The EU and Climate exchange

[webolife]

Yes to all of the above.
The fossils tell a consistent and persistent story that prior to the ice "epoch" the global climate was a greenhouse pole to pole. This means that the equator was indeed not exceedingly warmer and that the poles were also quite warm. What we can't tell for sure is whether polar fossil climates are evidence of in situ or transported biomes. If one accepts a continental drift scenario, as I do, then it makes total sense that these paleo-climates may have been relocated. I'm open to either possibility as plausible, but being a "drifter" I favor the option of relocation.

[Zyxzevn]

Experiment: Electrons in a Cloud Chamber show how a way of how clouds
and winds may form in the atmosphere.
Blasting a cloud chamber with electrons - Wayne Schmidt


On climage change
Part 1: Climate Change - SuspiciousObservers
Here SO explains that the used data is incomplete, because the organisations systematically
ignore certain data. Like electromagnetic activity of the sun, which can cause dramatic differences
as the above link shows.

[DangerousDann]

Having read a great many of these responses, I thank all of you, even the ones I consider completely blind to the reality of the changing planet I have lived on for 51 years. Even a single minded focused opinion is valuable to me. The one reality so many refuse to acknowledge is that light containing infra-red spectrum , no matter what the source, will enable the co2 molecule to do what it does whether you believe it or not ( having tested it myself). And past ice cores for nearly 1 million years clearly shows a period of stability with no greater than 280 ppm and no less than 180 ppm during ice ages. Its a well knows fact that cold climates store co2 more effectively. And without a huge industrial machine in the past 1 million years, solar input was probably the main driver (electrical or not). Co2 would rise in hotter climates as ice and permafrost melts, and wild fires burn, co2 then rises. I consider this fact. Now, please, face the reality that we are at 410 ppm, and should be heading into an ice age since we are at grand solar minimum. But instead we are 1.5 degrees hotter than any record since mans could measure global temperatures. This is not like past "natural solar cycles", this is reversed forcing. We have brought the co2 count up, not natural processes. Just think what will happen when the natural positive feed-backs kick in: IE melting poles and perma frost and record fire seasons globally. And they already are, you have to be either very young or not a nature lover who spent most their lives outside to miss all the droughts, fires, crazy storms and disintegrating polar vortex. It is now November 1st (in 5.25 hours) and it looks and feels like mid September here in Oregon, with leaves still on trees and my garden still growing. Millions of people are already being displaced by said catastrophes, and society as we know it is not set up to deal with this pace of change. This is a real threat you will not be able to simply dis-believe. A mass extinction is happening now, whether you believe in it or not.

[orrery]

Having read a great many of these responses, I thank all of you, even the ones I consider completely blind to the reality of the changing planet I have lived on for 51 years. Even a single minded focused opinion is valuable to me. The one reality so many refuse to acknowledge is that light containing infra-red spectrum , no matter what the source, will enable the co2 molecule to do what it does whether you believe it or not ( having tested it myself). And past ice cores for nearly 1 million years clearly shows a period of stability with no greater than 280 ppm and no less than 180 ppm during ice ages. Its a well knows fact that cold climates store co2 more effectively. And without a huge industrial machine in the past 1 million years, solar input was probably the main driver (electrical or not). Co2 would rise in hotter climates as ice and permafrost melts, and wild fires burn, co2 then rises. I consider this fact. Now, please, face the reality that we are at 410 ppm, and should be heading into an ice age since we are at grand solar minimum. But instead we are 1.5 degrees hotter than any record since mans could measure global temperatures. This is not like past "natural solar cycles", this is reversed forcing. We have brought the co2 count up, not natural processes. Just think what will happen when the natural positive feed-backs kick in: IE melting poles and perma frost and record fire seasons globally. And they already are, you have to be either very young or not a nature lover who spent most their lives outside to miss all the droughts, fires, crazy storms and disintegrating polar vortex. It is now November 1st (in 5.25 hours) and it looks and feels like mid September here in Oregon, with leaves still on trees and my garden still growing. Millions of people are already being displaced by said catastrophes, and society as we know it is not set up to deal with this pace of change. This is a real threat you will not be able to simply dis-believe. A mass extinction is happening now, whether you believe in it or not.

The mass extinction that is occurring now has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Migratory paths are being cut off by highways, cities. Insect populations are being decimated by pesticides. The very real collapse of the Earth's geomagnetic field and the migration of the magnetic poles causes the weather to migrate with them. I live right next to Oregon and my 100 year archive of Farmer's Almanacs say you're (wrong) <moderator edit>

[webolife]

Well Orrery, that's harsh...
DD, you continue to make the claim that climate change is anthropogenic, but your evidences do not force that conclusion. You need to go back and read Koch's postulates for the diagnosis of pathogenic disease. They are relevant for the diagnosis of climate disease as well. To the point here, Correlation and Causation are not the same thing. The Earth has been warming, at first with an nearly explosive rapidity, then more slowly to creeping pace since the glacial period. Certain factors have reached critical levels, eg. the melting permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane as well as water into the atmosphere, a much greater climate forcer than anthropogenic CO2. Also you have to keep in mind that your data showing a correlation between CO2 and warming indicates the CO2 increases in response to warming, not the other way around. Therefore, ACG is a straw man. Global climate change is important to me, perhaps to all of us "objectors", and we need to be aware of trends that will affect future generations on Earth. But the only sustainable relationship we can have toward climate change or any natural cycles is to learn how to partner with the world instead of fighting it.

[orrery]

Well Orrery, that's harsh...

Yeah its harsh. Why should we be anything but? <moderator edit>

Anyways, don't worry about it. Got nothing but love for webolife so rock on.

[Maol]

And, according to Oregon TV stations, dangerusdanny's lying about the weather in Oregon too. It is cold and raining as usual and there is early snow in the mountains with mention of an early start for ski season AGAIN this year.

[neilwilkes]

Well Orrery, that's harsh...
DD, you continue to make the claim that climate change is anthropogenic, but your evidences do not force that conclusion. You need to go back and read Koch's postulates for the diagnosis of pathogenic disease. They are relevant for the diagnosis of climate disease as well. To the point here, Correlation and Causation are not the same thing. The Earth has been warming, at first with an nearly explosive rapidity, then more slowly to creeping pace since the glacial period. Certain factors have reached critical levels, eg. the melting permafrost releasing huge amounts of methane as well as water into the atmosphere, a much greater climate forcer than anthropogenic CO2. Also you have to keep in mind that your data showing a correlation between CO2 and warming indicates the CO2 increases in response to warming, not the other way around. Therefore, ACG is a straw man. Global climate change is important to me, perhaps to all of us "objectors", and we need to be aware of trends that will affect future generations on Earth. But the only sustainable relationship we can have toward climate change or any natural cycles is to learn how to partner with the world instead of fighting it.

Well said, Sir.
There is a superb Solar Forcing chart available at suspicious0bservers.org and as soon as I find it I will ask Ben if I can repost it as it is backed up with over 450 papers - all properly peer reviewed (whatever that is actually worth) that shows almost everything that has been attributed to people is in fact from the Sun.
I highly recommend Ben's work to everybody here - he is also an EU adherent it seems - and his superb new edition of "The Weatherman's Guide to The Sun" should be required reading for all the AGW yahoos.

@DD - sorry chap but you are simply wrong, and AGW is a myth.
You say that the climate has changed during your life - but if you look at the real records you will see this is utterly normal. The big lie is that the climate is stable - it never has been.
Your info about CO2 levels is also not telling the whole story either - how do you know we have not been dangerously deficient in CO2 levels for the last geological era? Planetary CO2 was ten times higher during the dinosaur era than it is now - and we did not burn then either. CO2 = Green Plant Food. Not a pollutant.

Wildfires? Again much much lower in acreage destroyed these days than last century - check the data, do not believe the lies you hear in mainstream "news" channels as they are the Fake News boys par excellence.
Try realclimatescience.com instead

[Aardwolf]

...and should be heading into an ice age since we are at grand solar minimum. But instead we are 1.5 degrees hotter...

That's fantastic. Who do we thank?

[BeAChooser]

Now, please, face the reality that we are at 410 ppm, and should be heading into an ice age since we are at grand solar minimum. But instead we are 1.5 degrees hotter than any record since mans could measure global temperatures.

Hi Dann. You should take another look at the data because being at a solar minimum does not mean the average solar irradiance level is lower. In fact, the current mean solar irradiance is well above what it was before the AGWalarmist scare began. Here, go check out these two charts showing solar irradiance data as far back as the mid 1800s:

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/s ... _CMIP5.png

http://xmetman.com/wp/wp-content/upload ... 092218.jpg

They both show that mean solar irradiance TODAY is substantially higher than it was prior to about 1930, when temperatures supposedly started climbing to the current level due to AGW (i.e., CO2). It's not a coincidence. And lest you think that the delta in mean irradiance between 1930 and now is insignificant, consider this chart:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/Solar ... omPMOD.gif

It shows solar irradiance (most of it determined via proxies) all the way back to 1600. Now, notice the big dip in irradiance between 1610 and 1750. That dip corresponds to the Maunder Minimum, a time when worldwide global temperatures fell dramatically. They fell enough that climatologists said there were 500 year temperature lows. Notice that the average irradiance during that dip is about the same amount below the average irradiance level between 1750 and 1930 as the current mean irradiance is above that average interim level (-1.4 W/m^^2 versus +1.3 W/m^^2).

Now think logically. If a drop of 'x' amount from the interim mean irradiance could produce the reduced temperatures and altered climate patterns that were seen during the Maunder Minimum, why wouldn't an increase of 'x' amount above that mean produce increased temperatures and altered climate patterns too? Of course it would.

It's the sun, not CO2, which is driving temperatures and climate. And one good indication of that is the study by Soon, W.H., "Variable Solar Irradiance as a Plausible Agent for Multidecadal Variations in the Arctic-wide Surface Air Temperature Record of the Past 130 Years," http://www.epi-us.com/Soon05-SolarArcti ... Lfinal.pdf , that produced this chart:

http://images.intellicast.com/App_Image ... /197_2.gif

Notice how well the track of Total Solar Irradiance lines up with Arctic temperatures and how poorly CO2 levels match them?  It's not just coincidence.   It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on here. You just have to NOT be dead set on CO2 and man being the cause.

Speaking of which, some AGWalarmists contend that the gradually declining solar output from about 1960 onward is proof the sun could not be possibly be responsible for the continuing rise in temperatures after that … up to about 1997 when temperatures finally leveled off. But there are 2 problems with that assertion.

First, the total solar output dropped only slightly in comparison to the new raised mean over that time. The average of the total solar output is still well above what is was in the 150 odd years before the recent warming occurred but after the Maunder Minimum. You need to recognize that what is important here is the LEVEL, not the TREND.   It’s the level of loading that really matters.  

Second, this is a dynamic, not a static problem. The dynamic response of systems to sudden step like loadings (as in the Maunder Minimum and the Recent Maximum) from a baseline load is higher than what you get if you very slowly increase the load to that level. AGWalarmists claim that since the sun's output has dropped somewhat since the mid-1960s, temperatures due to solar irradiation should have IMMEDIATELY begun dropping as well. That assumes a static response, so they think it's trend that is important.  They don’t grasp that dynamic systems have a finite non-zero response time to step-like loadings. In other words, the maximum response of a dynamic system subject to a finite length step load will occur AFTER the load reaches the maximum and possibly after the load ends, if the response time of the system is long enough. Peer reviewed scientific papers have been published (for example http://www.atmos-chem-phys.org/9/813/20 ... 3-2009.pdf ) that show an ocean/atmospheric model's response to a step in solar loading can take up to 100 years to fully respond. AGWalarmists have been incorrectly assuming instant response. Even the AGWscientists who didn't, used ridiculously small response times ... like 5 to 10 years. Thus, even though solar output began to fall slightly after the 60s, the response of the system (global temperature) could increase for decades after that ... which might explain why temperatures are still increasing ... if they actually are.

Which brings me to the last point I'd like to make. You appear to accept the global temperature claims of the AGWcommunity at face value. I contend that's a BIG MISTAKE, because a good case can be made that the ground-based (and more recently satellite-based) temperature databases have been hopelessly and dishonestly corrupted by AGWalarmists scientists trying to support their bogus AGWmeme. As a result, I don't think you can reliably say that temperatures are higher now then they were 10 or 20 or even 40 years ago.

To give you an example of how the AGWscientists manipulated data, observe that in 1999 (as noted by http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012 ... en-busted/ ), one of the AGWcult's top priests, James Hansen (of NASA), wrote that the climate had improved since the 1930s. He published a chart showing that there was no global warming. Clear as day. But, as the link notes, "no warming means no funding and no massive ego trip, so Hansen fixed the temperature record in the year 2000 to produce a lot of US warming prior to 1989." And from the link, a blink comparator shows how Hansen rewrote US temperature history: http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.co ... otated.gif . And the truth is that this sort of adhoc manipulation has been done at station after station after station around the world by AGWalarmist scientists.  Source after source has proven that Hansen and other AGW*scientists* are simply not to be trusted. They are AGW fanatics who have long ago abandoned science in favor of their pet agenda. They continue to manipulate the temperature data and “adjust it” in ways they cannot explain or logically justify.   And temperatures always seem to go up as a result of their “adjustments”.  

Now one indication I'm right (besides all the snow we see falling when AGWalarmist said snow was a thing of the past) is the disparity that exists between manipulated ground based temperature data and un-doctored satellite data. Do you know (see these charts: https://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/pho ... splice.gif and https://climate-skeptic.typepad.com/pho ... plice2.gif from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/w ... atellites/ ) that ground based temperature data measured at the time satellites first began to be used in the 1970s to record earth temperatures (which was before ground-based temperature instrumentation and databases had been manipulated) aligns with the data from the satellites at that time. In other words, the two separate data streams recorded what were essentially the same temperatures during that period, suggesting there was no problem with the satellite data (or the ground based data). You can see this in the above linked charts where pink is ground based data and green is satellite data.

The disparity between the two temperatures only came later after AGWalarmists began tampering with the ground based data (starting in the early 80s). And that led to a problem for AGWalarmists because after 1997 ... for about 19 years ... the satellite data showed temperatures leveling off or dropping slightly, while the manipulated ground based data temperatures continued to climb. The disparity became such an embarrassment that in desperation, in order to keep the AGWmeme from being laughed at, the AGWalarmists *discovered* *problems* with the satellite data and *corrected* it so that it would agree with the *manipulated* ground based data. I think you need to think very carefully about the dishonesty in their doing that, Dann, especially since the AGWalarmist community is still unable to justify most of the modifications they have made to both the ground based and satellite based temperature databases. Indeed, they've gone out of their way to hide exactly what they did to modify them.

[neilwilkes]

Some good points very well made, especially the data tampering by NASA and the ESA, which is so bad now it's just not science - it is fraud. The tampering takes the form of factoring in ocean temperatures, for which simply had no data at all until recently so these can only be a guess at best and at worst they simply run the model until it gets them the results they want, at which point that "data set" is then used.
All of this pales into insignificance though when you realise that these so-called climate scientists making up most of their data to begin with, as the monthly NASA/NOAA charts prove on a regular basis - areas where the averages are low seem to be ignored and literally whitewashed away so they show as normal or warm when the truth is the "adjusted data" are all invented because there are simply nowhere near enough daily temperature stations to get the real numbers! Now factor in on top of that the truth of the matter they ignore all the time - who says what the ideal temperature of the planet should be - even if it were possible to actually get this within 1/10 of a degree as the charts all claim?.
2 more points and I will stop.
1 - CO2 is still not a pollutant, but plant food. Even NASA & ESA have to admit green plant coverage is rapidly increasing, mainly due to the CO2 levels. It could easily be argued that we were dangerously LOW in atmospheric CO2, not too high. After all, we now have a population of 7 Billion plus where 200 years ago things had been around 1 billion for centuries - this is unsustainable, no matter how much CO2 is demonized. Just think of the sheer tonnage per day of human waste generated - all of it carbon based. We need to ban breeding out of control the way we are and good luck with that project as the religious minded will go nuts, as will the left wing. The truth is that cutting CO2 levels & fertilizer use will inevitably cause huge crop losses - especially when combined with the weird Solar Minimum type weather we are having these days and the very wobbly Northern Hemisphere Jet Streams.
2 - There is oh, so much more to solar forcing than TSI - TSI is a minute fraction of the forcing effects of the Sun.
See this presentation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsqZJP54shg