Climate Change? Of course. Which way?

[Dr Kynes]

Where's your evidence? Just making claims without citations again I see. How about if you present evidence that Greenland was not covered in an ice sheet since I'm inclined to believe the experts that have studied this, especially the paleoarcheologists that demonstrate it is over 100,000 years old by multiple methodologies.

View attachment 2357410

yes, once upon a tiime greenland was green and NOT covered by ice. the norse had several settlements there, including the inland valleys (now under massive ice sheets, but 1000+ years in the cooler will do that)

and in that distant time greenland was called Thule. it was on maps used by the greeks the romans, and the cartheginians.

Strabo in his Geography (c. 30), Book I, Chapter 4, mentions Thule in describing Eratosthenes' calculation of "the breadth of the inhabited world" and notes that Pytheas says it "is a six days' sail north of Britain, and is near the frozen sea." But he then doubts this claim, writing that Pytheas has "been found, upon scrutiny, to be an arch falsifier, but the men who have seen Britain and Ierne (Ireland) do not mention Thule, though they speak of other islands, small ones, about Britain." Strabo adds the following in Book II, Chapter 5:

Now Pytheas of Massilia tells us that Thule, the most northerly of the Britannic Islands, is farthest north, and that there the circle of the summer tropic is the same as the Arctic Circle. But from the other writers I learn nothing on the subject—neither that there exists a certain island by the name of Thule, nor whether the northern regions are inhabitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes the Arctic Circle.
​

Strabo ultimately concludes, in Book IV, Chapter 5, "Concerning Thule, our historical information is still more uncertain, on account of its outside position; for Thule, of all the countries that are named, is set farthest north."

• Ancient Greeks had a legend of Hyperborea, a land of perpetual sun beyond the “north wind.” Hecataeus (c. 500 BC) says that the holy place of the Hyperboreans, which was built “after the pattern of the spheres,” which lay “in the regions beyond the land of the Celts” on “an island in the ocean” believed to be Thule.
  

• In 330 B.C., Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia, while sailing the North Atlantic, discovered what he believed to be Thule. His book About the Oceans gave an account of the journey, but it remains lost.
  .
  
• Cleomedes referenced Pytheas’ journey to Thule, but added no new information.
  .
• Virgil, c. 37 B.C., coined the term Ultima Thule (Georgics, 1. 30) meaning “farthest land” as a symbolic reference to denote a far-off land or an unattainable goal.
  .
  
• In the 1st century B.C., Greek astronomer Geminus of Rhodes claimed that the etymology of Thule came from an archaic word for the polar night phenomenon – “the place where the sun goes to rest”.
  .
  
• Dionysius Periegetes in his De situ habitabilis orbis also touched upon the subject, as did Martianus Capella.
  .
  
• Roman historian Tacitus, in his 98 A.D. book chronicling the life of his father-in-law, Agricola, describes how the Romans knew that Britain (which Agricola was commander of) was an island. He writes of a Roman ship that circumnavigated Britain, and discovered the Orkney Islands and says the ship’s crew even sighted Thule. However their orders were not to explore there, as winter was at hand.
  .
• A novel in Greek by Antonius Diogenes entitled The Wonders Beyond Thule appeared c. A.D. 150 or earlier. Gerald N. Sandy, in the introduction to his translation of Photius’ 9th-century summary of The Wonders Beyond Thule, surmises that Thule was “probably Iceland.”
  .
• Latin grammarian Gaius Julius Solinus in the 3rd century A.D., wrote in his Polyhistor that Thule was a 5 days sail from Orkney:
  
  …Thule, which was distant from Orkney by a voyage of five days and nights, was fruitful and abundant in the lasting yield of its crops.
  …Ab Orcadibus Thylen usque dierum ac noctium navigatio est; sed Thyle larga et diutina Pomona copiosa est.
  
  ​

• In the 4th century A.D., Avienus in his Ora Maritima added that during the summer on Thule night lasted only two hours, a clear reference to the midnight sun.
  

• The 4th century Virgilian commentator Servius also believed that Thule sat close by to the Orkney Islands:
  
  …Thule; an island in the Ocean between the northern and western zone, beyond Britain, near the Orkneys and Ireland; in this way Thule is with the sun in Cancer, in perpetual daylight without night, it is said.
  …Thule; insula est Oceani inter septemtrionalem et occidentalem plagam, ultra Britanniam, iuxta Orcades et Hiberniam; in hac Thule cum sol in Cancro est, perpetui dies sine noctibus dicuntur…
  
  ​

• Early in the fifth century A.D., Claudian, in his poem, On the Fourth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius, Book VIII, rhapsodizes on the conquests of the emperor Theodosius I, declaring that the “Orcades [Orkney Islands] ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia [Ireland] wept for the heaps of slain Scots.” This implies that Thule was Scotland. But in Against Rufinias, the Second Poem, Claudian writes of “Thule lying icebound beneath the pole-star.”
  .
• The known world came to be viewed as bounded in the east by India and in the west by Thule, as expressed in the Consolation of Philosophy (c. A.D. 524) by Boethius.…
  
  …For though the earth, as far as India’s shore, tremble before the laws you give, though Thule bow to your service on earth’s farthest bounds, yet if thou canst not drive away black cares, if thou canst not put to flight complaints, then is no true power thine.
  ​

• In 551 A.D. Jordanes, in his Getica wrote that Thule sat under the pole-star.
  .
• Seneca the Younger wrote of a day when new lands will be discovered past Thule. This was later quoted widely in the context of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America:
  
  …There will come an age in the far-off years when Ocean shall unloose the bonds of things, when the whole broad earth shall be revealed, when Tethys shall disclose new worlds and Thule not be the limit of the lands.
  …Venient annis saecula seris, quibus Oceanus vincula rerum laxet et ingens pateat tellus Tethysque novos detegat orbes nec sit terris ultima Thule..
  
  
  ​

b8ut yeahh im just blowin smoke, i really dont know shit since im not a mathlete and dont have a phd behind my name. and since you obviously cant recognize a reference from literature in my nome du plume, p[erhaps you should re-evaluate you declarations as to who may or may not be ignorant.

you may bow begin criiticising my typing, spelling and grammar.

 

[ginjawarrior]

View attachment 2357410

yes, once upon a tiime greenland was green and NOT covered by ice. the norse had several settlements there, including the inland valleys (now under massive ice sheets, but 1000+ years in the cooler will do that)

and in that distant time greenland was called Thule. it was on maps used by the greeks the romans, and the cartheginians.

Strabo in his Geography (c. 30), Book I, Chapter 4, mentions Thule in describing Eratosthenes' calculation of "the breadth of the inhabited world" and notes that Pytheas says it "is a six days' sail north of Britain, and is near the frozen sea." But he then doubts this claim, writing that Pytheas has "been found, upon scrutiny, to be an arch falsifier, but the men who have seen Britain and Ierne (Ireland) do not mention Thule, though they speak of other islands, small ones, about Britain." Strabo adds the following in Book II, Chapter 5:

Now Pytheas of Massilia tells us that Thule, the most northerly of the Britannic Islands, is farthest north, and that there the circle of the summer tropic is the same as the Arctic Circle. But from the other writers I learn nothing on the subject—neither that there exists a certain island by the name of Thule, nor whether the northern regions are inhabitable up to the point where the summer tropic becomes the Arctic Circle.
​

Strabo ultimately concludes, in Book IV, Chapter 5, "Concerning Thule, our historical information is still more uncertain, on account of its outside position; for Thule, of all the countries that are named, is set farthest north."

• Ancient Greeks had a legend of Hyperborea, a land of perpetual sun beyond the “north wind.” Hecataeus (c. 500 BC) says that the holy place of the Hyperboreans, which was built “after the pattern of the spheres,” which lay “in the regions beyond the land of the Celts” on “an island in the ocean” believed to be Thule.
  

• In 330 B.C., Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia, while sailing the North Atlantic, discovered what he believed to be Thule. His book About the Oceans gave an account of the journey, but it remains lost.
  .
  
• Cleomedes referenced Pytheas’ journey to Thule, but added no new information.
  .
• Virgil, c. 37 B.C., coined the term Ultima Thule (Georgics, 1. 30) meaning “farthest land” as a symbolic reference to denote a far-off land or an unattainable goal.
  .
  
• In the 1st century B.C., Greek astronomer Geminus of Rhodes claimed that the etymology of Thule came from an archaic word for the polar night phenomenon – “the place where the sun goes to rest”.
  .
  
• Dionysius Periegetes in his De situ habitabilis orbis also touched upon the subject, as did Martianus Capella.
  .
  
• Roman historian Tacitus, in his 98 A.D. book chronicling the life of his father-in-law, Agricola, describes how the Romans knew that Britain (which Agricola was commander of) was an island. He writes of a Roman ship that circumnavigated Britain, and discovered the Orkney Islands and says the ship’s crew even sighted Thule. However their orders were not to explore there, as winter was at hand.
  .
• A novel in Greek by Antonius Diogenes entitled The Wonders Beyond Thule appeared c. A.D. 150 or earlier. Gerald N. Sandy, in the introduction to his translation of Photius’ 9th-century summary of The Wonders Beyond Thule, surmises that Thule was “probably Iceland.”
  .
• Latin grammarian Gaius Julius Solinus in the 3rd century A.D., wrote in his Polyhistor that Thule was a 5 days sail from Orkney:
  …Thule, which was distant from Orkney by a voyage of five days and nights, was fruitful and abundant in the lasting yield of its crops.
  …Ab Orcadibus Thylen usque dierum ac noctium navigatio est; sed Thyle larga et diutina Pomona copiosa est.
  
  ​

• In the 4th century A.D., Avienus in his Ora Maritima added that during the summer on Thule night lasted only two hours, a clear reference to the midnight sun.
  

• The 4th century Virgilian commentator Servius also believed that Thule sat close by to the Orkney Islands:
  …Thule; an island in the Ocean between the northern and western zone, beyond Britain, near the Orkneys and Ireland; in this way Thule is with the sun in Cancer, in perpetual daylight without night, it is said.
  …Thule; insula est Oceani inter septemtrionalem et occidentalem plagam, ultra Britanniam, iuxta Orcades et Hiberniam; in hac Thule cum sol in Cancro est, perpetui dies sine noctibus dicuntur…
  
  ​

• Early in the fifth century A.D., Claudian, in his poem, On the Fourth Consulship of the Emperor Honorius, Book VIII, rhapsodizes on the conquests of the emperor Theodosius I, declaring that the “Orcades [Orkney Islands] ran red with Saxon slaughter; Thule was warm with the blood of Picts; ice-bound Hibernia [Ireland] wept for the heaps of slain Scots.” This implies that Thule was Scotland. But in Against Rufinias, the Second Poem, Claudian writes of “Thule lying icebound beneath the pole-star.”
  .
• The known world came to be viewed as bounded in the east by India and in the west by Thule, as expressed in the Consolation of Philosophy (c. A.D. 524) by Boethius.…
  …For though the earth, as far as India’s shore, tremble before the laws you give, though Thule bow to your service on earth’s farthest bounds, yet if thou canst not drive away black cares, if thou canst not put to flight complaints, then is no true power thine.
  ​

• In 551 A.D. Jordanes, in his Getica wrote that Thule sat under the pole-star.
  .
• Seneca the Younger wrote of a day when new lands will be discovered past Thule. This was later quoted widely in the context of Christopher Columbus’ discovery of America:
  …There will come an age in the far-off years when Ocean shall unloose the bonds of things, when the whole broad earth shall be revealed, when Tethys shall disclose new worlds and Thule not be the limit of the lands.
  …Venient annis saecula seris, quibus Oceanus vincula rerum laxet et ingens pateat tellus Tethysque novos detegat orbes nec sit terris ultima Thule..
  
  
  ​

b8ut yeahh im just blowin smoke, i really dont know shit since im not a mathlete and dont have a phd behind my name. and since you obviously cant recognize a reference from literature in my nome du plume, p[erhaps you should re-evaluate you declarations as to who may or may not be ignorant.

you may bow begin criiticising my typing, spelling and grammar.

fuck the spelling and grammer where the fuck is the data? anecdotes does not equal a temperature comparison to modern times


EDIT i cant help look at those maps and at the uk and wonder about their accuracy

 

[mindphuk]

Thule (/ˈθjuːliː/;[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP] Greek: Θούλη, Thoulē), also spelled Thula, Thila, or Thyïlea, is, in classical European literature and maps, a region in the far north. Though often considered to be an island in antiquity, modern interpretations of what was meant by Thule often identify it as Norway.[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Other interpretations include Orkney, Shetland, and Scandinavia. In the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance, Thule was often identified as Iceland or Greenland. Another suggested location is Saaremaa in the Baltic Sea.[SUP][5][/SUP]

I see, so a land marked on a map by different cultures that could actually reference different land masses, without any clear identifying features, including ice, somehow proves that Greenland ice sheet did not exist. Brilliant. As my lack of recognizing your nom de plume, if the only thing you can claim I am ignorant about is a science fiction novel, then so be it.

 

[Dr Kynes]

I see, so a land marked on a map by different cultures that could actually reference different land masses, without any clear identifying features, including ice, somehow proves that Greenland ice sheet did not exist. Brilliant. As my lack of recognizing your nom de plume, if the only thing you can claim I am ignorant about is a science fiction novel, then so be it.

very well, as soon as i invent a tiime machine i will travel back 1200 years and take pictures of thule with norsemen walking around in cutty sarks and sandals instead of furs. once i get back ill post those pics up and then you can say i faked em.

or maybe you can deign to read this.

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jul/thegreenlandviki1186

nords in greenland in the tenth century? warm summers in greenland? living on th einner fjords far from the sea?

see i used my time machine to go back to '97 and fabricate this article and the archeological sites they were excavating. im just that badass.

the classical literature describes an even older settlement as well which may be fancy, or may be fact, but the climatological data still shows greenland was in fact not always cold, and has been inhabited, then abandoned and lost, then found and inhabited again.

when taken in conjunction with roman amphorae in brazil, copper mines in the northeast of the US and ancient stories of a distant land to the west (hybrasil, thule, etc...) it is not unthinkable that greenland could have been "discovered", lost, then "rediscovered" more than the TWICE currently officially recorded. but then if it hasnt been documented yet i suppose it remains in a state of quantum indeterminism, so despite historical records of otherwise reliable sources in antiquity, we cant decide if the cat is alive or dead yet.

 

[mindphuk]

very well, as soon as i invent a tiime machine i will travel back 1200 years and take pictures of thule with norsemen walking around in cutty sarks and sandals instead of furs. once i get back ill post those pics up and then you can say i faked em.

or maybe you can deign to read this.

http://discovermagazine.com/1997/jul/thegreenlandviki1186

nords in greenland in the tenth century? warm summers in greenland? living on th einner fjords far from the sea?

Funny how if you keep reading you see, "nestled up against the ice sheet and sheltered from fierce winds. A persistent high-pressure zone over the ice cap made for warm summers on the fjords by deflecting coastal storms out to sea."

Of course a persistent ice sheet doesn't help your argument so I don't wonder why you left it out. No one has claimed that the entirety of Greenland was covered in an ice sheet but you certainly seem to have claimed it was a lush, green island and the ice sheet is relatively new. Greenland summers are not new, the fiords are not new. The ice sheet is thinning and exposing areas that even those Vikings weren't privy to. You lie. You have no evidence to support your claim a glacial peak in 800 CE and have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Probably because there isn't any.

 

[Carne Seca]

Actually, folks. He's right on the money. He has cited enough evidence to back up his claim. Everyone agrees we're going through a warming trend. Not everyone agrees on the reason. Personally, I feel it's a natural trend exacerbated by human excess. How this ends up is anyone's guess.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Actually, folks. He's right on the money. He has cited enough evidence to back up his claim. Everyone agrees we're going through a warming trend. Not everyone agrees on the reason. Personally, I feel it's a natural trend exacerbated by human excess. How this ends up is anyone's guess.

when did he do that?

 

[Dr Kynes]

Funny how if you keep reading you see, "nestled up against the ice sheet and sheltered from fierce winds. A persistent high-pressure zone over the ice cap made for warm summers on the fjords by deflecting coastal storms out to sea."

Of course a persistent ice sheet doesn't help your argument so I don't wonder why you left it out. No one has claimed that the entirety of Greenland was covered in an ice sheet but you certainly seem to have claimed it was a lush, green island and the ice sheet is relatively new. Greenland summers are not new, the fiords are not new. The ice sheet is thinning and exposing areas that even those Vikings weren't privy to. You lie. You have no evidence to support your claim a glacial peak in 800 CE and have yet to provide a single piece of evidence. Probably because there isn't any.

paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them.

i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well.

not having a vast library of old magazines (my house would be full if i kept them all) and no longer having a pass to the local university library i cant dig up all the references i recall, and not everything is online. this does not equate to having no evidence, in fact i could drag up numerous sources for many things but of course if strabo is too unreliable then clearly aristotle, galen and publius rufus would never pass muster. i shudder to think how you would react to something written by someone even farther removed from your accepted list of sources.

also note this was DURING the "little ice age" after the medieval warm period not the earlier cold spike that drove the visigoths south.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/





but then im probably just blowin smoke. there was never no ice ages, thats all just climate denier mythology.

 

[ginjawarrior]

paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them.

i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well.

not having a vast library of old magazines (my house would be full if i kept them all) and no longer having a pass to the local university library i cant dig up all the references i recall, and not everything is online. this does not equate to having no evidence, in fact i could drag up numerous sources for many things but of course if strabo is too unreliable then clearly aristotle, galen and publius rufus would never pass muster. i shudder to think how you would react to something written by someone even farther removed from your accepted list of sources.

also note this was DURING the "little ice age" after the medieval warm period not the earlier cold spike that drove the visigoths south.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/27/archibald-on-stellar-to-climate-linkage/





but then im probably just blowin smoke. there was never no ice ages, thats all just climate denier mythology.

when your information comes from sources so old that the internet doesnt hold any reference to them what so ever then it might be time for you to update your knowledge to something a bit more current...
"never no ice ages," really thats what your going with?

david archibald has been shown to put out bad papers a couple of times he cherry picks and fits data to get results he wants

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/my-model-used-for-deception/#more-477
http://n3xus6.blogspot.co.uk/2007/02/dd.html

and antony watts is a paid up lacky of the heartland institutie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/15/leaked-heartland-institute-documents-climate-scepticism

so your info is out of date magazines and 2 disinfo agents

 

[mindphuk]

paleoclimatology (not a new discipline, in fact an old one, they been taking ice cores since i was a tot) has demonstrated that every glacier on earth has gone through several radical advances and retreats, many which were present long ago are not even identifiable as glaciers any more, and several glaciers are new enough that the shine is still on them.

We are not discussing glaciers in general but specifically the Greenland ice sheet. The one that has been there 110,000 years. When you use words like 'long ago' and 'new' when discussing geological formations, to me they are nothing more than weasel words. New is relative considering the deep time of the earth.

i even remember an article dealing with the nature of the wood used in making stradivarius violins which argued that a severe re-glaciation caused slower growth and tighter grain in the wood used to make them which was claimed by the author to be part of why they sound so distinctive and last so well.

That's nice. What does this have to do with anything? I never claimed glaciers never retreated.

not having a vast library of old magazines (my house would be full if i kept them all) and no longer having a pass to the local university library i cant dig up all the references i recall, and not everything is online. this does not equate to having no evidence, in fact i could drag up numerous sources for many things but of course if strabo is too unreliable then clearly aristotle, galen and publius rufus would never pass muster. i shudder to think how you would react to something written by someone even farther removed from your accepted list of sources.

WTF are you talking about? Accepted list of sources? I don't accept any sources that uses hearsay. Considering Strabo himself did not know any facts about Thule, and even doubts it's existence, using him to support your belief that Thule not only was Greenland, but didn't have an ice sheet is the definition of 'stretching it.' You appear to want to create facts to fit your beliefs. Sorry, but as a scientist, I can't accept your bullshit.

 

[Doer]

Cloud Effect variables, that are not considered in the common parlance, actually set the probability of any warming at all, to statistically null, at this time.

The Satellite data set is only 30 years old and the good, high resolution stuff is only 15 years old. That does not square with the political data.

Cloud Effect specifically is not even being considered by the Cloud Effect, in denial, types. You can't deny Cloud Effect. Just stand in the shade, but really it is the reflection off the upper decks that is increasing. The heat goes into the atmosphere, but, evaporation does two things. It cools, so the heat doesn't go into the oceans.
We can measure that. Also, it creates more Cloud Effect. More cooling albedo. In winter we already see the same effect, the evaporative cooling creates sea ice, wider spreading on average each year. The very best albedo. (don't want too much) We should be throwing money at this, because if we can't control run-away albedo, we will freeze over. That has happened.

We have only just begun to monitor Cloud Effect from Space and it is already being tainted by those with a non-science, political, fear/guilt agenda.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Cloud Effect variables, that are not considered in the common parlance, actually set the probability of any warming at all, to statistically null, at this time.

The Satellite data set is only 30 years old and the good, high resolution stuff is only 15 years old. That does not square with the political data.

Cloud Effect specifically is not even being considered by the Cloud Effect, in denial types. You can't deny Could Effect. We have only just begun to monitor it from Space and it is already being tainted by those with a non-science agenda.

well if you want to get away from heartland institute bloggers and other such hacks theres plenty of papers on it

Cloud observations

Variations in cloud cover and cloud types over the ocean from surface observations, 1954–2008 - Eastman et al. (2011)
A high-quality monthly total cloud amount dataset for Australia - Jovanovic et al. (2010)
Cloud features detected by MODIS but not by CloudSat and CALIOP - Chan & Comiso (2011)
Consistency of global satellite-derived aerosol and cloud data sets with recent brightening observations - Cermak et al. (2010)
Changes in extratropical storm track cloudiness 1983–2008: observational support for a poleward shift - Bender et al. (2011)
Cloud feedbacks

The role of low clouds in determining climate sensitivity in response to a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] as obtained from 16 mixed-layer models - Wetherald (2011)
The vertical distribution of cloud feedback in coupled ocean-atmosphere models - Soden & Vecchi (2011) Computing and Partitioning Cloud Feedbacks using Cloud Property Histograms. Part II: Attribution to Changes in Cloud Amount, Altitude, and Optical Depth - Zelinka et al. (2011)
The roles of aerosol, water vapor and cloud in future global dimming/brightening - Haywood et al. (2011)
An Estimate of Low Cloud Feedbacks from Variations of Cloud Radiative and Physical Properties with Sea Surface Temperature on Interannual Time Scales - Eitzen et al. (2010)
The observed sensitivity of high clouds to mean surface temperature anomalies in the Tropics - Zelinka & Hartmann (2011)
Influence of Arctic sea ice extent on polar cloud fraction and vertical structure and implications for regional climate - Palm et al. (2010)
Projected regime shift in Arctic cloud and water vapor feedbacks - Chen et al. (2011)
Cloud response to summer temperatures in Fennoscandia over the last thousand years - Gagen et al. (2011) Cosmic rays and clouds

Cosmic rays linked to rapid mid-latitude cloud changes - Laken et al. (2010)
Forbush decreases, solar irradiance variations, and anomalous cloud changes - Laken et al. (2011)
Do cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reactions impact stratospheric ozone depletion and global climate change? - Grooss & Muller (2011)
Cosmic ray effects on cloud cover and their relevance to climate change - Erlykin et al. (2011)
Solar irradiance, cosmic rays and cloudiness over daily timescales - Laken & Čalogović (2011)
Relationship of Lower Troposphere Cloud Cover and Cosmic Rays: An Updated Perspective - Agee et al. (2011)
The contribution of cosmic rays to global warming - Sloan & Wolfendale (2011)
Other issues

Do anthropogenic aerosols enhance or suppress the surface cloud forcing in the Arctic? - Alterskjær et al. (2010)
Long-Term Trends in Downwelling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains - Gero & Turner (2011)
Atmospheric and surface contributions to planetary albedo - Donohoe & Battisti (2011)
Clouds and the Faint Young Sun Paradox - Goldblatt & Zahnle (2011)
Microphysical and macrophysical responses of marine stratocumulus polluted by underlying ships: Evidence of cloud deepening - Christensen & Stephens (2011)
Global analysis of cloud field coverage and radiative properties, using morphological methods and MODIS observations - Bar-Or et al. (2011)
Cloud effect of persistent stratus nebulosus at the Payerne BSRN site - Wacker et al. (2011)
Atmospheric cloud water contains a diverse bacterial community - Kourtev et al. (2011)
The aerosol–Bénard cell effect on marine stratocumulus clouds and its contribution to glacial-interglacial cycles - Bar-Or et al. (2011)
Influence of the extent and genera of cloud cover on solar radiation intensity - Matuszko (2011)
Cloud variations and the Earth's energy budget - Dessler (2011)
Combining satellite data and models to estimate cloud radiative effect at the surface and in the atmosphere - Allan (2011)
Reproducibility by climate models of cloud radiative forcing associated with tropical convection - Ichikawa et al. (2011)
World War II contrails: a case study of aviation-induced cloudiness - Ryan et al. (2011)

 

[Doer]

Exactly, so don't be a denier. Cloud Effect. I have seen much of that stuff, but not all of it, thanks. It is all there. No one, that remains untainted, has decided about Cloud Effect, one way or another. There is no consensus. No Theory.

And if you look, and if your drop the political heartland bullshit, you will find plenty of peer review that attempts to not take political sides at all. I think cn was right on this, at the beginning. The only thing that matters is the peer review science. If someone can't follow that, their opinions are political only.

BTW, I don't read blogs, on anything. I find facts and make discussion about it. No axe, no agenda.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Exactly, so don't be a denier. Cloud Effect. I have seen much of that stuff, but not all of it, thanks. It is all there. No one, that remains untainted, has decided about Cloud Effect, one way or another. There is no consensus. No Theory.

you've read much of those and still think cloud effect is the driving force in this? please could you point to the ones that gave you that impression

And if you look, and if your drop the political heartland bullshit, you will find plenty of peer review that attempts to not take political sides at all. I think cn was right on this, at the beginning. The only thing that matters is the peer review science. If someone can't follow that, their opinions are political only.

before i go off looking for ones that aren't taking political sides could you point out some examples of the ones that have got a political agenda so i dont get them mixed up?

BTW, I don't read blogs, on anything. I find facts and make discussion about it. No axe, no agenda.

well you must be finding these "facts" somewhere alot of them sound suspiciously close to the bloggers/ thoroughly discredited hacks

the mountain of evidence on one side compared to the discredited memes repeated by the otherside leaves me looking at this debate as getting close to a par with the evolution/ creationism debate and frankly its about time the denialist side puts up something substantive or backs of and let us start sorting this problem

my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants to supply baseload then building supplemental wind and solar

 

[Doer]

You know, I will vote for that. But, just because you can find bloggist bs, doesn't mean I have any interest in lies, or opinions, of any kind. If you read my posts here, I'm trying to remain strictly neutral to ideology on any subject. If it seems like I'm re-gurging, I'm not. But, if others can find out what I find out, I'm not at all surprised. What is a blogger but an opinion monger?

It seems you agree that there is political agenda and there is science. To me it is bad science, but to you it is early warning. I stipulate we differ here.

I happen to think the Ice Ages are not fiction and will be back. But, we don't have any reliable data that suggests a heat overload situation in the last 300 million years. And that is speciously tied to CO2 in ice cores.

I just can't accept the cause and effect. It is a stretch. It seemed warmer and there seem to have been more CO2 from the scant evidence in the samples we think are from 300 million years ago.

So, AGW to hold off the Ice? That's good thinking. To jack everyone in fear and guilt to bury the actual problem of how to hold off the Next Ice Age, is wrong, I think.

Carbon Trading?? What a Jack. So, to solve Energy is one thing, and I think we are doing that. There is no magic Billion in research that can double battery tech, for example, or Solar tech, (still need battery) But the money can be wasted for political capital.

So, please show me a Cloud Effect Model, (not even a Theory, there isn't one.) Show us 2 computer models that agree. Show just 1 model than can agree with the satellite data. We are not there, yet, but I like your depth of understanding the bigger scope.

 

[ginjawarrior]

You know, I will vote for that. But, just because you can find bloggist bs, doesn't mean I have any interest in lies, or opinions, of any kind. If you read my posts here, I'm trying to remain strictly neutral to ideology on any subject. If it seems like I'm re-gurging, I'm not. But, if others can find out what I find out, I'm not at all surprised. What is a blogger but an opinion monger?

the bloggers and article writers are the source of memes like "its cloud effect" when you finally get a denier to show the source of their information it invariably gets back to one of them

It seems you agree that there is political agenda and there is science. To me it is bad science, but to you it is early warning. I stipulate we differ here.

you can call it matilda and dress it up in pigtails for all you want but unless you have data/evidence to back it up its meaningless
there are politics on both sides but when it comes down to the actual science its been saying the same thing for years the evidence is building up and and it all points one way

I happen to think the Ice Ages are not fiction and will be back. But, we don't have any reliable data that suggests a heat overload situation in the last 300 million years. And that is speciously tied to CO2 in ice cores.

who on earth is saying the ice ages are fiction? at some point in the distant future they possibly will return but as of now all evidence that its getting hotter and its accelerating

I just can't accept the cause and effect. It is a stretch. It seemed warmer and there seem to have been more CO2 from the scant evidence in the samples we think are from 300 million years ago.

cause
[youtube]SeYfl45X1wo[/youtube]
effect
[youtube]q0kIaCKPlH4[/youtube]
accept it or not that is what is happening

So, AGW to hold off the Ice? That's good thinking. To jack everyone in fear and guilt to bury the actual problem of how to hold off the Next Ice Age, is wrong, I think.

sure as soon as you show that we're heading into an ice age i'll be behind holding it off. but seeing as evidence points the other way i'm looking to decrease emission

and hang on a second you dont believe in the cause and effect yet you think co2 can hold of an ice age???

thats some cognitive dissonance your nursing there

Carbon Trading?? What a Jack. So, to solve Energy is one thing, and I think we are doing that. There is no magic Billion in research that can double battery tech, for example, or Solar tech, (still need battery) But the money can be wasted for political capital.

carbon credits are not the best solution for sure personally i think theres some improvement to be had in efficiency but ideally power consumption per person shouldnt drop that much (and same level should be applied to everyone aro0und the world) but as nuclear power isnt popular carbon credits are3 next best option

So, please show me a Cloud Effect Model, (not even a Theory, there isn't one.) Show us 2 computer models that agree. Show just 1 model than can agree with the satellite data. We are not there, yet, but I like your depth of understanding the bigger scope.

you havent shown cloud effect to be the driving force all your arguing is about sensitivity and the models have been shown to be correct back from 1988 when their models had much less sensitivity

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2006/2006_Hansen_etal_1.pdf
"(coloured dotted lines) with observations from HadCRUT (blue) and NASA GISS data (red). The thin lines are the observed yearly average. The solid lines are the long term trends, which filter out short term weather fluctuations.

Figure 2: Global land and ocean surface temperature from GISS (red) and the Hadley Centre/Climatic Research Unit (blue) up to 2006. Thin lines are yearly average, solid lines are long term trends. Dashed lines are IPCC projections. Grey range encompasses IPCC uncertainty in climate sensitivity."
"


Figure 4 courtesy of Tamino: Solid blue and red lines are trends from GISS and HadCRU data, dashed lines are IPCC projections included in the TAR."

as you can see if anything the models are too conserative.

unless you can show that cloud effect is forcing or has more sensitivity than previously thought the what your doing is a version of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

 

[Doer]

You are showing 30 years. That is the point. You don't know anything about albedo periodic cycles from a scant data set as this. We are only beginning to get the base lines for Cloud Effect. I don't have to prove or disprove anything. That's politics. That's you being bothered because I don't buy it, but you did. Carbon trading is to make Al Gore, rich. There is not even a cause and effect established to even have a Theory of Cloud Effect.

There are no Models of CE that can agree with the data sets. And until we can model it we can't study it. We can only observe and write papers. You can't say this is not closed-loop. You can wave your hands and you can have you're own fallacies, but you can't show a realistic model where CE will allow the so called, made up, greenhouse effect. No model will show that open-loop.

 

[Dr Kynes]

you've read much of those and still think cloud effect is the driving force in this? please could you point to the ones that gave you that impression

before i go off looking for ones that aren't taking political sides could you point out some examples of the ones that have got a political agenda so i dont get them mixed up?
well you must be finding these "facts" somewhere alot of them sound suspiciously close to the bloggers/ thoroughly discredited hacks

the mountain of evidence on one side compared to the discredited memes repeated by the otherside leaves me looking at this debate as getting close to a par with the evolution/ creationism debate and frankly its about time the denialist side puts up something substantive or backs of and let us start sorting this problem

my vote is widespread building of gen 3 and 4 nuclear power plants to supply baseload then building supplemental wind and solar

and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?

springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.

youre a european right ginja? i bet you didnt know that the USA takes in the world's nuclear waste. Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials.

this is just ONE of the many things america does for the rest of the world which is forgotten when you guys declare we are "cultural imperialists" Cowboys" or "selfish capitalist pig-dogs who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes"

the USA has sacrificed far more than europe, africa, asia or the moslems can ever accept, and we didnt ask anything in return, not for the sacrifices of our soldiers to free europe from the tyranny of fascism, nor for the deposing of saddam and his mad regime, nor for the freeing of kuwait, nor for the defense of saudi arabia from the insanity of the iraqi madmen. course we probably just wanted the oil.

WE DIDNT GET NO DAMNED OIL!! WE DIDNT EVEN ASK FOR NO FUCKING OIL! the iraqis saudis kuwaitis and all the rest still sell their oil to whoever will pay them the MOST, no special deal for the US, nope. they stioll sell to whoever will pay the MOST for every drop.

what concessions were france and britain forced to make to the US for their assistance in ww2? NONE

what territories in europe did the us declare to belong to them after the defeat of the nazis? NONE

what land in the mideast (other than embassies which are an even trade between nations) does the us own? NONE

all we ever get for our sacrifice is insults, insurgency, and a big fat bill to our taxpayers for rebuilding your war torn little countries every time some asshole decides to fuck your shit up.

maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.

 

[Heisenberg]

and what to do with the spent fuel and expended control rods?

springfeild can only hold so much, soon we will have to start dumping the shit in Brockway, Ogdenville and North Haverbroock. , and since the USA takes nearly 100% of all the world's nuclear waste, WE the american people will have to live with it, and WE the US tasxpayers will have foot the bill.

youre a european right ginja? i bet you didnt know that the USA takes in the world's nuclear waste. Britain can have all the nuclear plants they want, and never have to build a single nuclear waste dump, keep a single spent control rod, or concern themselves with any contamination from the remains of fissionable materials.

this is just ONE of the many things america does for the rest of the world which is forgotten when you guys declare we are "cultural imperialists" Cowboys" or "selfish capitalist pig-dogs who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes"

the USA has sacrificed far more than europe, africa, asia or the moslems can ever accept, and we didnt ask anything in return, not for the sacrifices of our soldiers to free europe from the tyranny of fascism, nor for the deposing of saddam and his mad regime, nor for the freeing of kuwait, nor for the defense of saudi arabia from the insanity of the iraqi madmen. course we probably just wanted the oil.

WE DIDNT GET NO DAMNED OIL!! WE DIDNT EVEN ASK FOR NO FUCKING OIL! the iraqis saudis kuwaitis and all the rest still sell their oil to whoever will pay them the MOST, no special deal for the US, nope. they stioll sell to whoever will pay the MOST for every drop.

what concessions were france and britain forced to make to the US for their assistance in ww2? NONE

what territories in europe did the us declare to belong to them after the defeat of the nazis? NONE

what land in the mideast (other than embassies which are an even trade between nations) does the us own? NONE

all we ever get for our sacrifice is insults, insurgency, and a big fat bill to our taxpayers for rebuilding your war torn little countries every time some asshole decides to fuck your shit up.

maybe it's time you guys in europe got off the US's tit and stood up for your own selves for a while. or at least stop kicking us in the cunt while you suck our tits dry.

Wow, talk about a passionate misdirect... No one said nuclear power was waste free, just that it is the cleanest option to supply baseline power.

 

[Dr Kynes]

Wow, talk about a passionate misdirect... No one said nuclear power was waste free, just that it is the cleanest option to supply baseline power.

but europeans view it as waste free, since they dont have to deal with it.

WE have to deal with it. if all the world goes nuclear power, the US will become just one big nuclear waste disposal site.

here in the US getting a nuclear plant built is harder than algebra, people always demand, "what about the waste?" in the rest of the world , thats just not a worry since good ol' uncle sam will take it off their hands free of charge and keep it safe and secure. their only nuclear power concerns are accidents, failures and expense of construction. three things that rarely even reach the discussion here in the US.

Europe doesnt have to argue about which of their communities will have a nuclear waste dump under the mountain, thats nevad's problem, or wyoming, or california. not europe's. europe loves nuclear power, its cheap safe and practically pollution free (in europe) since they can ship the waste "someplace else" and "someplace else" is, by treaty, the US.

naturally europe considers nuclear power a fine alternative. everybody should do it! theres just no downside. for them.