For example, Lal M, Cubasch U, Voss R, Waszkewitz J (1995) presents a climate change scenario for the Indian subcontinent, taking projected emissions of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols into account. It predicts an increase in annual mean maximum and minimum surface air temperatures of 0.7° C and 1.0° C over land in the 2040s with respect to the 1980s.

Effect of transient increase in greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols on monsoon climate
Current Science 69(9): 752-763

You think the gh effect is “the behaviour of one isolated part of the climate that may be insignificant or may not” – what DO you mean? It’s a global effect, 33C or so.

Umm, I was talking about anthropogenic CO2 emissions, although I accept I didn’t make that clear. Naturally existing water vapour accounts for most of the 33C, followed by a bit for CO2, followed by a tiny (perhaps insignificant?) bit for anthropogenic CO2. I didn’t word my response well, but then…

also, conveniently, omited to note I gave an alternatives for what Michael meant.

I’ve just realised what you were trying to say. Hmm seems I’m not the only one badly wording my comments! If you want to present options you really shouldn’t follow some bizarre tortured logic as if another person had thought that, finishing with “I don’t agree”. As ever, you present a binary choice of possible options when there are many more unknowns and uncertainties.

As for the trolling response, you prompted and I couldn’t resist. There should have been a smiley.

Wagner et al is interesting from both side of the argument. The 1999 edition includes the following:

Our results falsify the concept of relatively stabilized Holocene CO2 concentrations of 270 to 280 ppmv until the industrial revolution. SI-based CO2 reconcstructions may even suggest that, during the early Holocene, atmospheric CO2 concentrations that were greater than 300 ppmv could have been the rules rather than the exception

Interestingly Wagner observes closer correlations between CO2 concentrations to temperature, suggesting that the two are linked. But… which variable is the driver and which responds? Or is it a complex non-linear relationship? Is it possible that the CO2 levels we are seeing today are (at least partly) due to natural variability? Interestingly Wagner claims that CO2 drives temperature, but the two are closely linked so I see no reason for rejecting the hypothesis that temperature drives CO2 concentration.

NB: Wagner et al is, of course, a proxy measurement and the usual caveats and health warnings apply.

OK, lets hav a link for Wagner et al then

Pretty easy with accusations of trolling aren’t we, Spence_UK. I’d be careful, over use dimishes it’s effect, even for the faithful of this place I’d guess.

Well, the errors in the ice cores caused by dating uncertianties and the fact the sometimes CO2 is a feedback (clearly not though atm)

Why rely purely on the ice cores? Wagner et al using a different proxy show a much tighter correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, presumably their proxy has fewer dating uncertainties than the ice core measurements – although Wagner et al do not show which came first, so both still leave the question of causality unanswered (a common theme in climate science – unexplained causality means global warming!) Wagner et al also show much greater variability of CO2 than the ice cores, suggesting todays levels are high but not exceptional in the last 10,000 years.

Well, yes of course I just lap up what the media spout at me. Yes, I really am that thick! Well, no actually. I’ve been interested in climate change for at least two decades. Yes, I am just am an amateur, like you I guess, but, like you, I am capable of both thought and learning things – thankyou very much!

Re tree rings. Why do so many people blather on about tree rings so much here? They’re just one of many temperature proxies. NOT THE ONLY ONE.

Re you’re other comments. Well, I do doubt, sometimes, that AGW will be addressed by humanity for some time. So, adaption may well be what we have to do. Sad, imo, but true. If there was a will then the world could both move on from fossil fuels (as it will have to) and make it a better place. The world may not do that – which is good??

Re “Is increased CO2 a cause or effect of global warming? Insufficient data.”. So you’re saying ther is insufficent data to show CO2 is a ghg? I don’t agree – it IS a ghg. Or that changing it’s conc has no effect? Well, the errors in the ice cores caused by dating uncertianties and the fact the sometimes CO2 is a feedback (clearly not though atm) means you can argue that. As I’ve said in another post, give it a couple of decades, free of major volcanic eruptions, and we’ll know one way or the other.

There, was that trolling??

Mann et al are graphing droughts?

If these clowns were in the mining industry they would ……..

Generally, I’m quite sure nothing I can say will change anyone’s mind here (never thought it would), nor mine for that matter. I’m just exercising my right, that this site give me, to comment. That I’m repeatedly pilloried for that say’s a lot….Give it a couple of decades though.

Here I am, a farmer from the UK and, it seems I’m the only non 100% signed sealed and delivered, unquestioning sceptic (I don’t like the word – please tell me a better one) here. Such is the power and influence of that vast ‘agw industry’ that I suppose they send me speak for them – LOL. That say’s something about something.

For the mathematically inclined and without resorting to the spagheti of statistics: We have 5 variables relative to time that relate to tree ring growth; water, sunlight, CO2, temperature and synchronization of records. We have 2 “equations” that define the relationships of tree ring growth and CO2 concentrations to some sort of time scale. Basic mathematics dictates that we need 5 “equations” and I don’t see them anywhere. Even if we assume good synchronization of the time scales we still have 4 variables and 2 equations. Where are the “equations” to relate water and sunlight to time for each of the sample areas? Basic Math ladies and gentlemen. If someone could please show me where to find the missing equations I would be happy to look at the facts.

The fundamentals are IMPORTANT. It’s hard enough avoiding “Garbage In Garbage Out” results.