Icemelt

1veedo

Originally Posted by Icemelt

"In the past a rise in CO2 has always lagged a rise in temperature by about 800 years"

Originally Posted by 1veedo

Please read the thread before posting nonsense because more likely then not its' already been addressed.

I really don't want to re-read your repetitive uninformed posts yet again.

I have really read enough of it

If you are going to post such dismissive crap, from now on I'm just gonna have to ignore your contributions altogether.

You seem to think you have some God given right to ridicule and trample on anything you disagree with, and you pull erroneous numbers and "facts" out of your hat like a very bad conjurer.

I’ve given you the hard facts you demanded on the charts, and it doesn’t take a genius to reach a sensible conclusion. Yet you want to strut around bandying words promoting panic and hysteria. If you can legitimately find some data in these charts that is wrong, then let’s hear about it, chapter and verse, and back it up with hard evidence please. I will of course render my apology and modify the charts accordingly. However, if you can’t find any errors, then I’ll take it that you agree with the charts, and your conclusions would therefore appear to be WRONG !

I've read your extraordinarily repetitive contributions over the past weeks in several different threads and conclude:

1) You are regurgitating a litany of the same old charts and misguided conclusions over and over again, as if they are divinely cast in stone, without taking into account anything that other contributors have posted.

2) You seem to think that if you submit incorrect data and conclusions over and over again and often enough, they will eventually become the truth (I was married to someone like that for a while) Hmmm !

3) Most importantly, it never seems to occur to you that those who have the temerity to disagree with you, are not by definition WRONG !

If your head hasn’t grown so tightly into your blinkers that you can’t get them off, maybe you could condescend re-examine all the evidence, instead of just the bits that happen to fit. You now it’s just so easy to trundle along with the media and the politicians claiming the World is flat (Getting your vote would be a doddle for Al). It’s much more of a challenge to thoroughly investigate the evidence that the scientists, who are frightened of losing their credibility and research budgets, have conveniently skipped over.

On the top CO2 chart there's a greater increase starting about the point 500 years up to 40 years ago, than there is the last 50 years. What's up with that?

 

On the bottom chart...what's with those two colder spikes in the last 10 years?

Yes, you are correct with your observation.

The bulk of the observed increase in CO2 was indeed prior to 50 years ago !

That's the whole point, before industrialisation and not after !

The CO2 is rising anyway, without any help from man.

In the past a rise in CO2 has always lagged a rise in temperature by about 800 years.

An increase in CO2 has never caused a rise in temperature in the past, any increase in CO2 has always lagged behind and been the result of an increase in temperature.

With regard to sea levels, I have tried to keep everything on the same time scale, so that comparisons can be made between the charts. If I displayed it in centimetres then 50% would be off the page ! The point is to demonstrate that there is insignificant recent sea level rise in the overall picture. I have posted a more detailed sea level chart below, but this only serves to confirm my point. The rate of rise in sea levels has fallen by 98% over the past 12,000 years !

BTW

Well spotted on the temperature chart

My apologies

There was a minor glitch with a decimal place which caused the two spikes to which your refer

These have now been corrected - see below

SkepticLance I changed the scales for you as requested, reducing the timescale to 100M years and multiplying the CO2 scale by 4. Nevertheless, as you can see, there really isn't any evidence to indicate that human activity in the last 50 years has had any affect at all. The sea level has hardly moved in the past 4,000 years and neither has global temperature. Furthermore the bulk of the carbon dioxide increase occurred during the period 50 to 20,000 years ago which does not correspond with global industrialisation. It is also obvious that the temperature goes up first, and the CO2 level follows later as a consequence of the increase in temperature.

A rise in temperature causes an increase in CO2.

An increase in CO2 has not up to now caused a rise in temperature !

Further, co2 is not just produced by man, in fact the majority of co2 produced is from nature (around 60%)

 

This is what you have.....

 

(.03)*(.4) = .012 = 1.2%

 

At best man is producing 1.2% of GW

How refreshing to read something from the unindoctrinated

But you’re correct there is more, much more.

It is by no means proven that GHGs are the primary cause of global warming and, as you point out, CO2 is only one of the minor GHGs anyway.

Up until recently, increases in CO2 concentration have always lagged temperature increases, and not led them. Although very recent fluctuations may not appear to fit exactly with trends in the past, their effect is nevertheless so minimal as to not show up in geological scales. It is therefore very possible that similar concentrations of CO2 may have occurred for a few decades in the not too distance past, since they would also not be detectable on geological scales.

Furthermore for GHGs to be the primary cause of global warming driving climate change, the troposphere must be warming SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the surface temperature. And, despite several attempts to rewrite the rule book, the GHG/GW enthusiasts have been unable to establish that this is the case.

The IPCC agree there are inconsistencies between surface, tropospheric and global warming.

“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive”

Icemelt's post #65 against CO2 and global warming reminds me of an "Intelligent Design" defense where the names of lots of scientists are brought forth to support - - - - - - - ID[/url]]

Yeah its' so easy to dismiss opposition without recognising the intellectual standing of those quoted, isn't it ?

You can just carry on with a closed mind.

No point in having a debate under those circumstances is there ?

I guess you just want to communicate with those who agree.

How boring !

1vedoo said I couldn’t back up my comments with evidence and challenged me to produce some names, since he disbelieves there is anyone eminently qualified who is opposed to current theories. I haven't counted them but I guess there must be over 50 listed with some pretty astonishing qualifications. I can bore you with plenty more if you wish !

Rather than acting so brainwashed and glibly dismissing them all, why don't you at list read what they have to say and then try to match my list with a another list of your comparably qualified supporters, but please remember the valid comments from Prof Tim Ball (Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg) when he astutely reminded us that many IPCC researchers focus their studies on the impacts of climate change and generally don't have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change.

What would it take for you to see the light ?

1vedoo – Please take time to read the detail carefully since it took me along time to prepare specially for you !

There were too many points to cover in one posting, so in this post I will just contest your refusal to agree that, as I put it “I think I might be more easily convinced if it weren't for the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have serious doubts, and/or actually disagree with many of the conclusions”

Your retort was “This is simply not true. The statements of the IPCC have been endorsed by - - - - - - including a number of universities (most notable is Columbia University)”

Unfortunately you are wrong, and your claim that I cannot substantiate my statement is also wrong. Here is my evidence, which is just a sample of the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have already gone public with their serious doubts concerning the interpretation of global warming research results, causes and / or conclusions. Few would disagree that it would be irresponsible to discard their views and just sweep this under the carpet.

The list is growing and is beginning to look like a list of “Who’s Who” of the world’s scientists.

Prof Ian Clark (Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa) has been teaching in the fields of paleoclimatology and geochemistry for the past two decades. His research focuses on Arctic hydrology and paleoclimatology using a variety of geochemical and isotopic methods to characterize past warm periods. “You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”

Prof Tim Ball (Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg) claims many IPCC researchers focus their studies on the impacts of climate change. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change. They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies. This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts. The situation is exacerbated since among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios. Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts. We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. It is a relatively small community and there is no consensus. If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong”

Prof Richard Lindzen (Dept of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Science MIT) is an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology. He believes that the climate models used by the IPCC do not properly account for the physics of cloud formation, and that as a result they exaggerate the warming effect of CO2. “People have decided you have to convince other people that, since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda”

Prof Bob Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University Australia) gives a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention. Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.

Prof Nir Shaviv (Institute of Physics University of Jerusalem) is an Israeli associate professor of physics, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is most well-known for his solar and cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change. In 2002, Shaviv hypothesised that passages through the Milky Way's spiral arms appear to have been the cause behind the major ice-ages over the past billion years. “There is no direct evidence which links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”

Prof Syun-Ichi Akasofu (Director International Arctic Research Centre of the University of Alaska Fairbanks since its establishment in 1998). As Director of the Geophysical Institute (1986-1999) he concentrated his effort on establishing the institute as a key research center in the Arctic and his work has earned national and international recognition.

Dr Matthew Khandeka (PhD in meteorology, Masters degree in statistics, Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards) He has won several post-doctoral fellowships, including one with the National Research Council, was a top climate scientist with Environment Canada for 25 years, as well as with the UN. Khandekar, who has never had any affiliation with energy companies, has worked at the highest levels on climate research for 48 years and has published more than 100 highly regarded scientific papers. He was barred from the UN’s 11th “Conference of Parties” and not allowed to register “because he holds a heretical view in what Corbella rightly calls the religion of global warming”. Khandekar says scientific evidence seems to indicate that "solar variability" is one of the main causes of global warming. He also says he has studied extreme weather events of the past 150 years worldwide "and I don't see any increase in extreme weather events." What has happened, he said, is the 24-hour cable news cycle has increased our perception that there are more extreme weather events. "One hundred years ago they were happening all the time but we didn't get to know about them," he said.

Prof Tim Patterson (Dept of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University , Ottawa)

Tim Patterson said he "couldn't be bothered" to attend the event referred to above if scientists like Dr. Madhav Khandekar were barred.

Prof Patrick Michaels (Dept pf Environmental Science University of Virginia) “Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”

Henrik Svensmark (Director Centre Sun-Climate Research Danish Space Research Institute) For more than decade, Henrik Svensmark Danish National Space Center has been pursuing an explanation why Earth cools and warms. His findings, published October Proceedings Royal Society Mathematical, physical sciences engineering journal Royal Society London, don't point us. The sun and stars could explain most if not all warming century, he has laboratory results to demonstrate it. He was castigated by the chairman of the IPCC for disagreeing with other scientists !

Prof John Christy (Dept of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama & Lead Author IPCC) “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

Prof Paul Reiter (IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases)

“The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it’s not science, it’s propaganda”

Prof Philip Stott (Dept of Biogeography University of London)

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

Prof Wibjorn Karlen (Dept of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology Stockholm University)

“There is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change”

Prof Frederick Singes (Former Director of US National Weather Service)

Prof Tad Murty (Dept of Earth Sciences, Flinders University Adelaide, currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences University of Ottawa)

Prof Fred Michel (Dept of Earth Sciences Carleton University Ottawa)

Prof Ross McKitrick (Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph)

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

Dr. Andreas Prokoph (Adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa)

Patric Moore (Counder of Greenpeace)

Dr Piers Corbyn (Climate Weather Forecaster Weather Action)

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC (Professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences,

Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont)

Prof G. Cornelis van Kooten (Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria )

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS (Climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization & research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter , U.K.)

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson (Emeritus Professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies Princeton N.J.) “Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

Dr. Chris de Freitas (Climate scientist, associate Professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.)

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard (Senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas , past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey)

Dr. Roy W. Spencer (Earth System Science Center University of Alabama, Huntsville)

Dr. Al Pekarek (Associate Professor of geology, Dept Earth and Atmospheric Sciences St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.)

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology) (Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa)

Prof Christopher Essex (Dept Applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario)

Prof Gordon E. Swaters (Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta )

Nigel Calder (Former editor of New Scientist)

Prof Edward Wegman (President of the IASC (1997-1999) Center for Computational Statistics George Mason University USA )

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (Astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and known for his views that most global warming is caused by solar variation)

Dr. Fred Goldberg (Secretary for IPCC Conference Stockholm September 2006) He is a Swedish materials, energy and technology expert with worldwide careers in consulting, publishing, technical lecturing and Arctic studies. In January, 2007, he debated the topic “Climate Change: Human-Caused or Natural?” at the California Institute of Technology. Goldberg holds a Masters in Science and a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from KTH.

Dr. L. Graham Smith (Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario)

Dr. Petr Chylek (Adjunct Professor Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University , Halifax)

Dr. Keith D. Hage (Climate consultant and Professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta)

Dr. David E. Wojick P.Eng. (Energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va. , and Sioux Lookout, Ont.)

Rob Scagel, M.Sc. (Forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey , B.C. )

Dr. Douglas Leahey (Meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary)

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc. (Agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.)

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology , Oregon State University; Oregon

State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Prof Ian Plimer Dept of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritusPprofessor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia )

Prof R.M. Carter (Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University , Townsville , Australia)

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes (Former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute)

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen (Geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand )

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner (Emeritus Professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University)

Dr. Gary D. Sharp (Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas , Calif. )

Dr. Marcel Leroux (Professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon , France former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski (Physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw , Poland)

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull , U.K. ; editor, Energy & Environment )

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm (Former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations)

Dr. Asmunn Moene (Former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway)

Prof August H. Auer (Former Professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming ; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand)

Dr. Vincent Gray (Expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington , N.Z. )

Dr. Howard Hayden (Emeritus Professor of physics, University of Connecticut )

Dr Benny Peiser (Professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University , U.K. )

Dr. Jack Barrett (Chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.)

Dr. William J.R. Alexander (Professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria , South Africa . Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000)

Dr. S. Fred Singer (Professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia ; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service)

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem (Emeritus Professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society )

Prof Robert H. Essenhigh (E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University )

Dr. Sallie Baliunas (Astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston , Mass.)

Douglas Hoyt (Senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland)

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze (Independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria , Germany )

Dr. Boris Winterhalter (Senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki , Finland)

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser (Physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif. ; atmospheric consultant)

Dr. Art Robinson (Founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.)

Dr. Arthur Rorsch (Emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health)

Dr. Alister McFarquhar (Downing College , Cambridge , U.K. ; international economist )

Dr. Richard S. Courtney (Climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.)

Dr Roy Spencer PhD (Weather Satellite Team NASA) dreamed up the spoof site -- sort of the Onion meets the Weather Channel -- because he thinks people are overreacting to the threat of climate change. Witness the headlines: "Pristine Alaskan Glacier Turns Into Tropical Wasteland." "More Polar Bears Suffering Heat Exhaustion." And "Dolphins Discovered Fleeing Warming Tropical Waters." Global warming warnings intended to give you the shivers.

I watched a program on TV recently claiming that fusion of deuterium and tritium had recently been achieved in small quantities. There had been some sort of break through in containment, and fusion power stations were expected to be coming online with the next 50 years !

Do we really have to prove that humans are causing global warming before we take action?

Well it really is rather important that we take the correct action and fully understand the implications of what we are doing. For instance there is a school of thought that deforestation will increase the reflected energy from the Earth and cause cooling. And then of course we have the global dimming issue, where particulate pollution is actually helping to cool the planet. A panic reaction might therefore be to cut down all the trees and pump as much coal dust into the air as we can. I imagine we’ll all agree that this might not be the best of ideas. Panic reaction could cause other economic and environmental changes, with equal or even worse results.

Surely it is vital that we first establish that we actually have a problem. Are we causing global warming, or is the Earth just moving through a natural cycle. Certainly my post yesterday on rising sea levels might indicate the latter.

First we need to establish that the current global warming isn’t just a natural cycle well within nature’s grasp and not out of control. There are many who say that CO2 has reached unprecedented levels in recent history, and therefore we are not in a natural cycle, but it remains unproven that CO2 is the global warming driving force. In fact even the IPCC admit their climate model predictions are “at best, inconclusive”

Next, when or if we can establish that we have stepped out of the Earth’s natural cycle, we need to establish how and why before we take any action. Whilst we have recently made an effort to seriously research these issues, we are a long way from a conclusion. The latest predictions are really based on just a few decades of weather fluctuations which are so small they don’t even cause a blip on the geological charts. I can remember only a few years back that our main concern was that we were slipping into the next glacial period. This seems to me to be a much more likely scenario.

1vedoo

Items addressed from your previous post

1) I don't accept that we should base our judgements on a third of the results. With an issue is as important as global warming, it is vital that all the evidence is submitted. When you go to court, a sound judgement requires that all the evidence is made available, and you swear to tell the whole truth and not just the bit that supports your argument.

3) What would I consider to be proof that anthropogenic influences are driving global warming ? Wow I would like to be able to answer that one. Please understand that I have no doubt that we are not helping the situation, and I'm very much in favour of cleaning up our act with electric cars and stopping the use of coal etc. I don't really require, and will probably never get proof, but I think I might be more easily convinced if it weren't for the significant number of leading scientists and university professors who have serious doubts, and/or actually disagree with many of the conclusions. One problem is that there is too much "worst case" propaganda mixed in with the results giving rise to sometimes ridiculous predictions. There are just too many unjustifiable assumptions being made and, quite honestly, anyone can make a computer model to fit their predictions. This is a basic principle used in computer aided manufacture, you just reverse engineer the product to get the computer to learn and then recreate it. So with climate models you just start with the prediction and work backwards to present day climate, finishing up with your climate model. It’s all made to look very much cleverer than it actually is, and is of course completely false and to many of us very unconvincing. Hence the IPCC comment “climate model predictions are at best, inconclusive”.

2) I remain unconvinced that, as you put it, "The current climate trend is opposite to what is expected to be happening" and I believe we are misguided when making long term predictions based on very short term fluctuations.

Here’s just a little example of what I mean.

The IPCC report states:

"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 mm p.a. from 1961-2003. From 1993-2003 the rate was faster, about 3.1 mm p.a. For 1993-2003, the sum of the estimated contributions from climate change (including contributions from losses from the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica) is consistent with the observed sea level rise"

OK, let’s take this as fact, since somebody has presumably verified the measurements. But what should we conclude from this ?

The Global Warming Brigade would have us believe that anthropogenic CO2 is causing a temperature increase, which in turn is melting the ice and causing the oceans to expand, thereby causing a pattern of sea level rise in excess of what we would normally anticipate. On the face of it this sounds pretty reasonable and very convincing, but there is a quantum leap buried in the above which is totally unjustified.

Let’s step back, take a deep breath and put it all into proper perspective. Where is the justification for saying that the sea level is rising faster than we would normally expect ? This is totally untrue and has resulted in us reaching the wrong conclusion.

It's very unlikely that all the ice on Earth would melt, but nevertheless the total potential contribution to sea levels from ice would be to the order of 80m, if it all melted. From the evidence provided above, at the current rate of melting this would take the next 80/0.0031=28,600 years, assuming the process remained uninterrupted.

However the process will of course be interrupted by a return to the next glacial period. Based on previous cycles, this will quite probably occur within the next 2,000 years, which at the current melting rate would be sufficient time for the sea level to rise by only 6m. By a strange coincidence, this is precisely the level achieved at the end of the previous interglacial cycle 125,000 YBP without any anthropogenic or greenhouse encouragement.

So, with this wider perspective, it seems that the current rise in sea level is bang on target to achieve exactly the same pattern as our previous transition from an interglacial to a glacial period 125,000 years ago. We must therefore conclude that anthropogenic CO2 has had no effect at all on the current rate of rise in sea level !

1veedo, there's nothing sacred about any politically funded organization, including the IPCC. When you try to turn a criticism of the IPCC into a conspiracy theory, and brand the critic as a heretic, then the whole World knows you are preaching propaganda and not science. Unlike you, I'm not on an ego trip and have no desire to get anywhere on the forum, as you put it. (You sound as if you consider yourself to have some position of authority, which cuts no ice with me) My objective is to maintain the focus on science, which is all about questioning and not blindly accepting dogma at face value, with the threat of being made an outcast for having the temerity to doubt. You cannot just railroad other contributors into accepting your views, whilst totally discarding the basic, simple, obvious, widely available evidence, and then trying to turn it into something you hope most people won’t understand. Now that really is a conspiracy !

When I first started out as a research chemist nearly 40 years ago, I was encouraged to question everything. That is what science is about. Blind acceptance of pontificator’s mumbo jumbo is propaganda which will result in zero progress.

Professor Philip Stott Dept of Biogeography University of London

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

For some reason, even though the IPCC agree there are inconsistencies between surface, tropospheric and global warming, you still refuse to accept this, and continue to cling to the inconclusive misinterpretations surrounding CO2 concentrations. I’m interested to learn why you expect others to accept your less than flexible approach, when even the IPCC admit their climate model predictions are “at best, inconclusive”

“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive.

1veedo – Back with that old chart of yours again !

1) You might be pleased to learn that I made a special effort to include the data from your chart into my more comprehensive version, but the temperature movement in your chart is so insignificant in the overall picture that it just doesn't feature.

2) Your claim that warming rates of the troposphere are similar to the surface just doesn’t cut any ice, if you'll forgive the pun, since the warming of the troposphere has to be significantly greater than at the surface for GHGs to be the cause of global warming. In any event - - -

"The chart in the Apr 2007 report, showing surface temperature, indicates little or no change in surface temperature in the tropics, yet this is precisely the area in which the February 2007 report, from which this data was taken, showed remarkable and inexplicable discrepancies. When reporting on the expected faster warming of the troposphere than that at the surface, which is crucial to the greenhouse gas blame argument, it stated "Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N) Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior.”

“The broad conclusion is that the multi-decadal global climate models are unable to accurately simulate the linear trends of surface and tropospheric temperatures for the 1979-1999 time period on the regional and tropical zonally-averaged spatial scale. Their ability to skilfully simulate the global averages surface and tropospheric temperature trend on this time scale is, at best, inconclusive.”

3) Yep, it doesn't take a genius to realise that warming of the oceans will cause the sea level to rise, but this was destined to happen anyway, with or without mankind. It has always happened in the past and will continue to happen in the future. This has absolutely nothing to do anthropological influence.

The charts say it all mate, and no amount of hysterical hype will change the facts. The IPCC interpretations of carefully selected and censored data is fast becoming nothing short of political and media propaganda, and the public are just beginning to realise that they are being taken for a ride. It seems to be a not very subtle way to slide in another range of justifiable taxes and an excuse to create a billion dollar industry achieving little more than providing jobs for the non-productive.

Worrying comments are buried in footnotes, instead of being prominently displayed. They would seem to indicate that predictions are based on a very selective set of results, over an equally selective period, to suite the current argument. And when, as is the case with CO2 concentration, a less dramatic result is predicted than is desired, there seems to be unjustified arbitrary doubling of CO2 concentration figures !

Working Group II Contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report April 2007

Page 2 Footnote 7

"A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data series from 577 studies. These met the following criteria: (1) Ending in 1990 or later; (2) spanning a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies"

What do they take us for ?

We all know that periods as short as 20 years are meaningless and merely reflect fluctuations in weather, not climate. And if they’ve only used 29,000 out of 80,000 datasets, one wonders what the other 51,000 contributions revealed !

Contribution of Working Group I to the IPCC Fourth Assessment April 2007

Page 9

“The equilibrium climate sensitivity is a measure of the climate system response to sustained radiative forcing. It is not a projection but is defined as the global average surface warming following a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations.”

Need I say more !

Perhaps just one final comment

Margaret Thatcher thought the global warming bandwagon was a great idea. She desperately needed to ensure that the traditional coal miners’ strikes couldn’t bring down her government, and this little bit of hysterical nonsense gave her the excuse to embark on a nuclear power programme, enabling the closure of most of the UK mines and securing her powerbase.

Let's ditch the hysteria and get things in perspective.

There might be some very minor fluctuations in temperature over a few decades, but there is clearly no evidence of a dramatic departure from the norm over the past 10,000 years ?

Here are the basic facts on temperature change.

Don’t just accept the propaganda, draw your own conclusions !

(Time is plotted on a log scale to emphasise more recent data)

And what about Carbon Dioxide ?

The IPCC report Apr 2007 still confirms there is no evidence of the troposphere heating up faster than the planet surface, which indicates that greenhouse gases are therefore not the cause of the current warming trend. However, even if for a moment we disregard the fact that there is no conclusive evidence that CO2 is driving, or has ever driven climate change in the past, where is the evidence of the supposed catastrophic CO2 level now ?

Here are the basic facts on carbon dioxide change.

Don’t just accept the propaganda, draw your own conclusions !

Finally let's look at sea levels.

In the past 8,000 years the situation has been remarkably stable, displaying no evidence of an anthropogenic impact on sea levels. There has been a very substantial 98% slowing of the rise in sea level over the past 12,000 years, which resulted in an increase of just 0.9m in the past 4,000 years, which is only 1/17th of the 15m rise experienced in the previous 4,000 years from 4,000 to 8,000 YBP, and 1/50th of the 47m rise measured in the period 8,000 to 12,000 YBP.

Here are the basic facts on sea level change.

Don’t just accept the propaganda, draw your own conclusions !

Oops !

Just keeping you guys on your toes, I'm surprised you didn't jump on me for this one !

Of course I meant to say "- - - some dissociation and a decrease in pH"

Yeah 1Veedo, but what I'm syaing here is that the process of laying down chalk requires millions of years of shells to be formed and discarded

Yet during this exact period the CO2 level remained at at 1400 & 1600 ppmv

Also this wasn't a sudden increase in CO2, we're talking about a sustained level in excess of 1300 ppmv from 250,000,000 to 100,000,000 YBP and it didn't drop below 1300 ppmv once in 150,000,000 years !

The question is:

At 4 times the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the process of dissolving CO2 in water to form carbonic acid, did not produce sufficient ocean acidity to stifle crustacea growth even over 150 million years. So why should anyone be worried about it now ?

I believe the phenomenon to which you refer is CO2 dissolving in water droplets to produce acidic rain which would be corrosive to land based egg shells. This has little to do with crustacea.

IPCC WGII Fourth Assessment Report Climate Change 2007

Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Quote:

"The progressive acidification of oceans due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide is expected to have negative impacts on marine shell forming organisms"

It has been reported that the increased acidity of the oceans, caused by the current CO2 levels, is preventing crustacea from properly forming their shells and that this will subsequently prevent CO2 extraction in the form of calcium carbonate precipitate sediment.

Whilst the dissolving CO2 in water causes some dissociation and an increase in pH, this would seem to be at odds with geological evidence, which shows that the bulk of the world's chalk deposits were formed 100-200 million YBP when CO2 levels were four times the current 380ppmv level, at 1400 & 1600 ppmv.

Hey Bascule

"Are Lindzen and Christy "on the fringe" or are they correct that the idea of a consensus itself is errant?"

Here's a few more quotes for the fringe

Personally I remain unconvinced of a consensus, errant or not !

Professor Paul Reiter IPCC & Pasteur Institute Paris

“The global warming alarm is dressed up as science, but it’s not science, it’s propaganda”

Professor Nir Shaviv Institute of Physics University of Jerusalem

“There is no direct evidence which links 20th century global warming to anthropogenic greenhouse gases”

Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa

“You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”

Professor Tim Ball Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg

“If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong”

Professor John Christy Dept of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama & Lead Author IPCC

“I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

Professor Philip Stott Dept of Biogeography University of London

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

Professor Richard Lindzen IPCC & M.I.T.

“People have decided you have to convince other people that, since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science that’s pure propaganda”

Professor Patrick Michaels Dept of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia

“Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”

The latest IPCC Working Group II Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report released today 6th April 2007 “Climate Change Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” (Available on my website http://www.icemelt.info/IPCCWGIIAR4SPM6APR07.pdf) doesn’t seem to have given us very much more information to assess. Unfortunately the contents primarily relate to predictions based on the February 2007 report and current global warming trends. Rather worryingly though, the report now appears to take for granted that global warming is due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases.

“The Working Group I Fourth Assessment concluded that most of the observed increase in the globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

I found a couple of points of concern as follows:

“A subset of about 29,000 data series was selected from about 80,000 data series from 577 studies. These met the following criteria: (1) Ending in 1990 or later; (2) spanning a period of at least 20 years; and (3) showing a significant change in either direction, as assessed in individual studies.”

So the IPCC conclusions appear to be based on only about a third of the data series submitted. One can’t help wondering what the conclusions might have been if the other two thirds had been included !

Perhaps on other interesting matter also emerges. The chart in this Apr 2007 report, showing surface temperature, indicates little or no change in surface temperature in the tropics, yet this is precisely the area in which the February 2007 report, from which this data was taken, showed remarkable and inexplicable discrepancies. When reporting on the expected faster warming of the troposphere than that at the surface, which is crucial to the greenhouse gas blame argument, it stated "Tropical Temperature Results (20°S to 20°N) Although the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, some observational data sets show the opposite behavior.” I’m still trying to get my head around this one, as the two reports appear to disagree, but perhaps they just included the minority of results in their 29,000 out of 80,000 data series assessments. I find this all very unscientific and it stinks of only using the data that agrees with the popular hypothesis.

If the IPCC don’t publish the full results of their findings, how are we supposed to believe that the published conclusions are not being manipulated by this “Intergovernmental Panel” with a vested interest in perpetuating further investment in their research. These doubts should not be discarded as implausible, since we have only recently seen a significant number of eminent scientists and IPCC authors distancing themselves from the published findings of the third assessment report.

That's even worse than icemelt linking to a think tank's web site

Oh, so you're back to shouting down the opposition again are you !

This attitude loses you all credibility bascule

You may not like the source of some of the information, but that doesn't necessarily make it incorrect, and it certainly doesn't justify you trashing the individuals contributing to the argument.

I suggest you back off, wind up your tolerance level, and become a little more receptive

This thread isn't just about imposing your thoughts on everyone else, it's supposed to be an open minded debate

Try reading this whilst you calm down, then maybe trash the BBC too !

With global warming taking centre stage in the climate change debate, the idea that Earth might be heading towards an ice age seems outdated. Yet scientists studying microfossils from deep-sea cores have discovered that we may still have much to learn about the cycles of ice advance and retreat that have affected Earth for a million years.

Periods of ice advance are known as glacials, while the warm periods are known as interglacials. In the past, it was thought all interglacial periods lasted for around 11,000 years, in line with Earth's natural orbital cycle around the Sun, but new findings show events on the planet's surface may also influence the timing of ice advances and retreats. It is important that we understand these natural climatic rhythms as our current interglacial has lasted 11,500 years and could potentially end at any time.

Although the current human-induced high levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in our atmosphere are thought to be unprecedented in the recent geological record, some scientists argue that it's possible the changes we are making by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere could ultimately help usher in the next ice age. "There are operations within the climate system that we still don't fully understand," explains Professor Chronis Tzedakis, from Leeds University, UK. "It's possible that our pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere could somehow lubricate the flipping from one state to another."

Professor Tzedakis and colleagues studied tree pollen and tiny fossilised marine creatures called foraminifera from a sediment core taken close to the Tagus river estuary off the coast of Portugal. Sea water contains two major isotopes, or types, of oxygen, O16 and O18. The O16 isotope is lighter and evaporates more readily than the heavier type. When this happens during an ice age, O16 ends up being locked away in ice on land and the remaining seawater becomes enriched with the heavier O18 isotope. Fluctuations show up in the chemical composition of foraminifera, which means they can be used to deduce the amount of ice volume that was around at the time they were alive. Meanwhile, preserved pollen discharged into the sea by rivers reflects the extent of forest cover, which is known to increase and decrease with warming and cooling. Extracting both sets of data from a single core provides scientists with a picture of changes occurring both on land and the sea.

In the 1990s, researchers had investigated the interglacial prior to the one we are in now, which began 132,000 years ago. So Professor Tzedakis' team opted to look farther back in time to the interglacials that started 240,000 and 340,000 years ago respectively. They expected to see a similar pattern to the last interglacial findings, which had revealed the warm period lasted 16,000 years and that there was a 5,000-year time lag between the ice retreating and the appearance of forests, and again between the ice advancing and the trees disappearing. However, the new findings showed up a completely different cycle of events.

"Much to our surprise we found that pattern was not replicated," said Professor Tzedakis. "We didn't have a big lag between the onset of the interglacial and establishment of trees plus there wasn't the persistence of forests into the period of ice growth." Of particular interest was the pollen data from the interglacial beginning 240,000 years ago as this showed the opposite sequence of events. Here, the forests seem to have disappeared after 6,000 years of warmth, despite there being no detectable change in the amount of ice cover. The decline mirrored reductions in atmospheric methane observed in ice cores from Antarctica, suggesting it was a global rather than local event that prompted their demise. Following the disappearance of the trees, the ice sheets then gradually advanced.

The scientists believe this shows that different mechanisms operating within Earth's climate system can impinge on the underlying orbital controls of glacial-interglacial cycles. In the case of the trees disappearing from Portugal before the advance in ice they believe an unknown global event, which may have also caused lower atmospheric methane levels, prompted them to die back. If vast areas of heat-absorbing forests in Siberia were also affected and replaced by tundra, this would have increased the solar energy reflected back into the atmosphere, in turn cooling the planet's surface temperature and encouraging ice growth.

It is this unusual turn of events which has got the scientists thinking that our impact on global climate could yet prompt the return of another ice age, despite the fact that global temperatures are currently increasing. They now plan to extend their research to look back at one more interglacial, which began 400,000 years ago. This has the best potential to shed light on future climate change as the natural geometry of the Earth's orbit was the same at that time as it is today.

"It's a fascinating period," says Professor Tzedakis. "It appears to have been quite warm and wet and to have lasted a long time; possibly 30,000 years. Within the context of our present study it will be important to see how the forest reacted within the ice-free period." Although today's unnaturally CO2-rich atmosphere is not replicated in climatic records of the recent past, the information gleaned from cores provides a means for scientists to test the accuracy of models designed to predict future climate changes.

At the Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, scientists are finding that land cover has an important role in influencing climate. "We're increasingly finding that we have to include the effects of changes in land cover in our models," said carbon cycle research scientist Chris Jones. "Both man-made and natural changes in forest cover have a significant effect on climate, so being able to understand how changes in cover worked in ancient climates is extremely useful."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4081541.stm

There's no question that the world is experiencing a slight increase in temperature. However, there is considerable question as to the validity of the conclusion its the result of increases in atmospheric polution.

Nice post mpano

I agree with all that, in particluar the part below, although I think it's the politicians who have taken over the impetus, since this is an excellent way to justify the extortion of further taxes based on the green cause.

We need to stop wasting billions on warming research, which is what many of these "scientists" seem to want us to continue funding. If they are right, we know the cause: burning fossil fuel. Whether this is right or wrong, funding alternative fuels MUST be our primary thrust. We need to stop spending more on global warming research than we spend on alternative fuel research. Fund hyrdogen. Fund geothermal power. This will resolve any potential problem with man made pollutants causing warming, and will definitely get us off consuming petroleum.

But I would add part of my previous post to that

Given sufficient investment, Bangaladesh could be just as well equipped to deal with higher sea levels as Holland is now.

The biggest problem we have to contend with now is political pressure, and not global warming. The IPCC is an international body subsidised by governments and is politically influenced. Scientists may do their best to produce accurate open minded research results, but in the complex field of climate change much of this can be ambiguous, with conclusions often based on approximations and inappropriate assumptions leading to wild consideration of every possible scenario.

Professor Philip Stott Dept of Biogeography University of London

“The IPCC like any UN body is political, the final conclusions are politically driven”

The pressures now imposed upon scientists to produce evidence substantiating the desired conclusions are now enormous, since to contradict the political direction may jeopardise careers and limit future research opportunities. Some leading university professors have been threatened with losing their research budgets, and some have even received regular death threats. The whole concept of coercing scientists by predefining research results, objectives and conclusions is totally unscientific and compromises validity.

Environmentalists will frequently latch onto worst case scenarios, extrapolating these to predict disaster, and alarming the population. The standard approach is to insist on immediate action, and to demand that funds are allocated to prevent the imminent catastrophe forecast. Generation of fear amongst the public is an essential element required to enable pressure groups to influence the politicians.

Eventually the politicians are obliged to join in, since an election is always around the corner and the caring party with alarmist concern is likely to catch more votes than the party which takes a more moderate line. Inevitably the costs start to be weighed off against each other, it becomes a bet with the standard risk reward scenario. Should we invest in the precautionary approach, since the pressure groups might be right, or should we invest in adapting to cope with the changes forecast if they materialise ? Doing nothing becomes no longer an option, and the politicians must now decide how to spend our money.

Science eventually becomes of little importance, since the problem is now the public perception that a hypothesis based on conjecture has taken on the mantle of an inevitable truth. Any dissenters are branded as heretics, and the concept of questioning the conclusions of the all powerful government sponsored committee is in itself unthinkable.

Professor Richard Lindzen IPCC & M.I.T. summed this up very nicely when he said “People have decided you have to convince other people that, since no scientist disagrees, you shouldn’t disagree either. But whenever you hear that in science, that’s pure propaganda”

And Professor John Christy Dept of Atmospheric Science University of Alabama & Lead Author IPCC also commented “I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true”

So sinister has this become that it was recently reported that Lord Lawson (UK Chancellor of the Exchequer 1983/89) accused the Royal Society of preventing the funding of scientists who do not share its alarmist view.

Whilst few of us would deny that we are entering a period of climate change, demonstrated by a current period of global warming, it is important that we keep this in perspective and that we do not allow ourselves to be panicked into hysteria by extremists. We have a situation where scientist are producing results which require careful interpretation, yet politicians like Al Gore are making show on stage and have the temerity to reach scientific conclusions ! One would think it very unlikely that we would accept the conclusions reached by a politician on something as complex as climate change, when our top scientists have been wrestling with the problem for decades. And yet - - - !

So what has happened to our reasoning ?

We have Al Gore, and I’ve so far been unable to establish his scientific qualifications enabling him to comment on this matter, projecting wall to wall graphs and explaining correlations between temperature and CO2 levels convincingly. And with a smile and a joke he manages to get the ice core analysis completely back to front whilst laying the entire blame for global warming on humanity.

Then we have Professor Patrick Michaels Dept of Environmental Sciences University of Virginia saying “Anyone who goes around and says that carbon dioxide is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century hasn’t looked at the basic numbers”.

And we have Professor Tim Ball Dept of Climatology University of Winnipeg commenting “If the CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up, but the ice core record shows exactly the opposite, so the fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans is shown to be wrong”.

Plus we have Professor Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa saying “You can’t say that CO2 will drive climate, it certainly never did in the past”

There is clearly disagreement here, and perhaps we should leave the scientists alone to reach their conclusions without outside influence from pressure groups, politicians and hysterical extremists. At this stage it is far from conclusive that human contribution to atmospheric levels of CO2 are the primary cause of global warming, yet we have already built up a multi billion dollar industry on this premise. Until we are sure that anthropogenic CO2 is a significant factor in global warming, surely this money would be better spent on developing the third world. It was recently pointed out that, given sufficient investment, Bangaladesh could be just as well equipped to deal with higher sea levels as Holland is now.

It is perhaps worth noting that in the past 4,000 years the sea level rose by 90 centimetres.

In the previous 4,000 years the sea level rose by 14 metres.

And in the 4,000 years prior to that, the sea level rose by 50 metres.

The pitiful few centimetres forecast for this century by the alarmists are inevitable, with or without CO2 fluctuations, we have been amazingly lucky that the rise in sea level has already slowed by 98%

I feel confident that I’m not alone in worrying whether the government’s endorsement of the alarmist view on global warming could be a very expensive mistake, not for them, but for us !

Can we please leave right-wing think tanks out of a science discussion? Global warming is already a politically charged issue.

I agree that politics should be totally excluded from this issue, but when we have governments with hidden agendas, sponsoring organizations to pump out misleading information about CO2 being the ultimate cause of global warming, it becomes almost impossible !

If you personally had to stake your life on the infallibility of the evidence put forward for greenhouse gases being the primary cause of the current global warming, would you ?

I'm very certain that I would not !

Nice post Foodchain, but what's your point ?

We've heard all this before, even in this thread.

And what has this to do with prediction ?

I agree with most, but not all, of what you have to say.

However we are nevertheless still left with the dilemma that there is no conclusive evidence greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming.

One or two other points about your comments though:

"22 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are produced as a result of human activities per year"

But 7 times as much as this, an estimated 154 billion tonnes, of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are produced by cows, pigs and sheep. I enjoy a nice roast joint at the weekend but I guess it isn't a necessity, so I suppose we could kill 'em all off !

Falling leaves in autumn produce a similar quantity of CO2, but killing off the trees would remove a useful natural method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. Not sure if glue would solve this problem.

20 billion or so tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are also produced by volcanoes and suchlike. This one is not so easily sorted, but it's very obvious that volcanic action during the Earth's much more volatile past did not destroy the planet.

"For instance, the ocean absorbs 2.5 Gt C more from the atmosphere than it gives off to the atmosphere. All other things being equal, the ocean sink is growing at a rate of 2.5 Gt C per year and the atmospheric sink is decreasing at an equal rate"

I totally disagree with this comment and it's conclusion. Also, once you bring oceanic absorption and discharge into play, you must also consider the 800 or so years delay factor. I'm afraid there's no getting away from this, since the warming of the cold water causes far and away the bulk of the oceanic discharge of CO2.

Your comments concerning icecore analysis are incorrect.

All icecore analysis indicates that CO2 increases have followed global warming in the past, indicating that warming causes an increase in CO2 and not vice verser.

Nothing like unsubstantiated rhetoric. Can you cite the source from which you have cut-and-pasted this argument? And can you list which GCMs he's talking about specifically?

Anticipating your interest, I did actually paste the url into my original post

Here it is again:

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/ieguide.htm

And what do you have to say about all the other areas where GCMs are successfully predictive? Is it just random chance?

There's a great fortune teller who operates from a kiosk on our local pier every Summer.

(She probably makes a fortune but - - - - )

She's pretty good at predicting stuff and I've known her to be correct many times, but unfortunately I don't have a handle on how many times she's wrong !

The same applies with GCMs !

Global computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes

Predictions of global climate change are based on general circulation models (GCMs), complex computer programs that attempt to simulate the Earth's atmosphere. GCMs help scientists learn more about atmospheric physics, but they cannot predict future climates.

GCMs can't explain past climate trends. While global temperatures have risen between 0.3 and 0.6 C over the past one hundred years, computer models predict that global temperatures should have gone up between 0.7 and 1.4 C by 1990. The two ranges do not even overlap.

GCMs use "fudge factors" that are larger than the variables they are supposed to be measuring. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers' expectations, modelers resort to "flux adjustments" that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says "climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it's almost become respectable."

GCMs inaccurately model the effects of clouds. Most climate models assume that clouds absorb roughly 3 percent of the sun's radiation, but more recent estimates, published in Science in 1995, indicate that the absorption rate may be closer to 19 percent. This means past predictions were based on data that were off by more than 600 percent.

GCMs are only as good as the data fed into them. The GCMs are programmed to assume an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations of 1 percent per year, even though the historical data show an annual increase of only 0.3 to 0.4 percent. Population growth and coal production figures were similarly exaggerated.

After correcting for these and other errors, Dr. Vincent Gray concludes "we can expect the maximum temperature rise between 1990 and 2100 to be 1C." Other scientists report similar results when the GCMs are run with accurate data. Most scientists agree that a 1C increase in global average temperatures over the span of 100 years would be too small to notice.

http://www.heartland.org/archives/studies/ieguide.htm

"Climate modelers have been 'cheating' for so long it has almost become respectable" Richar A. Kerr

The above assumes that by GCMS you mean Global Computer Models

I don't like the abbreviation much since it can also refer to:

General Circulation Models

Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer

which would also be relevant to the subject, plus no doubt a host of other irrelevant stuff

One thing a lot of people don't realize is how important the continents are in our climate. This is even apparent today in the difference between the northern and southern hemisphere

Agreed - Antarctica only arrived at the South Pole about 100 million years ago, so I suppose it's reasonable to exclude anything before this !

For much of the past 150 million years, Antarctica has been largely ice-free, and climate scientists have theorized that a precursor to the East Australia Current – which today carries warm water southward along that continent's coast – was responsible for keeping Antarctica warm. This longstanding theory suggests that as the two continents drifted apart, the widening gulf between them disrupted the warm current's flow about 32 million years ago, preventing its heat from reaching Antarctica and plunging the continent into the deep freeze it still experiences today.

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2004/041227.Huber.Antarctica.html

The previous 650,000 years have very little variability in this regard so we can accurately see all the relationships that should be true for the current climate.

I take your point but I'm a little concerned about this. One of my favourite subjects is sea level. If we look at the sea levels over the past 550 million years (I only choose this magic figure as I don't have any data before this) it is clear that there have been some very significant changes during the past 650,000 years, or even the past 10,000 years for that matter, which would indicate there must have been a number of other significant things going on too.

One other point of interest:

Sea levels were rising 17 times faster 4,000 years ago than they are now, and 8,000 years ago they were rising 50 times faster !

On the face of it this doesn't seem to fit in with a stable environment over the past 10,000 years, and wouldn't seem to indicate that industrial man has had much to do with it either !

Despite my comments to the contrary, I do sympathise with much of what you say, however I genuinely believe that mankind has a tendency to be rather paranoid about being the cause of, or even having any significant influence over, something as colossal as the global climate.

History tells that, up to now, the planet has gone it's own way, and that only something huge like the impact of an asteroid will have any significant impact on the overall course the planet will take.

No no 1veedo mate, you are mistaken I'm afraid. You are looking at much too shorter period, and 12 thousand years is just the time to the start of the latest interglacial period, not the end of the last ice age, in which we are still currently immersed !

The Earth was formed approximately 4.55 billion years ago and since this time there have been at least 4 major ice ages. Although the first ice age is believed to have occurred 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago, the earliest well researched ice age during the last billion years spanned the period 800 to 600 million years ago. This was the most severe of the ice ages, when ice sheets extended almost to the equator. Then came a minor ice age about 460 to 430 million years ago, followed by the Karoo ice age 350 to 250 million years ago.

We are currently immersed in the latest ice age, which began about 40 million years ago, triggering the formation of the Antarctica ice mass, which followed the continent’s drift towards the South Pole. The current ice age subsequently intensified roughly 3 million years ago, causing the return of the ice sheets in the Northern hemisphere.

Between ice ages there are interglacial periods of near tropical climate lasting for several million years, and these periods also occur during ice ages although they will then be much shorter, only lasting for about 10 thousand years, which is what are currently experiencing now. During an ice age there are both glacial and interglacial periods when the ice advances and retreats in cycles of typically 40 to 100 thousand years. The Earth entered the current interglacial period 10 thousand years ago, so it could be over very shortly, and we will then be plunged into the next glacial cycle.

My comments are based on 550 million years, not a few thousand which is of little consequence.

With regard to the troposphere temperature measurements, it's no good wriggling.

First the indoctrinated decided the best approach was to trash the measuring techniques.

Then, when new 2007 measurements still confirmed the troposphere isn't warming significantly faster than the surface, you claim it doesn't matter because you've removed this factor from the climate model.

What a load of bilge !

The whole premise of GHGs causing global warming is that they trap the heat on the troposphere, yet they aren't, so quite simply they're not the cause !

If you can get your hands on the Sunday Telegraph, page 22 has rather a nice piece by Charles Gibson-Smith chairman of the London Stock Exchange. In case you think he’s uninformed on the matter, he is a former CEO of BP, has a PhD in Earth Chemistry and is a former member of the Sustainability Committee. It’s worth the read.