Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?

[Gray-Wolf]

I do feel that this past 5yrs has seen a change in climate on a global scale the problem being the planet doesn't like change and will attempt (for a while) to keep things 'as were' until it gives up the ghost and does a 'step change' to the new temp settings.

Whether we are witnessing this happening over the last 5 yrs or we are just 'witnessing' the first rumblings of the 'step change' I couldn't say. My hunch is that this last 5 yrs have been the planet 'failing' to run in it's 'normal way' and starting to shift to the new settings.

With MetO/Uni East Anglia going for the hottest global year yet (by a margin) I think 2007 may well mark the start of undeniable change within the global climate and also bring the sound of humble pie munching from certain observers

[Mondy]

With MetO/Uni East Anglia going for the hottest global year yet (by a margin) I think 2007 may well mark the start of undeniable change within the global climate and also bring the sound of humble pie munching from certain observers

Nah, mate. 2007 is solar minimum. It's all linked. By the maximum in as little as 4 years, but very probably longer, it'll be cooling down again.

Apologies, WiB for going off topic, but i shall continue to be a denialist!

[Gray-Wolf]

Nah, mate. 2007 is solar minimum. It's all linked. By the maximum in as little as 4 years, but very probably longer, it'll be cooling down again.

Apologies, WiB for going off topic, but i shall continue to be a denialalist!

Though you may remain a denialalist (and truely only time will answer us fully as to what is happening) even a small (naturally produced or otherwise) surge in temps could lead to other global effects which a return to 'business as usual ' won't remedy. Tipping points have happened throughout geological time (all 'naturally' produced) leading to global climatic shifts .Climate Science seems to be edging towards a fuller understanding of these mechanisms and effects and more and more we have them pointed out to us (be it reduced albedo, methane seepage from melted permafrost, methane release from submerged biomass at the edges of continental shelfs, increased solar impacts on climate etc.) as concerns about where we are headed.

It doesn't matter how the 'tipping point ' is breached, what matters is the 'breaching' of it.

[Element92]

Anyone who denies that global warming is occurring should take a peek at the atmospheric CO2 v global temperature data for the last 100k years. One can only draw the conclusion that man is a significant factor in this correlation that really commences with mass-industrialisation.

Take a look at a pollution-infested city such as London, with its gridlock. Road transport and power stations pumping out CO2 day and night, then multiply it thousands of times around the globe from New York to Calcutta and Shanghai. Throw in the mass destruction and logging of the earth's green lungs, the rain forests. One of the main things that would normally remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis being shamefully destroyed- the reason unique among the planets we have free oxygen to breathe. And it all fits nicely with the global CO2/temperature graphs. CO2 is an extremely effective greenhouse gas. You don't need much increase in its "parts per million".

At what point would the anti global warmers believe - when central London or New York are finally under water, or when a war starts due to ravaged global agriculture and dwindling economic resources?

Isn't it just a good job that people like this did not gain the upper hand when chloroflurocarbons (themselves fantastic greenhouse agents) were determined to destroy ozone. Perhaps they would have rather waited until major portions of our global ecosystem had been destroyed with ensuing economic chaos, and the threat of war over dwindling resources.

Do not under-estimate our capacity to self destruct either through environmental vandalism and ignorance or through war.

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Hi,

I have now changed from an unbeliever to a sceptic. In another thread (warmer world???) a very interesting article was put forward to me. It had some amazing information in it. One thing from it was a correlation graph which had shown me there was actually a correlation between CO2 amounts and temperatures (positive at that). However i was still unconvinced. There has been major fluctuations in CO2 amounts before which has then been followed by a rise in temperatures. CO2 levels have been rising for the past 50,000 years and are continuing to do so but are we at the end of this line yet? The CO2 concentration levels fluctuate every 100,000 years rising and falling sharply. In doing this the temperatures followed an exact same trek (fluctuations). So i had identified the trend but i then began to ask 'If CO2 concentrations have risen sharply before without humans could it not be coincidence that the industrial revlolution has fallen in line with the next CO2 fluctuation?' In my view i am still unclear. There has not been any solid evidence put before me in my continuation to investigate this subject. A solution was put forward (in gaurdian?) which was to send massive mirrors into space. It would take only 1% of the sun's coverage on earth to eradicate the GW effects. They would also send vaccums to clean the atmosphere. My next question was then 'Should we interfere with mother nature?' and again i couldnt answer. If we did interfere then could we not enter the next ice age because the wather wouldnt just return to average.... would it??? I think it is conclusive that we are contributing to the destruction of the planet however our contributions must be only 1% if it is going to take 1% of the suns rays to be taken away to halt the GW effect. So is it simple.... no! Our planet is in crisis point and we need to act sooner rather than later. Although i am still not a believer the truth is the weather is changing and something must be done to help the Human Race conquer climate change before it is to late!!!

SNOW-MAN2006

Edited January 28, 2007 by SNOW-MAN2006

[Devonian]

Hi,

I have now changed from an unbeliever to a sceptic. ....'If CO2 concentrations have risen sharply before without humans could it not be coincidence that the industrial revlolution has fallen in line with the next CO2 fluctuation?' In my view i am still unclear. There has not been any solid evidence put before me in my continuation to investigate this subject. ...

SNOW-MAN2006

Actually, S.M.2006, if anything is absolutely clear it is that human beings are responsible for the current rise in CO2 conc, few things are better know and less contested in this debate than that.

Try this.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Anyone who denies that global warming is occurring should take a peek at the atmospheric CO2 v global temperature data for the last 100k years. One can only draw the conclusion that man is a significant factor in this correlation that really commences with mass-industrialisation.

Hi - I don't deny that there appears to be some degree of warming going on at present, but I am a skeptic with regards Man's contribution to this apparent warming. I have taken rather more than a peek at the Vostok Ice Core graphs which stretch back 400,000 years and - or so it seems to me (and others) - have concluded that, historically, CO2 increase has followed temperature change, not vice versa. In fact, we had a big debate about that very thing over on the "Global Warming" thread (which is a bloomin' huge thread!). Here's the link:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=30299

If you have some spare time (a good couple of hours at least!) then it's well worth a read.

C-Bob

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Actually, S.M.2006, if anything is absolutely clear it is that human beings are responsible for the current rise in CO2 conc, few things are better know and less contested in this debate than that.

Try this.

First few words says 150 years which to me is not a reliable enough period. The sample i looked at was taken from ice core samples that indicate with rise in temperatures came a rise in co2 concentration and it showed we are in an upward trend sparked more than 10,000years ago where cars around then??? the earth is naturally emitting the large co2 emissions not us !

SM06

[Devonian]

First few words says 150 years which to me is not a reliable enough period. The sample i looked at was taken from ice core samples that indicate with rise in temperatures came a rise in co2 concentration and it showed we are in an upward trend sparked more than 10,000years ago where cars around then??? the earth is naturally emitting the large co2 emissions not us !

SM06

SM06 please read it don't just dismiss it

Fact is there should be MORE CO2 in the air than there is due to the burning of fossil fuels (it's a pretty simple calculation to do, we know how much fossil fuel has been burnt, we know how much CO2 burning that much fossil fuel will produce). So, where has the extra Co2 gone? Answer, it's been sequestrated by the oceans mostly - to the extent they are noticeably less alkali than they were.

Sorry, but you can't credibley deny that we are causing the rise in CO2 conc - don't bother . No, you'd be much better advised to take CB's line where there is at least uncertainty and scope for muddying the waters

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi,

...I think it is conclusive that we are contributing to the destruction of the planet however our contributions must be only 1% if it is going to take 1% of the suns rays to be taken away to halt the GW effect. So is it simple.... no! Our planet is in crisis point and we need to act sooner rather than later. Although i am still not a believer the truth is the weather is changing and something must be done to help the Human Race conquer climate change before it is to late!!!

SNOW-MAN2006

SnowMan, I'm afraid that's oversimplistic. You clearly never studied any chemistry, or much physics (GCSE combined science has a shed load to answer to). The effect of CO2 is disproportionate to its concentration inthe atmosphere. Any graph of global atmospheric CO2 clearly shows a marked increase over the last 100 years or so; that increase is far more than 1%.

As to the mirrors theory - I think it's fanciful, and I'd want to see the science to believe that a 1% reduction in incoming radiation would offset warming, particularly as the earth's albedo will now be falling.

First few words says 150 years which to me is not a reliable enough period. The sample i looked at was taken from ice core samples that indicate with rise in temperatures came a rise in co2 concentration and it showed we are in an upward trend sparked more than 10,000years ago where cars around then??? the earth is naturally emitting the large co2 emissions not us !

SM06

Well, whilst you're waiting for a "reliable period" we're slowly startig to smoulder: I'm glad you're not in my locla fire service - "ooh, it migh tnot be a fire, it hasn't been burning for long enough yet - let's carry on playing cards, I've got a good hand...."

And perhaps you'll enlighten us all as to HOW the earth is emitting these quantities of CO2, and why now?

To be honest SM, the main problem I have with your style of 'forecasting' is that you WANT it to be cold. Every forecast you post errs (to understate wildly) on the side of cold / copious snow: with that starting prejudice is it any surprise that you're blinkered to what might actually be happening.

If you're going to research, do so with an open mind.

Edited January 28, 2007 by shuggee
To slightly change a certain choice of words.

[Mondy]

Well, whilst you're waiting for a "reliable period" we're slowly startig to smoulder: I'm glad you're not in my locla fire service - "ooh, it migh tnot be a fire, it hasn't been burning for long enough yet - let's carry on playing cards, I've got a good hand...."

Oh, hell, SF - it's people like you who give my little old granny heart failure. Starting to smoulder? That's the type of trash comment ITV news or C5 news would come out with, and my little old granny watches those channels..

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi all - it's all fun here in my little corner of the globe, so I can't stop long, but I just want to quickly clarify something Devonian said.

Sorry, but you can't credibley deny that we are causing the rise in CO2 conc - don't bother . No, you'd be much better advised to take CB's line where there is at least uncertainty and scope for muddying the waters

Thanks for the acknowledgement there, Devonian - I honestly appreciate the fact that I'm not lumped in with rampant "NOTHING IS HAPPENING!"-type denialists (no offence intended to anyone!) I would like to say, though, that my intent is not to "muddy the waters" but rather to show the waters for how muddy they actually are. To put it another way, whilst keeping the metaphor, I am not actively throwing mud into the waters, I am merely pointing out the fact that these waters are not pristine natural springs (probably slightly closer to the English Channel! Well, that might be a slight overstatement, but you get the picture )

As for the "1% reduction in solar radiation" thing, it's an interesting assertion that, in Snowman's defence, I have read in various places before. I am not sure about the validity of the assertion, but it is something that I have been meaning to look into (since it suggests that as little as a 1% increase in solar radiation can cause significant effects on Earth...hmmm....). So much research, so little time! Ah, well - it's all good fun!

C-Bob

[Upgrade]

the scary thing is now that much of the world, not just the UK, has been experiencing temps this winter of 4+ deg C above normal. this is very very unusual. if this continues into summer we will see serious problems. this could be the year when the temperature throughout the world flips to a new climate perhaps?

[Gray-Wolf]

the scary thing is now that much of the world, not just the UK, has been experiencing temps this winter of 4+ deg C above normal. this is very very unusual. if this continues into summer we will see serious problems. this could be the year when the temperature throughout the world flips to a new climate perhaps?

I agree. Twice the CET in winter is bearable but in July???

Edited January 29, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[SNOW-MAN2006]

SnowMan, I'm afraid that's oversimplistic. You clearly never studied any chemistry, or much physics (GCSE combined science has a shed load to answer to). The effect of CO2 is disproportionate to its concentration inthe atmosphere. Any graph of global atmospheric CO2 clearly shows a marked increase over the last 100 years or so; that increase is far more than 1%.

As to the mirrors theory - I think it's fanciful, and I'd want to see the science to believe that a 1% reduction in incoming radiation would offset warming, particularly as the earth's albedo will now be falling.

Well, whilst you're waiting for a "reliable period" we're slowly startig to smoulder: I'm glad you're not in my locla fire service - "ooh, it migh tnot be a fire, it hasn't been burning for long enough yet - let's carry on playing cards, I've got a good hand...."

And perhaps you'll enlighten us all as to HOW the earth is emitting these quantities of CO2, and why now?

To be honest SM, the main problem I have with your style of 'forecasting' is that you WANT it to be cold. Every forecast you post errs (to understate wildly) on the side of cold / copious snow: with that starting prejudice is it any surprise that you're blinkered to what might actually be happening.

If you're going to research, do so with an open mind.

So then your gudiance to me is for my forecasting to be warm all the time???? Never to forecast snow ???? Whilst i still remain studying chemistry and physics i will be very interested to learn about co2 etc. whilst my knowledge at current has led me to my views. If there where only one answer then everyone would believe in the GW effect and us as a direct result of it. Yet not everyone is convinced me being one of them.

I know that my forecasts may be bias towards cold inwhich the reason why i numerously state in my predictions to discard any over ramping. I do not access any extra forecast information in my forecasts that arnt free so i look for trends. In my seasonal forecast i have put forward a colder view which wasnt uncommon amongst many other forecasters. And it is your choice to view my forecast is it not??? Infact i suggest that you click the ignore button if you constantly choose to be confrontational about my forecasting methods.... yours are perfect are they not???

QUOTE

And perhaps you'll enlighten us all as to HOW the earth is emitting these quantities of CO2, and why now?

The earth has done so before!!!! Ice core samples that have been taken from the arctic proof there has been large fluctuations in CO2 concentrations before, without the existance of humans. A general trend is for it to occur every 100,000 years inwhich it is doing now. We are to blame for a certain extent but i dont think we are the entire issue.

Many thanks for your 'critisism' S.F.

Look forwards to hearing your views

SM06

[Admiral_Bobski]

I agree. Twice the CET in winter is bearable but in July???

That's a little bit of an unfair comparison to make there, Gray-Wolf. I've noticed this come up a few times in the last month or so and it's worth clearing up this misleading confusion. The problem is that you can't use multipliers on the CET, since it is measured in Celsius (or, occasionally, Fahrenheit) which isn't an absolute scale of temperature - the only scale you could legitimately multiply in this way is the Kelvin scale which starts, conveniently enough, at 0K (which is -273.15°C).

To give an example -

Using the Celsius Scale...

Average CET = 4°C

Current CET = 8°C

Temperature increase = 200%

Using the Kelvin Scale...

Average CET = 277.15 K

Current CET = 281.15 K

Temperature increase = 1.443%

So, in fact, this January's CET is not technically double the CET but only an increase of 1.443%. "Ah-ha!" you might say, "but that's just a somantic argument." It probably is if left at that, but to then go on and say that July would be a killer if it, too, had double the CET is irresponsible - here's why...

Using the Celsius Scale...

Average July CET = 16°C

Expected Increase = 200%

Expected July CET = 32°C (+16°C)

Using the Kelvin Scale...

Average July CET = 289.15K

Expected Increase = 1.443%

Expected July CET = 293.32K (+4.17°C)

If the July CET were to show an increase proportionate to the January CET then we could expect a July CET return of just over 20°C, which is certainly higher than normal (and record-breaking, too, by almost half a degree Celsius), but nowhere near as disasterously hot as your comment would have us believe.

Interesting bit of jiggery-pokery, eh?

C-Bob

[Gray-Wolf]

Interesting bit of jiggery-pokery, eh?

C-Bob

Lies,Damn Lies and statistics!!!

I do understand what you're saying C.Bob and you are correct on both the figures and the tinkerdom involved!

I am of course trying to highlight the scale of this winters anom.s and ponder the impact of continuation through the summer months. We wouldn't be in good shape if we did turn in a monthly figure for July that was twice the CET.

Heat is something that our cities dont deal with too well. The vertical extent of cities mean that as much as 5 times the solar energy is 'harvested' compared with a rural site and with most structures being stone/concrete/brick they tend to radiate the heat out overnight (like some perverse storage heater) so twice the Cet. could happen in a big city if not in our rural locations.

[VillagePlank]

That's a little bit of an unfair comparison to make there, Gray-Wolf. I've noticed this come up a few times in the last month or so and it's worth clearing up this misleading confusion. The problem is that you can't use multipliers on the CET, since it is measured in Celsius (or, occasionally, Fahrenheit) which isn't an absolute scale of temperature - the only scale you could legitimately multiply in this way is the Kelvin scale which starts, conveniently enough, at 0K (which is -273.15°C).

Oooh! Great post. I didn't know that.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks guys It's nice to be able to clarify something which is actually rather important. The point is that while a July CET of 20°C+ is exceptional and achieveable, a July CET of 32°C+ is extraordinarily unlikely and not supported by the comparison with January CET. Granted that cities handle heat differently from rural areas, but even then I suspect an average July temperature of 32°C is virtually impossible unless something cataclysmic were to happen (rather more cataclysmic than a climatic tipping point, I should imagine), as that would involve around four times the differential we have now in July.

The other problem, of course, is that when people speak of the January CET being "double the average" it does put this catastrophic idea into people's heads that all monthly averages could "double" and makes them worry all the more about the effects of global warming when, in reality, the degree of warming isn't as bad as it sounds (okay, so a 4°C CET increase every month is pretty darn bad, but it's not that bad!)

Still, let's wait and see what this year has in store for us - maybe we'll record some sub-average CETs this year that buck the trend!

C-Bob

EDIT - Please note that the "jiggery-pokery" and "tinkerdom" actually refer to the "doubling" of the CET, not to the 1.443% increase in CET - the latter is the actual increase, whereas the former is, unwittingly, a bit of sleight-of-hand...

Edited January 30, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

That's a little bit of an unfair comparison to make there, Gray-Wolf. I've noticed this come up a few times in the last month or so and it's worth clearing up this misleading confusion. The problem is that you can't use multipliers on the CET, since it is measured in Celsius (or, occasionally, Fahrenheit) which isn't an absolute scale of temperature - the only scale you could legitimately multiply in this way is the Kelvin scale which starts, conveniently enough, at 0K (which is -273.15°C).

To give an example -

Using the Celsius Scale...

Average CET = 4°C

Current CET = 8°C

Temperature increase = 200%

Using the Kelvin Scale...

Average CET = 277.15 K

Current CET = 281.15 K

Temperature increase = 1.443%

C-Bob

Fair enough, in %* terms the rises expected are minimal, a 4C rise is only a ~1% rise (so. why do a few find a mere 1% change in global temperatures due to our activities so impossible to accept....).

*Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?

Edited January 30, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Fair enough, in %* terms the rises expected are minimal, a 4C rise is only a ~1% rise (so. why do a few find a mere 1% change in global temperatures due to our activities so impossible to accept....).

*Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?

You're missing the point - we're talking about increases, and increases have to be measured from a base point, not some arbitrarily selected starting point.

If I had twenty apples and I separated them into four groups of five, then doubled one of the groups of five, would I have twice the total number of apples? No - not even if I had an infinite supply of apples to double with.

C-Bob

[Devonian]

You're missing the point - we're talking about increases, and increases have to be measured from a base point, not some arbitrarily selected starting point.

If I had twenty apples and I separated them into four groups of five, then doubled one of the groups of five, would I have twice the total number of apples? No - not even if I had an infinite supply of apples to double with.

C-Bob

Erm, no, I get your point and I'm making another...

[Gray-Wolf]

I am in full agreement with C.Bob here. If we to are to have a realistic discussion about changes and their origins then we need to speak a 'common language' and not flip and change 'twixt and 'tween standards can produce a more 'dramatic' version of changes to suit our opinions. And yes C.Bob, the Tinkerdom is mine (and often so).

Edited January 30, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Admiral_Bobski]

'Tis all right, Gray-Wolf - I'm sure it was unintentional Tinkerdom B)

Devonian, you said "Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?", which is to what I was referring when I said you don't get the point. Of course we can talk about percentages with temperature, so long as we use the appropriate baseline. The point is that neither the Celsius nor the Fahrenheit scale are appropriate baselines - the appropriate baseline starts at absolute zero, which is 0K or -273.15°C. Percentages require a scale that starts with an absolute measurement of zero - so long as that is used then percentages are fine.

EDIT - Your point about accepting Man's ability to cause a 1% change in temperatures is a valid one, but my main argument against that point has always been basically one of the tolerance of the system (and I mean tolerance in the scientific sense). If we take the average extremes of UK temp (just the UK for now!) as being -10°C and 30°C (these figures are not etched in stone, just representative) that's a 40°C margin. 40°C is about 13.2% of the range from absolute zero to 30°C. Now you're talking about the 1.443% increase on the baseline scale as equating to a 10% change in our tolerance margin. EDIT - (1.443% increase in baseline temps is 4°C... 4°C is 10% of 40°C.) This may sound a little contradictory, but we've actually swapped the temperature percentage for a tolerance percentage, which is valid in this case. If the climate system's tolerance to change is 10% or greater, therefore, then a 1% overall change by Man's activity will have little or no effect on the overall system. That's what the debate - to my mind - is really all about.

C-Bob

Edited January 30, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

'Tis all right, Gray-Wolf - I'm sure it was unintentional Tinkerdom B)

Devonian, you said "Except temperature, while it has a minimum figure, doesn't have a maximum figure, so I'm not sure we can really talk about %s?", which is to what I was referring when I said you don't get the point. Of course we can talk about percentages with temperature, so long as we use the appropriate baseline. The point is that neither the Celsius nor the Fahrenheit scale are appropriate baselines - the appropriate baseline starts at absolute zero, which is 0K or -273.15°C. Percentages require a scale that starts with an absolute measurement of zero - so long as that is used then percentages are fine.

C-Bob

To be clear, I DO get your point - we can say it's increased by x% if you have a base - I agree.

I'm just asking another (yes, periferal) question, which is kind of 'what is 100% on the Kelvin scale?' we don't know. Thus if Earths temperature was 13C and it rose by 1 C that's more in % that if it were 20C and rose by 1C.

But, again, I DO and accept your point.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Devonian