Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say

[JRMcLeod]

The ozone hole problem was driven by a different set of aerosols, CFCs, so doesn't relate directly to warming (though there was some argument about the mpacts on the stratosphere, and so the global envelope, re the same). What it illustrates, however, assuming the hole does close, is that action can be worthwhile.

Maybe you should read the article in the "semantics" thread and decide which group you belong to.

Oh yeah...worthwhile for sure, we should be doing everything to help...

[parmenides3]

I think you are referring to this then ? :

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

This pretty much encapsulates what I struggle to understand from all this. It appears that for many 'scientifically rigorous' persons, proof must be absolute before they will make a decision. But from what I have read that will be almost impossible for a very long time. Now what is the use of such a position if by that stage, having found that GW was significantly affected by human activity, the situation is already catastrophic in terms of effects on global population masses, so it's too late to do anything. If this does come to pass then for all the nay-sayers 'Fiddling while Rome burns' is a phrase which comes to mind.

Surely the only sensible position to take at this stage is to accept that GW may be exacerbated by human activity, and this may have catastrophic effects on human existence in a very short space of time, (in terms of geological time spans), so therefore we all have a responsibility to try and reduce any activities which could contribute to this given our current knowledge of what may or may not affect global climates. If in the fullness of time it turn's out that human activity wasn't either to blame or an exarcebating factor I'll take my hat off to those that argued for this position. But nevertheless by making the efforts anyway nothing will have been lost, (unless perhaps you have shares in an oil company of course !), and I'll be able to look all those peoples who sufferred squarely in the eye knowing we did what we could given our levels of understanding at the current time.

Rigorous argument is of course a good thing, but sometimes I fear it is used as shield by those who don't want to face possibly painful changes, or who have vested interests in doing nothing.

That's the one. Wunsch goes to a lot of effort to point out some of the real problems relating to the GW debate, then concludes that 'it is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in our climate system.'

I am fairly sure that, for most scientists, 'very high probability' is as close as they'll ever get to saying it's a dead cert.

Re. your feelings on the subject, you might be interested in Roger A. Pielke Sr.'s 'vulnerability paradigm', explained on the Climate Science link posted above.

:unsure: P

[VillagePlank]

It's time for me to come of the fence. I am going to make a prediction that will last at least fifty years and will be correct each year. Decemeber, on average, will be colder than July. There you go I've said it; take me apart at will :unsure:

[senior ridge]

Further to post #2 above. I shall endeavour to find and post a peer reviewed AGW sceptic paper.

In the meantime, could those members who use the phrase "ah, but they're funded by Big Oil", please explain the origins of the Big Oil companies at the turn of the C20th and the associated dynastic families.

[parmenides3]

Further to post #2 above. I shall endeavour to find and post a peer reviewed AGW sceptic paper.

In the meantime, could those members who use the phrase "ah, but they're funded by Big Oil", please explain the origins of the Big Oil companies at the turn of the C20th and the associated dynastic families.

Name one on the list would be 'Bush'.

I'll find a link for the History of Oil, if you want.

P

[Stratos Ferric]

Further to post #2 above. I shall endeavour to find and post a peer reviewed AGW sceptic paper.

In the meantime, could those members who use the phrase "ah, but they're funded by Big Oil", please explain the origins of the Big Oil companies at the turn of the C20th and the associated dynastic families.

Your point being what, exactly?

[The Penguin]

. . . . Surely the only sensible position to take at this stage is to accept that GW may be exacerbated by human activity, and this may have catastrophic effects on human existence in a very short space of time, (in terms of geological time spans), so therefore we all have a responsibility to try and reduce any activities which could contribute to this given our current knowledge of what may or may not affect global climates. If in the fullness of time it turn's out that human activity wasn't either to blame or an exarcebating factor I'll take my hat off to those that argued for this position. But nevertheless by making the efforts anyway nothing will have been lost, (unless perhaps you have shares in an oil company of course !), and I'll be able to look all those peoples who sufferred squarely in the eye knowing we did what we could given our levels of understanding at the current time.

Rigorous argument is of course a good thing, but sometimes I fear it is used as shield by those who don't want to face possibly painful changes, or who have vested interests in doing nothing.

I fully understand your sentiments and don’t completely discount the supporting logic, but do you really believe that cutting out CO2 emissions, for instance, will be accomplished at no cost?

Just assuming that bit by bit the nations of the world could be persuaded to join in, there would still be a huge investment to be made to switch to other sources of energy. This would involve individuals as well as countries diverting a substantial part of their resources into alternative technologies. I would think that far beyond eating into any extra we have, this would involve reallocating a good part of our core resources, which are already directed at essentials.

The problem with that is there are people in the world that rely to a high degree for their existence on what the ‘Haves’ can afford to send their way, There is an argument to be had about whether that should be necessary, and even if it is necessary, whether it is expedient, but aid packages or charity is a fact of many peoples life today. So when you say there are no (important) losers, I would contest that you are wrong. There will, in all likelihood, be a great number of undeserving casualties if sensible environmental planning is not sensible enough.

[parmenides3]

I fully understand your sentiments and don’t completely discount the supporting logic, but do you really believe that cutting out CO2 emissions, for instance, will be accomplished at no cost?

Just assuming that bit by bit the nations of the world could be persuaded to join in, there would still be a huge investment to be made to switch to other sources of energy. This would involve individuals as well as countries diverting a substantial part of their resources into alternative technologies. I would think that far beyond eating into any extra we have, this would involve reallocating a good part of our core resources, which are already directed at essentials.

The problem with that is there are people in the world that rely to a high degree for their existence on what the ‘Haves’ can afford to send their way, There is an argument to be had about whether that should be necessary, and even if it is necessary, whether it is expedient, but aid packages or charity is a fact of many peoples life today. So when you say there are no (important) losers, I would contest that you are wrong. There will, in all likelihood, be a great number of undeserving casualties if sensible environmental planning is not sensible enough.

For the sake of clarification, do you mean casualties in the sense of people not receiving charity/support, or casualties in the sense of people drowning because they live in marginal habitats threatened by sea level rise and extreme weather?

P

[The Penguin]

For the sake of clarification, do you mean casualties in the sense of people not receiving charity/support, or casualties in the sense of people drowning because they live in marginal habitats threatened by sea level rise and extreme weather?

P

I think you know what I mean.

The difference between taking the global redirection curve on two wheels, and the potential long-term outcomes of GW, is obviously time. I suggest there would be plenty of opportunity to plan for climate change while immediate action on environmental policies would leave little time to react in support of marginal populations.

[parmenides3]

I think you know what I mean.

The difference between taking the global redirection curve on two wheels, and the potential long-term outcomes of GW, is obviously time. I suggest there would be plenty of opportunity to plan for climate change while immediate action on environmental policies would leave little time to react in support of marginal populations.

No, I'm not being sarcastic, it was just that the meaning of your post wasn't clear to me. I think that planning for climate change is already happening in many countries, which is a good thing, but there is an important question about what action should, or indeed can, be taken in the short term which would be of genuine benefit. I am also concerned because it seems that the tendency for some governments is to legislate, ineffectually, after the event, instead of sticking their necks out and being proactively (sorry, horrid word) decisive. I'm not demanding instant action now, but I would be a little less worried if I saw some promise of action soon. We don't have to do it all at once, and, of course, we don't want to waste resources doing the wrong thing, but I honestly feel that we are past the point where procrastination can do anyone any good.

P

[The Penguin]

I accept you have a point, but I am conscious that this is possibly not the correct place to pursue it. Now doubt there will be another opportunity elsewhere soon.

[Stratos Ferric]

I fully understand your sentiments and don’t completely discount the supporting logic, but do you really believe that cutting out CO2 emissions, for instance, will be accomplished at no cost?

Just assuming that bit by bit the nations of the world could be persuaded to join in, there would still be a huge investment to be made to switch to other sources of energy. This would involve individuals as well as countries diverting a substantial part of their resources into alternative technologies. I would think that far beyond eating into any extra we have, this would involve reallocating a good part of our core resources, which are already directed at essentials.

The problem with that is there are people in the world that rely to a high degree for their existence on what the ‘Haves’ can afford to send their way, There is an argument to be had about whether that should be necessary, and even if it is necessary, whether it is expedient, but aid packages or charity is a fact of many peoples life today. So when you say there are no (important) losers, I would contest that you are wrong. There will, in all likelihood, be a great number of undeserving casualties if sensible environmental planning is not sensible enough.

Penguin, whilst I'd concur with a lot of what you say, I'm not sure that global charity is hugely significant, nor that it would necessarily be the first thing sarcrificed to pay for higher fuel costs.

I don't have data, but I would hasard that if energy costs were doubled tomorrow people would get by. Right now I have lots of lights on in the house that I could turn off, and in which I could substitute low energy bulbs. The heating could be turned lower. We could all use cars and transport more efficiently. We could all reuse carrier bags. It doesn't have to be hard, it's just that it really doesn't occur to most of us to make the effort because in our comfortable little lives we don't need to, or else we can rely on someone else to do so for us instead. Of course the suppliers do not want us to reduce use, because that hits revenue. Its interesting that in water supply the regulator has set targets on suppliers to reduce use, creating an interesting tension. I'm not aware that the electricity or gas regulators have imposed similar targets to encourage more prudent use.

[The Penguin]

SF, In global terms I think you’re probably right. However to the recipients, and to me though not directly, the issue of charity / aid is highly significant. Again though, as this is supposed to be a technical rather than speculative thread, I’ll leave my extended version to another time and place.

[Mr Sleet]

Couple of things,

one , sudden climate changes over decades is not uncommon

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

two , this crap about temperature and co2 levels

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0999/et0999s6.html

clearly co2 follows temp not the other way round. If anyone believes otherwise, then what they are saying is that the main driver of ice ages and interglacials is co2 level, which is patently isn't.

[Angel15]

I read in the Metro today:

Quote:

10 years to doomsday

Climate change could start to spiral out of control in just ten years, scientists warned yesterday. New data from an ice core drilled out of the Antartic permafrost has revealed major rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contained tiny bubbles of air which were analysed by the British Antartctic Survey. For most of the time, CO2 levels stayed at between 180 and 200 parts per million of air. Today's levels are 380 parts/million.

Scientists who tested the ice said the rise was caused by burning fossil fuels. They said there was a 'tipping point' of 440 parts/;million when climate change would start t run out of control.

End Quote.

[Stratos Ferric]

I read in the Metro today:

Quote:

10 years to doomsday

Climate change could start to spiral out of control in just ten years, scientists warned yesterday. New data from an ice core drilled out of the Antartic permafrost has revealed major rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contained tiny bubbles of air which were analysed by the British Antartctic Survey. For most of the time, CO2 levels stayed at between 180 and 200 parts per million of air. Today's levels are 380 parts/million.

Scientists who tested the ice said the rise was caused by burning fossil fuels. They said there was a 'tipping point' of 440 parts/;million when climate change would start t run out of control.

End Quote.

Not the most scrupulous source, and as might be expected not the most accurate representation of a picture that is, in all probability, much more complex than that.

[johnholmes]

hi

Heaven knows where they make that headline up from.

This is a rather more reliable comment

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5314592.stm

For the actual release then go to the Bristish Antarctic Survey web site. It is their continuing work from which the news release stems.

Always best to get the facts rather than some cock and bull journalistic headline.

John

[Dawlish]

I read in the Metro today:

Quote:

10 years to doomsday

Climate change could start to spiral out of control in just ten years, scientists warned yesterday. New data from an ice core drilled out of the Antartic permafrost has revealed major rises in carbon dioxide levels.

The core, stretching through layers dating back 800,000 years, contained tiny bubbles of air which were analysed by the British Antartctic Survey. For most of the time, CO2 levels stayed at between 180 and 200 parts per million of air. Today's levels are 380 parts/million.

Scientists who tested the ice said the rise was caused by burning fossil fuels. They said there was a 'tipping point' of 440 parts/;million when climate change would start t run out of control.

End Quote.

S'funny Angel, the Grauniad had it at 20 years, this morning. It's obviously spinning out of control as we type. Some rag will probably have it down to next Thursday, by the early weekend editions.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1865081,00.html

Oh hell, only 10 years to the beginning of the end of coastal and estuarine civilisation, as we know it.

I posted this, earlier today, on UKww

I think CO2 concentrations will continue to rise and I also think that the world's climate will continue to warm. Whether the former is the cause, or a primal cause of the latter.......maybe. I'm swayed by anthropomorphic CO2 as a cause, but not fully convinced.

Whether we should be preparing, with more enthuisasm, for a warmer climate......probably. The odds are in favour of the trend continuing, but odds are never certainties. Ask any racegoer.

Will we prepare for a warmer climate......probably not. It costs money and politicians are unlikely to spend money on something which will not see them elected at the next election.

Will the politicians talk about it.......yes; at length. They have to be seen to be worried about worrying issues, or they will not be elected. Actually doing something, about a possibile future problem, is not their personal concern.

Am I cynical.........

Paul

Edited September 5, 2006 by Dawlish

[Angel15]

Not the most scrupulous source, and as might be expected not the most accurate representation of a picture that is, in all probability, much more complex than that.

Indeed but to get an accurate picture of any situation, having information from all possible sources is the best way to go about it - that way a considered judgment can then possibly be concluded

Edited September 5, 2006 by Angel15

[Stratos Ferric]

Couple of things,

one , sudden climate changes over decades is not uncommon

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

two , this crap about temperature and co2 levels

http://www.sdearthtimes.com/et0999/et0999s6.html

clearly co2 follows temp not the other way round. If anyone believes otherwise, then what they are saying is that the main driver of ice ages and interglacials is co2 level, which is patently isn't.

I'd be cagey about being quite so categorical Mr Sleet (turning to rain in the years to come)!

The jury seems to be out on cause and effect. In any case, there is clear science in favour of increased CO2 causing warming, the chemical and physical effects are matters of demonstrated occurrence. It is quite possible that in times gone by there has been warming due to other causes, which has triggered a release of biomass / locked carbon into the atmosphere; this, however, is not to say that in the present time, when man's activities are releasing much more locked carbon (e.g. coal, oil, wood) that would otherwise have cycled much more slowly, a different mechanism is at play. In which case be very afraid, because we should expect a secondary positive feedback downstream consequent to this warming which would heighten the CO2 effect even more.

The one problem with the various ice core analyses is that they never tell us what else was going on at the same time. Just as we know at present, there may be several forcing mechanisms at play, and all we experience is the net effect of complex interplay.

I'm not quite sure what styrange deductive or inductive logic you're arriiving at, by the way, to leap from CO2 lagging temperature to CO2 levels driving ice ages. I think, for this reader at least, you need to elaborate a little.

Indeed but to get an accurate picture of any situation, having information from all possible sources is the best way to go about it - that way a considered judgment can then possibly be concluded

There speaks one who knows nothing of the wonder of statistical process control!

I know what you mean, but in practice I think that filtering sources for rigour of opinion is helpful. I could step onto the streets of this northern metropolis in which I am located and randomly garner 100 views the majority of which would be so ill informed as to be of no value at all in enabling "considered judgement".

That's why judges sit in court rather than you or I. They have knowledge of the law and legal process. I'm more open to primary material sourced from scientists who specialise in earth sciences, than I am from some tobacco chewing right winger who has set up a web site, titled, say, Anyday soon I won't need a freezer to keep my peas frozen.nutters-org.us

[Angel15]

I'd be cagey about being quite so categorical Mr Sleet (turning to rain in the years to come)!

The jury seems to be out on cause and effect. In any case, there is clear science in favour of increased CO2 causing warming, the chemical and physical effects are matters of demonstrated occurrence. It is quite possible that in times gone by there has been warming due to other causes, which has triggered a release of biomass / locked carbon into the atmosphere; this, however, is not to say that in the present time, when man's activities are releasing much more locked carbon (e.g. coal, oil, wood) that would otherwise have cycled much more slowly, a different mechanism is at play. In which case be very afraid, because we should expect a secondary positive feedback downstream consequent to this warming which would heighten the CO2 effect even more.

The one problem with the various ice core analyses is that they never tell us what else was going on at the same time. Just as we know at present, there may be several forcing mechanisms at play, and all we experience is the net effect of complex interplay.

I'm not quite sure what styrange deductive or inductive logic you're arriiving at, by the way, to leap from CO2 lagging temperature to CO2 levels driving ice ages. I think, for this reader at least, you need to elaborate a little.

There speaks one who knows nothing of the wonder of statistical process control!

I know what you mean, but in practice I think that filtering sources for rigour of opinion is helpful. I could step onto the streets of this northern metropolis in which I am located and randomly garner 100 views the majority of which would be so ill informed as to be of no value at all in enabling "considered judgement".

That's why judges sit in court rather than you or I. They have knowledge of the law and legal process. I'm more open to primary material sourced from scientists who specialise in earth sciences, than I am from some tobacco chewing right winger who has set up a web site, titled, say, Anyday soon I won't need a freezer to keep my peas frozen.nutters-org.us

Regardless of the paper, the view was gleaned from scientists - albeit not a detailed report.

As for a judge sitting in court - it is the jury who decide the outcome or fate of the accused, not the judge; he delivers the sentence.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Angel15

[Stratos Ferric]

S'funny Angel, the Grauniad had it at 20 years, this morning. It's obviously spinning out of control as we type. Some rag will probably have it down to next Thursday, by the early weekend editions.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatec...1865081,00.html

Oh hell, only 10 years to the beginning of the end of coastal and estuarine civilisation, as we know it.

Posted earlier on UKww

I think CO2 concentrations will continue to rise and I also think that the world's climate will continue to warm. Whether the former is the cause, or a primal cause of the latter.......maybe. I'm swayed by anthropomorphic CO2 as a cause, but not fully convinced.

Whether we should be preparing, with more enthuisasm, for a warmer climate......probably. The odds are in favour of the trend continuing, but odds are never certainties. Ask any racegoer.

Will we prepare for a warmer climate......probably not. It costs money and politicians are unlikely to spend money on something which will not see them elected at the next election.

Will the politicians talk about it.......yes; at length. They have to be seen to be worried about worrying issues, or they will not be elected. Actually doing something, about a possibile future problem, is not their personal concern.

Am I cynical.........

Paul

Dawlish,

Much sense in that; the uninformed with an interest in stirring things up in either direction get carried away, in the meantime the point you make at the foot continues to sweat away. As you say, nobody will do anything until we have had a few disasters; at which point there will be much wringing of hands and wailing from the masses (including many on here) who are, as ever, granted an acuity of retrospective judgement after the event that seemed to be strangely lacking before it.

[johnholmes]

Regardless of the paper, the view was gleaned from scientists - albeit not a detailed report

but the point is that the journalist has totally misquoted, yet again, a very good piece of scientific work.

[Stratos Ferric]

Regardless of the paper, the view was gleaned from scientists - albeit not a detailed report.

As for a judge sitting in court - it is the jury who decide the outcome or fate of the accused, not the judge.

Not in a complex fraud case they don't! The judge is there to make sure that the evidence presented is relevant to the case, and he can, in extreme circumstances, choose to overrule the jury and go to retrial. Juries decide only in the context of the Judge's management of the process that allows them to make sound judgement. Oddly enough there is no requirement that jurors be of demonstrably sound or fair mind.

Mmm, reminds me of somewhere, mmmmm...

[Angel15]

Regardless of the paper, the view was gleaned from scientists - albeit not a detailed report

but the point is that the journalist has totally misquoted, yet again, a very good piece of scientific work.

That is journalists for you - scaremongering I think is the name of their game, or sensationalising, I shall have a read of some of the earlier links provided in these posts.