Re: OT: How to profit from AGW?

On Dec 30, 3:36 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 19:37:57 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 29, 8:35 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2009 06:03:57 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Dec 29, 1:13 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:47:05 -0800 (PST),Bill Sloman

<bill.slo...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

SNIP

Which is not controversial and I also agree with.

Even the bit about CO2 being a greenhouse gas?

You seem to have been having trouble with the concept for a while.

I have never suggested that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

You claim that the current warming is not due to the CO2 we have been
pumping into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial
revolution, but due to unspecified "natural" causes.

Wrong again. Clearly my position is too subtle for you.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. CO2 causes warming. We agree on that much.

I don't believe that CO2 is the main contributor to recent warming
since the LIA.

Here is your homework. Get some knowledge and form your own, non
Consensus, opinions.

And I should Chopin for myself, rather than listening to other
painists who are good enough to do Chopin justice?

You'd be a horrible example of how badly you can go wrong when you try
and re-invent climate science for yourself.

Christopher Monkton is another

http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html

Other warming causes include GHGs

Greenhouse gases other than CO2, like methane and water?

And CFCs.

solar,

For which there's absolutely no evidence, and lots of good physics
which says that the solar output hasn't varied much and isn't going to
vary much (apart of the - very gradual - 30% warming over the past
four billion years

http://articles.latimes.com/2006/sep/16/science/sci-sun16

Solar is not just TSI. And there is increasing evidence that Svensmark
was on to something.

About ozone destruction. His ideas about charged particles influencing
cloud production are rubbish.

Also the thermosphere and its interaction with other layers is still
poorly understood.

Not so poorly understood as to justiify claims of significant changes
in solar output.

/quote

The Sun is in a very unusual period, said Marty Mlynczak, SABER
associate principal investigator and senior research scientist at NASA
Langley. The Earth s thermosphere is responding remarkably up to an
order of magnitude decrease in infrared emission/radiative cooling by
some molecules.

/end quote

So what? Which molecules?

soot deposits,

Where? coming from what?

http://www.physorg.com/news180035832.html

/quote

A new modeling study from NASA confirms that when tiny air pollution
particles we commonly call soot - also known as black carbon - travel
along wind currents from densely populated south Asian cities and
accumulate over a climate hotspot called the Tibetan Plateau, the
result may be anything but inconsequential.

/end quote

http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/9/26593/2009/acpd-9-26593-2009...

Localised and anthropogenic

http://dust.ess.uci.edu/ppr/ppr_TRZ10_csz.pdf

Part of the El Nino effect; presumably not anthropogenic and thus not
useful in explaining the current warming

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impure-as-the-driven....

Localised and anthropogenic

Not soot:

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091221/full/news.2009.1157.html

Con-trails, no contrails after 9/11 meant increased variablility,
rather than increased temperature.

change in land use,

That Ruddiman's hypothesis, and it comes down to more methane, but not
enough to explain the recent warming.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/3216n312850r4j5m/?p=a595d5e1068a4....

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/q-a-what-is-the-area...

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/r-349.pdf

Interesting, but scarcely persuasive.

change in ocean currents.

which is pure speculation. If changes in ocean currents were going to
explain the current warming, we'd expect to see obvious changes in the
oceans, like the El Nino/la Nina alternation, and we don't. There
probably is low level stuff going on - the North Atlantic Multidecadal
Oscillation is a case in point - but while it does shift the warm and
cold weather around a bit, it doesn't seem to make all that much
difference to the temperature averaged over the whole planet.

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap10/currents.html

/quote

Climate changes on the scale of several decades to millenia are
strongly controlled by surface and deep ocean currents. For instance,
in Europe the Ice Age cooling was larger than the global mean, due to
a southward shift of the westward flow in the south Atlantic ocean
gyre.

/end quote

In other words, if we screw up the climate enough to change ocean
current paths, we may well see even more positive feedback. We don't
seem to be seeing any of that at the moment.

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/63/3/401

Another source of multidecadal oscillation, of the sort that we can -
just - see in teh current temperature record. Using ti to expalim the
current bout of warming (over the last century) is pure hand-waving.

SNIP

Where the alarmists get it wrong is by ignoring all other climate
forcings and inventing excessive positive feedback to make it look
like CO2 is the only cause of warming.

It's difficult to to make the Milankovitch mechanism explain the ice-
age/integlacial alternation without that "excessive"  positive
feedback. I can't really see why you claim that "alarmists" ignore all
other climate forcings - they certainly take methane and the other
minor greenhouse gases into account, and they are doing their best to
get the ocean currents measured and fitted into their models. They do
ignore the more bizarre explanations that have surfaced from time to
time, like solar variation and charged particles from the sun
controlling the cloud cover, but not without good reason.

I admit I haven't got to the bottom of Milankovitch, yet.  So if
Milankovitch is causality not correlation you have a point.

However there are problems with the theory, particularly causality for
our debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Problems

For example:

/quote

The stage 5 problem refers to the timing of the penultimate
interglacial (in marine isotopic stage 5) which appears to have begun
10 thousand years in advance of the solar forcing hypothesized to have
been causing it. This is also referred to as the causality problem.

/end quote

Sure. But we are looking back quite a long way, and Milankovitch
orbital changes aren't the only thing that can mess up the climate.
Consider the Younger Dryas - the timing of the collapse of the ice dam
that had been retaining Lake Lake Agassiz was clearly influenced by
the state of the earth's orbit, but lots of other factors got into the
act.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.

Relevant Pages

  • Global Warming - Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap - Its the Sun stupid...
    ... Global Warming - Is Carbon Dioxide Getting a Bad Rap? ... Panel on Climate Change. ... What could be behind the temperature cycles? ... and solar flares. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)
  • Re: The weather.........
    ... self-correcting mechanism balancing warming due to increased solar ... "The sun played a dominant role in climate change in the early past, ... the less the impact greenhouse changes (and greenhouse gas ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Global Warming , leave it to the men
    ... Q. Is man contributing to global warming? ... "The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade ... "People who don't accept the existence of anthropogenic climate ... of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: Global Warming , leave it to the men
    ... Q. Is man contributing to global warming? ... "The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade ... "People who don't accept the existence of anthropogenic climate ... of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • What happened to global warming?
    ... What happened to global warming? ... Climate correspondent, BBC News ... responsible for what happens to global temperatures. ... Ocean cycles ...
    (alt.politics.bush)