Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Obelix]

The only tired drum around here is the one being beaten about plant food gas, and the taxation we are being forced to pay on it.

 

The science has not only been attacked, but has been shown for exactly what it is; junkscience. I guess the climate modellers (I refuse to call them scientists as they refuse to follow the scientific model, you know the one where you give the raw data and methodolgy used to arrive at your results) will have to (once again) 'adjust' their models.

 

PS It's time we stopped all this focus on plant food gas, and looked at the REAL environmental issues; Overpopulation and deforestation.

 

You havent proved anything - except to show that your argument is based on the fallacy of ad hominem and ad hominem tu quoque.

[convert]

You havent proved anything - except to show that your argument is based on the fallacy of ad hominem and ad hominem tu quoque.

 

Where did I say I'd proved anything, that's the line played out by the pro AGW mob, you know the 'science is settled' brigade.

 

Nothing has been proved, either way. So why are our government making policy decisions based on the precautionary principle?

 

Decisions that WILL kill people this winter.

 

(Note I didn't use might or could or probably like the AGW brigade do)

[WeX]

the big question really is: What are the UV levels coming from the Sun like for this winter? At least then we can be prepared and buy every show shovel there is

[convert]

Good blog by Paul Hudson at the beeb.

 

For as long as I have been a meteorologist, the mere suggestion that solar activity could influence climate patterns has been greeted with near derision.

Quite why this has been the case is difficult to fathom. But it's been clear for a long time that there must be a link of some kind, ever since decades ago Professor Lamb discovered an empirical relationship between low solar activity and higher pressure across higher latitudes such as Greenland.

 

Perhaps the art of weather forecasting has become so dominated by supercomputers, and climate research so dominated by the impact of man on global climate, that thoughts of how natural processes, such as solar variation, could influence our climate have been largely overlooked, until very recently.

 

In fact new research published this week & conducted by the Met Office and Imperial College London, showing how solar variability can help explain cold winters, will come as no surprise to readers of this blog.

 

Most studies in the past have largely focused on the sun's brightness, but this research has discovered that it's the variation in the sun's Ultra Violet (UV) output that's crucial.

 

According to the new paper, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, when UV output is low, colder air than normal forms over the tropics in the stratosphere. This is balanced by a more easterly flow of air over the mid-latitudes. The cold air in the stratosphere then makes its way to the surface - leading to bitterly cold easterly winds across the UK and parts of Europe.

 

When UV output is higher, the opposite is true, with warmer air making its way to the surface, and carried across the UK and Europe from the west.

 

Of course there are other factors involved in determining our weather, and this alone does not mean scientists have discovered the holy grail of long range forecasting.

 

Looking globally the research makes clear that the impact of the sun's changing UV output acts to redistribute heat, with cold European winters going hand in hand with milder winters in Canada and the Mediterranean, for example, with little impact on overall global temperatures.

 

The work is based on an 11 year solar cycle, with the regional temperature changes associated with the peaks and troughs of the UV cycle effectively cancelling each other out over that time.

 

But there are some scientists who believe that there are longer term cycles, such as the bi-centennial cycle and that on average over the coming decades solar activity will decline.

 

If so, not only will cold European winters become more common, but global temperatures could fall, too, although the general consensus amongst most scientists at the moment is that any solar-forced decline would be dwarfed by man-made global warming.

 

This is an exciting time for solar physics, and its role in climate. As one leading climate scientist told me last month, it's a subject that is now no longer taboo. And about time, too.

 

 

 

Source http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2011/10/met-office-finally-wakes-up-to.shtml

[jhon786]

Climate change is the single biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis. The Earth's atmosphere is overloaded with heat-trapping carbon dioxide, which threatens large-scale disruptions in climate with disastrous consequences.

 

Maybe the government is making the climate change fear through taxes, but that doesn't mean that climate change is all a lie.

[Cyclone]

It doesn't mean that the climate change is entirely anthropogenic either.

[Tony]

Regardless, it's a zero sum game to argue against it in any practical sense rather than a philosophical sense. Who cares if in 50 years we look back and say "we were wrong, the planet's fine", the world can only become a better place for us learning to respect it a bit more.

 

However, climate change diverts attention from the real problem that lies at the heart of the causes of climate change, resource scarcity, and species viability. Overpopulation.

[Cyclone]

That could be 50 years of extreme hardship as we divert resources to fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Then we'd all care.

[Tony]

But imagine the alternative.

 

What did we do?

v

v

v

v

v

v

Doh!

[retep]

O dear,

 

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague

 

 

Yesterday Prof Muller insisted that neither his claims that there has not been a standstill, nor the graph, were misleading because the project had made its raw data available on its website, enabling others to draw their own graphs.

However, he admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was – a statement which left other scientists mystified.

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz1cHmaEDge