How long will global temps continue to rise?

[Iceberg]

M,L, J,

You all raise some interesting comments, most of which have probably been raised elsewhere.

I think there are some serious misconceptions wrt to the models, the history behind the science and theory of AGW, the politics of AGW, (most of the worlds most corrupt Gov's don't actually or didn't until very very recently subscribe to the AGW theory!).

Any evidence behind solar impacts

The cooling effects made by/on the AR4 predictions etc....

The counting/discounting of natural cycles by AGW predictions and theory.

It would be interesting to debate all these things, maybe inturn or in a seperate thread so they don't all get lost...

Cheers

Matt

[Gray-Wolf]

This is a crossover from agw to sceptic as both groups need to know if ,and how large, natural 'forcings' on the system are and I feel another thread would provide a better forum to isolate 'natural changes' from man made changes.

[parmenides3]

Morning all, but especially Mondy.

A couple of thoughts.

GW is not either human or natural; it is and always has been seen as a combination of factors, of which the human element is one.

There is no 'delay' in publishing the full report: The schedule is being followed as per the IPCC's plan. This first element is simply the Summary. The other (main) parts come out over the next few months. The scientific stuff is due in May. The summary has been written with full knoweldge of what is in the science section and is based on it.

The quantification of ice core and tree ring data, along with explanations of how the models work and what they do, etc., is in the WG1 report mentioned above. As it will run to a few hundred pages, the IPCC has helpfully reduced the main points for policy makers.

Don't worry about the 'missing' MWP: that will be covered in depth in the report as well. There's plenty of science on this as well, and the palaeo stuff is also included in the WG1 report.

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.

This is your opinion, not 'the basic facts'. It does beg the question what you think would count as a significant change. The models seem to have done okay since Hansen's original paper: the NASA GISS model was within 10% of current figures for temp. and sea level twenty years ago, and computers have come on a bit since then.

The tropospheric and stratospheric temperature changes are small and noisy but measurable and in line with the forecasts of the models; this shows how well the models work, not how 'wrong' they are.

Arctic sea-ice levels are not within the bounds of 'normal' variability. This is especially the case in the Summer.

It has always been the case that the IPCC projections for sea level rise were quite modest; it's a popular misconception that GW is going to 'drown' civilisation. This misconception is fuelled in particular by stupid media output. No serious scientist expects us all to drown.

You are quite correct to point out that there are uncertainties in the models' output, and that some factors, in some regions, are not currently well modelled, but by focussing on this you are not taking into account the many areas in which there is strong agreement between the models and the projections which are robust. If you think about it, it is hardly surprising that regional impacts are not set in stone, but, for example:

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.

helps explain why there is uncertainty. It isn't because the models are crap, it is because we don't yet know how much warmer it's going to get, or the exact effect some of these changes will have on other natural components of the system.

The models do include parameters such as land use change, vegetation feedbacks etc., but can't predict what we humans are going to do in Africa in the coming years, so can't be clear on what impact we will have on the system.

You have characterised the models as useless, but have only considered the (known) uncertainties, many of which are caused by the uncertainty of future human action, not the physics underlying the models, and have not considered the many ways in which the models have been shown to be both accurate and robust. It is easy to understand why it might seem that the models contain too many weaknesses, but this is based on an underestimation of the compexity of the modelling and an overemphasis on parts which are not in conflict with the consistent message that they put out.

As far as I am aware, the NASA satellites how quite a lot happening on world-wide temperature changes over the last twenty-thirty years (including the troposphere and stratosphere) which is consistent with the ouput of the models, and is incorporated into their calculations. I have already commented on the error relating to ice coverage.

Finally, for the moment. Why? Why spend all that money creating a 'phantom menace' and then demonstrating its validity? Why the 'conspiracy'?

Svensmark's cosmic ray theory (it's the Sun again) is an interestingly wrong answer to the GW question. What this year's paper was about was the fact that, after ten year's trying, and under special conditions, they found they could 'make' cloud from imitated solar output. The science was fine as far as it went, but very limited, the conclusion of the paper (not the press release) being that, under the right conditions, and with no other aerosol or particulate input, it is theoretically possible that GCR's might have some impact on cloud formation.(even this limited finding has been challenged for the methodology) The paper did not attempt to prove that the sun is responsible for GW, and no other attempt to show this has worked.

It is nice to be able to think of one's self as an 'outcast' as opposed to a 'sheep'. Strangely, I don't think of myself as a sheep, or as a 'mug' being 'fooled' by some vast conspiracy, and certainly not as a tree-hugging environmentalist doom monger. I do, however, think of us both as rational people trying to come to grips with an issue which, whether or not it turns out as you wish it, is going to effect us all (through taxation, if nothing else) in the coming years. But, in spite of the many attacks on the IPCC and similar organisations, I have still to find any scientific refutation of AGW, therefore, on the assumption that the many papers I read on the subject are not all wrong, misguided or bad science, I have to conclude that AGW is real.

'Nuff for now.

:)P

[Devonian]

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.

You announce that it was '3C warmer 3000+ years ago' as if it is written in stone (you give no source...), yet spend most of the post dismissing sound science in favour of a mixture of conspiracy theory and assertions. 'Man cannot control it and is certainly not causing it.' you say. Your evidence for this assetion? Nowt, not a thing, zilch. Then there is this ever recycled classic assertion 'Less than 3% of atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic (man made) the rest is entirely natural'. Mondy that is rubbish. Learn the ruddy carbon cycle! Anthro emissions are about 3% of the cycle each year. But, the carbon cycle happens every year, and, while some of that 3% is 'sunk' some stays (about 1.5%) and adding 1.5% per years results in? A steady rise in CO2 concs that's what.

That'll do. I wont bother with more, I know I'm banging my head against a wall

[HighPressure]

This is a crossover from agw to sceptic as both groups need to know if ,and how large, natural 'forcings' on the system are and I feel another thread would provide a better forum to isolate 'natural changes' from man made changes.

This is the whole crux of the GW argument isn't it? Apart from a small minority most people would agree that the evidence does certainly point to man have some impact. I am not sure if I am classed as a sceptic because I see that the IPCC can simply say the amount of warming they don't understand is all down to man, a case of 2+2 = 5 in my book. For those of us on the less impact side have very little real scientific evidence to back that either just more possible theories which cannot be proved. I believe this means that the argument has effectively stalled on some action needs to be taken, but this will not be anywhere near that required by the IPCC so basically if the report is right we are doomed.

Maybe blunt but that's how I see the situation?

[parmenides3]

This is the whole crux of the GW argument isn't it? Apart from a small minority most people would agree that the evidence does certainly point to man have some impact. I am not sure if I am classed as a sceptic because I see that the IPCC can simply say the amount of warming they don't understand is all down to man, a case of 2+2 = 5 in my book. For those of us on the less impact side have very little real scientific evidence to back that either just more possible theories which cannot be proved. I believe this means that the argument has effectively stalled on some action needs to be taken, but this will not be anywhere near that required by the IPCC so basically if the report is right we are doomed.

Maybe blunt but that's how I see the situation?

HP: the IPCC doesn't say that the warming they don't understand is down to man. What they say is (roughly) look at all this extra warmth! Where's it coming from? Is it the Sun, volcanoes, natural cycles? No? Then it must be something else. Now, what would make it warmer? Ah; extra CO2! Is there extra CO2? Yes! Where does it come from? Well, you can tell by analysis that it comes from burning fossil fuels. How did it get there? We put it there.

I'm not sure what you mean by the 'less impact side', but if you are saying that you think the warnings of doom are exaggerations, I'm with you. As to 'very little scientific evidence. Jeez! There's so much it fills hundreds of journals, thousands of web pages, and terabytes of supercomputer storage capacity every day.

Blunt it good. Say it how you see it.

Hope this helps.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Interesting the question is: How long will global temps rise? To which a sensible answer is look at the Milankovitch Cycles, mate. However, the tinyiest bit of suggestion in the poll mentions AGW.

Naughty, naughty. The presumption after the conclusion. Bad boy.

Edited February 15, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Mondy]

Am I the only one who gets the impression that nobody here is actually qualified to argue/debate at the level they are pretending? Moi included. I'm all for challenging, but my scientific background is about as solid as my first ever dirty nappy (apparently)..are there any Bsc/Msc on here?

Is all the huff and puff and hot air emanating from this thread perhaps enough to cause 'global warming'?

Edited February 15, 2007 by Mondy

[Iceberg]

I don't think it really matters Mondy, but I am sure alot of people here have the appropriate letters after there name.

Me I am BSc Environmental Science with a Thesis in combatting AGW 10 years ago.

[snowsure]

I don't think it really matters Mondy, but I am sure alot of people here have the appropriate letters after there name.

Me I am BSc Environmental Science with a Thesis in combatting AGW 10 years ago.

Bsc in Astrophysics. However, I can differentiate between there and their!

[Mondy]

Bsc in Astrophysics.

Ah well then. What's your take in cosmic ray induced warming? http://www.dsri.dk/%7Ehsv/

http://www.dsri.dk/~ndm/CLOUD_UPDATE/UPDATE.html

Edited February 15, 2007 by Mondy

[HighPressure]

HP: the IPCC doesn't say that the warming they don't understand is down to man. What they say is (roughly) look at all this extra warmth! Where's it coming from? Is it the Sun, volcanoes, natural cycles? No? Then it must be something else. Now, what would make it warmer? Ah; extra CO2! Is there extra CO2? Yes! Where does it come from? Well, you can tell by analysis that it comes from burning fossil fuels. How did it get there? We put it there.

I can accept where the CO2 is coming from but the assumption that this CO2 is the cause of all additional warming is what is yet to be sold to me. I just have a hunch that something else is also going on which is not fully understood and therefore not factored into the equation. Maybe the solar flux people have a point that needs to be investigated further rather than what I feel seems to be a done deal by the IPCC. If they are having trouble convincing me a mere lay person no wonder the world is struggling to get any real action on climate change.

[Anti-Mild]

Mr Svensmark has a new book out called 'The Chilling Stars' and I would love to get a hold of a copy.

A certain online retailer named after a famous river in South America is selling it at a fiver!!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/o/ASIN/1840468157/...0384129-3486206

[Mondy]

Yes, i should add, a couple on here have absolutely and undoubtedly dismissed the cosmic ray theory.

I'd rather believe Mr Svenmark's theory than some of the utter crap being spouted on here; much of it laughable and unworthy of reply recently.

Give me irrefutable proof "believers" and i might just be keen to read it.

[Devonian]

Yes, i should add, a couple on here have absolutely and undoubtedly dismissed the cosmic ray theory.

I'd rather believe Mr Svenmark's theory than some of the utter crap being spouted on here; much of it laughable and unworthy of reply recently.

Give me irrefutable proof "believers" and i might just be keen to read it.

Mondy, perhaps you'd like to comment on Mr Svensmark's Fig 4? Specifically how he, and only he, knows the temperatures in Antarctica to such precision based on the records from one island north of the continent? Like Dr Connolley I find it hard to accept. Perhaps you just believe Svensmark

Oh, and no, I've not got a Msc or Bsc - just couple of A levels.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

Bsc in Astrophysics. However, I can differentiate between there and their!

Your certainly not as dsylectic as me then

[Mondy]

Devonian and indeed everyone else who resolutely refuses to believe in other factors - i'll continue to counter your links/arguments/data until (again) irrefutible proof comes to hand.

Thanks for the link Devonian. To quote the very first wordings within that link

I thought I'd expand a bit more on why Svensmarks figure 4 is unacceptable

Unacceptable? To who? Non-believers?

[Devonian]

Devonian and indeed everyone else who resolutely refuses to believe in other factors - i'll continue to counter your links/arguments/data until (again) irrefutible proof comes to hand.

Thanks for the link Devonian. To quote the very first wordings within that link

Unacceptable? To who? Non-believers?

Je e e sus! Read it all man. It's a graph that makes claims it can't sustain. Don't just dismiss the article, read it, then you'll know why the graph is unacceptable! Sheeshhh.

Edited February 15, 2007 by Devonian

[Iceberg]

The graphs on his own site are rather pathetic match wise.

One quick note, what makes these cosmic rays vary ?

This is complete none science and you could easy match rising house prices with temp over the last 15 years and get a better trend. But unless you have the mechanism it's meaningless.

[Mondy]

It's NOT irrefutible!

It's a graph! With a lot of analysis, so-called commentary (blog) - bit like the graph i posted earlier on here. It proves nothing, but my god, i'm damned if i'll be swayed by a blogger, any blogger, when not one has definite proof. Type all you like, all you want, not one iota has been proved (on the grand scale)

[Devonian]

It's NOT irrefutible!

It's a graph! With a lot of analysis, so-called commentary (blog) - bit like the graph i posted earlier on here. It proves nothing, but my god, i'm damned if i'll be swayed by a blogger, any blogger, when not one has definite proof. Type all you like, all you want, not one iota has been proved (on the grand scale)

Why are you swayed by Svensmark then?

[Iceberg]

It'll be the conspiracy theory next Dev, this cosmic thoery has been around for 10 years but nobody has taken it up or invested in it (even the oil companies) because the entire scientific world is being hoodwinked.

[Mondy]

Why are you swayed by Svensmark then?

I don't think i ever said i was. Purely something which might be a contributor, something which at least makes the Global Warming fraternity think before ramming 'this and that' down undecided people's throats.

Being a sceptic, you have to explore other avenues - not just what you hear or read Or what the other party believes in. Quite simple really, which is why we'll probably never agree until 100% proof is shown.

I can't be more honest than that, without being rude

[HighPressure]

Its amazing seeing the argument being tossed back and forth with such ferocity it appears that either one side or other has to win outright not happy just to compromise in the middle somewhere. All I seem to read is AGW is down to man or we have very little to do with what is a natural cycle, this split is exactly what is causing the non action because either you are in the agree or disagree camp. To be honest I am not sure whether the IPCC report has done more to drive a further wedge between the camps and whether this is not counter productive. It appears to me that both sides have become more entrenched in their views which leaves mid position people like me out in the cold being a kind of Billy no mates. Views such of Mondy's simply have to be taken onboard by those seeking real action on climate change.

[Devonian]

I don't think i ever said i was. Purely something which might be a contributor, something which at least makes the Global Warming fraternity think before ramming 'this and that' down undecided people's throats.

Being a sceptic, you have to explore other avenues - not just what you hear or read Or what the other party believes in. Quite simple really, which is why we'll probably never agree until 100% proof is shown.

I can't be more honest than that, without being rude

You said this "I'd rather believe Mr Svenmark's theory than some of the utter crap being spouted on here". No mention of might, just stick, nest, wasp...

It'll be the conspiracy theory next Dev, this cosmic thoery has been around for 10 years but nobody has taken it up or invested in it (even the oil companies) because the entire scientific world is being hoodwinked.

Yeah, Matt, it gets soooo predictable, no wonder Coby (well, Tom for that matter, and he was first B) ) produced their answers to the ever recurring questions niggles.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Devonian