Reply to: Global warming does not exist - have we done this one yet

[KimberleyChris]

Sorry Mr Clarke, but you are again discrediting views by disreputing their holder.

If a million Scientists believe something will happen. it does not necessarily follow that the one lone voice must be wrong.

'Something' is true. In the same way that if there are ten different religions in the world, then at least nine of them are wrong, and possibly all ten.

Belief is not knowledge,

[pjclarke]

That comes close on the heels of a prominent German scientist (IPCC reviewer) who, this week, was rubbishing AGW in the mainstream German press

.

In the German equivalent of The Sun, as I recall. Well he does have a book to promote. He has also given an interview to Der Spiegel,

SPIEGEL: It's true that there will be a large solar minimum sometime in the next 500 years. But no one knows exactly when. The probability that this will occur in the next 40 years is less than 10 percent. But, in your book, you predict: "It is clear that the sun will be responsible for colder periods in the first half of this century." Do you know more than all astrophysicists combined?

Vahrenholt: The probability of a large solar minimum, as it occurred during the Little Ice Age, is indeed less than 10 percent. But we are at the beginning of a lighter decline in solar activity of the kind we see every 87 and every 210 years. I've spoken with many solar physicists who expect this to happen.

SPIEGEL: We know many other solar scientists who question this. Another maximum is just as statistically likely as a minimum. Predicting what the sun will do in the coming decades borders on fortune-telling.

Vahrenholt: I know only one German solar scientist who has expressed such doubt. Various American and British solar research groups believe that weak solar cycles are ahead. I take this seriously and expect only cooling from the sun until 2050.

In other words, if Vahrenholt's (who is a chemist) main thesis of a 'cold sun' is correct then a lot of solar astrophysicists have to be wrong.

I think your 'scepticism' is a little selective ..... ;-)

[pjclarke]

Yet another scientist (IPCC reviewer) jumping off the AGW bandwagon:

Hmmmm. An oil company scientist resigns from the AGU in protest at their AGW position. Leaving just 49,999 members who have not resigned.

And I am sorry, but 'IPCC Reviewer' is meaningless. Some are invited, however anyone can request a copy of the draft report, submit a comment and call themselves an 'IPCC Expert Reviewer.', it does not imply any particular expertise or position.

[KimberleyChris]

In that case KC, it might be worth looking at the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere before mankind even existed.
If you find three, four or ten times the current amount and that life thrived on the planet, you will have your answer.

what if it were twenty times ? which it was

we are currently at a very, very low level of concentration

Exactly. You are putting me in the 'warmist' camp, when I am actually in the 'resilient earth' camp.

The 'warmists' say that any significant rise will doom us all, but this cannot be true because the CO2 has been much, much higher in the past and life is still here.

[pjclarke]

You might well gnash your teeth about the error bars above, but I dont remember seeing ANY on the hockey stick graph

You're kidding?



It's the grey bit. All subsequent studies fell inside the error bars of the 'original'. And the title of the paper was ..."Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations", that is it was all about the uncertainties ...

[KimberleyChris]

Oh, I forgot the bit about water vapour.

Again, this is a bit of a see-saw. The water vapour is of course there because it evaporates from the warm oceans, which are nice and warm because of the natural CO2, and round-and-round it goes.

One 'heretic' theory is that more CO2 will warm things up, causing more evaporation, causing more clouds, which are white and will therefore reflect more sunlight back into space which will cool things down again. I don't know enough to call the shots, so we need our resident statistician Mr Clarke to tell us if the cloud albedo effect is strong enough to help us or not. Some clever man must have done the sums before now.

[BlasterBates]

We all know that CO2 is a warming blanket, if it was not there at all, the world would be a frozen wasteland.

Scientists haven´t said that and in any case CO2 is not a potent global warming gas on it´s own. The argument is that it´s a catalyst. i.e. it´s effect is leveraged by the water vapour which is actually the key greenhouse gas. But the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in dispute.

[EternalOptimist]

In that case KC, it might be worth looking at the range of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere before mankind even existed.
If you find three, four or ten times the current amount and that life thrived on the planet, you will have your answer.

what if it were twenty times ? which it was

we are currently at a very, very low level of concentration

[shaunbhoy]

I never got an answer to my question "Why is the planet still crawling with climatologists when the politicians already know all the answers"

Because that particular trough is still brimfull of tax dollars.

HTH

[KimberleyChris]

er.. 95% of ghg is water vapour, 3.5% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

I'm not really trying to rock any boats here, but it is a fact that 'some' CO2 is a good thing, and 'too much' CO2 (or none) is a bad thing.

There is a natural balance. The earth would be many degrees cooler without its ancient naturally-present CO2, and we would not be having this little chat if it was not there. It's part of the 'Goldilocks zone' habitability system.

The 'debate' is about how much we can screw about with the CO2 level. Many MMGW sceptics and heretics (like me) believe that the planet is quite resilient to these changes, and is big and ugly enough to look after itself, and the alarmists would have you believe that a 100W light bulb left on will kill us all.

My only grouse is in the way that the information has been fed to us. I have a natural mistrust of anybody who even wants to be a politician.

The truth is probably somewhere in between the two rival camps, but as usual the politicians have their own agendas too. I never got an answer to my question "Why is the planet still crawling with climatologists when the politicians already know all the answers"

[DodgyAgent]

And we have, Al Gore's brilliant film "An Inconvenient Truth"

But it ain't gonna happen, too many entrenched positions at the moment, unless of course a new, better apocalyptic threat is found, then watch the defections and backtracking turn into a flood... ahh, now there's an idea

He has made a lot of money out of it by impressing idiots like you.

[DimPrawn]

er.. 95% of ghg is water vapour, 3.5% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

[Goatfell]

It would be nice.

Why not similar factual programmes on this subject. No propoganda or sensationalism...just 'Here's how it is, and you choose what you think...we will not tell you'...

And we have, Al Gore's brilliant film "An Inconvenient Truth"

But it ain't gonna happen, too many entrenched positions at the moment, unless of course a new, better apocalyptic threat is found, then watch the defections and backtracking turn into a flood... ahh, now there's an idea

[EternalOptimist]

We all know that CO2 is a warming blanket, if it was not there at all, the world would be a frozen wasteland. But we are not going to turn Earth into Venus by switching on a light bulb like some of the more alarmist MMGW lobby would insist that we believe.

er.. 65% of ghg is water vapour, 10% is carbon dioxide (very roughly) last time i checked

[KimberleyChris]

It would be nice.

We have had excellent programmes on the telly about the Solar System and the wider Universe. Why not similar factual programmes on this subject. No propoganda or sensationalism...just 'Here's how it is, and you choose what you think...we will not tell you'...

We all know that CO2 is a warming blanket, if it was not there at all, the world would be a frozen wasteland. But we are not going to turn Earth into Venus by switching on a light bulb like some of the more alarmist MMGW lobby would insist that we believe.

Like any other religion, MMGW has its fanatics, its agnostics and its disbelievers. Some use it as an authoritarian tool to dictate to others, and like any other religion some see a nice little earner in it for them.

Like any other form of hysteria, it will pass when the sky does not actually fall.