Sorry GW Denier, I didn’t realise you thought so badly of the articles in Wikipedia.
Do you disagree with these guys too?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/global-dimming-and-climate-models/

Unfortunately Global dimming is not a “fact” because there is still little known about how it all works, which is probably why it was pushed aside when it was first theorised.
The climate models haven’t taken into account the effect of global dimming on climate change, so if global dimming does have an effect then it would stand to reason that the modeled projections would be wrong.
Sometimes the biggest problems are not the ones the scientists do know, but the ones they don’t.

Anyway the idea I was putting forward was based on what has happened, and how they might fit together.

Like I said before, I could be wrong.

And about your Hari Kari retort to concern about overpopulation, I wrote this in another post too.

There seems to be this mentality that some people have that whenever overpopulation is brought up. it must mean that the only solution to the problem is to start killing off people.

Why is it that some people so quickly jump to that conclusion?

Do they think that increasing the death rate is the only way to stabalise a population?

And why is it that a few people come out with the knee jerk response like…
“so why don’t you kill yourself to solve the problem then?�

Well if people like me decided to top themselves to help solve the overpopulation problem, there would be nobody that could explain to people why there are still babies starving to death in Africa despite the increase in global food production that happened because of the green revolution.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“The US agriculture secretary, Ed Schafer, stirred controversy on the eve of the Rome summit with his defence of corn ethanol, arguing that biofuel production only contributed “2 to 3%” to the recent dramatic rise in global food prices.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/03/biofuels.energy?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

I wonder what is being said in their neck of the woods?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Denier

Real Scientists to blogosphere “wanna bet?”

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/the-global-cooling-bet-part-2/

Note the qualitative difference between this and the bloggers…

—–

More to the point here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Cooling appears to be pretty localized… and what is happening to Antarctica? Ahhh… no blogger lives there… so it isn’t happening.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html

I suggest, with no small amount of annoyance, that you do as Pachauri says and read the SCIENCE, not the bloggers. Yes… it IS harder to understand and yes, if you go to the scientists you will find that their opinions don’t have anything to do with how much money goes to research or how many of them are Democrats or Republicans…

… I worked with them…. LOTS of them are conservatives… except on this issue.

BJ

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

DougT – using Wlkipedia is not the best rebuttal. I am only pointing out fact from data on the www.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Marohasey is presumably a fine biologist, but an unpublished climatologist. Sunspots can affect temperature too, they just haven’t done so for about 30 years:
http://tinyurl.com/2mhgpb

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

GW Denier,

I don’t have an answer for why the global temperature variation is going down in recent years, but I did post this in another discussion a while ago.

I’m not an expert here, but maybe the effect these people have been noticing is just global dimming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

If you read the whole article, you could possibly take it that we are in another cycle of global dimming. If you take a look at the global temperatire graphs on the link below, you will see a decrease in temperature between 1880 and 1910 an another dip between 1940 to 1950. These also may be caused by global dimming, but you can clearly see that the trend is going up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

I might look into it a bit more myself, and see if maybe someting big was going on just before the 2 drops (indstrialisation maybe?) that I mentioned above that might point to global dimming caused by human activity.

One interesting thing that you can see with the temperatures is that there is no really significant dips from around about the 70’s to now (if Jennifer Marohasy is correct). Maybe this is because of the Monreal Protocol which banned CFC’s and largely relaced them with HCFC’s which are believed to contribute to global warming.

Maybe if Jennifer Marohasy is correct about the temperature dip, then it could be more proof of AGW rather than against it, because we now have the increased pollution coming from China which could be contributing to global dimming.

Although I might be wrong.

The first major dip could most likely be due to the industrial revolution.

The second big dip starts at around the start of WW2 and gradually goes back up at around the end of WW2. The also coinsides with the 1952 London smog diaster which brought about the clean air act there (but I’d say this is a moot point).

And then there are a couple of smaller dips around the time that the green revolution really started to kick in (higher energy input increases pollution output).

And then (as I said before) we have China’s growing economy (thanks in part to our coal that they burn). China’s economy started to grow bigger around 2000 which is where the graph shows a leveling in temperature change. As I understand it China is using alot CFC’s which are believed to be a contributor to global dimming (remember what happened after the Montreal protocol came into effect?). With the size of China it stands to reason that if I am correct in my assumption, they are probably causing another shift into global dimming.

So what do you think BP?

I was a bit on the fence before I looked at it this way, but now I think that JM might have accidentally given more clout to the AGW idea with her pointing out the dip in global temperature readings.
I just goes to show you that scheptics have a huge role to play in finding out what’s really happening too.

But as I said before, I could be wrong.

The problem with an AGW sceptic is that they are usually more concerned with pointing out that something doesn’t add up, rather than trying to figure out why it might not be adding up.

The problem with an AGW believer is that they are usually more concerned with pretending that something doesn’t add up, rather than trying to figure out why it might not be adding up.

It’s impossible for anyone to find out the truth when they have already decided that they already know the truth.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Is this bogus or is the science wrong?

Hmmm, could it be that yet another denialist blog written by a non-climatologist who doesn’t do peer-reviewed work is actually in danger of overturning climatology as we know it?

Er, no.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

What script ? You think maybe there’s no variability? You think it is all monotonically increasing?

Get real.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Any answers why the earth is cooling in 2008 and CO2 is still increasing?
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/
This is not what was in the script.
Is this bogus or is the science wrong? Maybe the sun has a big influence after all.
No ETS required it seems.

Also, with electricity in short supply and prices to rise I reckon house holders in Christchurch shoud say ‘fuck off’ to council by laws and light the fire. It will help the National Grid and keep them healthy (via warmth). Pity the wood is tax free, esentially giving ‘free warmth’. Bit of a caveman attitude but that is where the Greens want to send us ah.

On another note, I met a customer yesterday who said the world has 3 bn more people than it requires. Soon shut up when I offered him the chance to comitt Hari Kari.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I believe you forgot people who don’t believe in the moon landing.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>Please read the science
Few would understand it.

Yet there’s no shortage of lay people who insist that the vast majority of experts in the field are wrong. Funny, that.

See also: antievolutionists, antivaccinationists, 9/11 truthers, and many, many others.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

“read the science” was “a simple message for climate change sceptics” – presumably the scientists (and Lord Monckton) who vehemently disagree, as opposed to people who are just plain sceptical about it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

>>a shame that scientists like Pachauri

Is this he same guy who allegedly compared author Bjorn Lomborg to the leader of the runners-up in World War 2?

>>Please read the science

Few would understand it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)