Runaway Global warming

[Admiral_Bobski]

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.

It's an important point that there's a lot of false claims being made on both sides of the debate - not from scientists but from others. I am not accusing scientists of falsifying anything, and I suspect you've completely missed my point. I certainly was not referring to you when I said that some people claim the theory is settled, proven an indisputable, so I'm not sure what your gripe is.

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.

I was talking about people (on the internet particularly, but also elsewhere), not specific websites. The thing is that most of the pro-AGW extremists (those who are equally as ignorant as Ice Age Now, for example) don't need websites to spout their guff because they can simply drop in things like "read the IPCC report" or "check RealClimate if you don't believe me". The skeptical extremists don't have similar links to refer to (or not so many), so they make their own websites.

The point I was making is that the waters are muddy, and it is the responsibility of believers and skeptics alike to find the truth in the middle.

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

I know the second quote was from P3. I was quoting it to show what I was referring to when I made my comment. :lol:

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

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...

Ah, this is more like the P3 we know and love! (Except for the "bite me" comment :lol: )

Well, I really do have to go and get on with things right now, but just two of the most recent ones that spring immediately to ming are the "Ocean Burps" which Jethro kindly linked to a while back, and the newly discovered undersea volcanoes (3 million of 'em, I think it was) that I linked to on another thread a while ago.

It's not that either of these discoveries particularly attack specific aspects of AGW, now that I come to think of it, so much as that they were unexpected phenomena which may have some bearing on the currently accepted notion of AGW: a new, unaccounted for, source of CO2 and associated "pollutants". The potential for there to have been increased volcanic activity over the past few hundred years which cannot be verified due to our ignorance of these volcanoes' existence as little as five years ago.

Spanners in the works, even if only small ones (for now). They show that there is far more happening on this planet than we previously thought, and these new discoveries must have some relevance to how the climate system works.

The point is that neither of these studies was intended as a disproof of AGW, but they are extra pieces of the puzzle which need to fit in, and the theory of AGW may well have to adapt to accommodate them.

I'll write more later.

:lol:

CB

[Mr Sleet]

No, it doesn't. Look at the timescales; tens of thousands of years. look at the earth; land/sea realtionship; totally different. Effectively, the Ordovician earth is a different planet. As far as the draw down of CO2; over a period of 10-15,000 years, CO2 would be expected to reduce by 75% plus through known processes. All this implies is that there was a change which slowed down the rate of emission of CO2, thus changing the balance, thus effecting the climate. This looks pretty much like further evidence that CO2 effects temperature, so what is there to be confused about?

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.

P3

You only need to visit the sceptics links to see that there is a welter of evidence questioning AGW and alleged evidence of some falsification going on. There is a bit of an AGW bandwagon on this one, with positions becoming entrenched un healthily in my opinion.

Global warming there may be, but not much and certainly open to doubt that it is AGW. Possible, but certainly open to serious doubt. That doubt and a desire to save money makes me very careful about my use of fossil fuels I might add.

This link from the sceptics area sums up my concerns. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

Certainly the public are not with you, not it seems are world governments.

Edited September 17, 2007 by Mr Sleet

[Devonian]

P3

You only need to visit the sceptics links to see that there is a welter of evidence questioning AGW and alleged evidence of some falsification going on. There is a bit of an AGW bandwagon on this one, with positions becoming entrenched un healthily in my opinion.

Global warming there may be, but not much and certainly open to doubt that it is AGW. Possible, but certainly open to serious doubt. That doubt and a desire to save money makes me very careful about my use of fossil fuels I might add.

This link from the sceptics area sums up my concerns. http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

Certainly the public are not with you, not it seems are world governments.

The title of the piece uses the word 'fraud' - a VERY serious change. That's enough for it to be not worth the bother of reading further - I'm amazed you think it worth promoting.

[Admiral_Bobski]

The title of the piece uses the word 'fraud' - a VERY serious change. That's enough for it to be not worth the bother of reading further - I'm amazed you think it worth promoting.

There you go again with your "very serious charge" stuff again. Can you tell us what you think is actually wrong with the piece, semantics aside...?

CB

[jethro]

The title of the piece uses the word 'fraud' - a VERY serious change. That's enough for it to be not worth the bother of reading further - I'm amazed you think it worth promoting.

And I'm amazed anyone could be so closed minded that one word would cause them to dismiss anything, rather than read and make up one's own mind on validity.

[Devonian]

And I'm amazed anyone could be so closed minded that one word would cause them to dismiss anything, rather than read and make up one's own mind on validity.

Are you interested in people who dismiss what you think is right as a fraud? Indeed, something you KNOW isn't a fraud? It might not be right, but it's not a fraud.

I might test you sometime...

There you go again with your "very serious charge" stuff again. Can you tell us what you think is actually wrong with the piece, semantics aside...?

CB

CB, point me to the fraud.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Are you interested in people who dismiss what you think is right as a fraud? Indeed, something you KNOW isn't a fraud? It might not be right, but it's not a fraud.

I would be interested in proving that what I think is right isn't a fraud. Also - and I don't want you to think that I'm calling AGW a fraud here, because I'm not - how do you KNOW that AGW isn't a fraud?

CB, point me to the fraud.

Okay, but that's not something wrong with the piece per se - that's a semantic argument. I thought we were all interested in discussing science here... So, what's wrong with the piece scientifically (or factually)?

CB

Edited September 17, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

I would be interested in proving that what I think is right isn't a fraud. Also - and I don't want you to think that I'm calling AGW a fraud here, because I'm not - how do you KNOW that AGW isn't a fraud?

Do you beat your wife*?

Okay, but that's not something wrong with the piece per se - that's a semantic argument. I thought we were all interested in discussing science here... So, what's wrong with the piece scientifically (or factually)?

CB

If I post a piece calling well know AGW sceptic X a fraud what would the reaction here be?

*another question you can't answer without looking defensive - get it?

Edited September 17, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Do you beat your wife*?

*another question you can't answer without looking defensive - get it?

Yes, but I can choose not to answer it.

If I post a piece calling well know AGW sceptic X a fraud what would the reaction here be?

I'm sure some people would take umbrage with the comment, but the more level-headed among us would attempt to prove otherwise.

So, can you prove otherwise?

CB

Edited September 17, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

I thought we weren't doing this sort of thing on these threads any more? Just you wait 'till Oon gets in.......

[Admiral_Bobski]

I thought we weren't doing this sort of thing on these threads any more? Just you wait 'till Oon gets in.......

So did I, but I'm getting sick of these evasive semantic comments that certain people continually post and continually get away with, when all they are doing is aggravating everyone else on the boards.

The end of my tether is fast approaching...!

:blink:

CB

[Devonian]

Yes, but I can choose not to answer it.

I'm sure some people would take umbrage to the comment, but the more level-headed among us would attempt to prove otherwise.

So, can you prove otherwise?

CB

Are you seriously suggesting that there are scientists that are guilty until proven innocent?

[Admiral_Bobski]

And now that I have actually read the article in question, it quite clearly identifies the apparently inappropriate use of data which, in a certain light, could be defined as fraudulent. Now, I'm not accusing anyone of fraud here, because I've only read this one article (so far), but it is there for all to see. Here's the relevant paragraphs:

Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geo-logy when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It's the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn't use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting.

And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gau-ges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend.

Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [iPCC's] publications, in their website, was a strai-ght line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge. So it was not a measured thing, but a figure introduced from outside. I accused them of this at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow —I said you have introduced factors from outside; it's not a measurement. It looks like it is measured from the satellite, but you don't say what really happened. And they ans-wered, that we had to do it, because otherwise we would not have gotten any trend!

That is terrible! As a matter of fact, it is a falsification of the data set. Why? Because they know the answer. And there you come to the point: They “know” the answer; the rest of us, we are searching for the answer. Because we are field geologists; they are computer scientists. So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations. The observations don't find it!

[Devonian]

I thought we weren't doing this sort of thing on these threads any more? Just you wait 'till Oon gets in.......

I'm sick of codswallop being posted that makes out that there are misdeeds going on in climate science. It distracts from good science.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Are you seriously suggesting that there are scientists that are guilty until proven innocent?

No. I didn't say that at all. Where the heck did you dredge that one up from?

CB

[Devonian]

I post here, I care about science, I care about honesty, I care about science being honest. I DO take offence at the use of the word fraud - whoever it's directed at - and I wouldn't take such stuff seriously.

We're talking scientists who measure sea level here for heavens sake! I am utterly amazed everyone here isn't denouncing the use of the word. What is it coming to when I have to defend my denouncement of such attacks???

[parmenides3]

Second attempt: source of 'story'; Lyndon Larouche. This is a huge 'lie alert' to start off with.

I did some digging; it does look like Morner is unhappy about the IPCC and has some issues about the way sea level rise is calculated and calibrated, but I have found not much more than that this year. There is a paper I need to track down before I can give a considered response to Morner's science. I have no interest in responding to the Larouche-originated disinformation, as it is a waste of time; in this case, where the information comes from does matter; we can more or less be sure about the truth value of most of the claims made by the 'story', based on the track record of its originators. Later, I'll get back about the Morner material I have dug up.

In the mean time, I'd recommend that people go and look for the sources of this story, and check on those, before deciding whether or not there is anything in it.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Second attempt: source of 'story'; Lyndon Larouche. This is a huge 'lie alert' to start off with.

I did some digging; it does look like Morner is unhappy about the IPCC and has some issues about the way sea level rise is calculated and calibrated, but I have found not much more than that this year. There is a paper I need to track down before I can give a considered response to Morner's science. I have no interest in responding to the Larouche-originated disinformation, as it is a waste of time; in this case, where the information comes from does matter; we can more or less be sure about the truth value of most of the claims made by the 'story', based on the track record of its originators. Later, I'll get back about the Morner material I have dug up.

In the mean time, I'd recommend that people go and look for the sources of this story, and check on those, before deciding whether or not there is anything in it.

:)P

Thank you for that P3 - I look forward to reading what you find out.

:blink:

CB

[parmenides3]

I have been trying to access a copy of a paper which 'cooments' on Morner's latest work, without much luck. I did, however, find this interesting snippet on another website:

Here’s a couple of quotes from:

Church et al (2006)Sea-level rise at tropical Pacific and Indian Ocean islands, Global and Planetary Change (53)

They seem challenge your understanding of the situation in Tuvalu. From a quick read it would appear that your ’source’ for the “no sea level rise” might not have meant such concrete assertions to have been attributed to the “raw data” that they used.

Church et al acknowledge the isostatic subsidence issue but still come down on the side of 2±1 mm/yr.

“A number of recent studies (Leuliette et al., 2004; Church et al., 2004; Holgate and Woodworth, 2004; Cazenave and Nerem, 2004) also confirm the global average sea-level rise from altimeter studies, with estimates varying over a small range depending on the details of the calculation. In direct contrast, Morner (2004) shows a plot (his Fig. 2) of sea-level variations from October 1992 to April 2000, based on TOPEX/Poseidon data, ostensibly showing that there is no rise in GMSL. This is described as being “raw data”, and appears to be cycle-by-cycle (10 day) averages of global mean sea-level. Unfortunately, there is neither a description of the data that were used to produce this figure, nor a reference to its source. In order to be a meaningful estimate of global mean sea-level, a number of corrections would have been necessary, including wet tropospheric path delay, dry tropospheric path delay, ionospheric path delay, sea-state bias and tides, but it is unclear which, if any, of these well-known and understood corrections have been applied.”

“Over 1950 to 2001, the relative rate of sealevel rise at Funafuti estimated from the reconstruction is 1.6±0.5 mm/yr. A more recent analysis using tide-gauge data from 1978 to 2004 inclusive indicates a sea-level rise of 2.3± 1.6 mm/yr relative to the NTC tide-gauge benchmark.

This is higher than, but statistically consistent with, the earlier estimate of 0.8±1.9 mm/yr. Taken together, we conclude that a best estimate of the rate of relative sealevel rise at Funafuti is 2±1 mm/yr.”

Now, Morner is a retired palaeoseismicist; the authors of the papers referred to above are specialists in sea level calculation. This is one example of a 'problem' with some of the material in the article. Other 'problems' are much more straightforward: '...temperatures during the medieval warm period were 2.5 degrees higher than they are today..' is an example. Where does this number come from? There is a word to desribe this assertion but it isn't polite. Let's just say it is way out.

If these two are examples from a small part of the article, I think the familiar 'Larouche' pattern emerges; unless anyone can show otherwise, I think we can conclude that this is yet another piece of pseudoscientific baloney designed specifically to mislead and confuse. Once again, this shows how easy it is to be fooled into thinking that there is a genuine scientific case against AGW.

:)P

[snowsure]

This all appears to be going way off my original question which was:

If we assume that GW is happening, what will the likely outcome be? Will it be runaway GW or not?

You have nothing to lose by assuming, for the sake of this thread, that GW is happening.

It is a thought-experiment, if you like.

[Admiral_Bobski]

This all appears to be going way off my original question which was:

If we assume that GW is happening, what will the likely outcome be? Will it be runaway GW or not?

You have nothing to lose by assuming, for the sake of this thread, that GW is happening.

It is a thought-experiment, if you like.

My apologies, snowsure - I think it's my fault

I don't believe that we will get runaway global warming - even if I were to accept the basic principles of AGW I think it seems unlikely. The climate system appears to have certain built-in safeguards, such as the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperatures, which prevents CO2 from having a warming effect that continues as concentrations increase. There are other factors, too - it seems that higher temperatures may well increase the CO2 absorbing properties of vegetation, which suggests that this would also help to rein in CO2 levels. If the world becomes wetter as a result then that means increased precipitation, not just in tropical areas but also in polar areas and possibly even equatorial areas - more rainfall at the equator means yet more vegetation, and more snowfall at the poles possibly means a higher polar albedo which will reflect more sunlight.

If GW were to have a runaway effect then it seems likely that it would have happened at some time in the past in previous warmings, but it never did.

CB

[jethro]

Snowsure, sorry to detract further from your original question but as the discussion is mid sentence, so to speak, may I just add these couple of links for Capt B & P3

http://www.jason.oceanobs.com/html/alti/pr...uk.html#ell_ref

http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm

Seems to me there is a large margin of error in these measurements, too large surely to be able to make measurements/predictions in the mm range.

[parmenides3]

This all appears to be going way off my original question which was:

If we assume that GW is happening, what will the likely outcome be? Will it be runaway GW or not?

You have nothing to lose by assuming, for the sake of this thread, that GW is happening.

It is a thought-experiment, if you like.

We're always doing this, aren't we? Okay; 'runaway' global warming...

Are you thinking of the kind of warming that people like Mark Lynas depicts? This is a total normally in excess of +3C in this century, and possibly much more. So the answer may depend on what you intend 'runaway' to mean. The term is often used to describe a vicious climate feedback process which kicks in at an unspecified temperature and spirals out of control, producing ever more extreme feedbacks from ever more perturbed natural systems. In this meaning, we are talking about temperature increases of up to +6C this century, from many different sources, like the carbon cycle and ocean uptake mechanisms, wildfires and uncontrollable surges of methane release in huge quantities.

Is this likely? I would suggest not. First of all, it depends on there being a 'tipping point' in the system, beyond which feedbacks amplify at an almost exponential rate, indefinitely, and feed back on each other. This is 'possible' in theory, but there is no clear evidence that such a 'tipping point' has existed in the past. Having said that, we are in an unique situation when compared to the past, so to some extent it may depend on whether the system tends towards inertia or disturbance. It would be comforting to think that the global climate system and the natural systems, like forests, was relatively stable and resistant to 'collapse', so would recover from imbalance and return to a new stable state - albeit at a higher global temperature level - at some point. But we don't really know for certain that it is.

But there's another way we can use the term 'runaway' which has less extreme, if no less undesirable impacts. It has often been suggested that a risk exists that, as a result of our intial perturbations of the system, leading to an imbalance, we will see a global warming of 3-4C this century which is beyond our ability to prevent; this is the general scenario against which arguments for mitigation are put. Whilst less apocalyptic than the more extreme version above, it is still a dismal prospect. I imagine this is the kind of scenario that James Hansen envisages as possible, and which has led him to say that the next ten years is critical in determining the possible future pathway of climate change.

In both these versions, what needs to be assumed is a kind of 'turbocharger' in the climate system, which starts at a given point and accelerates all of the processes which have got us to that stage in the first place. The main difference is that, in the first version, the accelerator jams and we can't slow down, whereas in the second version, the turbocharger runs out of fuel in a short time and the juggernaut starts to slow down, eventually rolling to a stop.

This is a possibility; it is plausible to think that climate feedbacks will get beyond the scope of mitigation. But nobody is sure when this might happen, or where such a 'tipping point' might be; is it one degree warmer than present? Two? Four? Ten? Because there is no known precedent, it has to be defined as an area of uncertainty. This is one of the reasons why climate scientists worry; they don't know for sure how the system will respond, or where/when; but they do know that the risk of such an occurrence gets more likely, the further from known precedent we get, and they already have a fairly good handle on the way certain parts of the system are already responding to changes at a regional level, without always being able to clearly explain the precise mechanisms behind them.

I would still say that it is unlikely, though - in the sense that I would suggest there is a less than 50% chance of this being the case. There may be a less than 30% chance, or even, as we stand now and with the climate commitments we already have, the chance is no better than 10%. Whichever it is, that number goes up as temperature goes up. The conclusion that is then drawn is, if we want to stop the number from going up, we should do our best to prevent temperatures from rising as a result of our 'interventions'.

So: not likely today, but tomorrow?

:)P

jethro: the argument on JohnDaly is a classic example of not understanding how averaging works. It also does not mention any of the other measurement systems which are in place, and against which each is calibrated and cross-referred. I'll post some recent papers if you want, but the bottom line is that this, and the Morner before it, are making the claim that the scientists who run TOPEX, GRACE, etc., are either deliberately fudging the numbers, or are incompetent; so it boils down to another accusation that scientists are lying about sea level changes. They are not and this is wrong.

I understand that your desire to question the 'accepted wisdom' is leading you to seek for science which posits a challenge, but you won't find such science on JohnDaly, WarwickHughes, CO2Science, or any of the other sites which appear to offer them; all you ever get from there is pseudoscience and cherry-picked, misinformationist material which looks scientific but isn't. If you were to search using google scholar, on the advanced search tool, for a specific phrase in scientific papers, such as 'in contradiction to the findings of the IPCC', you might find some real science which challenges the accepted wisdom. From my own experience, though, I suggest you'd have to be very patient and spend a long time looking; there just isn't much out there. Respectfully, :)P

Edited September 18, 2007 by parmenides3

[jethro]

jethro: the argument on JohnDaly is a classic example of not understanding how averaging works. It also does not mention any of the other measurement systems which are in place, and against which each is calibrated and cross-referred. I'll post some recent papers if you want, but the bottom line is that this, and the Morner before it, are making the claim that the scientists who run TOPEX, GRACE, etc., are either deliberately fudging the numbers, or are incompetent; so it boils down to another accusation that scientists are lying about sea level changes. They are not and this is wrong.

I understand that your desire to question the 'accepted wisdom' is leading you to seek for science which posits a challenge, but you won't find such science on JohnDaly, WarwickHughes, CO2Science, or any of the other sites which appear to offer them; all you ever get from there is pseudoscience and cherry-picked, misinformationist material which looks scientific but isn't. If you were to search using google scholar, on the advanced search tool, for a specific phrase in scientific papers, such as 'in contradiction to the findings of the IPCC', you might find some real science which challenges the accepted wisdom. From my own experience, though, I suggest you'd have to be very patient and spend a long time looking; there just isn't much out there. Respectfully, :)P