A question for Fred Singer:

With no significant trend is solar irradiance or cosmic ray intensity since the 1950s, how is it that global temperarures have risen so dramatically since 1975?

I have a good one:

Does it seem reasonable to say the long term trend in high latitude blocking (NAO, AO, AAO, PNA) have a bigger influence on climate than C02?

Reply: who is this question for Darren? I assume it is Keller, correct?

Dr. Keller, how does the current hypothesis on Anthropogenic Global Warming which has CO2 driving the rise in temperature relate to the well-known observations that for the past several hundred thousand years the rise in CO2 followed the warming with a lag of ~800-1500 years?

Question for Dr. Keller.

Please quantify the relative importance to recent climate changes of the following factors.

1. Changing CO2 concentrations

2. Direct impact of high TSI (total solar irradiance) levels.

3. Variations in GCR (galactic cosmic rays) as modulated by TSI levels. i.e. Svensmark's theory.

Having read your writing, I know that these are all key interests of yours.

Thanks,
Oleg

A couple questions for either.

CO2's mass per cubic meter is about .69 grams at sea level. How can such a small quantity play such a significant role in GW when it's specific heat is less than half of that of Water Vapor?

Why isn't convection ever mentioned in Climate studies when the bulk of energy being transferred from the Earth's surface to space is done so via convection?

Regards,

Steve

WOW!!!. Very cool. I think I might attend, and inform Dr. Singer that BT and Mark are big fans. Seriously though, this does sound like a worth while event to attend. I will have to check my sked. Thanks for the info, Brett!

The Denier.

Oh, by the by, here's a question for both distinguished gentlemen:

How do you feel about Al Gore's qualifications as an advocate for the theory that global warming is being caused by human, and his (and the IPCC)receiving the nobel peace prize for their "efforts" in thwarting global warming?

Save the planet from AL GORE!!!!

A question for both: We are constantly told that human endeavors cause global warming. However, there are many other factors involved as well. To what degree is global warming caused by industrial activity? Can it be quantified? If we cut CO2 emissions by 10% what impact does that have on global warming over what time period, with what degree of confidence? Please provide research citations.

Darren M,

Unfortunately, these are not free, but here are links to papers on the relationship of climate and some of the oscillations mentioned.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1999/1999GL900317.shtml

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2005GL024080.shtml

Also, section 3.5 and 3.6 of the following covers circulation of the atmosphere
as well as some of the various oscillations.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch03.pdf

Steve,

Convection can only transport heat within the atmosphere. It can not physically transport heat to outer space. Reflection and the emission of radiation are the only 2 mechanism physically available for the earth to dissipate heat to outer space.

Also, compare the concentration of CO2 to H20 at an elevation of 20,000 feet to more fully appreciate the relative importance of each in determining the ability of the earths atmosphere to radiate infrared energy.

Reply: Hey, where's the question?

Jacob,

The earths climate responds to both changes of the earths orbit and concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Changes in the earths orbit initiated the warming, but by itself is insufficient to explain all of it. It is only after factoring in the warming from CO2 that the temperature history can be explained.

Reply: Hey guys, this thread is for questions. Let's keep it to that so Katie does not have to sift through more than she needs to. Brett

Dr Singer:

Given that the world's premier scientific bodies such as the Royal society and the National Academies of Science, have assessed the evidence for human caused global warming and found the science to be both solid and sobering, why should laypersons who may not know the intricacies of global climate trust a small group of scientists who have not been able to convince even their peers?

Question for both:
If both Canada and the US cut their CO2 emmissions by 80% in the next 45 years, how much impact with that have on the proected temperature.
Please offer an opinion on the cost effectiveness of the endeavour.

Question for Dr. Singer:

Since you are skeptical of the connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, UV-radiation and melanoma, and CFCs and ozone depletion, how are we to be sure that your skepticism is strictly based on scientific grounds, and NOT based on the desire to make a name for yourself and sell books?

Thanks,
Mark

Sorry about that Brett, yeah it is for Keller.

For either, but probably more relevant to Dr. Keller.

Given the theories that GW will melt at least the Arctic sea ice and that a relatively warm and ice free Arctic are needed for an Ice Age, will the current melting trend result in increased snowfall and ice formation across the land around the Arctic, thereby increasing earth's albedo and result in a cooling trend?

"Optimum level of population?" Dr Singer poses this. This a very foolish question as we all know that human activities are antithetical to natural processes. Perhaps Al Gore should debate Dr Singer.

Dr. Keller, why is it that some adherents to the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis like Al Gore, the National Geographic Magazine, and Scholastic Press's new book on AGW for Kids persistently bawdlerize the relationship between natural warming and CO2?

The earth's been several degrees warmer than today for several epochs due to the astronomy. In the pre-ideological period of modern meteorology people knew that astronomical configurations (wobble, tilt, precession and possibly still some more details) were responsible for the long-time asymmetries of glacials and interglacials.

Looking back at the historical record we knwo, don't we, that CO2 rises in response to warming. Around 430,000 years BP (Termination V) the astronomy seems to have been such that the earth was in approximately the same Milankovitch configuration as it is in the current interglacial and was heading for an abormally extended warming period. Why don't we hear about such details from the mouths of the AGW'ers?

To either:

If we were to say, for argument sake, that AGW is real, and is caused by industrialzation of the 21 or so wealthiest nations, isn't it logical to conclude that we are seeing a peak in man-made greenhouse gases? The fertility rates of Western Europe averages about 1.87 children per couple, with Russia, Greece, Italy, and Spain averaging about 1.2 children per couple. Japan's fertility rate is 1.1, and China has had a one male child policy since 1979. The only 2 wealthy industrial nations that have fertility rates nearing replacement levels are the US (2.0) and Austrailia (2.1).

My point is that most of the wealth in the world, not to mention most of the consumers/producers, reside in nations that will see thier populations halve in the next 100 years if thier fertility rates continue. To complicate matters more, most of the invested wealth in the 1st world will not go to wealth creation, but to health care for the elderly. During the next 2 decades, trillions of dollars in invested equites will be cashed out to pay health bills.

How can the IPCC project anything but a steady, long term decline in global GDP, coupled with an attendent reduction in industrial greenhouse gases? Even in India, where birthrates average around 4 there have been plummeting birth rates amongst its middle and upper classes. There is no way the world economy can continue to expand as it has since 1984 without a very large pool of wealthy, educated producers and consumers. Again, only 2 of the top 21 wealthiest nations will not see a strong decline in thier native populations in the coming century. Are we at a peak in the production of man-made greenhouse gases?

For Both,
What percent of all greenhouse gases, including water vapor, are produced by man? What percent of CO2 is anthropogenically produced? And most importantly, if the above numbers are less than say 5%, don't your predictive codes require the same accuracy? Such accuracy would seem to be impossible given the huge numbers of variables and complexity of the global climate.

Herb Laeger, (A retired physicist and programmer of much simpler systems.)

TO ANDREW -

Please read the following papers reposted on the links below, and you won't need to wait (hope) for an answer from Dr. Singer. You'll also see that your statement about no significant solar trends is misplaced.

http://www.griffith.edu.au/conference/ics2007/pdf/ICS176.pdf

http://climatepolice.com/Solar_Cycles.pdf

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EndersbeeReprint.pdf

Dr. Keller:
Why do use dry bulb temperatures to measure warming of the air instead of the enthalpy of the air? Would it not be better to measure the total heat content of the air?

Bill,

None of the links you provided are from reputable science journals that use the peer review process to ensure that quality of their work. There are a number of politically minded people that spread all types of junk science in attempts to prove their points or mislead the unsuspecting.

Consider the following link for reliable information on the possible role of the sun in recent climate changes.

http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

It will be interesting to see if Fred Singer just makes up junk to support his claims.

What about the Dr Gray 30 year cycle theory of warm and cold periods, how do Proponents account for this? Given global climate models poor performance in predicting seasons ahead and related ENSO months and a year in advance why would they be better predicting 50-200 years ahead?

Andrew,

Here is a very pro-AGW author who at least understands what Lockwood doesn't. It takes a long time to heat up the oceans to equilibrium. Hansen also understands this concept.

"The time lag occurs because rising air temperatures take time to make themselves felt throughout the immense thermal mass of the oceans."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7161.html

Lockwood's graphs show solar activity at a consistently high level for the last 50 years. His belief that ocean temperatures need to quickly respond to small up or down variations in solar activity is absurd. The large rise in solar activity from 1850 to 1950 will require decades or centuries to reestablish an equilibrium ocean temperature.

Dr. Charles Keller,
Will the introduction of low emission technology in wealthy nations have the effect of lowering global emissions or will suppliers of fossil fuels just find other markets in underdeveloped or developing nations for the surplus?

Dr. Fred Singer,
Have you or anyone else ever calculated the total amount of BTUs that both fossil and nuclear fuels add to the total heat budget of "GODS GOOD EARTH"? Remember those fuels are at ambient temperature before they are used.

My TUNNELS prevent those extra BTUs that we don't need.

I saw a great National Geographic movie today - Seamonsters
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1027743/

Not only amazing 3D stereo animation, but also provides a fantastic visual perspective on the continual flux of climate and sea level change.

If you can find it at a theater with Digital 3D, I'd recommend seeing it - especially for those who expect the climate to be constant.

Since you are skeptical of the connection between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, UV-radiation and melanoma, and CFCs and ozone depletion, how are we to be sure that your skepticism is strictly based on scientific grounds, and NOT based on the desire to make a name for yourself and sell books?

REPLY: And what do these things have to do with Global Warming? Once again Mark, your pent up rage is showing!

ANDREW -

"There are a number of politically minded people that spread all types of junk science in attempts to prove their points or mislead the unsuspecting."

Your naivety is indescribable. The IPCC is the biggest spreader of junk science - and specifically for political purposes. REMEMBER THIS ?

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=155&Itemid=1

I posted it in another thread with the specific challenge to YOU and your likeminded cronies BLOOM, BT & MARK, to address it, but all of you are too afraid or too "unable" to do so.

Your claim that "None of the links you provided are from reputable science journals that use the peer review process to ensure that quality of their work" is pure rubbish. If the journals and the papers are so unsound, you, with your vast scientific knowledge, should surely have no trouble describing the inadequacies and inaccuracies in them yourself. But instead, all you do is provide an ignorant, McCarthy-ist copout ! I have read the Lockwood and Froelich paper shortly after it was published as well as the other papers I linked to. The Lockwood and Froelich paper has been challenged, and it is quite clear that this subject is a very open question.

Why don't YOU try reading ALL of the papers on the subjects instead of just Goose-Stepping along with the rest of the AGW crowd.