'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[parmenides3]

Pheww! Just logged back on.

Insightful posts from P3 and RJS.

in truth, I'm not really saying 'nay' to GW, as such, but to 'GW alarmism'. I'm hoping we can find some common ground here, somewhere.

:)P

[Mondy]

in truth, I'm not really saying 'nay' to GW, as such, but to 'GW alarmism'. I'm hoping we can find some common ground here, somewhere.

:)P

Too true, too true - hence my edited quip above!

Edit: GW alarmism - the biggest, sole annoyance on so many of these types of threads, not just on NW.

Edited February 28, 2007 by Mondy

[Gray-Wolf]

And of course my more 'alarmist' feelings are also some way into areas of the 'nay sayers' camp.....

[parmenides3]

I haven't even started on the alarmist stuff yet. Anyone here read Mark Lynas' book?

The point again; there's more than one way to read the findings, there's no need to deny the science, there's no benefit to exaggerating the consquences, there are good reasons to be a sceptic (but not on the American 'denialist' websites), and there's no need to devote yourself to any point of view over any other, apart from personal interpretation of the facts. There are also countless reasons to be sceptical about what the media pumps out, and what politicians say, but they aren't climate scientists, and their motives do not include dealing with the truth.

:)P

[HighPressure]

in truth, I'm not really saying 'nay' to GW, as such, but to 'GW alarmism'. I'm hoping we can find some common ground here, somewhere.

:)P

I think the argument does need common ground to bring as many sceptics to the table as possible and I would say that 2oC by 2100. The acceptance than man is having some impact with the degree and significance still open to question and the honest inclusion of other factors such as solar and volcanic activity will bring many more sceptics onboard, it certainly will me. I would be interested to know what the general consensus was the temp rise by 2100 a poll would be interesting.

[parmenides3]

Trouble is, HP, that how much temperature rise depends on two things: how much warming is caused by CO2, and how much more CO2 (& other stuff) we are going to pump into the atmosphere. Here, I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to argue that fossil fuel burning might not cause as much warming as the IPCC gives as it's 'best guess'. What none of us can be sure of, though, is how much more CO2 Etc. is going to go into the system. Even if the effect is relatively small, a large addition (to over 1100ppm, for example) is still likely to take us way over the 2C rise. I'm not sure a poll would tell us much, apart from the fact that we have different opinions.

:)P

[HighPressure]

Trouble is, HP, that how much temperature rise depends on two things: how much warming is caused by CO2, and how much more CO2 (& other stuff) we are going to pump into the atmosphere. Here, I'm suggesting that it is reasonable to argue that fossil fuel burning might not cause as much warming as the IPCC gives as it's 'best guess'. What none of us can be sure of, though, is how much more CO2 Etc. is going to go into the system. Even if the effect is relatively small, a large addition (to over 1100ppm, for example) is still likely to take us way over the 2C rise. I'm not sure a poll would tell us much, apart from the fact that we have different opinions.

:)P

Well in trying to remain realistic I don't expect CO2 emissions to change significantly anytime soon, simply any reductions will be offset by new increases (if we are lucky). I would also expect at least one major Volcanic eruption in the next 50yrs which will have a dimming/cooling effect for a period of years. Where will be after that I am not sure but must assume that GW will then continue by which time I expect new technological advances to be producing reduced human emissions. This is why I find it hard to accept much more than 2oC BY 2100 but this does not mean we will not pass through say 1.5oC twice in the next 90yrs.

[Mondy]

Edited post:

Decided to edit the post as it's another subject matter for a different thread

Edited February 28, 2007 by Mondy

[parmenides3]

Just to go off topic a tiny bit, if at all, but a plane enthusiast buddy of mine in Ohio recorded for 2006:

Being American, i presume he means daily temps(trend) for the given 365 days last year. So with that, i wondered if anyone else could share their daily temps for 2006 and see what their temp/trend was. I'm unable to as i don't keep records.

Obviously Ohio is a fair few miles away and the weather is unrelated to us, but for stats sake, what (if any) did you record last year daily. What percentage was cool/warm?

Just something else to ponder

It's hard to work out what this means, Mondy, because he doesn't say what the warming/cooling is relative to. It leads me to ask whether you have doubts about the CET, for example, or are hoping, perhaps, that the claimed warming trend is also an exaggeration? If so, I'd say you'll be ahrd pressed to provide evidence for it. On the other hand, one of Roger Pielke Sr.'s favourite bugbears is that the US temperature dataset is too corrupted by internal variables (such as re-siting and poor maintenance), to be accepted as an accurate measure of CC to the required level for climate modelling or prediction/forecasting. He puts up an argument which is technical, but even the most optimistic analysis of his work would make the case only for uncertainty, not for disproof of warming trends.

:)P

[Mondy]

Accept my apologies, P3! I know what you mean and it's probably not really for this thread..

By allmeans keep your post up, which shows the unedited from me.

[Mondy]

I think it was your goodself P3 who mentioned Bjorn Lomborg was to be taken seriously. Still reading his book, but not as much as i'd like to. Some really very well put together thoughts from Lomborg..

...anyway, back to the sceptic scene, and what with Gore winning an Oscar recently, interesting story here .

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness.

Still, i suppose if you bring the Global Warming debate to Hollywood, you have to ask if Gore himself 'walks the walk or talks the talk'? . <----- click me

Edited February 28, 2007 by Mondy

[Admiral_Bobski]

P3 - A very interesting post, and a very fair and even-handed approach to the debate. If this was Who Wants to be a Millionaire? then I'd be sorely tempted to take the money! But that would still be nothing more than accepting the IPCC's figures at face value without understanding why those figures are what they are - although they are "more palatable", I'd be reluctant to accept them just because a scientist told me so. Sorry On the plus side, they are rather more to my liking (or, rather, more to my line of thinking, which is that mankind has a lesser role than commonly perceived), and give me a smaller mountain to whittle away at!

I'm currently up to my neck in avenues to research, so I'll leave it there for now. I'm going to post a couple more links in the pinned skeptics thread, although one of them is not a purely skeptical page - it's an educational page for teachers to set up a debate for their students. It draws no conclusions, giving only starting points for debate. Might be worth a look...

Ta-ta!

C-Bob

[parmenides3]

Ta, C-Bob. Taking the IPCC's figures was merely to illustrate the point that we shouldn't assume that things are going to be as bad as many people believe, even on the 'official' line. It also shows that one does not need to contradict the laws of physics to be sceptical about the models' output.

I have done a bit of the required reading - even as far as some of the mathematics - and it is reasonably clear to me that, when it comes to some of the alternative explanations for GW, the numbers really don't add up; and this isn't the models' numbers, its the observed data. Whilst it is possible to argue attributions of warming, it is not really feasible to argue that there hasn't been a warming trend over the last thirty-five years and, beyond that, over the last hundred. Even if the temperature measurements were all wrong, they are wrong in the same way and show the same trend. Apart from the coincidence that would imply, plus the underlying implication that scientists are incompetent, we'd then have to face the fact that other 'symptoms' of warming; ice loss, glacial melt, regional temperature changes, droughts, all show the same general trend. My argument then would be that we have to accept that it has warmed in modern times.

In addition, when I say that 'it isn't solar variation' or 'it isn't volcanoes', these observations are based on the known relationship between measured variations in such forcings and measured variations in temperatures. no models, no assumptions, simple fitting of data to data. If, on top of this, we then posit the hypothesis that at least some of the measurements of some of the variables tend to underestimate them systematically, which is at least a plausible argument, then one possible conclusion we can reach is that the measured forcing of CO2, calculated in relation to these other forcings, may be exaggerated. Because of the physics, I can't see how it can be eliminated completely as a forcing, however.

Then there comes the issue of climate sensitivity. This is a heavily mathematical/statistical field of research and I simply don't have the background to critique methods and formulae. I can, however, follow arguments and challenge conclusions. It is in areas like this where I tend to follow the lead of specialists, who not only can do what I cannot, but also offer what I judge, based on my knowledge of logic, to be reasoned and balanced judgements.

As things stand, these specialists have narrowed down the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (response to a doubling of CO2) to 2-4.5C, very unlikely less than 1.5C, unlikely more than 5C. Most of the main players work with a figure between 2.5 and 3C. Even if their work is based on an exaggeration, it is still hard to reach a climate sensitivity figure below 1.5C.

So, and this isn't naysaying at all, I'm afraid - I didn't mean to hijack the thread, sorry - an individual who was cynical about many of the claims, and dubious about some of the figures offered, can reasonably argue that temperatures are as likely to rise by only 2C as they are by more, if CO2 levels are doubled. Pushed hard, a case might be made for only 1.5C.

But then comes the big political issue; under what circumstances are CO2 emissions limitable to 550ppm? (the doubling). How much CO2 are we going to pump into the system, and how quickly? These are not questions of climate science at all, but political matters, and depend on human actions and decisions, not on how the climate works.

Has it warmed? Is some of the warming human-induced? Is some of the warming able to be fitted into natural variations and forcings? Here, I suggest that the answer to all of these questions must be 'Yes'. The challenge for the sceptic, if this is the case, is to demonstrate that the human component of climate change is less than has been suggested, and not sufficient to merit undue concern. Go for it.

Any takers?

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

Ta, C-Bob. Taking the IPCC's figures was merely to illustrate the point that we shouldn't assume that things are going to be as bad as many people believe, even on the 'official' line. It also shows that one does not need to contradict the laws of physics to be sceptical about the models' output.

...

Has it warmed? Is some of the warming human-induced? Is some of the warming able to be fitted into natural variations and forcings? Here, I suggest that the answer to all of these questions must be 'Yes'. The challenge for the sceptic, if this is the case, is to demonstrate that the human component of climate change is less than has been suggested, and not sufficient to merit undue concern. Go for it.

Any takers?

:)P

That's as well written and concise a presentation of the facts from an informed GW perspective as I have seen for a while. Great post P3.

[HighPressure]

I raised a question earlier which no one took up on and that is what would happen when we have a large volcanic eruption on earth, which we must surely have at some stage before 2100? Everything I see seems to suggest that the increase temp will be almost linear with no real interuptions and surely the fact that a major eruption must be on the cards has to be factored in. What then is the effect on excess CO2 in the atmosphere under forced cooling in these circumstances? where does that put the IPCC projections. Another question which I feel still needs an answer is what has caused the sudden regional surge in temps which do not appear to fit with any tabled theory. For me to accept what the IPCC are saying without questioning they will at least have to show they understand what is happening now.

[pottyprof]

Ta, C-Bob. Taking the IPCC's figures was merely to illustrate the point that we shouldn't assume that things are going to be as bad as many people believe, even on the 'official' line. It also shows that one does not need to contradict the laws of physics to be sceptical about the models' output.

I have done a bit of the required reading - even as far as some of the mathematics - and it is reasonably clear to me that, when it comes to some of the alternative explanations for GW, the numbers really don't add up; and this isn't the models' numbers, its the observed data. Whilst it is possible to argue attributions of warming, it is not really feasible to argue that there hasn't been a warming trend over the last thirty-five years and, beyond that, over the last hundred. Even if the temperature measurements were all wrong, they are wrong in the same way and show the same trend. Apart from the coincidence that would imply, plus the underlying implication that scientists are incompetent, we'd then have to face the fact that other 'symptoms' of warming; ice loss, glacial melt, regional temperature changes, droughts, all show the same general trend. My argument then would be that we have to accept that it has warmed in modern times.

In addition, when I say that 'it isn't solar variation' or 'it isn't volcanoes', these observations are based on the known relationship between measured variations in such forcings and measured variations in temperatures. no models, no assumptions, simple fitting of data to data. If, on top of this, we then posit the hypothesis that at least some of the measurements of some of the variables tend to underestimate them systematically, which is at least a plausible argument, then one possible conclusion we can reach is that the measured forcing of CO2, calculated in relation to these other forcings, may be exaggerated. Because of the physics, I can't see how it can be eliminated completely as a forcing, however.

Then there comes the issue of climate sensitivity. This is a heavily mathematical/statistical field of research and I simply don't have the background to critique methods and formulae. I can, however, follow arguments and challenge conclusions. It is in areas like this where I tend to follow the lead of specialists, who not only can do what I cannot, but also offer what I judge, based on my knowledge of logic, to be reasoned and balanced judgements.

As things stand, these specialists have narrowed down the range of equilibrium climate sensitivity (response to a doubling of CO2) to 2-4.5C, very unlikely less than 1.5C, unlikely more than 5C. Most of the main players work with a figure between 2.5 and 3C. Even if their work is based on an exaggeration, it is still hard to reach a climate sensitivity figure below 1.5C.

So, and this isn't naysaying at all, I'm afraid - I didn't mean to hijack the thread, sorry - an individual who was cynical about many of the claims, and dubious about some of the figures offered, can reasonably argue that temperatures are as likely to rise by only 2C as they are by more, if CO2 levels are doubled. Pushed hard, a case might be made for only 1.5C.

But then comes the big political issue; under what circumstances are CO2 emissions limitable to 550ppm? (the doubling). How much CO2 are we going to pump into the system, and how quickly? These are not questions of climate science at all, but political matters, and depend on human actions and decisions, not on how the climate works.

Has it warmed? Is some of the warming human-induced? Is some of the warming able to be fitted into natural variations and forcings? Here, I suggest that the answer to all of these questions must be 'Yes'. The challenge for the sceptic, if this is the case, is to demonstrate that the human component of climate change is less than has been suggested, and not sufficient to merit undue concern. Go for it.

Any takers?

:)P

I don't think that anyone on here denies that there is some man made forcing.. just not to the levels that we are supposed to accept..

Interesting post though P3.. The political stuff was set by Enron a few years before they went under for fraud.. But anything that makes money has to be a good thing.. They came up with the idea to buy and sell CO2 emissions on the back of GW ideas when GW was just an idea for temperature increases and a lot of the data comes from their books.. Tell me why i should believe??

[parmenides3]

I raised a question earlier which no one took up on and that is what would happen when we have a large volcanic eruption on earth, which we must surely have at some stage before 2100? Everything I see seems to suggest that the increase temp will be almost linear with no real interuptions and surely the fact that a major eruption must be on the cards has to be factored in. What then is the effect on excess CO2 in the atmosphere under forced cooling in these circumstances? where does that put the IPCC projections. Another question which I feel still needs an answer is what has caused the sudden regional surge in temps which do not appear to fit with any tabled theory. For me to accept what the IPCC are saying without questioning they will at least have to show they understand what is happening now.

You are right, HP, that the projections don't factor in a major volcanic eruption; but the report mentions it, to explain that it doesn't do so because such an event is fundamentally unpredictable. There is no effect on the CO2 levels from such eruptions; one can expect a pattern like that from Pinatubo, when sulphates and other aerosols spread and reduce global temperatures for a while, then, as they leave the atmosphere, the background warming trend reappears. This means that if there is an eruptions, it would cause a hiccup in the projections. As you say, this is likely to happen. Such an event might delay the reaching of a particular temperature increase by a couple of years.

The recent regional surges in temperatures do fit in with the tabled theory, as they can be seen as an effect of local feedbacks to the global forcing. Perhaps they are a fraction higher than the models suggested, but overall, the model projection for 1990-2005, for example, were pretty accurate. Though the IPCC probably does understand what is happening now (there are still mechanisms which are poorly observed, such as the ocean overturning), but even if they had the whole thing nailed down, I'd still encourage you not to accept what they are saying without question: always question. My feeling is that the questions need to be more relevant and more precise, rather than simply contradicting the whole idea, though.

Pottyprof: separate the science from the politics. The science is trying to tell us how things are, why they are that way, and what is likely to be the consequence. Though some scientists make political/ethical statements based on this, generally, the options for action are taken by others. Their motives may not be pure, their decisions will be informed by important issues outside science, such as economics and social order. It is possible to (broadly) accept the science without accepting any of the politics.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

P3, you've done a grand job of making a case for the "best case scenario" of the IPCC, and I hope that - if I'm wrong - this is the scenario that is actually currently being played out. I don't deny that CO2 has some degree of "forcing factor", but I would argue that the experiment to prove this forcing (the sealed box experiment) gives an exaggerated view of it, due to its over-simplicity.

I still have some things I want to look at - namely scientific papers investigating solar effects on Earth from a cosmological viewpoint. It's not that I don't trust climatologists per se, but I wonder (as I have intimated before) about their expertise in the field of solar cycles and irradiance, and therefore in the conclusions that they draw. I remember reading an article last year (but I can't remember where, or by whom) about a scientist who determined that the sun has a greater influence on Earth temperatures than had been previously thought, yet the IPCC halved the effect of solar influence in the subsequent report. I want to know why, so I'm trying to find the article that said the opposite!

I'll get back to you later on - I'm sure I'll be able to squeeze in another coffee-break in an hour or two!

C-Bob

[Devonian]

P3, you've done a grand job of making a case for the "best case scenario" of the IPCC, and I hope that - if I'm wrong - this is the scenario that is actually currently being played out. I don't deny that CO2 has some degree of "forcing factor", but I would argue that the experiment to prove this forcing (the sealed box experiment) gives an exaggerated view of it, due to its over-simplicity.

I still have some things I want to look at - namely scientific papers investigating solar effects on Earth from a cosmological viewpoint. It's not that I don't trust climatologists per se, but I wonder (as I have intimated before) about their expertise in the field of solar cycles and irradiance, and therefore in the conclusions that they draw. I remember reading an article last year (but I can't remember where, or by whom) about a scientist who determined that the sun has a greater influence on Earth temperatures than had been previously thought, yet the IPCC halved the effect of solar influence in the subsequent report. I want to know why, so I'm trying to find the article that said the opposite!

I'll get back to you later on - I'm sure I'll be able to squeeze in another coffee-break in an hour or two!

C-Bob

C'B do you wonder about the expertese of cosmologists in the field of climatology?

Might the IPCC have halved the effect of solar because, (shock!), the honest scientific appraisel of the data and evidence was that? No, couldn't be could it

Edited March 1, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

C'B do you wonder about the expertese of cosmologists in the field of climatology?

Might the IPCC have halved the effect of solar because, (shock!), the honest scientific appraisel of the data and evidence was that? No, couldn't be could it

Do I wonder about the expertise of cosmologists in cosmology? Not yet - let me look at some papers first. But even if I did, it would be unfair to accept the conclusion of one potentially wrong person over a different potentially wrong person...

It is possible that the IPCC have halved the effect of solar forcings for the reason you state, but can you not accept that the IPCC's conclusion could be wrong? I just find it strange that they halve the effect when studies in the past year claim to have found an increased effect. Doesn't that strike you as at all odd?

C-Bob

[Gray-Wolf]

I start to wonder at the effect 'precession' has on the magnetospheres interaction with the solar wind and whether or not the influence this has on the upper/lower stratospheric temperatures can influence the global climate over the 26,000yr period.

Land mass distribution and oceanic currents would obviously have a role to play in any effects felt here at the surface but it may be 'yet another' external forcing that, along with the others, adds up to a reasonably large 'shove' in climatic terms.

Edited March 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

C-Bob: I suspect the paper you are referring to is Scafetta & West (2006). Their analysis did indeed find that solar forcing had a higher input into the recent warming trend than had previously been estimated. Following its publication, there was a lot of discussion about the paper, much of which centred around their methodology and the soundness of their analysis. Gavin Schmidt led the argument against, Kay Scafetta defended her own work. The two ended up agreeing to disagree, not surprisingly.

I also suspect that the paper was published after the deadline for submissions to the IPCC, so would not have been factored in anyway. However, the IPCC's track record is not to include findings (or at least, not to assume their veracity) which are contended in the literature. Having said that, there hasn't yet been a formal refutation of S&W's work, or a revision by the authors, so the jury is still 'out' on their findings. I will say that it stands out in the literature in terms of the methods and the findings, in that several dozen other papers have reached the conclusion broadly summarised in the AR4.

On the issue of space science and climate science; this is an active area of research which is horribly underfunded and rife with wild ideas at the moment. For me, a lot of this revolves around the confusing use of the term 'space weather', which is too easy to conflate into 'weather'. It is a wide open field at the moment though, and I have no doubt that sooner rather than later, some interesting relationships between solar output and weather will be found. I'm equally happy to assume at the moment that any such findings won't be able to account for the majority of the recent warming trend, though this is my opinion, only.

If you want to analyse some of the science of the IPCC, the PCMDI model output diagnostic subprojects page has 186 articles with abstracts (and occasionally full papers) which were used in the compilation of the report.

:)P

Edit: G-W; precession is one of the Milankovitch jobbies. It is possible that there is an approximate 22,000 year cycle. It's already factored into the models. :)P

Edited March 1, 2007 by parmenides3

[BrickFielder]

Everyone talks about emissions of CO2 on the increase, but very little is mentioned of the significant reduction in absorption of CO2. We know that CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 379ppm roughly a 35% increase in CO2 ,but we also know that planckton absorption of CO2 has reduced by between 25 -35 %. Possible by far the most important task to tackle is maintaining the ecological balance of the sea. Here we should be tackling other emissions and particularly looking at intensive farming methods.

Large volcanic eruptions have a number of effects including blocking sunlight altering the reflectivity of snow ,altering the ozone layer. The net effect is a cooling of the earth for a period of a year or two. The other contributor not often mentioned is comet debris in the upper atmosphere. When a moderate sized comet of meteor hits the earth some ice crystals are deposited in the upper atmosphere and the . This slight alteration of the chemical balance,magnet properties and reflectivity of the upper atmosphere can have affects on climate.

Upper Atmosphere temperature changes and planetary waves

Bio Engineering Climate

Meteor dust obscures climate change

Edited March 1, 2007 by BrickFielder

[DAVID SNOW]

I raised a question earlier which no one took up on and that is what would happen when we have a large volcanic eruption on earth, which we must surely have at some stage before 2100? Everything I see seems to suggest that the increase temp will be almost linear with no real interuptions and surely the fact that a major eruption must be on the cards has to be factored in. What then is the effect on excess CO2 in the atmosphere under forced cooling in these circumstances? where does that put the IPCC projections. Another question which I feel still needs an answer is what has caused the sudden regional surge in temps which do not appear to fit with any tabled theory. For me to accept what the IPCC are saying without questioning they will at least have to show they understand what is happening now.

As i was saying yesterday i think the impact on global temps from volcanism is being largly understated, we cant tell,as such, when and how strong the next eruption would be. Correct me if i have got this wrong but am i right in saying global temps have risen by around 1 degree in 1 hundred years, that being the case a relatively small eruption could lower global temps by a degree or so in a fraction of the time. The effects from such an eruption would probably last only a couple of years, before its effects would be nagated and temps would then slowly start to rise again, but what if we had a much larger eruption that say lowered global temps by maybe 5 degrees, could this then have a knock on effect resulting in large increases in glacial coverage, thus maybe further reducing temps due to solar reflection.so if an eruption were to take place(as has happened many times in history) i think global warming would be negated and it could possibly take many years for the earths temperature to recover. P.S. i wonder what the effects of a sudden 5 degree drop would be,huge i would have thought,and the hot toppic that is global warming would cool rapidly. Its happened in the past and it WILL happen again

[parmenides3]

David; your analysis is correct. The problem is that an eruption of this kind is impossible to predict. it might happen this year, it might not happen for 5,000 years; there is no way of telling. IF such an eruption occurred, it's impact could be so large as to make worries about GW meaningless. The scientists and the IPCC are aware of this as a possibility, but, given the probabilities involved, it makes more sense to assume that is isn't going to happen than that it is.

:)P