Overhype on global warming

[parmenides3]

Tamara; this is probably a bit simplistic for you, but some readers might find it helpful: http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/coapec/pdfs/ClimateModels.pdf

it's only 6 pages long.

I'm still looking for that other paper...

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

SF: I may be misunderstanding, but Tamara does have a point, though it may not be the one she thinks it is. Straying away from UK weather to the Arctic, the AO signal is significant in a number of ways. But there is a point here; the AO is, I believe, a description of a cyclical pattern of synoptics, but it is also a climate phenomenon which acts to drive weather and climate patterns around it. This is where I think the misunderstandings are happening. The AO is, AFAIK, not a climate forcing, but it is a climate driver. The distinction is important.

Therefore, what happens with the AO makes a difference to our experience of the weather. (I know, you know all this, but others don't). But when was the last time we saw a news headline which ran 'Wet Summer caused by change in AO signal'? (If this were the case).

...

P

This is, admittedly, off the hype theme - though in a way not unrelated, but it's an important clarification nonetheless, and another indication of the argument that "if only the synoptics were right...". As you state P, the AO is essentially an index and NOT itself an atmospheric feature, in the same way that the NAO is not a synoptic feature. It is also NOT the case that there is a perfect correlation between the behaviour of the AO / NAO and surface conditions. Hadley and Ferrel cells are permanent macros scale features of our circulation, features which lead to upper level movements and feedback to surface movement of air masses, and so synoptic formations. To my mind the AO / NAO is no more than a measure of surface synoptics in precisely the same way that the Azores High is a surface statement of the Hadley Cell.

And therein lies the tenuous link to hype. I have flagged up elsewhere today what I see as a "denialist over-reaction / false attributon" to a perfectly factual, and quite clearly non-hyping, article regarding extreme weather. I think that the media do hype in one direction, but they by no means have a monopoly on misinterpretation. To my mind the assertion that all extremes are consequent to GW is no worse than the inferential suggestion that current warming is somehow just synoptic, and that if we had the right synoptics things would be much colder. Synoptics are consequent to larger scale changes in the macro circulation, and NOT the other way around. If the synoptics are changing (and so our weather), then it follows that global regimes are changing, and therefore extreme events might well change in location, frequency and general occurrence. However, and the aforementioned Reuters article makes the same point, this does not mean that each and every event is purely the child of such regime changes.

[Stratos Ferric]

...There is much more to this than just science - we don't have to accept the science, and just because some of us, myself included don't understand much of it, it doesn't make our opinion any less valid or useful. I am scared to think what would happen if we all just beleived everything that was said just because it came from someone 'in the know'

...

Tamara

It's a point of view Tamara, I grant you that, but the weather is no less a matter of science than is, say, medicine. For sure, doctors cannot explain everything that goes on in our bodies, but if I were ill I know who I would turn to for an opinion if given the choice between a trained up doctor of medicine and an amateur with a "Family Health" encyclopaedia.

For that reason, therefore, all views are not equally useful or valuable. That does not mean that we are not all good or useful people, with equal rights, but just as some people can run faster than others, and some are more intellignet than others, so it must follow that in ANY discussion some points of view simply are more useful.

I have no problem with informed scepticism, what I tend to sniff out is consistent bias. There are plenty on here who are secptical, but when scepticism always comes from the same direction then there is a strong nference that some prejudice is at work. Hence, for example, when Ice Age Now manages to report nothing but cold weather, overlooking the more frequent and widespread instances of warmth, it is hard to take seriously any claim of objective assessment. Scientific advancement is based around starting hypotheses, but like carabiners in a rock face, these are staging posts in a journey, not permanent centres of gravity to which all future conclusions are drawn.

Hype, extremism, and bias come in many guises, and like most forms of bigotry tend to betray, above all else, a lack of knowledge.

Edited August 10, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[parmenides3]

SF: I don't imagine it's intended, but your last post does come across as a bit personal - any chance you could respond in the spirit of my earlier comment?

Nicely. :)P

[Stratos Ferric]

SF: I don't imagine it's intended, but your last post does come across as a bit personal - any chance you could respond in the spirit of my earlier comment?

Nicely. P

Sure, but a careful read will show that I in no way infer or imply that Tamara isn't knowledgeable, my point is that her argument that all views are equal (in a TECHNICAL argument / discussion) is flawed. We're all equaly entitled to an opinion, but they aren't all equally useful.

I reiterate for avoidance of doubt, not a dig at Tamara, simply a response to a point she made.

[Gray-Wolf]

It's a point of view Tamara, I grant you that, but the weather is no less a matter of science than is, say, medicine. For sure, doctors cannot explain everything that goes on in our bodies, but if I were ill I know who I would turn to for an opinion if given the choice between a trained up doctor of medicine and an amateur with a "Family Health" encyclopedia.

I am left crippled by 'doctors' and on 3 occasions have saved Luke's life (special needs boy) during their catastrophic meddling in his health needs( they're only practicing now aren't they?). As such I generally only take a diagnosis to my doc's who then obliges with a script for the meds I feel I need.

I turn to my beloved S.C.E.N.A.R. device to put wrong most of my Ills as it merely helps my body identify the problem and reinforce the actions my onboard pharmacy needs to take.

The same with our climate. Very interesting data sets produced by very committed scientists are useful in helping you equip yourself to see 'what's happening' but with the amount of real time data, coupled with the speed of change, means we can all make our own decisions based on our own observations.

Talk of 'too short a trend to be relied upon' would not have helped the folk flee Pompeii when the first earthquakes/smoldering were spotted and so it is with rapid climate shift. Planet earth has 'soaked up' all the change it can handle and will now make a jump (with the associated catastrophic changes to climate/weather) to it's new settings. Sadly with more human induced changes ongoing we can expect further leaps until a new 'balance point' is achieved.

[parmenides3]

Thinking about what Tamara has said, (and enjoy the weekend, dear heart), what is becoming increasingly clear is that the two 'camps' which matter on the issues surrounding GW are not the traditional 'yes/no' dichotomy, but the division of people who are inclined to deal with the science, and people who simply want to understand, but don't have the confidence/will power/interest to do this. Neither type of person is 'better' or 'worse' than the other; this is intended as an observation, not a critique.

Problems appear when people who belong to the latter camp (probably the vast majority of the population, and a good proportion of NW members), ask questions, or respond to reports in the media, in the hope of simple enlightenment, and instead get us science-nerd-types spouting all sorts of technical stuff, which may be interesting to us, but switch the average reader right off. I do it myself all the time; someone like jethro makes an interesting observation and, before you know it, we're back into a huge discussion of the technicalities again.

The challenge, then, is to bridge the gap between these two 'camps'. To encourage the 'average joe' to pursue a little bit of the technical detail, whilst also encouraging the 'sciency-types' to try and avoid too much information overload. I include myself in this, in particular: I am far too inclined to assume that other members will find what I find interesting of use to them too.

One difficulty in all this is that the technicalities are quite important, especially when people disagree about the 'meaning' of something about GW or AGW; it's natural tendency to try to make one's point by providing the evidence. But, now, I don't think it helps much.

So, here is a question for those of you who are interested/concerned/confused about GW/AGW and what is happening with the weather/climate: would you prefer to read simple (and probably contradictory) replies, or do you find the technical discussions at all enlightening/interesting? Please respond, because I think this is important.

Regards,

:)P

[saint]

there is definatly overhype on global warming

saint

[parmenides3]

there is definatly overhype on global warming

saint

Do you mean that you think GW is exaggerated, or that too much is attributed to it?

:)P

[saint]

Do you mean that you think GW is exaggerated, or that too much is attributed to it?

P

it is definatly exaggerated

saint

[parmenides3]

How much warmer do you think the world is going to get, then, or do you think it will stop getting warmer and cool down again?

[saint]

How much warmer do you think the world is going to get, then, or do you think it will stop getting warmer and cool down again?

it might stop getting warmer but er you have confused me again p

saint

[cyclonic happiness]

The planet is warming up, that is indesputable, but i don't believe it's caused by humans. What i really believe is that the hype has been created by various parties that have only seen pound signs in their eyes and couldn't really care less whether the arctic melts or not! I think that the earth's climate is just wobbling back to it's pre-ice age defaut, after all, we are still in the last throws of the last ice age, so you'd expert a warm up!

[parmenides3]

What you are suggesting is that the AGW hypothesis has been made up by people who thought they would make some money from it, and supported by a vast conspiracy of scientists and institutions. Why would they do that? Where's the profit in making a false claim? Where are all the millionaire scientists?

What do you mean by the 'pre-ice-age default'? Do you mean the last interstadial, or some earlier period? What was the world like then?

If this was the case, we wouldn't be seeing change at the rate it has been going on recently; there is no precedent for it. Likewise, the physical and chemical reactions which result in CO2 'warming' the atmosphere are not theories, inasmuch as they have been tested and proven. We also know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be, because it has been measured. So AGW is, as the IPCC says, 'unequivocal'.

Good try, though.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

What you are suggesting is that the AGW hypothesis has been made up by people who thought they would make some money from it, and supported by a vast conspiracy of scientists and institutions. Why would they do that? Where's the profit in making a false claim? Where are all the millionaire scientists?

I'm not suggesting that there's a conspiracy, as such, but there is certainly some money to be made if one accepts that AGW is a real (and dangerous)phenomenon. Scientists don't have to become millionaires, but to have a job that pays well and is secure is always a good thing...

What do you mean by the 'pre-ice-age default'? Do you mean the last interstadial, or some earlier period? What was the world like then?

There may not be some kind of "Perfect Climate", but it does logically follow that if an Ice Age is brought about by some outside factor (or factors) then the subsequent warmup would take us back to some Pre-Ice Age climate (at least in the absence of the initial outside factor).

If this was the case, we wouldn't be seeing change at the rate it has been going on recently; there is no precedent for it. Likewise, the physical and chemical reactions which result in CO2 'warming' the atmosphere are not theories, inasmuch as they have been tested and proven. We also know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be, because it has been measured. So AGW is, as the IPCC says, 'unequivocal'.

I'm not going to go into details, firstly because this has been discussed before and secondly because this is a non-technical thread, but there is ample evidence for there having been warmups as rapid as the present one (if not faster) in the historic record (Vostok Ice Core being example number one).

The basic principle that CO₂ causes warming is indisputable, but an environment as complex as our planet makes it much harder to make definitive statements about the degree to which CO₂ is to blame. There is even some dispute over the historic records of CO₂, such as the suggestion that Ice Core measurements of CO₂ may be out (too low) by a potentially substantial amount. (To the best of my knowledge nobody has been able to refute these suggestions.)

As for AGW being irrefutable, I suppose it is if one oversimplifies the case in that way...

CB

(It can be proven that my granny has legs - my table has legs - therefore my granny is a table...!)

Edited August 11, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Stratos Ferric]

The planet is warming up, that is indesputable, but i don't believe it's caused by humans. What i really believe is that the hype has been created by various parties that have only seen pound signs in their eyes and couldn't really care less whether the arctic melts or not! I think that the earth's climate is just wobbling back to it's pre-ice age defaut, after all, we are still in the last throws of the last ice age, so you'd expert a warm up!

If you're going to apply that argument then it becomes like an argument about who owns the Falklands. It rather depends on what scale you choose to look and how far you choose to go back. Yes, climate always changes; what the "natural" change loby might explain is why the sudden acceleration in the warming if this is just a normal reflex?

[snowsure]

If you're going to apply that argument then it becomes like an argument about who owns the Falklands. It rather depends on what scale you choose to look and how far you choose to go back. Yes, climate always changes; what the "natural" change loby might explain is why the sudden acceleration in the warming if this is just a normal reflex?

I reckon that when we find the first signs of extra terrestrial life we will quickly find other signs. Likewise with GW; we are looking more for these changes thus the forcing is perhaps one of extra vigilance rather than solely anthropogenic emissions.

However I still believe in climate change rather than Global Warming.

[cyclonic happiness]

What you are suggesting is that the AGW hypothesis has been made up by people who thought they would make some money from it, and supported by a vast conspiracy of scientists and institutions. Why would they do that? Where's the profit in making a false claim? Where are all the millionaire scientists?

What do you mean by the 'pre-ice-age default'? Do you mean the last interstadial, or some earlier period? What was the world like then?

If this was the case, we wouldn't be seeing change at the rate it has been going on recently; there is no precedent for it. Likewise, the physical and chemical reactions which result in CO2 'warming' the atmosphere are not theories, inasmuch as they have been tested and proven. We also know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there used to be, because it has been measured. So AGW is, as the IPCC says, 'unequivocal'.

Good try, though.

:)P

There are too many variables involved in the climate to be sure of how the human CO2 input could really affect AGW. And what if, by us withdrawing are emmisions of CO2 from the equation, we inadvertantly cause an ice age which our output of CO2 had preveously been holding off?! After all, we are due for another ice age! And as for the millionaire scientists, i think you'll find that there are plenty out there that are FUNDED by millionaires who may ask then to look into ways to use their research to make gains in one way or another. All i'm saying is, if you look for something hard enough, you'll find it or at least the nearest thing! So all the governments have lept onto the global warming band wagon and hey presto! suddenly we are starting to get stealth taxes snook in right, left and centre.

[Devonian]

There are too many variables involved in the climate to be sure of how the human CO2 input could really affect AGW.

Actually, the effect due to CO2 can be calculated quite easily - most people would agree that a doubling of CO2 will cause, in of itself, 1-1.5C warming.

And what if, by us withdrawing are emmisions of CO2 from the equation, we inadvertantly cause an ice age which our output of CO2 had preveously been holding off?!

Hang on, one minute you doubt the role of CO2 the next you ask if stopping emissions of CO2 might cause an ice age...

After all, we are due for another ice age!

So, now you do know all the variables involved?

And as for the millionaire scientists, i think you'll find that there are plenty out there that are FUNDED by millionaires who may ask then to look into ways to use their research to make gains in one way or another.

Are there (climatologists)? Like who?

All i'm saying is, if you look for something hard enough, you'll find it or at least the nearest thing! So all the governments have lept onto the global warming band wagon and hey presto! suddenly we are starting to get stealth taxes snook in right, left and centre.

If I had a penny for each time someone has mentioned tax and AGW in the same post I'd be very wealthy indeed...

Edited August 11, 2007 by Devonian

[Hiya]

Actually, the effect due to CO2 can be calculated quite easily - most people would agree that a doubling of CO2 will cause, in of itself, 1-1.5C warming.

Hang on, one minute you doubt the role of CO2 the next you ask if stopping emissions of CO2 might cause an ice age...

So, now you do know all the variables involved?

Are there (climatologists)? Like who?

If I had a penny for each time someone has mentioned tax and AGW in the same post I'd be very wealthy indeed...

Out of curiosity can you put this in context, ie what was the original concentration?

[Devonian]

Out of curiosity can you put this in context, ie what was the original concentration?

Of CO2? Well, pre industry, about 280ppm.

Historic context here.

Edited August 11, 2007 by Devonian

[cyclonic happiness]

Actually, the effect due to CO2 can be calculated quite easily - most people would agree that a doubling of CO2 will cause, in of itself, 1-1.5C warming.

Hang on, one minute you doubt the role of CO2 the next you ask if stopping emissions of CO2 might cause an ice age...

So, now you do know all the variables involved?

Are there (climatologists)? Like who?

If I had a penny for each time someone has mentioned tax and AGW in the same post I'd be very wealthy indeed...

But how long has it taken us to supposedly build up the extra CO2 in the atmosphere? 200 years not long in the scheme of things but to us, a very long time. So if the human input of CO2 has caused the planet to warm up then why are we now meddling again to try and put it right when we cannot be sure it would make any difference? No-one knows all the variables so how can we make a decision about what to do?

Dodgy scientists/climatologists? dunno, maybe it's the terminal cynism that has been forced onto society by the hundereds of scares we have to put up with every year. i must admit, that comment i made was a bit flippant

And to you last point. Well i am very cynical about anything anyone gets up to when they reach that level of power, but it just goes to show how many people are thinking the same thing. you cannot honestly tell me that there will be no 'fleecing' of jo public, by the government, over so called "green " taxes?

[Hiya]

Of CO2? Well, pre industry, about 280ppm.

Historic context here.

so from 280ppm to 560ppm will cause a rise of 1 to 1.5*C?

[Devonian]

so from 280ppm to 560ppm will cause a rise of 1 to 1.5*C?

I think so, it's all somewhere on Real Climate. . That is, there is a warming effect of that figure due to doubled CO2 but we're still a long way from that!

Incidentally, the climate sensitivity to doubling CO2 is thought to be 3C (but, of course, climate sensitivity includes feedbacks).

Edited August 11, 2007 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

So, here is a question for those of you who are interested/concerned/confused about GW/AGW and what is happening with the weather/climate: would you prefer to read simple (and probably contradictory) replies, or do you find the technical discussions at all enlightening/interesting? Please respond, because I think this is important.

Regards,

:)P

Hi P3: The asking of WHY? does not necessarily constitute an opposing view although you would think so judging by quite a few responses to my own questions. As someone who is able to understand the concepts if not some of the details of the technical discussions I am learning. as I am sure others are too.

Questions are a part of learning and although an expert may of answered them a hundred times before I believe it does you good P3 :lol: I also believe that sometimes a lack of understanding can actually help find answers as we may ask an expert something that makes them think a bit deeper or even a question that has not been posed before? Its interesting that the guy who invented the steam engine was not the one that perfected it but his student, the one I guess who asked the daft questions.

Its relatively easy for a scientist or someone with technical knowledge to put complex arguments or explanations forward, but far more difficult to put across a complex argument in simple terms to the man on the street. It is an art in itself to be able to explain in this way and quite often where the experts fail, and simply by announcing how uneducated the questioner is, is really nothing more than a bad teacher telling his class of students they are thick! I have experienced this a lot on here (not you P3).

To me it is a key part of the AGW theorists job to deliver their message to the masses in an understandable way and not just to suggest you except what you are told by the great white coated experts. I am not impressed by media hype type message delivery, simply I think that many of the AGW camp (including the government) have been quite happy to ride this horse without doing too much to get off. With a projected slow down in short term warming I think this is a dangerous route to take and one which might caused problems with a few average summers or Winters.

Just to add a couple more things, I think that human nature does suggest a lot of pressure on Scientists to conform to the general way of thinking and pier pressure exists within this community as it does any other. It would be a brave young scientist indeed who approached the IPCC or Government with a differing view and he/she would find it far more difficult to be heard then if supporting the general consensus. Sorry but I just think this is and has always been the case with scientific theories.

Lastly on Models: A very simplistic argument against model projections for me is if you look at composite data and see 2 trends similar in fashion like CO2 increases over the past 50 yrs and Ozone depletion over the same period they will look graphically similar. When programing the model you have to decide how much weight to give these factors and if you decide you don't know that much about Ozone but you know CO2 is a GHG and attribute most of the warming to that. When you run the model for historic purposes you would recreate the past reasonable accurately even if Ozone played a far greater role, the warming trend would then continue into the future attributed to CO2 and Ozone replenishment would not effect this. I am not saying this is not true but am saying that as Ozone in its current state has not been observed before its effects are not fully understood and therefore it may not carry the correct weighting within current models.