The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[Guest Shetland Coastie]

Its cold out :o

BFTP

Youre not kidding Fred! Lying snow up here today, earliest theres been lying snow in at least 22 years here in Shetland and possibly longer, Im just waiting to hear back from our local met man who will have better records than mine.

Edited October 4, 2008 by Shetland Coastie

[Shandiman]

I apologise if this has been debated about before, but as i am a new member to this (thanks to my workplace!!) i wonder (and it is not just because of recent programmes on the satellite channels either!!) if a number of people may be looking at 'Global Warming@ in the wrong context.

The reason I say this, is because I remember some 20 odd years ago, picking up a National Geographic book in a Dentists' Surgery and on the cover was the headline similar to 'Is Global Warming going to cool us down.' I know that a there have been a number of programmes broadcast over the last few years that have been taking this on and giving us their (hopefully) positive results showing that Global Cooling could be the effect of Global Warming. Whether this is true, I cannot say, but their results and the way they obtain them show that all these tests/trials (or whatever they wish to call them) seem to come out with the same data, that we could be on the brink of another mini Ice Age and that the way that modern man has advanced over it's time on earth suggests that we are only advancing the inevitable.

The last mini Ice Age was just over 13000 years ago, and there is a pattern that suggests that this happens on a very regular basis. If natural Global Warming causes this to happen, then what are we doing to our future by our actions?

We cannot control the weather. We cannot control Mother Nature (to a greater or lesser degree), but we are helping her accelerate perhaps what does occur naturally.

By the way, When i read that NatGeo article (over a number of pages), I believed then that we may be heading for a cooling down, and with the statistics that are available, I still believe we are heading for a cooling.

There are many who believe that we will carr on warming up, but there are an increasing number of people who now believe we may be starting to cool down, with more extremes of weather showing up.

What does the forum think?

[Roger J Smith]

Welcome to Netweather, Shandiman.

I think you'll find that idea has been discussed on several of the climate change forums here, with regard to ice anomalies, possible solar connections, on this thread (I know it is very long and you have to dig around in it).

I would agree that it is quite a strong possibility, this is how glacial periods have started in the past, apparently, with widespread melting of the arctic sea ice and a period of milder winters in the subarctic leading to heavier snowfalls there.

On the other hand, it's possible to have a warming episode that continues through fluctuating periods of cooler and even warmer, to produce a much warmer end result with all the ice and snow melted.

Opinions vary as to which is more likely to happen down the road this time.

There are long-term astronomical cycles discovered by Milankovitch which seem to explain in general terms why we have had the past four ice age or glacial periods, and none of those factors are likely to swing to the cold extreme very quickly in this case. It would take perhaps some other input like a large volcanic eruption or a prolonged period of solar inactivity to induce a large swing to colder climates from this particular starting point.

I think on balance of probability, the climate in the arctic will warm slightly over the next half century, but with some colder intervals. I don't think the Greenland ice will melt much more than it already has done, but I suspect we could see some years with total melt of the sea ice. Just my speculation though.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

And global surface temps from June thru' Aug???

King of the cherry pickers GW when it suits you eh? Get a more upto date anomaly and you know very very well what it will show :o

BFTP

[Anti-Mild]

King of the cherry pickers GW when it suits you eh? Get a more upto date anomaly and you know very very well what it will show :lol:

BFTP

My thoughts exactly Fred (not the cherry picker bit - that's a bit below the belt), and it's not the first time an image from that source has been posted and commented on. Until the NOAA start to use a more up to date base for comparison then I'm afraid that all of those little red dots will not hold much credibility with many people.

I would be genuinely interested to see what kind of image would result when compared against the 71-00 base period. My feeling is that there would be a lot less red, and that the NOAA probably know this which is why they persist in using 61-90, in order to 'cook the books' as it were.

Just my opinion.

Edited October 5, 2008 by Anti-Mild

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Shandiman and welcome to the playpen!!!

Since they plucked the ice core(going back 740,000yrs) from Antarctica they've had a better idea of the time periods between glaciations within our current Glacial period. The 'old cores' (mainly from Greenland) only gave info on the last 4 episodes and ,if you used these as a guide,folk rightly worried about us descending into another period of glaciation (as some interglacial's only lasted 10,000yrs.....and we're 12,000yrs into this one!) but new evidence show that the most 'common' interglacial was 50,000yrs and our current 'climate' more closely represents those periods than the faltering/false starts over the past 4 interglacial's.

That said I am firm believer that, were we not to mend our ways, we would over-ride many of the planets 'fail safes' and end up in a climatic period unlike any before. Not only would the AGW 'signal' over-ride most natural climatic drivers but we'd also find ourselves within a self reinforcing warming cycle as carbon sinks get thrown into 'reverse'.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

My thoughts exactly Fred (not the cherry picker bit - that's a bit below the belt),

Maybe so but GW has used this graph a couple of times recently to 'counteract' recent global temp changes and is not a true reflection especially when talk of recent cooling is against the recent warm background IE 71-00 and even more relevant 81-08...but point taken.

BFTP

[Essan]

.... I remember some 20 odd years ago, picking up a National Geographic book in a Dentists' Surgery and on the cover was the headline similar to 'Is Global Warming going to cool us down.'

This is largely based on a (gross) misunderstanding of the Younger Dryas cold period that occurred at the end of the last ice age.

A big influx of fresh water into the North Atlantic caused (so we currently believe) the Gulf Stream/North Atlantic Drift (NAD) to stop. This plunged the North Atlantic regions - N America, Greenland and Europe - into a new mini ice age.

However, this event occurred when there were still large ice sheets in existence, not having yet disappeared after the end of the last full ice age (those over N America only disappeared completely 6,000 years ago).

Even a complete duplicate event would not have the same effect today.

A better analogy is the 8.2kya event when a similar influx of cold water again stopped the NAD - resulting in temps in Europe dropping by as much as 1c to 2c. Hardly the end of the world.

More importantly both events were caused by sudden, massive, releases of water from a gigantic lake of glacial melt water. Worst case scenario today is a slow, gradual release of melt water from Greenland glaciers.

So it;s highly unlikely anything will happen today and a complete cessation of the NAD would likely only result in Europe returning to the icey conditions of the 1970s.

Might be worth throwing in here my current analogy:

It's autumn. All summer the heater has been on in the room and it's got rather warm. Some say this was due to the heater. Some say it's because it was warm and sunny outside and the heater had little if any effect. Now, although the heater has, if anything, been turned up slightly, room is not warming and possibly even cooling a bit. Some say this proves the heater has no effect.

But the heater remains on. And now and then we turn it up slightly more.

And no-one has yet found a way to turn it down.

Through the winter the room may noticeable cool. Surely, same say, if this happens there is no doubt at all the heater has no effect? And if we turn it up yet more it'll make no difference.

What happens next summer?

[laserguy]

What happens next summer?

The same as happened in the last two,in all probability :lol: .

[shuggee]

Which probability is that lg? You'd make a fortune if you could predict the climate accurately?!

[laserguy]

Which probability is that lg? You'd make a fortune if you could predict the climate accurately?!

Dang,you're right! I'll get on the blower to Big Al and ask for a few marketing tips :lol: .

[Thundery wintry showers]

Okay, I'll put forward some figures to illustrate Essan's argument.

Summer 2008: Person puts heating on, to a temperature of 30C. Room temperature hovers around 22-24C as a result.

Autumn 2008: Heating turned up to 35C, yet room cools to 20-22C due to cooler temperatures outside and weaker sun.

Winter 2008: Heating turned up to 40C, yet room cools to 18-20C.

Summer 2009: by Laserguy's argument, if we have heating at 40C, the room temperature will hover around 22-24C, the same as when the heating is turned up to 30C.

Is this really likely? I don't think so!

[laserguy]

Okay, I'll put forward some figures to illustrate Essan's argument.

Summer 2008: Person puts heating on, to a temperature of 30C. Room temperature hovers around 22-24C as a result.

Autumn 2008: Heating turned up to 35C, yet room cools to 20-22C due to cooler temperatures outside and weaker sun.

Winter 2008: Heating turned up to 40C, yet room cools to 18-20C.

Summer 2009: by Laserguy's argument, if we have heating at 40C, the room temperature will hover around 22-24C, the same as when the heating is turned up to 30C.

Is this really likely? I don't think so!

What are you on about,TWS? That twiddling of figures to make 2+2=5 is straight out of Hansen's book of Modern Maths. Don't you of all people fall for it,too. Simple fact which is being overlooked,and no amount of number-juggling can alter: Earth's temp has been stable for best part of a decade and is now on a downslope - get over it. 'Who' exactly is it that has their hands on this metaphorical room heater's thermostat,anyway? Glad they haven't turned the bugger down. Hold on - they have,see bold bit above. And there's me being told all along that the sun's influence is too small to consider. Now seems it can induce cooling but not warming - that simply must be down to us. Brilliant!

[stewfox]

Almost beyond belief, but there has been no serious discussion of the science behind all these political positions. Part of the reason is that the American economic crisis has taken over from the environment as the top issue. We have much less economic disruption here because of different banking and investment regulations, but Canadian investors are to some extent thrown into these global markets, and more importantly, the commodity markets tend to tank first and hardest in a recession, and we are the world's most resource-oriented economy.

But the jury is it split re the science?

Even on here people will post counter evidence.

The fundamental point is how much is man influencing the climate and what effect will that have

No one knows at present

The underlying problems I see in this thread are that, the only backup evidence for the assertion that humans are definitely not contributing to climate change are "because I say so", "it's true because it's true", and "you have to let me have my opinion, but I'm allowed to dismiss everyone else's opinions because I know I'm right and everyone else is wrong".

This isn't the same as merely quoting the possibility that humans might not be significantly impacting the climate, which is indeed a possibility, albeit a slim one.

I don't have time to read every post but I can't remember anyone saying humans are definitely not having any impact on climate change. It's the amount and what we do that's gives us a circular debate.

[Essan]

And there's me being told all along that the sun's influence is too small to consider. Now seems it can induce cooling but not warming - that simply must be down to us. Brilliant!

Read the analogy again.

The sun (and other natural factors) produce warming and cooling trends. However, underlying all that there is a small, but growing, anthropogenic warming trend. There may also be an anthropogenic cooling trend which has been overlooked.

I am personally 100% certain that the sun does not built cities, burn down rainforests, fly aircraft or produce industrial pollution.

You may have faith in humans being incapable of affecting the climate in any way whatsoever. But I'm an atheist.

[stewfox]

Read the analogy again.

The sun (and other natural factors) produce warming and cooling trends. However, underlying all that there is a small, but growing, anthropogenic warming trend. There may also be an anthropogenic cooling trend which has been overlooked.

I am personally 100% certain that the sun does not built cities, burn down rainforests, fly aircraft or produce industrial pollution.

You may have faith in humans being incapable of affecting the climate in any way whatsoever. But I'm an atheist.

This is where I come unstuck, I thought last 10 years there has been no warming of the Globe ?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't have time to read every post but I can't remember anyone saying humans are definitely not having any impact on climate change. It's the amount and what we do that's gives us a circular debate.

If only! Some members do indeed seem to be adamant that humans are definitely not having any impact on climate change (or at least so small that it can be factored out of consideration), and the whole premise of the argument is "it's true because it's true" (which is circular reasoning, as opposed to circular debate- circular reasoning is designed to prevent debate by sending opposing arguments around in circles).

Okay, I'll explain what I read from Essan's argument in as simple terms as possible. If we're in a room, and we turn the heating up in small increments every month, we will see a long-term warming trend in the room. However, on top of that, you have to factor in natural variability, such as that caused by solar heating. As summer goes into autumn and then winter, it will become cooler outside and there will be less solar heating, which may introduce a short-term cooling of the room despite the heating continually turning up. Laserguy, Stewfox etc's arguments would then amount to saying "the room is cooling, therefore we mustn't be turning the heating up!"

[Essan]

This is where I come unstuck, I thought last 10 years there has been no warming of the Globe ?

And that's the problem: many people still think global warming means it gets warmer every year and that natural variability ceases to exist

The temperature should go up and down all the time, both yearly and over decadal periods. The effect of AGW is to mean each warm period is lightly warmer and each cool period is not quite as cool as it would otherwise be. Steadily, the increments increase. Both warm and cool periods are warmer that the ones before ....

I predict that through the 21st century we will not experience a decadal cool period as low or lower than the 1950s. But we will see decadal warm periods when the average global temperature reaches or exceeds that of the 1990s. Assuming that there are no unpredictable catastrophes (Yellowstone erupting etc) and based on current levels of understanding of the climate. We may learn something new next year that changes my predictions. But that's the nature of science!

[jethro]

If only! Some members do indeed seem to be adamant that humans are definitely not having any impact on climate change (or at least so small that it can be factored out of consideration), and the whole premise of the argument is "it's true because it's true" (which is circular reasoning, as opposed to circular debate- circular reasoning is designed to prevent debate by sending opposing arguments around in circles).

To be fair, and playing devil's advocate here, this can be levelled at both sides of this debate.....

If only! Some members do indeed seem to be adamant that humans are definitely having an impact on climate change (or at least so large that it can be factored into consideration), and the whole premise of the argument is "it's true because it's true" (which is circular reasoning, as opposed to circular debate- circular reasoning is designed to prevent debate by sending opposing arguments around in circles).

[stewfox]

If only! Some members do indeed seem to be adamant that humans are definitely not having any impact on climate change (or at least so small that it can be factored out of consideration), and the whole premise of the argument is "it's true because it's true" (which is circular reasoning, as opposed to circular debate- circular reasoning is designed to prevent debate by sending opposing arguments around in circles).

Okay, I'll explain what I read from Essan's argument in as simple terms as possible. If we're in a room, and we turn the heating up in small increments every month, we will see a long-term warming trend in the room. However, on top of that, you have to factor in natural variability, such as that caused by solar heating. As summer goes into autumn and then winter, it will become cooler outside and there will be less solar heating, which may introduce a short-term cooling of the room despite the heating continually turning up. Laserguy, Stewfox etc's arguments would then amount to saying "the room is cooling, therefore we mustn't be turning the heating up!"

Point 1 as I said I havent seen anyone post man is having no impact (degrees of impact is different)

Point 2 As you mention me , Im not saying that at all

However if the room continues to cool and we continue to turn the heat up at some stage it will lead to a question as to why ?,

At some stage we cant keep saying 'because its record cold outside'.

I think we are still 10/20 years away from that

Edited October 6, 2008 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some decent points there- I have never attempted to deny, btw, that if the globe cools for another decade or two then it seriously puts question marks over whether the anthropogenic component really is as large as the current balance of scientific opinion suggests. And indeed, circular arguments are rife on both sides of the debate- a common trait of debates where many people take up one extreme position or the other.

But I have to say the anti-AGW side of the debate seems to have been the more vocal about doing it recently.

And that's the problem: many people still think global warming means it gets warmer every year and that natural variability ceases to exist

This is very true. I think there are two problems here- one, some of the more extremist environmental propaganda-spreaders do seem to subscribe to this view, and two, it is regularly used as a "straw man" attack on the concept of anthropogenic input into climate change. That is, attacking a weakened version of a position and inferring that it refutes the actual position that is being held.

[jethro]

Some decent points there- I have never attempted to deny, btw, that if the globe cools for another decade or two then it seriously puts question marks over whether the anthropogenic component really is as large as the current balance of scientific opinion suggests. And indeed, circular arguments are rife on both sides of the debate- a common trait of debates where many people take up one extreme position or the other.

But I have to say the anti-AGW side of the debate seems to have been the more vocal about doing it recently.

This is very true. I think there are two problems here- one, some of the more extremist environmental propaganda-spreaders do seem to subscribe to this view, and two, it is regularly used as a "straw man" attack on the concept of anthropogenic input into climate change. That is, attacking a weakened version of a position and inferring that it refutes the actual position that is being held.

I think to be honest, the circular motion from both sides, stems from there actually being NO definitives in any of this. Both sides seize the latest bit of info as being proof positive that they are right, when really, I doubt any of us will be alive long enough to find out who was right or wrong.

When it comes to the anti-AGW side being vocal recently, I'll hold my hand up and say "guilty as charged ma lud". My reason? Well, "straw men" should be torn down, that's how science progresses.

I think the pro-side of this debate have been so assertive (and I don't mean on here - in the world at large) that they have all the answers, they know exactly what's going on, case closed; to be fair given the state of play in our level of knowledge, that's simply riding for a fall. I simply do not accept we know enough to either judge remedial actions and the impact it will have (will cutting emissions really save the day?) nor that a consensus opinion of scientists is good enough. There really are some eminent scientists out there who do seriously question the perceived wisdom, and with good reason.

Time and again projections are made, time and again they fail and yet we're still supposed to believe we know enough already? Only last year we had the doom and gloom of an ice free North Pole this year, ever diminishing ice, it will vanish in a few years. Did that happen? No. In fairness, it was a close call but if the pro-side hadn't been so adamant they were right, then perhaps the anti-side wouldn't be so vocal.

It's all well and good saying climate goes up and down, short term variation means nothing; to explain away the plateau and drop in temperatures but when the anti-side use the exact same words to explain the warming, they get shot down in flames. We then get the "trend" argument, fine in principle but the IPCC can and have used 5 year trends in their report as validation for the pro AGW stance, but nigh on 10 years of no warming is then supposed to be irrelevant. Which one is it? 5 years? 10 years? 30 years?

Melting glaciers are the same, we get the recent decline and melt in Greenland held up as proof positive of AGW, but a short time Googling reveals they were doing the same back in the 1930's.

Arctic ice disappearing, melting at unprecedented rates; again historical records from reputable sources say, erm no, we have seen similar.

Temperature increases, rapidly shooting upwards in an unprecedented manner, warmer now than the last however many years one chooses; again no.

As someone who believes "natural cycles and causes" are still the primary cause, I can accept we may have augmented a naturally warming cycle. A bit of this, a bit of that. But if someone holds up "absolute proof" that we're the primary mover in all this, I'll want evidence, I'll want the counter-evidence explained; absolutes and certainties have to have solid foundations and to date, despite reading goodness knows how much on this subject, I'm afraid the pro-side still haven't provided the goods. There still far too many unanswered questions for me to shut up and disappear, but I'm absolutely willing to be proved wrong.

[stewfox]

Might be worth throwing in here my current analogy:

It's autumn. All summer the heater has been on in the room and it's got rather warm. Some say this was due to the heater. Some say it's because it was warm and sunny outside and the heater had little if any effect. Now, although the heater has, if anything, been turned up slightly, room is not warming and possibly even cooling a bit. Some say this proves the heater has no effect.

But the heater remains on. And now and then we turn it up slightly more.

And no-one has yet found a way to turn it down.

Through the winter the room may noticeable cool. Surely, same say, if this happens there is no doubt at all the heater has no effect? And if we turn it up yet more it'll make no difference.

What happens next summer?

Net summer ?, it gets so hot in the room we do something (firstly open all the windows).

This could be 10/15 years time. It might of course cost us a lot more to act then but people wont spend money when they feel comfortable in that room at present ??

How you going to get people to spend money on looking at the heater when they feel fine at present in that room

Remember 10 years ago you were saying they were going to be really uncomfortable now and their not so they wont pay much attention to your 'what about next summer'

If things get really bad we may have to smash the windows etc

Edited October 6, 2008 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

Another delicious straw man attack on the AGW theory I see, as nobody, bar the most extremist environmental preachers and scaremongers, suggested that "global warming" would reach disastrous levels by the late 2000s. The doom and gloom predictions have always focused on 2050 onwards.

Stewfox's summer suggestions in that analogy don't really work, as in practice leaving the heating on and opening all the windows would be a lot less cost-effective than simply turning the heating down.

[VillagePlank]

... snip ...

Poor analogy, the room and heater one.

Better to invent a plaster generator that makes the ceiling and walls thicker ... but then you'd need to explain why the room doesn't eventually shrink to nuffink; which is much trickier