<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Inconvenient Graphic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/</link>
	<description>by Steve McIntyre</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 01:54:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-388612</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LG Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2012 15:06:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-388612</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jeff Alberts
I don&#039;t think I answered your question! 
1. In a recent report James Hansen reports that Arctic glaciers are melting rapidly. As per my theory with clearer skies, the result of CO2 buildup, and continuous Sun&#039;s heat in the summer months, the ice is now melting. 2. There were also 21 Atlantic hurricanes in 2012. I didn&#039;t check this but it could be a record. There were also tornadoes recently in the southern US. Isn&#039;t that unusual for December?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jeff Alberts<br />
I don&#8217;t think I answered your question!<br />
1. In a recent report James Hansen reports that Arctic glaciers are melting rapidly. As per my theory with clearer skies, the result of CO2 buildup, and continuous Sun&#8217;s heat in the summer months, the ice is now melting. 2. There were also 21 Atlantic hurricanes in 2012. I didn&#8217;t check this but it could be a record. There were also tornadoes recently in the southern US. Isn&#8217;t that unusual for December?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-388290</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LG Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 26 Dec 2012 16:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-388290</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For millions of years climate was controlled by CO2 concentration-gets cold CO2 comes out of the ocean-too warm it diffuses back in. With current continental configuration as CO2 increases northern hemisphere actually gets colder, so more CO2 diffuses out of the ocean. During an interglacial, control has been effected by biomass intervention, but there is no way that biomass remnants can absorb the huge quantities we are emmitting. Polar ice melting and violent weather incidents should be expected to increase in number and ferocity.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For millions of years climate was controlled by CO2 concentration-gets cold CO2 comes out of the ocean-too warm it diffuses back in. With current continental configuration as CO2 increases northern hemisphere actually gets colder, so more CO2 diffuses out of the ocean. During an interglacial, control has been effected by biomass intervention, but there is no way that biomass remnants can absorb the huge quantities we are emmitting. Polar ice melting and violent weather incidents should be expected to increase in number and ferocity.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Alberts</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-388127</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jeff Alberts]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Dec 2012 18:44:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-388127</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As bad as what is getting now? Weather is no worse now than it&#039;s ever been during this interglacial.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As bad as what is getting now? Weather is no worse now than it&#8217;s ever been during this interglacial.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-388006</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LG Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Dec 2012 21:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-388006</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I forgot about this web site, getting old.

I believe my work has not been taken seriously because accepting it means accepting continuous long term buildup after we are forced to stop emitting.

As the theory maintains CO2 tends to make clearer skies. Clearer skies allow more heat to escape into space, especially from land and therefore from the northern hemisphere in winter. Colder atmosphere draws more CO2 out of the ocean by thermal diffusion. So when we stop it will continue to build up, at a lower rate but at a rate that gradually increases with time.

Cold air from northern winter interacting with warmer, moist air from the southern hemisphere is what causes the violent weather. As bad as it is getting now, believing this theory means accepting  that it will continue to get worse.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot about this web site, getting old.</p>
<p>I believe my work has not been taken seriously because accepting it means accepting continuous long term buildup after we are forced to stop emitting.</p>
<p>As the theory maintains CO2 tends to make clearer skies. Clearer skies allow more heat to escape into space, especially from land and therefore from the northern hemisphere in winter. Colder atmosphere draws more CO2 out of the ocean by thermal diffusion. So when we stop it will continue to build up, at a lower rate but at a rate that gradually increases with time.</p>
<p>Cold air from northern winter interacting with warmer, moist air from the southern hemisphere is what causes the violent weather. As bad as it is getting now, believing this theory means accepting  that it will continue to get worse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clive Best</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-303914</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Clive Best]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:00:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-303914</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am intrigued by the work of LG Bell and have just ordered his book . Having struggled to match solar radiance from Milankovich  cycles   to explain Ice ages it is clear to me that this cannot be true. IPCC pundits  will argue that climate feedback from CO2 after an initial solar forcing explains the warming from the  last ice age. However it just doesn&#039;t work for previous glaciations.

The Faint Sun paradox was first proposed by Carl Sagan who pointed out that the geological evidence  that liquid oceans existed on Earth 4 billion years ago appears incompatible with a solar output 30% dimmer than today. Therefore a self regulating temperature caused by the Oceans seems an obvious solution  for planet Earth. Some more ideas on this can be found at http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2525  and later posts.

I can&#039;t understand why the work of LG Bell has not been taken up for serious consideration in the climate science world. No-one else has explained why the Earth has entered a 100,00 year ice age oscillation for millions of years after far warmer eons with less incident solar radiation. 

A 70% water coverage of the Earth&#039;s surface for 4 billion years  must be the main stabiliser of the Earth&#039;s climate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am intrigued by the work of LG Bell and have just ordered his book . Having struggled to match solar radiance from Milankovich  cycles   to explain Ice ages it is clear to me that this cannot be true. IPCC pundits  will argue that climate feedback from CO2 after an initial solar forcing explains the warming from the  last ice age. However it just doesn&#8217;t work for previous glaciations.</p>
<p>The Faint Sun paradox was first proposed by Carl Sagan who pointed out that the geological evidence  that liquid oceans existed on Earth 4 billion years ago appears incompatible with a solar output 30% dimmer than today. Therefore a self regulating temperature caused by the Oceans seems an obvious solution  for planet Earth. Some more ideas on this can be found at <a href="http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2525" rel="nofollow">http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2525</a>  and later posts.</p>
<p>I can&#8217;t understand why the work of LG Bell has not been taken up for serious consideration in the climate science world. No-one else has explained why the Earth has entered a 100,00 year ice age oscillation for millions of years after far warmer eons with less incident solar radiation. </p>
<p>A 70% water coverage of the Earth&#8217;s surface for 4 billion years  must be the main stabiliser of the Earth&#8217;s climate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PaddikJ</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-77940</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[PaddikJ]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:03:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-77940</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Probable dumb question on basic physics, but this has puzzled me for some time:  6 -7 million cubic miles of ice in the Laurentide alone - tracking energy expenditures back to evaporation (from low latitudes, presumably) &amp; transport to poles, how much energy does that represent, expended over how much time?

If the planet is cooling - for whatever reasons - where does this energy come from?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Probable dumb question on basic physics, but this has puzzled me for some time:  6 -7 million cubic miles of ice in the Laurentide alone &#8211; tracking energy expenditures back to evaporation (from low latitudes, presumably) &amp; transport to poles, how much energy does that represent, expended over how much time?</p>
<p>If the planet is cooling &#8211; for whatever reasons &#8211; where does this energy come from?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Geoff</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-77939</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Geoff]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jan 2008 04:31:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-77939</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#039;s nice to see we have a number of different viewpoints in climate science. Here&#039;s a recent one that concludes as others (viz. Ruddiman) that CO2 emmissions are preventing the next ice age:



&lt;blockquote&gt; The community of climatologists predicts a progressive global warming [IPCC Fourth Assessment ReportClimate Change, 2007. The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge] that will not be interrupted by a glacial inception for the next 50 ka [Berger and Loutre, 2002. An exceptionally long Interglacial ahead, Science 297, 12871288]. These predictions are based on continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and on the orbital forcing that will provide only muted insolation variations for the next 50 ka. To assess the potential climate development without human interference, we analyse climate proxy records from Europe and the North Atlantic of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 (423362 ka BP), an interval when insolation variations show a strong linear correlation with those of the recent past and the future. This analysis suggests that the insolation minimum at 397 ka BP, which provides the best available analogue to the present insolation minimum, terminated interglacial conditions in Europe. At that time, tundrasteppe vegetation spread in Central Europe and pine forests dominated in the eastern Mediterranean region. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Will we end up thanking the Chinese for all those new coal-fired power plants?

Ref: Müller, U.C., and Pross, J., Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 26, Issues 25-28, December 2007, Pages 3025-3029 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6VBC-4R5G3HY-4&amp;_user=10&amp;_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&amp;_rdoc=4&amp;_fmt=summary&amp;_orig=browse&amp;_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235923%232007%23999739974%23676589%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&amp;_cdi=5923&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;_ct=30&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=6a0385d4d873cf8e293f797b7025a00f&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; abstract&lt;/a&gt;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s nice to see we have a number of different viewpoints in climate science. Here&#8217;s a recent one that concludes as others (viz. Ruddiman) that CO2 emmissions are preventing the next ice age:</p>
<blockquote><p> The community of climatologists predicts a progressive global warming [IPCC Fourth Assessment ReportClimate Change, 2007. The Scientific Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge] that will not be interrupted by a glacial inception for the next 50 ka [Berger and Loutre, 2002. An exceptionally long Interglacial ahead, Science 297, 12871288]. These predictions are based on continuously increasing anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and on the orbital forcing that will provide only muted insolation variations for the next 50 ka. To assess the potential climate development without human interference, we analyse climate proxy records from Europe and the North Atlantic of Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 11 (423362 ka BP), an interval when insolation variations show a strong linear correlation with those of the recent past and the future. This analysis suggests that the insolation minimum at 397 ka BP, which provides the best available analogue to the present insolation minimum, terminated interglacial conditions in Europe. At that time, tundrasteppe vegetation spread in Central Europe and pine forests dominated in the eastern Mediterranean region. Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started.
</p></blockquote>
<p>Will we end up thanking the Chinese for all those new coal-fired power plants?</p>
<p>Ref: Müller, U.C., and Pross, J., Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception, Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 26, Issues 25-28, December 2007, Pages 3025-3029 <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&amp;_udi=B6VBC-4R5G3HY-4&amp;_user=10&amp;_coverDate=12%2F31%2F2007&amp;_rdoc=4&amp;_fmt=summary&amp;_orig=browse&amp;_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235923%232007%23999739974%23676589%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&amp;_cdi=5923&amp;_sort=d&amp;_docanchor=&amp;_ct=30&amp;_acct=C000050221&amp;_version=1&amp;_urlVersion=0&amp;_userid=10&amp;md5=6a0385d4d873cf8e293f797b7025a00f" rel="nofollow"> abstract</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-77938</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LG Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:35:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-77938</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#53 No. I only published because I couldn&#039;t get published by journals. If I was looking for royalties I wouldn&#039;t be pushing used copies. I just feel I am disregarding opinions of others which is not my style.

Regarding the original question about the time required for the onset of the next glacial stage, without man&#039;s influence. The best way to answer it is to compare temperature and CO2 data over time, from Antarctic ice cores, with Oxygen-isotope ratio data from ocean sediment cores. This latter data gives a rate of glaciation so you can tell when glacial stages start and end. Interglacial periods remained fairly constant for the last 4 cycles at about 60,000yr but glacial stages increased in order 30, 40, 60, to 70 Thousand years respectively. since it has been about 20,000yr since the climate started to warm up and assuming this interglacial period the same as those in the past it would have been another 40,00yr until the onset of major glaciation.

Glacial stages vary because they have to end either by the ocean freezing or by the atmosphere being heated by a summer cycle (third report reference in #7 above) As I mentioned somewhere Milankovic cycles have been causing the climate to become colder over the last 400,000yr so glacial stages get longer. For the first two the summer heating cycles were sufficient to end the glacial regime,  but as they weakened it was necessary to have the ocean freeze which takes much longer.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#53 No. I only published because I couldn&#8217;t get published by journals. If I was looking for royalties I wouldn&#8217;t be pushing used copies. I just feel I am disregarding opinions of others which is not my style.</p>
<p>Regarding the original question about the time required for the onset of the next glacial stage, without man&#8217;s influence. The best way to answer it is to compare temperature and CO2 data over time, from Antarctic ice cores, with Oxygen-isotope ratio data from ocean sediment cores. This latter data gives a rate of glaciation so you can tell when glacial stages start and end. Interglacial periods remained fairly constant for the last 4 cycles at about 60,000yr but glacial stages increased in order 30, 40, 60, to 70 Thousand years respectively. since it has been about 20,000yr since the climate started to warm up and assuming this interglacial period the same as those in the past it would have been another 40,00yr until the onset of major glaciation.</p>
<p>Glacial stages vary because they have to end either by the ocean freezing or by the atmosphere being heated by a summer cycle (third report reference in #7 above) As I mentioned somewhere Milankovic cycles have been causing the climate to become colder over the last 400,000yr so glacial stages get longer. For the first two the summer heating cycles were sufficient to end the glacial regime,  but as they weakened it was necessary to have the ocean freeze which takes much longer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pat Keating</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-77937</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pat Keating]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:27:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-77937</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Debate ended for me because you seem more interested in selling another copy of a vanity publication than on expressing your ideas and exposing them to discussion. So, there can be no debate.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Debate ended for me because you seem more interested in selling another copy of a vanity publication than on expressing your ideas and exposing them to discussion. So, there can be no debate.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: LG Bell</title>
		<link>http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/30/inconvenient-graphic/#comment-77936</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[LG Bell]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Dec 2007 15:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1110#comment-77936</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Sorry to have killed debate. I tend to pontificate. I will opt out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sorry to have killed debate. I tend to pontificate. I will opt out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
