Conclusive physical evidence for AWG?

True, but how rercently? I have yet to find or be presented with credible account of MWP being warmer than the past decade was.

Positive feedback worked both when more-independent variables favored cooling and when they favored warming. Historically before Industrial Revolution that was "Milankovitch Cycles".

The presentations you mention are over multiple kilo-years (at least) and on that time scale before "Industrial Revolution" atmospheric CO2 concentration was a positive feedback mechanism - both lagging and reinforcing.

After the "Industrial Revolution", the game changed due to humans transfering carbon from the "lithosphere" to the "carbon cycle". Since the late 1800's, global temperature started lagging by a few years the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration past the roughly 280 ppmv that used to be interglacial-level.

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

Earth has history of global temperature changing by a goodly 10 degrees C through the past at-least 4 of the most-global of the "Milankovitch Cycles" (the "eccentricity" one).

Earth does indeed have a historical uper limit - with global average surface temperature historical estimated-upper-limits being close to 22 degreees C at times when the world was warm enough to remove most of the positive feedback that resulted from mobility of change in coverage of significant regions of the world by snow/ice in one form or another.

Please keep in mind what the sea level was when our planet had stable temperature with higher presence of "Greenhouse Gases". Who pays the bills to move from "where it was good" to "where it becomes good"? How much or how little should taxation assist population movements from regions becoming less-livable to regions more-livable, and where is a line drawn (or where are lines drawn) so that individuals/families/regions "knowing what to do" as a result of "good attitude" are only taxed to "charitably appropriate extent" ("My Words") and that "the successful" get hit with taxes "sufficiently short of punishing the successful for succeess".

- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)

No. Tony Bliar sent UK into Iraq because of WMD. Tony Bliar and his successor Gordon Clown have been pushing AGW.

No. Tony Bliar sent UK into Iraq because of WMD. Tony Bliar and his successor Gordon Clown have been pushing AGW.

irrelevent link that does not discuss carbonate rocks.

So? I didn't dispute that. If you can't follow the discussion don't comment.

And in the UK the greenies are fighting the Severn Barrage that would generate 20% of our electricity.

Greenies want us back in the stone age.

Stupid rhetoric from the greenie AGW crowd. But not just rhetoric.

/quote

Earth First! certainly does make other groups appear moderate: In the name of environmental protection, Earth First! members have spiked trees (a policy Earth First! renounced several years ago), filled bulldozer gas tanks with sand, chained themselves to heavy industrial equipment to prevent its use and, according to some corporate executives, threatened to kill executives' children and spouses. In

/end quote

We've just been through a grand solar maximum with the sun hyperactive. The insolation has been high and fairly constant.

The sun is now going to take a break. And it will be colder.

/quote

Abstract: Solar variability is controlled by the internal dynamo which is a nonlinear system. We develop a physical-statistical method for forecasting solar activity that takes into account the non-linear character of the solar dynamo. The method is based on the generally accepted mechanisms of the dynamo and on recently found systematic properties of the long-term solar variability. The amplitude modulation of the Schwabe cycle in the dynamo?s magnetic field components can be decomposed in an invariant transition level and three types of oscillations around it. The regularities that we observe in the behaviour of these oscillations during the last millennium enable us to forecast solar activity. We find that the system is presently undergoing a transition from the recent Grand Maximum to another regime.

This transition started in 2000 and it is expected to end around the maximum of cycle 24, foreseen for 2014, with a maximum sunspot number Rmax = 68 plus/minus 17. At that time a period of lower solar activity will start. That period will be one of regular oscillations, as occurred between 1730 and 1923. The first of these oscillations may even turn out to be as strongly negative as around 1810, in which case a short Grand Minimum similar to the Dalton one might develop. This moderate to low-activity episode is expected to last for at least one Gleissberg cycle (60 - 100 years)

/end quote

ns

Be coercive, be a master of your magnetic domain. Don't display your reluctance!

Here is conclusive evidence for AWG.

Puns

_wire_gauge

Rod Serling got it right...... way back in 1961.

Mark

c Puns

an_wire_gauge

Which is funnier, using Wiki to prove something, using a Twilight Zone episode to argue for something, or a Wiki about a TZ episode used as argument?

Quit your job and walk around with a sandwich board sign saying "The End Is Near!". LOL

About the same capacity as one medium sized nuke and probably 5 times more expensive.

Please! No Mho!

Actually the egg heads are presently saying something more along the lines of "don't you think it would be a good idea to travel at a speed where you can stop in the distance that you can see to be clear".

And Exxon and its lying PR team are saying, no, no keep the pedal to the metal and scream if you want to go faster. It will all end in tears.

Shades of the Italian job I expect.

Regards, Martin Brown

Do you doubt the accounts of growing grapes in England and Norse farmers in Greenland, or do you conjecture that it wasn't warm in places like the Americas that had not been discovered yet?

Are you using Michael Mann's hockey stick figures? Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, created some random test data that had, on average, no trends, fed the random data into the Mann procedure, and out popped a hockey stick shape!

Hocket Stick Problems:

Here are some more reliable figures:

Surface Temperature, Sargaso Sea, 100 BC - 2000 AD

Compare with: US Temperatures 1880-2006:

CO2, 1850-2000:

Sea level, 1800-2000:

Glacier shortening, 1700-2000:

Glacier shortening compared with sea level, 1700-2000:

Corrolation between CO2, Arctic temerature, solar activity:

Bringing all of the above together in one chart:

I liked you better when you were arguing on the basis of evidence instead of making personal attacks.

A side note: the CO2 concentrations have never been so high as they are now. Ice drillings show that.

Not quite true. Over here the winters have become noticably warmer with less frost. This winter has been the first winter in which people where able to skate on canals and bigger lakes since 11 years. The last winter in which people could skate on ice in small canals has been about 5 or 6 years ago.

There is one thing you are missing but is definitely a political factor in this discussion: the fossil fuel reserves aren't infinite and alternatives take longer to develop than planned. So any reason to reduce the fossil fuel consumption is a good one. It doesn't take a genius to understand that all of the fossile fuel will be used eventually. Cutting fossil fuel consumption may postpone the point of exhaustion for a couple of years or allow more people to drive a car (which by then are willing to pay for cars powered by something else).

Sometimes s*it happens but angels are always around:

Klipstein fits my categorization:

"An engineer is supposed to have an inquisitive mind and question unproven theories. Leftist weenies have neither attribute. Their behavior is of a religious nature.

Thus, like all religious nutcases, they should be culled out and disposed of."

...Jim Thompson

The sky is falling, the sky is falling. Run for the hills before those mean old right wingers come and shoot us in the ass.

(I can hardly contain myself, waiting :-)

...Jim Thompson

Positive feedback only leads to run-away situations if the the incremental feedback is greater than unity

The earth has - in fact - looked more like your (b) for the last million years, alternating between ice ages and interglacials. Since this alternation seems to have been driven by the small orbital forcing described by Milankovitch

we don't seem to be talking about a limit cycle here, but rather simple postive feedback that isn't quite large enough to produce run- away.

Engineers don't always understand positive feedback as well as they might. In 1979 I used a small amout of positive feedback to linearise a platinum resistance thermometer, which is routine now (since Honeywell designed it into one of their circuits) but wasn't back then. The engineer who took over the project when I moved on had precisely you kind of mistrust of positive feedback, and replaced a single precision resistor with couple of diodes and a handful of resistors that did a poorer job, to eliminate a non-existent risk of oscillation.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

ng

es an

ed

ur

ing

n_

Tony Blair's participation in the Irak debacle was entirely in his capacity as a lackey of George W,Bush - Britain would never had invaded Irak on its own, and the US would still have invaded Irak even if Tony Blair had had more sense and more backbone.

Tony Blair took the UK into Irak as a US lap-dog - he didn't care about the reality of WMD's any more than Bush did, and even if he had he was in no position to point out that Bush was talking nonsense.

At least they have got something right.

The Ice Ages are a little too close together for geological carbon capture to be all that important. It does become more important when you go back further into the geological past.

What you said was

I'd foolishly assumed that you had some minimal understanding of what was going on. In the ice core data, the Milankovitch mechanism eventually reduces the solar heat being absorbed by the earth, which cools the planet a little, oceans included. The cooler oceans can dissolve more CO2 so the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases, along with the water vapour, reducing greenhouse warming, so the oceans cool some more. Because the positive feedback is low enough to avoid run-away cooling, the earth's surface temperature eventually settles down at new - lower - equilibrium and stays there until the Milankovitch cycle injects a little bit more solar radiation and reverses the process.

If you didn't already appreciate this rather basic point you should be spending your time learning more about the subject, rather than wasting our time by posting your half-baked ideas.

-- Bill Sloman, Nijmegen