The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[pottyprof]

Firstly,PP, there is no reasonable doubt at all that AGW exists.

Perhaps I should have made myself clearer..

The argument is mainly based around the question does AGW exist and if so by how much is it affecting our climate?? We don't know.. There is that better?

By changing the headline From Global Warming to Climate Change, you then have a 99% agreement from whatever direction you're coming from... In other words, almost everyone is onside in a change of two words..

I don't think that anyone would disagree that Climate Change is happening.. Difficult to argue when you're all on the same side..

Nobody said that climate taxation is a conspiracy. It is a fact that money has to come from somewhere to prepare for higher sea levels etc. Whatever happens, we will be taxed more and more on anything that potentially damages the environment whether the current climate change is natural or not. It's a fact and it's happening now.. It only becomes a conspiracy if we are being told one thing and something else is happening. Its not global warming anymore that is driving this, it is the accurate rebrand that is Climate Change. No conspiracy whatever happens...

And its true.. Despite all probabilities.. We don't know what will happen next. They got the ice forecast well wrong, despite all probabilities.. Some scientists are now increasingly concerned that the solar forecast is well naffed up and they don't know why and this despite all the probabilities..

There is without a doubt, a huge, unhealthy dollop of politics involved within this subject.. My view but as I said, the more I read the more convinced I am that this is the case.

[osmposm]

We don't know what will happen next. They got the ice forecast well wrong, despite all probabilities..

Prof...um...who got what ice forecast wrong?

If you meant that most mainstream scientists forecast a lower ice minimum this year than last, and an ice-free North Pole to boot - well no, as it happens, they didn't. Over in Carinthian's Ice Thread I recently posted a précis of what was actually said in the spring by probably the three most respected analysers of possible short-term future ice trends - NSIDC, CCAR and Univ of Washington AP Lab. You can read it here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?a...amp;pid=1331854

Is that what you meant? If so, I am surprised at you.

I agree, though, that we don't know what will happen next.

Ossie

Edited September 20, 2008 by osmposm

[pottyprof]

Prof...um...who got what ice forecast wrong?

The fact it went early against all probabilities.. We were supposed to have had a lot more ice at the cap for a good few more years yet.. Probabilities don't count for anything in this game I'm afraid.. We can have all the latest stats and we still don't know what the next thing is that will happen.. All we can do is guess and with the best will in the world, we are still getting it wrong on paper/models/etc..

There has to be a reason for this..

Is that what you meant? If so, I am surprised at you.

Ossie

No.. With regards to that.. The ice that is now left, technically becomes multi year ice!!

[osmposm]

The fact it went early against all probabilities.. We were supposed to have had a lot more ice at the cap for a good few more years yet..

Ah sorry, prof, profuse aplogies, I got it back to front....I thought you meant that people had predicted a new record ice low this year and it didn't happen.

[pottyprof]

Ah sorry, prof, profuse aplogies, I got it back to front....I thought you meant that people had predicted a new record ice low this year and it didn't happen.

See what this next year brings.. End of the day it is interesting times atm.. Are we peaking/have we peaked/are we heading for more of what we just had in recent years?? Time will tell..

[Gray-Wolf]

:lol: See what this next year brings.. End of the day it is interesting times atm.. Are we peaking/have we peaked/are we heading for more of what we just had in recent years?? Time will tell..

Oooooh what a daring man you are!!!!

Go on, have a guess......I dare ya!

[Thundery wintry showers]

As I posted in the other thread, I can't agree that we haven't got a clue what will happen and probabilities count for nothing.

Probabilities indicate a sense, based on available evidence, that something is likely/unlikely to happen, i.e. there is a greater than average chance of it happening. If we say there is 80% chance of something happening, even if our probabalistic forecast is spot on, that still leaves 20% chance of it not happening.

Due to the ever-advancing nature of scientific understanding of global climate processes, and the advancing ability of climate models to simulate climate, it is also inevitable that some probabalistic forecasts will, over time, be proven inaccurate as some other issue crops up that had previously been inadequately covered. The hope is that, as time goes on, we may be able to make more accurate predictions of global climate.

It's a bit like saying that since I sometimes get my monthly forecasts wrong, we don't have a clue what the month-ahead weather's going to be like.

[Essan]

Firstly,PP, there is no reasonable doubt at all that AGW exists. We as a species can't, as we have and continue to do, add greenhouse gasses, in serious quantity, to an atmosphere and it have no warming effect - that's simply not possible unless not just climate science but physics and chemistry is all wrong. No, there is no reasonable doubt there is AGW the question is not 'if' but 'how much' - that's where sceptics should be looking and questioning.

Spot on

Of course, that's where the real sceptics stand - questioning the extent of anthroppgenic warming compared with natural variation - and, indeed, the various aspects of both anthropogenic and natural warming (as I keep saying to myself - no-one else listens - there's more to AGW than CO2). IMO we're not yet in a position to say for sure what factors contribute what.

Incidently, I do find it ironic that some so-called sceptics question AGW because they say the data is skewed by UHIs ....... so are UHIs created by the sun? Or humans? ........ :lol:

[Thundery wintry showers]

(as I keep saying to myself - no-one else listens - there's more to AGW than CO2)

I agree, it's a point I sometimes refer to myself- and indeed, it's rare that anyone listens, regardless of their positions!

Good point on urban heat islands btw!

[Chris Knight]

Spot on

Of course, that's where the real sceptics stand - questioning the extent of anthroppgenic warming compared with natural variation - and, indeed, the various aspects of both anthropogenic and natural warming (as I keep saying to myself - no-one else listens - there's more to AGW than CO2). IMO we're not yet in a position to say for sure what factors contribute what.

Incidently, I do find it ironic that some so-called sceptics question AGW because they say the data is skewed by UHIs ....... so are UHIs created by the sun? Or humans? ........ :lol:

Interesting thought - if we do find that climate change is more due to land use change than GHGs, do we have concrete and tarmac taxes to replace the carbon taxes that have suddenly become, er, unsupportable?

[Optimus Prime]

I've always thought that land use and CO2 are mutual. Covering land over with tarmac and asphalt changes the climate in a variety of different, yet major ways. You're reducing the natural cycle from Carbon to Oxygen for a start and removing radiation cooling which is part of the cooling of the enviroment and producing water vapor.

I suspect, with the current silly and selfish obsession in this country of people tarmacing their front gardens or using gravel for their cars to sit on, it's having its own small effect on the climate in this country.

[Essan]

I suspect, with the current silly and selfish obsession in this country of people tarmacing their front gardens or using gravel for their cars to sit on, it's having its own small effect on the climate in this country.

Well it's certainly increasing the risk of local flooding. And presumably must have an impact on local UHI effect? And if you have lots of local climate effects all over the world, it amounts to a global change (hence UHI's alone prove AGW).

I do think CO2 must have an effect but I wonder whether it's had much effect yet? Meanwhile of course there are many natural factors to take into account. As well as other human activities that may mask warming and/or cause cooling (like sulphur emissions). Which leaves us with a very complex jigsaw to piece together. Hence I'm sceptical of the current 'scientific position' and specifically the media/political emphasis on CO2. I also think some of the other human activities that contribute towards climate change are easier to solve than cutting carbon emissions - which I think will be cut for other reasons than concerns about climate change anyway (like the fact we can no longer afford to squander energy, especially that derived from foreign oil and gas, like it's limitless and for free).

[Android]

Scientific knowledge would have to undergo somewhat of a total overturning to reduce the importance of co2:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Radiative-forcings.svg

[Roger J Smith]

The argument about UHI is relevant to the discussion because it exists somewhat independent of our "carbon footprint" -- even if people drove less polluting vehicles and used passive forms of heating, the UHI would still be sizeable because heat would be displaced into the atmosphere and most of the albedo considerations of the UHI would remain unchanged.

Therefore the political side of the argument would be that much more difficult to attain if the theories behind it were valid but if UHI was a major part of the reason for warming.

From a theoretical point of view, the importance of UHI could have an impact on postulated circulation changes. However, this is probably too complex to fit into one post here. I tend to think it has no large impact in this area, if there is warming from below for any reason, then the circulation could change to reflect this.

Given that I am in the conservative end of the "blended" camp in this debate (meaning that I think warming has been perhaps more natural than anthropogenic) then I am not dealing with a lot of possible variance in the anthro one-third of the total to give away to UHIs or otherwise. I know for a fact that there are large UHIs, without any human population on the earth it would definitely be cooler than it is today for that reason alone, but purists then want to debate, would that be only in the areas now covered by towns and cities, or is the heat spread out more?

I would suspect it would be spread out more to some extent, that surplus heat from towns and cities does not just remain in situ and not enter the larger circulation. But I don't think this factor alone explains all of the anthro contribution to warming, so perhaps it is half of a third, or a sixth of the total of all observed warming.

Something not discussed very often in the literature would be a more general human habitation warming. Take eastern Asia in particular, where half the world's six billion people live (from China to India and various other large countries in eastern Asia). Three billion people radiate a lot of heat, no matter what their activity or culture or source of fuel. But it is an observable fact that humans congregate in cities and cities are generally lower albedo heat sinks that return heat to the atmosphere slowly over time. That heat must be fairly substantial in this region in particular. On a global scale, 95% of the human race lives north of the equator. These various differences would be placing differential stress on the heat engine of the atmosphere. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are observing greater anomalies in the northern hemisphere, a net cooling of the Antarctic, and unusual stress on the arctic in recent decades.

It may have more to do with simple heat transfer than greenhouse gases. I would hate to think what the political solution would be, probably everyone would be ordered to lie still after painting their roofs white.

[Iceberg]

Nobody want to talk about the last climate wars program, one of the best programs i've seen on the subject. It tried to look at it from a different light with different examples.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Incidently, I do find it ironic that some so-called sceptics question AGW because they say the data is skewed by UHIs ....... so are UHIs created by the sun? Or humans? ........

A sceptic I am....but that is a very good and valid point and clearly human induced. Fortunately UHIs aren't CO2....that's my grind with AGW.

BFTP

[VillagePlank]

Good point on urban heat islands btw!

No, I don't accept that it was a good point. In my opinion setting up a weather station inside my oven, isn't particularly revealing when it comes to the mean temperature of my garden.

I'm quite happy to presume that the UHI effects have been mitigated, though.

[Cumulonimbus Tower]

Just a little more fuel for the debate - sorry if this has already been covered extensively.....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...-7583%2C00.html

[The PIT]

No, I don't accept that it was a good point. In my opinion setting up a weather station inside my oven, isn't particularly revealing when it comes to the mean temperature of my garden.

I'm quite happy to presume that the UHI effects have been mitigated, though.

You ought to see where some of the stations are located. Next to air con vents middle of concrete car parks so the urban heat effect isn't unimportant.

[VillagePlank]

You ought to see where some of the stations are located. Next to air con vents middle of concrete car parks so the urban heat effect isn't unimportant.

I didn't say it wasn't. But surely a satellite that can image a complete hemisphere in one go, isn't really going to be affected, that much, by heating vents?

As I said, I think the effect has been mitigated, now. Could be wrong ...

[Mondy]

Totally unknown if this has been posted before. Recently found them. Haven't even watched yet, but let me know either way if it's bull or not B)

[pottyprof]

That's an interesting one Mr DX.. In plain Engish too.. Well, sorta.. :o

[jethro]

Here's a new paper from Dr Zbigniew Jaworowski, it's a combination of facts, data and at times a good old rant; makes interesting reading though.

http://www.nzcpr.com/Research%20papers%20(4).pdf

For anyone not familiar with Maurice Strong, here's an idea of who he is:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/cover031307.htm

Googling reveals reams of further information.

Edited September 23, 2008 by jethro

[SP1986]

Unfortunately Jethro Dr Z Jarowowski doesn't get a thumbs up from me, in large because he only conducts secondary research, and this alone allows 'evidence' to be bent to suit his own cause or hypotheses, it does not disprove AGW to the extent that perhaps collecting primary data would, so I'm critical of his 'research paper' to be honest.

[jethro]

Unfortunately Jethro Dr Z Jarowowski doesn't get a thumbs up from me, in large because he only conducts secondary research, and this alone allows 'evidence' to be bent to suit his own cause or hypotheses, it does not disprove AGW to the extent that perhaps collecting primary data would, so I'm critical of his 'research paper' to be honest.

I can't say I entirely agree with him either, but to be fair, your criticism of him above could be equally directed at the IPCC, could it not?