quote:Some climate change "sceptics" claim that this process, rather than the burning of fossil fuels, can explain much of the Earth's recent rise in temperature.
Climate scientists point out that there is evidence to show that the sustained rise in global temperatures over the past 15 years cannot be explained by cosmic ray activity. They also point to a vast body of research pointing to rising carbon dioxide (CO2) levels to be the cause. According to Professor Lockwood, it is very unlikely that variations in cosmic rays have played a significant role in recent warming.
quote:In the wake of the kerfuffle concerning George Will’s column on sea ice in the Washington Post, Lorne Gunter has upped the ante in the Canadian daily newspaper National Post with a particularly error-ridden and nonsensical column on a favourite theme — the supposed intellectual dishonesty of climate scientists who refuse to accept the fact of global cooling.
A key issue in the Will case was the apparent failure of fact checkers and editors to catch what should have been obvious errors. Like Will, Gunter appears to lean on tidbits from such reliable sources as U.S. senator James Inhofe’s climate disinformation clearing house (run by aide Marc Morano), or blogs like Stephen Mcintyre’s Climateaudit.org or Anthony Watt’s Wattsupwiththat.com. Gunter then proceeds to somehow mangle even those dubious assertions.
Judging by this latest column, any checking appears designed to ensure that no actual facts actually appear. If so, the fact checkers have done a particularly outstanding job.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
...my hypothesis being a fast emerging pre-flood like greenhouse canopy over the planet...
Good lord, buzsaw, not this again.
Let's start simple this time. Do you understand how fluid mechanics work? When engineers measure the water pressure at certain depth, what is the primary variable that directly affects the pressure? Please answer this question and you will see how silly the idea of a water canopy over the planet is.
So does this have anything to do with global warming?
That depends on whether you ask the scientist who did the actual research or the journalist whose research skills fall short of being able to find out whether journalists are writing about the subject that he (a journalist) is writing about.
As a result of this thread I started getting e-mails from someone who I thought made a great point.
Regardless of how much or how little man is contributing to the problem, global warming is happening.
With my own short sightedness I've understood the problem as being a question of how we reduce our emissions and by how much. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report.
With that in mind should we not then say that global warming is happening, regardless of how much we do on the emissions side, and so we should be putting a large focus on how we as a global community are going to deal with that reality?
I’m sure there is some of this already going on but frankly I don’t hear anything about it. For example, how would countries like Holland deal with a rise of sea level? I know that a good chunk of the populated world would be under water. How about food supplies etc.? Is anything actually being done or even talked about much? I have heard people outlining the problem but I can’t recall any solutions.
I don't think there is any one plan. There are a number of things being done, not enough though.
There are plenty of things people do as individuals, but as a global issue there seems do be a divide on whether it is real or not.
3rd world countries cannot afford to make many of the improvements to their infrastructure without help/money from other nations. The practices of slash and burn agriculture is how many people live in these nations, I would guess a large portion of the world has no idea about global warming.
Another thing to consider is what will happen to Europe when the gulf steam stops. Some models show that happening as more ice melts and salinity and temperature levels get out of wack. Not only will that cause Europe to get colder, it will also probably be disastrous to our N Atlantic fisheries. Just something else to think about.
We have a mess on our hands with no clear cut solutions.
"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson
Agriculture depends to a great extent on consistent long term weather patterns.
Will the temperatures be correct for the crops grown?
When should crops be planted and harvested?
Will there be sufficient water supply available for irrigation?
If weather driven water supply patterns change what will be needed to capture, hold and then distribute the water to where it is needed, when it is needed, in the quantities needed?
How long will it take from planning to completion to build new dams?
New pipelines?
New distribution infrastructure?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
All of this directly effects the production of livestock also. Water could be the cause of wars, it is already a source of conflict between nations.
"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten." Hunter S. Thompson
Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report.
The CERN report is not inconsistent with that conclusion, but the CERN report isn't any kind of strong support support for the conclusion either.
As I understand from reading discussions on the net, the CERN report suggests a possible mechanism by which the sun can affect galactic cosmic radiation on earth which in turn affects cloud formation.
But there is then the problem that there is no historical evidence of any relationship between galactic cosmic radiation and global climate change, while there is considerable evidence of a correlation between global temperatures and greenhouse gas concentrations.
In other words, the CERN report is way too little to get one's hopes up that man cannot have a substantial effect on reducing or delaying global warming. And it certainly is ridiculous to suggest that CERN is the group doing climate science rather than climate politics.
Unfortunately, when it comes to global climate change, reality does seem to have a well known of liberal bias.
Regardless of how much or how little man is contributing to the problem, global warming is happening.
With my own short sightedness I've understood the problem as being a question of how we reduce our emissions and by how much. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be considering that but I believe it is the case that if we reduced our emissions by 100% global warming would still continue which I think is consistent with that CERN report.
Hi, GDR.
I haven't read the CERN report in full, but I presume it speaks to continued global warming in a way that mirrors the scientific consensus.
Yes, even if we stop all emissions, global warming will continue, because the increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have not yet had their full effect. If we reduce our contributions to that burden, global warming will continue to some specific, unknown point, stop and, one hopes, reverse.
If we do not reduce emissions, then global warming will continue longer and to higher temperatures.
Think of it as the difference between the world ultimately being mighty unpleasant for a while vs. permanently uninhabitable.
Personally, I don't think the necessary changes will occur. The monied interests and the anti-science factions will block any coordinated global efforts. On the one hand, those blocking change for financial reasons won't be here to sustain any losses for their actions, and, on the other, the anti-science folks are perfectly content with the prospect of the world ending with fire this time.
I think we can prepare for global warming the same way were taught to prepare for a nuclear blast in the 1950s: huddle under a desk, cover our heads, and kiss our butts goodbye.
As I understand from reading discussions on the net, the CERN report suggests a possible mechanism by which the sun can affect galactic cosmic radiation on earth which in turn affects cloud formation.
Well, not entirely. At least, not what I gather from the net. At least, the report doesn't draw any conclusions about cloud formation. What they tested for was if cosmic rays could nucleate small particles. They found this to be the case, yet they never tested if these nucleated particles would lead to cloud formation. So, yes on the nucleation, no on the cloud formation. At least, not from this report.
Here's a video on it, also criticising the media's/bloggers handling of this news, and science news in general:
™ Version 4.2
(1)
