Paella wrote on Mar 5^th, 2010 at 12:01am:



http://climatedebatedaily.com/


Have a look, see what's there.

We have been through all this before you came in.

Climate change is constant given. AGW due to CO2 is a hypothesis. The historical correlation, let alone causation, between increased CO2 and warming has not been established. As past warmings have not been caused by CO2, present increases in global average temperatures cannot be conclusively attributed to CO2, manmade or otherwise.

The climate is not a simple machine: you add a small amount of extra trace gas (current CO2 levels are 0.0384 % of the atmosphere, up from 0.0280 % 200 years ago) and the whole mechanism will move in a single, predictable direction. CO2 is actually used by plants, on land and in the water.

No AGW predictions have come about in the last 20 years. Every prediction turned out to be wrong. The predictive power of the AGW hypothesis is diminishes as CO2 levels increse.

Soren lorenson, thanks for your post, but I've no idea what it has to do with the discussion. I can only suspect that it's an exercise in repeating something over and over again until you start to believe it yourself. Sadly, this method doesn't have much impact on empirically tested scientific hypotheses, but it seems to help a significant percentage of the populace to feel better. So feel free, I won't stop you.

In fact, I'm going to try it myself. I'm going to see if I can take any comfort in some of your more elaborate assertions ... let's see:

Quote:


That is indeed comforting, thank you. Of course, a "historical" correlation between getting run over by a freight train and getting killed has also never been established for any person who is still alive.

As for the nuclear physics theory regarding the energy differentials in light spectra emitted by carbon atoms when high frequency versus low frequency light are passed through them, well that's just a theory isn't it. Obviously, the absence of a "historical" correlation shows that the likes of Niels Bohr, Max Born, Werner Heisenberg, Erwin Schrödinger, Paul Dirac and particularly Wolfgang Pauli didn't know what they were talking about.

Quote:


Now that is a huge relief! That pesky James Hansen told us thirty years ago that the North-West passage would be navigable by the early 21st century. Clearly those ships that are currently cruising right down the centre of it are just forgetting to bump into the ice. As for the predictions that hurricanes would become more frequent, well, those climate scientists just haven't been able to count properly lately. Apparently it was also predicted that heat waves would be hotter and cold snaps would be colder. I'm damn glad to know that one turned out to be wrong, but I wonder why it's been so hot here of late. I guess folks in the Northern hemisphere might also be wondering why it's been so cold of late. The fact that climatologists predicted it, and it ... ummm, happened ... mere coincidence!

The 1980s would be the hottest decade on record - clearly a faulty thermometer.

The 1990s would be the hottest decade on record - obviously using the same thermometer.

The 2000s was also the hottest decade on record - that wasn't predicted in the 1970s. See, they were wrong on that too!

Another thing that they were wrong about - that arctic sea ice would recede in summer by more than 10%. Well, what would they know? They've been proven wrong because in 2006 it receded by 30%. Damned fools!

Soren Lorenson, thanks so much. You have put my mind at ease. Please share a few more of your mantras with us so I can continue with my new found habit of mindless repetition.

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:


Love the condescending voice, it reassures me that I am on the right track.

light spectra, carbon atoms, distinguished physicists - the climate is a different laboratory. There, carbon is not the sole dancer in the experiment. There, there are many more and much more significant dancers, a much mor complicated choreography,  huge variables, masses of unknown moves and steps,

very importantly, the climate is not a laboratory for the testing of carbon atom behaviour. So citing these distinguished scientists is largely irrelevant.

Paella wrote on Mar 10^th, 2010 at 5:44pm:


You might want to revisit those records and insert the word 'since' into each and supply the rough date. On record is obviously not 'of all time'. Are you suggesting that it had nevr been as warm in this plans as in the last 3 decades? Or that arctic ice has never been below current levels? Or that the seas levels have never been as they are now?

In any case, global warming is not the same as antropogenic global warming. So this stuff is irrelevant to the AGW debate unless you can demonstrate that they are caused by increased atmospheric CO2. But you cannot. Nobody can.
You can hypothesise, but then you would have to also explain why temperatures did not rise as a result of increased atmospheric CO2 in the past. But you can't explain it because you do not know.

Hi muso, nice to see you back, I really enjoy reading the factual responses you supply.

Your scientific explanations of the processes that are at play are always enlightening, as well as easily understandable, and verifiable, which is a very rare combination in this debate, so, "well done old boy".

pjb05 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2010 at 12:07pm:


Good question. The total climate sensitivity is around 3 Celsius degrees for a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration. That has several components built into it.

Roughly 1 Celsius degree of that sensitivity is due to direct radiative forcing from CO2. The remainder is due to feedbacks which are a consequence of the radiative forcing effect of CO2.  The feedbacks include that due to water vapour.

The overall effect of the warming effect of CO2 is an increase in atmospheric moisture. I'm pretty sure that I mentioned that before. Of course water vapour distribution in the atmosphere is not uniform, but one of the consequences of global warming will be increased atmospheric moisture, and even increased precipitation in some regions.

So overall, we can expect more rain in summer and more snow in winter(in places where it's cold enough. It's not quite that simple, because the tropical latitudes will get drier and the higher latitudes will generally get wetter.  (That's a gross simplification. For more details, check page 16 of the summary for policy makers - link below)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

That report also shows the relative magnitude of the various forcings.

Why are you so enthusiastic about  more frequent droughts in Australia ?

Either way, these are the minor consequences.