I demand proof and certainty in science, not maybe and could be.

Maybe you don’t but I need certainty before I condemn my family to a CO2 hell.
Not one single IPCC warning says it "WILL" happen, only "might" and "likely" and "potentially" and................
Science says: "Climate change is real and is happening and "could" cause a climate crisis including unstoppable warming."
NEVER have they said it actually will happen one hundred percent. I want %110 before I issue CO2 death threats to my kids.
How close to the point of no return from unstoppable warming will the lab coats of science take us before they say simply; "A crisis WILL happen definitely"?
HELP MY HOUSE COULD BE ON FIRE MAYBE? Only lazy copy and paste news editors and politician have ever said it “WILL” happen. Science agrees it is real but does not agree it is a real crisis. Reefer Madness?

NickS ably proves the point

NickS ably proves the point that science is not the strong suit of those who deny AGW (if 'CO2 and temperature don't seem to run together' followed by '...temperature has an influence on how much CO2 enters the atmosphere...'), while mememine69 regurgitates his CO2 death threats arguments.

Science deals in the balance of evidence. There are no mathematical proofs or 100% certainty in climate change, or in evolution, or in the links between smoking and cancer. All we have are mountains of evidence and experts who can tell us the most likely answer.

Warmists in a cooling planet

Temperature wise the planet has been treading water since 1998.

Recently, the earth has started to cool significantly. The warmists should be thrilled. If they are not, then they have some other adgenda than the health of the planet.

Reason is the reason

NickS's link [above] is to the article Climate and the Carboniferous Period by Monte Hieb. Monte Hieb is a former coal mine engineer with absolutely no scientific research credentials, no publications, peer review, or other generally accepted training relevant to climatology. Hieb is in no way competent as a climatology expert and he would be bounced from the courtroom in an instant. Of course that doesn't make him wrong, but it does mean his theories and conclusions aren't broadly accepted by science.

Having said that, climate science's conclusions are only "very likely", or greater than 90% certainty, So i'm keeping an open mind. That and the fact that science isn't religion, the strenght of science is that it is open to change. Any and all scientific knowledge is the best possible conclusion that a large majority of educated experts can deduce from the available data - a thesis. Any scientific or logical thesis is open to debate and must be able to either withstand the logic of an antithesis or merge with the new arguement to form a synthesis. Which then becomes the new thesis that is just as open to challenge as its predecessor. Reason is reason i'am keeping an open mind.

For mememine69:

Great Moments In Failed Predictions
" According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years “children just aren’t going to know what snow is” and winter snowfall will be “a very rare and exciting event.” Interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
“David Parker, at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Berkshire, says ultimately, British children could have only virtual experience of snow.”
See “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” The Independent. March 20, 2000.
Data: “Coldest December Since records began as temperatures plummet to minus 10 C bringing travel chaos across Britain.” Mailonline. Dec. 18, 2010."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/great-moments-in-failed-predictions/

For plebe:
"In general, does CO2 correlate with temperature in climate history?

The answer is often yes on “medium” timescales, but no on “short” timescales and also no on the very longest timescales of all. If one looks at all three timescales, overall observations are consistent with temperature rise causing the oceans to release part of their dissolved CO2 after substantial lag time, yet not consistent with CO2 being the primary driver of climate."
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/11/does-co2-correlate-with-temperature-history-a-look-at-multiple-timescales-in-the-context-of-the-shakun-et-al-paper/

Meme

Part of growing up is taking responsibility, your family decisions are on your own head.

Chris Kern, perhaps born yesterday?

Your question is like asking why the gagged victim didn't scream or shout.

There has been an ongoing PR campaign for years to get corporations which might have funded skeptics to drop their funding or be seen as villains.spectrum.
http://ieee.org/energy/environment/exxonmobil-cuts-back-its-funding-for-climate-skeptics

This one document who and how many peanuts are given out. When skeptical org.s do get funded, it is always much less than the same corporations give to Warmist Climateers.
http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/google_search_of_the_day_whos_funding_climate_skeptics

MOERN

None of you fear mongers would still be threatening my kids with your CO2 death threats of a climate crisis if there were real legal consequences for doing so. You doomers don't love the planet, you hate humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you in your miserable lives.
Find me one, just ONE single IPCC warning that says a crisis will actually happen, not just might and could happen. Not one of them is without maybes and 27 years of "maybe" means it "won't be" a crisis.
The ultimate crisis needs certainty, not maybes. And get up to date you Doomers:
*Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians
*Canada killed Y2Kyoto with a freely elected climate change denying prime minister and nobody cared, especially the millions of scientists warning us of unstoppable warming (a comet hit).
*Obama has not mentioned the crisis in the last two State of the Unions addresses.
*In all of the debates Obama hadn’t planned to mention climate change once.

Certainty

You could, maybe be run over by a bus and killed if you didn’t look both ways before crossing the road. In fact it’s not 100%, or even 110%, sure that you won’t be run over even if you do look both ways. But your probability of survival is higher if you do look both ways.

Any scientist, or lay person for that matter, who claims 100% certainty is not being scientific and should not be trusted.

If you want certainty you should go to a priest or a politician.

@NickS

Not interested in conspiracy theories. I'm asking why skeptics aren't screaming at the top of their lungs for more research? It's a logical inconsistency that hurts your efforts. Esp when entire economies and huge multi-national resource extraction companies have everything to gain by proving AGW is a charade. The reality is that those scientists who study the phenomena have everything to gain by sowing doubt and uncertainty, yet there's little evidence to my eyes that all these supposedly self-interested individuals are doing just that.

Doom, Gloom, Ka-boom

"You doomers don't love the planet, you hate humanity and want to drag the rest of us down with you in your miserable lives."

Awesome talking point, but doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. So, in fact, shitty talking point. In the span of a decade or two the vast majority of scientists, economists, and oil companies suddenly decided that they hate the planet and want to make everyone miserable? Sorry, doesn't add up.

mememine69?

I am on your side. My posting was about failed predictions of doom by the "climate experts".
NickS,
Anyone who starts yammering about "conspiracy theories" when presented with evidence of systematic persecution can't be argued with.
Chris H,
After the looting of the financial system that has happened and been reported on, but never prosecuted, anyone who uses the CT words is terminally naive.

More evidence that doesn't add up

Sorry, the only evidence that stands up to scrutiny supports evidence of climate change and its connection to human impacts. Again, this is despite there being every reason for people in power at the highest levels to reassure the general populace that it doesn't exist and to support any science that disproves the theory. But they don't. Why not? And no far-fetched conglomerations of odd bed-fellows, as is oft said, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one. Convince me. I want to believe. I like red meat and muscle cars.

Conspiracy Theory 2.0

Let’s put anthropogenic climate change aside for a bit.

Classical economic theory predicts that as goods become scarce the price will go up.

There are those who believe that peak oil will come within 20 years or so; some even believe that it has already peaked.

Oil is so embedded in the global economy that an increase in price to about $150/bbl will precipitate a global recession and that that recession will be very difficult to end without an economic replacement for oil.

In order to jump start the research required to develop renewable energy resources without resorting to dictatorship, it may be necessary to propagate a new global myth such as alien invasion or catastrophic impending (natural) disaster to get us off our comfortable arses and get on with it.

Real or mythical, climate change may be the catalyst needed to convert to sustainable energy and avoid a permanent recession.

Economics 101

The Banks create money out of nothing and then charge interest on the fiction. They create boom and bust cycles by contracting the money supply by manipulating interest rates. The existence or not of renewable energy is a minor factor.

It was estimated in the early 1990s that the US had 1000 to 2500 years of natural gas and that was before all the recent fracking finds.

The idea of "Peak Oil" was invented Hubbert and pushed by oil companies to keep the price up and to keep getting tax advantages in the US on the grounds that it is a limited resource.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/29/the-myth-of-peak-oil/

Energy scarcity is just as much an illusion as man-made climate change..

.

:)

we note that none of the gibbering above addresses a single point of the actual science and facts so far raised in this series of articles. Something I take to mean as complete agreement so far.

Pray proceed good Eric.

Former Climate Blame Believers Are Better Planet Lovers

None of you spineless climate cowards and fear mongers would still be shooting your mouths off like this if there were real legal consequences for uttering CO2 death threats to billions of children in a crisis of climate. Only a comet hit could be worse so admit the exaggeration of crisis and be glad a crisis wasn’t real, for whatever reason.

Please sir may I have another?

Good show. Your insults and threats certainly make me want to listen to your points and consider your position. You must be in marketing.

:)

nah, they are either tinfoil hatters or paid shills. Normal folk never come across like that.

It is CO2 and more

Thank you for this excellent series on the issue of all issues of all time. This part 3 gives the impression it is only CO2 that we have to worry about. The natural interglacial warmings were triggered first by methane (feedback)- CO2 took off many centuries after methane. Because methane is (also) being constantly emitted and lasts more than a decade in the atmosphere we cannot stabilize global temperature without dealing with methane. The same goes for nitrous oxide. We must emphasize CO2 emission as the top global warming culprit but must not forget methane and nitrous oxide. The problem is greenhouse gas emission pollution.

ayup

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jan/27/nicholas-stern-climate-change-davos

Now if only their attention spans matched

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/01/explained-90-seconds-its-cold-climate-models-are-still-correct

The Inquisitors & The Heretics

Wouldst thyne Eminences be able to find time to bring clarity to a question? We know that the ice cap on Mars has been observed by astronomers on our Earth with devices that originated with that earlier heathen, Galileo. They tell us that over half a century of spying on Mars the ice cap there shrinketh, yet! How is it that the planet Mars and our own planet Earth are both the tragic victim of this dastardly unholy Warming?

Is this also a consequence of heathen and profligate incineration of ancient coals and ancient oils, here on our sacred Heavenly body, namely Gaia, our Earth?

Someone get this man

An apple and an orange. No wait, make that a banana.

Let's pretend for a minute

Let's pretend for a minute that the GW crisis is manufactured by parties interested in profiting from the issue. Would it not be reasonable to assume that there would be a shift in the balance of power, reducing the influence on political policy of a group like 'Big Oil' if we were to adopt policies that tend toward reduction of consumption and promotion of renewable energy, for instance?

And let's pretend for a minute that one of the results of moving away from fossil fuels would be a decrease in pollution of:
The air
Land (on and below the surface)
Water (on and below the surface)
Government (on and below the surface)
And as a consequence - human health and well-being.

Where is the downside of moving away from destructive practices, like the tarsands embarrassment? If you care about people and/ or the earth, how is this shift a bad thing?

Unless the people you care about are only singular (yourself) and you don't appreciate the natural beauty of the earth, how can any of you argue against making this powerful, positive change?

Too many words for them

https://www.google.ca/search?q=what+if+it's+all+a+big+hoax+and+we+create+a+better+world+for+nothing&hl=en&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=dWoFUZH3E4GDjAKDwYHwAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=644#biv=i|0;d|fGQKC7i7PlzxiM:

Whoops

http://imgace.com/pic/2012/05/what-if-its-a-big-hoax-and-we-created-a-better-world-for-nothing/

Scopes Monkey

Darwinian.

28 December 2012

Internationales Wirtschaftsforum Regenerative Energien (IWR)

Third black year for green stocks – RENIXX World falls by 30.1 percent in 2012

Muenster – The 2011 stock exchange year was the third in a row to disappoint investors in green shares. The IWR, a renewable energy institute, reported that the RENIXX World (Renewable Energy Industrial Index) was quoted at 168.69 points at year-end, 30.1 percent down on the previous year (241.28). The stock exchange barometer for renewables had already lost 29.3 percent in 2010, and in 2011 collapsed by 54.4 percent.

International stocks of solar companies were among the biggest losers in 2012. No fewer than six solar stocks recorded price losses of more than 50 percent. These were led by LDK Solar from China (-72.8%), followed by REC from Norway (-67.9%), SolarWorld (-67.4%), GT Advanced Technologies from the USA (-60.8%), SMA (-54.9%) and Meyer Burger from Switzerland (-54.1%). Only five RENXX stocks managed to post profits. "

They want us to invest their money in renewables. Our entire solar system is warming and they feel guilty that it's all their fault. Seems like a certain way to eliminate any money for their future. Must be lemmings from the Fundamentalist Church of Gloom. They pray for clouds.

Anglo-American oil companies gave us the mess in the

Middle East, something that later became the Warofterror Industry. It's unsurprising their capacity for evil would extend into suppressing solar by any means.
Japan now, has to think about consequences for the future, they are not so insulated
http://www.rttnews.com/2038129/oil-companies-in-japan-to-set-up-mega-solar-power-plants.aspx?type=gn&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=sitemap

Doomed

I forgot... more money = more better. If 'the market' can't solve our problems, who the f@*k can?!

interplanetary proof please

"Our entire solar system is warming"

citation needed.

citation?

https://gs1.wac.edgecastcdn.net/8019B6/data.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma3yfhredU1rgnvuio1_500.jpg

LOL

It (the answer) always is eh Hakuin? thx!

Keam

Google, Donald C. Parker, M.D.

Don Parker, a retired physician from Coral Gables, has had a lifelong interest in astronomy – especially the planet Mars. Over the years Dr. Parker came to specialize in Solar System research and planetary photography. He has taken over 20,000 photographs and electronic images of Mars and Jupiter, as support for professional astronomers at NASA, JPL, and various observatories.

Dr. Parker has done extensive research on the climate and meteorology of the planet Mars, 2012 being his 58th year of observing that planet. He has authored or co-authored over 150 papers on the Solar System and on planetary photography, many of which were published in professional journals and is co-author of the book, Introduction to Observing and Photographing the Solar System. Over the past 35 years Dr. Parker has lectured internationally on planetary astronomy, electronic imaging, and global warming. He is a lifetime member of the Southern Cross Astronomical Society and past Director of the Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers.

In recognition of his contributions to planetary astronomy, Dr. Parker was honored by the International Astronomical Union in 1994, when an asteroid was given the name “5392 Parker.” In 2004 he was awarded the Oriental Astronomical Association’s Gold Medal for his work on Mars."

There's a video on-line with an interview with him and others that have measured the warming of various planets in the solar system.

lazy lazy, gave you this long time ago

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm

Physics vs Climatology

This article has so far covered the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere. The science is beyond dispute.
We can extrapolate to climatology, but CO2 does not describe the totality of climatology by a long shot. It is only one of many thousands of the triggers that affect a global climate.

Is it useful to have this knowledge? Certainly, yes. Does that mean you understand global warming? Not by a long shot.

Has the whole solar system been going through a warming trend? The answer appears to be yes, but not as much as we have seen on this planet. Are we entering a solar cooling phase (minimum)? It looks that way. How will it affect our global climate? Best guess is that it will counter some of the current warming trends we have seen in the recent past.

One thing we know for sure about climatology, is that there are lots of feedback loops that amplify small effects. At the same time there are dampening effects that counter trends. Climatology is as much about statistics as it is about physics.

The facts are that human activities do affect local and global climate. How much? This isn't a simple answer, and has to be mapped into what we do know, and what we observe, and all the other external influences. We simply don't know enough about climatology to answer "how much" with certainty.

Is it prudent to note which human activities that we KNOW are aspects of climatology, and reduce these effects? I would say so. At least until we have enough knowledge to predict exactly what those effects will be..

Old News

National Geographic is not generally known as an organization riddled with wacko deniers. Years ago they pointed out that Mars was warming. It might not fit the alarmists imperative that we scare our children but it might be true.

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. "

A More Recent Video by a Scientist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROGTV7GkWAE

nevermind warming

the filth and stink and cancer from burning fossil fuels ought to be reason enough.

what scientific credentials does

this "David Wilcock" have? At this point he appears to own a video camera.

@ Modesty

No, no, no. You said the solar system was warming. Not just Mars. Please provide proof of same, from a reputable source, or retract this erroneous claim.

Keam

Yes, yes yes. Follow the leads I have noted and learn. I've given various links and recommendations. Dr. Parker specifically described warming on other planets, as well as Mars. If you are too lazy to do the research then we have to put you down as a closed-minded fundamentalist.

Coal and oil will go out of style one day but not for a long time yet. Frightening children and the gullible is disgusting. Anyone that has lived a few years has heard all about so called emergencies in many different aspects of life. The shrill cries of panic are a detriment to change because they simply turn mature people off. The population bomb. The Global Cooling. Now it's the Global Warming and, quite mistakenly, this is commingled with a different item, pollution.

If renewables are such a natural winner then invest your own money in them.

A simple search brings:

From 2007
Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say
"Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.

Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=551bfe58-882f-4889-ab76-5ce1e02dced7

But don't let that stop the usual Koch Bros, Big Oil, Deniers rants.

Your claim

If it's evident and accepted, then it should be straightforward to find a relevant and succinct link from a source within the field. Your claim... you prove it, instead of fobbing the legwork off on those who disagree.

Hakuin's earler link:

manages to shoot down your claim in a single page, but here's a quote from the NatGeo article you cite upthread:

"Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations.""

And again, this is only referring to Mars. And of course, comparing Earth to vastly dissimilar planets such as the gas giants and those with little or no atmosphere is foolish.

@Modesty

"If renewables are such a natural winner then invest your own money in them."

Well, if we are going to 'go there'... if you have skin in the game, then maybe you should be clear about that. It would be most illuminating to find out that there may be a financial stake in your dispassionate scientific interest n'est-ce pas?

Nit picking

Embedded links...do your own digging. I'm not that anal and you are the one with something to prove.
http://motls.blogspot.ca/2006/05/global-warming-on-jupiter.html

Nobody has EVER proved the CO2 hypothesis.
In fact it was game over in 1909.

" Greenhouse Theory disproven in 1909, 1963, 1966, 1973...but still refuses to die"
Robert W. Wood, a professor of experimental physics at the Johns Hopkins University, was perhaps the first "skeptic" of the greenhouse gas "heat trapping" theory, and in 1909 performed a series of classic experiments which disproved its three major assumptions."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/greenhouse-theory-disproven-in-1909.html

Keam

It's not my claim. It's accepted fact by many scientists, including one that has been studying the planets for over 50 years. One naysayer from Madison is glaringly insufficient to sway any argument. If National Geographic had doubted the scientific evidence for a nano-second you can bet your sweet tucush that they would not have run it.

Once again, you unsurprisingly ignore the information provided to explore the full story and see that other planets are frequently mentioned. 'Tis you and your fundamentalist evangelicals that is and are fobbing. A smattering of liberal academic researchers yelp in unison and suddenly, like mice to the pied piper they all come running. The Holy Choir that is the IPCC, who's MANDATE, is not to study climate or anything but is to examine the effects of the Given Word of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a farce from its birth and an insult to the scientific community. Its motto should be 'Indoctrination is Our Task'. The Inquisitors are back and they want Your Money!

As that study that came out last week stated, people tend to believe in Global Warming when it's a nice warm, or hot day. Otherwise, not so much.

"liberal academic researchers"

fee fie fo fum, I smell the blood of a republican :)
"liberal" is not a swear word in Canada, back to the Heartland with ye, ye American sockpuppet!

@ Modesty

Until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current natural resource extraction/consumption methods are NOT contributing to global climate change, your attitude is part of the problem. Extremism, at either end of the spectrum, is counter productive.

Pointing out that there is a solar warming trend is useful information, but jumping to the conclusion that this means the information supporting human causes for climate change are without merit, is totally unjustified.
Not until you can accurately model climate change *without* human factors, can you determine the contribution of these same factors. Good luck with that.

"If renewables are such a natural winner then invest your own money in them."

The arrogance implied in the words of the above sentence are part of the problem. In effect, you are saying that until science can "prove" your actions are causing problems, you will continue the current course.

Well then.

Physics has already proven there is a relationship between the result of certain human activities and global atmospheric effects.
Extending this knowledge into global climatology, the question isn't "if" it has an effect, it's "how much". I would think you would just as interested in finding out that answer as anyone else. It's your planet too.

Until we find out the answers, it is only prudent that we curtail or counteract these activities. Just because you don't know the limits (answers), doesn't mean you go blindly into the unknown. Ignoring the results of science, even if the results are incomplete, is never a smart thing to do.

We are all in this together. If your drive for personal advantage overrides your conservative prudence and judgment, to the eventual detriment of all of us, it is condemning us all to the same fate.

If you don't want to invest in renewables (prudence), at the very least you should invest heavily in proving that your position is unequivocally unassailable.

I certainly don't agree with the alarmists, but I have just as much trouble with the blind deniers. We *do* know certain things from science. We don't know it all - yet. Ignoring the things we do know, is just as stupid as becoming alarmist about the things we don't know.

as for you little nicky

(no accident? http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110922170657/protagonist/images/8/88/Littlen1.jpg )

In science there is eternal doubt, no faith at all. Leap off your roof (please) , all science will tell you is you will hit the ground ALMOST certainly. Up to you to make the decision to jump.

so cruc,

define "alarmist"

the crucible if full of it

Nobody proved any of it. The IPCC said 90% certainty,with nothing to show how they arrived at that conclusion, AND 1/3 OF ITS REFERENCES COMING FROM NGOS and unpublished papers.

"The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change writes a report informally known as the Climate Bible. Cited by governments around the world, this report is the reason carbon taxes are being introduced, heating bills are rising, and costly new regulations are being imposed. It is why everyone thinks carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous.

But rather than being written by a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire (aka the world’s top scientists & best experts), the Climate Bible is produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong (aka, activists, 20-something graduate students, people appointed due to their gender or their country).

The world needs to confront the folly that is the IPCC."
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

The IPCC refused to look at ANY other cause of changing climate. Its MANDATE was ONLY HUMAN caused climate change.
But we all really know "It's the Sun Stupid".

Since one can't find what one refuses to look for, the game was rigged from the start.

Modesty B

"explore the full story and see that other planets are frequently mentioned. "

I actually did explore the full story and found no evidence that temperature fluctuations on other planets could be effectively correlated to conditions on Earth, which has a singular set of circumstances. I did find a number of rational explanations for those fluctuations, and numerous examples of scientists discounting the very study you are championing. Further, those criticisms cited a number of basic errors in the approach, including using the same time frame to compare planets with vastly dissimilar orbital patterns. For instance to compare a planet close to the sun, with one farther away (during the same time frame) is to ignore the fact that a single orbit of the faraway planets can range from nearly a dozen 'earth' years for Jupiter, to over 2 centuries for Pluto. If, as you contend, that solar energy is the primary cause for climate change across our solar system, it's clear that the elliptical nature of those orbits will also come into play. So, to give the outer planets equivalency in one breath, and discount the very obvious differences regarding solar energy demonstrates a lack of rigor in attempting to make the correlation. This as you no doubt know, is one of the prime criticisms leveled at your 'experts'. By your measure, we should treat a giraffe and a flamingo as equivalent, because both have long necks, yet the similarities are at best coincidental rather than connected.

"meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire"

:) you've never actually met a scientist, have you?

but Chris!

any common astrologer can tell you "as above , so below", why next you'll be saying you never heard of the Doctrine of Signatures! I thought you respected the magisters of science!

It is about the Sun Chris

All the planets are in the same Solar System, so
since:

The Sun is More Active Now than Over the Last 8000 Years
An international team of scientists has reconstructed the Sun's activity over the last 11 millennia and forecasts decreased activity within a few decades,October 28, 2004
http://www.mpg.de/495993/pressRelease20041028

All objects within the Solar System will be affected to a greater or lesser degree depending on numerous factors.

@NickS

http://news.yahoo.com/tiny-solar-activity-changes-affect-earths-climate-125635396.html

"Although the sun is the main source of heat for Earth, the researchers note that solar variability may have more of a regional effect than a global one. As such, solar variability is not the cause of the global warming seen in recent times.

"While the sun is by far the dominant energy source powering our climate system, do not assume that it is causing much of recent climate changes. It's pretty stable," Kopp said. "Think of it as an 800-pound gorilla in climate — it has the weight to cause enormous changes, but luckily for us, it's pretty placidly lazy. While solar changes have historically caused climate changes, the sun is mostly likely responsible for less than 15 percent of the global temperature increases we've seen over the last century, during which human-caused changes such as increased greenhouse gases caused the majority of warming.""

The Crucible

Until you can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current natural resource extraction/consumption methods ARE contributing to global climate change, then you haven't got a prayer. And, physics has not yet proven anything. Until then I remain unconvinced.

Why should I invest heavily in proving that my position is unequivocally unassailable? Do you really think that I care to convince lost souls that have tumbled into fundamentalism? I do care to comment though when I read supercilious statements from conceited scaremongers. I have a particular distaste for those vain, smug parents that give their children placards and pimp their children in demonstrations, when we know that their spawn are far to young to have an opinion, let alone a reasoned one, and they are just being used as a tear-jerk inciting shield to bolster their parents' narcissistic arrogance. I also dislike self-appointed priests that worship in the church of imminent-enviro-armageddon. Their schtick and their imagined erudition causes them to imagine that they must lead the sheep that swallow the Kool-Aid they splash around. They are on the same level as penny stock promoters pumping worthless equities to gullible punters.

They are the same gaggle that hang out with Harold Camping. What's next? Is salt good or bad for you?

I reference a paper from the Max Plank Institute

and you have gall to counter with an opinion piece quotine some guy on the US Gov. payrollat the University of Colorado as published on Yahoo.

Really!

Or maybe you just don't know much.

The first sentence in the article is:
"Even small changes in solar activity can impact Earth's climate in significant and surprisingly complex ways, researchers say."

The rest is "Grant Preserving Behavior".

:)

you are not going to make me get out the list now are you, yank?

nicky

people who believe in chem trail conspiracies really shouldn't. Or other stuff either.

You have a little list, you have a little list

And you are tap dancing around the fact that
EVERYTHING HAS MORE EFFECT ON CLIMATE THAN CO2,
the Sun, Cosmic Rays, ENSO and yes, the geo-engineering program we have been subjected to since the late 1990s. How nice of you to give me the opportunity to say Feb 17 is Look Up, Wake Up, Stop Chemtrails Day all across Canada.

You know

I really should feel bad about this. I mean, I m not an evil person. Sure I'm vain and short - tempered, I don' t even reliably recycle and if made emperor I probably would open death-camps and exterminate whole classes wholesale. Maybe even giggle too. But it's just too tempting. I hope you all understand and are charitable about it.

Just what is it you are confessing to?

The yen to be a mass murderer? That puts you in exalted company along with “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”,the Duke of Edinburgh. Bill Gates,Ted Turner and Henry Kissenger who wants to rid the world of "useless eaters"

22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch
http://www.whale.to/c/22.html

Caring is Sharing

"Do you really think that I care to convince lost souls that have tumbled into fundamentalism?"

Well, clearly you do. Otherwise you would be silent on the subject. But, instead you've made a number of posts over the course of several hours trying to build your case. I mean, I may not be able to tell the difference between a sun spot and a mole on my backside, but even a dunderhead such as myself can spot somebody who clearly wants their point to be validated. Geez, at least be honest about it.

C'mon Chris

He's just trying to make a living. Even tapewoms strive.

@ Modesty

I can prove (and so can you), beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the current natural resource extraction/consumption methods are contributing to CO2 and methane (and other) additions to the atmosphere. I can also prove (and so can you), via laboratory physics, the atmospheric heat retention properties of these additives. The previous 2 articles discuss the proven science. The physics.

There is no denying (without denying reproducible scientific fact) these human activities have at least some effect. The question is how much of an effect on a dynamic global system like our planet's climate. That's a question we can't yet answer with the same level of surety that we can answer the lab physics questions.

We can be sure there is an effect, just not how much, in the overall picture. Is it so minor as to be ignored, or enough to be of major concern, or perhaps something between these extremes? We don't know for sure - yet.

The physics in these articles are proven. If you are denying the climate effects but agree with the physics, I am at a loss how you can propose how such has NO effect when scaled up to planet sized. The onus is on you to prove how such a proposition could be true.
I have yet to see experimental science backing such an opinion. Done so on at least the same level as what has been done in these articles. Simple reproducible lab physics will do fine. So far, I see blind denial of the science that points that direction, and nothing more.

Until we understand the science of climatology well enough to predict the long term effects of what you are advocating, it is only smart to act with a level of conservative prudence. Especially when all the reproducible science is currently pointing against you.

Remember the measurable effects that CFC's had on the ozone layer? Or are you going to "deny" that as well? That was short term and very simple compared to the kinds of thing climatologists are dealing with. Chaos theory is applied in climatology. Read up on it. Financial structures and investments are childishly simple in comparison.

You are gambling with the lives of your children and grandchildren, weighted against your immediate personal gain. Worse yet, you are gambling with the lives of MY children and grandchildren as well. And everybody else. That kind of arrogant gambling demands unassailable proof. Scientific proof that you need to supply, not science (proven and speculative) that you simply deny.

With your interest in solar science, you might be advised to go read up on the planet Venus, how it's environment developed to what it is today, and why it stays that way. Still irrelevant to the current topic, but just as interesting as Mars.

You might also want to investigate Chaos theory. Useful in both climatology and finance.

Keam

You've misunderstood - again. You should read more carefully. I know that I'll never convince the High Priests but when I read a polemic masquerading as received fact I see a need to give balance to those that are still curious, before they become brainwashed.

Oh, I think I understand just fine.

The great unwashed have you to thank for enlightening them. The new 'white man's burden'. It was bullshit when Kipling spouted that nonsense too. But I'm low-hanging fruit. It would be more useful and informative for the 'still curious' for you to rebut Crucible's very astute remarks. I'll step away and let you tackle that challenge. Because if you are truly interested in making sure good information gets out, Crucible's arguments are absolutely on point and need addressing.

cheers,
CK

:)

Karl Rove versus Carl Sagan.

I'm betting on light.

Get off it Chris

Bullying based on Junk Science and purple prose
just displays how desperate Climate Crazies have become. Crucible is a joke. His basic idea is "all that human produced must be doing something" which is where this all started out in the 1960s.

Well, as I keep harping "All that CO2" is only 3-5% of the .0395% of the CO2 already in the atmosphere.

The only reason this farce continues is taxpayer money either directly from governments or indirectly through tax free money from foundations. Governments are also responsible for weather manipulation. It's not CO2, it's geoengineering that disrupts weather patterns.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/climatologist-files-suit-against-secret-and-illegal-military-weather-modification-using-chemical-aerosols/

@NickS

You don't get to venerate skepticism and then insult others when they take your advice and practice it. Usually that's the indicator of who's desperate. Anyone who practices what you preach is going to find gaping holes in your arguments and the burden of proof remains yours to shoulder.

@NickS

"Governments are also responsible for weather manipulation. It's not CO2, it's geoengineering that disrupts weather patterns."

That's getting into tin foil hat territory. You will have a hard time proving that theory.

If you feel my comments are a "joke", then refute them. Clearly, logically, and backed by
science fact.

So do tell, which part do you refute? The fact that CO2 and methane have a heat retention effect on the atmosphere? Have fun, this is well known and repeatable science.

Or do you refute that resource extraction and consumption doesn't produce CO2 and methane (among others)? Again, have fun, this is a well known scientific fact.

So then we shift to climatology, where you might, just might, find there is some agreement. Current climate models are inadequate to the task of predicting the exact effects of human generated CO2/methane/etc on climate. It is a very dynamic and complex system, with many inputs. It contains feedback loops that can amplify small effects, as well as damper effects that can reduce certain predicted results.

The "answer" isn't to ignore what we don't know, it is to find out.

But due to the runaway feedback loops that can take centuries to come into full force, might it also to be prudent to reduce or mitigate the effects? Perhaps we will discover the effects of human activity are so small they can be ignored, or perhaps we will find that the doomsayers are right, or something between these extremes that tells just how much we can do - and when.
Perhaps a solar minimum will counteract some or much of the current heat retention. But if we establish patterns during a minimum, just what do you suggest we do when we hit a solar maximum?

Keep in mind that CO2 isn't the big factor, it's atmospheric H2O. Small amounts of CO2 are the "amplifier" for H2O variability. Increase the CO2 by just a small amount, and the effect is amplified by the H2O. How much? We don't know.

Prudence would suggest we don't "play" with large, dynamic, complex, systems we know very little about. Not when our existence depends on it. Percentages are meaningless when we don't understand the amplification factors, or the dampers.

So go ahead, call my comments a joke. But it might be appropriate for you to refute what I said as well. Prove you understand the science behind this, the risks, and the short and long term impact analysis of both "minor" and "major" resultant effects.
Otherwise you are no better than a child complaining that his parents took away his nice new toy, that just happened to have all 6 cylinders loaded, and a hair trigger.
Prudence..

"You can't reason a man out of a position

He didn't reason himself into." The deniers that aren't actually working for someone else really should.take their "arguments" over to the theology corner.