Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

[Medway Snowball]

We (the first and second worlds) had no such targets and we were allowed to develop our industries completely free of any pollution restraints. 3rd World countries use that argument, to allow their development. China has to. John Humphries, in The SleepyDayTombs, at the weekend, says that China is opening one new caol-fired Power station A WEEK! Not Often I resort to a shout, but I found that piece of information (fact?) stunning, if it is true.

Paul

A quick google search re: coal resources in India and China.

India and China have HUGE coal reserves estimated to last at least 200 years.

India is the third largest coal producer and it's energy accounts for two thirds of total energy usage.

China is the biggest coal producer in the world, 2nd in terms of reserves (USA number 1), and again accounts for two thirds of total energy

used.

Needless to say both countries compsumption of coal and there % of the total energy used is forecaster to grow!

Regards

ms

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Dave, just a question; do you think that GW is not happening, or do you think that AGW is not happening. The confusion is the main weapon of climate change sceptics.

Paul

No it's not.

Who denies AGW happens? List of names please.

Some question how significant AGW is to climate change. That's not denying AGW happens, that's putting AGW in perspective.

When you hold it up close enough a five penny piece will eclipse the moon.

Edited November 7, 2006 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Hiya]

As a scientist I can only firmly say one thing, no one knows - or someone does know and no everyone will agree with them - what is actually happening in terms of climate change.

Do I believe the planet is warming at the minute?

Yes, because the data presented to me shows an overall increase, even the hockey stick graph doesn't deny it.

Do I believe that human's are responsible for this increase in global temperature?

Yes, in part. I've heard the word naive branded about in relation to this, "it's naive to think humans can alter the planet in such a way" but it’s naive to think we can't. That big fiery ball in the sky could have a lot to answer for, it's been the source of global warming for a good long while now, could be a bit naive to think it doesn't have anything to do with the current situation.

What your personal opinion Mr. Hiya?

The current phase of increasing global temperature is natural in origin, but is exacerbated by human activity. Why do I think that? Don't really know, but there so many arguments and data that u have to step really far back to see anything bigger, so we'll call it an informed opinion, "educated guess" which could be just as good as anyone else's I think.

What does the future hold?

I don't know, and neither does anyone else.

Don't think I've said anything thats not been said before by someone else, but thought I'd post my thoughts as a scientist.

Scot

[Gray-Wolf]

Hiya ! Hiya,

What if temp. increase is further augmented by a natural cycle? The next solar max is supposed to be a more extreme (cumalative) maximum and as such the increase in solar activity could raise temps, in the short term, even quicker than the worse case scenario predicts. If we are to believe in 'tipping points' then any natural 'lurch' upwards by global temps could lead to some unstoppable, self reinforcing climate patterns and devastation to many ecosystems many tens of years before they were predicted to occur.

In some ways the discovery of an overlying 'warming cycle' in nature only goes to escalate change in the short term which I would find extremely worrying.

[parmenides3]

Just a thought here. Why when used in connestion to GW is sceptic a dirty word?

I'm allowed, even encouraged to be sceptical about UFOs, religion, politicians, Stoke City winning the champions league within 3 years.

Yet when I'm sceptical about the extent, cause & ultimate outcome of GW it's ok to call those of us who are not sure or unconvinced at any rate, GW deniers, almost tainting us to be as bad as holocaust deiners.

The figures seem to prove that some warming is taking place at the moment, nothing that hasn't happened before of course, yet people are allowed to quote "facts" like "the world will warm by 5c by the end of the century", on national "news" broadcasts almost totally without challenge.

Of course, it makes sense to reduce pollution of all kinds & we should be as kind to the environment as we can be, but there is a certain element around now who view people who don't share their views as little more than criminals.

For the first time, the climate does appear to be warming at a time when man has the science to 1) know that it's happening & 2) try to explain why this MAY be happening. What would they have been saying had they been around when Greenland was warm enough to be settled all those years ago?

Just a thought from someone who isn't a scientist, has no dogmatic views on the subject, but smells a rat (or at least a big mouse) in some of what I'm being told to be undeniable truth.

Dave

You have a valid point about the use of the term 'skeptic', Daveshug: it is being used as a pejorative term nowadays, in certain quarters. I t seems to go along with the idea that people who challenge the consensus are somehow either stupid, politically motivated, naive or ignorant, none of which are necessarily the case, of course.

I don't think there's anything to be gained by going down the path of discussion about the term 'denier'; this has provoked some rather pointless and inappropriate debate on certain websites (Roger Pielke Jr. took great exception to it). I doubt very much if you'll find anyone on NW who would compare, by implication or otherwise, people who question the extreme polemics of climate catastrophists with the Nazis, so let's not go there...

My advice would be, if anyone tells you that anything is an 'undeniable truth', to reach for your crucifix and holy water & banish them to the outher reaches. My other piece of advice would be to remember that everything presented in the Media is a 'story', not a fact. The news is only news if it has an impact on the viewer/reader; to do this, it must be presented in the most frightening way possible, often.

It is also important not to imagine that doubters are somehow 'victims' in this debate; it's easy enough to imagine that you are in a minority, but there are plenty around who still refuse to roll over and play dead just because the big dog has barked.

What's the difference between different types of skepticism? If a claimed 'truth' is presented to you, for which the evidence or justification is either superstition or an article of faith, you are entitled to be skeptical because there is no rational foundation to the truth claim. If, on the other hand, you are presented with a statement for which the supporting evidence is strong, involves measurable or quantifiable matter, and is founded on reason, then you need to have something more than simply skepticism; you have to have you own reason to challenge the rationality of the argument presented to you. So the question about your doubts (and others') about AGW is; do you have a valid reason to doubt the statement being made?

Hope this helps.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

If Hiya's questions had been raised to me, my answers would have been pretty much the same.

I think the differentiation between "sceptic" and "denier" is an important one. I would've thought that a denier is someone who denies the existence of something (especially, as in the case of AGW, if that something is likely to be true, with negative implications). A sceptic, on the other hand, is normally someone who questions a belief or system of beliefs; I tend to see scepticism as a positive thing provided constructive reasoning is given, but denial as potentially a negative thing.

Some good points above by P3 also, going into greater depth.

[parmenides3]

Hiya ! Hiya,

What if temp. increase is further augmented by a natural cycle? The next solar max is supposed to be a more extreme (cumalative) maximum and as such the increase in solar activity could raise temps, in the short term, even quicker than the worse case scenario predicts. If we are to believe in 'tipping points' then any natural 'lurch' upwards by global temps could lead to some unstoppable, self reinforcing climate patterns and devastation to many ecosystems many tens of years before they were predicted to occur.

In some ways the discovery of an overlying 'warming cycle' in nature only goes to escalate change in the short term which I would find extremely worrying.

Can someone please point me to an explanation of the natural cycles of warming and cooling that explains why we are in a 'natural warming'cycle? The Milankovitch cycles can be ignored. The Solar signals in the atmosphere are not demonstrated (but could still be) beyond the 11 year cycle, and I haven't found anything but hypothesis with reference to other suggested cycles. It seems to me that it is only a hypothesis at the moment that we are in a natural warming phase. it isn't an unreasonable idea, but it is an unproven one. On the other hand, the presence of man-made GHGs in the atmosphere is incontestable. The effect (though not the amount) of them on Global temperature is pretty much the same.

Are we just looking for reasons to believe that it isn't all, in fact, our doing? I'm not pretending I know the answers to these questions, but I am dubious about attributing even some of the warming of the last 35 years to 'natural cycles' without some good reason so to do.

:)p

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Exactly, as I have said on a number of occasions, it seems to me that many people are really having a problem with admitting this might be something to do with our activities, our chosen style of living, that it might in any way be our fault. Is it the guilt ?, is it the idea that we may have to make changes to our lifestyles, (with, oh my god heaven forbid perhaps a small reduction in our current 'consume all' standard of living ????), I really don't know, but what I am seeing is an increasingly frantic casting around for any explanation other than the obvious one.

[J10]

The first real knowledge I gained on climate change was on one of those Christmas Science lectures which were on BBC2 at the time, and was very informative. I wonder if a link could be found to this, certainly many natural warming cycles were mentioned in this broadcast.

[davehsug]

Dave, just a question; do you think that GW is not happening, or do you think that AGW is not happening. The confusion is the main weapon of climate change sceptics.

Paul

Hello Paul. The figures speak for themselves warming is taking place at the moment. As to how much is man-made I really don't know.

I was just making a, rather naive perhaps, point, that the world seems to have continuously warmed up & cooled down throughout its history. I assume that the climate is never stable & is always wobbling in one direction or another.

What I don't uderstand is why there is so much certainty that the current warming is almost wholly attributable to man. The (it seems to me), wild claims & counter-claims only confuse the situation adding heat but very little light (sorry couldn't resist ).

I am always suspicious of things I hear or see in TV news programmes, I think most of us will, on occasion, have seen stories about which we possess a little knowledge & been appalled by the half-truths & occasional downright lies that are told.

I neither belive that GW is man-made or deny it, I'm just not convinced & when politicians become involved, with an eye to a bit more taxation for them I get worried.

Dave

[snowsure]

If Hiya's questions had been raised to me, my answers would have been pretty much the same.

I think the differentiation between "sceptic" and "denier" is an important one. I would've thought that a denier is someone who denies the existence of something (especially, as in the case of AGW, if that something is likely to be true, with negative implications). A sceptic, on the other hand, is normally someone who questions a belief or system of beliefs; I tend to see scepticism as a positive thing provided constructive reasoning is given, but denial as potentially a negative thing.

Some good points above by P3 also, going into greater depth.

Interesting liguistic undercurrent developing.

Sceptic - a doubter

Denier - a unit of weight, especially of silk or nylon

Deny - Declare un-true or non-existent.

As a guide, the older you get, the more you doubt. Also your cynical quotient goes up!

A younger person will be more inclined to deny things whilst a grumpy old person is more inclined to doubt the existence of something (love, happiness, joy, fair play, etc.) that they once fervently believed in when they were younger.

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

I hear scientists say politicians should butt out of science. If they really believed in the exclusivity of disciplines they should butt out of the politics of global warming.

Decisions about global warming, as decisions about most things, are too important to be left to an elite group with beards.

Whether GW is a bad thing is not up to the scientists. A scientist who does not know if GW is out of control needs to shut up, do more research and find out.

We don't need scientists in their high chairs screaming at politicians they are idiots and must act now "because we don't know for sure".

The problem with the GW debate is not that it is politicised it is that many - but not all - scientists want to make political claims they are not qualified to make.

The climate is not obviously best managed with human intervention - government taxes on fuel, alternative energy etc. There is the question of how can humans best arrange their affairs to adapt to great natural swings in climate that have happened throughout history (something that requires healthy industry & science).

A proper global warming debate involves more than the scientists and ultimately voters. Less of the political cynicism.

Edited November 7, 2006 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[coldfingers]

Can someone please point me to an explanation of the natural cycles of warming and cooling that explains why we are in a 'natural warming'cycle? The Milankovitch cycles can be ignored. The Solar signals in the atmosphere are not demonstrated (but could still be) beyond the 11 year cycle, and I haven't found anything but hypothesis with reference to other suggested cycles. It seems to me that it is only a hypothesis at the moment that we are in a natural warming phase. it isn't an unreasonable idea, but it is an unproven one. On the other hand, the presence of man-made GHGs in the atmosphere is incontestable. The effect (though not the amount) of them on Global temperature is pretty much the same.

Are we just looking for reasons to believe that it isn't all, in fact, our doing? I'm not pretending I know the answers to these questions, but I am dubious about attributing even some of the warming of the last 35 years to 'natural cycles' without some good reason so to do.

p

Do not the evidence of tree rings suggest that there have been regular periods of more and also less favourable periods of weather having an effect upon the tree growths. I am assuming that this could be connected with warmer or colder weather.

[parmenides3]

Do not the evidence of tree rings suggest that there have been regular periods of more and also less favourable periods of weather having an effect upon the tree growths. I am assuming that this could be connected with warmer or colder weather.

Obviously there are cycles, Coldfingers. The question was, where is the evidence that we should be in a 'natural warming' cycle? Climate sensitivity is not a problem, in the sense that it is factored into to GW calculations, as is variations which seem to follow cycles (normally on decadal and multi-decadal scales). What I am missing is the evidence supporting the warming cycle hypothesis. In other words, why? I hope that is clearer.

:)P

[WindWatcher]

I don't normally get involved in these type of climate threads simply because I don't have the time to understand it, and when I try to study it, at every turn there is a counter argument. However, from a simple perspective (mine) we can only look at the current data as factual:

There has been global warming over the last x years, but not greater than previous anomalies in the past given a fairly short baseline to the event.

There has been extreme weather, but not all of the warming kind and similar and more extreme events have occurred in the past.

(I give up trying to list arguments as there are far more intelligent sites to do that for me!)

However, I do believe we are having an effect on the climate, our industrialisation and reliance on burning fossil fuels that have been laid down during millions of years and destruction of rain forests created over thousands of years has got to have an effect. It's not like the earth has ever experienced destruction of such resources in the past that we can detect.

I think someone mentioned earlier about China opening a new coal fired power station every week, they also open a new theme park on the scale of Euro Disney every week! This is development on a scale that is hard to comprehend (certainly for me!) I am sure that during industrialisation the developed countries grew at an enormous pace... but some of the figures coming from China and India are just hard to comprehend!

Can we really afford not to do anything about it? I don't think so, but I will refuse to be robbed by so-called "new-green" parties that want to tax us into using less energy, whilst not using that money to investigate and promote alternatives!.

I had a very encouraging letter from our local council "New Forest District" who said that while they were considering introduction of tagged wheelie bins and fortnightly collection, there really was no need to introduce them apart from raising more taxes, as long as people used the current scheme efficiently. We are now encouraged and supported enough to make a difference and have cut our black bag waste by 50% despite thinking we already re-cycled everything!. Not so much because of the threat of taxes but because if we all do our bit, it can make a difference and not require the tax raising, punitive, and ineffective money making stick. (oops wandered off topic there a bit!)

I guess what I am trying to say is do we really know what we are doing to the planet? We can say there were higher Co2 levels and temps in the past but they weren't caused by burning the earth's resources and deforestation, so we can match symptoms but not the causes. A poor analogy I know but meningitis has the same initial symptoms as flu but is far more deadly and if not caught early enough can be fatal.

The future will tell us the prognosis, if only we could role a glass on a few spots on the earth and come up with a diagnosis!

Steve.

[davehsug]

What a sensible post Steve. You put the sort of point I am trying to make far more eloquently than I have.

thank you

Dave

[WindWatcher]

What a sensible post Steve. You put the sort of point I am trying to make far more eloquently than I have.

thank you

Dave

Thank you, I don't often post in this sort of debate because it takes me so damn long to put a post together! I don't know how some on here post page after page of reasoned argument ( bit like I don't understand GW)

[davehsug]

Thank you, I don't often post in this sort of debate because it takes me so damn long to put a post together! I don't know how some on here post page after page of reasoned argument ( bit like I don't understand GW)

That's why I haven't posted but eventually you get to bursting point & have to say something

I just need proof. I've noted that the emphasis now seems to be to prove that warming is largely natural & not man-made rather than the other way around & I don't understand why.

It's the same sort of dumb question I ask about the ozone hole over the Antarctic. We didn't know it was there until we discovered it! The question I've always asked is, has it always been there to a greater or lesser extent? It seems a perfectly reasonable question, but when I've asked (not on NW I hasten to add) I get looked at as though I must be missing something

Dave

[snowsure]

That's why I haven't posted but eventually you get to bursting point & have to say something :lol:

I just need proof. I've noted that the emphasis now seems to be to prove that warming is largely natural & not man-made rather than the other way around & I don't understand why.

It's the same sort of dumb question I ask about the ozone hole over the Antarctic. We didn't know it was there until we discovered it! The question I've always asked is, has it always been there to a greater or lesser extent? It seems a perfectly reasonable question, but when I've asked (not on NW I hasten to add) I get looked at as though I must be missing something :lol:

Dave

It would be sooooo human of us to discover what we think is a "problem", spend millions on trying to fix it and then find out it was meant to be that way in the first place. Then, at the same time, we spend just as much time and money making problems that nature then tries to fix for us!

How we evolved into the highly intelligent state that we are now I have got no idea.

P.S. What contribution has bonfire night and fireworks made to our current plight in terms of increasing the amount of CO2? It certainly will not have reduced the level of gasses in the atmosphere. Add on all the summer time barbeques as well.

Hmmm. Let's not stop the industrial advances of others when we haven't curtailed our own activities.

[The PIT]

I had a very encouraging letter from our local council "New Forest District" who said that while they were considering introduction of tagged wheelie bins and fortnightly collection.

Steve.

This fortnightly collect is actually a health risk during the hot summer. Also taxing people to empty bins will encourage fly tipping and extra bonfires. If we get taxed on the contents of the bin I'll just burn as much as possible which isn't friendly either.

[Gray-Wolf]

This fortnightly collect is actually a health risk during the hot summer. Also taxing people to empty bins will encourage fly tipping and extra bonfires. If we get taxed on the contents of the bin I'll just burn as much as possible which isn't friendly either.

For those lucky enough to have gardens then composting clears a lot of the waste that attracts flies. Tins, glass and paper are recycled so what waste is left? To meet with our European commitments we opted for the 'cheapest' form of recycling which ,sadly, leaves the onus on the householder to be a good citizen and break down/recycle their own waste. Germany and Holland just give out different coloured bins and the L.A. does the deed leaving the householder just to separate their waste. If you think back to Grandmas time ashes were the main waste product as little packaging was used and much waste was burned on the home fire (bin wagons were also known as 'ash carts').

If none of us are willing to shoulder our responsibilities (I'm sure our ancestors would if they had been aware) then we may as well give up now, learn the violin and fiddle whilst our world burns(or heats up dramatically at least!).

[Devonian]

That's why I haven't posted but eventually you get to bursting point & have to say something

I just need proof. I've noted that the emphasis now seems to be to prove that warming is largely natural & not man-made rather than the other way around & I don't understand why.

It's the same sort of dumb question I ask about the ozone hole over the Antarctic. We didn't know it was there until we discovered it! The question I've always asked is, has it always been there to a greater or lesser extent? It seems a perfectly reasonable question, but when I've asked (not on NW I hasten to add) I get looked at as though I must be missing something

Dave

Little if anything in science, earth sciences anyway, is 'proven' - you'll wait a long time for 'proof'.

Plate tectonics isn't proven, neither is evolution, weather forecast will never be proven (as in 100% right) nor will climate forecasts. But, what we do know is that CO2 is a ghg (as are some other human produced gasses) and that doubling it's concentration WILL (unless some of our fundamental understandings of physics are wrong) cause warming. We don't know how much warming or how much feedback warming there will or will not be, (or if by chance some countering natural cooling (or enhancing warming...) will come along) but all the evidence and data leads to the predictions of 2-4C warming due to the atmosphereic composition changes we a responsible for.

It's like lightly loaded dice. Could you prove the excess of sixes (or whatever number) a loaded dice gave were because it was loaded? Only by probability I think - which is what climate forecasts rely on...

So, proven? No. Likely/very likely (high percentage chances) - yes.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Likely/very likely (high percentage chances) - yes.

Not quite as high as you would imagine, though. CRANIUM seem to have done some serious analysis of actually quantifying the risks . . .

For example there is a 3% probability that the maximum temperature at Gatwick, in Winter, will fall by 1C; it has to be said that, according to Cranium, the highest risk is a change of 2-3C (28% chance) Of any increase (ie >0C) there is a 96% chance of this occuring; with most bets falling between the 1-3C increase, and a chance of a 5-6C increase being almost as low as a fall in mean temperatures (4%) Still, greater than 4C gives us a risk of 17% which, in my opinion is significant.

For mean temperatures, in Winter, there is a 60% chance that any increase will be below 3C, with 11% risk that temperatures will stay the same or fall.

It has to be added that the effect on summer temperatures is marked, and is worthy of concern. The minimum summer temperature, at Gatwick, in Summer, has NO risk assigned for either the status quo, or a reduction in temperature. The smallest (quantified) risk is assigned to a rise of 7-8C, whilst the weight of probability lies within the 3-5C region (61%) with a probability of an increase of more than 2C being being 96%

Mark

Edited November 8, 2006 by Wilson

[Devonian]

Not quite as high as you would imagine, though. CRANIUM seem to have done some serious analysis of actually quantifying the risks . . .

Well, to clarify, I'm thinking global risk as in IPPC quantification (footnote 7 here) from 2001 - so things may have changed. But, I'll try to understand the link - though it looks like UK not globe?

Edited November 8, 2006 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Well, to clarify, I'm thinking global risk as in IPPC quantification (footnote 7 here) from 2001 - so things may have changed. But, I'll try to understand the link - though it looks like UK not globe?

Yes, that's true. I've summarised some interesting numbers from the site (from the Excel download further down the page) on my edit of my previous post.