Again...the geological record has shown us that CO2 has been higher in the past and there was no harmful effects from higher CO2 levels...

Instead try to concentrate on cleaning up rivers, or on the other real polluters....

CO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

The Times They Are A-Changin' Come gather 'round people wherever you roam And admit that the waters around you have grown accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone your time to you is worth savin' you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone, For the times, they are a chang - in'The Other VersesCome writers and critics who prophecise with penAnd keep your eyes wide the chance won't come againAnd don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spinAnd there's no telling who that it's namingFor the loser now will be later to winFor the times they are a-changin'All Words and Music By Bob Come mothers and fathers throughout the landAnd don't criticize what you don't understandYour sons and your daughters are beyond your commandYour old road is rapidly agingPlease get out of the new one if you can't lend a handFor the times they are a-changin'Come senators, congressmen: please heed the callDon't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hallFor he that gets hurt will be he who has stalledThere's a battle outside and it's ragingIt'll soon shake your windows and rattle your wallsFor the times they are a-changin'The line it is drawn the curse it is castThe slow one now will later be fastAs the present now will later be pastThe order is rapidly fadingAnd the first one now will later be lastFor the times they are a-changin'Words and Music By Bob Dylan

Originally posted by MuaddibCO2 is not a pollutant, and it is not the cause of the current warming cycle.

I agree almost 99%, I wish I could point to the UN paperwork I was reading about the Carbon Sink effect in North America. It pointed out some good ideas about plant growth and such with elevated CO2 levels.

One thing none of those promoting global climate change have addressed. Why was it 30 years ago it was an ice age that was the threat?

Why the switch?

To those that say the science has already proved it, I beg to differ, it has not. You are telling me that these models that can not even predict weather to a great degree of accuracy 15 days in advance can now predict temperatures 100 years in advance.

No this is not concrete, but to keep pushing it is politically correct.

Originally posted by edsinger
One thing none of those promoting global climate change have addressed. Why was it 30 years ago it was an ice age that was the threat?

Why the switch?

There was no major support for an oncoming ice-age. A few researchers raised concerns, it was mainly media hype. And this has been addressed numerous times.

The reason for this line of thinking was that; (1) we are in an interglacial period and eventually it will end - an ice-age is the next part of the cycle, (2) at that point in time, climate was showing a slight cooling trend, this was seen as due to human activity (effects of aerosols), if we continued to emit large amounts of cooling aerosols, it was thought by some this could intitiate the next ice-age.

However, this was not widely accepted and major assessments in the 70s concluded that we didn't know enough about climate variables to make a prediction about future trends.

To those that say the science has already proved it, I beg to differ, it has not. You are telling me that these models that can not even predict weather to a great degree of accuracy 15 days in advance can now predict temperatures 100 years in advance.

I mentioned this a while back and hoped it showed the difference between weather and climate, obviously never worked - I will be much more unlikely to be correct in predicting rain next wednesday than that a day in december will be colder than it is where I am today. One is more chaotic than the other.



[edit on 26-5-2007 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

I mentioned this a while back and hoped it showed the difference between weather and climate, obviously never worked - I will be much more unlikely to be correct in predicting rain next wednesday than that a day in december will be colder than it is where I am today. One is more chaotic than the other.

Fair enough and I do understand your point. The question I ask again in the 'models' of the future, are they taking into account the solar activities which I think are more than the greater part of global warming or is it simply still man made CO2 emissions?

Originally posted by edsinger
Fair enough and I do understand your point. The question I ask again in the 'models' of the future, are they taking into account the solar activities which I think are more than the greater part of global warming or is it simply still man made CO2 emissions?

GCMs take account of the solar cycles that we know about. What can be said is that if all else holds constant, increasing GHGs will affect future climate, whether it will be catastrophic is debatable.

I agree CO2 can affect the climate, of that I am not questioning, what I question is to what degree? Will all these changes that are being forced down our throats on unproven science, prove to be no more than sticking our finger in the dike to stop the flood?

Actually I was not aware of that article.

Thanks for posting it.

[edit on 31-5-2007 by Muaddib]

Athenion

Christopher Monckton is NOT a journalist and if you had read the articles you would know this.

Athenion

It was not an ultimatum. Those sentences usually have an "or else" at the end. There was no or else. I was merely asking people to use facts, read the article before replying. Don't be so defensive...! what have you got to lose? Read the linked articles as they are interesting, then use facts to argue your points is all I asked for. What have you got against that?....

As an alternate view, would you like people to post a reply without first reading the subject of that reply?.. I don' t think so...

Tell you what ... when the facts change, I change my mind ... What do you do ?

Originally posted by Deharg
Christopher Monckton is NOT a journalist and if you had read the articles you would know this.

Aye, he is a former journalist.

Originally posted by Deharg
Read the linked articles as they are interesting, then use facts to argue your points is all I asked for. What have you got against that?....

As an alternate view, would you like people to post a reply without first reading the subject of that reply?.. I don' t think so...

Tell you what ... when the facts change, I change my mind ... What do you do ?

Oh, don't worry, I'm not defensive. It's just the tone of your response was a bit humerous to me. I totally understand the frustration of people not reading what you post. I'm with you there. I was just pokng fun at your comments. Sorry, I didn't mean to offend.

But I do beg to differ and Mr. Monckton's career. For example, if you simply look him up on wikipedia you would read that:

The eldest son of the 2nd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, Monckton was educated at Harrow School, Churchill College, Cambridge and University College, Cardiff. He joined the Yorkshire Post in 1974 and then worked as a press officer at the Conservative Central Office from 1977–79. In 1979, he became the editor of the Catholic newspaper, The Universe, and then as managing editor of The Sunday Telegraph's Magazine in 1981.

In 1983 he returned to the Conservative offices again, this time as Margaret Thatcher's policy advisor. Three years later, he became assistant editor of the newly-formed (and now defunct) newspaper, Today. His final job in journalism was as a consulting editor of the Evening Standard from 1987–92.

Monckton has since been a director of his own, namesake publishing company, Christopher Monckton Ltd since its founding in 1987. He is also a member of the Worshipful Company of Broderers, an Officer of the Order of St. John of Jerusalem and a Knight of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta.

In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a geometric puzzle which involved tiling a dodecagon with 209 irregularly shaped polygons called polydrafters. A £1m prize was won after 18 months. By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. A second puzzle, Eternity II, is to be launched in July 2007, with a prize of $2 million.

Upon the death of his father in 2006, Monckton inherited his title.

Monckton has been in the news in recent months due to his scepticism of global warming. In November 2006, he published in the The Daily Telegraph a widely publicized article critical of the prevailing climate change opinions. After U.S. Senators Rockefeller and Snowe wrote a letter to the Chief Executive Officer of ExxonMobil asking him to stop funding scientists who reject global warming, Lord Monckton wrote a letter to the senators reminding them of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and calling on them to reverse their position or resign.[1] In February 2007, he published an analysis and summary of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report on climate change. It is important to recognize that Monckton does not have any semblance of background training in atmospheric physics or any other scientific field.

Now, if you go back and read the article I posted in response, it thuroughly debunks what he wrote, with facts, as you requested. And he is not a trained atmospheric physicist, or a scientist of any caliber. So sorry, but when hard core scientists debunk his work, I'm going to be pretty enclined to believe the scientists in leiu of a failed journalist trying to stay in the lime light by posting controversial, and ultimately incorrect information.

What do you do?

Hi Athenion

Is this one of the facts you spoke of ?

Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.

Errrm this is not an assertion supported by the geoplogical record and is, I believe one of the main reasons we are having this debate. You believe that this is true (ala IPCC) and I do not. In fact some of the scientists in the IPCC data analysis team now do not also. The graph in the IPCC report showing Carbon dioxide levels rising before temperature increased after the last ice age is innacurate(I believe). You do not and that's fine of course.

If by equilibrium you mean a dynamic one then history shows something different. How can you have an equilibrium with a constantly shifting reference point?

It is interesting the article you linked to was in the Gardian. An august newspaper I used to read many moons ago...The rivalry between this newspaper and the Telegraph should not be underestimated...

I would not call Monckton a "serious Journo" under any circumstances, more of a dabler I would say....The point I was trying to make (and very badly thanks Melatonin) is that we (the public) are asked to chose between two differing interpretations of facts as presented by two groups with fundamentally opposed agendas.

We are not asked to be scientists but to see and comment on what these pepople have to say. You, me, muadib and melatonin all are asked this as is Monckton, why is his opinion less valid than yours or mine ? Just because he tried and failed to make it in mainstream journalism...

Your linked article was good but it doesn't quite ring the bell as I am sure you are aware. Both articles refer to half truths etc (black body radiation etc) NASA pronouncements. They try to debunk the other without following up on what the differences pointed out actually mean. Do you know what the difference between the radiation reflected from the earth and that from a black body differs by ?? exactly.. see what I mean ?

Anyway I am glad we can disagree in a friendy way and hope to contiue to do so .. Have a nice Sunday ...

controversial? you bet.

incorrect?


well, just one Q: has the Antarctic ice shield increased in size since 1970 ?

Yes or No ?