Resisting Climate Hysteria

[wayneL]

Solar Activity/Ozone the major driver of climate change?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682612000867

Climate sensitivity to the lower stratospheric ozone variations
N.A. Kilifarska,
National Institute of Geophysics, Geodesy and Geography, BAS
Received 19 August 2011. Revised 5 March 2012. Accepted 8 March 2012. Available online 21 March 2012.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jastp.2012.03.002,
ABSTRACT
The strong sensitivity of the Earth's radiation balance to variations in the lower stratospheric ozone – reported previously – is analyzed here by the use of non-linear statistical methods. Our non-linear model of the land air temperature (T) – driven by the measured Arosa total ozone (TOZ) – explains 75% of total variability of Earth's T variations during the period 1926–2011. We have analyzed also the factors which could influence the TOZ variability and found that the strongest impact belongs to the multi-decadal variations of galactic cosmic rays. Constructing a statistical model of the ozone variability, we have been able to predict the tendency in the land air T evolution till the end of the current decade. Results show that Earth is facing a weak cooling of the surface T by 0.05–0.25 K (depending on the ozone model) until the end of the current solar cycle. A new mechanism for O3 influence on climate is proposed.
Highlights
► An increased climate sensitivity to ozone variations is analyzed. ► O3 driven model of surface T explains the greatest part of its variability. ► Impact of different factors on lower stratospheric O3 variability is estimated. ► Galactic cosmic rays have a greatest influence on O3. ► Mechanism for ozone influence on climate is described.

 

[CanOz]

Thanks forthat Wayne......you means it's not all our fault after all?


Cheers,


CanOz

 

[MrBurns]

Thanks forthat Wayne......you means it's not all our fault after all?
Cheers,
CanOz

Na bugger that, if you pay more tax it will save the earth Julia said so.

 

[Knobby22]

Can't access it without shelling out a fair bit of money.

I find the theory doubtful.

When you see a curve matching something precisely using a non linear relationship, you get the feeling that they are matching the data and working backwards, rather like beginners developing an algorythm in the sharemarket to match future performance.

of course the amount of ozone is affected by cosmic waves - thats been known for decades. The leap of faith is how changing ozone in the atmosphere effects land temperatures. It doesn't sound very plausible.
As I said I would love to see the paper and see the context.

 

[wayneL]

Can't access it without shelling out a fair bit of money.

I find the theory doubtful.

When you see a curve matching something precisely using a non linear relationship, you get the feeling that they are matching the data and working backwards, rather like beginners developing an algorythm in the sharemarket to match future performance.

of course the amount of ozone is affected by cosmic waves - thats been known for decades. The leap of faith is how changing ozone in the atmosphere effects land temperatures. It doesn't sound very plausible.
As I said I would love to see the paper and see the context.

Knobby, you'll have to come up with something a bit better than 'I don't like what it says so I don't believe it'.

Some scientific basis for refutation would be good.

 

[Knobby22]

Knobby, you'll have to come up with something a bit better than 'I don't like what it says so I don't believe it'.

Some scientific basis for refutation would be good.

As I said some scientific basis for the theory would be good also.
Can you get the relevant part of the paper?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Lesson 2 for skeptics changing to an AGW mindset.

Part 1 of lesson: Understand the AGW alarmist spin and ensure you can repeat it:

A GLOBAL lobby group has distributed a "spin sheet" encouraging its 300 member organisations to emphasise the link between climate change and extreme weather events, despite uncertainties acknowledged by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Part 2: Ignore any observed historical evidence and blame all weather events on AGW

Skeptics: Please try to ignore these charts as much as possible, they will not help you with AGW mindset change.

This ok knobby? Is this the process you went thru to establish a religious quest to push AGW alarmism whilst not actually doing anything yourself about "deadly" CO2?

 

[Knobby22]

Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small? In the case of cyclones the El Niño effect is stronger than the minimal climate change that has occurred so far.

Just remember you are reading the Australian - one long daily spin sheet produced by a very corrupt company. I am looking forward to some big names going to prison over the next few years, but I suppose you are on top of the latest scandal that even the FBI is getting involved with.

 

[sails]

I haven't been.
Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small?

Just remember you are reading the Australian - one long daily spin sheet produced by a very corrupt company. I am looking forward to some big names going to prison over the next few years, but I suppose you are on top of the latest scandal that even the FBI is getting involved with.

Knobby, I understand that Fairfax are not as pure as the driven snow either. Just because someone or a few people in an organisation break the law, doesn't mean that everyone else in that organisation does.

Murdoch media often give information that the other media do not bother to print. I would rather be an informed voter with as much information as possible.

It seems to be a feeble attempt to stop full disclosure to try and rubbish one media who give a different viewpoint to the left. Goodness, the majority of voters in this country have had a gutfull of the ABC and Fairfax left biases. And ABC should be more neutral, imo - at least moving with the majority as shown by professional opinion polls. But no. They seem to be free advertising for alp - but even that's not fooling the majority of Australian voters any more either. In fact, I think it's only making them more angry.

But if rubbishing the Australian is the only defence you have for this nonsense tax, then you really are grasping at straws...

 

[Knobby22]

But if rubbishing the Australian is the only defence you have for this nonsense tax, then you really are grasping at straws...

I have never defended the tax, I am against it as I have stated previously.

 

[sails]

I have never defended the tax, I am against it as I have stated previously.

My apologies - your posts seem to be always defending this climate nonsense. I do believe there are environmental issues that should be addressed, however, I also feel that co2 has been a convenient excuse to take more money from the people.

They use "scientific" arguments - even though the prediction based on this so call "scientific" input has failed miserably.

Even if there is any truth in AGW, I think this thing has cried "wolf" just too many times and the majority of people will no longer believe it - and even more so if it takes a big hunk of money from their wallets.

 

[Knobby22]

Just look at this and say there is nothing in it.

There is a lot of money going around to obscurate the science.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

 

[sails]

Just look at this and say there is nothing in it.

There is a lot of money going around to obscurate the science.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Knobby, NASA.gov is clearly government funded. CSIRO is government funded. I have read and heard reports of retired scientists who have explained that, if they didn't go along with AGW ideas, they would not get funding.

Both NASA and CSIRO could have a conflict of interest due to their need for funding. Not saying it is, but it is entirely possible.

http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/grants_thumb.jpg

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Did you see the latest IPCC report which specifically agrees with you re:weather events saying the effect at this stage is quite small?

Lesson 3. Adapt your AGW alarmism to suit the current trends and make people believe you actually predicted it years ago. eg No Snow, continuous droughts, accelerated sea levels.

Hold anyone who produces CO2 responsible for weather. For example, Perhaps we could penalise the Coal industry for the Brisbane floods

 

[Knobby22]

Sails, just be skeptical about the "information" provided by organisations formed to provide this "information" for financial reasons. We had a classic example a month back in this thread. That's all I ask. Be wary. Notice it was a Newscorp cartoon which I am sure is an organisation paid to muddy the science and create political conflict over it.

OzWaveGuy, I can't argue with you but the IPCC hasn't changed their view on this issue only detailed it further. Please, please look into it.

 

[wayneL]

We had a classic example a month back in this thread.

You mean the Gleik/Heartland Fakegate saga?

I think the alarmist camp scored a huge own goal there Knobby.

I wouldn't have mentioned that one if I wanted to maintain credibility... if I were you.

 

[explod]

You mean the Gleik/Heartland Fakegate saga?

Who's talking in riddles now. Some qualification for the uneducated please?

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Sails, just be skeptical about the "information" provided by organisations formed to provide this "information" for financial reasons.

You have no shame.

Lesson 4. Have no shame.

 

[wayneL]

Who's talking in riddles now. Some qualification for the uneducated please?

Google "Fakegate"

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Lesson 5. Use AGW and Green Hysteria to promote oneself for gain and luxury and for the control of others.

How we doing Knobby? Let me know when you think my mindset has been changed to be like you and basilio.