The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[SP1986]

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?

It could well be, if the IPCC have done entirely secondary based research. I imagine the IPCC have very credible scientists and people working with them who want to see past all the press and government inteference and find a true research hypothesis.

No matter what side of the argument it is from, I personally don't accept secondary research, especially on such an important matter, potentially. We need as much primary research as possible in order to get a true picture.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The main issue with the IPCC is that it summarises the conclusions of primary research and so some could argue that there's a possibility of its summaries having a bit of bias (whether the suspicions are founded or not). Most of the papers linked to are available only on subscription although some are available on Google Scholar and you can usually get them via a university library, if the relevant university is at all interested in climate research (e.g. Reading, UEA, Leeds, Edinburgh, Birmingham, Lancaster, Manchester).

[jethro]

Here's a new paper from Richard Lindzen:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf

http://arxiv.org/abs/0809.3762

[Mondy]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s.climatechange

[Chris Knight]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s.climatechange

Advertisement:

New Franchise opportunity!

Solar panel cleaning/maintenance operatives required. Due to H&S regulations must be able to erect scaffolding/operate cherry-pickers (that's why I am hopeful that this forum will be fruitful ) to service rooftop solar panels to maintain optimum operation. Late autumn/ late spring busy times - two long vacations per year, summer and winter. OTE £200,000 pa.

All enquiries to...

[Roger J Smith]

There's only two flaws in the global warming theory.

The part that says global, and the part that says warming.

[noggin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s.climatechange

I quite agree with the writer of the article. There will come a time (may be here already) when the AGW alarmists' warnings get so ridiculous that scepticism (already widely held, it seems to me) will become even more widespread and the AGW bubble will burst. Just like financial bubbles do!

Perhaps we could coin a phrase for it, along the lines of South Sea bubble, dot-com bubble, tulipmania, credit crunch. Perhaps we could run a competition!

Sorry I'm being a tad silly this morning....work has been a hard slog recently!

[Devonian]

I quite agree with the writer of the article. There will come a time (may be here already) when the AGW alarmists' warnings get so ridiculous that scepticism (already widely held, it seems to me) will become even more widespread and the AGW bubble will burst. Just like financial bubbles do!

Perhaps we could coin a phrase for it, along the lines of South Sea bubble, dot-com bubble, tulipmania, credit crunch. Perhaps we could run a competition!

Sorry I'm being a tad silly this morning....work has been a hard slog recently!

My work is a slog atm, can I use that as an excuse to poke fun as well?

Edited September 26, 2008 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd wait until march before pouring too much scorn on dire predictions of sea level change. Set against the backdrop of ever more detailed evidence for rapid climate shift and our recent experience "oop north" it would be silly to not harbour some concerns about the extent and impact our behaviours are driving on the planet.

Let us also be mindful of just how hamstrung the last IPCC report was in both the prediction for sea level change due to ice melt and temperature increase margins.

I don't like to hear folk pulling apart the paper when they know full well what the U.S.,Australia,India et-al did before allowing the final draft into print. Surely 2007's 'unexpected' melt in the Arctic show us just how perilously close to us loosing our northern thermostat we are.......our cumulative impacts since phase 2 warming began now leave the pole's fate up to both the fickle nature of pressure systems and our own accelerating interventions.

By March we will have a clearer indication of what the sneck is occurring around the Antarctic coastlines and ,as I'm keen to point out, Antarctic sloughing is not dependent upon interior temps (being a purely mechanical event in it's infancy) but of that of the ocean surrounding the continent (which has been so long isolated from the rest of the globe courtesy of the circumpolar current). Once the C.P. is breached ,and Antarctica joins the rest of the globe, then the changes will be both swift and unstoppable.

We dare not use past climate events as a guide as ,in the past, good old mother nature called the shots and had her own systems in place to ameliorate the worst of the impacts and swing our planet back into 'balance' ........we are busy over-riding her controls and show neither concern for ,nor a wish too be, any different.

Financial collapse? lets throw billions of $'s at it in an instant....planetary collapse? lets procrastinate and filibuster until we have dredged every penny out of our world....especially if the changes throw up further opportunities to exploit it(polar oil/gas/coal fields/Antarctic mineral wealth/coal gas/oil).

[Essan]

There's only two flaws in the global warming theory.

The part that says global, and the part that says warming.

Yeah, but AGW is more catchy than "Multiple Regional Anthropogenic Climate Change with Underlying Anthropogenic Atmospheric Warming Trends"

[noggin]

My work is a slog atm, can I use that as an excuse to poke fun as well?

Why not! Let's lighten things up a bit!

[Chris Knight]

Why not! Let's lighten things up a bit!

This is beginning to sound like a pub conversation in "Last of the Summer Wine"!

[laserguy]

This is beginning to sound like a pub conversation in "Last of the Summer Wine"!

"Eyup Foggy,es tha noorticed ar cowld it's gerring or is it jus' me? A teld thi it worall to du wi' sun an' not that theer carbon whatnot. Nora's gunna ev to get some moor stockins bowt.Oo's rarnd is it any roord"?

[laserguy]

It's gone deadly quiet on here. What's going down? Is everyone waiting with baited breath to see what the sun does,or doesn't do next? Nah,can't be that. How many times have I read that the sun's influence is so tiny that it doesn't count,and that anthro CO2 is the daddy of climate change these days? Maybe that's it - debate over? Someone tell Al and the IPCC on their way out. If,and when solar activity fires up again and if and when the currently falling temps reverse direction,I've no doubt that it'll have nothing to do with ol' sol,and all to do with us. Yes,yes,whatever...just like the recent falls had nothing to do with the sun,but could be blamed squarely on rising CO2 levels? If anyone starts babbling pseudoscience nonsense about 'underlying trends',masking of anthro CO2's influence blah blah,I think my head will explode.

[johnholmes]

It's gone deadly quiet on here. What's going down? If anyone starts babbling pseudoscience nonsense about 'underlying trends',masking of anthro CO2's influence blah blah,I think my head will explode.

perhaps, just perhaps, each side has exhausted their views, perhaps we might now agree to disagree and stop ya booing one another.

[Essan]

Well this should rejuvenate debate:

Global Warming pollution increases 3 percent

China overtakes US in carbon emissions

Emissions point to an 11 degree temp jump

[laserguy]

perhaps, just perhaps, each side has exhausted their views, perhaps we might now agree to disagree and stop ya booing one another.

Y'know John,I think you might be right,and that might well be a good idea. After all,whatever happens be it natural or as a result of our crazed masters doing whatever they will,we are ultimately passengers along for the ride. See y'all around.

[noggin]

Well this should rejuvenate debate:

Global Warming pollution increases 3 percent

China overtakes US in carbon emissions

Emissions point to an 11 degree temp jump

Re those links, Essan, I really do think I'm all AGWed-out! I don't know what your opinion of them is, but..........an 11 degrees increase in global temperature by 2100? That seems rather far fetched. Also, IF, just IF C02/Co2 (can never remember which!) is responsible for increasing temperature (which I don't believe is the case) then how come the warming has stopped whilst China is rapidly increasing it's emissions?

As johnholmes says...perhaps we are all argued out. Personally, I'm going to take a wait-and-see approach, whilst continuing to live as non-polluting a lifestyle as possible. Of course!

If only all the efforts put into the "AGW or otherwise" debate could be put into finding less polluting ways of living, then perhaps everybody would be working together instead of against each other.

Peace and love to all. :lol:

[Essan]

Re those links, Essan, I really do think I'm all AGWed-out! I don't know what your opinion of them is, but..........an 11 degrees increase in global temperature by 2100? That seems rather far fetched. Also, IF, just IF C02/Co2 (can never remember which!) is responsible for increasing temperature (which I don't believe is the case) then how come the warming has stopped whilst China is rapidly increasing it's emissions?

My opinion is simply that they may stimulate debate As for 11 degrees by 2100? Well, the Andromedians may have taken us all off to Rigel 10 by then :lol:

However, with regards increased CO2 my question is: does this explain why, despite so many natural factors pointing towards cooling, it's not cooling and is still warmer than in any century prior to the 1990s?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I honestly think discussion grinds to a halt in these threads because of people taking up one side or the other, and using "A is true because A is true" type arguments to stifle, rather than stimulate, debate- part of a point-scoring thing.

As for the "AGW or not" debate, at the end of the day, we're going to need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels whether we like it or not in future- regardless of whether or not buring them up is affecting global climate. Thus, there's nothing to be gained in subscribing to the "AGW is a myth" view as part of burying one's head in the sand and "waiting and seeing". In addition, the quicker we start, the less likely we are to end up with a sudden recession, wars etc. as a result of depleted reserves, and the less likely we are to encounter a large change in global temperatures over a short time span.

As for the resources that are poured out into climate research, climate research isn't just about "is it GW or AGW", it's about understanding climate better and aiming towards providing accurate simulations of future climate. It is worth knowing approximately how much, if at all, our actions are impacting on global climate, so that we can prepare ourselves for the future. We will never know for certain, but hopefully, in the future we might get a better and better idea.

The main problems are political and social- the desire of governments to blame the general public rather than being pro-active and risking short-term losses for long-term benefit, and the general public to bury their heads in the sand, "wait and see", and feel that we can't do anything about consumption, AGW etc, because "that's just the way it is".

[osmposm]

It's gone deadly quiet on here. What's going down? Is everyone waiting with baited breath to see what the sun does,or doesn't do next? Nah,can't be that. How many times have I read that the sun's influence is so tiny that it doesn't count,and that anthro CO2 is the daddy of climate change these days? Maybe that's it - debate over? Someone tell Al and the IPCC on their way out. If,and when solar activity fires up again and if and when the currently falling temps reverse direction,I've no doubt that it'll have nothing to do with ol' sol,and all to do with us. Yes,yes,whatever...just like the recent falls had nothing to do with the sun,but could be blamed squarely on rising CO2 levels? If anyone starts babbling pseudoscience nonsense about 'underlying trends',masking of anthro CO2's influence blah blah,I think my head will explode.

Oh Barrie, please. It really is going too far to give us another of your generalized dismissals - not about what we have said, but about what you think we would say if we did say something.

Maybe you could allow the possibility that we - being, most of us, most of the time, reasonable and open-minded people in search of the truth - are, out of fairness, pausing to see if there does turn out to be ongoing and significant evidence of the cooling you are already so sure of? That, and as John suggests, a sense of being all argued out. The one thing it does not mean is that the debate is over, in the wider sense - at least not in the direction you hope. And can I just say that 'pseudoscience' normally has a tighter definition than 'science with which I happen to disagree'?

Ossie

Edited September 27, 2008 by osmposm

[SP1986]

We should just all sit back and accept whatever will happen... there one thing we can all agree on, both sides are calling a doom scenario (be it, runaway warming or ice age next). May we revel in our hour of doom!

I do think 11C is way too high by 2100, way way way too high, even if I do accept the warming scenario

[Thundery wintry showers]

Just a question, does that mean "wait and see" and continue "as is"- I don't quite get the first paragraph? (I could well be misunderstanding it). The "doom scenario" of an ice age is almost certainly many thousands of years away, if we can do away with most of any anthropogenic input into climate, whereas if we are heating the planet significantly and keep up, the doom scenario may be as little as a few decades away.

We are doomed to extinction as a species at some stage, the trick is to try to avoid hastening it by thousands of years!

11C by 2100 was, if I remember rightly, the most extreme of projections by an errant climate model- not very likely.

[Gray-Wolf]

Just a question, does that mean "wait and see" and continue "as is"- I don't quite get the first paragraph? (I could well be misunderstanding it). The "doom scenario" of an ice age is almost certainly many thousands of years away, if we can do away with most of any anthropogenic input into climate, whereas if we are heating the planet significantly and keep up, the doom scenario may be as little as a few decades away.

We are doomed to extinction as a species at some stage, the trick is to try to avoid hastening it by thousands of years!

11C by 2100 was, if I remember rightly, the most extreme of projections by an errant climate model- not very likely.

An average rise globally of 11C? I don't think so somehow but then a regional increase (be it north or south pole) is probably very likely. If you doubt it then look at the temp rises currently experienced in those areas.

[Mondy]

“Climate scientists predict that in fifty years there may be no summer ice at the North Pole as the planet continues its inevitable warming process, a warming which is a direct result of human beings releasing an excessive amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. This process will accelerate as the ice reflects up to 80% of the Sun’s energy reaching it back into space. The ice-free Arctic sea will absorb over four times more energy, adding to the warming of our planet.

http://www.capefarewell.com/diskobay/about/

Inevitable warming process? Give me strength - we're cooling, lol

Recent studies by the Hadley Climate Research Center (UK), the Japan Meteorological Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the University of East Anglia (UK) and the University of Alabama Huntsville show clearly that the rising trend of global average temperature stopped in 2000-2001. Further, NASA data shows that warming in the southern hemisphere has stopped, and that ocean temperatures also have stopped rising.

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/sep/27/glob...paused/?opinion

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it