently can't be modelled.

But with climate long term predictions could be COMPLETELY off  - the modelling is certainly not strong enough on which to base major changes in the economy.

But as I said your evidence is certainly strong enough to convince you so please dont let me stop you from wearing your hemp shirt and burying your poo. Just dont expect anyone else to follow until theres something more convincing.

You may well be right and and be a prophetic guru ahead of everybody else but somehow I doubt it....

[lancashirelad]

Importunately here in the USA global warming ash become a political issue, democrats in general believe it is happening, republicans deny its existence mainly because it was introduced to the american public by an ex VP who was a democrat, pathetic isn't it. I am completely convinced, have solar electricity and solar hot water on my roof.

[Need_a_bevvy]

Since pictures are being posted, here is perhaps a more relevant one:




We are now at the lowest measured arctic sea ice levels in the era of satellite measurements, exactly five years after the previous record.

At that time, in 2007, Al Gore predicted that today the entire North Pole ice cap would be gone this summer.


Perhaps highlighting two issues:

1. Global warming is phenomenon worth taking very seriously.   

2. Hyperbolic exclamations predicting disaster and doom, tend to do more harm to the cause than what they help.



Otherwise this is an interesting thread and debate, which would be even better if people layed off the personal attacks.


Cheers.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Since pictures are being posted, here is perhaps a more relevant one:

We are now at the lowest measured arctic sea ice levels in the era of satellite measurements, exactly five years after the previous record.

At that time, in 2007, Al Gore predicted that today the entire North Pole ice cap would be gone this summer.


Perhaps highlighting two issues:

1. Global warming is phenomenon worth taking very seriously.   

2. Hyperbolic exclamations predicting disaster and doom, tend to do more harm to the cause than what they help.



Otherwise this is an interesting thread and debate, which would be even better if people layed off the personal attacks.


Cheers.

I must admit it always makes me laugh when people state things like "Since records began" and the like.

Er.. when did records begin mate?

Usually about 100 years ago or less. Ah. OK. So the planet has been here 4 billion years (Most of that time without us) and we're going off on one based on 100 years worth of collected data of around 1/40,000,000 of available data in fact.

[Need_a_bevvy]

I must admit it always makes me laugh when people state things like "Since records began" and the like.

Er.. when did records begin mate?

Usually about 100 years ago or less. Ah. OK. So the planet has been here 4 billion years (Most of that time without us) and we're going off on one based on 100 years worth of collected data of around 1/40,000,000 of available data in fact.

I agree that it's important to be accurate with these things and a lot of people are not.  That's why I specified the era of satellite measurements which goes back to 1979.  Al Gore just made another "blunder" like that when reacting to the polar ice cap news that the environmental writer for the New York Times reacted on twitter:

"Andy RevkinVerifisert
‏@Revkin
@algore Please don't use "all-time" to describe Arctic sea ice record when talking about 33 years of satellite mapping."

Humans tend by nature to lack a perspective of time when it comes to natural phenomena on Earth.  Naturally since our lifespans are like house flies in the larger sense.

Cheers.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I agree that it's important to be accurate with these things and a lot of people are not.  That's why I specified the era of satellite measurements which goes back to 1979.  Al Gore just made another "blunder" like that when reacting to the polar ice cap news that the environmental writer for the New York Times reacted on twitter:

"Andy RevkinVerifisert
‏@Revkin
@algore Please don't use "all-time" to describe Arctic sea ice record when talking about 33 years of satellite mapping."

Humans tend by nature to lack a perspective of time when it comes to natural phenomena on Earth.  Naturally since our lifespans are like house flies in the larger sense.

Cheers.

Agree mate.

It's when people talk about "The Climate" like "The Climate" has always been as it is today when this is far from the truth. In most of the 4,000,000,000 years that the Earth has been wobbling round the sun, the climate has been different than it is today. It's not a constant, never has been a constant and never will be a constant. In fact the only constant thing about it is that it's forever changing. It's been much hotter in the past and it's been much cooler in the past and when we're all dead and gone it'll continue to fluctuate wildly.

I accept there is a lot of data and a lot of analysis, but I'd be more interested in the reasons why 1,000,000,000 years before we were flopping about - the climate changed as much as it did.

And there aare far bigger generic things going on that will always markedly change the climate one way or the other such as volcanos, Earthquakes and movement of the landmasses creating new seas and new land and opening and closing channels and currents.

[RojoLeσn]

CQ - your being asked to speak up here rather than make facile one liners has obviously caught a nerve.

You have made a series of attacks on each poster you disagree with, rather than explain your own position, or explaining why you disagree with theirs: Snarking at their lack of intelligence, quality of education and mental stability. This seems a pretty immature method of discourse (imo), but you have claimed you are superior to those you disagree with. So why don't you explain your background: You are at such a lofty position that you can comment on how we have poor education, poor mental faculty and are average intelligence.

Where did you go to university and what was your major? Are you an arts or science undergrad?

What was your Masters discipline?

Are you currently working in a profession/or are you completing your Doctorate?

Where and how did you gain this breadth of wisdom and insight into how the world works that you claim to understand things better than everyone else?

It's really simple. If you have convincing evidence, people will be convinced.

Convince me - I'm all eyes and ears.

[Need_a_bevvy]

CQ - your being asked to speak up here rather than make facile one liners has obviously caught a nerve.

You have made a series of attacks on each poster you disagree with, rather than explain your own position, or explaining why you disagree with theirs: Snarking at their lack of intelligence, quality of education and mental stability. This seems a pretty immature method of discourse (imo), but you have claimed you are superior to those you disagree with. So why don't you explain your background: You are at such a lofty position that you can comment on how we have poor education, poor mental faculty and are average intelligence.

Where did you go to university and what was your major? Are you an arts or science undergrad?

What was your Masters discipline?

Are you currently working in a profession/or are you completing your Doctorate?

Where and how did you gain this breadth of wisdom and insight into how the world works that you claim to understand things better than everyone else?

Convince me - I'm all eyes and ears.

Rojo

You are talking to old men.

Should not be on the frakking internet.

If you wondered why RAWK mods are acting weird?


Go to the moon thread. Most of them were watching Armstrong step on the moon.


So their basic disfunction is "get off my lawn"

[redrocket]

How can you hope to have a rational debate, when the topic has such an irrational headline?

[Bioluminescence]

How can you hope to have a rational debate, when the topic has such an irrational headline?

What's irrational about the headline? Note that RojoLeσn includes 'discuss' in it, so it's up for discussion anyway.

[lfcderek]

Now the celebrations on the acquisition of our new striker have died down we can return to the science for a while lads and lasses. I hope Bio, Andy, Carlos, lancashirelad and need_a_bevy (and anyone else visiting this thread) will voice an opinion since the post will end with a simple question.




_{Fig. 1: Correlation of GCR variability with ice-rafted debris events in the North Atlantic during the Holocene: a) the 14C record (correlation coefficient 0.44) and b) the 10Be record (0.56), together with the combined ice-rafted debris tracers [61].}

Red line is a proxy for Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs)
Blue line is a proxy for temperature



<sub>Fig. 2: Comparison of variations during the last millennium of a) temperature (with respect to the 1961–1990 average), b) galactic cosmic rays (note the inverted scale; high cosmic ray fluxes are associated with cold temperatures) and c) glacial advances in the Venezuelan tropical Andes near Lake Mucubaji (8#470N, 70#500W, 3570 m altitude) [30]. The temperature curves comprise a multi-proxy reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures (the band shows 95% confidence interval) [29], the so-called hockey-stick curve [31, 32], borehole temperature measurements worldwide [33] and from Greenland [34], and smoothed instrumental measurements since 1860.
The cosmic ray reconstructions are based on several 14C measurements in tree rings (data points and dashed green curve) [35, 36], and 10Be concentrations in ice cores from the South Pole (solid blue curve) [37] and Greenland (solid red curve) [38]. The 14C anomalies are smaller than those of 10Be since they are damped by exchanges with the CO2 reservoirs.





Fig. 3: Profiles of #18O from a U-Th-dated stalagmite from a cave in Oman, together with #14C from tree rings in California bristlecone pines and elsewhere, for a) the 3.4 ky period from 9.6 to 6.2 ky BP (before present) and b) the 430 y period from 8.33 to 7.9 ky BP [65].




Fig. 4: Comparison of the growth periods of stalagmites in Austria and Oman with a) 65#N June insolation and b) the relative GCR flux (10Be ocean sediments; note inverted scale) [68]. The growth periods are indicated by shaded bands (Spannagel cave) or boxes (Hoti cave). Growth periods at Spannagel cave require warm temperatures, close to the present climate; growth periods at Hoti cave require a moist climate. Periods without stalagmite growth are unshaded. The dashed curves in b) indicate the estimated corrections of systematic errors in the SPECMAP
timescale, on which the GCR record is based. The growth periods appear to be associated with intervals of low GCR flux, close to present values.</sub>


Fig. 5: Temperature reconstruction for the Central Alps over the last two millennia, obtained from the #18O composition of a speleothem from Spannagel Cave, Austria [40]. The variations of cosmic rays (#14C) and CO2 over this period are also indicated.




_{Fig. 6: Correlation of cosmic rays and climate over the past 500 My [90]: a) GCR mean flux variations as the solar system passes through the spiral arms of the Milky Way, reconstructed from iron meteorite exposure ages [89], and b) ocean temperature anomalies reconstructed from #18O in calcite shells found in sediments from the tropical seas [88]. Panel a) shows the nominal reconstructed GCR flux (black curve) and the error range (grey band). The dashed red curves in panels a) and b) shows the best fit of the GCR flux to the temperature data (solid blue curve in panel b), within the allowable error (note inverted GCR scale in panel b). The data are de-trended and smoothed. The dark bars at the top represent cool climate modes for Earth (icehouses) and the light bars are warm modes (greenhouses), as established from sediment analyses elsewhere.}




These graphs, by various scientists, were published to show the correlations between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and climate proxies here on earth. Since the number of GCRs hitting the earth is moderated by the Sun's Magnetic Activity we can take the GCR count as a proxy measurement of the Sun's Activity.

So,

What do you feel about these graphs?

Should their effects be included in our modelling of the climate?

Are they a major influence or minimal?

[shippers]

We're going to end up in a Schumacher style society, if we're lucky. Dame Ellen McArthur is doing some interesting work in terms of a circular economy. I'm sad to say that anyone who doesn't understand the implications of climate change is

a) A Greedy Bastard

b) doesn't really give a stuff about their kids or prospective grandkid's lives.

[shippers]

Point being, the climate IS changing, now it seems likely, and it's pretty much agreed that this is due to human intervention. If you don't agree that it isn't changing due to human intervention, well whoopee do, the ultimate effect is the same. We will have to adjust our economic system regardless, and even without climatic change it seems as if capitalism, with it's endless need for financial growth is beginning to reach the limits forecast by Marx to the point were it will eat itself.

Everything else is just an excuse for your own greed, imho ;-)

[Bioluminescence]

Derek, the problem with your post is that you've given us a series of graphs, whose origins are unknown, that seem to show a correlation between GCRs and some climate parameters. It's simply not possible to answer your questions based on this. Could you please post the links to the papers from which these graphs come?

I'll try and answer your questions looking at what the scientific literature says, though I'll start with a simple observation: in 2009, cosmic ray intensities were about 19% higher than any observation in the past 50 years (see NASA graph below), so if they had a major impact on global temperatures, why have these not dropped? We find ourselves in a situation where natural factors - deep solar minimum, one of the strongest La Niρa on records - would lead to a cooling, yet temperature records show no dip in temperature.



Three steps are required for GCRs to seed clouds:

1. GCRs must induce aerosol formation - this is not controversial and is shown in lab conditions.

2. The aerosols must grow sufficiently (by a factor of about 100,000) to form cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) - this is where the problems start. Pierce and Adams (2009) find that

In our simulations, changes in CCN from changes in cosmic rays during a solar cycle are two orders of magnitude too small to account for the observed changes in cloud properties; consequently, we conclude that the hypothesized effect is too small to play a significant role in current climate change.

3. CCN must lead to increased cloud formation - research shows that GCRs are not effective in cloud formation.

Kazil et al. find that:

the variation of ionization by galactic cosmic rays over the decadal solar cycle does not entail a response...that would explain observed variations in global cloud cover.

And

We estimate that the variation in radiative forcing resulting from a response of clouds to the change in galactic cosmic ray ionization and subsequent aerosol production over the decadal solar cycle is smaller than the concurrent variation of total solar irradiance.

Sloan and Wolfendale (2008) estimate that:

less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11-year cycle changes in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.

Kristjansson et al. (2008) find:

no statistically significant correlations were found between any of the four cloud parameters and GCR

Kulmala et al. (2010) conclude that:

galactic cosmic rays appear to play a minor role for atmospheric aerosol formation events, and so for the connected aerosol-climate effects as well.

The evidence for a major role of GCRs on the climate is not there - since the assertion is that GCRs impact climate through low-level cloud formation, the findings that GCRs only play a minor role in such cloud formation suggest that GCRs are not a main driver. Wouldn't you agree?

[Need_a_bevvy]

Point being, the climate IS changing, now it seems likely, and it's pretty much agreed that this is due to human intervention. If you don't agree that it isn't changing due to human intervention, well whoopee do, the ultimate effect is the same. We will have to adjust our economic system regardless, and even without climatic change it seems as if capitalism, with it's endless need for financial growth is beginning to reach the limits forecast by Marx to the point were it will eat itself.

Everything else is just an excuse for your own greed, imho ;-)

Governments ARE adjusting.  My country, Norway, is gearing up to exploit arctic oil reserves as the ice retreats as we speak.

[redrocket]

What's irrational about the headline? Note that RojoLeσn includes 'discuss' in it, so it's up for discussion anyway.

"climate change is here" when exactly was it not "here"?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

"climate change is here" when exactly was it not "here"?

Is right. Climate change is the default position. It always changes. It always has changed. It always will change.

[Bioluminescence]

"climate change is here" when exactly was it not "here"?

In my experience people deny all sorts of things when it comes to climate change, including that it's happening.

Is right. Climate change is the default position. It always changes. It always has changed. It always will change.

And no one is saying otherwise.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

In my experience people deny all sorts of things when it comes to climate change, including that it's happening.

And no one is saying otherwise.

"Climate change is here..."


It's always been here. It will always be here.

[Bioluminescence]

"Climate change is here..."


It's always been here. It will always be here.

But you know that when people mention climate change, they're talking about man-made climate change, i.e. change whose impacts could be limited if we took action.

And no one is saying that climate has never changed before. This is a strawman, and it doesn't address the issue.

[redrocket]

In my experience people deny all sorts of things when it comes to climate change, including that it's happening.

And no one is saying otherwise.

So, in your experience, who has said that the climate isn't changing?

Have an honest word with yourself for just a minute, deconstruct the topic headline, and you will see that it's irrational.

[redrocket]

But you know that when people mention climate change, they're talking about man-made climate change, i.e. change whose impacts could be limited if we took action.

And no one is saying that climate has never changed before. This is a strawman, and it doesn't address the issue.

Well the strawman was introduced by the o/p. "climate change is here" infers that once upon a time it was not here.

[Bioluminescence]

So, in your experience, who has said that the climate isn't changing?

Have an honest word with yourself for just a minute, deconstruct the topic headline, and you will see that it's irrational.

I spend plenty of time debating climate change online, and there are still people claiming that it's not happening. In terms of current climate change, there are still plenty of people who claim it's down to natural factors - since we're talking about man-made climate change, this is a form of denial.

So I don't agree with you.

[Bioluminescence]

Well the strawman was introduced by the o/p. "climate change is here" infers that once upon a time it was not here.

No, that was your interpretation of the OP. Maybe RojoLeσn should've added man-made, but this is often omitted when discussing current climate change.

[redrocket]

My interpretation? - how dare I.

Anyway, I've just had a flick through the thread, and it's got an air of Oregon State Hospital about it.

[Devon Red]

I've just had a flick through the thread, and it's got an air of Oregon State Hospital about it.

There are certainly a few on here who could do a decent turn as Nurse Mildred.

Back on topic, getting bogged down in the title is a red herring. It could have been worded better.

How about 'the climate is changing at a faster rate than historically observed natural variation can account for. This can only be explained by factoring in rises in the levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Discuss'. There is probably a more accurate wording than this, so if anyone has a better version then post away.

I should also say that Bio has been keeping to this topic all the way through the thread, using well reasoned and supported arguments, but others have been doing their best to derail it.

[Quantum]

I should also say that Bio has been keeping to this topic all the way through the thread, using well reasoned and supported arguments, but others have been doing their best to derail it.

Can I echo this. I really enjoy Bio's posts on this topic and appreciate the effort she makes to source her evidence. I mistrust most websites because I'm never sure what interests lie behind them so it's good to hear a fellow red with a good cv in this area argue the case.

[pantbash]

Can I echo this. I really enjoy Bio's posts on this topic and appreciate the effort she makes to source her evidence. I mistrust most websites because I'm never sure what interests lie behind them so it's good to hear a fellow red with a good cv in this area argue the case.

Indeed, the posts are very informative.


I can see why people disagree though, deep down everyone yearns for the guilt free easy life.

[lfcderek]

What a wonderful afternoon that was - not.

Anyway Bio

First of all I think you've missed the point of my questions (or you are trying to evade answering  ) – or I've not explained it very well! The mechanism, whatever it is, is not the issue. Since we don't know the mechanism we can, quite properly, treat it as a black box.

We have a perturbation of GCRs which tightly correlates to temp changes at the level of decades, centuries, millennia and indeed, in the last graph, over a time period of 500 million years!

The question is, do you accept the causal correlation?

If yes, how should we proceed to incorporate the data into climate modelling?

[Bioluminescence]

What a wonderful afternoon that was - not.

Anyway Bio

First of all I think you've missed the point of my questions (or you are trying to evade answering  ) – or I've not explained it very well! The mechanism, whatever it is, is not the issue. Since we don't know the mechanism we can, quite properly, treat it as a black box.

We have a perturbation of GCRs which tightly correlates to temp changes at the level of decades, centuries, millennia and indeed, in the last graph, over a time period of 500 million years!

The question is, do you accept the causal correlation?

If yes, how should we proceed to incorporate the data into climate modelling?

How, without a mechanism, can you claim that GCRs have a major impact on global temperatures? You may claim there's a correlation, but that's as far as it goes. If you can't quantify the effect, you can't claim it's large. I'd still like links to the papers if you have them.

If the cloud seeding effect of GCRs is minimal and the recent GCR spike (2009) corresponded with one of the warmest years on record, it's safe to state that GCRs in all likelihood play a minor role in determining temperatures.

Ultimately you can't incorporate GCRs into models if you don't understand how they affect the climate.

And yes, a bit of a frustrating day football-wise

[Bioluminescence]

I should also say that Bio has been keeping to this topic all the way through the thread, using well reasoned and supported arguments, but others have been doing their best to derail it.

Can I echo this. I really enjoy Bio's posts on this topic and appreciate the effort she makes to source her evidence. I mistrust most websites because I'm never sure what interests lie behind them so it's good to hear a fellow red with a good cv in this area argue the case.

Indeed, the posts are very informative.


I can see why people disagree though, deep down everyone yearns for the guilt free easy life.

Thank you - I'm never sure I express myself very well so I'm glad I seem to make sense

[Bioluminescence]

By the way Derek, I played around with some data - humour me, I don't get out much - to make a point. The Spencer graph you refer to uses a baseline of 1979-1983 to plot the data. I replicated this and then randomly chose a 1984-1988 baseline to see the effect this has on the overall shapes of the graphs. Note that I didn't adjust the data as I don't know what factor Spencer uses to convert his lower troposphere temperatures to surface temperatures.



As you can see, it changes the overall look quite a lot. So the questions are: why didn't Spencer use surface temperatures? How did he adjust the lower troposphere temperatures? Why did he choose the 1979-1983 baseline, which is too short anyway when you're discussing climate?

If you look at actual surface observations and compare those to the scenarios, you get this:



This is what Hansen was trying to project, and it doesn't look half as bad as Spencer's graph. So those questions would need to be addressed before you could decide whether Spencer's decisions were valid.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

There are certainly a few on here who could do a decent turn as Nurse Mildred.

Back on topic, getting bogged down in the title is a red herring. It could have been worded better.

How about 'the climate is changing at a faster rate than historically observed natural variation can account for. This can only be explained by factoring in rises in the levels of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Discuss'. There is probably a more accurate wording than this, so if anyone has a better version then post away.

I should also say that Bio has been keeping to this topic all the way through the thread, using well reasoned and supported arguments, but others have been doing their best to derail it.

Again that depends. The climate historically changed pretty rapidly when super volcanos, continental shifts opening and closing currents/creating new seas/opening channels between different seas and oceans or massive meteor/comet strikes occurred for instance.