CO2 levels

[biffvernon]

Let's stick to the science rather than wishful thinking tinged with cynicism, therefore:

1) Is man responsible for the recent warming (CO2 or otherwise - assuming you accept the recent warming)

Yes

2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas.

Yes

3) Will the green house effect of CO2 warm the planet within the range predicted by the IPCC.

Yes - or could be worse since IPCC didn't give sufficient weight to feedback mechanisms.

4) Will saving energy and reducing emissions succeed in noticeably curbing further warming.

Yes - but we're talking serous reduction, like 90% curtailment of fossil fuel.

5) Would tactics to save energy and reduce emissions really work or would they just be a tax burden.

Yes - (see 4 above) Tax is a red herring - governments tax so that they can spend.

6) Would saving energy and reducing emissions combined with other tactics succeed in curbing further warming.

Yes - (see 4 above) But the big area of doubt is how much the feedbacks mean we're already past the tipping point.

Edited April 12, 2007 by biffvernon

[Admiral_Bobski]

Let's stick to the science rather than wishful thinking tinged with cynicism, therefore:

1) Is man responsible for the recent warming (CO2 or otherwise - assuming you accept the recent warming)

Yes

I accept that warming has occurred over the last 100 years or so, but I think it's far for unequivocal that man is responsible, regardless of what the IPCC may say. (Shouldn't the question be "Is man responsible for some of the recent warming"?)

2) Is CO2 a greenhouse gas.

Yes

Agreed.

3) Will the green house effect of CO2 warm the planet within the range predicted by the IPCC.

Yes - or could be worse since IPCC didn't give sufficient weight to feedback mechanisms.

This seems like a very certain answer considering the relatively uncertain basis of the predictions in question (i.e. the uncertainties inherent in climate models).

4) Will saving energy and reducing emissions succeed in noticeably curbing further warming.

Yes - but we're talking serous reduction, like 90% curtailment of fossil fuel.

Again, I think it's hard to give a hard-and-fast answer to this question (or, indeed, most of these questions) without a far greater understanding of CO₂'s effect on climate.

5) Would tactics to save energy and reduce emissions really work or would they just be a tax burden.

Yes - (see 4 above) Tax is a red herring - governments tax so that they can spend.

Tax is not a red herring at all - the fact is that many governments (especially the current one) waste money left, right and centre. Money has been thrown at the NHS and resulted in no significant improvement - that money has been wasted. Money has been thrown at schools and, in my experience (or rather that of my children), there has been a decrease in the standard of education - that money has been wasted. There are other isolated examples, such as the Millennium Dome debacle. The Olympics should be a great laugh. The point is, what do you do when money has been wasted? You need to spend more money to put things right (or at least try to). Where does that money come from? Increased taxes. Increases in taxation (or new types of taxation) are governmental ways of trying to fix past cock-ups. This does not make it a good thing.

6) Would saving energy and reducing emissions combined with other tactics succeed in curbing further warming.

Yes - (see 4 above) But the big area of doubt is how much the feedbacks mean we're already past the tipping point.

The real big area of doubt is just how much do emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect? Tipping points are the true red herrings...!

CB

[biffvernon]

The real big area of doubt is just how much do emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect?

Nope, that was worked out by Arrenhius in 1894.

Recent observations have just demonstrated that he was right.

[Gray-Wolf]

The real big area of doubt is just how much do emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect? Tipping points are the true red herrings...!

CB

I find the more closely I have looked at real world impacts of continued warming, especially where the warming induces a state change in H2O, the more I see that this (tipping points) has to be the way of the process.

At times we are tied by our 'experience' of time but some events start to occur at a speed well below our wish to perceive them (though capable of doing so).

By the time the events are occurring at a speed to cause us concern a great deal would have already occurred and a great deal of energy absorbed to reduce and reverse the initial state of inertia within the system (and overcome any oscillatory nature and impose constant increase).

Set against a continued warming you reach a point where much more energy (from the warming) becomes available to areas that, prior to the overcoming of the systems inertia/oscillatory nature, had not seen great 'change' over the period.

All we witness is 'rapid, unstoppable change' where as in reality we are starting to watch half way through the event. When we are on the edge of collapse and recognise the situation it would be very useful to coin 'tipping point' as a phrase but the point had been tipped long before!

[HighPressure]

Right I have another good read around tried to be balanced in my approach and have come to the conclusion that even the most pro AGW cannot discount the theory that solar flux may play a role in GW. I think they can bully me shout at me say I am not a scientist but they cannot say with any degree of certainty what the actual effects of solar activity is on our climate. I don't know either but the key point is that its effects are not fully understood therefore no argument blaming man for all additional warming can be proved is another theory cannot be disproved.

My current opinion (unqualified) is that solar activity plays some part in GW and that mans effect is less than that stated by the IPCC and many pro supporters. There maybe a kind of catalyst effect going on but for me the tiny amount of Co2 we are talking about is unlikely to be responsible on its own.

So have a go if you like but that is my genuine take from an unbiased average Joe who has taken the trouble to read views from all sides.

[parmenides3]

Right I have another good read around tried to be balanced in my approach and have come to the conclusion that even the most pro AGW cannot discount the theory that solar flux may play a role in GW. I think they can bully me shout at me say I am not a scientist but they cannot say with any degree of certainty what the actual effects of solar activity is on our climate. I don't know either but the key point is that its effects are not fully understood therefore no argument blaming man for all additional warming can be proved is another theory cannot be disproved.

My current opinion (unqualified) is that solar activity plays some part in GW and that mans effect is less than that stated by the IPCC and many pro supporters. There maybe a kind of catalyst effect going on but for me the tiny amount of Co2 we are talking about is unlikely to be responsible on its own.

So have a go if you like but that is my genuine take from an unbiased average Joe who has taken the trouble to read views from all sides.

I respect the fact that this is the conclusion you have come to by virtue of your own efforts. You are correct in saying that changes in Solar 'inputs' have an effect on the climate. Current efforts suggest that there was a small upward trend of Solar influence in the first part of the twentieth century, but no measure of solar change (apart from the 11 year cycle, which is a small effect) shows any upward trend since the 1950s. As Solar effects are more or less immediate, this lack of a trend indicates that this cannot be the explanation for recent warming.

You are also correct in saying that there is a deal of uncertainty about all of the ways that the Sun may influence our climate, but the 'key' measure, of radiation, which converts to heat in the atmosphere, has not changed outside its 'normal' range. Part of the reason why Solar influence is still being researched is that direct measurements have only been possible for a short time, so there is still a shortage of data, and issues with the reliability of proxies such as sunspots. As the data improves, so will the strength of the evidence, either way. I would also point out that, while all of the effects of all the kinds of Solar activity are not well understood, the radiative effect on the earth is.

There is no argument for blaming man for all additional warming; the main thrust of the science is that, through the adding of CO2, deforestation, land use change, pollution, well-mixed greenhouse gases, aerosols etc., most of the warming of the last fifty years is very likely to be anthropogenic in origin. By 'most', we must assume more than 50%; recent papers like Hegerl et.al. suggest 70% or more.

Most top scientists would agree with you (in principle) that there are gaps in the evidence, but most of them also argue that, just because we don't yet know everything does mean we do not know enough to be fairly sure that ignoring the current best evaluation of the causes of climate changes is a good idea. Most would also say that not acting on CO2 and other emissions is a poor choice when it comes to considering the likely long-term effects of this.

It does seem that the amounts of CO2 we are contributing, compared to the amounts involved in 'natural' processes, are quite small, when you look at the numbers in this way. The two main things to remember here are that the human contribution is extra to the rest and accumulates over time, so the net increase is quite large, compared to how much is normally in the atmosphere - which is the main bit we are worrying about here. The other point is that, as others have said, it is not the amount but the strength of the effect which is the thing to worry about. As you will know, this is something C-Bob. myself and others have been trying to thrash out on another thread.

I would be inclined to separate the IPCC from 'pro supporters', as the former is a scientific approach, the latter often an emotional one. The IPCC does not know how much we are going to warm the planet, because it doesn't know how population, economies and regulation are going to change the CO2 emissions levels in the coming years. It does give a pretty good guide, though, to how much extra warming, with all variables considered, is likely to result from a doubling of CO2 levels.

It is still possible that there is something that has been overlooked in all the climate scince which has been done in the last twenty-odd years. The more data and evidence that comes along, the less likely this is going to be.

The vast majority of climate scientists are satisfied that the relationship between warming and CO2 is clear and clearly understood, as is it forcing strength, with the smallest margin of error of all the known forcings. Many of their representatives, however, are less happy with the IPCC reports, not because they exaggerate the problems and the cause, but becuase they underplay and underestimate the sensitivity of the climate to change and allow 'extremely likely' conclusionsd to go into the record as only 'very likely'.

:)P

[biffvernon]

I don't know either ...My current opinion (unqualified) is ...

Most of us, even scientists when discussing topics outside our own specialism, are in the same boat. We don't know. But the scientific method has been shown to be so reliable that we are willing to trust our lives to it.

Just left to our own devices, the observations of our naked eyes, we are ignorant. The Sun clearly rises out of the Eastern Sea each morning and sinks into the Western Sea in the evening. I cannot tell whether, its fires extinguished, it is carried back to the east in a nightly galleon or whether a new Sun is created each morning. The idea that the Earth is a sphere, orbiting the Sun at a constant distance of millions of miles because the Sun exerts a force pulling the Earth towards itself, is, to my eyes, preposterous nonsense.

Why, HighPressure, are you willing to accept some things that scientists tell you but not others?

[Gray-Wolf]

My current opinion (unqualified) is that solar activity plays some part in GW and that mans effect is less than that stated by the IPCC and many pro supporters. There maybe a kind of catalyst effect going on but for me the tiny amount of Co2 we are talking about is unlikely to be responsible on its own.

So have a go if you like but that is my genuine take from an unbiased average Joe who has taken the trouble to read views from all sides.

I hate computers....20 mins typing zapped!!!

I was trying to agree (somewhat) with your take on solar influence!

The suns outer shell is well studied, not so the mantle/core. We know of the electromagnetic 'dance' the shell enjoys over a 7-11yr cycle but not so much about the inner workings. What if they too have a 'term' of field wind up and release? What if, every so often the 'inner release' happens whilst the suns surface isn't so 'blocked ' by a convoluted EMF? Would we see very large CME's fired out?

With the Earths magnetic field undergoing it's own 'weakening' (and the magnetic pole wandering) we are not best placed to 'accept' any major eruptions from the suns surface. Could such a conflagration lead to temporary surface warming here on Earth???

Cycle 24 (set to be the busiest yet recorded) may show us if such 'events' do occur. The fact it takes 3 things to be in place to occur would make it hard to track down as a regular event as most times one or other of the 'pieces' won't be in place so the effects would be mitigated.

Were it not for our 'electro-techno' world and AGW it wouldn't be so worrying but the impacts on our techno world of multiple CME impacts (some with the correct polarity to do damage) won't be fun and nor would any short term 'forcing' it may bring with it (as I understand things any current that flows meets with resistance [unless it is a superconductor, which the Earth isn't] and produces heat as a by product......and if the sun side of the earth underwent flow forcing during a massive strike? could it warm us???)

As I say we only have until 2012 to see if this can occur but it would be the wrong time to have an 18month 2c temp hike (IMHO) were it to be true!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Nope, that was worked out by Arrenhius in 1894.

Recent observations have just demonstrated that he was right.

Even by the most generous calculations, Arrhenius's estimates of the effect of emissions on climate were over the odds. Have a look at the wikipedia article on Arrhenius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhen...se_for_ice_ages

Recent observations merely fit in with the basic principle that Arrhenius presented. This does not negate the possibility that there is in fact another principle at work, and that emissions have little to do with it.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Even by the most generous calculations, Arrhenius's estimates of the effect of emissions on climate were over the odds. Have a look at the wikipedia article on Arrhenius:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhen...se_for_ice_ages

Recent observations merely fit in with the basic principle that Arrhenius presented. This does not negate the possibility that there is in fact another principle at work, and that emissions have little to do with it.

CB

Well I for one won't question the initial calculations in such a damning way! As I outlined above there is a lot of energy about (or starting) to enter the system due to the planet no longer mitigating the warming as well as it used to (coupled with a 'temporary' lessening of global dimming).

The fact that such a climate of dis-information exists (started by the fossil fuel lobby in the 60's and continuing today with the nations insisting on a 'tone down' of IPCC findings) we are only ever presented with the most conservative figures (bogged to make them fit the current 'picture') whereas Arrhenius's figures fit well with the 'extreme' scenarios'.

Maybe the Arrhenius figures are the ones to focus on and seek explain the shortfall in terms of planetary mitigation (short term) with much worse to come.

Time alone will tell but science will play catchup (IMHO) with the changing figures as they amass.

[parmenides3]

Given the way this thread is going, I thought this might be useful here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm

There are other useful links from the home page.

;)P

[Thundersquall]

If the average temperature really did rise by 6 C, are the scientists correct when they predict catastrophic methane gas

explosions triggered by lightning? This all sounds like science fiction stuff to me and wonder if it really has credibility.

[parmenides3]

That sounds like Mark Lynas's idea in 'Six degrees'. How accurate? Hmm...

:)P

[biffvernon]

Even by the most generous calculations, Arrhenius's estimates of the effect of emissions on climate were over the odds. Have a look at the wikipedia article on Arrhenius

That's a strange reading of the Wiki article, which says "What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate."

That sounds like Mark Lynas's idea in 'Six degrees'. How accurate? Hmm...

Lynas presents what is possible, not what is certain. Can it be shown that what Lynas presents is impossible? If not, then we had better behave accordingly.

Edited April 13, 2007 by biffvernon

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's a strange reading of the Wiki article, which says "What is remarkable is that Arrhenius came so close to the most recent IPCC estimate."

The line directly before that which you quote is: "Arrhenius estimated that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 4 - 6 degrees Celsius [1]or 7 - 11 degrees Fahrenheit. Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC place this value (the Climate sensitivity) at between 2 and 4.5 degrees, although values greater than 4.5°C cannot be formally excluded."

There's actually a reasonably big difference between 4-6°C and 2-4.5°C - the Arrhenius estimate starts where the IPCC estimate ends. Close, maybe...but no cigar.

It is interesting how some AGW supporters talk of how far advanced our science and technology is, and therefore we must be barking up the right tree, while others talk of how Arrhenius was right over a hundred years ago (and he wasn't the only one talking about what came to be known as "Global Warming"). So, is our science moving forwards or backwards...?!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Without sounding like a broken record the maths for CO2's potential to absorb and re-emit are not going to change much once the 'value's' are known. What has changed over time is our understanding of the 'context' of the rise. Our planet is a complex beasty and hard to pin down, it being a dynamic critter an' all, so the more sophisticated we become in our measurements the better we can model the 'context of warming'. The forced 'dumbing down of the IPCC paper ( by the nations who don't like the energy/fiscal implications ) means that the original 'top line' is only hinted at and not given it's true weight. Time and change will show us whether this was driven by short term hedonism (in the guise of consumption and industrialisation) or by the guess that climate change isn't as important as we mostly seem to think..

[parmenides3]

BiffV: Impossible is a tricky word. Let's deal with likelihood or probability, instead; how likely are the effects Lynas describes? Under what conditions are such reactions likely? A great deal of Lynas' assumptions about what could happen depend on the idea that warming in excess of 2-3C will cause runaway feedbacks. Though this is not impossible, it isn't currently supported by most of the science at the moment. It also depends on accepting that 2-3C is the 'tipping point'; this is also a highly debatable idea. Lynas' ideas aren't truly scientific, more speculative, though they are based on a lot of research he has done. I tend to view his interpretation of the scientific possibilities as 'worst case scenarios', the likelihood of which are more often than not going to be in the 5 percentile range or less, e.g. very unlikely to almost certainly not the case. This doesn't mean he is ipso facto wrong, just that the odds of his ideas happening are very low.

:)P

[biffvernon]

My reading of Mark Lynas's book Six Degrees, is that the ideas presented are not Lynas's ideas. He is just reporting what climate scientists have written in peer-reviewed journals that his 'research' is limited to reading what others have written. He has communicated the ideas of scientists in a form accessible to the intelligent layperson. A valuable task for which we should be grateful.

I don't think we have the information to be able to quantify the risk of the six degree worst case scenario and Lynas does not do so. But if the probability is as high as 5%, as you suggest, Parmenedes3, then we had better take radical action pdq. I for one would not travel in a vehicle that had anything like a 5% chance of killing me and I don't want to force my children to do so.

It really is time to panic.

[parmenides3]

For those who don't have the book or don't know what we're talking about, here is a link to the Sunday times article based on the book: http://www.marklynas.org/2007/3/15/to-the-...he-sunday-times

I'll comment on a couple of the assumptions later, when people have had the chance to read the 'short version'.

:)P