On 3 Sep, 07:31, Doug
riseup.net> wrote:> On 2 Sep, 18:34, "nightjar" .me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>> On 2 Sep, 08:46, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Doug"
riseup.net> wrote in message>
>
>>>>> On 1 Sep, 18:17, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> "Boltar"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message>
>
>>>>>>> On Sep 1, 8:55 am, "nightjar" .me.uk>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I wonder how long you are going to keep ignoring the growing
>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> climate change - there has been no warming since 1998, sources as
>>>>>>>> above -
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> driven by nature and that, if man has had any effect, it is trival
>>>>>>>> by
>>>>>>>> comparison. As I have mentioned before, sun spot cycle 24 is
>>>>>>>> running
>>>>>>>> very
>>>>>>>> late, a phenomenon that has previously preceeded periods of global
>>>>>>>> cooling
>>>>>>>> that lasted decades
>
>>>>>>> Hmm yes , the sun. I bet none of those clever dick phd scientists
>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>> decades of climate and meteorological research behind them ever
>>>>>>> thought of that.
>
>>>>>> You would lose the bet. Russian climatologists have been predicting a
>>>>>> global
>>>>>> cooling cycle, starting around 2012, based upon solar activity, for
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> years now. However, most of the rest of the world's governments have
>>>>>> nailed
>>>>>> their flags to the mast of CO2 reduction, so anything that does not
>>>>>> support
>>>>>> that tends to get dismissed.
>
>>>>> And how long is that cycle supposed to last?
>
>>>> The Maunder Minimum lasted from 1645 to 1715, with 50 sun spots recorded
>>>> in
>>>> the whole period - about 0.1%% of normal.
>
>>> Didn't you claim previously that there was no reliable data prior to
>>> 1978?
>
>> I said that there was no data of any sort on solar radiative energy before
>> that, but that is because it can only be measured in space. Sun spots can
>> and have been observed for centuries. Sunspot activity also affects the
>> levels of Carbon-14, so that can also be used to detect solar activity over
>> several thousand years..
>
>>> "...though a specific mechanism by which solar activity results in
>>> climate change has not been established."
>
>>> Oh dear!
>
>> That does not mean there is no link, only that, if there is one, the way it
>> works has not been identified.The same statement could be made about CO2
>> levels. Although there are theories as to how it might affect global
>> temperatures, no actual link has been demonstrated.
>
> The greenhouse effect is well understood.
>
>>>> The Spoerer Minimum lasted from
>>>> 1450 to 1540. The Dalton Minimum lasted from 1790 to 1820.
>
>>> Yes but how long is the 2012 cycle predicted to last and on what
>>> basis?
>
>> There have only been 23 solar cycles since they started being studied and
>> the data is insufficient to make such a prediction. However, the shortest
>> minima was about 30 years and most are in the range of 50-100, so that is an
>> indication of the duration that might be expected.
>
> Well we shall see. Whether this alleged cooling will compensate for
> anthropogenic warming is a moot point but rather than wait and see and
> risk millions of lives just so that motorists, for example, can carry
> on exercising their polluting right to drive regardless maybe the
> precautionary principle should be applied instead.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>>> Aren't you once again
>>>>> confusing short-term variability, caused by a number of factors, with
>>>>> a long-term trend?
>
>>>> You consider several decades to be a short term variation?
>
>>> In this context yes. The anthropogenic CO2 effect is about 100 years
>>> old so far,
>
>> You really ought to read the IPCC report some time. They say that humans
>> have probably been affecting the climate for the past 500 years. Of course,
>> they also add the rider that the amount of that effect is not known.
>> However, the major part of the temperature rises since the early 19th
>> century could also be explained by a natural recovery from the cold period
>> associated with the Dalton Minimum.
>
> Or to the greenhouse effect.
>
>>> standing at about 375ppm and predicted to rise to about
>>> 650ppm by 2100, more than twice the maxima of about 300ppm of the
>>> Vostok ice-core CO2 cycles over the last 400,000 years.
>
>> Of interest, if you believe that CO2 is a climate change driver, rather than
>> a product of climate change. However, the CO2 level has risen by 4%% in the
>> past decade without there being any corresponding rise in global
>> temperatures, which you have still failed to suggest a reason for.
>
> A decade is too short to be anything other than normal variability
> caused by a number of factors, such as orbital variations, ocean
> current anomalies and maybe solar cycle variations. The later has a
> periodicity of about 10 years.
>
> The reality is that greenhouse CO2 has reached its highest level in
> more than 400,000 years, continues to increase and is being attributed
> by experts to anthropogenic emissions.
LOL at Gollum opining on matters scientific. Where does the second
type of ozone fit into all this, you clueless old turd?
