[Global Warming]

When you are talking about "so many people" Cap'n, you are actually referring to a small minority of scientists. There may be hundreds, but when you measure that against the many tens of thousands of scientists that accept AGW, then it is a small minotiry!

Yes, those who oppose the commonly-held view are in the minority. However, if the minority is a group of 7 people you could dismiss them as crackpots, denialists or playing devil's advocate. If all 7 of them are from the same institute you could argue political motives, or institutional indoctrination. If, on the other hand, the "minority" consists of hundreds of scientists, or thousands, even if there are many tens of thousands who accept AGW, that's still quite a large number of scientists even if it's not a large proportion of them. I think it's unreasonable to dismiss the views of hundreds of people, even if they are a small proportion of the whole.

If 99% of the Third Reich agreed with Hitler's ideals, but 1% disagreed, does that mean that the 1% were wrong?

As long as there is a disagreement among respected scientists, as opposed to crackpots and denialists, I shall continue to plead my case. As I say, I am not denying AGW itself, I am merely pointing out issues that are by no means open-and-shut cases. :lol:

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Cap'n; there's a link somewhere with 'how do we know that CO2 is responsible..?' answered; I'll look for it. I am still unsure why it wouldn't sit well, though. It seems as if the idea that CO2 in the atmosphere reflects back heat into the atmospheric system has been accepted (tested, analysed and worked on) for twenty years or more. Why would you have a doubt about this? In response to your question: do scientists give specifics, or is this rather the work of the media and politicians? The scientists are well aware of the uncertainties; the politicians/media aren't always, and often fail to communicate them.

Hello again! Yes, I read an article a week or so back that talked about the relative abundace of various isotopes of carbon in the atmosphere (locked up in CO2 molecules). Unfortunately I haven't got the link, and I confess I wasn't paying a great deal of attention to the article.. I'll see if I can find it in my History folder, re-read it and post the link.

The reason it doesn't sit well is because I think the effect of CO2 warming is being greatly exaggerated, and not enough attention is being given to other factors. (I will, once again, have to check my sources, but where some people are suggesting a large effect - say 10C over 75 years (not an actual figure, but an example) - others are suggesting a small effect - e.g. 0.5C over 75 years. Since there is a huge discrepancy in these estimated outcomes, depending upon the source of the information, I think it is crucial to find out why the discrepancy is there, what is causing the discrepancy and who, if anyone, is correct.)

If the idea of CO2 reflecting back heat in the atmosphere is so well accepted then why are there so many people - scientists, that is - who still refute the evidence? Why is there still the discrepancy in the results? I think the issue of CO2 in the atmosphere is still rather cloudy (if you'll forgive the pun!), and I think to make serious decisions based on contentious science is rather shortsighted. Since the Kyoto treaty specifically targets CO2 emissions and does not address any other potential sources of GHGs, I think it is a supremely narrow-minded attempt at environmental control.

As for the specific details, I know climatologists talk of sea levels rising anywhere between 5 and 88cm in the next 50 years (or 100 years, I forget which), and the media immediately says "Sea Levels Rise 1 meter Within Our Lifetimes!!!". It appears to be the media's job to distort the facts until they have a story that's deemed newsworthy. However, climatologists have been known to give specific details in the past. Actually, now I stop and think about it, the sea level rise of between 5 and 88cm is not an exagerrated example - I actually read that somewhere (must find the reference). If this is the official line of sea level rise, that's one heck of an uncertainty in the data. Again.

One question on this score is; if they can show skill in hindcasting using the variables and parameters they have, why should we believe that they show no skill in forecasting.

I meant to ask about this, in fact...have the current models been used to retrospectively predict today's climate using data from, say, 1880? If so, do you know where I might be able to find the results of the experiment? I've been meaning to look that up.. I think I said a day or two ago that if the current models fail to predict today's climate from archive data then there's obviously a problem with the models, and I would have thought that this kind of experiment would be essential to determine the accuracy of our models. I'd be grateful if you could help out on this one...

I'll see if I can find some references to corroborate my stance!

TTFN :lol:

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Don't you dare go for brevity! We're enjoying your contributions!

Paul ( and I've been called a lot worse than Paul on here, I can assure you!)

Thank you, Paul (that is the worst I shall call you!). Now I shall go and have a coffee to stimulate the old grey cells! (Or should that by gray, with an 'a'?! Funny thing, language! )

TTFN

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

(I hate that "k" in sceptics!!)

Yes, that 'k' does look kind of ugly, doesn't it?! It can be spelled with a 'k' or a 'c' but I prefer the 'k' because otherwise I irrationally read it as "septic", which is even more unpleasant!

Hope the anniversary went well, Cap'n.

Thanks, Dawlish - the anniversary was very pleasant, thanks. Nothing too spectacular, but a nice big Pizza Hut and and Breakfast at Tiffany's make for a lovely evening!

In future I shall try and keep my posts shorter - I do tend to get a bit carried away. My main question is not "is GW actually occurring" so much as "why does GW seem to be occurring?" The CO2 argument doesn't sit well with me, for reasons I find difficult to pinpoint - I find myself with a lot of questions about other aspects of GW. The chaos theory debate is a related, but separate, issue. The chaotic nature (or not) of climate is an important issue, but even if it is non-chaotic, it still begs the question of whether or not the models are right. (If climate is chaotic then there's an obvious flaw right away, but if it isn't then there are still other issues regarding other assumptions in the models.)

At the end of the day, reduction of GHGs is a good thing anyway, since GHGs are generally by-products of the combustion of non-renewable energy sources. Even if mankind isn't contributing to global warming, it still makes sense to cut down on these fuel sources and find other, infinitely renewable, sources.

In response to P3

Pielke's argument is not really that the others have it wrong, per se, he is concerned that they are not justified in presenting the models' findings with confidence to policymakers as a grounds for policy and planning, and that, therefore, policies based on the model findings may not be well-founded, or may be ineffective.

Tha's basically my argument, too - how can we make specific predictions, claiming a specific cause, and suggest a specific resolution when we really don't understand the models well enough to make those claims?

Anyway, I'll leave it there for now before I start rambling on again!

I'll be back!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Whew! That was quite a read, but I got through it all! It was, as you say P3, a very interesting debate but left me none the wiser, really. Some very good points on both side of the argument of whether or not "climate" by definition is chaotic. I did pick up on a few points, which I hope you'll forgive me for outlining below.

(Please bear in mind that, although I am "sitting on the fence" vis a vis AGW, I do believe that the climate is chaotic, and therefore my points show some obvious bias - however I do see where their concept of climate being non-chaotic as they have defined it comes from.)

First off, a quote from the initial article:

At time t=0, the parameter "r" (which relates to an idealised thermal forcing) is changed from 26 to 28. When viewed in close-up detail, the trajectory looks qualitatively similar before and after the change, but in fact the long-term statistics such as the mean value of z, and its 95% range, are changed. In this simple model, the steady pertubation changes the climate in a highly linear manner - increasing r again to 30 would add the same change on top of that shown for 26 to 28, and r=27 would sit half-way between the cases shown.

Interesting that this wasn't mentioned in the responses, but it occurs to me that this (simplified, by their own admission) example assumes that the "Ideal Thermal Forcing" is not, in and of itself, inherently chaotic, the forcing being determined by various, potentially chaotic, factors. Perhaps this is what they mean by "Ideal", but it seems that this example is too simple to explain away chaos in the climate system.

Next, William says, in one of his responses, that "Everyone studies climate as a complex non-linear system. Few however expect chaotic behaviour from it."

How can you study climate as a complex non-linear system but not expect chaotic behaviour from it? Chaos is based on complex non-linear systems!

Back to the article, the authors define "Climate" as "the statistics of weather, averaged over suitable time and perhaps space scales". This seems a bit of a vague definition to me. This definition is challenged by Roger Pielke, who states that "the more appropriate scientific definition of climate is that it is a system involving the oceans, land, atmosphere and continental ice sheets with interfacial fluxes between these components, as we concluded in the 2005 National Research Council report". William responds to this by saying "you appear to have your own, curious definition. You're welcome to use your own definitions, for your own purposes; but if you redefine words in that way you can expect to have confusing conversations. We're using the standard definition of climate. See, for example, the IPCC glossary "

I don't see how Pielke's definition of "Climate" is, in any way, "curious". It seems like an exact definition to me, which is surely what is needed when making a precise global model? They then argue the IPCC definition, and the difference the IPCC means between "Climate" and "Climate Systems". But surely the definition of "Climate" should cover everything that the definition of "Climate Systems" covers, since the climate systems determine the climate at any point in time?

As a quick aside, I particularly liked this post:

"It is of course hard to form a view of the likely rate of world economic growth over the next hundred years; but it is striking that all the IPCC scenarios incorporate a heartwarmingly rapid rate of growth in the developing world, so that by the end of the century income per head in the developing world is well above what it is in the rich world today. This may happen - I hope it does - but it is clear that the IPCC scenarios do not capture the true range of realistically possible outcomes..."

It points out a potential inaccuracy in the model (although that inaccuracy can be justified if you are specifically looking for a worst case scenario), but the main reason I liked it was because of the use of the word "heartwarmingly".

Back to the main argument, though... A reply later on said: "Re Butterflies and climate: If one took the two meteorlogies(?) at 90 days and developed them forward [in climate model steps] to 50+ years hence. Are you certain that these two worlds would then have near-identical climate statistics?" to which William replied "Yes". Well, it kind of depends on what the guy meant. Certainly, if you took two climate setups 90 days apart (which, I think is what he means?!), the later one derived from the first, and ran them both to the same point, using the same model and the exact same data, then they would end up with the same result, since you would be running precisely the same experiment twice in a row. However, if you took two setups 90 days apart, one derived from the other and allowed a tolerance of, say, +/-0.5% in the initial data, then there would be a divergence. This post wasn't helped by ambiguity on behalf of the poster, but the answer seemed a little blunt considering the uncertainty of the question.

Still later on...

"Re: #45, "To Stefan: The ability to construct simple non-chaotic phenomenological models that "explain" D-O events or Milankovich cycle doesn't prove that the events are not chaotic in their nature." to which this was the reply:

"Nor does it prove that they are chaotic in nature, either. The evidence points in the direction that they are not chaotic, so unless anyone can prove they are chaotic, most of the scientific community (i.e. the IPCC, et al.) are of the opinion that they are not chaotic, but are generated by predictable periodic shifts (such as variation of axial tilt or distance from the sun)."

The authors of the original paper won't "prove" that the system is non-chaotic, citing only that "evidence point to" the fact, but they demand proof that it is chaotic. Isn't that a bit of a double-standard? They offer no suggestion as to what this "evidence" is, since various points have been raised earlier that suggest that it must be chaotic.

My final quote (you'll be pleased to hear!) is this reply, near the end of the discussion:

"It is known that the ocean is a turbulent chaotic system, atmospheric models....have also chaotic behaviors in certain areas of parameters. Therefore, it is a given that the whole Earth system is a coupled set of chaotic subsystems, which makes it a chaotic by definition."

I don't think they responded to this comment, but it seems valid enough to me.

Anyway, sorry to ramble on (again!) and, as I say, I know this is a very biased overview of the discussion, but I think it is important to raise the criticisms against the article. The article itself, for those who haven't read it, is not too long (it's the replies that take the time to read!), and is not complicated. I highly recommend reading through it to get a feel for the argument.

Great link, P3 - keep 'em coming!

Toodle-pip!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

This is a point that causes much disagreement, but I think indicates which side of the fence you really are

I can't see that climate is inherently chaotic, it's simply too predictable - yes, predictable. If it were truly chaotic the March next year might have a CET of 20C - it WILL NOT.

This choas thing does seem to be a divide. Many AGW sceptcs claim climate is truly chaotic, I've not come across a climatologist/warmer who thinks it truly is. This is a divide and know to which side I fall

But air currents follow chaotic progressions - a simple example is when smoke curls up from the end of a cigarette. Try to predict the exact pattern the smoke will be in after ten or fifteen seconds and you'd be at a bit of a loss - give a broad brush-stroke idea of the pattern and you could say that the smoke will rise, spread out and disperse. You wouldn't conclude that the smoke would eventually envelope the sun! The broad brush-stroke idea would be absolutely correct (most of the time, but there is always a teeny tiny probability that the smoke might all clump together - such is the nature of chaos!), but distinctly lacking in any fine detail.

Similarly, climate models can give an idea for basic, straightforward trends, but can't give definitive small-scale predictions. These models wouldn't conclude a 20C CET next March for the same reasons you wouldn't conclude the smoke would envelope the sun - the models won't allow it. Chaos does allow a degree of predictability, but only in broad brush-strokes.

This doesn't show "which side of the fence I'm on" so much as explains why I'm not on the GW side of the fence. Yet.

I'm sure there must be some climatologists who accept the chaotic nature of the atmosphere. I shall have to see if I can find some!

And, to P3, thanks for the link - I've got the kids shipped off to bed now, so I'll have a read through and see what it says!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Nice reply Cap'n. When you investigate CO2, look, as well, at increasing partial pressure, as the concentration of the gas increases. It may offset the release from the oceans' warming.

Are you actually bang on the fence, Cap'n? ie would you propose that C02 has an equal chance of being the main cause as it has of not being the main cause? I always like to use odds in these circumstances, it allows a much clearer picture of preference, or belief, to be painted, whilst allowing the proposer to show that he/she has an open mind still (that "1" in the odds signifies that one recognises that what one is proposing has a measure of doubt).

I go 1/6 C02 being the main cause, 7/1 it is natural cycles, 12/1 it is changes in Solar output, and 20/1 the field. At the start of this year, I was saying 1/4 C02, which shows how my thinking has changed, as I've learned more.

Paul

Thanks DawliDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me (Or may I call you Paul?!) I'll check out the partial pressure issue, too, as you suggest. As for The Fence, I mean I am disinclined from falling either way at the moment with regards the entire debate - personally I think that CO2 is less of a cause than is made out, largely due to the uncertainties involved in determining its rate of absorption and emission from various sinks (oceans, rocks, plantlife and so forth). This is why I am particularly interested in determining the answer to the "which came first" question. If CO2 increases temperature and temperature increases emission of CO2 then why do we have an atmosphere composed of anything other than CO2 and, more to the point, why is CO2 such a (relatively) tiny proportion of the atmosphere? Why aren't temperatures stupidly higher than they are, as this CO2/temperature feedback loop would have been operating for millions of years...? Of all the separate issues in the (A)GW debate, the CO2/temperature issue is one of the thornier ones, I feel.

However, if it is ever proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that CO2 has a negligible effect on GW (I'm not suggesting it does, but - hypothetically - if it did), I would be inclined towards the "Skeptic" side. That's not to say I would be on the skeptic side, as there is far more to the debate than simply the CO2 issue. But it is an issue I'd like a definitive answer to!

As for odds...I'm not good at odds. Never been a gambling man, myself, so wouldn't know where to begin! I shall, however continue to keep my mind open, to the best of my ability

Ciao for now!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Don't you just hate it when that happens! No matter. In the meantime, there are a lot of points mixed up in your comment which need to be separated out. You'll need to answer a couple of questions, I'm afraid, before it's clear to me what your concerns are. Starting from the top: what do you mean by far too specific? Are you referring to the focus on CO2, or on Anthropogenic influence, or something else? Or are you saying that you find it hard to believe the climate models' suggested futures, given gaps in the information?

Okay, Let me start from the top! By "far too specific", I mean the predictions that are commonly presented (often by the media, admittedly) that temperatures in such-and-such a year will be x degrees higher. The predictions that the "hole" in the ozone layer will be y percent larger, that sea levels will rise by z metres and so on. These statistic, often presented with little or no (mathematical) tolerance, are based on models which are necessarily lacking in detailed information. It would be more honest to state that temperatures are likely to continue to rise, that the ozone "hole" is probably going to grow and that sea levels may rise, based on current conditions and data. (These statements are a little vague, I admit, but are the opposite end of the spectrum from the quoted predictions.) It's not the focus on specific elements of GW that I'm complaining about but rather the "definitive" results that are presented.

Connected, but distinct, is the concept of (mathematical) chaos. The weather system is chaotic, in the sense that no single event in a large chain of events which form an analysis or a forecast can be predicted with certaintly, and any event can become more or less probable with any change of the predicted preceding conditions, but the climate is not quite the same. It is chaotic only in the sense that a number of potential events are purely non-predictable (like large volcanic eruptions), but climatology is the study of long-term patterns and, as such, has a degree of predictability about it (the 'pattern' element) You are right in saying that 'definitive' predictions cannot be made from the models, but nobody (in the science community. at least), is claiming that their output is definitive; what they present is a 'most likely outcome'. Some of the components of the models are, because of the physics, rather than the modelling, quite predictable. For example, the relationship between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the mean global temperature (which is moderated by aerosol and other effects), is well understood.

No, climate is inherently chaotic - events such as volcanic eruptions are unpredictable, true, but even if that kind of event never happened then the climate would still be inherently unpredictable, the reason being that we can never know every detail with sufficient accuracy to determine long-term specifics. Thanks to Jurassic Park most people have heard of the "Butterfly Effect": a butterfly flaps its wings in Tokyo and in New York you get rain instead of sunshine. This is an exaggerated example, but it gives the general feel for what happens - a small perturbation, over a large distance and a long time period, can cause a large divergence from expectations. Small-scale events (much smaller than volcanic eruptions) can, in the long run, cause surprisingly large-scale effects. It's true that long-term patterns are, on the surface, helpful, but a long-term pattern can be suddenly thrown out of kilter by a small disruption (given a sufficient time span).

The relationship between CO2 in the atmosphere and the mean global temperature is not that well understood, or else there would be no debate about which precedes the other. It is a fact that CO2 is more soluble in cold water than warm water, therefore if the water warms then it will release CO2 (and hence, in this case, temperature increase precedes CO2 increase). I will investigate this CO2/temperature correlation some more and let you know what I find.

I knew someone would think I was implying that all skeptic claims are without merit; this was not my intention. Perhaps we should distinguish between 'skeptic' claims and challenges to the current hypotheses. The latter are important and need to be addressed. The former tend to be reiterations of the same old mumbo-jumbo and are very rarely of merit. Though it can be difficult, sometimes, to distinguish between the two; as you say, an open mind is generally best.

I apologise for insinuating that you dismissed all skeptic claims - what I intended to suggest was that "skeptic" was not a dirty word and that, despite there being a fair amount of dismissive rubbish around, many skeptics present rational, intelligent objections. Someone who "challenges the current hypothesis" is, by definition, skeptical of that hypothesis and so can fairly be described as a "skeptic" without any suggestion of their being foolishly dismissive, deluded or misinformed.

When you mention 'either side' of the argument, which argument are you referring to? The argument about whether we are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels, the argument that we need to cut emissions drastically or face difficulties in the future, or some other argument?

The argument to which I refer is the debate concerning Anthropogenic Global Warming (I'm using "argument" as a synonym for "debate", which is valid although my choice of word is not a conscious decision).

When I started looking at climate change in detail in July of this year, I went through several stages of learning.

I've been reading about climate change for a year or more - not deeply, I'll grant you, but generally keeping abreast of current thoughts and objections...I don't claim to know more than anyone else, and I'm sure I'm missing many, many details and whole areas of the debate. But what I have read and heard over that time has failed to sway me one way or the other. It is, indeed, extremely difficult at times to sort the chaff from the grain - you think you've found a great article, only to find that the guy who wrote it has been in and out of mental hospitals for twelve years and secretly tries to teach goats to tap-dance. Then you read a totally loony paper and it's written by one of the most highly-regarded scientists in the known universe. That kind of thing. But, as ever, I keep an open mind and see who I can trust and who I can't. I'd be very interested to see your list of trusted resources - it might save me a lot of time sorting through the vast grey areas on the internet!

I'm still thinking about Kyoto. My political opinions are less well-formed than my climatological ones.

The political implications are, I feel, the main reason for the support of Kyoto. I think the intended "benefits" of agreeing to Kyoto are narrow-minded and, when looking at the big picture, largely inconsequential. Don't worry about the politics; what do you think about its scientific principles?!

For now I shall continue looking at the latest research and one day, maybe, I'll be able to choose which side of the fence to fall on!

:)P (sorry to be so dull).

No, no - not, dull but thorough! I appreciate that

Keep up the debate - it's always a pleasure

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Does sound a bit like "the dog ate my homework", doesn't it?!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

I've just written a detailed reply to your post, P3, only to find that my connection got dropped and I lost the whole thing... Including interruptions it's taken me nearly an hour, so I'm a little bummed by that! I shall try to rewrite what I said in a while (must remember to copy and paste my messages into Word so it doesn't happen again!).

However, the gist of it was that I find the AGW debate far too specific considering that it is based upon models with many assumptions and large gaps in the data - the Earth is a vast and complicated chaotic system (that's chaotic in the mathematical sense, not some arbitrary sense of messiness!). Even the simplest chaotic systems are difficult, if not impossible, to predict. So how can definitive predicitons be made from our current models?

Also, not all "skeptic" counter-claims are without merit or validity, and it is important to approach all evidence with an open mind. That's what I'm doing: being as open-minded as possible, and with that open mind I have not been wholly convinced by either side of the argument as yet. I don't regard myself as being ignorant, nor of having my head in the sand - I have an inquiring mind and my inquiries are far from over!

I look forward to your opinions on the Kyoto treaty - it's so refreshing to have an intelligent debate that requires thought and research rather than, as I have seen on so many chat boards, a numb mud-slinging contest.

Ciao

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Well, I shall give realclimate another look - it's been a while since I last checked it out, so maybe I'll be more receptive to it this time

It's hard to find graphs plotting both CO2 and temperature on the same axes, and when separate graphs of CO2 and temperature increase are shown they are rarely to the same scale. I did see one graph a few months ago where both were plotted together and the CO2 rise did seem to follow temperature rise, not precede it. I shall have to see if I can find this graph again and post a link.

To give a basic analogy, if a sealed carton of pure orange juice is left in the sun, the carton will swell because the heat input alters the state of the carton's contents. Gases in the orange juice dissociate as the liquid warms and, since there's nowhere else to go, they fill the small gap above the liquid and the pressure expands the carton (there is also some expansion caused by the air already filling the gap warming and expanding itself). So it is with the Earth - there's an awful lot of CO2 bound up in the oceans (and elsewhere) which, as the atmosphere warms, will dissociate and mix with the air leading to higher levels of CO2 in the air. Obviously, though, there is extra CO2 being put into the air by man (among other culprits). One question is whether there is a positive feedback loop whereby the air warms, CO2 is released from the oceans which warms the air further and so on and so forth. This seems unlikely to me because if there were such a positive feedback mechanism at work then the first time the air warmed, billions of years ago, the mechanism would have caused a runaway warming effect (unless there was a sudden increase in plantlife to counteract the effect, but it would have had to have been very sudden!).

So then the question is, "how does CO2 in the atmosphere affect temperatures?" Will increased CO2 cause further warming, or does CO2 increase as a result of further warming? Which is back where we started, really! Climatologists agree that water vapour in the air is by far the greatest "Greenhouse Gas" in the air, but they are still uncertain of how different types of cloud affect global temperatures, and how great the effects are. It seems slightly crazy to start alarmist stories of the "Earth will Burn" variety when we truly don't know the effects of the various constituents of the atmosphere. These alarmist stories are generally started by the media, of course. Nothing sells papers quicker than a short, sharp shock.

I think the Kyoto Treaty's goal of lowering Carbon Emissions is noble, but shortsighted - there's a lot more to global warming than CO2 alone, as any climatologist worth their salt would agree. Cutting Carbon emissions is worthwhile and "greener" forms of fuel should be investigated, not just for the potential impact on the environment but simply because all that oil, gas and coal isn't going to last forever. We'd be in deep trouble as a society if we suddenly found that we couldn't run our cars, cook our food, or run any electrical appliances! Nuclear Fusion is the way forward, I'm convinced - clean, infinitely renewable and high yield. The only problem is to figure out a way of controlling it - it's easy to start a fusion reaction, but a bit harder to stop it!

Thanks for the chat - great stuff! I'll probably be back on tomorrow, 'cause I've got to go and do my Anniversary Schtick now!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

I've always found realclimate to be biased towards global warming, almost as much as "Ice Age Now" is biased away from it. I try to find articles which are more open-minded - I particularly liked the Ageta paper because it was specifically an investigation into glacial movement, and not "a look at how global warming affects glaciation". A totally impartial approach to the subject is what is needed if we are to move forward in our understanding of climate change.

I apologise, also, for falling into that common trap of not being specific enough - when I said I was neither a Skeptic nor a "Global Warmer" I, of course, meant "Anthropogenic Global Warmer"! A lot of AGW information I have read specifically targets the 1880-2000 period in their data. Fair enough that this period probably contains the most reliable data, but 120 years is less than the blink of an eye to our old planet. Consider, also, the fact that Greenhouse Gases are cited as remaining active in the atmosphere for 50 years. 50 years is a fair old chunk of 120 years, which makes it hard to take the effect of these gases into account - if the effect of these gases is truly cumulative, as is believed, then a period of 250-300 years would seem more reasonable to make any reasonable conclusions.

As an example of this, remember the BSE scare a few years back? Scientists claimed that BSE led to CJD in humans through the ingestion of infected meat, and that CJD took 15 years to become full-blown. Next came stories of all the people with CJD and how they got infected by eating BSE-infected meat, despite the fact that the BSE scare was only a year or two previous.. The story then seemed to diverge into one group saying that the people were infected 15 years ago during a previous, lesser-known BSE outbreak, and another group claiming that it was a new form of "Varient CJD" which became full-blown much more quickly.

Okay, a slight digression there, but the point is that the true effect of eating BSE-infected meat isn't known because of a lack of data from prior to, and subsequent to, the BSE scare. The only way they could make the purported outbreak of CJD fit into the timescale they worked in was to change the goalposts and reduce the infection period. The timescale they were working on wasn't large enough to take all the facts into account. (It doesn't help that a lot of rubbish was made up or blown out of all proportion by the media, which is also a problem with the GW/AGW debate - for every article by respected scientists there's a dozen Daily Express headlines!)

Maybe I've got it all wrong, but I keep my eye on the debate with interest! Thanks for your replies - they are always worth reading (but you've given me yet another link to read, curse you!!! ).

Once again, sorry for a bit of a ramble there

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Thanks for the article cap'n. There are just no hard and fast rules; glaciers in fairly close proximity, but different catchments can be doing dissimilar things and as the article says, monitoring in some of the remote areas is difficult and all we have are snapshots. Also, if 2/3 of Himalayan glaciers are melting, as I quoted (maybe the figure could easily be argued with; monitoring is not great in these incredibly remote areas), it means that 1/3 are not and some will be advancing. I'd just go with the best data for the overall world picture. The mass balance figures (I know 30 glaciers isn't that many, but they are sampled from a global perspective and the sampling appears to produce statistically significant results) show the worldwide trend overall and it would be difficult to argue that these global trends are not due to a warming climate, despite some glaciers not fitting the overall melting trends.

I hope the anniversary goes well!

Paul

Definitely worth looking into further, I think - there are certainly gaps in the data, but taking 30 glaciers as a global sample when the Ageta paper quotes a Himalayan sample of 100 glaciers seems a little on the limp side. Perhaps 100 glaciers worldwide would give a reasonable cross-section of the glacial population, or better yet 500(the data for that sample would take a while to compile, I guess!). But regardless, glacial advance/retreat is just one facet of the global warming debate and - whether it eventually goes for or against global warming - it itsn't conclusive of anything by itself. Compelling, yes, but not conclusive.

For the record, I wouldn't entrench myself in either the GW or the "Skeptic" camp just yet, but milling around somewhere in No-Man's Land! I'm always intrigued to hear the arguments on both sides of the debate, and I'm looking forward to doing a little foraging for information.

Thanks for the feedback, though - more to think about, as always! And as for the anniversary, I think I'm onto a winner either way - I actually remembered it!!

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

Thanks for that Dawlish - lots of reading to catch up on now!

I had a quick look at the first link and looked at the references. Doing a quick Google on the first reference - Ageta & Higuchi - I found this article:

http://www.hkh-friend.net.np/pdf/sggstatus.pdf

Very interesting read about glacial retreat/advance. Particularly interesting to note one point (taken completely out of context, but I don't think it harms the conclusion - people can read the whole paper for themselves!) - Most glaciers in the Chinese Himalayas are retreating (where one might expect the ambient air temperature to be higher due to the high burning of fossil fuels in the country), but of 100 Himalayan glaciers studied by Li Jijun (1986), 47 were advancing and 53 retreating which (to within a 3-glacier tolerance!) is pretty much 50/50 for advance and retreat... It seems a bit vague in the paper, but it seems as though those 100 glaciers were in the Chinese Himalayas - not sure if the "Most glaciers in the Chinese Himalayas" refers to these figures of 47/53 or if it refers to other Chinese glaciers...might have to do some further study and see what I can find!

Anyhoo - thanks for the info. I can see what I'll be reading tonight!

(Actually I might have to make it tomorrow night - celebrating my wedding anniversary tonight...oops!)

C-Bob

[Global Warming]

I haven't read the papers in their entirety yet (it's kind of hard to sit down and concentrate with a two-year-old dangling off your hair!), but it certainly makes interesting reading. I think the point of the Kilimanjaro paper isn't to suggest that global warming isn't the cause of glacial retreat, but more to point out that glacial retreat can be caused by more than just global warming alone.

It would be interesting to read a paper (if one has been written, and I would imagine that one has) that predicts the degree of melting caused by global warming based on current theories, then checks glacial retreat figures to see if the predictions were accurate (rather than seeing the measured melting, then crunching the GW numbers after the fact).

Perhaps global warming alone isn't the cause of glacial retreat but is just one factor among many. Also, if the GW predictions exceed the observed retreat then that shows a flaw in the current model, which could then be refined. I'm not dismissing global warming out of hand, but it's a fact that the models are based upon numerous assumptions, so techniques should be employed to test the accuracy of these assumptions.

Predictions are more compelling than retrodictions!

C-Bob

[Teleportation....where will it go]

There is no physical (known) process that can stop something travelling faster than the speed of light. Indeed, there are hypothetical particles that are born travelling faster than the speed of light. What Einstein said was that it is impossible to accelerate past the speed of light because the amount of energy required to move your ever increasing mass (with velocity) will extend toward infinity.

The key word here is "hypothetical. As yet there is no physical evidence whatsoever for the existence of faster-than-light particles. In fact, experiments to detect tachyons have (as yet, at least) found no trace of them, and the general view of scientists is that these particles do not exist in reality.

Now, if you consider that the quantum world is not currently governed by the theories of space-time, and are therefore, currently exempt, from relativity, there is no need to worry about the speed of light, anyway.

The quantum world is fundamentally incompatible with the relativistic world, but its components still adhere to the light-speed limit, so the speed of light is still relevant to quantum theory. Quantum theory's incompatibility lies with the problem of gravity, which can't be described on the quantum scale.

Experiments in quantum entanglement - that which a particle in some space is modified and at that very instant a particle elsewhere in the universe is simulataneously modified - continue to demonstrate that quantum mechanics and relativity are still not compatible.

The issue of quantum entanglement doesn't really have anything to do with relativity. Relativity says that no particle can accelerate past the speed of light, be it a proton, electron, photon, neutrino or quark. "Communication" between particles is thought to occur by the exchange of so-called "Messenger" particles (all of which have been observed except the theoretical Graviton). Therefore these particles would have to adhere to the light-speed limit. (Note that Messenger particles are an essential by-product of the currently-formed Quantum theory.)

Quantum entanglement, on the other hand, involves no exchange of particles - that is, the two particles that are entangled do not communicate with one another! By processes not well understood, the two particles instantaneously "know" what state the other particle is in. Light speed is not an issue in this case because no exchange of particles, and hence no exchange of "information", occurs.

If one subscibes to string-theory, you can, of course, simply demote space-time as just a few of the dimensions required of the many to create existence; but that, I'm afraid, is another story.

I haven't yet made up my mind about String Theory - it seems like a wonderful idea, but it also seems rather more complicated than one would have thought a Final Theory should be - but it doesn't "demote space-time" at all. It expands space-time to embrace all particles, all forces and all interactions. Like the Theory of Relativity before it, it makes space-time a central player on the stage of the Universe. Besides, String Theory has little, if anything, to do with the concept of Quantum Entanglement, besides being able to self-consistently explain it insofaras it is currently understood.

There I go, rambling on again!

Sorry!

C-Bob

[Teleportation....where will it go]

For a full explanation of the technique, read "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene (The String Theory Guy!). He gives a very detailed and easy to understand account of the process.

The idea is that you have the original and one entangled particle, the recipient has the other entangled particle and a "Target" particle that he intends to "turn into" the original particle. It is possible to measure the difference between the original and entangled particles in such a way that you can effectively skirt around the issue of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. By determining the way in which the original is different from the entangled particle, you can tell the recipient how to alter his Target particle to make it physically identical to your original. All the recipient has to do is alter it with regards to his entangled particle.

Brian Greene, in his book, acknowledges the fact that this isn't exactly teleportation, but rather more like what he (half-jokingly) calls "Quantum faxing".

With regards to conciousness and thought-processes, the question of whether Quantum Faxing is possible depends upon whether these processes are completely physiological or if there is more to a person than the sum of his parts. Dr Greene, obviously a devout atheist(!), believes that you would end up with a "working" human being at the other end, since perfect Quantum Faxing would result in all the atomic, molecular, electrical and chemical connections being identical to the original. If you have a spiritual side, though, the issue becomes a rather disturbing one, since a perfect copy is likely to be a kind of living mannequin, devoid of the conciousness of the original. Spooky thought!

And finally, there is a speed-of-light limit because the information the transmitter would have to send to the receiver (the differences between all the particles) would have to be sent by conventional means (telephone, fax, e-mail or whatever), so the instantaneous "communication" between the entangled particles would be irrelevent.

Hope I haven't gone on too long, or horribly complicated the issue! Trust me, Brian Greene explains this a lot better than I do!

C-Bob

PS - E=mcc (how do you do a superscript 2?!) tells us that travelling at light speed is not possible for a massive body. Photons are massless, so they can travel at (and only at) light speed. However, acceleration requires the input of energy, which means that the "E" in the equation would increase as you accelerate. As "c" remains constant, the only way to balance the equation is to increase your mass "m". Therefore, going faster means you get heavier, and the heavier you are, the more energy you need to put in to accelerate you further. The full relativistic equations show that a body with any mass would require an infinite amount of energy to reach light speed, and that at light speed it would have infinite mass. Which is a bit of a bummer!

[Global Warming]

The global rise graph show a trend line, not an anticipated rise line; a predicted mean temperature; hence the straight line.

But if the increase in temperature is directly related to the rise in CO2 then the "Trend" should be exponential, not linear. If the idea of the "Trend Line" is just to show that temperatures will continue to increase then they might as well have left the line off and written in a big box "The temperature increases!"

I'm not arguing with the data per se, but it shows a bit of sloppiness in their presentation by plotting a linear, rather than exponential, trend.

[Is melted frost precipitation?]

Good point. I was making a somantic (or should that be pedantic?!) argument, but you're quite right. Similarly I suppose fog could trickle its way into the gauge overnight and be counted as rainfall, too, despite not having actually fallen as rain.

When talking about rainfall totals I suppose it's best just to count anything that collects in the gauge that's wet!

[Is melted frost precipitation?]

Well....if you insist!

Everton Fox and the Met Office are going for mild, mild, mild, so - just for a laugh - I'm going to suggest it'll be pretty nippy, starting around the 2nd week of December and continuing non-stop until the third week of February. I have absolutely no scientific evidence to back up these claims...

Absolute bobbins, I'll grant you, but writing it out like that is very satisfying, isn't it?!

[Is melted frost precipitation?]

Thanks for the welcome! This is pretty much the only board I've consistently enjoyed reading. so it's nice to join in and be welcomed.

I've been reading the forecasts and discussions on here for over a year now, and I'm STILL new at this forecasting lark, can't say I can make head nor tail of the charts, and wouldn't even attempt to give predictions for the future. However, if I see anything I can add intelligently to (which is probably quite unlikely!) then I'll put my oar in!

See you round the boards!

[Is melted frost precipitation?]

How-do!

This may be a bit forward for my first post, but I'd say the answer to your question depends upon your use of the term Precipitation. In Chemistry, Precipitation is the process of separating a substance from a solution (which generally means the separation of a solid from a liquid, but can also include separation of a liquid from a gas).

In Meteorology, Precipitation usually refers to something that physically falls from the sky, be it rain, hail or snow, and the word itself is generally synonymous with "Rainfall".

Do you include dew in your precipitation totals? If so then melted frost should be included, too. If dew isn't counted as precipitation since it doesn't "fall from the sky", then nor should frost be.

Hope this helps, and that I haven't rambled on too long!

PS - Love the site, love the forum - been reading a long time but never signed up before. I look forward to some great threads over the coming Winter!