The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[stewfox]

Fortunately, IMO, there are very few forum members who are in the middle ground, although many will claim to be. At least with people who believe in the AGW theory and people who believe that natural forcings are to blame for GW we (usually) end up with a decent debate.

Unfortunately there are those on both sides of the debate who seem to like to add copious amounts of fuel to the fire, and the resultant slanging match benefits no-one (you know who you are ).

I've derived my anti global warming in response to the media hype

This guy was on local news re paddling to the North Pole

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2008/08/29/north-pole-paddle.html

How much hype how much truth ?

Suggest North Pole maybe ice free by September?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080831/wl_uk_afp/norwaybritainarcticclimatewarmingexpedition

But note the article was written in June

--------------------------

The North Pole itself could even become free of ice by September for the first time in modern history, setting a new milestone in the effects of global warming on the Arctic ice shelf, NSIDC glaciologist Mark Serreze told AFP in late June

------------------------------

[SP1986]

The problem is partly I feel that it's either AGW or Natural occurrence. My own suggestion is that it could well be both. AGW will influence natural occurrences and forcings whilst the natural occurrences do have the power to contain the strength of AGW and it's affects. Government idiotics, and press misleadings aside, the one main problem that man has has in the past is an inability to put two things together and realise theyre working in tandem, and that is why many management plans became invalid for so many things, including the Kyoto agreement, coastal management plans etc. I think the science needs to be taken into account and ways that we may have to adapt if AGW ends up having a consequental impact as it's better safe than sorry. It's not just that, forget AGW for a second, we should be saving energy because in the short term I believe a lack of fossil is a far bigger problem, so AGW does not matter in that context we should be looking to save energy anyway whilst looking for alternatives of course.

Energy saving and AGW would go hand in hand, and whether or not it's propaganga, I think it's important that we concentrate on combatting the energy use problem because even if AGW is wrong it will benefit the obvious proven problem (energy use) greatly.

[VillagePlank]

Is that some kind of middle ground we can agree on?

I think that the vast vast majority of us all occupy the middle ground. For instance ... I think we can all agree that the world warmed over the last century. Can't we?

<Not aimed at anyone in particular> Perhaps it's time to look for the things that unify us, instead of delving into the minutae that divide us. </Not aimed at anyone in particular>

For instance after possible forthcoming expected cool spell (can't possibly be something else we all agree on, can it?) if warming significantly continues afterwards then all citizens of the planet are likely to be concerned (not another thing we can all agree on - surely not!) because of various things like sea-level (etc etc)

So, my (current - so likely to change) manifesto would be ...

(i) Plan for continuing rising temperatures. A plan costs a few hundred consultants salary for a year or so. It ain't gonna break the bank. Standard stuff in the business world business continuity is.

(ii) Stop belching out CO2. We don't have to expand our pollution of the planet. Almost everyone I know agrees that to further the output of CO2 (regardless of any link to temperature) seems a bad thing. The rich countries can progress faster on this than the poor countries and give the technology away to the poor countries so that they can skip the 200 year development CO2 burp period.

Seems an obvious way to think, to me, and most who occupy the middle ground, I think, would tend to agree with this, somewhat coarse, assessment.

Edited September 3, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

I think that the vast vast majority of us all occupy the middle ground. For instance ... I think we can all agree that the world warmed over the last century. Can't we?

It has, but it's probable that we don't all agree on that?

<Not aimed at anyone in particular> Perhaps it's time to look for the things that unify us, instead of delving into the minutae that divide us. </Not aimed at anyone in particular>

For instance after possible forthcoming expected cool spell (can't possibly be something else we all agree on, can it?) if warming significantly continues afterwards then all citizens of the planet are likely to be concerned (not another thing we can all agree on - surely not!) because of various things like sea-level (etc etc)

I don't expect a cool spell, we might see one (if the Sun goes more inactive perhaps up to <-.1C cooling effect?), but so far we've just not seen rapid warming recently. I'd expect further warming longer term - if we don't I'd ask questions.

So, my (current - so likely to change) manifesto would be ...

(i) Plan for continuing rising temperatures. A plan costs a few hundred consultants salary for a year or so. It ain't gonna break the bank. Standard stuff in the business world business continuity is.

(ii) Stop belching out CO2. We don't have to expand our pollution of the planet. Almost everyone I know agrees that to further the output of CO2 (regardless of any link to temperature) seems a bad thing. The rich countries can progress faster on this than the poor countries and give the technology away to the poor countries so that they can skip the 200 year development CO2 burp period.

Seems an obvious way to think, to me, and most who occupy the middle ground, I think, would tend to agree with this, somewhat coarse, assessment.

From my pov hard to disagree with.

[VillagePlank]

I'd expect further warming longer term - if we don't I'd ask questions.

Yup - so it's worthwhile, then, talking about the frame of reference. What is long enough to be considered longer term?

IMHO it has to be 30 years, primarily because that's what the 'average' is. See here for a quick insight into how meaningful averages can be.

So, if one considers the assertion 'Global Warming Stopped in 1998' then one has to consider that we still need another 20 year before we get to a full data set where such an assertion might be valid (it's been ten years since 1998, so 10+20=30) because 1968 to 1998 showed a considerable warming trend. Clearly the closer we get to 30 years with more of the same 'flatlining' the more valid such a proposition is.

This is not to say that this won't happen though ... given the last 10 years, it is certainly worth saying 'Hey - look we're 30% of the way there, and look what we've got' It is perhaps also worth saying that the climatic average needs revision because the last 30 odd years of the last century simply marked a warming to a new baseline.

It is, of course, useful to say, that we haven't, in the last 10 years, posted a below average year, simply 'flatlining' years. Not to say that we won't - indeed, I'd be extremely suprised if we didn't.

I don't expect a cool spell

Well, statistically, you should. Period.

Edited September 3, 2008 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Well, statistically, you should. Period.

You mean climate data is noisy? Em, yes then I agree.

OK, to re phrase myself. I expect a general warming trend with 'wiggles' around that trend. As per this? So, I would expect (if other forcings don't change) to see a year about +.6C fairly soon (decade maybe) and I'd not expect to see a year much below +.3C again.

[VillagePlank]

So, I would expect (if other forcings don't change) to see a year about +.6C fairly soon (decade maybe) and I'd not expect to see a year much below +.3C again.

That's quite a testable hypothesis, Dev.

Climate 'normal' range from hereon in 0.3C->0.6C! Can we agree over a 3 year period perhaps as the frame of reference for the test?

It'll be interesting to read what you have to say if the bottom end of that occurs. I note the caveat 'if other forcings don't change' But, I'm going to conveniently ignore it!!

Edited September 3, 2008 by VillagePlank

[osmposm]

And whilst we're on the 'ridiculous' theme...

http://www.naturalnews.com/024031.html

I can't help but look groundwards whilst gently shaking my head in despair. Hey,anyone notice how Big Al is looking more portly than ever these days? Someone really ought to take the people who wrote the above link that the 'accelerated warming' they mention actually stopped quite a few years back. AGW and it's entourage of idiots,charlatans and liars is starting to make me quite ill and just plain angry.

Yes, the two researchers whose letter to the Lancet was being reported are perhaps pushing things a bit - for a start the figure of 40% for prevalence of the obese (or almost so) worldwide must be wrong: the latest figures I've seen suggest less than 10%, even the US has probably not reached that yet. Still, what they say is, I suppose, technically correct, if of marginal relevance - I have recently been addressing my excessive weight (I've lost 7kg/15 lb so far), and it's genuinely extraordinary how much less food I'm buying (and travelling to buy) with 1000 kcal a day less consumption...though it has made it much harder to avoid waste, as food rots before you finish it.

However, LG, you really should read things a bit more carefully. The title of the piece is "Obese People to Blame for Accelerating Global Warming?", not "Accelerated", and whether or not we think the effect is relevant, it is mathematically true (if one accepts that CO2 has some effect, however tiny, on global temps...but I guess you don't!). The article does not state, imply or in any way mention whether or not Global Warming has accelerated.

Before wielding your usual anger, you might also have observed that "the people who wrote the above link" put a question mark at the end of the title, implying some doubt as to the truth/relevance of what they were reporting. And even more significantly, they finish their article with two short paras of clear and logical criticism of the researchers' conclusions, pointing out that food waste is a far, far more relevant issue. In my experience, the final words of a piece carry - as in this case they seem intended to - the most weight.

Oh, and please, please, a little less of your (final and therefore more powerful) abuse about the "idiots, charlatans and liars" of the AGW entourage. Does that include me? Do you really find it so impossible to accept that many of the people who believe in it are neither stupid, nor corrupt, nor dishonest, even if they should turn out to be mistaken?

Edited September 3, 2008 by osmposm

[osmposm]

Oh, and please, please, a little less of your (final and therefore more powerful) abuse about the "idiots, charlatans and liars" of the AGW entourage. Does that include me?

Ah, no, sorry, just read your next post.....I'm obviously one of the "naive, gullible, easily led etc" lot.

[Devonian]

That's quite a testable hypothesis, Dev.

Climate 'normal' range from hereon in 0.3C->0.6C! Can we agree over a 3 year period perhaps as the frame of reference for the test?

I said decade, I meant decade but, either might happen in 3, just less likely I think.

It'll be interesting to read what you have to say if the bottom end of that occurs. I note the caveat 'if other forcings don't change' But, I'm going to conveniently ignore it!!

Hey, can I pick and choose as well

It's not really a caveat. I do (because the experts do) expect climate forcing due to anthropogenic influences to increase. But, I don't (can't) rule out a big volcanic eruption, or some huge meteorite slamming us. Climate is the sum of all the things that effect it. If the Sun changes a lot you see warming or cooling, if ghg's change a lot you see the same, if there is a big volcano you see a cooling etc etc . I don't deny any of them - I just think the figures for anthropogenic influence compelling and probably right. We both know all that?

[laserguy]

Ah, no, sorry, just read your next post.....I'm obviously one of the "naive, gullible, easily led etc" lot.

Only if you choose to be. I know you don't like me Os as you made quite plain a while ago because of my filthy habit of riding those nasty,noisy,smelly,fuel guzzling motorbikes. Hey,if we wanna tar a group with the same brush - fine by me. Seems my forthright approach goes down equally badly with you. Again,fine. Us tykes have a reputation for that,y'know. Anyway,as to the post about GW and obesity. Why on Earth else would the two be mentioned in the same sentence,apart from the glaringly obvious implication? And the opposite scenario? Let's all be vegan beanpoles and see a 0.00001C drop in global temps due to reduced 'carbon footprints' (pass the sick bucket'. Utter madness.

[beng]

If the Sun changes a lot you see warming or cooling

Can you clarify this - when you say the sun changes a lot are you talking about variations in sunspot numbers/solar cycle lengths - or are you talking about TSI variations (which only vary very slightly in reality) - or do you mean the sun varies in some other way?

[Devonian]

Can you clarify this - when you say the sun changes a lot are you talking about variations in sunspot numbers/solar cycle lengths - or are you talking about TSI variations (which only vary very slightly in reality) - or do you mean the sun varies in some other way?

Well, I guess it's better to say I don't think the Sun doesn't very much but if it did we'd obviously notice. I suspect that solar changes are only important over long times scales (Milankovich, the Sun ageing)

[osmposm]

Only if you choose to be. I know you don't like me Os as you made quite plain a while ago because of my filthy habit of riding those nasty,noisy,smelly,fuel guzzling motorbikes. Hey,if we wanna tar a group with the same brush - fine by me. Seems my forthright approach goes down equally badly with you. Again,fine. Us tykes have a reputation for that,y'know. Anyway,as to the post about GW and obesity. Why on Earth else would the two be mentioned in the same sentence,apart from the glaringly obvious implication? And the opposite scenario? Let's all be vegan beanpoles and see a 0.00001C drop in global temps due to reduced 'carbon footprints' (pass the sick bucket'. Utter madness.

I know you won't believe me, LG, but until you mentioned it I had completely forgotten about my (I thought light-hearted) comment about motorbikes - and it's only the noisy, aggressively ridden 'boy-racer' ones I mind anyway. Moreover, if someone else had mentioned it I would have been unable to remember who it was I'd addressed on the subject - sorry, my memory is not so good, it was a long time ago, and I don't bear grudges anyway. It's true I don't much like the sometimes aggressive and black-and-white tone of many of your posts, but I have no opinion on you as a person outside that......because I don't know you. This is not a personal vendetta, it is a serious, sometimes over-heated discussion on things that matter. It's much more important than you or me.

Back to the matter in hand, though. Read my post properly and you'll see that all I'm trying to show is that the article concerned ( http://www.naturalnews.com/024031.html ) is not just another bit of loony AGW propaganda: a more careful reading shows that the writers seem to share your (and my) misgivings about the accuracy and relevance of the research by the two guys at the LSHTM. It is quite a balanced report, taken overall. I also pointed out that neither the researchers nor the writers ever said that Global Warming had accelerated - which is one of the things you had objected to, isn't it?

As to your broad-sweep pronouncements about the character of those who believe in and/or declare support for the theory of AGW, I just resent the implication that they are all either 'idiots, charlatans and liars' or 'naive, gullible, easily led'. I continue to believe in the theory, with many reservations as to detail. I may turn out be wrong - a possibility that you never, ever allow (how wonderful to be so certain about anything in the complex mess of life). But I strenuously deny that any of your three nouns or three adjectives describe me, and, yes, I would ask you to moderate your "forthright approach" if that includes being personally insulting.

Ossie

Edited September 3, 2008 by osmposm

[laserguy]

......As to your broad-sweep pronouncements about the character of those who believe in and/or declare support for the theory of AGW, I just resent the implication that they are all either 'idiots, charlatans and liars' or 'naive, gullible, easily led'. I continue to believe in the theory, with many reservations as to detail. I may turn out be wrong - a possibility that you never, ever allow (how wonderful to be so certain about anything in the complex mess of life). But I strenuously deny that any of your three nouns or three adjectives describe me, and, yes, I would ask you to moderate your "forthright approach" if that includes being personally insulting.

Ossie

Os,I apologise fully and without reservation. Regards,LG.

[Mondy]

Sums it up nicely

[Chris Knight]

Sums it up nicely

Where's the box for "Modify data to fit theory"?

[Roo]

Delta/Chris/Laserguy: Could you please me give me chapter and verse of research projects where you can show this to be true?

[and please don't just list every piece of research that you don't like, I want to see evidence: for you to keep throwing around these excessive claims you need to start putting your money where your mouths are.]

[noggin]

I do doubt global warming is to blame for everything (though if tide are higher ,and ice melt is part of the cause and part of that cause of that is warming temperatures...) , likewise I refuse to believe it can be dismissed every single time it's mentioned.

Is that some kind of middle ground we can agree on?

uote]

Dev, I'm sure that, if we looked carefully enough, there would be something, somewhere in all of this where we would actually agree!

I think that there are two points which I would like to make......

1) Ridiculous media hype does the AGW stance no favours at all, and actually feeds and gives ammunition to the sceptics.

2) If, way back when the AGW "business" took off (15/20 years ago-ish?), no-one thought that a cooldown period such as is being proposed by many scientists now was going to be coming along, then how can it be said, with any certainty, that after it is over, we will continue to warm even further? If the cooldown wasn't anticipated by the "AGW-ers", then how can they claim to know what will happen in another 15 years? Unless it is all natural cycles, of course.

Regards to all.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just a 'one off' reminder.

The Media sensationalises.

Don't be fooled ,all those of a naive bent, into thinking this is purely the realm of the daily/sunday sport........the wise among you have known, since they were very small, not to lay too much trust in the media. They need readership/viewership merely to survive and will prostitute their resposibilities to massage and maximise their reading/viewing 'numbers'.

Science and it's 'outlets' is not to be confused with the above.

Thank you for your time on this matter........

[Chris Knight]

Delta/Chris/Laserguy: Could you please me give me chapter and verse of research projects where you can show this to be true?

[and please don't just list every piece of research that you don't like, I want to see evidence: for you to keep throwing around these excessive claims you need to start putting your money where your mouths are.]

Just google "scientific fraud" for a plethora of information on fabricated data that has got into the literature, some deliberate and others possibly unconscious that permeates research.

Deliberate, e.g. "Piltdown Man", unconscious, probably, Gregor Mendel's seminal research on plant hybridization.

Many years ago I was a research technician in a prestigious University of London College. My professor got extremely annoyed when I could not get the results he wanted, because he had already got the paper accepted with his anticipated outcome of the experiments. He wasn't fraudulent as such, just full of an enthusiastic prejudice, which in this case was wrong.

[johnholmes]

the discussion, at times arguments, continue with NONE of us knowing really what the answer is.

What would be wonderful is for we ordinary non scientific characters to be able to get two believers from the climatologists(NOT politicians) from each side of the argument. Give them 45 minutes to explain their viewpoint with a slide show and then a further, however long, for us all to question them. Also for them to answer in layman's language, questions on whatever we want explaining. A dream I'm afraid but it might help each of us to have a clearer understanding of the two viewpoints.

Edited September 4, 2008 by johnholmes

[The PIT]

One thing that gets me about this topic is that people have very little concept of time when applying it too the planet. A change in climate in 100 years is pittance and means nothing and looking at twenty years is just plain silly. The climate of Earth would change constantly over millions of years whether we're on it or not.

Time will only prove AGW correct or not but I doubt any of us will be around too see it or not.

[beng]

Well, I guess it's better to say I don't think the Sun doesn't very much but if it did we'd obviously notice. I suspect that solar changes are only important over long times scales (Milankovich, the Sun ageing)

Fair enough - thought we had converted you for a minute.

[SP1986]

Sums it up nicely

That made me laugh! It may be more true than anyone could care to believe A nice breaker in the heat of the debate.