You should read all of that paper by Lacis et all, crikey!



Modeling experiments are NOT confirmation of or actual observed proof of CO2 as the driver of any global warming.
Climate models are merely exploratory mathematical tools of climate systems which are useful to explore climate dynamics but which have little or no predicative ability in the long term.

Any predictions from climate models MUST be fully observed and confirmed in real terms in the real world before they become acceptable as a part of the real world's climate science.


Just two examples below of climate model failures of which there are dozens of papers on the problems in the GCM's which as indicated in your Andrew Lacis paper is the means by which he arrived at the conclusions he no doubt was looking for..;

The top of the atmosphere radiation budget- Simulations versus direct measurements over the tropics


And "Errors in general circulation models"

And how does one observe CO2 at work in the real world?

We can't just stand outside and look up into the sky with our naked eyes and see CO2 at work. This is where the science steps in.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-es.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-references.html

You seem to be incapable of putting words to your claims of CO2 induced global warming and just keep on putting up all sorts of references from the IPCC which from the lack of your own input I would assume you don't really understand and haven't read or researched.

So the global warming scientists in the IPCC are saying that because CO2 is increasing and the global temperatures are increasing CO2 must be responsible for the increasing temperatures.
The entire existence and funding for the IPCc and it's science is dependent on maintaining that particular very dubious and unproven claim.

And the stock market has also been rising and has stabilised and even fallen a little just like global temperatures for a long time so maybe there is a connection there with rising global temperature as well.

And as CO2 levels are still increasing why has the global temperatures reached a hiatus, stabilised and plateaued over the last 12 to 15 years as even as that totally committed global warmer who even wrote a book on the dangers of global warming, very high profile Proff James Lovelock has now acknowledged and is now expressing some doubts about the CO2 / global warming claims.
As have the Apollo moon landing astronauts plus many of their most experienced support staff during NASA's best years.

As I have repeatedly asked you to provide hard, observed, confirmed beyond doubt evidence, not unverified and unvalidated model outputs and not unproven arm waving claims from some climate warming scientist somewhere, that increasing CO2 is responsible beyond doubt for the previous rising global temperatures.

After all the likes of those of your beliefs are demanding that we have to completely alter our entire social and economic structures of our society and to do so forcibly if we ordinary citizens refuse to conform with the demands and beliefs of the CAGW believers of which by your constant attacks on anything skeptical of the CO2 / global warming connection, you also are apparently an alarmista believer.

If you want to change and alter society into your alarmist belief system then you have to prove your case beyond any doubt whatsoever otherwise what you believe is nothing more than the imposition of a gross dictatorship which is founded on nothing more than a nebulous completely unobserved, unproven ideology based on nothing more than unproven and known to be badly flawed climate models programmed by a group of known to be biased, climate warming believing modelers .

So it seems that what you are saying CeeBee is that you can't prove that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are the driver of the increases in past global temperatures and by implication the so called global warming is not due to increasing CO2 levels.

In that case it appears your belief in CAGW or AGW if you prefer it, is just based on hot air!

And by the way, that second Question; What is the global temperature that you and your fellow believers in CAGW believe the global temperature should be set at by mankind if the likes of those of your beliefs could gain totalitarian control over all of mankind?
How much higher or lower than the current world temperature should that New World Order set that global temperature?

U mean 1C approx for CO2 doubling, almost all agree with that, it is the positive feedbacks exceeding negative feedbacks that there is no proof whatsoever at all that has ever been shown...full stop, end of story!

This paper from Henrik Svensmark et al is already getting very considerable publicity on WUWT and a number of other science based blogs.
Denmark's Svensmark of course is the scientist who came up with the hypothesis that the Solar magnetic fields strength. [ very low at the moment ] has a considerable effect on the paths of galactic origin cosmic rays.

These incoming electrically charged, cosmic rays on striking the atoms and molecules of Earth's upper atmosphere disintegrate in nuclear particle debris which then showers and drifts down into the lower areas of the atmosphere where the particles act as seeds for super cooled water vapour to form droplets.
Then in a further process through the effects of atmospheric sulphur dioxide, a natural component of the atmosphere, the droplets aggregate into and eventually form into cloud droplets.
This was first proposed by Svensmark back in the 1990's and has since been partially verified in a CERN cloud chamber experiment.

It only takes a change of about 4% reduction in global cloud cover to take the planet from a warming planet to a cooling planet.
It is a case then of few cosmic rays getting through the strong solar magnetic fields to Earth and therefore reduced cloud cover and more solar radiation heating the global surface and oceans from an active sun's strong magnetic field and so a warming planetary temperatures.

Conversely a lot of cosmic rays getting through to the Earth's upper atmosphere when solar activity is low and the solar magnetic fields are weak [ as at present ] and therefore more cosmic rays impacting the global atmosphere, a greater percentage of nuclear collision debris drifting into the lower atmosphere and therefore a larger level of cloud droplet seeding particles and a consequent higher percentage cloud cover with a higher global albedo [ increased reflectivity from the bright cloud tops ] and lower solar radiation levels at the land and ocean surface and so cooling global temperatures.

Now Svensmark has come up with this new paper which no doubt will be equally as controversial as his Cosmic ray hypothesis affecting and perhaps controlling global temperatures through their influence on lower atmosphere cloud formation.


Evidence of nearby supernovae affecting life on Earth


Now THAT is going to get a lot of people really fired up!

Reference to CeeBee’s post: #1101212 - 25-04-2012 08:26 AM


Umm…hang on a minute, since when is evidence beyond doubt!? Don’t you mean the interpretation of evidence...but an interpretation is just a theory/hypothesis, not beyond doubt!

Cosmic, if the warmist alarmists want to change the whole of our society based on their beliefs in the dangers of CO2 induced global warming then their evidence for doing so had better be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever in every respect!
There is no room for any mistakes or misteps of any nature in that case.

If you just want to debate science without any other political or social or societal ramifications your definition holds.

My last post was in-light of the recent seriousness and apparent lack of [scientific] normality (this is a science thread!) within this debate, and so I was being light-hearted (“umm…hang on just a minute”).

Are you suggesting the falsification of a scientific theory or hypothesis (as pioneered by Galileo) is no longer valid? More to the point, are you suggesting human beings (scientists) are not allowed to make mistakes in this debate?

[N.B: Not a loaded question!]

ROM, the weight of evidence of AGW falls strongly on the science as presented by the IPCC.

The skeptics science is very weak in comparison.

Importantly, the Governments of the world are making decisions based on the science as presented by the IPCC, not the skeptics science. That is what matters here.

No amount of bleating from skeptics is going to change those facts.

Climate science is changing and doing so very quickly and all those modelled claims on global warming are starting to come badly unstuck. when you get Trenberth, one of those at the centre of the global warming scam crying in the climate gate e-mails . "where is the missing heat" and people like Verenholt inGgermany and Lovelock and the science orientated and trained former astronauts and Curry a former rabid global warmer plus many others all coming around to expressing severe doubts about the claimed global warming then the whole thing is in deep trouble and your claims on the skeptical science being weak in it's steady dismantling of the CO2 based CAGW beliefs is just hogwash.

Climate science is rapidly stacking up the evidence against what has now become, not science any longer but a quasi religious cult which it's adherents will never admit to that they no longer have a scientific basis for their beliefs.

There is no empirical observed evidence for rising CO2 being the cause of rising global temperatures despite some 25 years of so called climate research.
I am sure you would have found this proven evidence by now if it existed.

There are a lot of models which claim that CO2 is responsible for the rise in global; temps but they are only outputs from unverified, unvalidated models which have failed to even predict the current hiatus in the rise of global temps, possibly permanent for the next few decades and this despite much back stepping and claims that the models predicted such hiatuses.
They didn't claim that sort of thing at all up until a couple of years ago, the rise in global temperatures was monotonic until the " catastrophic tipping point" was reached.
The tune changed to fit the new circumstances when it became obvious that their claims of a monotonic rise in global temperatures was unsustainable when it became obvious that a hiatus in the rise in global temperatures was becoming an established fact.
Changing their claims and then trying to claim that is always what they said is something the global warmers are very adept at,

I've been through all of this before only a few weeks ago.

I have not yet seen any proven , confirmed empirical and undisputed evidence that increasing CO2 is directly responsible for the increases in global temperatures.
Lots of arm waving involved and many claims based on models and CO2's claimed ability to warm the atmosphere as it's concentrations increase but even here, the climate sensitivity number, the increase in temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is still disputed and unknown within a couple of degrees and that climate sensitivity number is steadily heading downwards over the last couple of years, even from the climate warmist scientists until it is now down to somewhere around perhaps 1.8C to 2.5 C and many climate scientists are suggesting that the climate sensitivity number is considerably closer to 1.3 C or less at which level of about 1.1 C it becomes impossible to separate the effect of a doubling of CO2's impact on the climate, the climate sensitivity number from natural climate and statistical noise.

The entire basis of the IPCC's claims are based on positive feedbacks, an boot strap effect where the feedbacks all reinforce one another.
No such positive only feedbacks have ever taken place in the 4.5 billion years of Earth's history for if they had Earth would probably just be a very hot barren ball of rock like Venus, without life, orbiting just another small star in just another of the billions of Galaxies across the Cosmos.
Rather for global temperatures to be as closely confined in temperature range as it is, there has to be a whole range of feedbacks nearly all of them negative, ie they damp down any climate oscillations that become too large, for this planet to be habitable with a very stable temperature range that just suits life as we know it.

The IPCC and the climate modelers do not admit to the fact that there has to be a range of negative feedbacks that are the controllers of the global climate. for that destroys their argument that increasing CO2 with it's associated positive feedbacks is the reason for the increase in global temperatures which are running away into a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming or so they claim.

And Svensmarks cloud theory together with ocean circulation patterns probably outline the main negative feedbacks controlling the global climate.
Increased heat, more water vapour, more clouds, higher albedo from the cloud tops and therefore a larger percentage of the solar radiation is reflected back into space and the planet then cools that tiny amount to rebalance the incoming solar energy and the outgoing radiation and so keeps a quite steady planetary temperature.

And then all that water vapour precipitates out aand it rains and the cycle is renewed. The modelers don't take into account the precipitation part of the atmospheric cycle so water vapour, the major green house gas justcontinues to increase in the models which leads to more heating, more evaporation, higher water vapour levels and ever stronger positive feedbacks and so more heating etc. ie global warming runaway effect is claimed.

They seem to ignore the fact that when water vapour levels reach a certain level, it rains and all that water vapour finishes back on the surface after releasing vast amounts of latent heat from the original evaporation process that turned it into water vapor, back into the high atmosphere as it condenses into cloud droplets and cools in doing so and thereby releases all that heat energy back into the high atmosphere from where a lot of that heat energy is radiated back into space,

The very forceful claim from the warmist scientists was that a monotonic increase in global temps in line with the increase in CO2 levels was the future of global temperatures.
That as we know now has not happened.

Nor after some 25 years of both the IPCC and previous climate research all based entirely on models has the range of model predicted supposed future temperatures changed hardly at all, ranging from the global temperature rises of a predicted range between 1.1 C to 6.4 C over the next century due to increasing CO2 levels as predicted in the older models of some two decades ago.
I know very well I won't convince you CeeBee unless like Curry and an increasing number of other former global warming believing scientists you are prepared to look at the facts as climate science is changing and new research from skeptically inclined scientists who are outside of the now rigid dogmatism of the increasingly corrupt IPCC science bring ever newer research to the fore and in doing so continue to dismantle the very poorly constructed foundations upon which the so called catastrophic anthropogenic climate science was based.

Cosmic, scientists can make and do make mistakes in science and that is self correcting over time in science.

But if they want to change our entire society and economic system based entirely on some completely unproven scientific hypothesis then they damn well can't make any mistakes at all nor will they be allowed to change our economic and societal structure without a damn good fight.
And that is pure politics and has nothing to do with good science.

How many Scientist's are actually on the IPCC board at the moment??

Too late ROM, Governments around the world are already taking action on climate change based on the IPCC science. The skeptics are fighting a losing battle.

Mexico is the latest Government to take action.

Faced with slow progress towards an international agreement to limit greenhouse-gas emissions, governments are taking the initiative by passing their own climate laws.

Last week, Mexico — plagued by a persistent drought but optimistic about its prospects for wind power — made one of the boldest commitments of any nation to limit climate change. Although many countries have established domestic climate regulations, Mexico is only the second, after the United Kingdom, to make tough national targets legally binding.

Climate-policy experts say that the move sets an encouraging precedent. As a developing country with rapidly increasing emissions, “Mexico taking the lead is probably more important” than Britain doing so, says Mark Maslin of University College London, who studies climate change and its implications.

http://www.nature.com/news/mexico-sets-climate-targets-1.10503

The structure of the IPCC can be found here

How does the IPCC work?

Pauchari the head of the IPCC has repeatedly claimed that every paper that was used by the IPCC for it's reports was peer reviewed. Donna Laframboise, an investigative journalist who has written a book "The Delinquent Teenager' and who runs the "NofrakkenConsensus blog has rounded up a number of volunteers who have gone through and analysed the claimed peer reviewed reference papers in the IPCC's AR4 and found that around 30% of them were not peer reviewed. They were from such grossly biased advocacy outfits like the WWF, Greenpeace and other political enviro outfits, were from ordinary newspapers and even from high school kids articles ina case or two.
One lead author of a chapter in the AR4 and lead authors have enormous power as to what goes into the reports, was about 29 years old and did not even have a science degree of any sort.

UN's Climate Bible Gets 21 'F's on Report Card

all 18,531 references cited in the 2007 IPCC report were examined
5,587 are not peer-reviewed
IPCC chairman's claim that the report relies solely on peer-reviewed sources is not supported
each chapter was audited three times; the result most favorable to the IPCC was used
21 out of 44 chapters contain so few peer-reviewed references, they get an F
43 citizen auditors in 12 countries participated in this project


The situation became so bad re poor papers, bad and shoddy reference works, elimination of any and all papers with any sign at all of a skeptical questioning of the IPCC science [ look at the Climate Gate e-mails to find lots of references there to keeping skeptical papers out of circulation so as not to get into the IPCC's AR4 ] and just plain corruption under Pauchari that an IPCCC review panel was set up to examine and make recommendations on the restructuring of the IPCC.

The IPCC review panels report can be found at; Review of the IPCC
And the decisions of the Panel; http://www.ipcc.ch/meetings/session32/ipcc_IACreview_decisions.pdf

Pauchari effectively gave the Review Panel the finger and said because the work for the IPCC's AR5 was underway no serious changes will be made to the IPCC for the time being.

There are starting to be calls made for the IPCC to be wound up and many climate scientists apparently feel that the IPCC is past it's use by date as the science of the global climate continues to move ahead.
Judith Curry a few months ago was probably the most prominent scientist to suggest this in an interview;

This is well worth a read particularly by those who still believe that CAGW is ultimate fate of mankind and remember Curry was a full on warmist until she tried to mend some fences with the skeptical community on WUWT and then discovered that skeptics were quite switched on, reasonable people to debate with and knew their science. She has moved on a long way since then although still a luke warmer but shifting to skeptic as time goes on

The IPCC May Have Outlived its Usefulness - An Interview with Judith Curry

Nope Ceebee! China, india, USA , Canada, Poland, Japan, Russia all major players in the global economy are all pulling out of the global warming mitigation business.
Watch the political pea and not the hand and mouth gestures.

The UK, now apparently France if Sarkozy loses, is having second thoughts as their economies goes down the gurgler.
Germany is taking all sorts of action as you should have read, to cut subsidies to alternative power, build coal and gas fired power stations and etc, not things that a committed to eliminating global warming country will do unless they want to commit economic suicide.

Mexico and a host of little outfits are all claiming to be into doing something about global warming but the whole basis of their apparent tilt towards a global warming program is that the big economy countries of the west will be obliged under any treaties drawn up after Kyoto finishes shortly, that s if they sign up and some like Canada won't , to hand over trillions of dollars in compensation to those lower level economies for supposed global warming compensation by the major western economies in the past and that is the basis for their announcements.
They won't do a damn thing that will damage their economies' as they can't afford to as they drag themselves and their people up to a reasonable standard of living in a world that is having increased and spreading financial and economic problems.

Perhaps the 'peer' review process is completely stuffed in the field of climate change science? A lot of people keep making the claim that the papers they refer to are "peer reviewed" as if to say that the material in them can not be faulted. Under normal circumstances, something that has been peer reviewed and published, can be relied upon to bring valid and important information to the argument. However, a lot of papers that are rejected by some journals still end up being published in other 'peer' reviewed journals. Obviously, different 'peers' involved in the review process and they must have different standards or agendas; otherwise if one 'peer' rejects a paper, why would another one accept it? I think 'peer review' in the field of climate change science might be a matter of accepting only those papers that support the view (side of the argument) of the reviewers/editors. If that is the case, politics has taken the place of scientific methodologies and ethics, and that sounds like the way the IPCC operate. These days, "peer review" in climate change science is nothing more than protecting the reviewer's reputation by accepting papers that support the reviewer's views.

Some 'peer reviewed' papers are not worth the paper they are written on. Neither are the claims that information is credible because it has passed 'peer' review (at least in the field of climate change science). Thankfully, other fields of science have not been corrupted as badly as climate change!!!

Only the hardcore denialistas are claiming that the rest of the world isn't taking any action on climate change.

Big three of US, China and India agree to cut carbon emissions

Durban climate change conference:

More than 190 countries managed to finally agree a new climate change deal amid chaotic scenes in the early hours of Sunday morning in Durban, South Africa.

The 'Durban Platform' will commit all countries to a global deal on cutting carbon emissions by 2015 although it will not come into force until 2020.

The UN marked it as an "historic breakthrough to save the planet", that makes up for the collapse of the last high profile attempt for a global deal in Copenhagen in 2009.

China may steal a march on Europe in fight against climate change.

Long accused of inaction, China has put plans in place to reverse its record on carbon emissions.

This one is back to actual global climate and the way the great climate oscillations affect the whole climate.

I posted earlier about the "Great Pacific Climate Shift" of 1977 / 78 although the paper below says 1976.
This paper is how the GPCS affected the weather and climate in Alaska from before the shift to afterwards.
The GPCS is of course now known as the PDO, The Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a great oscillation of the North Pacific, the causes and triggers for which are still unknown, that takes very roughly about 60 years to run the full cycle from the positive phase through the negative phase.

The cool, La Nina dominant phase [ The Pacific's ENSO was also only identified in 1969 although Walker of the Indian Meteorological Service in the very early 1900's after the terrible Indian drought of 1899 identified the differences in pressure between Darwin and Tahiti and had a suspicion that some sort of major episodic climate feature was causing the Indian droughts ] of the PDO lasted from about 1951 through to 1977. It was a period of quite high and in some years extremely high rainfall in SE Australia and across Australia generally.

In around 1977 / 78 the PDO again shifted in the form of the later named Great Pacific Climate Shift, into the warmer and for Australia much drier phase which led to higher temperatures and more dry years and droughts and a predominance of El Ninos in the equatorial Pacific.

And then following the extra ordinarily strong El Nino of 2008 the PDO again started to switch back to the negative cool phase . This shift took until about 2006 to complete the change and we have already have seen the effects in the very strong La Nina of 2010.

So it is interesting to see from the following paper, the effect that the shift in the PDO has on Alaska's weather and climate. Alaska being just north of the main epicenter of the PDO's most visible SST changes in the northern Pacific.
The other point to remember here is that the Polar Amplification so beloved of the warmists as it dramatically amplifies the global warming effects in the Arctic also acts as an amplifier to the cooling effects of the negative phase of the PDO so Alaska really gets snow and low temperatures during a Neg PDO that seems right out of line with the effects across the rest of the world's climate.
And due to this Polar Amplification effect which works both ways during a warming phase as well as the cooling phase we will probably see a rapid build up in Arctic sea ice over the next decade.
[ Tisdale on Polar Amplification ]

After all that the 2004 paper I referred to.

The Significance of the 1976 Pacific Climate Shift in the Climatology of Alaska
Abstract


Just a final comment;
Bill Illis very smartly corrected Ceebee's post of a few days ago on how, according to a warmist source, the snow and ice were supposedly diminishing in Alaska.
Bill provided a number of examples of the most extreme snow falls, the highest snow falls for some 60 years across Alaska and this paper tells us why, with the PDO now negative, this has happened.
History and climate repeating itself!

And finally ' THE BIG EL NIÑO THAT NOBODY SAW [ 1918 ]

CeeBee, if you had followed the Durban conference you would have seen the almost universal agreement that the Durban conference was a complete failure.
In fact more than a failure. It was more of an inept political wreck than anything else.

Any supposed agreement that came out of Durban either had very deep qualifications by the countries, [ spelled out by the Chinese in diplomatic lingo, who also sank Copenhagen in the final half hour ] that agreed to put their name to any agreement or as was generally agreed by all and sundry not directly involved, was mostly just face saving by the major environmental outfits and global warming pushers to try and salvage some "face" from the wreckage.

As I said, watch the political pea, not the hand waving when it comes to items like claims about any Durban agreement.

Like coming into force in 2020!
None of those politicals involved will be around by then so it's not their problem and those coming after them,. it won't be their problem either as they certainly won't own any of those so called agreements that say they will agree to something sometime by 2020. And that was about the sum of the agreements

'Gaia' Scientist Takes Back Climate Change Predictions

A scientist and author, James Lovelock, who once predicted doomsdaylike fallout from climate change has backtracked, calling his own projections and those of others "alarmist." Even so, climate scientists stress Lovelock's backtracking doesn't negate the reality of climate change, and in fact, his past predictions highlight some overall misunderstanding about planetary warming.

Lovelock, who introduced the Gaia Hypothesis describing life on Earth as a vast self-regulating organism some 40 years ago, also stated that since 2000, warming had not happened as expected.

http://www.livescience.com/19875-gaia-lovelock-climate-change.html