Runaway Global warming

[West is Best]

The 'proof', if you allow inductive reasoning, already exists in spades. OTOH, all attempts at 'disproof' have failed, mostly miserably. If AGW was such a 'sheky' hypothesis, surely soemone clever would have falsified it by now? Gioven the vast financial incentives offered to find such a disproof, the failure to do so is further evidence in support of the hypothesis; IOW; if a hypothesis is tested and the result of the test is that it remains robust, then this enhances its credibility; this is science.

This doesn't strike me as a very strong argument. There have been a lot of holes knocked in the AGW thesis (which is all it is don't forget). There comes a point when a bucket has so many holes in it that it ceases to look like a bucket at all. I'm not suggesting that's the case with the AGW thesis, but there are certainly problems with it, large ones at that.

Let's stop arguing about whether it is happening or not. Assume it is and do your bit to make the world a slightly better place.

Back to that business of not being allowed to think, let alone question, the thesis anymore. It's just that sort of thing that is bringing the AGW debate into such disrepute.

And, yes, I do my bit to be green.

[Essan]

On the other hand, suppose it's all bunk? Most of the things we should do to prevent GW make sense even if GW isn't happening ...... It's a win win situation!

[Iceberg]

Ignoring all the barbed comments around the fact that everything is the fault of people that generally think the AGW theory is correct.

It's not the sceptical POV or the questioning that paint sceptics in a bad light with mainstream science, it's the half truths, dodgy graphs and total inaccuracies which provide the bad light, that and the fact that they rarely back anything up with sound science. We've been here before though.

There are few people on either side of the argument with P3's patience, I am certainly not one of them.

I am sure there was a post there I was responding too two mins ago. ?

[Bobby]

I have no conscience whatsoever about being very (and unfortunately increasingly further) sceptical of AGW, especially in the light of the rather superior and moralistic stance taken by some of its supporters.

I don't understand why the character of supporters of AGW has anything to do with whether they are right or not? No matter how "superior" or "moralistic" people may be, it doesn't have anything to do with the actual science. The science is either right or wrong, no matter what the person saying or doing it is like. Don't shoot the messenger as they say.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I agree Magpie.

If people can't discuss a topic without bringing personality issues into things, either the thread will be locked, or the poster will have posting rights suspended. I am sick and tired of threads going round and round in circles because people claim they're being victimised, or because they're lauding someone who simply happens to have the same point of view.

[Iceberg]

Ok to be a bit fair sided since the other post has gone.

The fault on the pro AGW side is the stupid way that everything is associated with AGW nowadays by the press and the politicians. This gives a very misleading view of AGW. Science needs to be a little more unfocused as well with less papaers constantly quoting AGW.

[Paul]

This is the first post in this thread:

Quite a different angle for you to view this from. Time for some inductive reasoning.

Assume that GW is happening. One of two things will happen as a result; Either we will have runaway GW or GW will cease at some point. So if we are to have runaway GW then, let us face it, we are done for.

However, if we do not have runaway GW then, at some stage, we will have a cooling event. What I wonder is why are we arguing about whether GW is happening when a more valuable argument would be: "Where will we end up?"

This would unify the 2 camps (not a bad thing) and then we can all deal with the future events. Humans do not deal too well with the future. We appear to be a little short sighted.

Personally, I assume this will be too difficult for some people to deal with

Can we keep to this topic please.. There are dozens of other AGW related threads if you don't want to post on this topic, so please find one of those which does relate to what you want to post or start another thread.

It's also apparent that many of the threads in this area of the forum end up sinking to the level of personal digs, this will not be tolerated any further and any post with a personal snide at another member or members within it will be removed.

[Lettucing Gutted]

I mentioned this a few weeks ago but did you know that during the Ordovician period there was an ice age whilst CO2 levels were 8 to 20 times higher than they are now!.

http://www.palaeos.com/Paleozoic/Ordovician/Ordovician.htm

Blimey I have found another Nostradamus on NW .

Could you please tell me will it be a white Xmas and what will Saturdays Lotto numbers be

There was probably a very strong break in the climate system that caused that Ice age - nothing to do with CO2. The break that stopped runaway global warming and caused that ice age doesn't exist anymore.

[Guest Mike W]

Maybe the break was that the Sun was alot younger and weaker in that period of Earth's history, so that no matetr how much CO2 their was, the Earth would have been able to do a neagtive feedback on any warming from it alot easier than now, where it's pretty much looking like it isn't even going to bother trying a negative feedback, it looks like it's going to let the warming carry on and on.

[Bobby]

Maybe the break was that the Sun was alot younger and weaker in that period of Earth's history, so that no matetr how much CO2 their was, the Earth would have been able to do a neagtive feedback on any warming from it alot easier than now, where it's pretty much looking like it isn't even going to bother trying a negative feedback, it looks like it's going to let the warming carry on and on.

The sun is actually hotter now than it has ever been and will continue to get hotter until it collapses several billion years in the future. The rate of warming of the sun though is very very small and certainly isn't to blame for any individual climate events on Earth.

[Admiral_Bobski]

No. We will continue to see a warming trend for as long as we continue to add emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, and then beyond that for several decades at least.

Actually, this isn't strictly true is it? We know that in ideal laboratory conditions there is some relationship between CO2 and temperature. (I don't deny the intrinsic link between CO2 and temperature, I just question the relevance of that link in the real world, you understand. ) We also know that the aforementioned relationship is logarithmic. A logarithmic relationship is similar to the inverse of an exponential relationship, so a logarithmic relationship means that as CO2 increases so temperature increases quite sharply. However, as concentrations of CO2 increase so the effect on temperature decreases, until eventually a doubling of CO2 has little effect on overall temperatures.

Now, assuming that the Earth's atmosphere is like a perfect laboratory setup (it isn't, but we're hypothesising here), we'll reach a point where a significant increase in CO2 isn't going to make any difference to temperatures. I will try to find a link later, but it has been mentioned before that we are close to the point where increases in CO2 will have less and less of an effect on temperatures.

(Note that the above is entirely based upon the idealised relationship between CO2 and temperature, and that what I have said in no way invalidates any of my views or prior points in any way )

The 'proof', if you allow inductive reasoning, already exists in spades. OTOH, all attempts at 'disproof' have failed, mostly miserably. If AGW was such a 'sheky' hypothesis, surely soemone clever would have falsified it by now? Gioven the vast financial incentives offered to find such a disproof, the failure to do so is further evidence in support of the hypothesis; IOW; if a hypothesis is tested and the result of the test is that it remains robust, then this enhances its credibility; this is science.

I was talking about this just the other day on another thread - the problem with AGW is that it can't (as yet) be disproven. In fact, it can't be disproven for much the same reason that it can't be proven - lack of understanding. Most "disproofs" of AGW haven't been so much "disproofs" of the theory as a whole so much as plausible (or sometimes not-so-plausible) alternative explanations for aspects of the theory. Disproving the entire AGW hypothesis is a monumental task, and unlikely to happen anytime soon, but there are many holes being picked in the hypothesis which bring the foundations of it into question.

AGW can not be disassembled, but maybe the carpet can be yanked from underneath it...

CB

[Guest Mike W]

What you said about the sun Magpie is what I was basically saying in that the sun was smaller back then and weaker than now and it's getting bigger, which is what I meant by it was smaller in the past, but I know theirs not that much in it. So yes I agree with you about it being a small player in the warming nowadays, but it must still be a big player, just probably not the biggest in this current warming. 55-70%% our fault and 30-45% Sun's fault.

[Stu_London]

What you said about the sun Magpie is what I was basically saying in that the sun was smaller back then and weaker than now and it's getting bigger, which is what I meant by it was smaller in the past, but I know theirs not that much in it. So yes I agree with you about it being a small player in the warming nowadays, but it must still be a big player, just probably not the biggest in this current warming. 55-70%% our fault and 30-45% Sun's fault.

It was The Sun what won it

[Bobby]

What you said about the sun Magpie is what I was basically saying in that the sun was smaller back then and weaker than now and it's getting bigger, which is what I meant by it was smaller in the past, but I know theirs not that much in it. So yes I agree with you about it being a small player in the warming nowadays, but it must still be a big player, just probably not the biggest in this current warming. 55-70%% our fault and 30-45% Sun's fault.

Sorry, misread your post. Of course the sun is a huge player in our climate, in fact we wouldn't really have one if it wasn't for the sun, but the small increases in the sun's output over a huge period of time wouldn't be rapid enough to cause an individual climate shift, and certainly not the one we are seeing now.

Whether something else to do with the Sun's activity is to blame is another matter, me don't think it's much if anything to do with what's going on now.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Magpie

[Osbourne One-Nil]

This Global Dimming business...all makes sense to me. Is there some way that we could reintroduce particulates into the atmosphere to counteract the effect of CO2 once more? Talcum powder perhaps...sherbet. Has research gone into this?

[laserguy]

This Global Dimming business...all makes sense to me. Is there some way that we could reintroduce particulates into the atmosphere to counteract the effect of CO2 once more? Talcum powder perhaps...sherbet. Has research gone into this?

Apparently,sulphur dioxide crystals up aloft are incredibly effective at reflecting solar radiation...

[Mr Sleet]

Recent research has suggested (again, no certainty) that, following a stabilisation, our climate will stay more or less at the same temperature until the next phase of the Milankovitch cycles kicks in and starts cooling us down because of our relationship to the Sun. The reaearch concludes, however, with the observation that, under some projected scenarios, the extra heat in the system could delay the otherwise expected onset of an ice age by as much as 500,000 years.

:)P

Thats very good news, because a wordwide freeze would be far more damaging than a 3-5C warm up.

I don't think we will enter into runaway warming, and I wouldn't be surprised if global temperatures started trending down in the next few years. I don't believe we have as good a handle on the science as we like to think.

[parmenides3]

Morning, C-Bob. If you're referring to Idso's joke pseudoscientific CO2 graph, there are a few problems with this one. That aside, why should we imagine that the experts can't work all these things out for themselves and include them in their estimates? Oh; they already do.

As you are clearly a rational person, please can you explain to me the reasoning behind the argument that the estimated future warming from CO2 and other human impacts, along with feedbacks, as outlined by the national academies of several nations, of between 2-4.5C this century, might be wrong?

Note; this is less about CO2, (our current favourite subject for debate) and morre about the 'big warming picture'. Basically, I want you to tell me why I should distruct the people who should know better than us. :)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Morning, C-Bob. If you're referring to Idso's joke pseudoscientific CO2 graph, there are a few problems with this one. That aside, why should we imagine that the experts can't work all these things out for themselves and include them in their estimates? Oh; they already do.

What on Earth are you talking about P3? I thought we'd all agreed a long time ago that any relationship between CO2 and temperatures was logarithmic. That being the case, your comment that temperatures would continue to increase as long as we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is clearly inaccurate.

As you are clearly a rational person, please can you explain to me the reasoning behind the argument that the estimated future warming from CO2 and other human impacts, along with feedbacks, as outlined by the national academies of several nations, of between 2-4.5C this century, might be wrong?

It might be wrong (note the word "might") because we don't know all the ins and outs of climate. The projected warming of 2-4.5C is based upon a number of assumptions, not least of which being that we're right about how much of an effect CO2 has in the atmosphere. Since the situation is clearly not as cut and dried as it is in an ideal laboratory then we can't necessarily draw the conclusion that increased CO2 has a similar effect in the real world.

If you want a more in-depth answer then it might be worth reading back over my last 500-odd posts to get a better grasp of my stance.

Note; this is less about CO2, (our current favourite subject for debate) and morre about the 'big warming picture'. Basically, I want you to tell me why I should distruct the people who should know better than us. :)P

If I may be rather cheeky and answer your question with another question - we have had many debates in the past about different aspects of AGW and climate change in general, and you have always been open to new information and even the acceptance of different viewpoints. My question, then, is what has happened in the past month or so that has solidified your views to the extent that you have become dismissive of differing opinions?

This is not intended abusively, or as an ad hom attack, it's just that your last post is one of the most dismissive I have heard from you. We've discussed "trust" issues in science before, and I've made my views perfectly clear, namely that it's not an issue of trust but rather an issue of filtering the objective from the subjective. Not everything that runs counter to the prevailing wisdom is bobbins. Why should we distrust the people who give us these alternate views either?

:lol:

CB

[parmenides3]

Hi C-Bob. Whilst we can agree on the logarithmic relationship (probably), I was specifically referring to a graph posted recently on NW purporting to 'show' that temperature rise from CO2 emissions will not exceed 1C. It was produced by a person called Idso: it is based on an entirely fallacious argument and is, at best, pseudoscientific. The existing 'mainstream' calculations take into account the current understanding of the effect already, so to argue that this could account for an overestimate doesn't hold.

Your comment that it is 'clearly inaccurate' may apply in the strictest sense to the simple effect of CO2 alone, but doesn't take into account all of the feedback effects, including the carbon cycle feedback, which continue even if the direct radiative effect of CO2 stops increasing. It also doesn't take into account the specific timescale I used; for the 'foreseeable future', ie, in the next 100 years or more.

The current range of estimates does include an assumption of the forcing value of CO2, but I don't see why this is problematic; the 'real world' effects you describe are important and do include uncertainties, but again, these are accounted for in the calculations. You are right that we can't necessarily draw the conclusion, but then we need to find some reason why such a conclusion might be false, or even inaccurate; I don't know what that reason might be.

If my last comment sounded dismissive it wasn't intended to be - my bad - but a genuine question; I am not claiming that science knows everything, but on questions relating to science, some people are clearly better placed than us, merely by virtue of their years of training, special expertise, and diligent and methodical research of their own, to both understand the climate system and make judgment calls (or even come to strong conclusions) about what is happening and why. So, my question is; why should we doubt their word? This is not, either, a suggestion that everything is known, or that the science is settled, but it is a suggestion that we, as amateurs, can only touch on ideas which others have a deep understanding of.

In terms of filtering the objective from the subjective, again, it boils down to reason, of which science is the most obvious manifestation in practical terms. If I am open minded, then I should accept any argument which runs counter to the prevailing wisdom, so long as that argument is consistent, logical and founded on accurately presented information and formulae. What I have found over the past couple of months, as my research has led me deeper into the hard scientific core of climate research, is that there is currently no such argument. There are attempts to do it, for example Svensmark or Lindzen, but neither of them actually challenge the core science of AGW, and neither has been shown to explain recent warming.

You ask why we should distrust the people who present alternative views. Disregarding discussions of motive, what is apparent is that, with the notable exception of a very small number of individuals who appear to genuinely want to challenge the AGW hypothesis from a scientific angle, the vast majority, almost all, of what is peddled on the web as 'debunking' of global warming is second-hand, non-scientific, polemical tripe. What is worse is that this tripe appears to actually convince some people. If you have noticed a change in my attitudes over recent weeks, it is not that I am no longer open-minded (at least, I hope I still am), but that I feel that these polemics are malicious and anti-social, and serve one purpose alone, to prevent people from understanding the real science. As a result, people who are otherwise rational and well-meaning are being fooled into thinking that doubts exist where they are merely the slight shadows of technical uncertainty.

As a consequence of this opinion, I have therefore concluded that being easy-going about the rubbish that is often presented as 'science' is not the right way to address the problem. This does not mean that I intend to attack anyone who disagrees with me, but I will lay into false conclusions which are reached from nonexistent 'evidence'. Why? because I am satisfied that enough is known, and enough is 'unequivocal', to conclude that a real danger exists for the future, and this danger will get greater the longer we delay doing anything. This isn't 'catastrophism', but ethical pragmatism.

So, please continue to offer different opinions, and please continue to suggest challenges, and don't think I am dismissive because I have closed my mind to the possibilities. rather, understand that I might have opened my mind to the risks, and have decided to address these risks more robustly.

Hope this help you understand where I am coming from,

:)P

Edited September 17, 2007 by parmenides3

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thanks, P3, for a thorough and honest response - it does indeed clarify where you are coming from. Just a couple of things to say right now (though I'm sure I'll be back later, much to my wife's chagrin!).

Hi C-Bob. Whilst we can agree on the logarithmic relationship (probably), I was specifically referring to a graph posted recently on NW purporting to 'show' that temperature rise from CO2 emissions will not exceed 1C. It was produced by a person called Idso: it is based on an entirely fallacious argument and is, at best, pseudoscientific. The existing 'mainstream' calculations take into account the current understanding of the effect already, so to argue that this could account for an overestimate doesn't hold.

Your comment that it is 'clearly inaccurate' may apply in the strictest sense to the simple effect of CO2 alone, but doesn't take into account all of the feedback effects, including the carbon cycle feedback, which continue even if the direct radiative effect of CO2 stops increasing. It also doesn't take into account the specific timescale I used; for the 'foreseeable future', ie, in the next 100 years or more.

Ah, now I see where your comment came from :lol: I haven't been as active on these boards recently as I have been in the past, so that graph must have passed me by. I was not intending to imply anything as cut and dried as "temps won't exceed 1C", but was pointing out that nor will temperatures continue to increase ad infinitum. Without wishing to get into an unnecessarily complicated discussion about feedbacks, I wonder how significant feedback effects would be once CO2's logarithmic forcing has effectively levelled off.

I must also have misunderstood your post back there, because although you ended the post with the phrase "there won't be a cooldown in the foreseeable future", your first comment ("No. We will continue to see a warming trend for as long as we continue to add emissions into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate, and then beyond that for several decades at least.") suggested no such timescale. I was, therefore, replying to this first comment which implies continued increase as long as we emit CO2. If I misunderstood then I apologise.

The current range of estimates does include an assumption of the forcing value of CO2, but I don't see why this is problematic; the 'real world' effects you describe are important and do include uncertainties, but again, these are accounted for in the calculations. You are right that we can't necessarily draw the conclusion, but then we need to find some reason why such a conclusion might be false, or even inaccurate; I don't know what that reason might be.

The conclusion might be inaccurate or false because of a lack of understanding, too many assumptions and not enough solid facts. It's a complicated climate system, and we're still learning about it - our current projections and estimates really are just a best guess based upon our current level of understanding, and there's not a climate scientist alive (to the best of my knowledge) who thinks we're close to understanding it all. That being the case, how reliable can our projections be? (Oopsie - it's back to the old "How Good Are The Models" argument again, isn't it?!)

In terms of filtering the objective from the subjective, again, it boils down to reason, of which science is the most obvious manifestation in practical terms. If I am open minded, then I should accept any argument which runs counter to the prevailing wisdom, so long as that argument is consistent, logical and founded on accurately presented information and formulae. What I have found over the past couple of months, as my research has led me deeper into the hard scientific core of climate research, is that there is currently no such argument. There are attempts to do it, for example Svensmark or Lindzen, but neither of them actually challenge the core science of AGW, and neither has been shown to explain recent warming.

I am not aware of many attempts to completely overturn AGW theory (no serious attempts, anyway). The arguments that do run counter to the prevailing wisdom are generally either arguments about aspects of the theory, or are studies into non-AGW-related phenomena which raise questions about the validity of certain assumptions of AGW theory.

You ask why we should distrust the people who present alternative views. Disregarding discussions of motive, what is apparent is that, with the notable exception of a very small number of individuals who appear to genuinely want to challenge the AGW hypothesis from a scientific angle, the vast majority, almost all, of what is peddled on the web as 'debunking' of global warming is second-hand, non-scientific, polemical tripe.

The problem is that this works both ways. While there are people who are trying to unfairly muddy the waters of the debate, there are those on the other side who are trying to claim that the science of AGW is settled, proven and indisputable. There is a lot of rubbish foisted about on both sides of the equation, and that is why people such as you and me spend so long filtering through it and (hopefully) discussing the legitimate stuff (or at least trying to...).

Long may we continue to question the science!

:lol:

CB

[Devonian]

...

While there are people who are trying to unfairly muddy the waters of the debate, there are those on the other side who are trying to claim that the science of AGW is settled, proven and indisputable. There is a lot of rubbish foisted about on both sides of the equation, and that is why people such as you and me spend so long filtering through it and (hopefully) discussing the legitimate stuff (or at least trying to...).

Long may we continue to question the science!

:lol:

CB

Care to name just one who thinks that CB?

As far as I'm aware no one thinks the science is all three. I think it's 'settled' but only as in 'warming of 2-4Cdue to anthro effects is likely' not as in 'pinned down to 3.11C', I don't think it's proven (or provable) and I therefore doubt it's indisputable.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Care to name just one who thinks that CB?

As far as I'm aware no one thinks the science is all three. I think it's 'settled' but only as in 'warming of 2-4Cdue to anthro effects is likely' not as in 'pinned down to 3.11C', I don't think it's proven (or provable) and I therefore doubt it's indisputable.

I'm not going Googling to find a list of every Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks this. I was responding to P3's comment:

the vast majority, almost all, of what is peddled on the web as 'debunking' of global warming is second-hand, non-scientific, polemical tripe.

Similarly there is a lot of tripe on the web - be it from the media, message-board posters, bloggers or elsewhere - in favour of AGW theory. I appreciate that no serious scientist is trying to claim that AGW theory is 100% settled, and I never claimed anything to the contrary. Read my comment in context and you will realise this.

Please stop jumping on tiny points like this for no very good reason, Dev. It's irritating.

:lol:

CB

[Devonian]

I'm not going Googling to find a list of every Tom, Dick or Harry who thinks this. I was responding to P3's comment:

Similarly there is a lot of tripe on the web - be it from the media, message-board posters, bloggers or elsewhere - in favour of AGW theory. I appreciate that no serious scientist is trying to claim that AGW theory is 100% settled, and I never claimed anything to the contrary. Read my comment in context and you will realise this.

Please stop jumping on tiny points like this for no very good reason, Dev. It's irritating.

:lol:

CB

I'm not, I think it's an important point. I don't think there are a load of people going around making the claims you say there are. Scientists certainly are very careful to caveat things. I follow the science so that's why I used words like 'likely' as well.

I see websites like this one, which is tripe, but I can't find a corresponding one going around saying we're all going to die by 2100 because it's going to warm by 10C.

Edit: the second quote was from P3 not me...

Edited September 17, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

I understand where you are coming from, C-Bob, when you talk about ;

The arguments that do run counter to the prevailing wisdom are generally either arguments about aspects of the theory, or are studies into non-AGW-related phenomena which raise questions about the validity of certain assumptions of AGW theory.

The trouble is, not everybody sees things the way we do. As a result, people jump on this or that 'finding', or even worse this or that 'news article', as a damning indictment of the 'others' who disagree with them. As a result, even a minor point in a minor paper becomes exaggerated in its significance out of all proportion to its actual meaning or import. I would say, though, that this tendency appears to be more prevalent amongst 'antis' than amongst 'pros'. (And anyone who disagrees can bite me).

Two small things: yes, there is a lot of tripe on the web about AGW, but this is as much nonsense regardless of whether it is 'pro' or 'anti'; but there is also a huge amount on the web which is science, as I believe I have frequently demonstrated. And the weight of the science lays heavily in one direction.

The second question (another challenge, I'm afraid), is to ask for you to suggest an example of a challenge to an aspect of current AGW theory (apart from the blooming models!) which you feel is important. Let's try and make progress in this discussion, rather than get bogged down...

:)P

EDIT: Just saw Dev's post; this one's for you: http://www.marklynas.org . He's right, you know... :lol:

:)P

Edited September 17, 2007 by parmenides3