4 September at #13.

8 September at #25.

12 September at #27.

Still waiting…

4 September at #13.

8 September at #25.

It’s now 12 September, and no evidence from you yet to support your claim that increasing atmospheric CO2 would magically ‘enhance the biosphere and environment’.

There are many species that would beg to differ, and who are waiting to have their concerns assuaged.

We’re still waiting for that evidence that I requested on 4 September 2008 at 16.15.

I notice that Graeme Bird called me a liar on Marohasy’s blog in response to my observation on your comment (in the last line #12). Unfortunately for him, the scientific world knows better than he does, but I am nevertheless expecting you to validate your claim upon which you based a ‘penance’ for AndrewG.

Come on, deliver your killer blow that will discredit thousands of papers by hundreds of scientists. Note, ten such articles are listed at Marohasey’s blog, so they’ll make a good starting point for your refutation.

I have more papers if you need them for reference…

You inquire regarding the view of solar scientists – here are 2 abstracts by some of the authorities in the field, and note the last statement in each abstract:
“we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades”

Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years
S. K. Solanki1, I. G. Usoskin2, B. Kromer3, M. Schu¨ ssler1 & J. Beer4 1Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Sonnensystemforschung (formerly the Max-Planck-Institut fu¨r Aeronomie), 37191 Katlenburg-Lindau, Germany 2Sodankyla¨ Geophysical Observatory (Oulu unit), University of Oulu, 90014 Oulu, Finland 3Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Institut fu¨r Umweltphysik, Neuenheimer Feld 229, 69120 Heidelberg, Germany 4Department of Surface Waters, EAWAG, 8600 Du¨bendorf, Switzerland
NATURE |VOL 431 | 28 OCTOBER 2004 |www.nature.com/nature
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
Direct observations of sunspot numbers are available for the past four centuries1,2, but longer time series are required, for example, for the identification of a possible solar influence on climate and for testing models of the solar dynamo. Here we report a
reconstruction of the sunspot number covering the past 11,400 years, based on dendrochronologically dated radiocarbon concentrations. We combine physics-based models for each of the processes connecting the radiocarbon concentration with sunspot number. According to our reconstruction, the level of solar activity during the past 70 years is exceptional, and the previous period of equally high activity occurred more than 8,000 years ago.We find that during the past 11,400 years the Sun spent only of the order of 10% of the time at a similarly high level of magnetic activity and almost all of the earlier high-activity periods were shorter than the present episode. Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate
change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades3.

Solar variability and climate change: is there a link?
Sami K Solanki presents the Harold Jeffreys Lecture on the links between our climate and the behaviour of the Sun, from the perspective of a solar physicist.

conclusions
“…This is consistent with a causal relationship between the two and supports, but by no means proves, the view that the Sun has had an important, possibly even dominant influence on our climate in the past. Other contributors to climate variability are volcanic activity, the internal variability of the Earth’s atmosphere and man-made greenhouse gases. After 1980, however, the Earth’s temperature exhibits a remarkably steep rise, while the Sun’s irradiance
displays at the most a weak secular trend. Hence the Sun cannot be the dominant source of this latest temperature increase, with manmade greenhouse gases being the likely dominant
alternative. 

Barry, I believe convection is the dominant way heat is exchanged. I also believe that the terminology ‘greenhouse effect’ and ‘greenhouse gases’ are misleading for what amounts to nothing more than the amount of heat stored in the air and water vapor column every day. Hope this helps and let’s hear from solar scientists who demonstrate a clear relationship between solar change and climate change.

I don’t think they are one and the same, the former distorts science while the latter doesn’t even understand it.

Their musings expose them for what they are.
I would not be surprised if agnostics towards AGW have been bemused by their rants.

Barry, recall that Tim C. has been known to engage in sock-puppetry. Just sayin’.

BUT

You then we get this … “6. To this effect I recommend you consult Dr Barrie Pittock’s (probably Australia’s most experienced and authoritative climate scientist”) report and first chapter of the new book “Turning Up The Heat” – which you can now download from the internet.”"

BUT ALSO ….

We get this too …. “major scientific organizations (CSIRO, BOM, Hadley, NASA, Potsdam) and thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals.”

WHICH simply confirms not a focus on the technical issues as such but in your own words your worship of these authors …. where i agree will certainly “not add anything (sic) weight on one’s arguments”. To which i see ONLY ever draws attention to anthropocentric issues…… i.e. our human built in bias and mode of conceptualisation.

i.e. No matter how aesthetically pleasing something is, or how numerous or prestigious its supporters are, or how many billions of dollars a certain industry has bet on it….. it will always come down to ….. does the theory over-ride the evidence?

Of course I wish you were correct.

However:

1. As you will see from global temperature change maps: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20070208/ Warming of the polar regions is double that in lower latitudes, corresponding to ice albedo loss / ocean warming feedbacks.
Warming at polar altitudes:
Arctic almost +4 degrees C relative to the 1951-1980 base line;
West Antarctica about +2 degrees C realtive to 1951-1980 base line).
East Antarctica is less effected to date, although warming around the margins.
2. There was more ice at the outset of the last glacial termination (Laurentian and Fennoscandian ice sheets). It started at 4-5 degrees C lower than present. CO2 feedbacks went up from about 180 to 280 ppm, whereas now they are another 100 ppm higher at 387 ppm.
3. The Milankovich cycle terminations are attributed to minor initial orbital forcings (~0.25 Watt/m2 global energy rise at the outset of glacial terminations). The 19-20-21st Centuries forcing due to CO2+CH4 emissions is at least 6 times stronger — at 1.6 Watt/m2.
4. Prior to the onset of the ice ages at 34 Ma global warming events (on an Earth already warmer by several degrees than during the ice ages) appear to have been mainly triggered by catastrophic elevations of CO2 and/or methane – as deduced for the PETM (55 Ma) CH4-release forcings and also in connection with asteroid/comet impacts and volcanic events
http://www.zeroemissionnetwork.org/files/MILESTONES_19-6-07.pdf (I can send you the published paper on request geospec@iinet.net.au).
3. No one is drawing a PRECISE analogy between Milankovich glacial terminations and current climate change. We are talking about global warming events reflecting powerful SYNERGY of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system, triggered in more than one way, i.e. orbital, greenhouse, volcanic or impact-related.
4. The point is — all of these events betray an extreme sensitivity of the atmosphere-ocean-biosphere system to even minor energy nudges.

(P.S. As you know Synergy is a dominant process in a variety of natural processes, for example the way bacterial populations “explode” once they reach a threshold etc.)

The rapid onset of warming periods recorded in ice cores indicates the abrupt nature of the transition from glacial to interglacial regimes. This is consistent with the large positive feedback expected from albedo reduction due to deglaciation of lower latitudes.

However, in comparison to the most recent glaciation:

- the current Arctic ice cap occupies a much smaller area of the Earth (well over 50% less). On this ground alone, albedo-derived positive feedback from reduction of the current ice cap can be expected to have correspondingly much less impact on both the total planetary heat budget and global sea levels.

- this area is at higher latitudes, which

- have much greater ocean/land ratio, and

- are less insolated (my back-of-envelope calculation indicates 25-30% less for summer insolation; the differential is greater for the rest of the year).

Hence it can be expected that the amplitude of positive feedback from albedo reduction will be significantly less still.

The conclusion: There are good reasons for thinking that warming superimposed on the current interglacial will not have the same catastrophic character as previous glacial-interglacial transitions.