The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Gray-Wolf]

I'd never run out in the eye of a hurricane and claim the 'storm is over'. There would be too much evidence all around to point to the contrary.

Natural climate variance will ,inevitably, be over-ridden by continued warming but at our point in the process some of the stronger 'swings' will still bring about a level of climate variability.

In so far as cooling is concerned tell the folk in Reykjavik

[Mondy]

In so far as cooling is concerned tell the folk in Reykjavik

No need to really, this tells me more than enough about northern cooling

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, we get people who deny AGW on the grounds that 30-50 years of warming is "too short" a timespan in view of the longer-term context, and criticising Mann et al's "hockey stick", yet if one year happens to the cooler than the year before as a result of a La Nina event, it's evidence that "we are cooling". What part of unbiased evidence does this come under?

[Mondy]

Interesting website: http://www.climate4you.com/

[If Wishes made Weather]

Having read through a fair amount of the debate in this forum (and now being back from my psychiatrist) I can only say that I do not understand half of the science involved. But as TWS noted in the first post, there is a difference between data, and interpretation of data: fact and opinion.

Would it nevertheless be fair to say this?

1 – There is unequivocal evidence that the climate is currently undergoing a period of change.

2 – This change is very fast when compared to the record of other periods of climatic change.

3 - There is a substantial, but not unequivocal body of evidence for this climatic change to be one resulting from increased levels of energy in the atmosphere – i.e. warming.

4 – That this change is correlated to changes in the atmospheric chemical composition.

5 – That mankind’s activities are the source of many of these chemicals.

6 – Therefore mankind may be said to be accelerating the rate of change whether or not that change started as a natural (non human influenced phenomena) one or not?

Tim

[SP1986]

I think thats a pretty fair and levelled response (even summary of thoughts), given what is seen to be happening over a long term period at the moment om accordance to science and recent observations.

Ian (TWS), I was merely humouring everyone with my post above, I thought I would post something ironic yet cheeky.

[Chris Knight]

Having read through a fair amount of the debate in this forum (and now being back from my psychiatrist) I can only say that I do not understand half of the science involved. But as TWS noted in the first post, there is a difference between data, and interpretation of data: fact and opinion.

Would it nevertheless be fair to say this?

1 – There is unequivocal evidence that the climate is currently undergoing a period of change.

2 – This change is very fast when compared to the record of other periods of climatic change.

3 - There is a substantial, but not unequivocal body of evidence for this climatic change to be one resulting from increased levels of energy in the atmosphere – i.e. warming.

4 – That this change is correlated to changes in the atmospheric chemical composition.

5 – That mankind’s activities are the source of many of these chemicals.

6 – Therefore mankind may be said to be accelerating the rate of change whether or not that change started as a natural (non human influenced phenomena) one or not?

Tim

Can't argue with 1,3 or 5.

2 and 4 are wrong, and 6 is partly wrong.

2.Past climate changes have been abrupt, and on a far greater scale than late 20th century warming.

4.There is no correlation. One goes up, year on year; the other goes up and down on similar timescales. If there is any relationship, it is masked by several other more important factors, which are not well understood by climate modellers.

6.Not just accelerating. Influencing, varying or modifying, maybe. The last half of the sentence is tautologous and unnecessary.

Climate changes, since the earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the rest of the universe. Man is part of the system, and affects the thermodynamic balance through his activities.

Can man undo these affects? - doubtful, unless he removes himself from the system completely.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/...80925072440.htm

We'd all better hope that the folk who see no problems with CO2, and it's impacts on climate systems, are spot on in their assertions.

I can forsee no way that we have either the will or the means to change the current accelerating changes we are promoting in the atmosphere.

The 'hamstrung' AR4 IPCC paper did not outline many of the consequences probable from our attempts at planet remodelling and ,IMHO, fell well short of outlining the worse case scenarios such tinkering will lead to.

The failure of carbon sinks to keep apace with increasing emissions leads to rapidly increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere (383ppm in 2007) and do not as yet include the planets own 'dose' of CO2 (as we have seen in every other period of warming) from thawing northern permafrosts (check out methane emissions for this year.....2nd year running increase) or Cathrite releases from continental shelfs (as witnessed in Siberia this summer).

As I say , lets hope that the 'no probs' element are correct in their unscientific viewpoints.

[stewfox]

Can't argue with 1,3 or 5.

2 and 4 are wrong, and 6 is partly wrong.

2.Past climate changes have been abrupt, and on a far greater scale than late 20th century warming.

4.There is no correlation. One goes up, year on year; the other goes up and down on similar timescales. If there is any relationship, it is masked by several other more important factors, which are not well understood by climate modellers.

6.Not just accelerating. Influencing, varying or modifying, maybe. The last half of the sentence is tautologous and unnecessary.

Climate changes, since the earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the rest of the universe. Man is part of the system, and affects the thermodynamic balance through his activities.

Can man undo these affects? - doubtful, unless he removes himself from the system completely.

Have to agree with all of this

[Devonian]

Can't argue with 1,3 or 5.

2 and 4 are wrong, and 6 is partly wrong.

2.Past climate changes have been abrupt, and on a far greater scale than late 20th century warming.

What a greater that ~.7C warming in 100 years to the globe? When (two examples please since it's 'changes' and on the basis of what evidence?

4.There is no correlation. One goes up, year on year; the other goes up and down on similar timescales. If there is any relationship, it is masked by several other more important factors, which are not well understood by climate modellers.

6.Not just accelerating. Influencing, varying or modifying, maybe. The last half of the sentence is tautologous and unnecessary.

Climate changes, since the earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the rest of the universe. Man is part of the system, and affects the thermodynamic balance through his activities.

Can man undo these affects? - doubtful, unless he removes himself from the system completely.

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and due to our activities there is more than 30% more of it in the atmosphere, this will have an effect. Other changes to the planet caused by us are also effecting climate. That's the uncomfortable reality.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Devonian

[valiant]

That's the uncomfortable reality.

So uncomfortable that research suggests a net gain to the human race in terms of increased food production and reduced deaths due to cold weather. Also, a net increase of up to 5% in global GDP over the next 70 years. Given that my standard of living has been plummeting by 10% pa in real terms over the last 2/3 years .. climate change is well down the list of real problems affecting me - or the human race as a whole.

After that, the scenario may switch. I'll wait for more accurate updates in 2078 before I make my conclusions in the Great Global Change Debate. Will I still be posting when I'm 121?

Edited September 29, 2008 by valiant

[Iceberg]

So uncomfortable that research suggests a net gain to the human race in terms of increased food production and reduced deaths due to cold weather. Also, a net increase of up to 5% in global GDP over the next 70 years. Given that my standard of living has been plummeting by 10% pa in real terms over the last 2/3 years .. climate change is well down the list of real problems affecting me - or the human race as a whole.

After that, the scenario may switch. I'll wait for more accurate updates in 2078 before I make my conclusions in the Great Global Change Debate. Will I still be posting when I'm 121?

I take it that the hundred's of millions that would die in Africa and the Asian sub continent would just be classified as unlucky. But's thats OK because the UK, Canada and Russia gain.

[jethro]

Completely off topic, sorry mods.

I've got a new baby...

[Gray-Wolf]

I take it that the hundred's of millions that would die in Africa and the Asian sub continent would just be classified as unlucky. But's thats OK because the UK, Canada and Russia gain.

As I understand things there is no 'smooth line' tansition from here to there.

Climate appears to change in fits and starts and from looking at past rapid climate shifts though short periods of time are involved the impacts are devestating.

Anyone concerned about the impacts of a few naughty bankers on the world ecconomy will not like the global impacts that we face from our messing......falls in standards of living? hows about a few years trying to live without the 21st century infrastructure to support you??? makes the loss of your weekly meal out seem rather paltry.

[laserguy]

Completely off topic, sorry mods.

I've got a new baby...

Blimey,your hubby must look a bit weird ! Sorry,sorry.... 'tis a cutie.

[laserguy]

......will not like the global impacts that we face from our messing......falls in standards of living? hows about a few years trying to live without the 21st century infrastructure to support you??? makes the loss of your weekly meal out seem rather paltry.

GW what are you banging on about now?? As a 'denier' and someone who works bloody hard for sometimes sixty hours a week doing the most unsocial hours,I can't afford a meal out once every six months,let alone once a week. Keeping one's head above water is all I can aspire to right now. God help us if madmen Gore and Hansen have their way and see everyone on the dole on their path to 'saving the planet'. As for your aversion to oil,next time you're moseying on down to the 'offy' to get six tins of Grolsch or whatever,think on about the role oil has played in getting it there,from fetilizer for the barley,power to run the brewery,fuel for the worker's transport,transport of beer to shop etc,etc,etc. Whilst your supping it and getting lost in visions of melting ice caps and flooded cities,spare a thought for the evil ones amongst us like me,who will be working through the night to keep the wheels of industry from seizing up.

GW I like you,but sometimes your hypocrisy and 'holier than thou' attitude just because someone doesn't toe the AGW line and the preposterous assumption that we must therefore be environmental vandals,gets right up my shonk!

[Devonian]

So uncomfortable that research suggests a net gain to the human race in terms of increased food production and reduced deaths due to cold weather. Also, a net increase of up to 5% in global GDP over the next 70 years. Given that my standard of living has been plummeting by 10% pa in real terms over the last 2/3 years .. climate change is well down the list of real problems affecting me - or the human race as a whole.

I think it is indeed the case the anthro climate change is a low priority and that, therefore, it is likely to be the maximum amount possible. We will get to find out who is right.

After that, the scenario may switch. I'll wait for more accurate updates in 2078 before I make my conclusions in the Great Global Change Debate. Will I still be posting when I'm 121?

Well, I guess some would indeed call in a 'kick it into the long grass' 'problem' I'd prefer the term 'under the carpet' so still there but out of sight and out of mind.

GW what are you banging on about now?? As a 'denier' and someone who works bloody hard for sometimes sixty hours a week doing the most unsocial hours,I can't afford a meal out once every six months,let alone once a week. Keeping one's head above water is all I can aspire to right now. God help us if madmen Gore and Hansen have their way and see everyone on the dole on their path to 'saving the planet'. As for your aversion to oil,next time you're moseying on down to the 'offy' to get six tins of Grolsch or whatever,think on about the role oil has played in getting it there,from fetilizer for the barley,power to run the brewery,fuel for the worker's transport,transport of beer to shop etc,etc,etc. Whilst your supping it and getting lost in visions of melting ice caps and flooded cities,spare a thought for the evil ones amongst us like me,who will be working through the night to keep the wheels of industry from seizing up.

GW I like you,but sometimes your hypocrisy and 'holier than thou' attitude just because someone doesn't toe the AGW line and the preposterous assumption that we must therefore be environmental vandals,gets right up my shonk!

Sixty hours a week? You're lucky, it would be luxury for me. 'We live int carboard box int middle ot road' etc etc etc

As to oil, do you think it's infinite or something? it's only because of finite oil we can 'sustain' our life style - that's what we need to think about.

Edited September 29, 2008 by Devonian

[Roo]

As for your aversion to oil,next time you're moseying on down to the 'offy' to get six tins of Grolsch or whatever,think on about the role oil has played in getting it there,from fetilizer for the barley,power to run the brewery,fuel for the worker's transport,transport of beer to shop etc,etc,etc.

But LG, irrelevant of whether you agree or disagree with AGW, oil is running out, end of.

So, whatever happens we will have to find an alternative. Why not try to make that alternative clean and renewable, if we've got to have a change anyway?

Edited September 29, 2008 by Roo

[laserguy]

Sixty hours a week? You're lucky, it would be luxury for me. 'We live int carboard box int middle ot road' etc etc etc

As to oil, do you think it's infinite or something? it's only because of finite oil we can 'sustain' our life style - that's what we need to think about.

Must be a posh cardboard box to have internet access,Dev! What do you run the tractor on btw,solar panels? As for sustaining lifestyles,I was more concerned for GW's than my own - read the post again. Roo,just seen your post,and utterly agree. I've always,but always said the same. Listen up,I'm all for renewable this and that,recycling (you should see the vast array of bins outside chez LG!),the whole works. My 'problem' is that of the inclusion of climate in the whole affair,and the superior attitude of rampant AGW believers whose lifestyle is no different to mine.

[Gray-Wolf]

GW I like you,but sometimes your hypocrisy and 'holier than thou' attitude just because someone doesn't toe the AGW line and the preposterous assumption that we must therefore be environmental vandals,gets right up my shonk!

Sorry to have upset you L.G. I never remove myself from th picture and stand back to judge and I certainly have nothing but admiration for the Stoicism of my fellow working comrades who, as you rightly say, form the base of our economic 'wealth' and allow us the benefits of the society we live in.

That said there are folk in positions that allow them a certain level of 'control' over the state we exist in. Whilst they maintain an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude nothing will alter apart from our future prospects of continuance in the same vein

Edited September 29, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

Can't argue with 1,3 or 5.

2 and 4 are wrong, and 6 is partly wrong.

2.Past climate changes have been abrupt, and on a far greater scale than late 20th century warming.

4.There is no correlation. One goes up, year on year; the other goes up and down on similar timescales. If there is any relationship, it is masked by several other more important factors, which are not well understood by climate modellers.

6.Not just accelerating. Influencing, varying or modifying, maybe. The last half of the sentence is tautologous and unnecessary.

Climate changes, since the earth is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the rest of the universe. Man is part of the system, and affects the thermodynamic balance through his activities.

Can man undo these affects? - doubtful, unless he removes himself from the system completely.

2. Past climate change has been more abrupt than 0.6C in 100 years- but 0.5 warming in 25 years? (this is about what we had between 1975 and 2000). There may have been similar degree changes in the past, but they would have been rare.

4. CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have risen. I'd say a pretty decent correlation. Okay so there has been no significant warming in the last 10 years despite increasing CO2, but there's a thing called 'natural variability' that has come into play- 1998, El Nino, 2008, La Nina for example.

6. Fair point.

Can man undo these effects? Not completely, but it's a common fallacy to say "can't be totally avoided, therefore can't be helped". In reality it's one of the many problems that can be significantly reduced in extent but not eliminated.

Good post by Roo as well.

On warming, some research, contentiously, suggests that a 1C warming might be beneficial to the globe, at least in economic terms (but bear in mind that, contrary to popular belief, economics is only one of many measures of well-being!). But no research has suggested that a warming of >2C- which is more likely under "business as usual" scenarios- would benefit the globe as a whole.

[Mondy]

Completely off topic, sorry mods.

I've got a new baby...

Ah, a Springer! Like the agw proponents, it'll never give you a minutes peace

[jethro]

Awwww.... what a cutie!

How old is it?

Thought I'd better take it over to the lounge

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=49736

Some interesting points made on here this morning, too busy playing to reply though...

[laserguy]

Sorry to have upset you L.G. I never remove myself from th picture and stand back to judge and I certainly have nothing but admiration for the Stoicism of my fellow working comrades who, as you rightly say, form the base of our economic 'wealth' and allow us the benefits of the society we live in.

That said there are folk in positions that allow them a certain level of 'control' over the state we exist in. Whilst they maintain an 'I'm alright Jack' attitude nothing will alter apart from our future prospects of continuance in the same vein

Apology graciously accepted GW. Had to get it off my chest though. Pals again? Good! Fully agree with the highlighted bit too. A pity that the common man has to suffer.

[laserguy]

Time for a little light relief? I know I shouldn't laugh but this video clip tickled me.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/09/25/wind-power/