Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

“You admit that we’re in a period of cooling.

Admit???? I observe the facts.

“Do you therefore accept that this is over-riding the pull of carbon dioxide? And, the Earth can scrub out what man can do then, can it?”

For a short period yes, the ocean can (for longer periods it could in the southern hemisphere). But at a price – a sustained greater degree of ocean heat-sinking will imply a smaller time constant meaning that although in the short term you get less warming than otherwise expected, in the long run you get the long-term impacts, like massive Antarctic continental melt more rapidly (a smaller number of centuries).

It cannot stop the warming in the Northern hemisphere, which bothers me because that’s where most people live. It can mask but not stop the warming due to GHGs.

A further one: Do you not link the Maunder Minimum with a lack of sunspots?

I link the MM with a reduction in TSI leading to a cooling concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere (especially the N Atlantic Basin, seasonally mainly winter). The sunspots are merely used as a proxy for that process.

One last one: Do you only ever believe that man affects the climate, and never nature/cosmic forces?

A stupid question deserves another: Do you think there was an anthropogenic impact millions of years ago?

But as it’s your last question I’ll also answer seriously: Of course natural factors can influence the climate, try the MM or Ice ages. But since the 1970s the single greatest impact on a multidecadal climatic scale (around 30 years – World Met Organisation) has been human activity, GHG emissions, but also particulate pollution, CFCs and land useage changes.

Elsewhere here you’ve taken exception about Gareth pointing out that if CO2 doesn’t cause warming then physics itself is in gave crisis. Denying that shows you’re grasp of the physics is non-existent. You may as well tell me (BSc 2(I) Electronics) that the mathematics used in Fourier transforms do not atually bear a relationship to reality.

If CO2 doesn’t have the potential to cause warming via infra-red blocking, then the very IR absorption based photometry that enables measurement of concentration doesn’t work. And it clearly does! I know because I have used an IR photometer.

For the record; there is such similarity of langauge and poor reasoning between Harry Sidney that I fail to see why Gareth should apologise. It remains my opinion that you are one and the same. I can rely on my opinion for that at least, as if I am wrong it means nothing.

Rate this comment: 0  0

A further one: Do you not link the Maunder Minimum with a lack of sunspots?

One last one: Do you only ever believe that man affects the climate, and never nature/cosmic forces?

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Harry/Sid: use only one identity when posting here, or you will be banned.

This has been a public service announcement, on behalf of general sanity.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Realclimate is the site for anyone interested in what real scientists (as oppposed to pub-bore know-it-alls) have to say on climate change. Schmidt does most of the posts, hence I refer to him a lot. Anything else is in your mind Harry.

Just because one year doesn’t follow another you both conclude there is no problem – you are wrong. The behaviour Bitz has noted has persisted throughout the ongoing reduction in extent.

Had we listened to your faux-council on warming in 1975 we’d have had good reason to be very doubtful of your collective predictive skill. Just as you’d have been wrong in 1975, you are wrong now. You’re both just so impatient to declare some form of victory that you have jumped the gun. And you lack the clarity of mind to see it.

I think you’ll find that at Stoat I was the only person siding with Connelly:

From what I see there’s enough potential for “weather” variability to make this bet little more bounded than betting on pure chance. Which is the only reason I’ve not entered this particular fray to bet against William.

on 16/5/08. I changed my opinion on 12/6/08 with a further clarification for Eli Rabbett. Having seriously dithered on 1/6/08. Now I’m back to not being sure what will happen, but I think it’s likely to be around last years’ figure. I change my opinion? Yes if the evidence demands I do.

If you think there’s no chance of another record with almost 5 weeks of melt to go, you are using prejudice, not evidence & reason.

My views on the cooling/warming-abatement are a matter of public record.

And what about sunspot activity Cobblyworlds? Can that affect our climate?

No. They don’t.

Sunspot changes are epiphenomenal of the processes that drive changes in TSI and solar magnetic field.

This village is inflicted with a surfeit of idiots.

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Rate this comment: 0  0

Satellite data is in error because it doesn’t show the expected warming. Radiosonde data is in error because it doesn’t show the expected warming either. But the models are perfectly alright. I think I can see where you’re going wrong.

That’s it continue to display your lack of grasp, and your lack of reading any of the threads of research in trying to resolve these issues.

The data gets corrected because it needs to in order to be closer to reality. It just so happens that often brings it closer to the models. The models have loads of problems, but you continue to invent non-existent ones because you don’t get the problems that they really have (e.g. split ITCZ).

As for Lucia’s erroneous piffle, well we’re back to comparison of trends on the appropriate climatological scale. If 1998′s EN were happening now I’d still see it as an ocean driven +ve bias unrelated to GHG forcing. Just as I see the current cooling as an ocean related -ve bias unrelated to GHG forcing.

Schmidt’s not a hero, I don’t do heros. He’s a decent chap and a good scientist.

Zzzzzzz

Rate this comment: 0  0