Shelagh

The information I have pooled together is freely available on the Internet. I neither wrote nor agree with most of it; I offered it to show the reasons for my scepticism. In the event the messenger is bring blamed for all the information that is currently available. I've even been accused of martyrdom, which isn't my style at all. I wish you all a very happy New Year, and good luck to all the climate scientists and much success with new discoveries in 2016!

The literature is confusing. Here are the two most recent studies: Oxford University: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

New technology will be available by 2030, not because it is required but because technological advances are always ongoing. Two research papers have been published since this paper was presented at the astronomy conference, both of which produced models suggesting that the cooling effect would be slight and would be limited to the northern hemisphere. With such differences of opinion, we won't know the full impact for at least five years. By then, with further research, the predictions will be more accurate. I don't believe in the models. I believe in looking through the window to see what the real world is doing and taking the necessary steps to make the world a cleaner, safer place.

If the prediction is correct, the cooling effect will occur over the period of a decade, by which time many changes will have taken place and new technology/research will be available:

I'm unsure whether this is scientific/relevant enough or not. This research suggests that diminished solar activity around 2030 will have a cooling effect:

Please explain how I should discuss matters with members on my "ignore" list.

Ophiolite, we will have to agree to disagree. This is my last response to you; even if you ask me a question, I will not reply.

Without human interference, smog will remain a problem in Chinese cities. Without human interference, homes that are currently under water in the UK will suffer the same circumstances over and over again. Without human interference, arsonists will continue to set fire to forests and grasslands. Without human interference, years of drought will persist because of poor management of water resources. Human interference is essential in creating a better world. Humans can control the environment; they cannot control the climate.

1. I did not misuse or misrepresent the data presented. The extremes of temperature are there for everyone to see. It is nonsense to say that graphs should only be reproduced by one group of people. 2. I did not make any claims about anything. That seems to be part of the frustration of the AGW supporters here: the fact that I have not denied the possibility of climate change, only failed to accept that there is a link to human activity. The uncertainty in the models is not from the collected data; it is from how that data is being used to predict a trend. 3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

This is nonsense; I have said none of this:

Frequency is actually declining: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/01/extreme-weather-failing-to-follow-global-warming-predictions-hurricanes-tornadoes-droughts-floods-wildfires-see-no-trend-or-declining-trends/ Nonsense, the graph is plotted data that anyone can plot for themselves from the data listed here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt

... but people are motivated by hope. Resistance to climate change can have amazing results:

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

Yes, yes, I accept that CO2 is seen as the main cause of warming by both past and present climate scientists. As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

I'm sorry if you feel that greenhouse gases are under attack. A 97% concensus can hardly feel under attack from the remaining 3%!

Arrhenius thought that burning fossil fuels would protect against the possibility of entering a mini ice age. Modern climatologists argue that the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the polar ice caps with subsequent devastating effects on global climates. The antithesis to Arrhenius's predictions:

... or narwhals.

In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Strathclyde were involved in a computer science research project. They used expert system technology to devise a program that could perform the same task as a cheese tester in a cheese factory. In order to build a system with a set of rules and knowledge base, the team asked the expert to explain how he decided on the maturity of the cheese. The tester explained the tests that he performed on the cheese. These tests became the expert system rules. When they tested the system against the real expert, the results were not the same. They asked the tester if he did anything else that they hadn't incorporated into the program. After trial and error, the deciding factor turned out to be smell. When the tester crumbled the cheese to check the consistency, gases were released. These gases determined the maturity of the cheese. When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

I won't throw a wobbly if dimreepr doesn't answer my question. It was loaded question, anyway, and I never answer loaded questions.

dimreepr, please answer my question. Thank you.

If climate change isn't caused by CO2, will the present climate models be replaced? If so, by what?

With or without climate change, this sounds good to me:

The natural world is unpredictable. Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

In other words, scientific simulations are more important than the natural world. I don't agree.