Overhype on global warming

[parmenides3]

Hi, HP: thanks for the intelligent and considered response. I think the job of the scientists would be a lot easier if there hadn't been a sustainted campaign of disinformation for many years, aimed at muddying the issue and confusing people, as well as casting doubt on the honesty of the people who do the work. Without all of this, we might be less inclined to imagine that scientists make a living from 'going with the flow', whereas the truth is that the big reputations are normally made by people who prove everyone else wrong, or discover something totally original to say. These are few and far between. Almost all scientists are people who have chosen a difficult and unrewarding career path to pursue personal academic passions in spite of the obstacles put in their way. Almost none are charlatans, liars or cheats, as those who are get thrown out of the 'club' pretty sharpish.

I'm not sure what to make of your comment about riding the wave of media hype; I suspect most scientists would agree with me that the media makes their job harder, not easier, because of all the exaggeration and misinformation it produces. A lot of scientists don't deal with the media at all, which is why I spend a fair bit of effort on my blog publicising papers which are otherwise ignored. Whilst I won't disagree that a 'maverick' would find support and funding from the 'machine' harder, this is true for all disciplines, not just climate science, or science in general.

If the models worked on the basis of simple correlations such as the one you use, they would be weak indeed. The number of interconnections and variables they consider is generally quite large, the processes ridiculously complex, and any borderline stuff is given very careful consideration. I don't hink its just you, but I do think there is a tendency to underestimate the sophistication and complexity of the exercise of climate modelling. But climate models are run on supercomputers with unimaginable fast processing speeds and huge capacities. If they were so simple, why would they need all that capacity?

From your answer, it sounds as if you, personally, like the 'technical' replies; is this right? Whatever your answer, thanks for responding; as yet, noone else has bothered. Which is a shame, because it makes a difference to what will work to help people understand the issue better.

:)P

[HighPressure]

From your answer, it sounds as if you, personally, like the 'technical' replies; is this right? Whatever your answer, thanks for responding; as yet, noone else has bothered. Which is a shame, because it makes a difference to what will work to help people understand the issue better.

:)P

Yes Please P3 keep it technical with an attached idiots guide if at all possible

When it comes to media I would like to see more stories about global impacts of climate change and less about regional weather events. Although this might be difficult this shift would enable the subject to stay topical even if we see pretty average weather for a few years. I believe this could be influenced by the IPCC and Governments if they really wanted too?

As for models I fully except their complexity but they are still only a product of values and formulas initially worked out on current understanding. I keep coming back to Ozone like a dog with a bone even the most pro AGW supporters cannot fully explain the effects of its depletion on warming or know with any certainty its effects as it replenishes.

Cheers P3, but I am sticking with my Ozone

[disco-barry]

What is really amusing me now is how it is becoming the latest gold rush to get to reserves in the Arctic because the ice is melting, how long before others such as ourselves join this gold rush? incredibly hypocritical it almost makes me feel they want to appear they care but on the other sly hand they want it to happen.

[parmenides3]

Technical, with an attached idiot's guide; you're not asking for much, are you HP? On Ozone, there's a new paper on the subject with regards to the poles in GRL. It suggest that ozone depletion has a much stronger impact on polar temperatures than the underlying GW trend during the Summer months (2 or 3 times greather). This might be useful for weather buffs, as we may be able to use ozone conditions and forecasts to help improve the skill of medium range weather forecasting, if only a little bit.

disco barry: unfortunately, the UK can't play this game, as we don't have any land mass adjacent to the Arctic Ocean, so instead, I'm sure we'll be holier-than-thou about it...

OTOH, we do still have the Falklands, and a solid claim to parts of the Antarctic, so we might not miss out completely on the oil bonanza which could arrive a few year after half of us has floated off to Norway in our homes...

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

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.

Well, you know me, P3 - I'm a big fan of technobabble! On the other hand, I think there can be much to gain from the less technical discussions, but as the discussions get more involved (and involving) one tends to find that the technical talk creeps in more and more. This can make it extremely difficult to have a satisfying non-technical discussion.

On the whole I think we could all benefit from more of the non-technical chats, but we shouldn't flinch or become upset when the conversation becomes more technical (but even the techie talks could do without some of the jargon, for everyone's benefit!).

CB

If the models worked on the basis of simple correlations such as the one you use, they would be weak indeed. The number of interconnections and variables they consider is generally quite large, the processes ridiculously complex, and any borderline stuff is given very careful consideration. I don't hink its just you, but I do think there is a tendency to underestimate the sophistication and complexity of the exercise of climate modelling. But climate models are run on supercomputers with unimaginable fast processing speeds and huge capacities. If they were so simple, why would they need all that capacity?

If I could refer you to my answer on the Sceptic Links Discussion thread, where we have been recently discussing the models.

When we talk about the models being "Simple" we are not suggesting that a 4-year-old child could have made them. Obviously the climate models are extremely complicated (though not, it has been pointed out, as complex as weather forecasting models), but they are still, despite their complexity, simplified models - that is to say that they are substantially simpler than the actual climate system.

I don't think HP was suggesting that climate models are as simple as all that - the Ozone/CO₂ example was, again, simplified.

CB

Edited August 12, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[parmenides3]

Fair enough, C-Bob, but I wouldn't want people going away with the impression that climate models are total crud because they don't include important data, as this would be false. I'll take a look at that other thread, now.

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

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?

Two hundred years isn't very long at all in the geological scheme of things, and that latter scheme runs to milions of years - time enough for the system to develop steadily and towards a reasonably predictable disequilibrium and dynamism. In far less than the 200 years we've been increasing carbon load (and this is NOT linear by the way, it is disproportionately skewed to the last fifty or so) we have also loaded rivers and lakes with gender impacting hormones that are permamently harming fish and other species in the food chain, we have wiped out large swathes of forest in N Europe and Eurasia with acid rain, and we have polluted many watercourses rendering the sterile and unihabitable. This latter, in fact, has been turned around to dramatic effect in the UK, one of the definite upsides of the privatisation and regulation of the water industry in the UK. The point is, it IS possible to intervene to correct man induced distortions of natural systems.

Can we be sure that interventions we make now will return our climate from whither it came? No, for a couple of reasons: first up there's a very long lag in the system; second up, given thatlag we might tip the system beyond a point of no return (until some other forcing comes along). Is that reason for doing nothing - I would argue not. The one way of ensuring that we continue to warm is to sit on our hands and hope.

As an aside I am relentlessly saddened by the group of people who seem to argue against GW because of the potential consequences to themselves in terms of tax. Does anyone argue against progressive development in health care because it will require funding in future? In any case, this is NOT a zero sum. If taxation is what it takes to correct something which, otherwise, might have dire consequences which are far more costly, then would some taxation be a bad thing?

Well, you know me, P3 - I'm a big fan of technobabble! On the other hand, I think there can be much to gain from the less technical discussions, but as the discussions get more involved (and involving) one tends to find that the technical talk creeps in more and more. This can make it extremely difficult to have a satisfying non-technical discussion.

On the whole I think we could all benefit from more of the non-technical chats, but we shouldn't flinch or become upset when the conversation becomes more technical (but even the techie talks could do without some of the jargon, for everyone's benefit!).

CB

If I could refer you to my answer on the Sceptic Links Discussion thread, where we have been recently discussing the models.

When we talk about the models being "Simple" we are not suggesting that a 4-year-old child could have made them. Obviously the climate models are extremely complicated (though not, it has been pointed out, as complex as weather forecasting models), but they are still, despite their complexity, simplified models - that is to say that they are substantially simpler than the actual climate system.

I don't think HP was suggesting that climate models are as simple as all that - the Ozone/CO₂ example was, again, simplified.

CB

Models of the economy, such as the Treasury model, are also gross implifications, but they do tend to land the numbers in the ball park.

Do not suppose that simplification and precision are linearly correlated factors. If I wanted, say, to know how quickly two people might run a 100m, I could consider any of: fitness, training, physique, clothing, footwear, weather, wind, surface...over time I could build up a fantastic database to allow me to predict quite accurately how quickly somebody might run it would also become clear that some factors were more important than others. Weight and fitness, say, would be the two best indicators.

Yes, the atmosphere IS complex, but general fluxes would be modelable. Converting these to specifics of weather at any moment is, though, clearly futile.

[Thundery wintry showers]

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

I think the term 'global warming' has acquired a lot of negative baggage because of the associations with human activity. In fact, I see nothing wrong at all with the use of the phrase, as it accurately describes current climate change (i.e. the globe, as a whole, is getting warmer). That's probably why many members refer to "AGW" rather than just "GW".

I'm also rather aggravated by the short-sightedness of some of the groups wanting to make use of the Arctic for coal, gas, oil etc. Firstly it may have negative environmental effects on the landscape. Secondly, if human fossil fuel emissions have contributed to warming which in turn accentuated the Arctic melt (which seems likely), won't utilising the Arctic's resources help to increase the time period for which we can continue to burn fossil fuels- and thus accentuate the current trend? Madness. I actually agree with the 'denialists' here that it's not certain, but on the other hand, it's a huge risk to be taking.

As for the taxation, I can see it as a logical argument as to why people don't want to make changes, but it's not a good argument to use as a basis for denying that human activity may be significantly impacting upon global climate. In sciences we need to get as close to the real truth as possible, using substantiated evidence and facts.

[snowsure]

I think the term 'global warming' has acquired a lot of negative baggage because of the associations with human activity. In fact, I see nothing wrong at all with the use of the phrase, as it accurately describes current climate change (i.e. the globe, as a whole, is getting warmer). That's probably why many members refer to "AGW" rather than just "GW".

Hi TWS

Certainly global warming as an identification tag has negative associations but it is also, for some pedants, misleading. I feel that whilst the GMST is increasing, not all areas of the globe are warming. This is the fuel for the denialists in my opinion. "Climate change" is a more easy-to-embrace tag that is more able to withstand rebuttal.

[laserguy]

Calm down,dears! This argument could and indeed will,go on forever because people have already decided from the outset which camp they're in and practically nothing is going to change that. Whenever someone comes up with an irrefutable bit of data the 'other side' responds immediately with another bit of irrefutable data to counter it. And on it goes. What IS for certain though and is equally applicable to both points of view is that the tax payer is going to get hammered.

Now I've covered this before (and received a lot of near hysterical and abusive backlash for it),but I am firmly of the opinion that any sentence which contains the words 'government','scientist',and 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming') isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Governments and scientists DO have a vested interest. Governments because of the looming energy crisis over fossil fuel depletion,(and the convenience of having a new tax revenue source) and scientists (how many tens of thousands of them does it take to keep coming to the same conclusion) because they've got a nice secure job on the back of all this.

Ice ages come and go along with their attendant interglacials. What's new or odd about that? Yes I appreciate that the RATE of change is something else but there are many,many voices trying to be heard who seem to me to have perfectly valid explanations as to why this could be down to influences beyond our control. Please don't ask me to provide links,they're not exactly thin on the ground! The Government hype(that's what this thread is about) and brainwashing of recent years though has led 'the man in the street' to believe that what they are being told is the be all and end all and that there is no other possible explanation of what's going on,if indeed any thing is going on that's not normal. Extreme weather events,whatever the nature of them are nothing new. Oh for a winter of '47 or '63, or maybe a summer like '76 etc.

As I've already said somewhere before,Governments and scientists should,if they sincerely believe all they are saying,be making plans right now to DEAL WITH the anticipated effects,not keep telling us ad infinitum that we're killing the planet. WE'VE HEARD YOU,ALRIGHT?!

Yes I've heard the voices saying that we shouldn't be gambling with an unknown and that it wouldn't hurt to play safe etc,but for the record I do generally walk to my destination where possible,I'm frugal with energy consumption,don't take foreign holidays, (the ones I do take are restricted to camping ones!) etc,etc. What else would they like me to do,go live in a cave perhaps,only emerging to walk ten miles to work in order to to make some extravagant types even richer and earn money to pay an increased tax which will be diverted to bombing a few camel herders in the Middle East in a dispute over yep you guessed it...fossil fuels!

Over and above all this,and I mean this perfectly seriously,so what if the world temperature does increase by Xdegrees over X many decades? Listen up folks,it's no good running around like headless chickens shouting "we're doomed" repeatedly. Personally it would be a disaster for me because I hate warm weather( it's about 20C now and I'm uncomfortable),so MY solution would be to clear off,if possible. I believe (and boy didn't some of you get upset!),that ultimately we are heading for a cooldown in the very near future,but whatever happens,be it extreme cold,intolerable heat and drought,mega violent storms or whatever,we have to ADAPT.

Considering Western civilisation's insatiable,voracious appetite for and complete dependance on fossil fuels,that's going to be a pretty tall order unless you as an individual are prepared to kiss goodbye to your way of life as you know it. Let's hope the world does warm up instead of cool down otherwise we would then be REALLY up the creek without a paddle when the oil has gone and we're left with no means of protecting ourselves from the frigid blasts!

[parmenides3]

Some interesting and valid comments there, laserguy, if perhaps a touch polemical in tone at times.

Main reason I'm responding is your last para. Newest model product from Hadley - ten year thingy - suggests a cool-down/slow down of warming for a couple of years, before a warm up after 2010. Actually, I'm sur[rised no-one else has picked up on this, as it gives the rampers something to get excited about. Oh. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that last bit...

:)P

[laserguy]

Some interesting and valid comments there, laserguy, if perhaps a touch polemical in tone at times.

Main reason I'm responding is your last para. Newest model product from Hadley - ten year thingy - suggests a cool-down/slow down of warming for a couple of years, before a warm up after 2010. Actually, I'm sur[rised no-one else has picked up on this, as it gives the rampers something to get excited about. Oh. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that last bit...

P

Actually P3,it was ribster who mentioned the anticipated plateau of temp over the next two years. I did comment on it and as expected someone rubbished my reply,but I've come to expect that. Glad you liked at least parts of my posting!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Models of the economy, such as the Treasury model, are also gross implifications, but they do tend to land the numbers in the ball park.

Out of interest (if you'll forgive the unintentional pun), how similar are Economic models and Climate models in terms of their complexity? And are the Economic models as comparatively "simple" as the Climate models?

Do not suppose that simplification and precision are linearly correlated factors.

I would never make that supposition, but models of different things (like the difference between Economic models and Climate models) will not have the same correlation between simplification and precision. A simplified economic model may well show a far greater degree of precision than a similarly simplified climate model - it is like comparing apples and oranges...they're both fruit, but of quite different types.

If I wanted, say, to know how quickly two people might run a 100m, I could consider any of: fitness, training, physique, clothing, footwear, weather, wind, surface...over time I could build up a fantastic database to allow me to predict quite accurately how quickly somebody might run it would also become clear that some factors were more important than others. Weight and fitness, say, would be the two best indicators.

Yes, but if you were unable to accurately ascertain a person's weight or fitness level (hypothetically, of course!) then you'd find it far harder to make any kind of definitive predictions. And if you hadn't even considered, say, the surface they were running on, or you had the presupposition that different surfaces made little difference to the time taken to run 100m, then you'd have an even harder time of it.

The atmosphere IS complex, but general fluxes would be modelable. Converting these to specifics of weather at any moment is, though, clearly futile.

Would "general fluxes" be modelable? How can you be sure that you haven't overlooked (or wrongly attributed) something that is of significance to those fluxes?

CB

[snowsure]

... but I am firmly of the opinion that any sentence which contains the words 'government','scientist',and 'climate change' (formerly known as 'global warming') isn't worth the paper it's printed on. Governments and scientists DO have a vested interest. Governments because of the looming energy crisis over fossil fuel depletion,(and the convenience of having a new tax revenue source) and scientists (how many tens of thousands of them does it take to keep coming to the same conclusion) because they've got a nice secure job on the back of all this.

Our government decided to react over the threat from terrorism by deploying troops (and loadsaresources) to foreign lands as well as funding anti-terrorism resources in this country.

If our government really (and I mean really )believed that climate change is a threat to us, I would expect them to deploy our money to effect a solution. For example I would expect them to make the new generation of small co2 emission cars available to all people in this country at an affordable price via some type of government subsidy. Instead we have to make the choices. I am not able to afford a new low emission £15k+ car so I act where I can to have less ecological impact whilst driving my 2003 Saab estate. I will also have to pay the new green taxes (whatever they are!) so it looks as though someone is profiting from the hysteria regarding the impending doom.

I assume that capitalism is not a good vehicle for dealing with a society wide problem!

[HighPressure]

I don't think HP was suggesting that climate models are as simple as all that - the Ozone/CO₂ example was, again, simplified.

CB

Hi CB

Yes I was referring to models in very simplistic terms and I will simplify still further:

Rubbish in = Rubbish out on all the super computers you care to name!

Some of the data and formula used in climate models are assumptions based on limited understanding and study. The argument that we understand the main or significant factors behind climate does not wash for me as that which is not understood cannot be determined. Many small seemingly insignificant things are catalysts we cannot rule this out of climate change.

I don't say the models are rubbish but do think that they only show the limit of current understanding and projections towards a 100 yrs seem ludicrous to me. I will accept that the 10yr models do look a lot more plausible even if some natural forcings are not correctly modelled.

I am not a denialist, GW/AGW is a real problem and action is sensible, but on the other hand I am not an alarmist!

[Stormraider]

Global Warming is a natural thing... It will happen no matter what the world population does. The last Ice Age was caused by global warming... Freshwater from the Icecaps melting into Sea water... thus changing ocean currents. Anyone with an ounce of brain power can work that one out!

The government insist we are to blame and should pay for it... in more ways than one. What about the gases from cows/pigs/sheep etc... best not tell the government as they would try and get them to pay tax too lol.

Anyway, like i said... its a natural thing, The records the scientists and government go by are from the last 75-100 years or so... so its not very accurate. We get a few hot or wet days out of season and its like a mini panic... ooo ooo its global warming... TOTAL TOSH!!!! You cannot go by 100 year old records and say the world is heating up and its going to get much worse if we dont become 'greener' cut Co2 emissions etc.

What about the last time the world warmed up? Man was living in caves and Co2 emissions were marginal compared to what we have today. Man survived the last ice age... he is more than capable of surviving the next one.

[parmenides3]

Stormraider, rather than go back over material which has been covered quite a few times on NW threads, can I suggest that you take a look at some of the archived Environmental stuff, where you'll find plenty of discussion about what you have just writte,

Regards,

:)P

[laserguy]

Captain bobski,Snowsure,HighPressure and Stormraider. At last,sense spoken here. In My Opinion,of course!

[Stormraider]

Stormraider, rather than go back over material which has been covered quite a few times on NW threads, can I suggest that you take a look at some of the archived Environmental stuff, where you'll find plenty of discussion about what you have just writte,

Regards,

:)P

Hey well who made you forum leader? lol

Dont worry, im just airing my opinion, not got time to sift through all the threads ya know lol.

[Devonian]

Global Warming is a natural thing... It will happen no matter what the world population does. The last Ice Age was caused by global warming... Freshwater from the Icecaps melting into Sea water... thus changing ocean currents. Anyone with an ounce of brain power can work that one out!

The government insist we are to blame and should pay for it... in more ways than one. What about the gases from cows/pigs/sheep etc... best not tell the government as they would try and get them to pay tax too lol.

Anyway, like i said... its a natural thing, The records the scientists and government go by are from the last 75-100 years or so... so its not very accurate. We get a few hot or wet days out of season and its like a mini panic... ooo ooo its global warming... TOTAL TOSH!!!! You cannot go by 100 year old records and say the world is heating up and its going to get much worse if we dont become 'greener' cut Co2 emissions etc.

What about the last time the world warmed up? Man was living in caves and Co2 emissions were marginal compared to what we have today. Man survived the last ice age... he is more than capable of surviving the next one.

I'm sorry, but stating it to be natural or to do with cows/pigs/sheep doesn't make it so imo. No, to convince someone like me you'll actually need to present some evidence for your case else you'll only convince those who want you to be right. Kind of like the law, simply say 'guilty' isn't, thankfully, enough anymore.

Edited August 12, 2007 by Devonian

[snowsure]

And are the Economic models as comparatively "simple" as the Climate models?

I would never make that supposition, but models of different things (like the difference between Economic models and Climate models) will not have the same correlation between simplification and precision.

Can I recommend a book called "Critical Mass" by Phillip Ball? (http://www.philipball.com/ ) He noticed many similarities between economic and scientific models.

Hard work to read so it must be a good book in my opinion!

[Devonian]

Hi CB

Yes I was referring to models in very simplistic terms and I will simplify still further:

Rubbish in = Rubbish out on all the super computers you care to name!

I live near Exeter, I know the Met Office quite well. I suggest we arrange to meet there so I can watch while you tell the people at Hadley where they're going wrong :lol: .

here's a useful BBC backgrounder on climate models.

[HighPressure]

I live near Exeter, I know the Met Office quite well. I suggest we arrange to meet there so I can watch while you tell the people at Hadley where they're going wrong :lol: .

here's a useful BBC backgrounder on climate models.

Dev: Lets not go there, I have worked with models on a daily basis and I have had direct daily contact with the duty met office forecasters. If my statement is incorrect like you say to others provide evidence to state where it is factual wrong?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Can I recommend a book called "Critical Mass" by Phillip Ball? (http://www.philipball.com/ ) He noticed many similarities between economic and scientific models.

Hard work to read so it must be a good book in my opinion!

Thanks for that, snowsure

That's what I like - an honest answer to an honest question! I shall certainly look out for it.

Cheers.

CB

[parmenides3]

Hey well who made you forum leader? lol

Dont worry, im just airing my opinion, not got time to sift through all the threads ya know lol.

In that case, I've not got time to repeat what has been said a hundred times before. RTFR. have an opinion, sure; but why not have an opinion based on some knowledge?

:)P