Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

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


West is Best

Has this winter changed your view on Global Warming?  

146 members have voted

  1. 1. AGW = Anthropocentric Global Warming, in other words that humans are contributing to climate change

    • It is making me think about the issue again
      17
    • It is making me think there might be something in it afterall
      13
    • It's changed me from a sceptic to thinking humans are partly to blame
      17
    • It has made little or no difference: I already believed in AGW
      70
    • It has made little or no difference: I don't believe in AGW
      29


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny summers, cold snowy winters
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)
but that is just the point. whether the earth is in a natural cycle or has been forced into a change of climate. we are still not treating our planet with respect. so is an attitude that should be looked at conscientiously. and not a surrender to the way the planet is going.

I take offence that you suggest i have a blase attitude to the plant and its environment. My wife and I both hold driving licenses but we only own one car, we use the train if we wish to go shopping in Cardiff and where ever possible we will walk short journeys. We recycle as much as possible and when our wheelie bin goes out each week it is barely half full, dispite having a two year old and the rubbish they generate.

I love the snow and cold and would be highly dissapointed if my daughter missed out on sledging and the like, you have deliberately twisted the point that the climate is not static, if it was we would not have had ice ages or periods of greater warmth than we have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Not sure this is clear Andy, at least to me :p . By local do you mean the effect of global anthropogenic GHG emissions on localities? Or do you mean local effect (land use, urbanisation)? What does your being 'sceptical about the long term impact of carbon emission' mean, in figures for example?

BY local I mean land use changes (urbanisation, farming, deforestation etc). As for the future: I'm sceptical about predictions in part because I don't think we know enough to make adequate predictions - as for figures, well I simply don't know ......

Of course, land use changes can have a signifcant impact on regional synoptics which in turn can affect other parts of the world ...... Chop down a rain forest in Brazil and a Barlett High forms in Europe ...... ? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
Hi Richard & PM3,

Had a look at Essan's reply.

I am sure that carbon emissions have increased due to human activity. My belief is that they can effect climate at a micro level, i.e urban climate. I do not belive that it would have much impact at a Global level. 3/4 of the earth is water. 3/4 of the land on the earth is probably rural. If there were thermometres equally spread in these regions as they are in populated areas of the world then we might just be able to begin recording like with like and then would it still be possible to prove man is having a definative effect on Global Climate? I dont believe so.

I dont wish to get into a debate on this subject ad naseum though I have an open mind and am willing to listen to others views.

How do the Polar wilderness areas fit into that discription? What about sea temp anomalies, how do you 'excuse' those. Global temp.s are rising, of course on a sunny day or in the depths of a cold snap the urban heat island is apparent but global temps are not only culled from within cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Longden, Shropshire
  • Location: Longden, Shropshire

Well, as people have said previously although we are long overdue a cold winter, we are also overdue a very mild winter too. I don't think that this winter alone has changed my view about the human impact on climate change. I think we need to see how the winters progress over the next few years and if they continue in this very mild vein, then I would say that humans probably are having an effect on the climate. I do have a feeling that the warming has stepped up a gear like it did in 1988 and then again in 1997.

Don

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Andy: this looks equivalent to saying that either you don't believe the physics, or that you don't believe the models: which is it, please? :)P

Actually a bit of both. I don't know the physics well enough to say if it's correct or not - but I am aware of alternative views (Hans Erren). Mainly though because - as I said to Peter - we don't yet know enough. IMHO. And until we know all the varying factors involved, and their relationship to one another, how can we produce an accurate models of them? I appreciate that those scientists studying the subject say we do know enough. But then, they would. I remain to be convinced. Hence, I'm a sceptic :)

Maybe when someone can present me with a precise explanation of the climatic fluctuations of the past 100,000 years my scepticism regarding our knowledge will start to dissolve :p

Edit: climate models are said to be able to accurately replicate the climate of the past 100 years only when the impact of CO2 emissions is included. However, if cloud cover - for example - is not included in those models then logically either cloud cover has absolutely no effect whatsoever or the models, and the assumption regarding CO2, must be wrong :) And there are many other factors not incorporated into these models.

Edited by Essan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

In truth, this winter, on its own, shouldn't change anyone's view on climate change; one season doesn't make a trend. We are all inclined to extrapolate from personal experience and infer large scale implications from strictly subjective observations. A warm or cold season can be illustrative of a trend, at best, but to make sense of what the climate is doing, we need to look at long-term averages. I'm sure you all know this already, but just a reminder...

Also: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/sst.html for the sea surface temperature trends.

And: Andy; (no, no typo) I presume you are referring to the shifts in local climatology caused by land use change? There's no argument that this has an impact, but it is already factored into the models, and they still get extra warming...

If the physics was faulty, don't you think soemone would have noticed by now? No way would the nay-sayers let anyone get away with dodgy physics! For the paleo stuff, have you a link to 'climates of the past' ; its an open-text scientific journal? Attached are some examples from the current issue which might interest you.

:)P

notes_on_climate___findings_from_papers.doc

Edited by parmenides3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral
  • Weather Preferences: Summer: warm, humid, thundery. Winter: mild, stormy, some snow.
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral

Winter has partly helped in reinforcing my view about climate change. The theory is of course that as GW takes hold, El Ninos will become more and more freqient causing warmer winters.

I was a AGW man until about 6 months ago when I learnt of methane deposits leaking into the atmosphere on the Siberian peatlands. Now I'm very much a believer of bi-product and direct global warming.

I welcome global warming in our climate even though other people don't as I like to see an ultra dynamic world in working, even if it means changing a few things. I also believe by introducing harsher and more extreme climate people will have to go back to their roots and live a 'real' life instead of the cushy ones they live now - back to nature!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Dublin, ireland
  • Weather Preferences: Snow , thunderstorms and wind
  • Location: Dublin, ireland
Hi, John.

Doesn't this show ocean warming? If you want the Smith & Reynolds paper which explains how they measured the temps, I can link to that, too.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html

Regards,

Fergus.

I just read your link, very interesting, thanks.

I find it hard to believe that the places that are recording temperatures are as numerous in sea and rural areas as in well populated areas. What would need to be done would be to take say different regions in the world and measure the urban temperature with a remote area in each region over several years. The test would be to see if the temperatures in the rural areas rose as quickly as the nearby urban area.

What would this prove? Well, if the urban area rate rose at higher rate than the rural one then emissions would be the likely cause. This would not prove that the whole world climate was rising on account of emissions in rural areas. It gets back to the question. Can it be proven that humans now are causing Global Warming more than our ancestors did thousands of years ago? Or indeed how much extra are our emissions now contributing to GW. I doubt if it can be proven.

Argh!!!! I said I did not want to get drawn into the debate, but as you are a nice guy I have given this reply.

Better go and do some work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Stephen: what you say suggests that you think that methane is driving the recent changes in climate, at least in part. It is; the forcing is not as great as that for CO2, by quite a long way. I agree, though, that the estimates of methane emissions could well have been underestimated in the climate models. As far as a bi-product; if you mean you think that we are simply adding more to an already warming situation, this is quite plausible, but without the warming from CO2, the numbers don't add up.

I'm not sure I share your confidence in our reaction to a warming world. An old cynic might imagine that the rich will run and hide in technologically sophisticated, air-conditioned cocoons and leave the poor to starve an d wander the earth in search of justice...

John: I think the global data measures all land types. Thing is, even if there was a 'Urban Heat Island' effect, if the trend to continued warming showed up anywhere, it would show either that the cities were belting out even more heat than they did a few years ago, or that there really is a trend in the climate.

BTW: several years ago, the Met adjusted their data to account for the effects of urbanisation, so in that sense, it doesn't feature in the temperature record anyway.

:)P

Edit: climate models are said to be able to accurately replicate the climate of the past 100 years only when the impact of CO2 emissions is included. However, if cloud cover - for example - is not included in those models then logically either cloud cover has absolutely no effect whatsoever or the models, and the assumption regarding CO2, must be wrong And there are many other factors not incorporated into these models.

Why would cloud cover not be included in the models, Andy? I think the average model now has about thirty layers of vertical integration, including water vapour (cloud), and the AOGCMs have several layers of ocean, too. Water vapour/cloud is included in the models, but because of the physics and the scaling of GCMs, it is hard to be precise about the exact results; that is where the uncertainty comes from. If a GCM could resolve at less than 1 degree of resolution (actually, I think the JAMSTEC Earth System supercomp. does), it woul be easier to be precise about the interactions involved.

A lot of work has been done to imporve this element of the models, and there seems to be a reasonable degree of confidence that, in terms of the bigger patterns (think GoogleEarth overlaid with the global cloud array), they have the picture pretty well worked out.

:)P

Edited by parmenides3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: SE London
  • Location: SE London
I take offence that you suggest i have a blase attitude to the plant and its environment. ..........
sorry if thats how you read it. no offence was meant. my point was, that the population of the planet as a whole is not doing the right thing to protect their environment. there are so many factors attributed to the current climate that putting a finger on the main cause is perhaps impossible. a typical example of the blase approach is the thread raised earlier about exxon. with huge conglomerates like them we really don't stand a chance of highlighting the damage been done. i too am conscious of the fact that waste of resources and recycling of others is important. i have 2 daughters and have a very real fear that their children (should they have any) may grow up in a very different world (climate wise) than i did. they have only seen snow a couple of times and one is 9 the other 12. and even a frost has been rare. yet as a child their age i remember winters to be as they should be. cold/frosty/foggy/snowy. now to me there must be a reason why this is no longer so, and my opinion is that the human influence on this planet has a lot to do with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)
  • Weather Preferences: Hot sunny summers, cold snowy winters
  • Location: Longlevens, 16m ASL (H)/Bradley Stoke, 75m ASL (W)
sorry if thats how you read it. no offence was meant. my point was, that the population of the planet as a whole is not doing the right thing to protect their environment. there are so many factors attributed to the current climate that putting a finger on the main cause is perhaps impossible. a typical example of the blase approach is the thread raised earlier about exxon. with huge conglomerates like them we really don't stand a chance of highlighting the damage been done. i too am conscious of the fact that waste of resources and recycling of others is important. i have 2 daughters and have a very real fear that their children (should they have any) may grow up in a very different world (climate wise) than i did. they have only seen snow a couple of times and one is 9 the other 12. and even a frost has been rare. yet as a child their age i remember winters to be as they should be. cold/frosty/foggy/snowy. now to me there must be a reason why this is no longer so, and my opinion is that the human influence on this planet has a lot to do with it.

Apology accepted,i did get a bit carried away with my reply - sorry! i am all in favour of people/ government to do more to aid rather than destroy the environment as a whole even if for no other reason than it will make for a healthier place to live.

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
Surely the fact that we should now be into our 20yr 'cold' cycle for winter weather must prick a few folk.
Have a look at Milankovitch cycles. Of all the three factors: eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession, only one points to a colder climate - precession. The others all point to still receding from the cold of the last ice age. Although this is not, in and of itself, enough to account for recent warming, it does show an underlying trend that we should expect further warming for a while at least. I presume the cycle you mention is the quasi-periodic sun-spot cycle. Well, I'm afraid, the answer is in the description - it's quasi periodic, which means it's about 20 years, and not exactly thus. Indeed it could be delayed for a further 15 years on historical evidence.
How about top ten global temp years being since 1995 or top 5 hottest G.B. years being since 2000?

That, is not statistically significant, I'm afraid (especially considering the vast climate record - 10 years means absolutely nothing), and could simply be just a blip. As I said, the next 2/3 years will provide some statistical certainties (not much, but enough) to really nail the last few nails in the coffin either way.

You can of course correlate mitigating factors and reach a hypothesis that makes the recent record more significant, of course, but you shouldn't state the 'facts' in isolation - IMHO

Edited by Geludiligo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Why would cloud cover not be included in the models, Andy?

I'm going by comments like this:

One of the largest uncertainties right now in climate models is the ability to predict how clouds would respond to changing particle levels -- whether they originate from humans with air pollution or from biological activity.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/...61108155014.htm

I shall read the AR4 with great interest, but I'm not convinced we even know all the factors involved in climate let alone how they all interact with one another. But, as I say, I'm a sceptic. And sceptics are never really sure about anything :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
  • Location: South of Glasgow 55.778, -4.086, 86m
. . . .

That, is not statistically significant, I'm afraid (especially considering the vast climate record - 10 years means absolutely nothing), and could simply be just a blip. As I said, the next 2/3 years will provide some statistical certainties (not much, but enough) to really nail the last few nails in the coffin either way.

. . . .

I'm cr@p with figures, G, but it seems odd that 2/3 years can provide statistical certainties when 10 years means absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL
  • Location: Upper Tweeddale, Scottish Borders 240m ASL

I chose the last one. AGW - what a load of premadonna-ish twaddle. Climate change yes; Anthro-GW no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral
  • Weather Preferences: Summer: warm, humid, thundery. Winter: mild, stormy, some snow.
  • Location: Heswall, Wirral

Geludiligo,

But what about the 5 hottest years since 1995 plus a long term rising temperature profile which seems to rise hand in hand with CO2 - and those hottest years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: .
  • Location: .
Hi Richard & PM3,

Had a look at Essan's reply.

I am sure that carbon emissions have increased due to human activity. My belief is that they can effect climate at a micro level, i.e urban climate. I do not belive that it would have much impact at a Global level. 3/4 of the earth is water. .

John ... there's a fairly cast-iron causal link from carbon emissions to the destruction of large sections of coral reef around the world. As the oceans absorb the carbon dixide, decalcification occurs and it's directly helping to destroy coral. Warming oceans don't help either!

I'm just giving you one example ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Andy; re clouds; this might be informative: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~breth/CPT-clouds.html

I also suggest the Bretherton (2006) for further details on parameterisations in GCMs, on the same page.

Geludiligo: the Milanks. have an effect, but it is not significant on the 100 year timescale, which is the basis for most climate projections & policy discussions.

I think a trend looks like this:

:)P

post-6011-1168615723_thumb.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lochgelly - Highest town in Fife at 150m ASL.
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and cold. Enjoy all extremes though.
  • Location: Lochgelly - Highest town in Fife at 150m ASL.
I welcome global warming in our climate even though other people don't as I like to see an ultra dynamic world in working, even if it means changing a few things. I also believe by introducing harsher and more extreme climate people will have to go back to their roots and live a 'real' life instead of the cushy ones they live now - back to nature!

More cowpats? - think of all that methane! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
I chose the last one. AGW - what a load of premadonna-ish twaddle. Climate change yes; Anthro-GW no.

Shuggee,

Since you present not an iota of evidence, science, or data to back up your case I assume that's just an layman opinion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
I'm cr@p with figures, G, but it seems odd that 2/3 years can provide statistical certainties when 10 years means absolutely nothing.
As I said in my original post. 2/3 years will add certainty but not much Perhaps I should have added, it will add 'food for thought'
Geludiligo,

But what about the 5 hottest years since 1995 plus a long term rising temperature profile which seems to rise hand in hand with CO2 - and those hottest years.

Apart from teh twenty years or so that CO2 rose and temperatures didn't. There isn't a linear relationship between the two. If you go back in the CET are there any other 'hottest' years so far with the CET profile? I haven't checked but I bet throughout the whole CET record there are hottest years, and coldest years, and they appear with regular abandon. I am not saying this as an argument against AGW, I am only pointing out that a lot of information presented, statistically, doesn't actually mean that much.
Andy; re clouds; this might be informative: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~breth/CPT-clouds.html

I also suggest the Bretherton (2006) for further details on parameterisations in GCMs, on the same page.

Geludiligo: the Milanks. have an effect, but it is not significant on the 100 year timescale, which is the basis for most climate projections & policy discussions.

I think a trend looks like this:

:)P

Yes, that's the fellow. So looking at that graph, does it mean that every temperature below the line was significantly colder? Does that mean that previous to 1940 it was significantly colder, in the same way that viewers of that graph will claim post 1940 it is significantly warmer? Or does it mean just follow the pattern of the peaks (ignoring the X axis origin)? If you want me to follow the patterns of the peaks, why don't your post the CET graph; it's a lot less impressive than the 'anomaly' graph. Edited by Geludiligo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)
  • Location: Colchester, Essex, UK (33m ASL)

Lets be honest....no-one really "knows" for sure how much humans are responsible for the Earth's climatic changes right now, or if they are at all. No-one truly knows if this current trend will continue or reverse, only the future holds that answer. In all probability everyone holds part of the "truth".

In the manner of living for the "now" we can see changes, weather, resources etc, we can also see changes in our environment, and those we KNOW are caused by us, extinctions of animals from pollution, contamination of resources, forests now only a small part of what they were, sea stocks low, blah blah etc etc, those alone should say we need to clean up our act, and fast.

No matter how much debate goes on now, wont help us to adapt to new ways (or is it old ways?). Being resourceful, being less wasteful, being less polluting, which regardless of warming climates is no bad thing, and if we are at fault in any way for the current climate trends then we know we have at least learned and altered ways to help correct it or at least stabilise again, if we had no part in the changes then we still will be gaining from our actions.

If its a naturally caused event, then we cannot do anything about it, but we have the ability to adapt and change with it, which for any species to survive in a changing environment is a must. If we dont adapt, then we will suffer and die out. No amount of debate and arguements will do this for us though. It also has to be a collective choice, for all to become involved.

I personally now take no notice of the who, what, why, where, what's important now is that adaptation and change occurs, there is signs of change in our climate, it has made us humans look at the way we live, what we do, the effects we have, and there IS scope and call for a change in behaviour, for respect of the planet we live on, that resources are limited, like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey
  • Location: A small planet somewhere in the vicinity of Guildford, Surrey

Just to throw in a comment, I've noticed the suggestion that "GW leads to more frequent El Nino effects" being said a bit on this thread. Interesting to note this link:

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/new-enso.htm

This years' El Nino seems to have been fairly well predicted using Solar Models (note that the article is from December 2003), without even a mention of GW...

:)

C-Bob

PS - I'm sure there will be many cries of "What a Load of Old Twaddle", but it's interesting nonetheless. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...