The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[wysiwyg]

Some very sensible points in the last couple of posts.

I personally think that the arguments start to blur at the point after the peer review process has taken place. Much of the science that I have read and studied relating to AGW makes a lot of sense but it is only when that science begins to filter into the public domain that we start to see controversy. In my eyes I see too much reporting in the media and blogosphere that turns 'if', 'could', 'maybe' and 'possibly' into 'when', 'will', 'probably' and 'definitely'. Also there is a tendency for the various forms of 'media' to latch on to the polar extremes of what is being reported in the literature. These are spun into norms and the public at large is left with confusion and disenchantment about what is really the truth.

Despite not being trained in climate science I (and anyone else) has the right to make up their own mind based on what information is available. My view is that the current science, whilst soundly based, does not indicate game over - we simply do nnot yet have enough data to prove any of the theories and correlations that are regularly cited as the 'cause' of AGW.

It does, however, beggar belief that we will go on arguing and researching, at great expense, when there is enough evidence to suggest that our climate can vary to a degree great enough to cause real problems for the world's population regardless of cause. Surely it makes more sense to prepare for a better future by being able to cope with extreme events instead of thinking we can tinker with atmospheric composition and make a difference?

[Devonian]

Some very sensible points in the last couple of posts.

I personally think that the arguments start to blur at the point after the peer review process has taken place. Much of the science that I have read and studied relating to AGW makes a lot of sense but it is only when that science begins to filter into the public domain that we start to see controversy. In my eyes I see too much reporting in the media and blogosphere that turns 'if', 'could', 'maybe' and 'possibly' into 'when', 'will', 'probably' and 'definitely'. Also there is a tendency for the various forms of 'media' to latch on to the polar extremes of what is being reported in the literature. These are spun into norms and the public at large is left with confusion and disenchantment about what is really the truth.

Despite not being trained in climate science I (and anyone else) has the right to make up their own mind based on what information is available. My view is that the current science, whilst soundly based, does not indicate game over - we simply do nnot yet have enough data to prove any of the theories and correlations that are regularly cited as the 'cause' of AGW.

It does, however, beggar belief that we will go on arguing and researching, at great expense, when there is enough evidence to suggest that our climate can vary to a degree great enough to cause real problems for the world's population regardless of cause. Surely it makes more sense to prepare for a better future by being able to cope with extreme events instead of thinking we can tinker with atmospheric composition and make a difference?

Does you last sentence mean you think if it's 250/350/450/550/650 ppm CO₂ it makes no/no major climate difference? Because I have to say to you that's not what an Hadley expert would say.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Devonian

[wysiwyg]

Does you last sentence mean you think if it's 250/350/450/550/650 ppm CO₂ it makes no/no major climate difference? Because I have to say to you that's not what an Hadley expert would say.

My last sentence means that I don't believe that CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has a significantly large enough effect to justify a media and government induced panic attack that leads to inappropriate taxation and mis-spending of those taxes. As to Hadley experts I respect their science but believe that they rely much too heavily on models that are calibrated against historical climate data that does not represent accurately enough the relative forcings involved. The margin for error is large enough for me to maintain my skepticism until experimental (real data) evidence is abundant enough to validate these simulations beyond reasonable doubt.

[VillagePlank]

Does you last sentence mean you think if it's 250/350/450/550/650 ppm CO₂ it makes no/no major climate difference? Because I have to say to you that's not what an Hadley expert would say.

Well, I have to be honest, I thought that CO2 acted as an 'amplifier' and not as a specific cause (so if there was no warming, already, you could raise CO2 as much as you wanted and it wouldn't have an effect)

Could be wrong, I'll try to find the article where I read that.

EDIT: Just re-read this, and realise its not particularly clear: what I mean is .... if the atmopshere had a static temperature then no amount of CO2 would change that. Clearly we don't have a static atmospheric temperature, but the implication of this is that the world had begun to warm, anyway, and CO2 has simply amplified that natural effect. That amplification is not exponential like a lot of people like to imply. The amplification effect, from what I can discern, is linear.

Edited March 18, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

My last sentence means that I don't believe that CO₂ concentration in the atmosphere has a significantly large enough effect to justify a media and government induced panic attack that leads to inappropriate taxation and mis-spending of those taxes. As to Hadley experts I respect their science but believe that they rely much too heavily on models that are calibrated against historical climate data that does not represent accurately enough the relative forcings involved. The margin for error is large enough for me to maintain my skepticism until experimental (real data) evidence is abundant enough to validate these simulations beyond reasonable doubt.

Fair enough, though it's not a position I agree with. I've listened to a Hadley scientist, questioned him and found he thinks the situation is worse than I thought and been [insert one of corrupted/fooled/had by/scaremongered by etc etc or even (dare I say...) educated and informed] by him

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some very sensible points in the last couple of posts.

I personally think that the arguments start to blur at the point after the peer review process has taken place. Much of the science that I have read and studied relating to AGW makes a lot of sense but it is only when that science begins to filter into the public domain that we start to see controversy. In my eyes I see too much reporting in the media and blogosphere that turns 'if', 'could', 'maybe' and 'possibly' into 'when', 'will', 'probably' and 'definitely'. Also there is a tendency for the various forms of 'media' to latch on to the polar extremes of what is being reported in the literature. These are spun into norms and the public at large is left with confusion and disenchantment about what is really the truth.

One of the best-put, most accurate summaries of the situation that I've ever seen, IMO.

It does, however, beggar belief that we will go on arguing and researching, at great expense, when there is enough evidence to suggest that our climate can vary to a degree great enough to cause real problems for the world's population regardless of cause. Surely it makes more sense to prepare for a better future by being able to cope with extreme events instead of thinking we can tinker with atmospheric composition and make a difference?

I can see the point that's being made, but there are two slight issues with it:

1. It's not the degree of change that's the problem, but the rate of change. Say, a change of 3 to 6C in 100 years could have serious consequences. Natural variability can cause such changes, and can't be helped, but is unlikely to do so for centuries to come. Human activity may also be able to cause such changes, it can be helped, and there's a significant risk of it doing so in the next 100 years.

It's like saying "problem X is an issue, but some aspects of it can't be helped, therefore it's not worth doing anything about it!"

2. As posted a few posts ago, there are myriad reasons for reducing emissions and dependency on fossil fuels, which are independent of whether AGW happens or not, mostly tied in with sustainable development. I'm dead against draconian panic reactions as well btw, because they'd potentially force far more sacrifices than are necessary to achieve a certain amount of sustainability, and consign us all to low-quality lives regardless of AGW. But that doesn't show that action against pollution is a bad thing, rather that we have to be careful not to do it in a simple, neat and wrong way that has extreme side-effects.

That's not to say we shouldn't bother developing ways to cope with extreme events, that's a desirable course of action, but I feel it's far better to indulge in some of both rather than just one or the other.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Thundery wintry showers

[Devonian]

Well, I have to be honest, I thought that CO2 acted as an 'amplifier' and not as a specific cause (so if there was no warming, already, you could raise CO2 as much as you wanted and it wouldn't have an effect)

Could be wrong, I'll try to find the article where I read that.

EDIT: Just re-read this, and realise its not particularly clear: what I mean is .... if the atmopshere had a static temperature then no amount of CO2 would change that. Clearly we don't have a static atmospheric temperature, but the implication of this is that the world had begun to warm, anyway, and CO2 has simply amplified that natural effect. That amplification is not exponential like a lot of people like to imply. The amplification effect, from what I can discern, is linear.

Surely it's (in this context) just a greenhouse gas? So, that means it (very basically) absorbs upwelling LW radiation and re radiates it in all directions (so some back down) producing a warming effect. Change it's concentration and you create a additional warming effect?

As ever I see it not as a question of 'if' but 'how much'.

[VillagePlank]

Surely it's (in this context) just a greenhouse gas? So, that means it (very basically) absorbs upwelling LW radiation and re radiates it in all directions (so some back down) producing a warming effect. Change it's concentration and you create a additional warming effect?

Yeah - I'd say the same thing.

However, if the atmosphere, therefore, had a constant temperature, and all other things considered, only the CO2 went up, because there would still be some loss, the planet would then cool, wouldn't it? - the presumption is that LW radiation back downwards is not 100% efficient -

So, I guess, what started the warming?

Edited March 18, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Yeah - I'd say the same thing.

However, if the atmosphere, therefore, had a constant temperature, and all other things considered, only the CO2 went up, because there would still be some loss, the planet would then cool, wouldn't it?

Erm, as I understand ( ) it the planet has to maintain a radiative balance (effectively what it recieves it radiates) so it's effective radiating temperature would stay the same temperature but the lower atmosphere would warm in response to extra ghg's and the effective radiating level rise.

- the presumption is that LW radiation back downwards is not 100% efficient -

So, I guess, what started the warming?

Extra ghg's, small dash of solar.

Edited March 18, 2008 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Erm, as I understand ( ) it the planet has to maintain a radiative balance (effectively what it recieves it radiates) so it's effective radiating temperature would stay the same temperature but the lower atmosphere would warm in response to extra ghg's and the effective radiating level rise.

Extra ghg's, small dash of solar.

Hmmm. One for me to ponder and cogitate (read: make generally oversimplified Excel model) over a bottle of Shiraz, tonight, me reckons.

[rob48]

I'm afraid we heretics read nasty papers like the Daily Mail.

Today's was fun.

Mr littlejohn wrote about the climate:

Eco-loonies reject an inconvenient truth

Here's a story you won't have heard about. The founder of the Weather Channel in the U.S. says Al Gore should be sued for fraud.

John Coleman says that's the only way all the evidence about "climate change" can be properly challenged.

He insists the great global warming scare is a huge scam, and says he has scientific proof to back him up.

Coleman doesn't deny that weather cycles change, and he admits that carbon emissions are higher than they were, say, 300 years ago.

But he says carbon in the atmosphere amounts to only 38 particles in 100,000. And far from "global warming", the Earth is actually in a cooling-down phase.

If all the available evidence on both sides was presented to a court, rationally and soberly, he's convinced he would win the argument.

Coleman made his remarks on Fox News after speaking at a conference on climate change in New York.

None of the major networks touched the story, and neither did the big city papers, which buy the Gore line wholesale.

There's been little or no coverage here, since the broadcast media, in particular, has taken leave of its senses over "climate change".

Most news bulletins these days are little more than party political broadcasts by Greenpeace, who put the "mental" in environmentalists.

They're like the lunatics who walk up and down Oxford Street wearing sandwich boards and screaming that The End Of The World Is Nigh.

Politicians have a vested interest in peddling this swindle. It's the latest way of bullying us and picking our pockets.

Coleman insists that in a couple of years most of us will wake up and realise that we've been had.

It's fair to assume he has some idea of what he's talking about, since - unlike most of the hysterical doom-mongers - he's been a meteorologist all his life.

Sometimes you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If the eco-loonies and climate change fascists are convinced they're right, why not let their theories be tested forensically in court? Surely they're not afraid of an inconvenient truth?

[Devonian]

I'm afraid we heretics read nasty papers like the Daily Mail.

Today's was fun.

Mr littlejohn wrote about the climate:

Eco-loonies reject an inconvenient truth

Here's a story you won't have heard about. The founder of the Weather Channel in the U.S. says Al Gore should be sued for fraud.

....

....

Sometimes you do need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. If the eco-loonies and climate change fascists are convinced they're right, why not let their theories be tested forensically in court? Surely they're not afraid of an inconvenient truth?

"eco-loonies and climate change fascists" LOL, where would we be without childish little insults from tabloid hacks with crowds to please? Erm, in a rather more pleasant place?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I won't be convinced by his arguments until I actually see his evidence, so far all I see is a series of swipes at climate scientists!

[wysiwyg]

Erm, in a rather more pleasant place?

Well luckily for us we are here on NW with the gift of being able to have a lively and sensible debate FWIW . At least on here there is a reasonable amount of consensus on the difference between sound science and media spin.

It would be interesting to see Mr Gore in the dock so to speak but would amount to the biggest waste of cash since the Princess Diana enquiry IMHO. Too much at stake and more than likely thrown out on a ridiculous technicality after many lawyers have made a small fortune.

[Weather-history]

From an editorial in the Times of June 1975

I'm surprised no one has commented on this. Things to note is that back in 1975 according to this editorial, the agricultural growing season was nearly 3 weeks shorter in Europe than it was 40 years ago.

[Chris Knight]

I'm surprised no one has commented on this. Things to note is that back in 1975 according to this editorial, the agricultural growing season was nearly 3 weeks shorter in Europe than it was 40 years ago.

Is it possible to know how that growing season compares to now, or are our crops so different now that we don't have a proper comparison?

[Devonian]

I'm surprised no one has commented on this. Things to note is that back in 1975 according to this editorial, the agricultural growing season was nearly 3 weeks shorter in Europe than it was 40 years ago.

What is to say? There was a cold snap in that June but in the months before (and of course the two summers afterwards) the weather was remarkably warm/hot. Overall it was not as warm then as now, but the climate has of course warmed since then.

[acbrixton]

What is to say? There was a cold snap in that June but in the months before (and of course the two summers afterwards) the weather was remarkably warm/hot. Overall it was not as warm then as now, but the climate has of course warmed since then.

I read it as not a statement on the 1975 growing season (apart from anything else it would have been impossible to know that until much later in the year) but a comment on the trend to shorter growing seasons over the previous 40 years culminating in an average 3 weeks shorter than 1935. As interwar temperatures were rather higher than those from 1940-1975 a decrease in the growing season was hardly surprising although 3 weeks does seem rather a lot; presumablyconditions at the start and end of the growing season are pretty marginal so that relatively small changes in average temperature can have an apparently disproportionate effect on the growing season.

The main point that struck me in The Times' editorial was that the mid 1970's mini-ice age theory cannot sensibly be compared to the AGW theory as many of those who disagree with AGW like to argue ("The 'scientific consensus' in 1975 was that we faced an imminent ice age. Now the consensus is for AGW. They got it wrong last time therefore why should we take the IPCC seriously now."). The editorial makes a number of points about those predicting a mini ice age in 1975 that contrast with the situation of those who argue for AGW now:

1. The 1975 consensus was apparently limited to long term climatologists with meteorologists somewhat sceptical;

2. The number of long term climatologists is described as a "handful";

3. Paleoclimatology was evidently considerably less advanced a discipline than now: there is no mention of ice core/alluvial deposit analysis;

4. Satellite observation was in its infancy.

Further, and as The Times was not to know, climatologists now have access to computing power vastly greater than then.

The minor point was that without polytunnels the domestic strawberry crop was at the complete mercy of the weather.

regards

ACB

[Chris Knight]

I read it as not a statement on the 1975 growing season (apart from anything else it would have been impossible to know that until much later in the year) but a comment on the trend to shorter growing seasons over the previous 40 years culminating in an average 3 weeks shorter than 1935. As interwar temperatures were rather higher than those from 1940-1975 a decrease in the growing season was hardly surprising although 3 weeks does seem rather a lot; presumablyconditions at the start and end of the growing season are pretty marginal so that relatively small changes in average temperature can have an apparently disproportionate effect on the growing season.

The main point that struck me in The Times' editorial was that the mid 1970's mini-ice age theory cannot sensibly be compared to the AGW theory as many of those who disagree with AGW like to argue ("The 'scientific consensus' in 1975 was that we faced an imminent ice age. Now the consensus is for AGW. They got it wrong last time therefore why should we take the IPCC seriously now."). The editorial makes a number of points about those predicting a mini ice age in 1975 that contrast with the situation of those who argue for AGW now:

1. The 1975 consensus was apparently limited to long term climatologists with meteorologists somewhat sceptical;

2. The number of long term climatologists is described as a "handful";

3. Paleoclimatology was evidently considerably less advanced a discipline than now: there is no mention of ice core/alluvial deposit analysis;

4. Satellite observation was in its infancy.

Further, and as The Times was not to know, climatologists now have access to computing power vastly greater than then.

The minor point was that without polytunnels the domestic strawberry crop was at the complete mercy of the weather.

regards

ACB

Our concrete understanding of climate has developed greatly since then

[BrickFielder]

Under controlled conditions it is just basic physics that CO2 will warm the atmosphere and that is pretty much what climate models indicate. An additional layer of sophistication is built into models to cope with many feedback conditions. CO2 warming may change forest cover, ice cover, ocean circulatons and any number of conditions which may increase or counteract the affect of warming. Models must take into account that concentrations of CO2 vary with height above sea level, Tropospheric to Stratospheric moisture transfers change with warming. These are all things which scientists believe are fairly well modelled in climate models, again I would argue that both oceanic and atmospheric waves are poorly represented in climate models, and I suspect this has more of an effect than some believe.

The real question must be will CO2 continue to rise. Some would argue that as we burn more and more fuel so CO2 will rise. Feedback mechanisms for CO2 are understood but not well quantified ,for example how much extra CO2 is absorbed if tundra turns to boreal forest, or around the pole begins to flourish with planckton. Equally what effect will pasture land turning to desert have and could current changes send CO2 spiralling higher. One thing we should perhaps remember is that in the past CO2 has been higher than now ,so there must have been a feedback mechanisms in the past which acted to reduce CO2. Carbon Cycle modelling still has a lot of work to be done on it, but the Hadley center does have a model and you should perhaps check out the list of ongoing Met Office research at the bottom of the page linked to below.

Met Office Carbon cycle modelling

[Bobby]

Whatever the growing season was in the past it simply has never been as warm as it is now in the UK since we've been measuring temperatures. Just look at all the +10 years we're getting, never anything like that before.

That 1970's ice age theory thing really cannot be compared to AGW theory because there wasn't nearly the same support and consensus. And even if it did have the same support and consensus, that still is 0 evidence for or against anything. The science is right or it's not.

[Admiral_Bobski]

That 1970's ice age theory thing really cannot be compared to AGW theory because there wasn't nearly the same support and consensus. And even if it did have the same support and consensus, that still is 0 evidence for or against anything. The science is right or it's not.

Precisely.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Under controlled conditions it is just basic physics that CO2 will warm the atmosphere and that is pretty much what climate models indicate. An additional layer of sophistication is built into models to cope with many feedback conditions. CO2 warming may change forest cover, ice cover, ocean circulations and any number of conditions which may increase or counteract the affect of warming. Models must take into account that concentrations of CO2 vary with height above sea level, Tropospheric to Stratospheric moisture transfers change with warming. These are all things which scientists believe are fairly well modelled in climate models, again I would argue that both oceanic and atmospheric waves are poorly represented in climate models, and I suspect this has more of an effect than some believe.

The real question must be will CO2 continue to rise. Some would argue that as we burn more and more fuel so CO2 will rise. Feedback mechanisms for CO2 are understood but not well quantified ,for example how much extra CO2 is absorbed if tundra turns to boreal forest, or around the pole begins to flourish with plankton. Equally what effect will pasture land turning to desert have and could current changes send CO2 spiralling higher. One thing we should perhaps remember is that in the past CO2 has been higher than now ,so there must have been a feedback mechanisms in the past which acted to reduce CO2. Carbon Cycle modelling still has a lot of work to be done on it, but the Hadley center does have a model and you should perhaps check out the list of ongoing Met Office research at the bottom of the page linked to below.

Met Office Carbon cycle modelling

As i understand it the more we know the less we understand (insofar as CO2 and its sinks). Latest research show plants growing slower due to the excess of CO2 which is bang opposite that which i was taught yet it is happening. The failure of the southern ocean Sink is still not fully understood as it also should have not only kept pace with rising outputs but absorbed a significant amount more. Katrina's impact on southern U.S. forests have apparently balanced out any 'sink' from the rest of the U.S. forests (both by their loss and then by their decay) for the next 15yrs.

With the help of the developing world we are now at a point where our outputs of CO2 have never been as high and the increase appears to be logarithmic in nature. If the sinks were failing before how the heck are they suddenly going to revitalise and start working better than ever???

you either wait another 3 years until the relevant documentation appears or you use your nous with the data available....or don't you?

Edited March 20, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Chris Knight]

What is to say? There was a cold snap in that June but in the months before (and of course the two summers afterwards) the weather was remarkably warm/hot. Overall it was not as warm then as now, but the climate has of course warmed since then.

If faced with the previous 30 years UK temperature record, I hardly think that any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler. I don't think we can cherry-pick just one year, Dev.

[VillagePlank]

Under controlled conditions it is just basic physics that CO2 will warm the atmosphere and that is pretty much what climate models indicate. An additional layer of sophistication is built into models to cope with many feedback conditions. CO2 warming may change forest cover, ice cover, ocean circulatons and any number of conditions which may increase or counteract the affect of warming. Models must take into account that concentrations of CO2 vary with height above sea level, Tropospheric to Stratospheric moisture transfers change with warming. These are all things which scientists believe are fairly well modelled

All great and dandy.

So what will the population of the human race in twenty years time, then? What is the history of population studies? What have been their (entirely incorrect) conclusions?

Without these figures, which, in all respects, must be reliable, future predictions of CO2, in my opinion, are mute - and essentially worthless.

If faced with the previous 30 years UK temperature record, I hardly think that any climatologist in the UK in 1975 would disagree that things seemed to be getting cooler. I don't think we can cherry-pick just one year, Dev.

Superb point. Take yourself back to 1970(ish) On the statistical evidence available at the time, and factoring in the nonsense that a lot people around here spout off about ('hey -look at the last thirty years') - we (meaning I) need to know that if you were around in the 1970's what would you have made of the evidence before you, then?

Edited March 20, 2008 by VillagePlank