Really, BBD?
You are apparently unaware of any scientists discussing a risk of material cooling - a so-called mini ice age?

matthu

I am unaware of a substantial body of scientists holding this view:

A substantial body of scientists today acknowledge that there is a significant risk of material cooling over the next 20-30 years.

I asked you to name names, and what about the 30y+ time-frame.

You responded with an empty question. You are bluffing again.

Dung

Your attitude in this thread smacks of an arrogance that is totally alien to the norm on BH

Now that has to score as one of the best unintentional funnies on the thread. Top marks!

I stopped reading comment here:

That opinion implies that there is a finite amount of warming that CO2 causes and that above a certain level of atmospheric CO2, adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect.

Wrong-o.

I'm not going to enter into further discussion with you because you make errors of this magnitude so there is no point. If you care about the facts, you can find out how and why you are incorrect here and here.

Well: Mike Lockwood, Henrik Svensmark, Vladimir Paar, Mojib Latif for a start.

Four scientists does not remotely constitute a substantial body

I know about ML and Svensmark. Links to Paar and Latif's relevant statements will be necessary for context here.

Okay, don't bother with Paar. He's - how shall I put this - rather outside the mainstream in his views:

Most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice, says Paar, "including Germany, Poland, France, Austria, Slovakia and a part of Slovenia." The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.

"This could happen in five, 10, 50 or 100 years, or even later. We can't predict it precisely, but it will come," he added.

And the professor said that scientists think global warming is simply a natural part of the planet.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Croat_scientist_warns_that_ice_age_could_start_in_five_years.htm

I think I'll take my chances with the real scientific consensus.

Arguing about whether 4 constitutes a substantial body is pure semantics. I did not imply that this small sample constituted the entire body of scientists. It is not difficult at all to find additional scientists who accept there is some significant probability of material cooling ahead.

Latif:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-j4cB8qmg
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

Paar
http://www.iceagenow.com/Croat_scientist-Ice_age_could_start_in_five_years.htm

matthu

matthu

Arguing about whether 4 constitutes a substantial body is pure semantics.

Oh. Come. On.

Paar sounds worryingly cranky, and you are exaggerating massively.

My understanding of the likely consequences of SC24 playing out rather flat is in line with this (emphasis added):

An influence of solar irradiance variations on Earth’s surface climate has been repeatedly suggested, based on correlations between solar variability and meteorological variables1. Specifically, weaker westerly winds have been observed in winters with a less active sun, for example at the minimum phase of the 11-year sunspot cycle2, 3, 4. With some possible exceptions5, 6, it has proved difficult for climate models to consistently reproduce this signal7, 8. Spectral Irradiance Monitor satellite measurements indicate that variations in solar ultraviolet irradiance may be larger than previously thought9. Here we drive an ocean–atmosphere climate model with ultraviolet irradiance variations based on these observations. We find that the model responds to the solar minimum with patterns in surface pressure and temperature that resemble the negative phase of the North Atlantic or Arctic Oscillation, of similar magnitude to observations. In our model, the anomalies descend through the depth of the extratropical winter atmosphere. If the updated measurements of solar ultraviolet irradiance are correct, low solar activity, as observed during recent years, drives cold winters in northern Europe and the United States, and mild winters over southern Europe and Canada, with little direct change in globally averaged temperature. Given the quasiregularity of the 11-year solar cycle, our findings may help improve decadal climate predictions for highly populated extratropical regions.

I want a written link for Latif. I don't do video clips.

Would you admit that it might have been warmer (or as warm) 10,000 years ago?
2,000 years ago?
700 years ago?
Or are you absolutely certain that this has never been the case?

(That is what Paar was referring to.)

Did you read the New Scientist reference?

I am not saying that there are not opposing views. I am saying that there are many scientists who are prepared to concede that there is a real risk of cooling - and we may already have witnessed the start.

What you are attemtping to do is to discredit the message again by making ad hominem attacks. Do you not recognise yourself doing this?

matthu

Sorry - missed the second Latif link. Now I have twice asked you about the 30y+ time-scale and you have twice ignored me. That means it matters.

From the Pearce article (emphasis added):

Forecasts of climate change are about to go seriously out of kilter. One of the world's top climate modellers said Thursday we could be about to enter one or even two decades during which temperatures cool.

"People will say this is global warming disappearing," he told more than 1500 of the world's top climate scientists gathering in Geneva at the UN's World Climate Conference.

"I am not one of the sceptics," insisted Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University, Germany. "However, we have to ask the nasty questions ourselves or other people will do it."

Few climate scientists go as far as Latif, an author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But more and more agree that the short-term prognosis for climate change is much less certain than once thought.

- Latif is something of a lone voice

- Latif does not believe AGW has stopped

- Latif believes it will resume after 10 - 20 years

- Latif believes that it is the NAO, not SC24 that will usher in a short cool phase

- You are misrepresenting Latif

matthu

Would you admit that it might have been warmer (or as warm) 10,000 years ago?
2,000 years ago?
700 years ago?
Or are you absolutely certain that this has never been the case?

What are you on about? The Early Holocene was warmer than the present, sure. There have been warm periods since. None of this has any bearing on the effects of a significant increase of atmospheric CO2 on GAT.

At every turn, as soon as you are shown to be wrong, you introduce some other irrelevance.

BBD

I responded to your reminder that this thread is about Zed's question and I responded to that question, are you hiding from that responce?

matthu

What you are attemtping to do is to discredit the message again by making ad hominem attacks. Do you not recognise yourself doing this?

Paar is a bit left-field, to put it mildly. Stop pretending I've just traduced the reputation of a significant body of scientists.

;-)

Dung

No. I responded to your comment at Nov 12, 2011 at 5:02 PM.

There is nothing else to say.

Anyone who claims that global warming can occur naturally is left of field?
Anyone who puts forward an alternative driver for global temperature that dominates CO2 is left of field and to be disregarded in any other science they may put forward?

You don't recognise this as an ad hom attack?

BBD

I stand corrected, you did indeed respond. In your response you again indicated your arrogance in declaring that you did not read the whole of it because you believe a scientific hypothesis beats empirical evidence. Arguments about radiative forcings are not settled science and until those arguments are sorted they are worthless. When there is a final agreement then if it does not account for known facts then it is a worthless agreement.
I read the whole of your post and even followed your links even though I believe that your posts are just junk.

Anyone who claims that current warming is natural is left-field. Especially if their main thesis is that we are a few decades away from the onset of a glacial.

WRT 'alternative driver', you are still misrepresenting Latif. Please re-read my comment at Nov 12, 2011 at 5:52 PM where I show exactly how you are doing it.

Don't you recognise what you have been doing for the last several days as serial misrepresentation and outright distortion of the facts?

Because that's exactly what it is, as I have been at pains to illustrate. How long before you acknowledge that you have exactly no argument and that everything you have said on this thread is either irrelevant, misleading or incorrect?

Dung

Oh dear. There's just no pleasing some people. Especially those with such impressively detailed knowledge of the subject matter.

Enjoy the weekend.

"How long before you acknowledge that you have exactly no argument and that everything you have said on this thread is either irrelevant, misleading or incorrect?"

Right ...

This from someone who believes you can eyeball two trends and use "intellectual honestly" to detect whether they are significantly different or not.

Someone who subsequently accuses another contributor to this thread of having "exactly zero scientific or statistical knowledge, so stop posturing. It's grotesque."

Enjoy your weekend safe in the knowledge that it is only your opinion that counts.

(Readers of course may draw their own conclusions.)

BBD
The vast majority of BH readers *always* attempt to engage *any* commenter and his/her concerns without censorship. You have used this to your advantage - you throw abuse at every turn, and hog threads in which you have no on-topic contribution.

You could have said something about the IEA report, or something allied. Instead, you lapsed into your BEST diagrams. According to your infantile logic - which accurately reflects the intellectual hole you have fallen into - once the 'effect of CO2' can be fully determined, all questions can be fully answered once and for all. According to this logic - all threads at all climate forums, including this one should discuss the "RF from CO2 issue" all the time.

Perspectives such as this one, and many others which underpin any discussion with you, are simply not shared by everyone. But yet, we cannot even begin to disagree unless you come to terms with this simple fact. But you won't, despite being helpfully pointed out, pleaded, cajoled or bluntly stated. This, and other attributes of your argument structure only point out - that you are not interested in science, likely do not come from a background in science, and are most likely quite immature and inexperienced - not having seen much. I don't say this as a judgement. I am quite the same in certain other aspects too, no doubt, but in the consideration of argument and fact you certainly still are.

"renewable boosterism" - you think that is some magic word, which once uttered, defeats any and all points anyone has to say? Arguments or discussions don't work like that. You have capitalized on the audience here, because they don't do to you, what you have done to each and everyone who has interacted with you. You are turning this place into a toxic hole. There is no place where you won't turn up and turn the whole thing into a "RF from CO2" freakshow. Why is that possible? - because this forum is free. Why don't you try pulling this trick at any of your warm sites? You'll be kicked out in no time.

Shub

There is not one single substantive sceptical argument on this thread. It is all irrelevant, misleading or incorrect.

I discussed the IEA report on pg 1 and 2 of the thread. Apart from Philip, I'm pretty sure everyone else just wittered and avoided any engagement at all.

Unlike you, I at least have a grasp of the basics. You deny them. So naturally, there is friction. But I do not 'throw abuse at every turn'. This does not mean that I have to put up with your misrepresentations without response and often riposte. You do, after all, aggressively troll my comments.

This, and other attributes of your argument structure only point out - that you are not interested in science, likely do not come from a background in science, and are most likely quite immature and inexperienced - not having seen much.

Here's a bit of personal information to help you characterise me better. I am 46. I have seen and done a great deal. I am in voluntary semi-retirement which hopefully will become the real thing next year. This is a personal failure - I always said I'd be done by 35. I am sufficiently scientifically literate to engage in a discussion with Philip of two papers that I had not previously read (your silence during that exchange was duly noted). I know enough to be certain that you know next-to-nothing about the science.

You have not understood why I took ZDB to task about her renewables boosterism. Please see Nov 12, 2011 at 2:50 PM.

You are turning this place into a toxic hole. There is no place where you won't turn up and turn the whole thing into a "RF from CO2" freakshow.

Rubbish. This is a thread started by Zed-the-hated-troll. I have mostly kept away from the main forum, as usual these days.

Why don't you try pulling this trick at any of your warm sites? You'll be kicked out in no time.

Oddly enough, I started a discussion thread about exactly this - and you hijacked it. Paragon of hypocrisy that you are.

I have never encountered anyone with less self-awareness than you demonstrate in comments here. It is constantly, sometimes amusingly and often infuriatingly, amazing.

BBD

You still have not responded to my comments.

Dung

You still haven't admitted that the 'saturation' effect upon which your argument rests is mistaken. So we are a bit stuck, aren't we?