The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Devonian]

Just seen this, got to say, the man has a valid point:

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads...g-delusions.pdf

"Human generated carbon dioxide is arguably around 3% of the total carbon dioxide budget" is an interesting phrase. It might be correct, but one needs to know what he means by budget, and why he chooses to look at it in that way.

Whatever, it is a phrase that could mislead the unwary. Atmospheric CO2 has risen from a ~280ppm pre industrial level to about 380ppm now, in what is a geological nano second. Now, that is a 30% increase - and we, our actions as a species, are the reason it has happened. The carbon not in the atmosphere but in the Carbon Cycle (which I think is what he means by 'budget') can't behave as a ghg, so why include it? Well, it does make the human effect look less - closer to 3% of the Carbon Cycle than 30% of the atmospheric concentration...

Of course he also use the word 'fraud' (twice) which is a dead give away (oh, and 'deceptive delusion') - so this piece is more politics than science.

edit: make that three uses of the word fraud...

Edited September 10, 2008 by Devonian

[jethro]

But you cannot escape politics in what is essentially a politically driven debate; the "godfather" publication for all of this originates from the IPCC and the UN. The IPCC was formed and mandated to investigate human induced climate change, sadly many, if not most people assume the balance of investigation between natural and man-made climate change is invested in equally; it isn't. Like it or lump it, these are political bodies, science and scientists just happen to have found themselves caught up in this whole shenanigans; IMO opinion to the detriment of themselves and their profession.

If this was PURELY a scientific debate, then we wouldn't have the situation we currently find ourselves in.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, as I'm currently using the IPCC Fourth Assessment report heavily to help find recent relevant papers for my research, it suffices to say that much of the IPCC Report serves primarily as a literature review. I even found a scientific paper referenced by IPCC which notes that the trend towards a stronger, more northerly tracking wintertime jet may be at least partly the result of natural forcings such as solar activity and changes in ocean circulation, alongside papers which note a probable anthropogenic signal.

The summary for policymakers almost certainly does have some political bias as it's geared towards, and checked repeatedly by, politicians, but the report's main analysis is based on the current state of scientific understanding.

I thought 3% seemed a ridiculously low figure for the increase. What Devonian's highlighted there is a classic case of being economical with the truth- presenting something that is designed to mislead, but isn't technically an untruth. Although it's wrong to dismiss an entire set of arguments based on one bad example, whenever I see that kind of thing in an article (whether pro or anti-AGW) it undermines my trust in the writer's position.

[Devonian]

But you cannot escape politics in what is essentially a politically driven debate; the "godfather" publication for all of this originates from the IPCC and the UN. The IPCC was formed and mandated to investigate human induced climate change, sadly many, if not most people assume the balance of investigation between natural and man-made climate change is invested in equally; it isn't.

Well, I'd like to see any document from the IPCC from any time that state it's mandate just to investigate Anthro climate change. The mandate is here:

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Like it or lump it, these are political bodies, science and scientists just happen to have found themselves caught up in this whole shenanigans; IMO opinion to the detriment of themselves and their profession.

I'm, pretty sure that scentists involved would find that, how shall I put it, unhelpful.

[jethro]

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced [/u]climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Thanks for that Dev, as I said HUMAN INDUCED - as it clearly states.

[Roo]

most people assume the balance of investigation between natural and man-made climate change is invested in equally; it isn't.

Hiya. Could you give us some figures to show how much is invested in natural climate change and man-made climate change research?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Paul
Removed comments

[Devonian]

"The IPCC was established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change. The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced [/u]climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they need to deal objectively with policy relevant scientific, technical and socio economic factors. They should be of high scientific and technical standards, and aim to reflect a range of views, expertise and wide geographical coverage."

Thanks for that Dev, as I said HUMAN INDUCED - as it clearly states.

Sorry, Jethro, but you said "The IPCC was formed and mandated to investigate human induced climate change" it was not, it was established "to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change". I DO agree anthro climate change is part of that, but not all of that which I assume (perhaps wrongly) was implied by your comment?

[jethro]

Hiya. Could you give us some figures to show how much is invested in natural climate change and man-made climate change research? Would love to see the figures, which you must have, otherwise you wouldn't be able to so confidently state the difference.......

Confidence comes from reading their publicly available mandate. The IPCC does not do any research, it investigates literature which indicates "human induced climate change".

You and I disagree on many aspects of climate change Roo, personally I agree to disagree but on this occasion, this isn't a sceptic view opposing a believer view - it's quite simply, as Dev posted above, the IPCC mandate. Their words, not mine, not my take on the situation, not a hyped media spin story; their mandate.

Dev was complaining about the political emphasis in a link I posted earlier, I'm merely pointing out, the IPCC and the UN are political bodies; politics is inextricably part of this whole debate, whether we like it or not.

Sorry, Jethro, but you said "The IPCC was formed and mandated to investigate human induced climate change" it was not, it was established "to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change". I DO agree anthro climate change is part of that, but not all of that which I assume (perhaps wrongly) was implied by your comment?

But Dev, their mandate quite clearly says otherwise. I didn't invent "investigate human induced climate change", I lifted it straight from the mandate you posted.

I'm not intentionally being a pain here, honest; it's just that English language, proof reading and publishing is my "trade". Their mandate cannot be interpreted in any other way, if it had read "investigate climate change" then it would mean a different thing entirely. There's a huge assumption continually being made that the IPCC has acted impartially by investigating all climate change but if they follow their own mandated rules, then at inception they are already biased towards the "human induced" element.

[Devonian]

Confidence comes from reading their publicly available mandate. The IPCC does not do any research, it investigates literature which indicates "human induced climate change".

You and I disagree on many aspects of climate change Roo, personally I agree to disagree but on this occasion, this isn't a sceptic view opposing a believer view - it's quite simply, as Dev posted above, the IPCC mandate. Their words, not mine, not my take on the situation, not a hyped media spin story; their mandate.

Dev was complaining about the political emphasis in a link I posted earlier, I'm merely pointing out, the IPCC and the UN are political bodies; politics is inextricably part of this whole debate, whether we like it or not.

Jethro, I feel you're rather misrepresenting me. Let me re post my last post with some emphasis added:

You said"The IPCC was formed and mandated to investigate human induced climate change" it was not, it was established "to provide the decision-makers and others interested in climate change with an objective source of information about climate change". Now, I DO agree anthro climate change is part of that, but not all of that which I assume (perhaps wrongly) was implied by your comment?

OK?

If the IPCC is only interested in human induced climate change why are there section on paleo climate, land and sea ice and sources of climate forcing other than the anthro one?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Well, as I've mentioned above, I've found papers referenced by the IPCC that provide evidence that downplays the role of anthropogenic forcing on some aspects of climate change. It may not be completely unbiased (deficiencies in the peer review system spring to mind) but it certainly isn't the case that all research that downplays anthropogenic forcing is ignored.

[jethro]

Got to go to school now to pick up my son, I'll get back to you both later, if I may.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

The (empirical ?) argument about whether or not man's activities have contributed to a warming earth is frankly irrelevant. It is pretty simple - as long as there is a possibility that man's activities are contributing to a warmer world, then mankind HAS a responsibility to both future generations and the other inhabitants of this earth to change his activities to reduce that possible risk.

We can argue all we like about whether or not AGW is a fact, although as I have posted previously, even as an empirical argument this is a waste of time because none of us will live long enough to witness any incontrovertible proof, but whilst the possibility exists that the world is warming, and there is therefore a further possibility that man's activities are contributing to this warming, then as I said, to still do nothing is irresponsible, selfish and just plain wrong.

The only people who can feel happy to do nothing are those that are absolutely 100% confident and without any doubt that there is not even the remotest possibility that the world is warming and therefore that man's current and previous activities are of no import.

So, as I have said before, arguments about whether or not the earth is definitely warming are only an interesting diversion. The only important point in all this is whether or not you accept the possibility that earth may be warming. And I would be very surprised to find anyone (never mind the relevant scientific experts) who denies even the possibilty that the earth is warming.

[Roo]

Confidence comes from reading their publicly available mandate.

But that's not what I asked: you stated that more funding went into man made GW than into natural GW research.

I asked, and would still like, to see the figures that prove that statement. That has nothing to do with IPCC, but with research funding.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Roo

[Thundery wintry showers]

The (empirical ?) argument about whether or not man's activities have contributed to a warming earth is frankly irrelevant. It is pretty simple - as long as there is a possibility that man's activities are contributing to a warmer world, then mankind HAS a responsibility to both future generations and the other inhabitants of this earth to change his activities to reduce that possible risk.

...

Agreed- and in addition to PTFD's arguments, there's also the responsibility to manage use of our world's oil resources so that we don't use most of them up, and then suddenly cry when a mass recession looms because we're so dependent on them and oil prices are skyrocketing.

As well as economic slowdown, imagine the possibility of wars between countries fighting over "ownership" of what limited oil we had left...

So even if humans weren't contributing to climate change we'd still have a strong reason to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.

[laserguy]

So, as I have said before, arguments about whether or not the earth is definitely warming are only an interesting diversion. The only important point in all this is whether or not you accept the possibility that earth may be warming. And I would be very surprised to find anyone (never mind the relevant scientific experts) who denies even the possibilty that the earth is warming.

What about the current reality that right now the world is actually cooling :wacko: ? If one is of an apocalyptic bent,the coming years are going to be highly 'entertaining'. Where's the 'warming' when you really need it?

[VillagePlank]

What about the current reality that right now the world is actually cooling :wacko: ? If one is of an apocalyptic bent,the coming years are going to be highly 'entertaining'. Where's the 'warming' when you really need it?

Indeed we seem to be cooling at the moment.

It happens when the sun goes down, and it happens at certain times of the year, too.

But then, I guess, referring to such small timescales is ludicrous, huh?

Edited September 10, 2008 by VillagePlank

[laserguy]

Indeed we seem to be cooling at the moment.

It happens when the sun goes down, and it happens at certain times of the year, too.

But then, I guess, referring to such small timescales is ludicrous, huh?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUUAH.JPG

Here we go again! No sign of the current trend reversing here. How long does it need to go on before it can be established as a trend in human,not geological timescales? Of course,when warming was noted the good ol' IPCC established that the only way was up (allowing for 'blips').

[VillagePlank]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUUAH.JPG

Here we go again! No sign of the current trend reversing here. How long does it need to go on before it can be established as a trend in human,not geological timescales? Of course,when warming was noted the good ol' IPCC established that the only way was up (allowing for 'blips').

Well the first question is ... Is ten years (six in your jpg) enough to measure climate?

(Haven't ignored the IPCC comment, but that can wait for another time - if we can agree what we define as a measure of climate, then we can move on)

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

What about the current reality that right now the world is actually cooling :wacko: ? If one is of an apocalyptic bent,the coming years are going to be highly 'entertaining'. Where's the 'warming' when you really need it?

But that's the point isn't it - are you prepared to go on record here and state that there is absolutely zero possibility that, even if there has been an apparent cooling/levelling (depending on who you read) over the last few years (as VP has said, in truth a pretty meaninglessly short timescale in terms of climate change), that the earth is not going through a period of warming ? Are you happy to categorically state that there is no possibility that those scientists who predict further warming might be right ?

[Thundery wintry showers]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUUAH.JPG

Here we go again! No sign of the current trend reversing here. How long does it need to go on before it can be established as a trend in human,not geological timescales? Of course,when warming was noted the good ol' IPCC established that the only way was up (allowing for 'blips').

Well, chances are if you take the 10-year period 1999-2008 as the baseline it will show either no trend or a very small warming trend- not a cooling. The cooling only appears because the starting point is the exceptional El Nino year of 1998 which heavily skews the statistics.

And out of a prediction that spans 100 years a 10-year cooling could easily end up as a blip.

[Chris Knight]

The (empirical ?) argument about whether or not man's activities have contributed to a warming earth is frankly irrelevant. It is pretty simple - as long as there is a possibility that man's activities are contributing to a warmer world, then mankind HAS a responsibility to both future generations and the other inhabitants of this earth to change his activities to reduce that possible risk.

We can argue all we like about whether or not AGW is a fact, although as I have posted previously, even as an empirical argument this is a waste of time because none of us will live long enough to witness any incontrovertible proof, but whilst the possibility exists that the world is warming, and there is therefore a further possibility that man's activities are contributing to this warming, then as I said, to still do nothing is irresponsible, selfish and just plain wrong.

The only people who can feel happy to do nothing are those that are absolutely 100% confident and without any doubt that there is not even the remotest possibility that the world is warming and therefore that man's current and previous activities are of no import.

So, as I have said before, arguments about whether or not the earth is definitely warming are only an interesting diversion. The only important point in all this is whether or not you accept the possibility that earth may be warming. And I would be very surprised to find anyone (never mind the relevant scientific experts) who denies even the possibilty that the earth is warming.

If we identify the activity and the contribution that it gives towards changing climate, then we can assess the risk, and the possible ways to reduce damage.

If we misidentify the activity, and direct all energies towards correcting the effects of that activity, we shall be failing badly.

Take land use as an alternative to CO₂. We irrigate huge areas of land, (agricultural and urban) and increase ground humidity in many rather historically dry (hot) parts of the globe or at seasonally dry (warm) seasons because the 6 billion plus population requires more food than in the past, and prefer green leafy suburbs during the (urban heat island accentuated) warm seasons.

Even the CO₂ school now admit that water vapour is more effective as a GG than the carbon dioxide, within a range of 60-95%.

The greenhouse effect absorbs (and reradiates at upper levels) almost all incoming infrared solar radiation, leaving the major radiation energy in the visible range as it hits the earth's surface. All unreflected light warms the surface and is reradiated as heat or infrared radiation, and this is likely to be absorbed by the greenhouse gases.

The preponderance of water vapour near the surface over carbon dioxide is of the order 2/100 to 370/1000000 or 4/10000, of the order of 1/50 to 1/2500, 500X more effect for water than CO₂.

If the near surface atmosphere is very dry, then the relative effect of greenhouse due to CO₂ is greater, only occurring near the polar regions. In humid atmospheres the effect of water vapour is greatest by a large margin.

Anywhere on earth where irrigation is used, it is noted that the surface temperatures are depressed by the order of one degree C. Cooling. Well, not exactly cooling but extraction of heat, by the water into the atmosphere only to be released elsewhere.

In the first thirty metres above the surface, the surface reradiated infrared is predominantly absorbed by the water vapour, and water vapour thus heated behaves like any gas, transferring energy by collision statistically with other molecules in the atmosphere, the majority of which are not greenhouse gases. Above thirty metres, there is little effective absorbtion of infrared from the surface in the atmosphere, only the exchange of energy between the molecules in the atmosphere.

Ok, warm air rises, and if it contains water vapour, it will eventually condense releasing the latent heat of condensation, as infrared radiation - water vapour (condensed) is now deficient, so the well-mixed carbon dioxide can collect the infrared radiation and either warm the other local gases, or reradiate it spacewards or earthwards. Statistically the loss is spacewards.

[Android]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/MSUUAH.JPG

Here we go again! No sign of the current trend reversing here. How long does it need to go on before it can be established as a trend in human,not geological timescales? Of course,when warming was noted the good ol' IPCC established that the only way was up (allowing for 'blips').

I reproduced this graph using this page:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:...rmalise/mean:12

But I can make a similar graph using the period 1988 - 1994:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:...rmalise/mean:12

The full record looks like this:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:...rmalise/mean:12

[Chris Knight]

A moment of silence please.

It is 9/11.

The worst birthday present I ever received.

May it never happen again.

R.I.P.

[SnowBear]

Agreed Chris, may it never happen again! Blessings to all who were involved and all those since.

But try not to link the event on 9/11 with your Birthday Chris, they are two events separated in space and time and no link between them :-)

Happy Birthday, and please do have a great day!

[Gray-Wolf]

Agreed Chris, may it never happen again! Blessings to all who were involved and all those since.

But try not to link the event on 9/11 with your Birthday Chris, they are two events separated in space and time and no link between them :-)

Happy Birthday, and please do have a great day!

Ditto