How long will global temps continue to rise?

[VillagePlank]

Science has not always got things right, even when the scientific consensus believed a phenomena at virtually 100% (which is some paradigm step change from >90%, btw)

I saw a program on television last night all about Freak waves. The essence is this: science had measured that wave height probability is a function of wind strength; from this we can measure the probability of wave height for any part of the ocean on Earth. Easy, and it worked. Most of the time.

The evidence collated and collected for the linear model was sound, it fit the theory, and could be applied in practice. Stories from mariners mentioning Freak waves of over 30m high, and approaching as a wall of water were, to be honest, ridiculed as tall tales – rather like mariners are renowed for telling.

Our science, our consensus showed that the mathematics, the models, and the probability distribution was right. The Met Office used the linear model for it’s shipping forecast. It was beyond reproach. It showed that such a wave was possible, but such an occurrence would occur 1 in every 10,000 years – no where near matching the frequency of the stories told by mariners.

But these stories kept rolling in, and scientists kept telling such authors that they were imagining something, or at very best exaggerating.

That was until, a 30m wave, now known as the New Year wave hit an oil platform in the North Sea – it was 24m high. Much higher than the linear model would have shown for sea and wind conditions. Much much higher, in fact.

To cut a long story short, the scientific description of this wave ended up coming down to a slightly modified version of Schrodingers equation. An equation that the scientific consensus had ridiculed - in this context - as being ‘implausible’ ‘without foundation’ and ‘ of no practical application in the real world’ These 'freak' waves were nothing freakish, but occur regularly all over the world - it's an expected phenomena associated with any surface that produces waves.

Virtual scientific fact – almost lay-science, had been turned on it’s head. Reality turned out to be described better by Schrodingers equation. Now no-one is so certain, and no-one would dare say that they were, either.

I would like to suggest to those who are 100% certain should take a leaf from the IPCC’s book and allow for the 90<n<100 probability to sink in. If it’s less than 100% then it is not certain; the consensus, therefore, is NOT certain. It may be virtually certain, but scientific authors are not prepared to say IT IS certain.

And 90% is a long LONG way from 100%, isn’t it?

[edit] Why not 100%? What drops the certainty down to '>90%' ? [/edit]

Edited February 16, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Methuselah]

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.

Such as, Monds?

At least the IPCC backs up its conjectures with data, which is accessible to all those who can understand it...

I always thought that the cosmic rays/cloud formation/global temperature thingy has been factored into the climate models, anyway?? I could be wrong though. It wouldn't be the first time!

PS: Why does the 'anti-GW' brigade always resort to sarcasm, nitpicking etc?? There's really no need for it you know?

[Devonian]

Science has not always got things right, even when the scientific consensus believed a phenomena at virtually 100% (which is some paradigm step change from >90%, btw)

I saw a program on television last night all about Freak waves. The essence is this: science had measured that wave height probability is a function of wind strength; from this we can measure the probability of wave height for any part of the ocean on Earth. Easy, and it worked. Most of the time.

The evidence collated and collected for the linear model was sound, it fit the theory, and could be applied in practice. Stories from mariners mentioning Freak waves of over 30m high, and approaching as a wall of water were, to be honest, ridiculed as tall tales – rather like mariners are renowed for telling.

Our science, our consensus showed that the mathematics, the models, and the probability distribution was right. The Met Office used the linear model for it’s shipping forecast. It was beyond reproach. It showed that such a wave was possible, but such an occurrence would occur 1 in every 10,000 years – no where near matching the frequency of the stories told by mariners.

But these stories kept rolling in, and scientists kept telling such authors that they were imagining something, or at very best exaggerating.

That was until, a 30m wave, now known as the New Year wave hit an oil platform in the North Sea – it was 24m high. Much higher than the linear model would have shown for sea and wind conditions. Much much higher, in fact.

To cut a long story short, the scientific description of this wave ended up coming down to a slightly modified version of Schrodingers equation. An equation that the scientific consensus had ridiculed - in this context - as being ‘implausible’ ‘without foundation’ and ‘ of no practical application in the real world’ These 'freak' waves were nothing freakish, but occur regularly all over the world - it's an expected phenomena associated with any surface that produces waves.

Virtual scientific fact – almost lay-science, had been turned on it’s head. Reality turned out to be described better by Schrodingers equation. Now no-one is so certain, and no-one would dare say that they were, either.

I would like to suggest to those who are 100% certain should take a leaf from the IPCC’s book and allow for the 90<n<100 probability to sink in. If it’s less than 100% then it is not certain; the consensus, therefore, is NOT certain. It may be virtually certain, but scientific authors are not prepared to say IT IS certain.

And 90% is a long LONG way from 100%, isn’t it?

[edit] Why not 100%? What drops the certainty down to '>90%' ? [/edit]

No one is saying they are 100% certain. Unless, of course B) you can name someone who is? I'm not btw, but I think 2-4C warming is as likely as the IPCC say. Do I rule out a big volcano masking warming for a while? No. Do I rule out the sun cooling doing likewise? no. But it's unlikley I think.

Oh, and that thing about waves is interesting. But, it turns out it could be worse than they thought , perhaps not an apt parallel

[VillagePlank]

No one is saying they are 100% certain. Unless, of course B) you can name someone who is? I'm not btw, but I think 2-4C warming is as likely as the IPCC say. Do I rule out a big volcano masking warming for a while? No. Do I rule out the sun cooling doing likewise? no. But it's unlikley I think.

Oh, and that thing about waves is interesting. But, it turns out it could be worse than they thought , perhaps not an apt parallel

Perhaps not an apt parallel, but certainly one where scientific certainty built away from hitherto discarded ideas got turned on its head and ended up incorporating such ideas in the end anyway.

Edited February 16, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Here's an idea:

Let's say that the Earth *should* be this warm, but particulate matter -from the smoggy industrial revolution- in the atmosphere masked the warming for two hundred years. The reason for the sharp increase in temperature in the last part of the 20th century is human-kinds *cleaning-up* of soot like particles by legislation and stature, and the atmosphere is now correcting itself from our smoggy cooler past. What is the mean rate of increase since the little ice-age? Is that unparalleled, or does it mirror inter-glacial rates of temperature and CO2 increase?

Why is this NOT the case? I think it's a rather good theory, myself. I do not have the means to prove it, or even test it, which is real shame B)

Humm, the industrial revolution happend in Europe, and America, not Africa, not Australia, not Asia, not Oceania, not Antarctica, not the Arctic. And it was a minor global effect during the industrial revolution - you only have to look at figure for fossil fuel consumption to see. Otoh, it is, you no doubt know, probably the case that they more wdespread activity (see the fossil fuel consumption figures again) in the middle of the last century (and still now to a different extent) did mask and proably does still mask some anthro warming. We haven't yet clean up our act - see forest being burnt in Indonesia or the amazinglgy think smog China can see. How's that for an answer?

Otoh, there are, and here again I'm showing that doubt people like me aren't supposed to do according to the myths about us, still doubts about the effect of aerosols on climate.

[jethro]

I thought I'd throw my two pennyth worth into the pot...

My concerns don't centre so much on whether or not AGW is real or whether it's all down to natural cycles, but more the hysteria connected with the whole issue. The climate is changing, no one can deny that; some of it caused by natural cycles, some no doubt caused by us. But, will we ever know the percentages or causes or even have a vague idea of the true picture?

In the current atmosphere of hysteria, to question AGW is to be branded a loon, a heretic worthy of a Borgia Inquisition yet only by questioning can new advances of understanding be made.

This weeks copy of New Scientist contains no fewer than three articles where concerns and doubts have been raised about important, researched, peer reviewed, scientific theories. Three, in one week. They now think a Virus is responsible for BSE and vCJD, not a protein as previously thought. Both diseases have been studied by respected scientists for some time and their previous answers were accepted as being fact. There's an article about flawed stem cell research. Another about theories on Dark Energy being re-written - AGAIN. There's also an article about Quantum Physics; a rebel scientist has won over doubters yet when he first published his theory and I quote "first proposed in 2004 unleashing a dam-burst of vitriol in the Physics community".

Science is written and re-written ad-infinitum and so it should be. So why the hysteria when the theories of AGW are questioned? I fear that in the current climate, research into Natural causes will be seriously hindered by such an attitude. Grants and funding will become harder and harder to find; if you were a science grad looking to pay off student loans and actually have a career future with a salary which would enable you to live the life you want, where would you concentrate your efforts?

I also wonder about the reaction to the USA now coming on board and accepting AGW is a problem. There appears to be a ground-swell of opinion that if they at long last accept and are willing to look into the problem, then that problem must somehow be more real or the consequences imminent. Er no, that's politics. The dirty P word which once uttered brings the inevitable onslaught of "conspiracy theory" accusations from the AGW side; a cheap shot designed purely to denounce the questioner as a loon. Princess Di was shot by the CIA/FBI/MI5 is conspiracy theory; recognising the role world leaders play in all this is not.

I believe politics plays a not insubstantial role in all this. Ask anyone which nations are the largest polluters and in an instant the answer of the USA is given. Question further and most people have no idea of the rest. The top three are USA, Australia and Norway, could it be that much less fuss is made about the two runners up because well, one belongs to us and the other is a developed, peace loving nation with a known risk factor?

The USA has an ailing economy, the current administration is finding itself increasingly alienated from world leaders and its' own populace, it needs the green vote. As a nation it is used to being in control and in my opinion that control is no longer the given it once was. China and India are developing at an ever increasing rate, but could they if the world united and blocked their coal-fired power plants? Oil, the currency of the US is being sought in other nations, don't forget it was Osama Bin Laden not Saddam Hussein who was responsible for the Twin Towers atrocity. The US brokered an oil deal with Iraq in return for ridding the country of Saddam; not conspiracy theory-admitted fact, now their eyes are turning to Iran. Yes Saddam was a war lord, but did the US or any of the rest of the world rush into say for instance Rwanda?

Our support of the USA was once a given they could depend upon, we owed them vast amounts of money from their support in WW11, last year that debt was finally repaid. Only once since WW11 have we denied them support when Harold Wilson refused to send our troops to Vietnam; the US response was to financially cripple this country which took years to recover from.

Don't believe a country would go to war over oil? Maggie Thatcher, aguably the most unsentimental Prime Minister this country has had in recent times went to war over islands thousands of miles away because a few people (comparitively speaking) wanted to remain British. The fact that we had to maintain a presence in the southern hemisphere in order to reap the benefits should Antartica be tapped for oil had nothing to do with it then?

Under-estimating the role of politics in the AGW debate is I believe fool hardy. Dismissing it as conspiracy theory is dangerously blinkered.

The climate is changing, how will we ever know how much is down to natural causes or AGW if research is blocked and hindered. How will we ever attract bright, young scientists into the field of natural causes if they are subjected to the recently suggested Nuremburg style questions and doubts?

We think we know what's going on, the scientists think they know, the IPCC believes it has it covered, I think we've scratched the tip of the Ice Berg. I worry that we will learn less and less.

[VillagePlank]

Humm, the industrial revolution happend in Europe, and America, not Africa, not Australia, not Asia, not Oceania, not Antarctica, not the Arctic. And it was a minor global effect during the industrial revolution - you only have to look at figure for fossil fuel consumption to see. Otoh, it is, you no doubt know, probably the case that they more wdespread activity (see the fossil fuel consumption figures again) in the middle of the last century (and still now to a different extent) did mask and proably does still mask some anthro warming. We haven't yet clean up our act - see forest being burnt in Indonesia or the amazinglgy think smog China can see. How's that for an answer?

Otoh, there are, and here again I'm showing that doubt people like me aren't supposed to do according to the myths about us, still doubts about the effect of aerosols on climate.

Sorry about that Dev B) I thought it deserved a new thread which I made here

[VillagePlank]

Oh, and that thing about waves is interesting.

Read more here