Originally Posted by SirCharles

No need to go bananas, kront999. I did post tons of stuff. But maybe you want some quotes.

"Global warming may have contributed to the record negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation that helped to drive the extreme weather south to the U.S." (Climate Communication | Winter Storms)

"A combination of changes in El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation (which is closely related to the North Atlantic Oscillation) has been identified as the immediate driver of the famously heavy snowfall experienced by the mid-Atlantic states in the United States during the winter of 2010. Global warming may have played a part in this remarkable event by contributing in two ways to the record negative phase of Arctic Oscillation that helped to erode the polar vortex and permitted a cold-air outbreak south to the United States. Evidence suggests that the negative phase of the Arctic Oscillation was driven in part by warm air (air warmed by the dramatic seasonal loss of Arctic sea ice) as well as by changes in snow cover over Eurasia driven by climate change. This event is part of an emerging trend in which a warming climate may paradoxically bring colder, snowier winters to northern Europe and the eastern United States." (Climate Communication | Circulation Changes: El Niño and the Arctic Oscillation)

I have read the Hurrell paper, and he refers to long period of negative NAO cycles corresponding to a series of cold winters regionally before 1972. and then a sharp reversal and warm winters.

Note:

- He is talking about regional effects.
- He does not exclude anthropogenic warming from causes, and calls at the end for an examination of the links with greenhouse gas forcings.

As you can view above, Dr James Hurrell is a scientist at NCAR, Boulder, CO and has given evidence to Congress as recently as 2010 affirming the reality of anthropogenic causes of global warming stronger than natural causes alone.

There are 3 strands to weather/ climate.

- Random "Noise" Variation
- Natural Variability
- Anthropogenic Effects

The major findings of climate scientists in recent years is the swamping of natural effects by the long term trend of global warming due to greenhouse gases. Ironically, the major brake on that is another anthropogenic effect, the presence of sulphate aerosols, a form of pollution, which inhibits warming by reflecting the sun's rays.

That does not mean scientists are not studying natural variability, of which the role of the sun is of vital importance. Natural variability (ocean oscillations like the NAO, volcanic effects) and man-made warming/ cooling are not independent - for example, loss of sea ice reduces the earth's albedo, and as dark water will absorb more of the sun's energy that white ice, here the sun will add a positive feedback to global warming.

Here are some references from Skeptical Science:



David Archibald Exaggerates the Solar Influence on Future Climate Change

Originally Posted by Agnotologist

Did you even read the "letter?" Did you look at the signatures. I think that the only one of the sixteen who has a peer reviewed climate publication is Lindzen and his has been so thoroughly debunked that his insistence on GCR makes him an object of ridicule.

There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.

There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.

The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.

Originally Posted by owedtojoy

Using salt-tolerant plants, weeds and algae for new green aviation fuels at NASA's GreenLab without using arable land, food crops or fresh water.

TEDxNASA@SiliconValley - Bilal Bomani - Cutting edge biofuels - YouTube!

Last year in June I posted that here:

As food crops going into energy production take a long time to grow and consume a lot of arable land a new technology to produce bio fuels AND digest CO2 emissions at a single blow: Marine Algae.



Jacobs University’s marine algae based CO2 mitigation technology tested in pilot plant in Bremen Blumenthal.

As much as 30,000 litres of bio diesel can be produced on just one hectar of land. The algae grow very fast and are fed with CO2 coming from a fuel burning power plant. They are 20 times as potent as canola.

Also => Capture CO2. Oil out of Air

and => Fuel Out of Air – Part 2

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.

Well. It depends what agenda is behind the theory.

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Where? When? Evidence/proof?

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.

Utterly wrong.

Let's make it simple for you. Here one example:

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.

Means you are speakless?

Originally Posted by Tombo

Yet more "predictions", still denying the failure of past similar predicitons.

The AR4 attribution statement

Originally Posted by SirCharles

Well. It depends what agenda is behind the theory.



Where? When? Evidence/proof?



Utterly wrong.

Let's make it simple for you. Here one example:





Means you are speakless?

Charlie, it's obvious you really don't have a clue and way out of your depth.

The good deluded lady in the clip is

1. Measuring the heat of compression -as CO2 is more dense than Air. Read up on the Ideal Gas Law.
2. Is using an IR light source from a light filament bulb at approx 300 deg Celcius when the light source for the Earths atmosphere is the Earth at +15 C and the emission temp of -18 C. Our atmosphere gets it's energy from the Earth.

3. Is not measuring the Greenhouse Effect at all. She thinks she is measuring the IR energy absorbed from CO2 gas when the bulbs are so close to the container, conduction of heat alone would heat the containers with the more dense CO2 heating more. A noble gas such as Argon with a density 1.2 times greater than air would exude the same heating effect in the above insult of an experiment to formally trained scholars like myself.

IR absorbtion by polar molecules and the Greenhouse Effect are 2 distinct phenomenon.

Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier

There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.

There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.

The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.

You have seen the answer to this so many times, that I begin to think you OCD. Both Owed and SirCharles have posted the chart showing the mechanism for the exchange of heat and the "laws" do not apply. The Earth is not a warm body but one that is warmed by the Sun and GHGs regulate the exchange modify it. If the law applied as simply as youn think, it would be mighty cold.

As for experiments not having been done! That is not worth an answer. It is too foolish for words. Thousands of experiments have been done going back to the nineteenth century.

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

**

Ok so one side sez we have a ice age coming and one side sez not so fast. I guess we will just have to wait and see as I don't see that anything we do now will change what will come about.

Shale gas could be worse than coal or oil as well as conventional gas.

Carol Linnitt | The Cornell Team Redux: Shale Gas a Disaster for Climate

Originally Posted by Sangreel

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

**

Ok so one side sez we have a ice age coming and one side sez not so fast. I guess we will just have to wait and see as I don't see that anything we do now will change what will come about.

Did you not notice that the "article" was in the Daly Mail? That should be answer enough. But, if you read some of it you will also see that the climate "experts" interviewed were just the usual few denialists "at your service."