Ice age on the way (merged threads)

[BARRY]

it's amazing poor old danial posts his normal drivel, everybody moans about it,and we end up with nearly six pages of discussion :lol:

[Stratos Ferric]

That's the thing though - it's probability. In most cases you are probably right, but in other cases, I would suggest not so. If a butterfly flapping it's wings had caused a chain of reactions in weather systems around the world that had resulted in changing the track of a depression a little, would you know it was the butterfly that had caused the deepression to move? The best that could be done would be to just trace back a few of those chain reactions and to consider them normal anomylous events. For something truly extreme to happen as a result of a butterfly, we'd be looking at quite some period of time between events - however incredibly long that might be. (or perhaps it's not that long - perhaps such events are things we consider to be normal, with the truly extreme things being rare. Perhaps in the end it'll all boil down to a simple frequency ratio that the whole planet works on - we'll never know in my opinion, which is really the beauty of Chaos)

It's all probability really, and isn't solely limited to creatures that have wings to flap. lol

I think that where climate is concerned we should drop the butterfly effect. Whilst it's easy to theorise about the flap of a butterfly's wings causing a tornado (which was the original example in an often misquoted piece), in practice a lot of other drivers - which are more important - would have to be present.

Not sure what point you're making at the end there, but to be clear, the mathematical application of chaos is in describing a system in which behaviour appears to be random, but which in practice is not - it is simply very complex and perhaps influenced by occasional forcing mechanisms outside an otherwise closed system. It is quite likely that the earth's climatic system falls into this definition, but if it does so it is not because of the butterfly effect.

it's amazing poor old danial posts his normal drivel, everybody moans about it,and we end up with nearly six pages of discussion :lol:

...but not quite as amazing as the fact that for all the weighty opinion offered he returns, perhaps chaotically, perhaps not, and still posts the same drivel.

At least our Islamic friend joins in the debates along the way and evidences the fact that his mind is not for changing irrespective of the strength of argument presented.

[Stratos Ferric]

I thought it was 14,000,000:1 for a lottery win?

However my Mathematics teacher would disagree with your infinity X zero=1 attempt (which I have assumed you got from re-arranging 1/0 = infinity)

L'Hopitals rule is invoked making your statement incorrect.

Still this is a weather forum. We aren't bothered by a few little incorrect odds and mathematical procedures are we?

Sorry for breaking up the great debate that is happening at the minute. Had a day in Hawes today. 12oC at 1pm and showery. Looks like autumn is impatient this year. Coupled with reports of a growing cold zone near the arctic this could put a spoke in the GW vehicle for a little while.

Speaking of inertia in the climate system; how long have the Anthro effects been building in the system to cause the current climate shift? If I said it is analogous to trying to lift a brick with an elastic band would you know what I mean?

SS,

Firstly, though I'm no expert, I think you'll find that L'Hopital only applies when the limits are 0/0 or infinity/infinity, neither 0/infinity or infinity/0 can be solved with l'hopital! Your maths teacher, like one or two I had down the years, might not be on the money there. You're quite correct though in your starting assumption, which, it would appear, on the face of it, is still correct. You have, however, encouraged me to google a bit on this one, and the general view is that, depending on how infinity is defined mathematically, 1/0 is actually undefineable.

Lots of ifs and but re the temperature in Hawes, but let's be clear, and we seem to have to keep on saying it, individual events, be they hot or cold side of trend, prove nothing about GW or anything else. They are just interesting individual events.

I think some of you may have missed the point of my previous post. :lol:

All of the things I mentioned are distinct possibilities; indeed, there are good reasons to believe that three of them may already be on the way. We cannot predict a volcanic eruption, but we all know that, in the next thirty years, it would be surprising if there wasn't at least one decent-sized eruption. Apart from Mayon, which is currently on alert status 4, a good contender might be Kilauea, which is busy, and bulging badly at the moment.

What I was trying to do was show, as Viking has suggested, that a combination of three or four such forcings would, almost certainly, lead to a cooling of our climate, in the order of 3-4C.

In the short term (30 years), the rate of warming from GW would be insufficient to compensate for this. In the longer term, it probably would.

... P

Indeed, and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this, it's just that those of us who favour warming theories seem to placing the probability of an unusual confluence of cooling factors as being lower than a continuation of the current warming ones. As you and others suggest, there is no deterministic certainty about continued warming.

Speaking of inertia in the climate system; how long have the Anthro effects been building in the system to cause the current climate shift? If I said it is analogous to trying to lift a brick with an elastic band would you know what I mean?

No, not for sure, but imagining what you might mean it's not the best analogy. In the brick and the elastic band you have two separate systems, one of which is exerts more force than the other can cope with, hence the elastic band eventually snaps. With AGW the shift is within the system. Your elastic band example is better applied to external forcing; if the band is strong enough it can move the brick, this being analagous with, say, an asteroid strike. A better analogue for AGW would be, say, painting a red brick black so that it absorbed more incoming energy and thus warmed.

[parmenides3]

Viking

I see very much where you are coming from. Warming has been happening and it is the current trend. However, how can anyone say it WILL continue...absolute balony IMO. As we have been shown in the past warming starts and CO2 rises following in suit. Now say we are in a different position now ie we accept that the CO2 emissions we pump out are warming the planet, in the past CO2 has been higher, much higher than present day levels and we know that the planet has gone from ice age to warm phase to ice age etc etc. Assuming CO2 warms the atmosphere and the oceans as this goes on then the oceans absorb less CO2 and more is released and retained into the atmosphere, so the carbon sink diminishes and co2 increases and we warm and warm and warm.....then how the hell does the planet go into an iceage? Surely not CO2 is rising, carbon sinks diminish we warm warm warm...don't we? :lol: There is obviously something or a number of things far more important than CO2 forcing as things in the past have caused both CO2 and temps to plunge and indeed what plunges 1st temps or CO2? If its temps then CO2 is overidden. I like to go onto calls of cold sources no longer there winters will not produce. The arctic was betwen 1 and 2C warmer in the late 30s and 40s than now [average temp] yet the 40s produced the most cold winters than in any decade. Hmmm

If say that the Gleissberg minima produces a cooling of 1-2C then that would reduce the global temp by 0.4 to 1.4C from now and that would take us back some way as we only warmed 0.6c over the last century so bearing in mind what winters were experienced during that century One can quote that the accelerated warming over past 30 years...fine but 1998 has not been exceeded [allegedly matched in 05] but this year don't look like it will either and short term is of no use to us. One can also counter the potential effects of Gleissberg minima by saying we will warm further...we will have to see.......................................and that sums it up we will have to see

BFTP

Okay, Blast, I'll give it a go. Some of what I say may not be correct, but I'll do my best.

Your first comment - how can anyone say it WILL continue? - I agree there is a tendency, in the media and amongst many of us, to talk about warming as if it is certain and without question. I also agree that such statements cannot be accepted on face value, because nobody, anywhere, can predict the future in this way. So why do people do this? Mainly because of what we are told, which is often a second or third hand piece of op-ed which does not address the science. All I will say on this, is that a lot of very clever and very dedicated people have been looking at a lot of different things for a long time, and have almost universally come to the same, broad conclusion; that in all probablility the current trend is very likely to continue for the next 100 years, and probably the next 200.

Next point: we know that in the past CO2 levels have been much higher. This is correct. Millions of years ago, before even the formation of the continents, CO2 levels were very high. But there is no way of knowing, at the moment, why; there are too many unknowns about the records, the geological period concerned, conditions on the planet, and a host of other variables.

We also know (reasonably certainly) that we are in a interglacial period, and that, compared to the very distant past, the planet is relatively cool. What is unclear is how conditions in the very distant past relate to conditions on Earth 'today', meaning the last 500,000 odd years. Without clarity on this, we cannot reliably draw inferences from these past epochs about our present or future situation.

Next: you refer to the absorbtion of CO2 by the oceans - or, more accurately, 'as this goes on then the oceans absorb less CO2'. I am not aware of this as a consequence of increasing atmospheric CO2. As I remember it, for the past fifity years or so of measurement, the oceans have been absorbing a percentage of the CO2. Indeed, one of the big concerns among climate scientists is that this CO2 is going to be released into the atmosphere eventually, through ocean overturning circulation, and will add to the problems we have at the moment.

You say 'so the carbon sink diminishes'. Although the ocean is responsible for absorbing a proportion of the carbon, an important contributor to this is the ecosphere- all the plants - this operates as a feedback mechanism, not a forcing one, so that the problem starts when plants die back, take in less carbon, and so on. So, yes, in this scenario, the planet keeps warming and warming.

Then you ask; 'then how the hell does the planet go into an ice age? In other words, why do we shift from an interglacial back to a glacial period, if the warming is so incessant? Your conclusion that it must be a forcing stronger than CO2 is correct. There are several such forcings; a good example would be the distance of the Earth from the Sun, which varies over time, or the oscillation of the Earth on its axis. These are examples of 'external forcing mechanisms'. To understand the relative force of these at any given time, we currently refer to the Milankovitch cycles. There are other contenders for such forcings, including volcanity, releasing sulphates into the atmosphere and cooling it. Remember, though, that in the periods that you are referring to, there was a huge amount of volcanic activity compared to the present day. So the answer to that question is; there are a variety of reasons, which may be different for different ice ages, but which are known and, to some degree, understood.

In answer to the question 'what plummets first, the temperatures or the CO2?', I think the answer is the temperatures, for the reasons mentioned above.

The reason that the '40s was cold was almost certainly because of all the soot, particles, dust, sulphates and other stuff that had been put into the atmosphere by us. Rather than compare the temperature now with the temperature at some time in the past, what we need to think about is how quickly the temperature has changed in the past 50 years. It is this rate of warming which first led scientists to wonder what was happening, and reach the conclusion that it was the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere which was responsible. When the increase in CO2, which is known and measured, is matched with the increase in temperature, which is also known and measured, what appears is a direct correlation. Their conclusion from this was that it must be the CO2 which had caused the change; your contention is that this is not necessarily so, (or maybe, that it is not so).

The question of how much difference the Gliessberg minimum will have, compared to the (opinions about) warming caused by CO2, has been much discussed. Some scientists deny that there is any clear correlation between solar activity and climate beyond the obvious 11 year cycle. Others argue that, as there is no correlation between solar activity, beyond this cycle, and observed temperature changes over the past 50 years, then it cannot be the case that the Sun is the cause of the recent rise in temperature, therefore that other factors must be the cause.

Last comment: As you will have hopefully read in the other active strand on this, I can think of a scenario which could, plausibly, lead to a cooling of our local (North European) climate in the next thirty years or so, so I would not dismiss your complaint out of hand; you are right to challenge people who assume (presume) that they know the world will be warmer in the near future; they don't. But neither the possible regional cooling, nor the impossibility of knowing the future, means that GW is not real, nor do imply that we do not need to plan for the most likely future.

Hope this helps, a bit.

P

[crimsone]

Whilst it's easy to theorise about the flap of a butterfly's wings causing a tornado (which was the original example in an often misquoted piece), in practice a lot of other drivers - which are more important - would have to be present.

That's exactly as I was saying SF, but it doesn't mean that it's not applicable to climate - only that there are things beyond limited human comprehension and so no one statement can be certian to the true absolute. Any given statement of "fact" when talking about something that isn't fully understood can only be a given probability.

a case in point...

it is simply very complex and perhaps influenced by occasional forcing mechanisms outside an otherwise closed system

Can we truly say it's closed, or do we close it in our own minds according to what little we actually know about it? Nothing truly complex can ever be described using the word "simple" without applying a generalisation.

Edited August 29, 2006 by crimsone

[parmenides3]

Indeed, and I don't think anyone is disagreeing with this, it's just that those of us who favour warming theories seem to placing the probability of an unusual confluence of cooling factors as being lower than a continuation of the current warming ones.

The warming continues, regardless, in the medium-long term, only moderated by 'unusual' corcumstances, ( I think I said this, somewhere), so there is no conflict here. What I would like to know is, how unlikely/unusual would such a confluence be? My feeling, and I suspect Viking would go with me on this one, is that a confluence of two of these factors is likely, a confluence of three unlikely (but not implausible), and more tham three very unlikely. But I am not a statistician or mathematician, so if anyone can help with a genuine probability spread, I would appreciate it.

Crimsone: please read the paper by Annan I posted a link to earlier. It explains, better than I can, why Chaos theory does apply to weather forecasting, but doesn't apply to climate prediction.

:lol: P

[crimsone]

I will read that link later, but for now I will suggest that perhaps the overall result of Chaos Theory (or something similar to it) on climate may well be an approximate constant, and so may not be applicable at our current level of understanding. That doesn't mean that it doesn't play a part though, and it doesn't mean that certain things thatcan be inferred from it's existance and applications elsewhere cannot be applied to science as a whole.

For example, if we learn from the overwhelming complexity of Chaos Theory that we cannot make assumptions because they blind us to the truth when proven incorrect, then the same applies to climactic science.

Who can say for certain that in consideration of the planets lifecycle, Mankinds influence is not a chaotic anomoly in climatic cycles? It's, at least in part, a question of scale in some respects.

The key difference between weather forecasting is that of duration and locality. Weather forecasting is about the short term weather in a local area, whereas forecasting climate is about general trends everywhere in the longer term, including general weather patterns. We could not possibly envisage Chaos theory and predict its impact on that kind of scale, as we can't even do it effectively in the shorter term. That doesn't mean that it has no part and no influence though - purely that we consider that to be true at the moment - an assumtion that may or may not become an obstacle in the future.

There again though, it's not about the impact of Chaos on climate. This entire Chaos theory strand of mine stems from certain elements in post numbers 200, 206, 208, 209, 210, and 212 in this thread with reference to uncertianty, "scientific arrogance" (as I sometimes think of it), and possibility. My point is one of everything, inclusive of every statement of fact, being a probability - nothing is certain when we don't fully understand it, and if we don't fully understand something, how can we say for absolutely certain that "x" theory doesn't play a part in the equation somewhere?

Edited August 30, 2006 by crimsone

[snowsure]

...No, not for sure, but imagining what you might mean it's not the best analogy. In the brick and the elastic band you have two separate systems, one of which is exerts more force than the other can cope with, hence the elastic band eventually snaps. With AGW the shift is within the system. Your elastic band example is better applied to external forcing; if the band is strong enough it can move the brick, this being analagous with, say, an asteroid strike. A better analogue for AGW would be, say, painting a red brick black so that it absorbed more incoming energy and thus warmed.

LOL about the paint a brick black bit!

The elastic-brick system is often utilised as follows.

Imagine a strong elastic band attached to a brick. The brick does not have enough mass to break the elastic band.

If you try to pick up the brick - assuming that the elastic band does not behave like a piece of string - it will be as a result of a yo-yo action where the brick oscillates about a fixed point. However, the system will eventually jerk upwards if the yo-yo action coincides with a corresponding upward motion at the right time. The resultant velocity of the brick seems greater than the input energy could create.

This is a useful thought experiment when looking at intervention techniques. Sometimes we create a bigger solution than we want but it takes longer than expected.

Clear as mud? :unsure:

[parmenides3]

I will read that link later, but for now I will suggest that perhaps the overall result of Chaos Theory (or something similar to it) on climate may well be an approximate constant, and so may not be applicable at our current level of understanding. That doesn't mean that it doesn't play a part though, and it doesn't mean that certain things thatcan be inferred from it's existance and applications elsewhere cannot be applied to science as a whole.

For example, if we learn from the overwhelming complexity of Chaos Theory that we cannot make assumptions because they blind us to the truth when proven incorrect, then the same applies to climactic science.

Who can say for certain that in consideration of the planets lifecycle, Mankinds influence is not a chaotic anomoly in climatic cycles? It's, at least in part, a question of scale in some respects.

The key difference between weather forecasting is that of duration and locality. Weather forecasting is about the short term weather in a local area, whereas forecasting climate is about general trends everywhere in the longer term, including general weather patterns. We could not possibly envisage Chaos theory and predict its impact on that kind of scale, as we can't even do it effectively in the shorter term. That doesn't mean that it has no part and no influence though - purely that we consider that to be true at the moment - an assumtion that may or may not become an obstacle in the future.

There again though, it's not about the impact of Chaos on climate. This entire Chaos theory strand of mine stems from certain elements in post numbers 200, 206, 208, 209, 210, and 212 in this thread with reference to uncertianty, "scientific arrogance" (as I sometimes think of it), and possibility. My point is one of everything, inclusive of every statement of fact, being a probability - nothing is certain when we don't fully understand it, and if we don't fully understand something, how can we say for absolutely certain that "x" theory doesn't play a part in the equation somewhere?

Morning, Crimsone. I'll have a go at this, but don't blame me if it's confused.

You are right in saying that Chaos theory should play a part in climate prediction; it does. In fact, it was as a consequence of running a climate model that Lorenz, in 1961, stumbled across the modern expression of it. Another part it plays is to prevent optimisation of climate models using certain formulae, a problem which climatologists have been wrestling with for some time, now.

You are right, too, in saying that Chaos theory is complex, but it is by no means 'overwhelmingly' so. The vast range of potential results in a chaotic system would be overwhelming, but the theory, and the mathematics and physics which make use of it, are quite well understood. In the case of weather forecasting, the 'chaos' being referred to is the atmospheric solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for fluid flow. These are described as 'chaotic' because they are non-linear. Annan describes chaos, in weather terms, as the sensitivity of a deterministic system to infinitesimal perturbations of the system - the 'butterfly effect'.

I don't think that Chaos theory implies that we cannot make assumptions. It does, however, show us that any assumptions we do make can make a big difference to both the system and the results. This is why climate modellers work very hard to use the most accurate and comprehensive data available, and complex equations to fill in 'gaps'. Your underlying 'sense', though, is relevant; there is constant debate about the initial value components of climate models, but this debate is less about principles than about quantities and measurements.

In terms of climate cycles, I think that mankind's existence and activities are not a 'chaotic anomaly'. In the larger temporal scales, our presence on Earth and impact on the climate is, indeed, a mere 'blip', but the impact of our presence is determined, not chaotic; it has been measured, observed and, to some degree, understood. It would be a mistake, though, to think that this is strictly relevant to climate prediction of the kind being done by GCMs. These exist to guide policy and planning, and work, generally, on decadal to centennial time scales. The larger variables and external forcing mechanisms relative to epochal time scales are incorporated into the initial conditions of the models, and have their impact, but this should be seen as a background to the forcings and feedbacks which effect our current climate more directly.

The difference between weather forecasting and climate prediction is, certainly, about timescale and locality, but that does not invalidate climate models. Pielke & Pielke (Climate Science) argue that GCMs are of limited value because they are too general, but part of the argument has to do with the purpose of climate modelling, rather than than its importance or validity. I have extracted a paragraph from Annan which might help, here:

Fortunately, the calculation of climatic variables (i.e., long-term averages) is much easier than weather forecasting, since weather is ruled by the vagaries of stochastic fluctuations, while climate is not. Imagine a pot of boiling water. A weather forecast is like the attempt to predict where the next bubble is going to rise (physically this is an initial value problem). A climate statement would be that the average temperature of the boiling water is 100ºC at normal pressure, while it is only 90ºC at 2,500 meters altitude in the mountains, due to the lower pressure (that is a boundary value problem).

Your final issue, about the arrogance of people who claim to know about what will happen has, I think, already been answered in several previous posts. I think it is a mistake to believe that climate scientists belong to this group, or even that some members of this forum belong to such a group.

Finally, about probability. This is a bit more mathematical, so beyond my sphere of understanding, but as I understand it, if there is a high probability of something coming to pass, say rain this afternoon, then it would make sense for me to wear a waterproof when I go out; this won't make it rain, and it won't make me right to believe that it would, but over time, I am more likely to be glad I wear waterproofs, because I will need them more often than not.

As always, I hope this is constructive & helpful.

:unsure: P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

P3

Thanks for answering my queries. Some I put knowing recorded reasons for changes in the planet from interglacial to glacial ie solar cycles/orbit cycles a la Milankovitch, Earth's orbit, vocanoes etc. However, what has come out in your reply was certain views and understandings which I am after from posters.

My understanding is that as oceans warm so their ability to absorb CO2 will lessen hence why I say carbon sink diminishes and of course plants etc play a part but the vast vast majority of CO2 is dealt with by the oceans...I can't remember the % I will check.

Re what plummets first...if temps go first then wouldn't that suggest that temps drive CO2? Barring volcanic eruptions which produce ash cloud blocking out the sun but they haven't caused all or indeed most ice ages. But my main point alludes to that continued warming is far from a dead cert [even though recent trend 18000 years has been of warming] and it will be interesting to see what happens because we still haven't globally exceeded 1998...are we still warming? It could be cited that average global temps since then have been higher than other equal time span which suggests continued warming but the fact is we haven't exceeded 1998. But I won't hold this as a marker because I like many want to see long time spans.

Past cycles have been sometimes dramatic with force beyond belief and sometimes extremely powerful but over slow time span. There are forcings that far outweigh CO2 IMO.

Oh has anyone read recent findings that the oceans have lost 30% of their heat from 2003 to 2005 and that heat has NOT been absorbed into the atmosphere?

The chaos theory is limited IMO. If I run and a flying ant bumps into me it causes no change in my direction or speed and indeed I probably wouldn't even know it happened. However, if a swarm of them hit me then the effects would be noticeable but with readjustment I could ignore it and continue in the same direction but with change in speed. The size of the forcing is ALL important.

BFTP

Edited August 30, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[Stratos Ferric]

LOL about the paint a brick black bit!

The elastic-brick system is often utilised as follows.

Imagine a strong elastic band attached to a brick. The brick does not have enough mass to break the elastic band.

If you try to pick up the brick - assuming that the elastic band does not behave like a piece of string - it will be as a result of a yo-yo action where the brick oscillates about a fixed point. However, the system will eventually jerk upwards if the yo-yo action coincides with a corresponding upward motion at the right time. The resultant velocity of the brick seems greater than the input energy could create.

This is a useful thought experiment when looking at intervention techniques. Sometimes we create a bigger solution than we want but it takes longer than expected.

Clear as mud? :unsure:

I think that what you're desribing there is resonance. It's the same principle that allows bridges and buildings to collapse in an earthquake. If the period of the shock wave coincides with the resonant frequency of the structure then the energy attenuates.

It's an analogue of sorts for AGW, because in this case the argument is that GGs introduced into the atmosphere react with available wavelengths of incoming / outgoing radiant energy. Not strictly speaking attenuation, but it sort of works.

[High Altitude]

I came across this interesting article that i thought would add to the debate.

I hope the link works!

http://home.earthlink.net/~tonyhoffman/baliunas.htm

[parmenides3]

I came across this interesting article that i thought would add to the debate.

I hope the link works!

http://home.earthlink.net/~tonyhoffman/baliunas.htm

Thanks for the contribution, HA. This is one of the 'findings' that is a source of some of the current debate. In brief, Baliunas has been 'implicated' in a controversy about her work with Willie Soon. Peer review of the key paper revealed that the models/numbers had been 'massaged' to arrive at the result. It also concluded that the conclusions of the paper could not follow from the evidence, anyway. It was later revealed that Baliunas & Soon had been funded by interests in the Petrochemical industry, which added to the controversy. You will find other papers, no doubt, if you look, (I have a couple of 'coolers' under my belt), but this particular hypothesis has been tested and found wanting.

P

[High Altitude]

And also this. I don't know about her credability and the article is obviously one sided however it reads well.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyand...nment/HL758.cfm

[parmenides3]

And also this. I don't know about her credability and the article is obviously one sided however it reads well.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyand...nment/HL758.cfm

At the moment, Baliunas' credibility in the climate science community is zero. Added to that, not only is the article biased, but it contains several innacuracies and generalisations which have no substance. Added the that, all it really is is an article against the Kyoto protocol by a scientist supported by oil interests under the umbrella of a right-wing anti GW 'institute'. But it does show how hard it is for us, the general public, to be clear-minded about GW; why would we not find her argument reasonable? Good research on your part, but not evidence, or argument, that persuades me at all. Try again?

P

[Stratos Ferric]

And also this. I don't know about her credability and the article is obviously one sided however it reads well.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energyand...nment/HL758.cfm

It reads well but it doesn't read like robust science I'm afraid. Go see the publishers' mission statement, and see also the last para in the first section. The stated mission is:

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

This is basically a right-wing body seeking to defend the US economy. As they suggest in the paper you cite, Kyoto would "hurt" the US economy.

I also disagree with a lot of her basic premise regarding gross oversimplification of the GW debate, and the physics and chemistry at play. To suggest, for example, that man-made warming must be linear deminstrates a profound lack of understanding of the whole atmospheric system.

It's precisely this kind of biased reporting, when lapped up by the otherwise uninformed but possibly proejudiced, that does much to fog the debate. Don't read this as me being anti and anti-warming papers by the way; I'm far from it; it's just that the vast majority of what I see people on here cite really amounts to loaded rhetoric thinly veiled in poor science.

[parmenides3]

it's just that the vast majority of what I see people on here cite really amounts to loaded rhetoric thinly veiled in poor science.

I hope this doesn't include me! :)P

[Stratos Ferric]

I hope this doesn't include me! :)P

Indeed not, though that, of course, is just my subjective opinion. We all have our biases, however objective we may feel we're being. I suspect most frequent contributors, who also have a reasonable critical faculty, soon get a sense of which posters can be "trusted" and which invariably emerge from the same side of the stage irrespective of the merits of the argument at the time.

Now, take Daniel for example...

[johnholmes]

oh dear, did you have to mention that Ice Age guru!?

Lots of interesting posts on here and good to see people giving their views without it descending into the what I call , the 'ya boo' attitude.

John

me I'm neutral and learning a lot from people at the moment.

[High Altitude]

It reads well but it doesn't read like robust science I'm afraid. Go see the publishers' mission statement, and see also the last para in the first section. The stated mission is:

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

This is basically a right-wing body seeking to defend the US economy. As they suggest in the paper you cite, Kyoto would "hurt" the US economy.

I also disagree with a lot of her basic premise regarding gross oversimplification of the GW debate, and the physics and chemistry at play. To suggest, for example, that man-made warming must be linear deminstrates a profound lack of understanding of the whole atmospheric system.

It's precisely this kind of biased reporting, when lapped up by the otherwise uninformed but possibly proejudiced, that does much to fog the debate. Don't read this as me being anti and anti-warming papers by the way; I'm far from it; it's just that the vast majority of what I see people on here cite really amounts to loaded rhetoric thinly veiled in poor science.

Is there anything in these articles that can be relied on (in your opinion) as fact or is it all pre fabricated politically manufactured propaganda?

Why can't a distiction be made between all the fact and fiction from both sides of the debate using evidence dirived from a variety of sources in order to come up with a fact based synopsis.

Is it really a case of we just don't know? Everyone has there own opinions be it general or fact based and it's just a matter of wait and see. We really won't know until it happens.

[Anti-Mild]

Is there anything in these articles that can be relied on (in your opinion) as fact or is it all pre fabricated politically manufactured propaganda?

There is a lot of propaganda coming from both sides of the GW fence, the only difference is that the information coming from the pro-GW side has a stronger basis in fact.

We'll only know the truth when we know and we may not kbnow for a long time!

[parmenides3]

Is there anything in these articles that can be relied on (in your opinion) as fact or is it all pre fabricated politically manufactured propaganda?

Why can't a distiction be made between all the fact and fiction from both sides of the debate using evidence dirived from a variety of sources in order to come up with a fact based synopsis.

Is it really a case of we just don't know? Everyone has there own opinions be it general or fact based and it's just a matter of wait and see. We really won't know until it happens.

First question: there is some fact, some speculation, and some generalisation. Follow my next suggestions to see how you can decide which bit is worth taking seriously, and which not. As a package, it is, pretty much, propaganda.

Second question: IMO, most of the fact seems to come from one side of the debate, and most of the fiction tends to come from the other. When you add in the Media's tendency to create news/sensation out of very little, it does seem awkward. But there are a number of excellent websites which do precisely this; analyse all the available material & offer synopses. Back to my favourites, here; the three I have found most informative are; Realclimate.org, Climate science, and Spencer Weart's 'The Discovery of Global Warming'. Googling should get you to these sites fairly easily.

Third question: There is a lot we do know, and a lot more we don't. I'm afraid you will have to be a bit more precise about what doubts you, personally, have. The reason why we can't 'wait and see', is because of the consequences of GW. If our climate is warming, sea levels rising, weather patterns changing, sea ice melting, etc. etc. then everyone on the planet will be affected in one way or another. If we don't act because we aren't sure, we end up with New Orleans/Katrina & the like, multiplied hundreds of times over. This isn't a risk most of us would want to take.

P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

[ If our climate is warming, sea levels rising, weather patterns changing, sea ice melting, etc. etc. then everyone on the planet will be affected in one way or another. If we don't act because we aren't sure, we end up with New Orleans/Katrina & the like, multiplied hundreds of times over. This isn't a risk most of us would want to take.

P

[The PIT]

There is a lot of propaganda coming from both sides of the GW fence, the only difference is that the information coming from the pro-GW side has a stronger basis in fact.

We'll only know the truth when we know and we may not kbnow for a long time!

How do you know the facts are coming more from the pro-GW side?????

[parmenides3]

A quick response before heading off to bed after fattening dinner party:

BFTP; the hurricane/GW connection is, put your way, a myth. GW predicts the increasing likelihood of extreme weather, not a year-on-year increase in hurricane activity. I'll add more in the morning.

Pit: Please note the 'IMO'. I am not claiming omniscience, merely making an observation from personal experience & extensive reading.

To be more provocative, if you can find a 'factual' anti-GW article or paper, please post it. I will read it with enthusiasm, I promise you. i have found a couple of intersting articles, but I'm saving them up for when I change my mind about GW.

:o P