Comments on: Cosmic Rays, Clouds and Climate (Part 2)

By: Wondering Aloud

Wondering Aloud — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:38:50 +0000

There is considerable research on the past effect of CO2 on climate. It clearly shows that as climate warms it results in increased CO2 levels. This is likely Lavosier’s principle in action. This must be what RW refers to, there is a clear link temp increase somehow leads to carbon dioxide increase.

We had a hypothesis that the CO2 caused the warming but so far the historic data doesn’t support this. In fact it seems to violate causality.

Those of us who have spent our careers in physics have a lot of doubt about your assumption that physics somehow magically supports your position.

By: gordo

gordo — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 10:30:23 +0000

Even before the results are announced by Jasper Kirkby it is possible to make a weather forecast. Sunspots are fewest since 1954, which produced three La Nina years and the huge Maitland floods of 1955.
That is where we are heading, the next three years will be very damp in south-east Australia. Check out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and its impact on our climate.

The rumor going the rounds is that this northern hemisphere winter will be severe and if solar cycle 24 doesn’t get underway before April next year then the Xmas of 2009 should see the Thames freeze over at London Bridge.

By: RW

RW — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 12:34:58 +0000

Steve Schapel – no need to guess or speculate about what Jennifer was referring to – it was very clear in the original post: “I know of no equivalent research effort looking at establishing a causal link between carbon dioxide and climate.“. To believe such a statement, you have to believe that CO2 is not known to be a greenhouse gas.

Louis Hissink – I presume you consider Jennifer and I to be scientific illiterates? – if the cap fits, wear it. I will say nothing about Jennifer but in your case, you could probably miss out the word ’scientific’. It does take a special talent to cut and paste nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons and then say No mention of CO2.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 22:09:30 +0000

I presume you consider Jennifer and I to be scientific illiterates?

We are not denying or unaware of decades of research in climate at all, we take, as Steve Schapelle, issue with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

The entry for Tyndall in Wikipedia (a problematical reference)

“Though perhaps initially wishing to understand how electromagnetism is able to act at a distance through the air, in the 1860s and 1870s Tyndall mostly studied air, and the earth’s atmosphere, and he produced a number of major scientific clarifications or discoveries about processes in the atmosphere:

Tyndall explained atmospheric heat in terms of the capacities of various gases to absorb or transmit radiant heat. He constructed the first ratio spectrophotometer which he used to measure the absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, hydrocarbons, etc. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature.”

No mention of CO2 and as Jennifer and I would point out, that is indeed our point, that water vapour is the dominant forcing.

I do note that it is “temperature of air” which Tyndall wroite about, not the earth’s temperature that the “Useful Idiots” seem to believe is the crucial temperature.

As for your homily advising us to read the scientific literature, I would regard hardly anything in Wikipedia (via Google) as having any merit though I am a little surprised William Connelly hasn’t edited Tyndall’s entry for current political correctness, and perhaps I speak too soon.

By: Steve Schapel

Steve Schapel — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:16:44 +0000

With all due respect, RW, you seem to be falling into the same confusion that a lot of carbophobic ideologues do. You appear to be talking about the so-called greenhouse effect. The existence of the greenhouse effect, and the mechanisms by which it operates, is one thing. The concept that increases in the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will result in catastrophic climate change, is another. Some people assume that one implies the other. It doesn’t. It is the second proposition, i.e. the AGW hypothesis, that I believe Jennifer and Louis were referring to.

Of course, proving the AGW hypothesis is very difficult, because it is patently false.

By: RW

RW — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:48:39 +0000

What am I blathering about? I’m trying to find out why you and Ms Marohasy are pretending to be unaware of the decades of research that has led to our current understanding of the Earth’s climate. I’ll ask the question one more time: do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?

Telling you to look up Tyndall is not science, it’s advice. If you choose not to follow that advice, that’s fine, your choice. But it is wise, when discussing science, to have read some of the literature.

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 21:33:42 +0000

RW: In science it is the proposer’, of an hypothesis, responsibility to provide the proof of their assertion. Demanding we search Google is a standard charlatan cop-out.

“Do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?”

What on earth you blathering about.

By: RW

RW — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:36:46 +0000

Have you ever heard of Google? You may find it rather useful in learning about Tyndall’s work.

The question remains unanswered: do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?

By: Louis Hissink

Louis Hissink — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 00:37:35 +0000

RW,

Supply evidence to support your point here, ie Tyndall’s work. Arhhenius proposed his hypothesis in 1906 so your ignorance might be the more staggering.

By: RW

RW — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:28:31 +0000

It has not been established at all as an empirical fact. – your ignorance is staggering. Tyndall did that in 1859.

What exactly do you hope to achieve by preposterously claiming that 150 years of research just never happened? Do you and Ms Marohasy genuinely believe that the notion of infrared absorption being a key factor in the energy balance of the atmosphere just came from nowhere?