How long will global temps continue to rise?

[Iceberg]

Since CO2 acts as a very good Greenhouse gas for 300 years 500 is the minimum which I've gone for as I am vaguely optimistic.

Mondy I do hope your joking....... You'd be more believable blaming it on Elvis sitting in a throne on the Mars.

[biffvernon]

Here's how the IPCC actually made their point:

1) Instead of using 95% Confidence Interval...

I gather the phrase 'extremely likely', meaning geater than 95% probablility was dropped in favour of the 'very likely' >90% as a compromise with the Chinese and Saudi Arabian delegates who wanted a more cautious approach than the rest of the scientists.

See Fred Pearce's article in this week's New Scientist for more on this.

[Mondy]

Of course i'm joking - after all the "headbutting of walls" on these types of threads recently, a little injection of humour is needed. Global warming? I'm going to enjoy the temp increases - just don't mention Global Warming to a New Yorker! 8ft of snow there last i checked!

[osmposm]

Of course i'm joking - after all the "headbutting of walls" on these types of threads recently, a little injection of humour is needed. Global warming? I'm going to enjoy the temp increases - just don't mention Global Warming to a New Yorker! 8ft of snow there last i checked!

Over 10 ft now - but it's lake-effect snow, as always in a narrow band immediately east (or south) of Lake Ontario in upstate New York. "New Yorkers" - i.e. inhabitants of the Big Apple - have had none at all recently.

It's also worth observing that the record-breaking snow accumulation is down to the exceptionally high temperature of the lake after a very, very mild early winter. A bitterly cold easterly wind blowing over the warm water is what's doing the trick. However, the cold plunge into the mid-west that's driving the wind may be breaking some local low-for-the-day records, too.

Ossie

[Gray-Wolf]

If I chose to engage with every thread/comment that infuriated me (in my own personal view of things) I'd pop.

From where do the 'Arctic Plunges' originate and from where does the air 'originate' that displaces them?

One persons 'Plunge' is another persons 'displacement' and in a warming world who is more likely to be proved correct in there observations?

[SP1986]

If I chose to engage with every thread/comment that infuriated me (in my own personal view of things) I'd pop.

From where do the 'Arctic Plunges' originate and from where does the air 'originate' that displaces them?

One persons 'Plunge' is another persons 'displacement' and in a warming world who is more likely to be proved correct in there observations?

Who knows, and that is why if something goes wrong, well thats the end of mankind. But at least there is the sense out there to explore that it may be a problem. It's better than saying it doesnt exist of course, but arguments give as much validity as saying it doesnt exist so with an absolutely fantastic social coherence we have on this planet of ours, why should we bother doing anything about it?

and I agree with your comments about certain ignorance that entrails not just in a micro, but also a macrocosm

[HighPressure]

I don't believe that man can change the overall balance of the planet for any major period of time I know that some do but I think that mother nature will simple eradicate the contributing factors to GW. I would pose the question is man worried about the future of the planet or the future of himself, quite different questions? Man maybe in for a rocky ride but I cannot believe the argument that the earth will continue down the warming path for an indefinite period before hitting back with force. Mankind may not survive the wroth of nature but the planet will easily reset itself, whether its a 1000 yrs or a million these are just blinks of an eyelid.

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't believe that man can change the overall balance of the planet for any major period of time I know that some do but I think that mother nature will simple eradicate the contributing factors to GW. I would pose the question is man worried about the future of the planet or the future of himself, quite different questions? Man maybe in for a rocky ride but I cannot believe the argument that the earth will continue down the warming path for an indefinite period before hitting back with force. Mankind may not survive the wroth of nature but the planet will easily reset itself, whether its a 1000 yrs or a million these are just blinks of an eyelid.

I think you're right. The earth has a cold and no amount of 'medicine' will cure it, it'll make it more bearable but won't 'cure 'it. Like a cold it has to run it's course and the body/planet will then overcome the 'infection'. Very 'Lovelockian' but there it is!

[The Penguin]

What a damnfool question. We're kidding ourselves if we think we understand all the inputs to this, and we have no idea what our short term reaction to the situation will be. How then can we have any idea what the long term outcome will be, never mind how long it will all take.

Personally, I think it'll all be over by Christmas.

[Gray-Wolf]

What a damnfool question. We're kidding ourselves if we think we understand all the inputs to this, and we have no idea what our short term reaction to the situation will be. How then can we have any idea what the long term outcome will be, never mind how long it will all take.

Personally, I think it'll all be over by Christmas.

I thought the only 'sure things' in life were death and taxes! I guess we wing the rest of it all with 'best guess' answers.

I think that this is a purely accademic question and so tempts out peoples 'best guess' based on their own personal understanding of things.

[Stratos Ferric]

I don't believe that man can change the overall balance of the planet for any major period of time I know that some do but I think that mother nature will simple eradicate the contributing factors to GW. I would pose the question is man worried about the future of the planet or the future of himself, quite different questions? Man maybe in for a rocky ride but I cannot believe the argument that the earth will continue down the warming path for an indefinite period before hitting back with force. Mankind may not survive the wroth of nature but the planet will easily reset itself, whether its a 1000 yrs or a million these are just blinks of an eyelid.

Generally I agree with the central tenet of your argument. Where I differ this time is re the return to equilibrium argument: over millions of years all there is constant disequilibrium, and the actual global average temperatue is therefore always in flux. Over shorter timescales the issue is that nature would process carbon at a muc slower rate than is happening with man's assistance. Nature will react, for sure, but react is not necessarily, in the short term, a compensating effect, hence I agree with the "rocky ride" view. Thereafter, who knows?

[Roger J Smith]

The title of the thread is fine, but the subtitle or whatever including the phrase AGW makes the poll invalid -- another option is that AGW is not underway so much as a hybrid of natural warming and AGW, so really we are being asked, how long will this combination last, how might it change in relative terms over time, etc.

I would guess the natural warming cycle may be shortly coming to an end in various regions, perhaps it already has in North America because it seems to me that there was a peak in temperatures over here quite some time ago, like around 1987 to 1991.

The same could happen in Europe, then people might realize that the warming has been a natural phenomenon more than AGW, although it would be hard to argue that there is no warming at all from greenhouse gases, however, the way the two things interact is very complicated in my opinion, and different circulation types might have different balances between natural trends and greenhouse gas components.

I am somewhat skeptical that it will just keep warming up endlessly, for one thing the next Milankovitch cycle window of opportunity for an ice age is due in about 20,000 years or so, and it would be likely that natural cycles would start to fluctuate quite widely before that reached even an early stage.

There are also wild cards in the deck -- if my research is correct, and there is some overlap between magnetic field positions and our atmosphere, then changing locations and intensities of the NMP and SMP would have an impact, as perhaps we are seeing recently as Europe warms but the western arctic and parts of Siberia seem to be cooling down, with the effect that North American winters are becoming harsher again after a period of many mild winters.

When I look at all factors, the balance suggests that Europe may be near some peak in a natural warming cycle, and that it may begin to cool down slowly since the AGW component may slow down any natural cooling tendencies. However, I don't think AGW has as much potential to change circulation patterns as natural cycles do, so AGW may have to work with whatever natural cycles offer it, and that means a sort of thought experiment along these lines -- suppose the circulation drifts back to an earlier pattern, but all the air masses in it are slightly warmed up, then what? Probably more rain, and mostly on weekends. :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

If takes 30feet thickness of fallen logs to produce a coal seam of 3ft. That would seem to mean that every 3inches equates to a fallen forest (the European coal fields cover an area greater than the Amazon rain forest) So I need to understand how us 'burning a rain forest' a number of times a year can be equated to 'past events' events in the geological record.

The trillions of sea creatures whose carbon rich remains sank to the sea bed to eventually form the oil/gas reserves took millions of years to accumulate, we have done for the North sea reserves in 40 yrs, where can I find similar releases in our Geological records?

To even think that 'man is too small' to impact upon our atmospheric mix of gasses appears naive without my understanding of how the planet ,in the past, has produced and overcome our present 'mix' of atmospheric CO2.

[Mondy]

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winters billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.

But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts

( )

But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism......

- Mr Svensmark's theory has, of course, already been dismissed on here, perhaps by the aforementioned self-appointed greenhouse "experts".

..... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

Edit: On reading the comments with regards this article, a chap named Kevin from Nottingham sums up exactly what i've said all along.

One must not forget that during the last inter-glacial period the sea level was higher than it is today which means that the temperatures were also higher. And there were no humans then were there? So could it not be that the global warming we are experiencing today can simply be put down to nature?

.

That, doomsayers, from a naysayer ( ) ....is that. Bleat on all you want, just don't scaremonger me or even hold me accountable. How dare the IPCC have the tenacity to suggest, yes suggest remember, that humans are the main cause.

By all means post your colourful charts, data gathering, amateur measurements, gloom/doom-ridden fanciful thoughts, but as has been said by me so often on every single one of these threads now, and i get accused of burying my head in the sand and being unable to explain my thoughts properly, how simple is it to NOT understand my theory about natural cycles/mother nature?? Or is it more to do with you all burying your head in the sand and not wanting to believe in mother natures natural trends?

Damn you :lol:

Edited February 13, 2007 by Mondy

[Iceberg]

I replied to Mr Calder online. Can't remember everything I said. But it was something like.

"Try using the Peer Review process....Try including even a smigeon of evidence rather than alot of claptrap rheteric.

Try understanding the subject. Try not associating it with a book and trying and to make a quick buck.

Most of all try to understand that if a theory has not been picked up by anybody for 10 years, maybe, just maybe it's because it's crap."

My final statement (I would to buy the book when it's down to 99p in the fiction section of a bargain book shop....)

[Gray-Wolf]

Mondy, I cannot understand why, when a simple (as mine is) understanding of the Antarctic ice sheets (not much sea ice down there at the mo.) can have you so gleeful? The majority of the 'ice over water' in the Antarctic at present are the glacial extensions that form the Ice shelfs. If you feel it a good thing that Glaciers are speeding up in their outflow I'd love to know why. Antarartica is a desert and as such the sloughing off of the central Ice sheet via the glaciers is not something you should (if I percieve your position on things correctly) holding up for all to see!

Edited February 13, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

God almighty ..i ask you all again:

"Or is it more to do with you all burying your head in the sand and not wanting to believe in mother natures natural trends?"

Answer the question instead of being so defensive.

None of us on here, not even the scientists who wrote the latest IPCC summary have found the Holy Grail.

My extremely limited school science still has me wondering two main points when again sifting through this latest report.

1. Why is there a delay in publishing the full report, allowing the media and politicos to make the fullest impact before the data can be challenged? At least Mr Calder dares to do such a thing..tut-tut!

2. The summary devotes significant space referring to the work on ice cores and tree rings, in which it mentions frequent and rapid temperature changes throughout history. But then it does nothing to quantify these excursions and allow us to compare them to the current rise in global temperature which it shows in great detail. And, as far as I can see, there is absolutely no refence to the rapid rise and fall in temperature in the Middle Ages.

The basic facts of 'global warming' is that our technology is not recording any significant changes and the models are a complete waste of time and money and predict nothing.

NASA's satellites show no warming in the Troposphere and show cooling in the stratosphere. Other NASA satellite studies show Antarctic ice coverage expanding and various studies have shown Arctic polar ice varying from decade to decade around fairly normal levels. Sea level rise might be, according to the IPCC 3mm/yr...that is less than a foot by 2100.

That about covers the current technology recordings of actuality...now lets look at the fantasy. Here is a cut and past from the IPCC scientific report - the one the steering committe are going to edit to more closely agree with their statement for policy makers.

Below is for Europe and Africa. The one for Australia and New Zealand is near identical in terms of the scope of their expressed faith in the models as a result of the enormity of the aspects of climate that are either not modelled or that cannot be modelled.

11.3.3.8 Robust conclusions and uncertainties

Conclusions about projected climate change for Europe (with types of evidence indicated according to Section 11.3.1) are:

1. Annual mean temperatures in Europe are likely to increase at a rate somewhat greater than the global mean. In northern Europe, warming is likely to be largest in winter, and in the Mediterranean area in summer. Based on: 1, 2, and 3. The uncertainty in the Atlantic THC suggests, however, a small (less than 10%) possibility of cooling in extreme northwestern Europe.

2. The lowest winter temperatures are very likely to increase more than the average winter temperature in northern Europe, and the highest summer temperatures are likely to increase more than the average summer temperature in southern and central Europe. Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

3. Annual precipitation is very likely to increase in most of northern Europe and decrease in most of the Mediterranean area. In central Europe, precipitation is likely to increase in winter but decrease in summer. Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

4. Extremes of daily precipitation will very likely increase in northern Europe. Based on: 1, 2, and 3, and empirical evidence (generally higher precipitation extremes in warmer climates).

5. The annual number of precipitation days is very likely to decrease in the Mediterranean area Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

6. Risk of summer drought is likely to increase in central Europe and in the Mediterranean area, because of reduced summer precipitation and increased spring evaporation. Based on: 1, 2, 3, and process studies (increasing saturation deficit with increasing temperature).

7. It is uncertain whether and how wind storm frequency and/or intensity will change, although a majority of evidence suggests increased wind speeds in northern Europe. Based on: 1.

8. Snow season length and snow depth are very likely to decrease in most of Europe. Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

Although many features of the simulated climate change in Europe and the Mediterranean area are qualitatively consistent between models and qualitatively well-understood in physical terms, substantial uncertainties remain. Simulated seasonal mean temperature changes vary even on the subcontinental scale by a factor of 2–3 among the current generation of AOGCMs. Similarly, while agreeing on a large-scale increase in winter-half-year precipitation in the northern and decrease in summer-half-year precipitation in the southern parts of the area, models disagree on the magnitude and geographical details of precipitation change. Agreement on changes in windiness is still rather limited. These uncertainties reflect the sensitivity of the European climate change to the magnitude of the global warming and the changes in the atmospheric circulation and the Atlantic THC. Deficiencies in the modelling of the processes that regulate the local water and energy cycles in Europe are also an important source of uncertainty, for both the changes in mean conditions and extremes. Finally, the substantial natural variability of European climate (e.g., Hulme et al., 1999; Jylhä et al., 2004) is a major uncertainty particularly for short-term climate projections in the area.

Do Not Cite or Quote 11-24 Total pages: 121

11.3.2.5 Robust conclusions and uncertainties

Conclusions about projected climate change for Africa (with types of evidence indicated according to Section 11.3.1) are:

1. All of Africa is very likely to warm during this century. The warming is likely to be somewhat larger than the global, annual mean warming throughout the continent and in all seasons, with drier

subtropical regions (especially arid zones) warming more than the moister tropics. Based on: 1 and 2.

2. Annual rainfall is very likely to decrease in much of North Africa and Northern Sahara. Based on: 1 and 3.

3. Winter rainfall will very likely decrease in much of Southern Africa. Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

4. There will likely be an increase in annual mean rainfall in tropical and East Africa. Based on: 1, 2, and 3.

Second Order Draft Chapter 11 IPCC WG1 Fourth Assessment Report

5. It is uncertain how rainfall in the Sahel and the Southern Sahara will evolve in this century. Based on: 1 and 2.

Major uncertainties concerning projected climate change for this region are:

- It is difficult to judge the consequences for climate responses of the systematic errors across the ensemble of global models (excessive rainfall in the south, southward displacement of Atlantic ITCZ, insufficient upwelling off the West Coast).

- The potential significance of land surface feedbacks and the accurate characterisation of the land surface, especially in semi-arid regions, adds a layer of uncertainty to the climate projections for these areas. Vegetation feedbacks and feedbacks from dust aerosol production are not included in the global models. Land surface modification is also not taken into account in the projections.

- RCMs are still being developed for different African regions; experience as to the extent to which current models can successfully downscale precipitation is limited.

- Empirical downscaling schemes are conservative in character, and cannot capture changes in local feedback mechanisms.

- Absence of realistic variability in Sahel in most 20th century simulations casts doubt on the reliability of coupled models in this region.

- There is insufficient information on which to assess possible changes in the distribution of tropical cyclones impacting Africa, but thermodynamic arguments for increases in intensity are applicable here as in other regions.

When you look at the areas of climate influence they either have not included in the models (Forest, duststorm particulate, land degradation) or can't because they don't know how, and combine that with the things that are in the models but don't behave realistically (ocean upwelling warm water, ITCZ, ENSO, mountains). I don't think the models have a hope in hell of predicting anything let alone the doomsayer horse crap that the environmentalists are on about.

How do they define substantial uncertainties ?

There is insufficient information on which to assess possible changes in the distribution of tropical cyclones impacting Africa. Or vegetation feedbacks and feedbacks from dust aerosol production are not included in the global models. Land surface modification is also not taken into account in the projections.

These are NOT minor things...they are HUGE!

When you combine these uncertainties with the satellite data from NASA showing nothing much happening on world wide atmospheric temps and ice coverage a clear picture begins to form...of the greatest con job in the history of mankind.

I really can't add anything more so if you disagree, fine, we'll disagree

Edited February 13, 2007 by Mondy

[jethro]

When you combine these uncertainties with the satellite data from NASA showing nothing much happening on world wide atmospheric temps and ice coverage a clear picture begins to form...of the greatest con job in the history of mankind.

I really can't add anything more so if you disagree, fine, we'll disagree

I agree whole heartedly M. A voice of reason in an ever increasingly mad world. Throw into this huge pile of enormous uncertainties, all the political ramifications and I do believe we end up with the greatest con job in the history of mankind.

[Mondy]

Good God, jethro! I make that approx three of us on here who are now "outcasts"!

[jethro]

Good God, jethro! I make that approx three of us on here who are now "outcasts"!

I'd rather be an outcast than a sheep

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd rather be an outcast than a sheep

I'll drink to that!

[Mondy]

Jethro - keep with me, mate!

Doomsayers/scaremongers have a long, long history, perhaps going back to the origins of mankind. The only difference is that we now have the 'information age'/superhighway where you can scare a Doh a dumb swear filter got the better of metload more people.

It's all about wealth and power transfer and follows a well worn path. It goes something like this:

1. Someone announces something as being a problem.

2. A group, usually the environmental movement in the last 40 years or so, starts screaming to the media.

3. The media, with a heavy burden of left wing tree huggers* but also with a burning desire for headlines, splashes the headlines across the front pages in the most dire wording they can come up with. They point blank refuse to report in a balanced fashion. People start shaking..

4. Scientists are made up of the same personality sub groups as the rest of society and it's no problem at all to find some with heavy environmentalist leanings or who are just motivated by a desire for power (in the form of 'celebrity') and grant money to ensure long term career security. You only had to see the head of the IPCC moonlighting on every news channel when the IPCC's latest report was made public.

5. Lawyers get involved...money to be made.

6. Politicians get involved...votes to be gained and taxes to be levied. The various 'green' taxes on fuels being an example.

7. Beaurocracies are created, IPCC as an example. We all know a beaurocracy's main aim in life is to replicate and store power.

8. Scientists, or anyone else, who dares try to give a balanced view or present the facts are denounced as 'a minority'. That'll be you, I and maybe one or two more, Jethro. In the case of GW it has achieved religous fervour levels with words like 'non believer' being levelled at anyone who dares challenge 'the consensus'.* Probably as scathing as a "tree-hugger" label. Believe me, all i ever do on these kind of threads is challenge.

The same things have happened with Global Cooling (70s), DDT (60s/70s), population bomb (late 70s), Asbestos (80s), CFCs/Ozone depletion (80s) Y2k (90s) and now GW with Peak Oil now the very latest.

There have been other lesser scare stories which i'm presuming the media/news dropped at short notice.

All custard!!!

GW - not Gray Wolf(!), but 'Global Warming' is most likely caused by solar activity. But, again, some on here can't/don't or are unable to view this scenario. CO2 is not causing it but reacting to it. Even i've just about grasped that now, and it took some grasping, i can tell you. Man cannot control it and is certainly not causing it. No evidence exists - outside computer modelling (which can't even predict the past let alone the future) - that what little warming we may be experiencing will be catastrophic.

3000+ years ago the world was +3C warmer and yet the poles didn't melt and no harm was done. Less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic (man made) the rest is entirely natural...and indeed essential for all life on earth.

If points 1-8 above along with the previous scare stories (all in black and white) aren't enough to convince a slim sceptic, i don't know what is.

[Lenticular]

Hello Mondy

You can count me in as a sceptic, as half of the supposed science would not conform to normal scientific standards.

One minor thing regarding parametric modelling for calculating climate change, You have to have all the know variables loaded into the model, not just the ones that suit your cause, I have used very expensive and powerful unix systems for full FEA modelling and the standard is to run at-least three times, for numerical anomalies, and this is on the same system as used buy Boeing, Nasa ECT and they all accept that it is not an exact science, and from reading the way this climate modelling was programmed there was there a CPK undertaken on the programme before the main run????

Sorry to sound so blunt but if an employee of mine came to me with such a poorly executed piece of research when half of the potential parameters were missing i would not be impressed, there is just to much IF on a singular component.

Edited February 13, 2007 by Lenticular

[Mondy]

Hiya, Lenticular.

No need to be blunt. It again confirms that modelling is just that; a model. No guarantees with it. You only have to look at the GFS or any other model [weather-wise] to realise how fickle they can be.

The only model i've ever taken any notice/interested in (apart from GFS and Elle MacPherson!) is the GFDL hurricane model which has proven, certainly during the 2005 hurricane season, to be the pick of the bunch. But, i digress again!

Edited February 13, 2007 by Mondy

[jethro]

If points 1-8 above along with the previous scare stories (all in black and white) aren't enough to convince a slim sceptic, i don't know what is.

Mondy, you're preaching to the converted or should that be the unconverted? I'm a gardener by trade and I've lost count of the conversations I've had in the last couple of years which always start along the lines of....oooo, you must notice the difference, the dafs are out early, I'm still cutting my grass and it's nearly Christmas, blah, blah, blah. When I say actually no, no difference just natural variation and explain the points you've made above and more, the general public look at me as though I've gone mad. I do believe we should all behave responsibly and look after our planet, but that's because it's a wonderful world which shouldn't be treated as a rubbish bin. I've always believed that, long before all this AGW nonsense become the huge, money grabbing fiasco that it has turned into. Politicians and the media have a lot to answer for.