[Stephen Wilde]

It's strange how things can develop.

To njp and others, thanks for the practice.


http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Ste...nd=ouk&tab=web

[SimonH]

I've never quite got to grips with the entire study of CO2 levels and their overall impact on temperature change. Every time I tried, the sheer complexity of the data, arguements and counter arguments have left me cold.

You've imparted a good deal of information in a fashion that doesn't require a Phd to understand your position. To many folks trying to be clever at the cost of putting easily digestable material on the table for us dummies.

Cheers.

[The Dude]

Very nice article Stephen.



I notice you (unsuprisingly) decided against being 'brusk' with the 'fools'.....

[andykn]

Originally Posted by SimonH

I've never quite got to grips with the entire study of CO2 levels and their overall impact on temperature change. Every time I tried, the sheer complexity of the data, arguements and counter arguments have left me cold.

You've imparted a good deal of information in a fashion that doesn't require a Phd to understand your position. To many folks trying to be clever at the cost of putting easily digestable material on the table for us dummies.

Cheers.

Its a shame the very first sentence is wrong:

It’s all very well doing what alarmists do which is to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are rising so in the absence of any other known cause it must be man made CO2 that is warming the planet.

Should say:

It’s all very well doing what alarmists do which is to say that Co2 is rising and temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate, so in the absence of any other known cause it must be man made CO2 that is warming the planet.

Otherwise you misrepresent the IPCCs position entirely. Of course, it does make it easier to refute, if you just make it up.

That approach ignores both the differing scale of the possible influencing factors and the clear historical relationship between cooler climates and periods of a less active sun.

It does indeed. But it's not the IPCC approach. Its one you've invented for the purposes of refuting it. The IPCC's approach is that, even taking into account natural solar variability, underlying temperatures are still rising.

The presence of the sun must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than the greenhouse characteristics of CO2 on it’s own.

Quite correct. The sun on its own would make the planet approx 260 degrees hotter than it would be without it. The CO2 keeps in more of that sun, accounting for approx another 30 degrees. The influence of the extra CO2 is small but significant and clearly measurable against the background of normal solar variability.

There are other variabilites that have been accounted for too:

The current La Niña event, which started in third quarter of 2007, is a “climate anomaly” is predicted to bring a slight cooling in global temperatures against the long-term trend for global warming.

That quote is from the Royal Meteorological Society website.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by andykn

Its a shame the very first sentence is wrong:

Stephen is a published climate theorist, whereas you're a simple IT geek ( Simply an IT geek? - curse my poor English skills).

get over it. go play with JohnExPat (he used to be a lady?) in the other forum you both helped njp destroy.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Stephen is a published climate theorist,

hahahahaha.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by andykn

hahahahaha.

OK, you've got me beaten all ends up with that one.




It is actually quite funny though isn't it, all things considered.

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

It's strange how things can develop.

To njp and others, thanks for the practice.


http://search.orange.co.uk/all?q=Ste...nd=ouk&tab=web

[SimonH]

Originally Posted by andykn

Its a shame the very first sentence is wrong:

My point is that I enjoyed Stephens writing style which ensured I was actually able to make it to the end of an article on CO2 without feeling the need to go grab a quick snooze.

I also made the point that it made Stephen's position clear, which is to say, I may not agree with everything in the article but I have been given some educational text that was easy to understand on his position and that of many others.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by SimonH

My point is that I enjoyed Stephens writing style which ensured I was actually able to make it to the end of an article on CO2 without feeling the need to go grab a quick snooze.

Perhaps there is a job for him at the BBC?
Attention grabbing style, nuts to the content?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Perhaps there is a job for him at the BBC?
Attention grabbing style, nuts to the content?

A bit sour, old chap.

I think it's all a bit funny and not to be taken too seriously.

That said, I have had an email from Fred Singer asking to meet me at a conference in London but I cannot due to other commitments.

There do seem to be different opinions to yours as regards the quality of the content.

[nickbat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

A bit sour, old chap.

I think it's all a bit funny and not to be taken too seriously.

That said, I have had an email from Fred Singer asking to meet me at a conference in London but I cannot due to other commitments.

There do seem to be different opinions to yours as regards the quality of the content.

Very well done, Stephen! I have bookmarked that page and will read it thoroughly at a sensible hour of the day!

I always suspected that your opinions were based on real knowledge of climate rather than realclimate (LOL!).

Fred Singer is a very able chap and it's a shame you can't meet.

I have never left this forum as such, but merely lurk to ensure that the alarmists are still as rude and dismissive of counter opinion as ever. I am rarely disappointed!

Once again, well done!

[andykn]

Originally Posted by The Dude

OK, you've got me beaten all ends up with that one.

It is actually quite funny though isn't it, all things considered.

The thing is, a blog does not count as "published" and Stephon is a Lawyer, not a climate scientist.

I don't think that Fellowship of the Royal Society of Meteorology counts towards crdibility when one is opposed to the views of that society.

I will graciously allow Stephen his own opinions but I think it mendacious of him to misrepresent the case for climate change just so he can look good by demolishing his own fake argument.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

The thing is, a blog does not count as "published" and Stephon is a Lawyer, not a climate scientist.

I don't think that Fellowship of the Royal Society of Meteorology counts towards crdibility when one is opposed to the views of that society.

I will graciously allow Stephen his own opinions but I think it mendacious of him to misrepresent the case for climate change just so he can look good by demolishing his own fake argument.

OOOh, cutting !!!

I don't think I've misrepresented anything. Many alarmists do not rely on the rate of warming as having been unprecedented because that is impossible to demonstrate with such a short period of thermometer records.

The Fellowship represents a lifetime's interest and study albeit on an amateur basis and that does lend credibility. There is no obligation on individual members to agree with any 'official' line. In fact if you read what the Society says there are plenty of caveats and qualifications. The Society is not a dictatorial Union, it is a voluntary group of very diverse individuals with very diverse opinions.

A blog is as much a publication as any other form of publicly disseminated information and opinion. I think you just mean that it does not rank as highly as a peer reviewed research paper but I can live with that.

When it comes to interpreting climate information there are no truly reliable experts. An informed amateur is as likely to achieve a relevant insight as a professional. It was always thus with less developed sciences.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Stephen is a published climate theorist, whereas you're a simple IT geek ( Simply an IT geek? - curse my poor English skills).

get over it. go play with JohnExPat (he used to be a lady?) in the other forum you both helped njp destroy.

I like the 'climate theorist' tag because it exactly represents what I am doing.

I'll use it as necessary.

Many thanks.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

OOOh, cutting !!!

Why thankyou.

I don't think I've misrepresented anything. Many alarmists do not rely on the rate of warming as having been unprecedented because that is impossible to demonstrate with such a short period of thermometer records.

You are one of the biggest alarmists on here. You make alarmist claims then attempt to refute them. It's not the alarmists on either side I am concerned with, it's the experts who say that climate change is happening outside of normal solar variability that I listen to.

The Fellowship represents a lifetime's interest and study albeit on an amateur basis and that does lend credibility. There is no obligation on individual members to agree with any 'official' line. In fact if you read what the Society says there are plenty of caveats and qualifications. The Society is not a dictatorial Union, it is a voluntary group of very diverse individuals with very diverse opinions.

I wasn't suggesting that you should be reported for bringing the sociaety into disrepute. I'm just not sure how valid that credibility is when opposing the views of the society conferring the credibilty. The IPCC report has plenty of caveats and qualifications.

It's not the same as opposition, like suggesting that the recent unprecedented rise is caused by natural solar variability. And where is your supporting evidence, like a correlation between solar activity and global temps over the last 150 years?

A blog is as much a publication as any other form of publicly disseminated information and opinion. I think you just mean that it does not rank as highly as a peer reviewed research paper but I can live with that.

I disagree. I could put anything I like on my blog, doesn't really make me a published author.

When it comes to interpreting climate information there are no truly reliable experts. An informed amateur is as likely to achieve a relevant insight as a professional. It was always thus with less developed sciences.

I just disagree. Especially as you continually misrepresent the evidence and arguments for climate change.

[johntheexpat]

So, is the potential cooling over the next 10 years going to be due to:
The sun going through a period of reduced activity (as per your blog)
Or
The deep ocean currents going through a periodical change in circulation with the cold water rising and thus cooling the atmosphere (as per your thread in GC)?

It must be nice to be able to chop and change your argument as the mood takes you, a privelege that it not available to the IPCC.

[andykn]

And to go back to the second sentence of the original article:

That approach ignores both the differing scale of the possible influencing factors and the clear historical relationship between cooler climates and periods of a less active sun.

Sadly no evidence presented to support this. Difficult to do since the "solar cycle" is 11 years, recent temperatures have been rising much longer than this.

For a refutation of this assertion by real scientists, see:

http://publishing.royalsociety.org/m...pa20071880.pdf

For Stevens other assertions listed conveniently see:

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229

[johntheexpat]

Going back to the OP, why do we have a thread about the fact that someone wrote a blog?
I am a guest writer and regular contributor to my wife's blog, but I don't start a thread every time I do it.
Johntheexpat goes global regularly. So what?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

So, is the potential cooling over the next 10 years going to be due to:
The sun going through a period of reduced activity (as per your blog)
Or
The deep ocean currents going through a periodical change in circulation with the cold water rising and thus cooling the atmosphere (as per your thread in GC)?

It must be nice to be able to chop and change your argument as the mood takes you, a privelege that it not available to the IPCC.

Both, with the sun as the primary driver.

As with all these issues the passage of time will resove matters.

As I've said many times before the test will be whether global warming can continue in the face of a less active sun and/ or a negative PDO.

If it does then CO2 wins. If it does not then solar wins. It should also be possible to assess more accurately the relative contributions of each.

This opportunity has not arisen before so the science is most certainly not settled.

All the pro AGW articles and papers you have referred to have yet to be tested under the global conditions which are anticipated over the next couple of decades. It was unwise of all those superior beings to rush into print while the relevant natural processes could be expected to produce the same temperature trend as an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Responsible scientists would reserve their judgement until the relevant natural processes could be expected to produce an opposite trend. That time is now here and so far temperatures are following the other natural processes rather than the CO2 trend.

No need to shoot the messenger.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Going back to the OP, why do we have a thread about the fact that someone wrote a blog?
I am a guest writer and regular contributor to my wife's blog, but I don't start a thread every time I do it.
Johntheexpat goes global regularly. So what?

Published by a third party is different from doing it yourself and your wife's blog doesn't get picked up by other sites does it?

Your wife's efforts are publishing but it is what is known as 'vanity' publishing.

Methinks you are desperately thrashing about to deny that which you dislike.

A couple more years with declining global temps and you will have to wear the denialist hat.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Published by a third party is different from doing it yourself and your wife's blog doesn't get picked up by other sites does it?

Yes.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

Yes.

Sounds interesting. Link please.

I won't deny your wife's published status if you don't deny mine.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Both, with the sun as the primary driver.

As with all these issues the passage of time will resove matters.

1/ As the paper I linked to explained, it already has. We have had three solar activity cycles over the last 33 years and temps have risen throughout.
2/ We don't have time to wait for another solar cycle.

As I've said many times before the test will be whether global warming can continue in the face of a less active sun and/ or a negative PDO.

It already has for the last two solar cycles, how many do you want?

If it does then CO2 wins. If it does not then solar wins. It should also be possible to assess more accurately the relative contributions of each.

It is already possible to asses accurately the relative contributions of each. Its been done in the paper I linked to. CO2 wins.

This opportunity has not arisen before so the science is most certainly not settled.

It has and it is.

All the pro AGW articles and papers you have referred to have yet to be tested under the global conditions which are anticipated over the next couple of decades. It was unwise of all those superior beings to rush into print while the relevant natural processes could be expected to produce the same temperature trend as an enhanced greenhouse effect.

Responsible scientists would reserve their judgement until the relevant natural processes could be expected to produce an opposite trend. That time is now here and so far temperatures are following the other natural processes rather than the CO2 trend.

No need to shoot the messenger.

There is when he tries to use fellowship of a society to lend credence to his unsubstantiated opinions when those opinions are in opposition to those of said society.

It is also the message I have shot down.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Sounds interesting. Link please.

No.
I am not going to get into a 'my blog is better than your blog' scenario. It is too subjective to serve any purpose. You will have to take as given, without links (which is often the way 'facts' are presented here). The bottom line is that people publish blogs which get picked up by others. It's the internet, these things happen.

Secondly, there are enough people hanging around on the edges of this particular forum who would undoubtedly take pleasure in visiting an innocent website and 'getting up to mischief' solely on the pretext that it is associated with YT. So, to protect the innocent, no link. I am sure you understand.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

Published by a third party is different from doing it yourself and your wife's blog doesn't get picked up by other sites does it?

So if I got published on Johntheexpat's wife's blog I'd be a published author?

[andykn]

And let's turn our critical attention to sentence 4:

At most the greenhouse effect can only be marginal though some have tried to talk it up by asserting that the planet would be very much colder without a greenhouse effect, which is correct, but avoids the issue of the rather small proportion of the overall greenhouse effect provided by CO2 and the even smaller proportion provided by man.

I believe the greenhouse effect is about 30 degrees, provided by around 300 parts per million (ppm)(0.3%) of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels are now rising towards 400 ppm.

Adding up the amount of CO2 we know man produces accounts for the rise in CO2 (and more - the "missing CO2" is a conundrum).

There may be other sources and sinks (absorbers) of CO2, but they don't yet help much with the fundamental facts:

1/ CO2 is, as Stephen says, a "greenhouse gas"
2/ We are producing CO2
3/ CO2 in the atmosphere is rising.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

It already has for the last two solar cycles, how many do you want?

A weak solar cycle 20 coincided with the cooling up to 1975.

Strong solar cycles 21 and 22 coincided with the warming trend up to 1998.

Average intensity cycle 23 led to a stall in warming and as cycle 24 has been dealayed the planet has begun to cool.

What part of that do you not understand ?

I am content to remain sceptical rather than sure either way but your level of confidence is wholly unreasonable.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

So if I got published on Johntheexpat's wife's blog I'd be a published author?

Of course.

The fact of being published confers no special status hence my comment that it should not be taken too seriously.

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by andykn

I believe the greenhouse effect is about 30 degrees, provided by around 300 parts per million (ppm)(0.3%) of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 levels are now rising towards 400 ppm.

That's where you are going wrong. CO2 is itself only a tiny proportion of greenhouse gases the main one of which is water vapour and the man made portion of the CO2 is only a tiny proportion of the CO2 present naturally.

The IPCC projections rely on CO2 provoking a large feedback in the form of extra water vapour which is supposed to produce the main warming effect. Unfortunately their models ignore all potential dampening effects such as increased convection, increased cloudiness and increased rainfall.

THey also falsely attribute an unreasonable portion of the observed increase to man by ignoring the fact that warmer oceans will outgas CO2 and by virtue of man made CO2 being diffused widely it will continue to increase as a proportion of the total because the carbon cycle reabsorbs natural and man made CO2 equally and does not strip out the man made portion in priority.

I'm afraid that there is less and less confidence in the models used by the IPCC as time passes.

You've now made your point ad nauseam and I've made mine. Please change the record.