You must have been born yesterday Tim. In the 1970s the concern was about cooling.
Expect the usual bed wetting alarmist nonsense to follow on here from what appears above.

Rubbish Marc.

There were roughly 70 papers published on climate in the 1970s, only 7 were on cooling, 45 were on warming.

Let me just do the maths on that..... That means there were 6x as many papers on warming. So stop with that pathetic myth.

Whether or not global warming is occurring, moving to other forms of energy generation, or finding better ways of conserving energy may be better in the longer term, and if managed properly, it may be more cost effective.

However I have been sceptical that glaciers are melting due to global warming, when global warming to date may be only a few degrees at most. There are some stating that glaciers are melting from the bottom up, which means that heat has to travel through many metres of ice to warm the bottom of the glacier.

I would think a reduction in the size or length of a glacier would be more to do with less snow falling in the mountains than air temperature.

Would I be wrong?

Andrew, what do you make of the 'Sulphur Gun' idea? From various reports it seems like an extremely cost-effective means of reducing a tiny fraction of incoming solar energy, mimics what nature does in volcanoes occasionally, and if we encounter nasty side-effects down the track, we can just reduce or stop it. The skies will clear themselves as they do after volcanoes. I totally agree we need to move beyond fossil fuels both because of global warming and because of those other 2 less popularly known words, peak oil (peak gas, and peak coal). I also regard the 'Sulphur Gun' as for emergency use only. But given lack of action on climate change, surely it is something to keep locked and loaded and ready to go?

Added to this is the practicalities of operating a control loop.

To determine the typical climate or weather conditions in an area, measurements are taken over 20 years or more, and then an average calculated.

So if sulphur compounds are purposely pumped into the atmosphere in an attempt to change the climate, there is a lag time of around 20 years or more before it can be said that the climate has been altered, or not.

Hi Byron,
but they're not proposing we create a year without a summer, are they? They're talking fractions of Pinatubo, not trying to match Mt Tambora. But I agree that side-effects should be monitored, especially damage to the Ozone layer. Yet what I haven't had explained to me is whether that damage would reach a certain maximum, as it seemed to with Mt Pinatubo, or be accumulative across time. The plans I have seen for it don't even hit Pinatubo levels of sulphur, so the main question would be whether Ozone interacts with it in total volumes, or total exposure over time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pinatubo#Global_environmental_effects

Great question Byron!!! So isn't that interesting: the Pinatubo wiki says only 0.4C, but the sulphur gun wiki says studies have shown we'd "only" need to dump the *equivalent* of Pinatubo to stop warming for 20 years. So, what is it, did Pinatubo do 0.4 degrees cooling, or did it do more? Or was 20 years or 0.4 degrees ALL the experts were suggesting we'd get and *I* just misunderstood what they were suggesting in the first place?

From the wiki:

"The ability of stratospheric sulfate aerosols to create a global dimming effect has made them a possible candidate for use in geoengineering projects[2] to limit the effect and impact of climate change due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.[3] Delivery of precursor sulfide gases such as hydrogen sulfide (H2S) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) by artillery, aircraft[1] and balloons has been proposed.[4]

Tom Wigley calculated the impact of injecting sulfate particles, or aerosols, every one to four years into the stratosphere in amounts equal to those lofted by the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991,[5] but did not address the many technical and political challenges involved in potential geoengineering efforts.[6] If found to be economically, environmentally and technologically viable, such injections could provide a "grace period" of up to 20 years before major cutbacks in greenhouse gas emissions would be required, he concludes.

Direct delivery of precursors is proposed by Paul Crutzen.[1] This would typically be achieved using sulfide gases such as dimethyl sulfide, sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbonyl sulfide, or hydrogen sulfide (H2S).[4] These compounds would be delivered using artillery, aircraft (such as the high-flying F15C)[1] or balloons, and result in the formation of compounds with the sulfate anion SO42-.[4]

According to estimates by the Council on Foreign Relations, "one kilogram of well placed sulfur in the stratosphere would roughly offset the warming effect of several hundred thousand kilograms of carbon dioxide."[7]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_%28geoengineering%29

"According to NASA/GISS, the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest on the instrumental record. Global surface temperatures in 2010 (and similar in 2005) have been the warmest on the instrumental record. From January to October 2010, global land and ocean surface temperature were significantly higher than the 20th century average of 14.1°C (see figures 1 and 2)."

Something being warmer than average does not mean it's continuing to warm. We're no longer in the 1st decade of the 21st century and the world is cooler than it was 10 years ago. NASA/GISS is only 1 of 3 main datasets. CRU shows 1998 as being the warmest year on record, and 2011 as only the 12th warmets. The world is cooler than 1998.

http://tinyurl.com/5t3u7ke
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend

Dr Glikson, you say: "Scientific ethics require adherence to technical points, playing the ball not the man."

That is true. But why do you sau this repeatedly and yet you repeatedly avoid questions you don't want to answer and frequenclty, as part of your avoidance say word's to the effect "Oh he's just a denmier; so not worth answering that question"?

When scientist becomes advocacy, it is no longer objective. Many so called climate scientsts have become advocates for an idelogfical belief. Their credibility is shot. Some - and you would know one of them - ave a predisposition to scaremongering. It seems any scare will do. E.g. nuclear energy, catastrophic climate change, desertification, you name it these people jump on the band wagon and advocate their ideology.

Is it any wonder the world is turning away from accepting the scare mongering and the policy solutions the CCC Alarmists advocate.

It really is the Lef's policy prescriptiosn that is turning off the rational people.

Gday Peter Lang, I have encountered your continued remarks in these pages over and over again.

Several times over, I have apprised you of the following facts.

Earth is warmed by absorbtion of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth's temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a 'black body' radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth's spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.

Earth's surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave 'thermal' (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth's spectrum from space has big absorbtion bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC's, and ozone (O3) absorb, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric CO2 concentration.

Historic fossil fuel use and cement production data (Oak Ridge National (US) Laboratory Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) shows sufficient CO2 emission from 1800 to 2007 to raise atmospheric CO2 from 280 ppm to 430 ppm. Dissolution of CO2 in oceans has limited atmospheric CO2 to about 390 ppm, and decreased ocean pH.

Heat thus accumulates at the surface. About 85% of retained heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting (sea level rise) and water evaporation (increasing rain and storms).

Warming feedbacks already initiated (ie tipping points already being crossed) are loss of Arctic sea ice, so that boreal summer sunlight absorbtion in the Arctic Ocean is increasing (less sunlight reflection), the aforementioned sublimation of offshore Siberian methane clathrates, and methane outgassing from thawing permafrost.

Deforestation limits biosequestration of atmospheric CO2 so that reversion to glacial conditions is not presently possible, even when earth's orbital precession minimises intensity of sunlight on Arctic terrestrial icecaps (ie right now).

Several times over have you replied, not by discussing the science, but by deriding (to your way of thinking, anyway) myself as "being of far Left persuasion". Practice what you preach.

David Arthur,

Yes I've seen you repeat this same lod mantra over and over again. Please don't waste your time repeating it any more, at least not to me. I don't bother reading any of your posts because I've learnt it is pointess discussing anything with you. I wont be replying to your comments.

Here is an example of the sort of devious response the Alarmists get up to all the time. Glikson quotes and then responds:

“The authors open by stating, “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now".

However, this is not the case. According to NASA/GISS, the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest on the instrumental record.”

The concerned Scientists said there has been no warming for over 10 years. Glikson says “it’s been the warmest decade on record”.

Warming a warmest are two totally different things.

Glikson’s response is misleading. This is bad because it is from a scientist. It is this sort of misleading statement that is discrediting so called “climate science”. If scientists want to maintain their credibility, they need to avoid advocacy and soin, and get back to science.

Yes warming and warmest are two different things. However the statement in the article is not ambiguous. You are trying the good old tactic of trying to create the illusion of confusion where there isn't any. If the statements are conflated the could you please explain how they are? That is, explain to us how a decade reaches its warmEST without any warmING.
And interestingly, Peter, in a previous post you reply to Davids post, whilst in your post saying you don't read his posts. I was a little confused by this until I read Davids post and realized that yes, the only way to respond to it (other than say he is pretty right) is to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the greenie/left scientific conspiracy "mantra" David just makes up with his mistakes,wild guesses, assumptions, cherry picking and scientific fraud. Much easier than explaining away the dozens of Laws of Nature, Laws of Physics and decades of empirical evidence that provide the base of his post. Also, glad to hear that you will not be responding to his posts as now people can enjoy and learn from posts like David's without having the political/religious innuendo and conspiracy theories to muddy the water.

So if there's been no warming in the last decade, why does Trenberth call it a trevesty? Why are scientists trying to explain it. I plotted the direct data from Hadcrut for the past 15 years, and saw a very slight upward linear trend, but certainly not significant. A 2nd order polynomial fit showed cooling - again not significant. I get much the same from RSS and UHA data. GISS admits (in private correspondence) that globally Hadcrut is a more representative data source, so I dodn't take much notice of them.

Overall, it looks to me like the warming trend has taken a bit of a break - inconvenient because the models have no data to substantiate them.

Gday Nick, as a rule I post what I understand to be accurate information.

That's not to say that I'm invariably correct. I would hope that people might read what I post, relate it to their own understanding of an issue and respond. I appreciate contributions from other comment-posters that might correct or improve my understanding.

No, it wasn't; he said what he said. I'm surprised someone as precise and didactic as you Michael would argue otherwise.

Trenberth's new mantra is that:

""The heat will come back to haunt us sooner or later," [from: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116766&org=OLPA&from=news]

And his new project is to be rid of the "Null Hypothesis":

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.142/abstract;jsessionid=DBB867F41D7D49855BE482DDE5440253.d02t03?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+4+Feb+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance

So, in Dr Trenberth's mind AGW science is so certain it is axiomatic, sort of like a religion. Myles Allan disagrees:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.145/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+4+Feb+from+10-12+GMT+for+monthly+maintenance

Just cut through all the hyperbole and tell us:

1. What is happening to the planet's total sea ice mass over a sufficently long period to be able to make a convincind statment, trend and projection?

2. So what? By this I mean what are the costs and benefits of mitigation versus adaption?

And please don't pointy me to some Leftie, biassed document or orbvioulsy politically partisan report.

To clarify my question about this quote:

"In 2006, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets experienced a combined mass loss of 475 ± 158 Gt/yr, equivalent to 1.3 ± 0.4 mm/yr sea level rise. Notably, the acceleration in ice sheet loss over the last 18 years was 21.9 ± 1 Gt/yr 2 for Greenland and 14.5 ± 2 Gt/yr 2 for Antarctica, for a combined total of 36.3 ± 2 Gt/yr 2."

1. Is the 2006 rate of ice loss typical?

2. Is this a cherry picked research result?

3. How do we know that it is not cherry picked given that so much of the Alarmists' contributions are cherry picked, biased, politically influenced etc, including IPCC AR4 as pointed out previously?

4. If this paper is correct, the sea level rise due to ice melting would be 1.3 +/- 0.4 mm/yr. Add to this thermal expansion and what do you project? Perhaps 4 mm per year? Double the rate for the past century or two?

This is in the “so what” category. We should not waste the world’s wealth on policies that will make no difference to sea level rise or the weather. We’ll be much better able to handle all the real issues that confront us as time goes on if we do not waste the world’s wealth.

For those who think of wealth as meaning wealthy people, that is not what I am talking about. Wealth means our health and education systems, our infrastructure, our capacity to innovate and take new technologies through demonstration to commercialisation. For poor countries it means fresh water, disease control and electricity. That is what the CCC alarmists deny the people of the world when they continually push, as hard as they can, for economically irrational policies – like carbon taxes, promoting high cost renewable energy options, opposing nuclear power and causing it to be far higher cost than it could and should be.

With respect to your last paragraph Peter:
And what of the wealth and health of our planet's ecosystems?

Will the people of Fukushima be healthy thanks to the benefits of nuclear power?
For how many generations will the surrounding land be unfit for human habitation?

The cost of renewable power options is decreasing steadily. And instead of looking at is as just "high cost" (which it has been) you might also consider it as 'high benefit' and 'low risk'.

Leon Smith,

Thank you for these excellent questions. These are the sorts of questions that the Alarmists should be asking and answering themselves, quantitatively, before running their scaremongering.

Here are a few short answers (without references in this short response). If you want references ask for which point in particular:’

Q. “And what of the wealth and health of our planet's ecosystems? “
A. Yes. That must be included in proper cost benefit studies.

Q. “Will the people of Fukushima be healthy thanks to the benefits of nuclear power?”
A. Much healthier than with out it. And the world will be better off too, with Japans industrial capacity not being restricted. Nuclear is about 10 to 100 times safer than fossil fuels, and safer than most renewables (fatalities per MWh, and yes that includes the long term efects). Not only that, the electricity it produces is a massive life saver and improves human well being. Can I suggest you do some unbiased research on this, and avoind the scaremongering.

Q. “For how many generations will the surrounding land be unfit for human habitation?”
Why don’t you try and answer it your self. I’d say it is none. It’s fit for habitation now. Probably there would have been less damage to people lives and well being if much fewer had been moved. The effects of nuclear accidents (which occur very rarely) are greatly exaggerated by the Alarmists, catastrophists, exaggerators. We accept a much higher level of risk and fatalities with fossil fuels and with most renewables. So why are you scaremongering about nuclear. Where is the objective comparison? 50 years of scaremongering has prolonged use of fossil fuels, cause about 10 to 100 times the rate of fatalities due to electricity generation per MWh, and also cause the world to have about 10% to 20% higher GHG emissions now that we otherwise would have. We’d also be on a much faster path to reduce world GHG emissions. There is no rational basis (other than cost) to be anti-nuclear. And the cost to a large extent is due to 50 years of anti nuclear activism by people like Andrew Glikson. It is hypocrisy to be scaremongering over ‘catastrophic climate change’ (CCC) and scaremongering over nuclear power.

Q “The cost of renewable power options is decreasing steadily. And instead of looking at is as just "high cost" (which it has been) you might also consider it as 'high benefit' and 'low risk'.”
A. That statement is unquantified silliness. With renewables some ten times the cost of nuclear to do the same job, what difference does a 10% or 20% reduction in costs make? It is negligible and irrelevant.
You are wrong about renewables being low risk. The have the same or higher fatalities per MWh of energy delivered than nuclear. You are also totally wrong about them having high benefit.

You can look up the info on this. You just need to do some objective research. A good place to start might be on the BraveNewClimate web site:
http://bravenewclimate.com/renewable-limits/
Here is a short post on “What is risk? A simple explanation?” that will give you an introduction:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/07/04/what-is-risk/

What about the stuff that nuclear advocates don't want us to know about? Interested?

Of course Shirley. Feel free.

A shame that this website doesn't seem to have a personal messaging service to allow us to take private conversations off the site.

A little more accuracy in our language would be helpful in avoiding confusion. Carbon is not a gas or a greenhouse forcing agent. If you can't take the trouble to type out "carbon dioxide" or "methane" or you wish to speak generally, then how about "GHG" (greenhouse gas) as a shorthand.

(And if anyone took the time to check their spelling, grammar and sentence construction before posting we'd all be better off.)

So sad to see what an impolite world we've become online.

Leon, point taken on "carbon" instead of carbon dioxide. I guess it's the "carbon tax" debate language rubbing off on me. Anyway, here's the section I was referring to:

"The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."

As for grammar and politeness, not sure who you're referring to.

Andrew, here is another example where resort to an "appeal to authority", were you say:

"Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies,"

But you ignore what the IAC review said about the AR4 processes, which are summarised here http://tome22.info/IAC-Report/IAC-Report-Overview-Short.html under the headings of:
- Political interference
- Bias
- Uncertainty
- Conflict of Interest
- Management

Who's mind is closed if you wont read these damning reports, even after they've been point out to you before?

Andrew,

Quite right - to truly test Svensmarks theory of aerosol related cloud albedo effects due to GCR impact with atmospheric particles and linked to solar geomagnetic activity we will have to track all of the influences in the list you outlined from AR4 to ascertain what if anything else is changing over the period of observation. We know that the CO2 and CH4 influence is probably not going to reduce so if all other factors stay relatively constant over the next 2 solar cycles and we see significant cooling it may prompt further research into Svensmarks theories.

Regards

James

James Szabadics:

"The point made is that the RATE OF CHANGE of temperature in the last 10 years is minimal and is much much less than the RATE OF CHANGE of temperature in the 1990s."

The rate of change of temperature over 1987 to 1996 was less than zero. Did that mean there was going to be no more global warming? Of course it didn't. Why are you trying to use that argument to prove global warming is over? It doesn't.

"That 2011 has the highest level of CO2 in the record but is not in the top 10 warmest years should make people a little curious."

It's the ninth warmest year actually. If people were really curious they would find out what "La Nina" means. But of course if you mention "2011 global temperature" and "La Nina" in the same sentence then the fact-denialists go deliberately dense.

Andrew, indeed GCR flux is linked to solar geomagnetic acivity. It is wrong to say that incident GCR does not change.

You may not be aware but each sunspot cycle is different in it intensity if you look at the peak of cycle 24 so far it will be almost 50% lower peak than cycle 22 for example. Hence the amount of GCR incident upon us does change not only during the cycle but also depending on the peak of the cycle.

If we have another solar minimum (geomagnetic not irradiance) then Svensmark theorises that this will have a climate impact through the link between GCR and aerosol production and the yet to be proven link to cloud seeding.

During the LIA the sun was devoid of sunspots indicating that the solar magnetic field was very weak at that time for a number of cycles.

I

Chris, i'm not sure you read my post correctly. I'm pointing out that the last decade has not had significant warming. The statement is true. People seem to easily confuse warm with warming. Some even claim warming is accelerating, the data is not supporting that claim (yet!).

You should NOT use one decade trend to determine a prediction for a change in future climate change, that would be wrong and without logical basis if you cannot explain why it happens. It might be the start of a change - it certainly is below trend but why? It would be nice if climate models could explain decade scale variability.

In regards to global temperatures and ENSO cycle I accept that temperature does go up after El-nino and down after La-nina (with some lag). If La-nina becomes more prevalent over the next 30 years than El-nino what do we expect in regards to future climate change?

I dont think it helps the science if you make things up about what others have said or use personal insults btw. Lets stick to the facts eh?

James Szabadics:

"It is wrong to say that incident GCR does not change."

You don't seem to realize the most important point which is that there is no long term trend in GCR.

No long term trend in cause -> no long term trend in effect from that cause

It makes no difference if GCR actually can influence global temperature, its long term influence on global temperature is as much as its long term trend, virtually nothing.

James Szabadics:

"You should NOT use one decade trend to determine a prediction for a change in future climate change"

But that's what you're implying. You're implying that zero trend for 10 years means there may not be more global warming. If you weren't arguing that after your statement "The point made is that the RATE OF CHANGE of temperature in the last 10 years is minimal" then what you said after that was a non-sequitur.

"It might be the start of a change"

It might be but zero trend for 10 years has nothing necessarily to do with it.

"It would be nice if climate models could explain decade scale variability."

It would be but this isn't strictly variation in climate, it is more like variation in the weather. As far as climate goes (which is what matters with CO2) these variations are not significant. We know for example that the temperature trend dropped 0.22 deg C (GISTEMP) over the 14 years beginning 1943. That happening now with rising CO2 level would probably be enough to falsify an effect from CO2 but of course we've seen nothing like that.

Chris, just for a moment imagine that GCR flux above a threshold value has enough production of aerosols in the lower atmosphere to seed clouds and below that threshold has no such tropospheric effect.

If we spend enough time above the threshold value it would slightly change earths albedo to be more reflective of incoming radiation in visible and IR wavelengths by increasing lower cloud cover.

If the sun has a quiet geomagnetic period for say the next 2 solar cycles (24 and 25) as is widely predicted then the earths albedo may increase during that period even though irradiance itself at the top of atmosphere will not change much.

Look at the GCR data here
http://www.puk.ac.za/fakulteite/natuur/nm_data/data/nmd_e.html

Draw a line through 77 for the longest running data set - the Hermanus data and see if the excursions above this threshold line up with any cooling periods in the GISS record? Now I simply note that Svensmark has this theory and that we get to see in the next 2 solar cycles if he is correct. If warming resumes he is debunked.

Chris, please understand I am not predicting the future based on any 10 year trend. I am commenting on the observations of the most recent decade which is the warmest decade on the record.

RE variability in the trend of the decadal scale record. This highlights that we have to understand that a range of forces drive climate change - not just CO2 and to determine the climate sensitivity to CO2 we must understand the contributions (warming and cooling) of all of the other forces and cycles otherwise we may fall into the trap of linking coincidental change without the correct scaling of contributors.

"RE variability in the trend of the decadal scale record. This highlights that we have to understand that a range of forces drive climate change"

No, that variability has nothing to do with climate change. El Nino/La Nina events have nothing to do with climate change. You are confusing short term variability (which is a form of weather) with climate change.

"to determine the climate sensitivity to CO2 we must understand the contributions (warming and cooling) of all of the other forces"

Determining climate sensitivity depends very little on observations, extensive they may be, from just a decade or two. Climate sensitivity is determined from a far wider range of observations and analysis than this.

James Szabadics:

"If the sun has a quiet geomagnetic period for say the next 2 solar cycles (24 and 25) as is widely predicted"

The big IF. So you're saying we should assume this is going to happen and then everything will be all right until solar activity stops decreasing. Sounds a bit risky to me.

"If warming resumes he is debunked."

Svensmark is already debunked: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=476

Chris, I think it's premature to write Svensmark before we see what happens during a grand solar minima or an extended period of elevated GCR flux at least. If we have further warming during a grand solar geomagnetic minima or during a an extended period of elevated GCR flux then you can write the GCR/cloud theory off.

I dont know what will happen but I'm interested to see.

Chris, i mostly agree with you. Its going to be extremely difficult to assess climate sensitivity to CO2 until we understand all of the natural variations on various timescales up to 60 years in some cases.

It would be equally wrong for example to attribute El-Nino warming in any given year with climate change just as any given years La-nina should not be confused with long term climate change. The weather is not climate statement gets a bit more difficult on a decade scale though because you would usually expect to see 4 ENSO events in 10 years.

Its interesting to look at the integrals of the El-Nino vs La-Nina in the 90s compared to the integrals in the most recent decade. Changes in the balance between historically more persistent and powerful El-Nino conditions to more La-Ninas recently.... In the usual chicken & egg we try to understand if climate change drives these patterns or if these patterns are driving climate change. We will eventually discover the true sensitivity to CO2 but its going to take some more work.

James Szabadics:

"I think it's premature to write Svensmark before we see what happens during a grand solar minima or an extended period of elevated GCR flux at least."

No, it is not premature. Debunked is debunked. We don't need any more experimenting and we certainly can't afford to experiment with our atmosphere any more.

"If we have further warming during a grand solar geomagnetic minima or during a an extended period of elevated GCR flux then you can write the GCR/cloud theory off."

It already is written off. There is no need for expensive experiments like you describe.

James Szabadics:

"Its going to be extremely difficult to assess climate sensitivity to CO2 until we understand all of the natural variations on various timescales up to 60 years in some cases."

No, it is not necessary to understand all of the natural variations on various timescales up to 60 years. For example, it is not necessary to understand weather variations (both the normal short-term variations and longer term unforced variations such as El Nino/La Nina).

"It would be equally wrong for example to attribute El-Nino warming in any given year with climate change just as any given years La-nina should not be confused with long term climate change."

So people who pick a short-term trend that say, starts in an El Nino year and finishes in a La Nina year and imply that it gives an unbiassed assessment of climate change are giving a false impression.

"The weather is not climate statement gets a bit more difficult on a decade scale though because you would usually expect to see 4 ENSO events in 10 years."

There is no difficulty with saying El Nino/La Nina are not variations in climate. Try to keep in mind that climate definitions normally require 30 years of data.

"We will eventually discover the true sensitivity to CO2 but its going to take some more work."

We already know 95% confidence limits for climate sensitivity. We don't need any more work to act on those limits.

Chris,

The reason I say it is too early is because we havent had a grand solar geomagnetic minima to observe the climates response.

You dont seem to appreciate that we dont need to do anything specific to the atmosphere to see how it responds to the changes in the suns magentic activity - we just need to keep observational data like we already are doing.

We may find that those who think Svensmark is wrong are validated by continued warming through cycle 24 and 25 but to say you know the answer before you have done the observations is hubris.

Chris,

I dont think we really understand natural variability enough yet to be able to say what the net climate change will be as CO2 changes. We can perhaps say it would be warmer than it otherwise would have been as we add CO2 but if forces other than CO2 can plunge us into and out of little ice ages for hundreds of years it is important we understand the mechnisms of those events before we attribute observed change to a specific cause.

If we did have a good handle on all of the cycles and forces of natural climate variability our models would show the annual and decade scale variability ahead quite accurately. The fact is our modelling of weather (not climate) breaks down after a week and climate modelling and real world observations are straining the friendship in terms of standard deviations from the predictions put forward in model means.

We must see a resumption of more accellerated warming soon (within 5 years?) if CO2 is the primary driver of the late 20th century and future global warming. If we dont we must do more work to understand why we observed the warming from 1970 to 2000 at such an elevated rate.

"The reason I say it is too early is because we havent had a grand solar geomagnetic minima to observe the climates response."

That doesn't mean that it's necessary to wait for such an event. If the GCR hypothesis is already disproven (as it has been) then we don't need to keep disproving it over and over again.

"You dont seem to appreciate that we dont need to do anything specific to the atmosphere to see how it responds to the changes in the suns magentic activity"

Where did I suggest otherwise. This is just a strawman.

"We may find that those who think Svensmark is wrong are validated by continued warming through cycle 24 and 25 but to say you know the answer before you have done the observations is hubris."

You are the one showing hubris. What does it take for you to understand that http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=476 shows that Svensmark is already debunked. Try not to respond until after you've read and understood it.

"If we did have a good handle on all of the cycles and forces of natural climate variability our models would show the annual and decade scale variability ahead quite accurately."

You still don't understand that annual and even decadal variations are not climatic variations. Until you do you will not understand what climate is or climate sensitivity either.

"We must see a resumption of more accellerated warming soon (within 5 years?) if CO2"

One thing that's almost certain is that relatively flat periods do not last very long. Until the 1950s there were substantial downward trends lasting 14 years or longer. They don't happen anymore and they are not about to happen in the near future. A resumption of downward trends that ended in the 1950s would be a reversal of the overall trend that has been going on for nearly 60 years. Check http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Chris, climate is merely the averages and trends of the averages of weather over some nominated time frame.

Generally 30 years is accepted as a reasonable period of time to make an assesment of climate change in terms of avoiding the noise caused by sometimes large annual variations.

We must be careful therefore to not get too excited about any shorter timescale trend I agree. But lets bring the discussion back to the issue - is it warming and is that warming accellerating or decellerating.

On a 30 year timescale it is warming. No question.

Is the warming accelerating lately? The way to judge this is to look at the slope of the 30 year trend stepping back one year at a time and see if the slope is increasing or decreasing. The flat trend of the last decade means that the 30 year trend for the rate of warming is reducing.

Cyclical variations on decadal or longer such as 60 year timescales are very important to understand if we are using 30 year trend to assess climate change. If we ignore real variables we may attribute change in incorrect proportions to variables that we dont ignore.

Chris,

We appear to be entering a grand solar minimum now so if this is the case the waiting is over and cooling will begin if Dr Svensmark is correct. Call me old fashioned, but I will use real world observations of GISS dataset to understand what happens to atmospheric temperature during the solar minimum. Your blogosphere reference may indeed prove correct but I personally think that there could be some merit in Svensmarks ideas based on my personal analysis of neutron count observations since 1957 and GISS data.

I don't claim I am right and I dont say your bloggers are wrong - I dont think you should call that hubris. Do you know what hubris is?

James: "Is the warming accelerating lately? The way to judge this is to look at the slope of the 30 year trend stepping back one year at a time and see if the slope is increasing or decreasing."

No it isn't. You haven't shown that that establishes statistical significance of the acceleration/deceleration.

"The flat trend of the last decade means that the 30 year trend for the rate of warming is reducing."

Is this statistically significant? I calculated the 30 year trend for GISTEMP (GLB.Ts+dSST) for every 30 year period beginning with January 1964 up to the present. The highest 30 year trend was 0.180 deg C/decade over the period January 1974- January 2004. The 30 year trend to December 2011 was 0.173 deg C/decade. I would be very surprised if such a small difference achieved statistical significance. The difference barely reaches measurability (0.02 degrees C in 30 years).

"Cyclical variations on decadal or longer such as 60 year timescales are very important to understand"

Looks like you've lost your "annual scale variability".

James: "We appear to be entering a grand solar minimum now"

What is your evidence? I don't see much of a "grand" minimum happening now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png

"if this is the case the waiting is over and cooling will begin if Dr Svensmark is correct."

No, even in the extremely unlikely event that Svensmark is correct, cooling will not necessarily begin. Forcing from GHGs will continue to increase regardless of solar activity.

"Call me old fashioned, but I will use real world observations of GISS dataset to understand what happens to atmospheric temperature during the solar minimum."

That is a luxury we cannot afford, especially when we already know Svensmark is extremely unlikely to be correct.

"Your blogosphere reference may indeed prove correct"

The "blogosphere" reference is written by professional scientists. It's no an ordinary blog. It doesn't sound like you read and understood it. They provided a list in an earlier article of the unexplained shortcomings in Svensmark's hypothesis here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/ Those deficiencies are:

First, the particles observed in these experiments are orders of magnitude too small to be Cloud Condensation Nuclei (CCN). In the press release, this is why they talk about the ‘building blocks’ of CCN, however, aggrandisation of these small particles is in no sense guaranteed (Missing step #1).

Secondly, the focus is on low clouds over the ocean. However, over the ocean, there are huge numbers of condensation nuclei related to sea salt particles. Thus to show that the cosmic ray mechanism is important, you need to show that it increases CCN even in the presence of lots of other CCN (Missing step #2).

Next, even if more CCN were made, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud cover (or optical thickness etc.) (Missing step #3).

And given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing – which despite their hand waving, is not at all well quantified (even the sign!) (Missing step #4).

All of this will require significant work and there are certainly no guarantees that all the steps can be verified.

"to say you know the answer before you have done the observations is hubris."

If the future observations were the ONLY way of knowing Svensmark is not likely to be correct then that would be hubris (so you're constructing a strawman). Of course, that is not the only way of knowing he is not likely to be correct. Failing any one of the four steps above means that his hypothesis is not correct.

Chris,

Maybe the guys on the internet blog are not omnipotent on this topic - please consider their fallability and read the various papers for yourself and critically consider the findings. Some universities and CERN are actively researching the possible links because initial research has proven promising. If you are confident Svensmark is wrong you should write to these researchers and point them to the realclimate blog perhaps?

http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/

http://science.au.dk/en/news-and-events/news-article/artikel/forskere-fra-au-og-dtu-viser-at-partikler-fra-rummet-skaber-skydaekke/

Probably the most recent study which is worth reading from university of Indiana was published very recently. Link is under the recent publications heading

Relationship of Lower-Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective
http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate/

"Probably the most recent study which is worth reading from university of Indiana was published very recently."

A few quotes from that paper:

"It has been determined in this assessment that the recent extended quiet period between solar cycles 23 and 24 has led to a record-high
level of GCRs, which in turn has been accompanied by a record-low level of lower-troposphere global cloudiness."

Not much evidence of GCRs increasing cloudiness there, the opposite in fact.

"Pierce and Adams (2009) considered a general circulation model (GCM) with aerosol microphysics to examine the GCR–cloudiness
relationship. Their study concluded that the changes in CCNs (due to GCRs) during a solar cycle were two orders of magnitude too small to affect changes in cloud properties."

Or there.

"However, the principal objective of the current assessment, reported on in this paper, shows a clear disconnect between ISCCP lower troposphere global cloud cover and galactic cosmic ray effects."

Or there.

"GCRs have achieved a RECORD-HIGH LEVEL (Phillips 2009), while
ISCCP lower-troposphere global cloudiness is at a RECORD-LOW LEVEL.

Or there.

"The efforts of Project CLOUD to date, however, remain inconclusive as to the role high-energy cosmic rays can play (through ionization) in aerosol formation."

Or there.

"It is clearly evident that the positive trend in previous solar cycles and lower-troposphere cloudiness has not continued for the cycle 23–24 QP, which adds to the controversy of the GCR–CCN hypothesis."

Or there.

"Not only has the GCR count reached a record-high level during the
cycle 23–24 QP but the lower-troposphere global cloudiness has dropped to a record-low level, further challenging the validity of the hypothesis."

Or there.

"It is concluded that the observational results presented,
showing several years of disconnect between GCRs and
lower-troposphere global cloudiness, add additional con-
cern to the cosmic ray–cloud connection hypothesis."

Or there.

"In fact, this has been done in the most dramatic way with the
measurement of record-high levels of GCRs during the deep, extended quiet period of cycle 23–24, which is accompanied by record-low levels of lower-troposphere global cloudiness."

Or there. In fact, it looks like they might have more success in trying to demonstrate that GCRs actually reduce cloud cloud cover. Imagine what will happen then with a low activity solar cycle. The GCRs build up along with the GHGs. The recent GCR observations correlate with increased GCRs reducing cloudiness and hence increased forcing. The increased GHGs also increase forcing. Looks like we should do everything possible to reduce GHG emissions.

Chris, I am not just selectively posing one sided links orone sided comments from the links. I think that the paper looks at both sides and sums up in their words:
"the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR–cloud hypothesis and its possible role in the science of climate change."
Shows that if you take a balanced view you conclude that further research is required. Do you now support that idea?

Chris - your proof illustrates nicely that the data to present day shows warming is not accelerating, warming is decellerating but you are not yet sure if it is statistically significant. This is good work and I say well done. I think we might need to do a two tailed ANOVA or some such to determine if the difference in trend is statistically significant yet.

When you say the decelleration of the long term (30 year) warming trend "barely reaches measureability" at 0.02 you do realise that it represents 11.5% reduction in the trend at 0.173 dec C /decade? I will see if I cant find an hour or two to gather the data and do this - which data set did you use for your 30 year trend analysis? I would like to use the same dataif possible- GISS?

"the update presented here continues to support the need for further research on the GCR–cloud hypothesis"

Of course they support having further research on the hypothesis in spite of the proof they presented that GCRs do not have a major influence on cloud cover. I'm sure they'd like to know what influence there is even though it's small. But that doesn't change the fact that GCRs are not a major influence on cloud cover and that whatever influence that is has not been detected.

"your proof illustrates nicely that the data to present day shows warming is not accelerating"

It doesn't show it's accelerating or not accelerating. I don't expect there is enough statistical significance either way.

"the decelleration of the long term (30 year) warming trend "barely reaches measureability" at 0.02 you do realise that it represents 11.5% reduction in the trend at 0.173 dec C /decade?"

No, I meant 0.02 over 30 years, not per decade.

Chris, I agree as yet inconclusive. In some time periods quite good correlation and a recent break in correlation with cloudiness in the two years 08 and 09 (although we did see a temp drop in 08) . This is quite different to "debunked" and I hope you will admit that if it has been debunked further expensive research would not be a recommendation.

"I do understand what first and second derivatives are"

Of course you do Michael; and shame on that impudent Tim Curtin for suggesting otherwise.

One way of showing that Mr Curtin is wrong would be to explain why temperature, and solar, can be detrended by first differencing but CO2 requires a 2nd differencing. It would be great if you could do that in the context of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increasing at a linear rate while temperature detrended for natural variation to leave a pure AGW signal, according to Foster and Rahmstorf, shows "no indication of any slowdown or acceleration of global warming,".

Well, that's a strange answer Michael; I'm not interested in talking to Dr Foster; I'm here talking about Dr Foster's paper with you. Surely the paper stands or falls on its own strength without the need for Dr Foster's further commentary.

Differencing is the process of removing the trend from a data pool; differentiation is the process of measuring the change in the trend of a data pool based on variations of the input variable.

What have Foster and Rahmstorf done? They have partially detrended the temperature data by removing natural variables; they have done this to isolate the AGW effect on temperature. I asked you for your opinion on the fact that F&R found no acceleration in the temperature trend at a time when CO2 concentration trend is accelerating; and suggested that perhaps it has something to do with the fact that to detrend the CO2 trend requires 2 differencing steps while temperature requires only 1.

Is your answer to the above that because F&R's margins of error are so large no meaningful information can be taken from their paper?

" They have partially detrended the temperature data by removing natural variables"

No, removing short-term noise is not any kind of detrending.

By the way Anthony, did you ever get round to withdrawing your false assertion that there is no correlation between CO2 and global temperature on any timescale?

Foster and Rahmstorf removed "El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability"; it would not be detrending ONLY if you assume those natural variables do not impact on temperature trend; in respect of ENSO Dr Foster doesn't as he says:

"In all of these previous analyses, ENSO has been found
to describe between 15 and 30% of the interseasonal and
longer-term variability in surface and/or lower tropospheric
temperature, but little of the global mean warming trend of
the past half century."

Nor does he think solar or volcanoes do.

I was not talking about that. But you have missed the point I was making in your preoccupation with 'noise'; the point I was making is that Dr Foster found no increase in the acceleration of the increase in temperature trend at a time when the increase in CO2 was accelerating.

Anthony Cox,
do you deny the basic physics of what we know of Co2 from Fourier Devices?

I did not say F&R used differencing. Multiple regression is differentiation. So how does my comment not make sense?

In any event you have avoided my question; namely that F&R find no acceleration of the AGW based temperature trend at a time when the CO2 trend is accelerating. If CO2 increase is the agent of AGW isn't that strange?

I can now see I was too expansive and too literal; it comes from dealing with such smart people as yourself Chris; obviously with a simple regression there are going to be many periods when CO2 trend and temperature trend are similar; for instance since the satellites came in:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/uah/from:1979/trend

However, when matched with physical processes the whole correlation breaks down:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1958%20AndCO2.gif

I don't know why it is so hard to get you to address the point Michael. I'll restate it but first one of the comments to your question at Dr Foster's blog said this:

"MartinM | February 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm | Reply

Er…if CO2 needs to be differenced twice to detrend it, it isn’t increasing linearly. So the question basically amounts to ‘explain why X is true, in the context of X being false’. Incoherent word salad is so much fun."

The insult is standard but Martin is otherwise incorrect. And I’ll try and explain why in terms of the differencing/differentiation issue bearing in mind F&R differentiated but did not difference. And bearing in mind the point that CO2 is accelerating at an approximate linear rate, while detrended temperature, as found by F&R, is not.

Differencing is very similar to differentiation [since they both deal with the trend], so you can see the effect from a simple accelerating quadratic:

T = ax + bx^2 + cx^3 + ...

Then, when we differentiate, the exponents are reduced by one, so the linear trend becomes a constant, the second order accelerating term becomes linear, etc.

dT/dx = a + 2bx + 3cx^2

Differencing again we get

d^2T/dx^2 = 2b + 6cx + ...

So one difference reduces a linear trend to a constant (flat), and reduces a second order acceleration to a linear trend.

That is, two differences reduce the 2nd order acceleration to flat, etc.

So, again I come to the point: how can CO2, which is increasing at an accelerating rate [close to linear], and requires 2 differences to detrend, be correlated with temperature which, partially detrended by removing the natural variables through differentiation, is not increasing at an accelerating rate.

How about commenting on this Michael without referring to Dr Foster's blog or the "uncertainties", unless you ask Dr Foster about his uncertainties?

So, what was the point of F&R?

"F&R show this is not the case"

That is not correct. As I have noted before

1 F&R arrive at their non-feedback temperature of between 1.4-1.8C per century by removing all natural variation. This is interesting because in Foster's reply to McLean et al they state that while ENSO/SOI can explain temperature variation on interannual timescales it cannot explain longer term trends. Given this and F&R's conclusion that TSI is too small to affect trends and volcanoes are one-offs by removing natural variation they have effectively removed nothing from the trend.

2 So, what F&R have effectively found is climate sensitivity to 2XCO2; they have found a trend much smaller than the 2.5-4C, best, 3.2C, offered by AGW.

3 Other questions which remain are why does the trend not change given the increase in both the total CO2 and the rate of increase of CO2. Also, since F&R have only used data from 1979 long-term natural factors may not have been excluded from their analysis.

Michael, you obviously don't appreciate the inconsistencies of your position; but trust you to get personal; what are you going to complain about this time? That you are wrong when you say:

"One cannot determine the sensitivity of temperature to CO2 in the rudimentary manner done by Anthony Cox, because the current temperature is out of equilibrium."

Even the IPCC disagrees with you as they explain the difference between transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity; see:

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-2.html

I mean its one thing to espouse the company line but another when you can't even get that right.

You really are funny Michael; so you concede there is a time difference between TCR and TEQ?

That is what I said when I directed you to the IPCC page.

As I argue above F&R have found the TEQ trend of between 1.4-1.8C per century; are you saying this is not what they found? How could it NOT be if, as Foster asserts, no natural factors add to it? Can you answer that without prevaricating?

I suppose you'll also be asserting that 1.4-1.8C is the same as the official AGW TEQ trend of 3.2C.

Let me see if I can make this clearer for you Michael; is the rate of 1.4-1.8C per century which F&R isolated the rate of temperature increase to achieve TCR or TEQ?

Do you read what you write Michael, or vice-versa?

From your link; TCR :

"integrates all processes operating in the system, including the strength of the feedbacks and the rate of heat storage in the ocean,"

F&R removed these. So, 1.4-1.8C can't be the TCR rate of temperature.

Ask Foster; I'm interested in what he thinks it is.

Key words should be 'imagined' and 'speculated'.

The point is if the TCR "integrates all processes operating in the system, including the strength of the feedbacks and the rate of heat storage in the ocean," what factors are left to increase the temperature to achieve the TEQ? If there are none known [little green men perhaps?] because the known factors have determined the TCR then F&R's rate is the TEQ as well; which is less than the 3.2C offered up to date.

You're terrible Michael. As soon as your own links box you into a corner you resort to insult.

And you're avoided the subject; which is F&R's removal of all the natural factors to achieve a nominal temperature trend due to AGW. That is a TEQ trend.

But by your linked definition F&R have not defined the TEQ temperature trend; the contradiction here is Foster's rejection of the natural factors' contribution to trend; so what trend have they found?

Your other mistake is that you and the AGW site differentiate the TCR and TEQ final temperature by time with TEQ reached much later than TCR. That does not mean the TEQ and TCR temperature trends are different but that the same trend can create 2 distinct temperature plateaus.

Whatever trend F&R have found is MUCH lower than the official AGW TEQ trend. You avoid that manifest point and rabbit on about pots of water.

It is not me who is shameless.

Welcome to Rogerland and the climate “fixing” growth merchant who sets the obscenely low price on carbon at US$5/tonne, suggesting five bucks only because it seems feasible ‘and cites the support of Exxon Mobil’s CEO as evidence.’ Exxon has just posted an eye-popping profit of $41.1 billion.

Similar to Judith Curry who at least admits that: “The earth’s carbon cycle is not a topic on which I have any expertise,” Pielke insists on politicising scientific debate in faraway lands. He has even headlined Queensland’s Wivenhoe investigation on his blog. Perhaps he wears the lepers’ bell in the US of America where discerning citizens are just plain sick of him?

Meanwhile back in his Motherland, 40% of America’s rivers and 46% of America’s lakes are too polluted for fishing, swimming, or aquatic life.The Mississippi River – which drains the lands of nearly 40% of the continental United States carries an estimated 1.5 million metric tons of nitrogen pollution into the Gulf of Mexico each year. NOAA-supported scientists found the size of the 2011 Gulf of Mexico dead zone to be 6,765 square miles, nearly equal to the land area of the state of New Jersey

And while he’s delighting polluticians down under, the ten most vulnerable rivers in the US are threatened by gas extraction, uranium mining, sewage pollution, massive copper mining, mountain-top removal coal mining and strip mining.

It’s telling that Pielke thinks his political science degree entitles him to travel to Australia (while his fellow Americans are dying of air pollution) opining about all aspects of climate science and incredibly, about Australian bushfires too! Specifically he’s telling us that he thinks it’s we who are the idiots.

Then don't you think they should be doing something about pollution (a known problem) instead of spending billions on carbon dioxide, based on unsubstantiated climate models?

Yes I agree Ross James that we must do something about pollution since industrial CO2 is a pollutant - the end product of burnt fossil fuel contaminants.

Benzene is a Class 1 carcinogen and can cause leukaemia and lymphomas. Benzene has a suppressive effect on bone marrow and it impairs blood cell maturation. There is no Australian air quality goal for benzene.

Xylene exposure causes eye, nose and throat irritation and neurological effects such as impaired reaction time, short-term memory loss and the loss of bodily coordination. There is no Australian air quality goal for xylene. The list is endless.

And while we’re au fait with the environmental consequences of digging up coal, the metal ore mining sector is a major emitter of carbon monoxide. CO contributes to smog, elevating tropospheric ozone and methane before oxidising to CO2 and water vapour. All unburnt hydrocarbons eventually oxidize to CO2 and water vapour after they’ve performed their dirty work, contaminating the biosphere.

Coal combustion for the supply of electricity contributes substantially to Australia’s pollutants listed in an NPI report in my possession: Antimony (31% of total), cadmium (42% of total), cobalt (38% of total), lead and mercury (43% of total) and their compounds. There is no Australian air quality goal for mercury since the “regulated” regulates the regulator down under.

Carbon dioxide, is not based on unsubstantiated climate models as you claim. Further, the 33-gigaton all-time record for anthropogenic CO2 emissions in 2010 dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011). Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin).

WA alone has 85,000 abandoned mine sites spewing out hazardous gases to the biosphere, another toxic legacy for the taxpayer to deal with yet the Polluter Pays Principle, the Principle of Intergenerational Equity, the Principle of Biological Diversity and Ecological Integrity and the Principle of Waste Minimisation are all written into the preambles of the Environmental Protection Acts.

After some 40 impotent years, these principles are about to be acknowledged through a carbon price but it need not have come to this. However, the multi-national corporate polluters and nefarious sycophants will not flinch from an opportunity to scheme and plot, no matter how sordid or demeaning, no matter they’ve bludged off the environment for >two centuries, no matter the fragile state of these arid lands or an unsustainable future.

If you call CO2 a pollutant, I guess you would say the same about oxygen. There are many processes dumping it into our atmosphere - even trees. I guess you wouldn't drink any fizzy drinks (eg coke, beer, champagne etc) on principle, for the CO2 that they put into the atmosphere. I, as a chemical engineer, can see no lustification for calling CO2 a pollutant. It's harmless in concentrations way above anything we experience. If you want to call Xylene a pollutant, that's fine, but it's got nothing to do with CO2. People get all worked over the term "carbon", but I don't see them throwing their diamonds away.

"Pollutant" is a term like "weed" - where, when and how much have to be factored in to applying it.
Perhaps Ross, you could turn your training to developing a non-net-GHG producing method for turning CO2 into diamonds as a sequestration method ;-)

I just get annoyed by ignorant people (eg politicians) talking about carbon pollution. If they mean carbon dioxide they should say so. Carbon pollution to me means formaldehyde, carbon monoxide, cyanide, etc. Carbon dioxide doesn't even come to mind.

I'm all for fighting to reduce carbon based pollution (as with any pollution). Carbon dioxide is near the bottom of my list.

Thank you Byron Smith for the information and I certainly appreciate the constructive criticism. Rest assured it is preferable to engaging in dialogue with someone who believes a baghouse is an oversexed female.

Despite lacking a science background and conceding your point on OSHA, I will adhere to the conviction that trivialising the impacts of CO2 is a major blunder (where I think you would agree). CO2 is not only warming a fragile planet and disrupting climate cycles but its precursors and hazardous FF chemicals continue to insidiously impact on public and occupational health and through all sectors of society (and is killing humans and animals directly or indirectly). All things are connected. Without one there is not another.

Cargo ships (spewing out dirty low grade bunker fuel across the oceans) which fly the flags of convenience continue to break up in our waters (and NZ) where oil is slaughtering sea birds and marine life. Royal Dutch Shell spilled 40,000 barrels of oil off the coast of Nigeria in December, four months after a major UN study said it could take Shell and other oil companies 30 years and $1 billion to clean spills in Ogoniland. BP, after the Gulf catastrophe was welcomed with open arms to explore and develop commercial oil and gas fields off the Australian coast.

In June 2010, hundreds of barrels of oil were spilled in a remote part of the Peruvian Amazon, leading to calls for a ‘state of emergency’ to be declared and an appeal to the United Nations to intervene. The same company had spilled oil 68 times in the previous four years - four spills in 2006, 23 in 2007, 18 in 2008, 23 in 2009, and 10 in 2010..

Killer whale populations have not recovered and huge schools of whirling herring have not returned to Alaska’s Prince William Sound, >20 years after the Exxon Valdez drunken sailor disaster while we are force-fed rubbish about “dispersion and attenuation.” Last March, an Alaskan judge ruled against ordering Exxon Mobil to pay to clean up the oil that is still contaminating the Prince William Sound shoreline.

While President Obama is standing up to Big Oil despite threats of "huge political consequences" from the American Petroleum Institute, Australia has become a sacrifice zone for the FF industry aided and abetted by avaricious old rent boys (we know them well by their falsehoods).

And so, according to my notes, homo-stupidus emitted 8,398 million tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in 2009. In 1909 it was 785 million tons and in 1809 it was a mere 10 million tons.

“The lot of man and of beast is one lot……. both have the same life-breath and man has no advantage over the beast for all is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 3:19).

Fido the beast and I will drink to that Mr Smith.

Andrew Glikson

Yes, the debate continues, but so does the advocacy for a cause, and the CAGW Alarmist’s avoidance of answering the key questions.

When scientists become advocates for a cause, they can no longer be considered objective. Their credibility is gone.

You and the other CAGW alarmists have continually dodged the key questions I (and many others who are not yet persuaded about the claims of catastrophe) keep asking. In short the questions is: “So What?”.

1. How serious would warming be (quantitatively and time phased, cost versus benefit, cost of the proposed policies versus the benefits they would achieve)?

2. Given that most of the warming would occur in the higher latitudes, and in winter and at night in the mid latitudes, with little change in the low latitudes, what is the problem? Why would warming be catastrophic?

3. Given that the planet is in a cold house phase (rarely has it been this cold in the past 500 million years) and given it experiences relatively rapid climate changes when in a cold phase – due to the presence of ice at the poles and the rapid changes in the extent of ice sheets, wouldn’t the planet have a more stable climate without ice (as is the normal state for the planet)?

4. What would be the cost of adaption versus the cost of attempted prevention?

5. What is the probability that the proposed policies to prevent climate change will succeed? (policies like Kyoto targets, CO2 tax, ETS)

6. By how much will the CO2 tax and ETS cut global emissions?

7. By how much will the CO2 tax and ETS change the climate?

8. By how much will the CO2 tax and ETS change the ecology of Kakadu and the Great Barrier Reef?

9. By how much will the CO2 tax and ETS change the sea level?

Andrew Glikson,

I interpret this article http://www.tnr.com/blog/critics/75757/why-the-decision-tackle-climate-change-isn%E2%80%99t-simple-al-gore-says?page=0,0 to say that, even if you believe in the worst case scenarios, the rational decision is still to not waste money on policies like CO2 tax, ETS and Kyoto type policies. The correct response is to invest and develop technologies (like Gen IV nuclear) to deal with the threat if it emerges.

I fully agree with this concept. I believe far too much money has been wasted on "renewables" and which, in my opinion, can never provide a realistic reliable base load power source. On top of that is the huge waste playing the political game. Gen IV nuclear is possibly realistic - perhaps there's others, but wind and nuclear don't do it for me.

Consider the zillions of dollars spent so far in trying to convince the world to reduce emissions, and carring out research on things like cow farts and moose burps. What if this money had been channelled into realistic energy research?

Personally, I believe reduction of emissions is a wild expensive dream while populations are increasing, unless we see a major breakthrough in energy generation.

There is nary a smidgin of doubt that Peter Lang is a climate sceptic since he describes (repetitively) his opponents as “scaremongers, lefties and CAGW alarmists.”

The universal consensus among climate sceptics is:

1) Fossil fuel carbon emissions are beneficial
2) Anthropogenic global warming is a myth
3) Therefore do nothing and conduct business as usual

Among Peter Lang's dubious assumptions is: “the planet is in a cold house phase (rarely has it been this cold in the past 500 million years)” which again implies that author Lang is a AGW denier. Why then does he vigorously assert that nuclear energy is essential?

Can we anticipate yet more duplicitous nonsense from climate sceptics peddling the BNC propaganda?

Shirly, I'm sorry to say you've got it all wrong. I'm a climate sceptic.

1. I don't believe carbon emissions are beneficial. Carbon monoxide is a poison, formaldehyde is a carcinogen (yes, both these are possible fossil fuel emissions). As for carbon dioxide, I'm not too concerned, although at a bit less than half its current concentration, life as we know it would cease to exist (I'd be more concerned if it was dropping).

2. I believe in anthropogenic warming - possibly up to 1.2 degC. However, I can find no evidence to support the hypothesis of positive feedback (eg H2O concentration) domination negative feedback (eg cloud density and location), which would result in a thermal runaway.

3. I fully support development of sensible alternative long term energy sources (emphasis on "sensible")

I suspect that Peter Lang supports nuclear for the simple reason that, outside of coal, gas and oil, there is no realistic cost effective alternative known at this stage. All this money spent on wind and solar is not going to solve the perceived problem.