I would describe Professor Phil Jones as a hard working professor somewhat out of his depth when it comes to the painful glare of media intrusion. He has also suffered some vicious threats and media attacks. All very unscientific.

And then there is the Quixotic Professor Linden, fiercely intelligent and yet:

Both with possible skeletons in their cupboards.

Quite honestly Martin one gets feed up with all these videos around. ...

And that is one that you're too fed up to bother viewing to clear some of the FUD? Looks like the FUD-slingers have won their game of deceit and swindle, to the great cost of us all.

The FUD should be seen for what it is and also beg the question why there is so much FUD being thrown around... This is obviously too important a subject for there not to be comment on... Why?... Indeed why such vicious attacks in the world of science?


Meanwhile, the science remains the same and consistent and more than accurate enough to demonstrate world changing consequences.


Still our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

I would describe Professor Phil Jones as a hard working professor somewhat out of his depth when it comes to the painful glare of media intrusion. He has also suffered some vicious threats and media attacks. All very unscientific.

And then there is the Quixotic Professor Linden, fiercely intelligent and yet:

Both with possible skeletons in their cupboards.

Quite honestly Martin one gets feed up with all these videos around. ...

And that is one that you're too fed up to bother viewing to clear some of the FUD? Looks like the FUD-slingers have won their game of deceit and swindle, to the great cost of us all.

The FUD should be seen for what it is and also beg the question why there is so much FUD being thrown around... This is obviously too important a subject for there not to be comment on... Why?... Indeed why such vicious attacks in the world of science?


Meanwhile, the science remains the same and consistent and more than accurate enough to demonstrate world changing consequences.


Still our only one planet,
Martin

Martin, yes, I watched that video. You are correct that a lot of FUD is being thrown around on the subject of AGW. However, you are mistaken as to which side of the debate is throwing it. It is the Warmists that are throwing around all of the 'ZOMG!! We are all gonna die!!!!!!!' FUD. That video was an incomplete history of the question, only using a very few sources, with over half the almost hour long video nothing but Ad Hominem.

The science is not settled on the subject. There is no scientific consensus on the validity of the various AGW theories.

Over 31000 US scientists, including over 9000 with relevant PhD's have signed a petition against AGW. If anything, the consensus is against AGW. How many scientists support AGW? A few hundred?

Some of the most respected scientists in the world have called things into question re: AGW.

Freeman Dyson, for instance. He is Professor Emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society. In a 2011 email exchange with a journalist, he said:

... the computer models are very good at solving the equations of fluid dynamics but very bad at describing the real world. The real world is full of things like clouds and vegetation and soil and dust which the models describe very poorly. ... the climate of the earth is an immensely complicated system and nobody is close to understanding it.

(source This article).

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences has made his views clear in several newspaper articles:

We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 °C higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of CO2 have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to CO2 or to forecast what the climate will be in the future.

(source: The Press Gets It Wrong Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty. Lindzen, Richard Opinion Journal (The Wall Street Journal) June 2001) also (http://eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/OpEds/LindzenWSJ.pdf)

and

"There has been no question whatsoever that CO2 is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas – albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in CO2 should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed."

(source: The Wall Street Journal, June 26, 2006, Page A14)

Also:

The IPCC's Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages. It is, of course, impossible to accurately summarize the 1,000-page assessment in just 20 pages; at the very least, nuances and caveats have to be omitted. However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

(source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html )

You want more?

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Keeping our eyes on the figures and hence how governments respond
to them in actively reducing world CO2 will tell us if we're heading
for genuine danger or not. Assuming of course that governments do know
fact from fiction? If CO2 levels continue to show a rise, year on year,
then I'm going to be highly suspicious of the lot of them.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Keeping our eyes on the figures and hence how governments respond
to them in actively reducing world CO2 will tell us if we're heading
for genuine danger or not. Assuming of course that governments do know
fact from fiction? If CO2 levels continue to show a rise, year on year,
then I'm going to be highly suspicious of the lot of them.

Ok, let me try a back-of-the-envelope calculation along these lines.

The latest data from NOAA Mauna Loa (Nov 2011) is 390.2 ppm.

The latest emission data is from 2009. Total world emission 30313.248 million metric tons CO2.

The NOAA Mauna Loa figure for Dec 2009 is 387.27 ppm.
The NOAA Mauna Loa figure for Dec 2008 is 385.56 ppm.

The Atmospheric half life for CO2 is estimated to be on the order of 100 years. For the sake of simplicity (to avoid grinding out some diff. eq. -- I have a ripping bad headache at the moment induced by my kids) lets assume a linear relationship.

100 years for half of it = 0.5% per year.

(387.27 - 385.56) / 2 + 385.56 = 386.42 ppm average.

0.5% of 386.42 ppm is about 1.93 ppm. So the increase in 2009 from the 30313.248 million metric tons of emissions that year was really (387.27 - 385.56) + 1.93 = 3.64 ppm.

30313.248 million tons / 3.64 ppm = 8327.8 million tons / ppm. That is, for every 8327.8 tons emitted, the CO2 in the air goes up 1 ppm.

(8327.6 million tons / ppm) * 1.93 ppm = 16072.68 million tons of emissions.

That is, at the 2008 - 2009 levels, an emission of 16072.68 million tons of CO2 would have produced approximately a steady state. It would be slightly higher for the current levels.

16072.68 million tons of CO2 / 30313.248 million tons of CO2 = 53%.

We would have had to reduce CO2 emissions in 2009 to a level of 53% of the actual emissions that year to have just held the atmospheric concentration of CO2 the same, let alone decreased it... For entirely zero emissions of CO2 during 2009, it would have only fell around 0.5% or 1.93 ppm.

Now I have made a LOT of assumptions and simplifications in this calculation, many of which may not be entirely warranted. But, it at least illustrates the nature of the problem.



Just how low are you wanting the CO2 level to drop? The pre-industrial 280 ppm?

That would take about 27.7 years of ZERO emissions, assuming my figures are right. At a more reasonable level of 50% of steady state emissions (16072.68 million metric tons / 2 = 8036.34 million metric tons / year) it would take 55.4 years to return to the pre-industrial level. Do you really think we could hold CO2 emissions down to a figure of 26.5% of current levels for the over 55 years necessary to restore things? If the warmists are correct, it may already be too late regardless due to various disasters that even now may be underway (massive CH4 release from frozen deposits for instance). Do you think that everyone in the world would agree to cutting their individual energy usage by almost 75% from today's usage for the forseeable future when it might not even do any good or even be necessary?

The politicians would never agree to this... The electorate would have their heads on pikes.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

And no doubt, MajorKong, governments must know all this too.
So are they genuinely worried about us all killing off this planet.
If they were we would have seen serious measures carried out to try
and halt any further increases in man made CO2. No serious measures
have been forthcoming...a bit of a quandary here.

Killing-off the planet is not what could happen, just possibly
killing off man only. We have had up to between 5000 to 7000ppm
of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past. Could this be a reason why
prehistoric animals were so large in size?...did they have a higher
concentration of atmospheric CO2 back then?

No doubt though, any excess CO2 in our atmosphere mother Earth will
put it to good use, one way or the other. Will we still be around
to witness her adaptation to higher CO2 levels...I bet we are.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

+1

Warmist's refuse to see what they call for.

---

I believe water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and that kind of nullifies the really low amount of CO2 and other things in the air. I don't think we have as much control over climate change as we'd like to believe.
I agree it's a more natural process that might have happened anyway.
Still though that's no excuse to continue polluting our streams.

I believe water vapor is a greenhouse gas, and that kind of nullifies the really low amount of CO2 and other things in the air. I don't think we have as much control over climate change as we'd like to believe.
I agree it's a more natural process that might have happened anyway.
Still though that's no excuse to continue polluting our streams.

I agree with you Sarah we don't have as much control over our climate as
some people seem to indicate that we do. I've just spent several days
trawling over meteorology data covering the UK going back as far as
the 1680's. It's there for all to see the gradual increase in natural warming
enveloping the UK.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

<snip for space reasons, read the entire article at the above link>

If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.

Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.

Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

So...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

No Need to Panic About Global Warming
There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.

Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

... In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"

In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

[...]

Claude Allegre, former director ...

Curious as to why that splash from Claude at this time in an anonymous opinion piece in a newspaper...

Even his quote of the APS controversy weakens his frivolous claims...

Compare with greatly more respected articles:


Claude Allègre Controversies

Allègre is a climate change denier who believes that the causes of climate change are unknown. ...


Claude Allègre: The Climate Imposter

... The same phenomena appears to govern any number of publications that conclude that climate science is all a fraud – at some point, an impossible calculation is performed and from then on, anything (and everything) can be proven. Critical thinking appears to vanish.

The latest example is that of Claude Allègre – whose recent book “The climate imposture” would have you believe at least six impossible things before breakfast and a great many more before dinner. This is notable because Allègre is one of the most eminent figures in science communication in France...

... One of the more egregious examples of blatant making stuff up was covered by Science last week (following on from a post by Huet who revealed that Allègre had hand-drawn a continuation of tree-ring data from Hakan Grudd to show cooling over the 21st Century – something of course that no trees could possibly show (at least yet!)...

... [According to Allègre:] No-one is honest, every result is fraudulent (excepting of course, Allègre’s ‘true curves’), no-one is without an agenda (except Allègre of course, and possibly Michael Crichton) and any scientist espousing the mainstream view or journalist questioning him is a Stalinist. Any contradiction of his arguments is simply proof that you are part of the conspiracy. It is this error that is the equivalent of ‘dividing by zero’ – once you have convinced yourself that only your own opinion matters, you can prove absolutely anything to your own satisfaction – but, unfortunately, to no-one else’s.


How long do greenhouse gases stay in the air?

... The air contains a mix of invisible greenhouse gases, each of which affects the climate over a different timescale. ...



More comment when I have time to re-engage the strange views of the deniers...

Still our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

So Martin,

Your only response to the issues the article raises is an ad hominem attack on the first name on the list of scientists and engineers that signed it? What of the other 15? Are they all as loony as you claim the first one is?

Is his name first because he wrote it? Or is his name first because the list is alphabetical? I don't know which one(s) of them wrote it. But they all signed it.

How about a discussion of the issues raised in the article, leaving out any ad-hom on the people that signed it?

Major, the facts were there for all to see in those charts you posted
back several months ago. Most of these scientist's involved in global
warming research would have better served mankind had they spent all
these years researching into alternative energy sources instead.
Sources of energy that did not involve the burning of fossil fuels
or the planting and processing or various types of vegetation.
The latter especially as this has caused a reduction in global food
production, something that you have touched on in a previous post.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

So Martin,

Your only response to the issues the article raises is an ad hominem attack on the first name on the list of scientists and engineers that signed it? What of the other 15? Are they all as loony as you claim the first one is?

Not at all, just highlighting the stance that he takes to alert others to his possible bias.

Do you not think it 'curious' that he has to publish in a newspaper rather than a respected scientific journal?

Also what of the multiple thousands of scientists who do consider man-made global warming to be real? What of the measured increase of CO2 concentration in our atmosphere? What of the known and directly measured physical effects of CO2 upon which we depend? But also what of the rapid change wrought from too great an increase?

Care to give a useful comment on those linked articles from me?

Thought not... They don't fit your story and so are to be discarded along with reality?

How about a discussion of the issues raised in the article, leaving out any ad-hom on the people that signed it?

There will be comment enough when others debunk the continued FUD.

More interesting is why such an opinion piece now? Perhaps to deflect from the BP Gulf oil spill that is back in the news for the moment?...


Still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... years researching into alternative energy sources instead.
Sources of energy that did not involve the burning of fossil fuels
or the planting and processing or various types of vegetation. ...

So why hasn't that been done?

And why did President Bush go for an unexpected route to push for one particular biofuel crop?...


Unfortunately Money, Politics, and Money paying for lobbying Politics seem to be dangerously in the way of reality still...

I guess those profiting have no cares for after they have retired...


All still our only one world,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

... Do you not think it 'curious' that he has to publish in a newspaper rather than a respected scientific journal? ...

... There will be comment enough when others debunk the continued FUD. ...

More interesting is why such an opinion piece now? Perhaps to deflect from the BP Gulf oil spill that is back in the news for the moment?...

And so it begins, and my guess on that one was wrong...


Scientists unite to challenge global warming

... TIM FLANNERY: The essence of their argument is that if you are an elected politician, you don't need to worry about acting on climate change and it is not surprising again to see that coming out in the middle of a Republican race when there is a chance that one of the Republicans may decide that climate change doesn't need addressing. There has been no rethink on the science of climate change. There is broad public acceptance globally of the need for action.

You know it is only in Canada, the US and Australia that there is even a political debate really at all. ...


There's some excellent Climate Denial soundbites in there that are just far too slick not to be a setup. Oh, and the 'scientists' listed turn out to be retired or not even scientists at all (and easily bought?)... All intelligent people I'm sure, but why be swept up in this?

And the bit where I'm wrong?... Nothing to do with BP but merely a USA political game?


Still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And so it begins, ...

And so it runs...


SpaceShipOne man, Nobel boffins: DON'T PANIC on global warming

Row gets nasty – ghosts of Lysenko and McCarthy invoked

The debate over global warming flamed hotter over the weekend, as a group of eminent scientists and engineers – including Burt Rutan, the famous designer of the X-prize-winning suborbital rocketplane SpaceShipOne – signed an open letter stating that the dangers of climate change are being deliberately exaggerated.

The statement, which was published in the Wall Street Journal, ran under the Hitchhikers'-esque headline "No Need To Panic About Global Warming", and was addressed to future political candidates for high office. It says bluntly...

[...]

... The debate is plainly becoming unpleasantly polarised and extreme on both sides. As is common in such situations, people are starting to think of the children: Dr Gleick, for instance, has recently joined the board of the National Center for Science Education, an American non-profit which for many years has done sterling work defending the teaching of evolution in US science classrooms against creationist attempts to suppress it.

Depressingly for those not absolutely convinced of the warmist argument, the NCSE has now taken on an extra mission, for which it has brought Dr Gleick on board: "to defend and support the teaching of climate change". As far as Dr Gleick is concerned, doubting the case for immediate and serious action against carbon emissions is the same as being a creationist as well as a McCarthy-style witchfinder.


Note that Lewis Page is a renowned "Climate Sceptic", or at least enjoys the controversy of playing the journalistic part...


Meanwhile, much more seriously:


Ocean currents emerge as climate change hot-spots

As they warm, they shift

A global study that assesses the temperature change in ocean currents has made two findings – one surprising, the other less so. The unsurprising outcome is that as the Earth’s temperature rises, so does the temps in a collection of major ocean currents; the surprise is that those currents are warming faster than the globe as a whole. ...

... Moreover, the warming is also sending the currents “polewards”, meaning that species migrations already observed in Australia (in which many species are moving southwards at as much as a degree per year) are almost certain to happen on a global scale. ...

... The currents are important because on their thousands-of-kilometer journeys redistributing heat from equatorial regions to the mid-latitudes, they also release both heat and moisture into the atmosphere. ...

... Because the change is global, and because the various currents have warmed pretty much in step, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Michael McPhaden said the synchronized change in ocean circulation is “most likely [caused by] anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing."

The scale of the change, at two to three times global temperature rises, is one thing that surprised McPhaden, because “we did not think there was such a tight connection between ocean circulation on these small scales near the western boundaries.”

To try and account for natural climate variability, the researchers present a second analysis in which the change in the currents is presented in two periods: from 1900 to 1949, and from 1949 to 2008. ...


We're certainly cooking our own gooses for everyone.

Still our only one planet for everyone,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The debate over global warming flamed hotter over the weekend, as a group of eminent scientists and engineers – including Burt Rutan, the famous designer of the X-prize-winning suborbital rocketplane SpaceShipOne – signed an open letter stating that the dangers of climate change are being deliberately exaggerated.

Issues on global warming seem to have gone deathly quiet here over the other
side of the pond. Noticeable by it's absents at the moment, may have something
to do with what people perceive to be a more worrying issue.."The Resession"...
or what some observers wish to call, "The very-very big recession"?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Here's a little inconvenient physical evidence against various of the wild claims of the Climate Deniers:


Volcanic origin for Little Ice Age

The Little Ice Age was caused by the cooling effect of massive volcanic eruptions, and sustained by changes in Arctic ice cover, scientists conclude. ...

... They say a series of eruptions just before 1300 lowered Arctic temperatures enough for ice sheets to expand.

Writing in Geophysical Research Letters, they say this would have kept the Earth cool for centuries. ...

... The global dip in temperatures was less than 1C, but parts of Europe cooled more, particularly in winter, with the River Thames in London iced thickly enough to be traversable on foot. ...

... These tiny aerosol particles are known to cool the globe by reflecting solar energy back into space.

(Depiction of the 1683 Thames' frost fair (Getty Images) The Little Ice Age saw an increase in cold winters in parts of Europe, but a small global change)

"This is the first time that anyone has clearly identified the specific onset of the cold times marking the start of the Little Ice Age," said Dr Miller.

"We have also provided an understandable climate feedback system that explains how this cold period could be sustained for a long period of time." ...

...Aerosols from volcanic eruptions usually cool the climate for just a few years.

When the researchers plugged in the sequence of eruptions into a computer model of climate, they found that the short but intense burst of cooling was enough to initiate growth of summer ice sheets around the Arctic Ocean, as well as glaciers.

The extra ice in turn reflected more solar radiation back into space, and weakened the Atlantic ocean circulation commonly known as the Gulf Stream. ...


Also note that "Ultraviolet light shone on cold winter conundrum" adds to a part of the story of events. And all during the early days of Man's increase in CO2 output (the 'turning' point is usually seen to be some time since c1950).

So, note the real and physical feedback mechanisms.

And now we're seeing ever more ice melt to uncover more ocean to warming to greater warming... Amongst various effects.

Complicated but not too complicated to understand.



It's all a 'game' of balance of significance. Man's vast industrial output of CO2 has very definitely changed that balance towards rapid and destructive change...

Too late to change back? To misquote Winston Churchill - We enter a time of consequences.


Still our only one planet,
Martin

Blue Man Group on Global Warming

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

or what some observers wish to call, "The very-very big recession"?

Also known as the Double Dip.

I thought we were now into a triple dip ?

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.

Here's a little inconvenient physical evidence against various of the wild claims of the Climate Deniers:

Nothing new here ML, as I wrote some time back Constable noticed the
effects of these volcanic eruptions in the late 1600's and how the
evening skies became much redder in appearance. This as depicted in
many of his landscape paintings. Scientists today need to do a little
read-up on their history for they have not discovered anything new here
that was not already known about several hundred years ago.

So it appears that today's scientists have only just caught up with that
discovered by scientists several hundred years ago. So what hope does
one get in being able to rely on scientists understanding of what's causing
global warming today....very little.

---

The Kite Fliers

--------------------
Kite fliers: An imaginary club of solo members, those who don't yet
belong to a formal team so "fly their own kites" - as the saying goes.