The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[noggin]

Y'know what, chaps and chapesses.......it's this http://www.energybulletin.net/node/46846 sort of thing that makes me want to either scream, cry, laugh, tear my hair out or stamp my feet in the way of a two-year old.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Sorry!

[laserguy]

Good couple of links there. Noggin's falls into the ever growing 'ridiculae' category,Jethro's will be followed up by "ah but,well but,and if we don't,and so-and-so works for Shell" type comments,with the parting shot that it can't hurt to be environmentally friendly and be sparing with the resources etc. Well yes,we know that but again... where does climate come into it? The tragedy (too strong a word,sorry I'm shattered) is that whatever,and I do mean whatever happens to climate/weather so long as it's bad,will from now on in the minds of the globowarmthinkers be as a direct result of a quirk of the CO2 effect. Listen for the screams when the MSM gets wind of what's really going down and one of them breaks rank and runs with it. More shocking than the Sun's (daily rag,not celestial object!) about-face when they urged everyone to vote Nu Labuh in 1997 when they twigged that the tories had no chance and they didn't want to appear to be backing the losing side! Or was that 1998,the year of the monster El Nino dumping enormous heat into the atmosphere but the blame for that being popularly laid at CO2's door?

[Thundery wintry showers]

First article- contains some good points, but these are outweighed by the many, many holes in the arguments that it is putting forward. But of course, AGW isn't happening, therefore the article must be right, and since the article is right, AGW isn't happening, and this argument isn't circular because it isn't, so therefore it's the LAW.

As for the second article, I find that one cringeworthy as well, mainly because it is so obsessive. It reminds me of the environmentalists I used to come across at Lancaster who would refuse to befriend anyone who drove and derived pleasure from doing so (for, like with the main arguments for the hunting ban, a frowned-upon activity is traditionally frowned upon most if it's pleasurable!)

Climate does come into it, because if we can get any kind of idea how much, if any, warming there is likely to be over the 21st century we can plan the appropriate adaptation. Of course, natural influences can potentially over-ride any anthropogenic input, as we saw over the last decade, but all other things being approximately equal, we might be able to make reasonably accurate predictions sometime in the future.

[pottyprof]

I like this....

http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/ske...handbook1-4.pdf

Yes.. Very good..

I like this bit...

“This cooler spell is just natural variation”

That IS the point. Natural variation, or ‘noise’ is due to something. And at the moment,

whatever that is, it’s more important than greenhouse gases. In this case, ‘noise’ is not

some fairy force, it’s affecting the planetary climate. If we can figure that out, and stick it

in the computer models, they might have more success.

Here's a Good Idea: Let's base an economic system and global taxes on fifty year forecasts

from computer models that can't tell us the weather next summer. If we're lucky they might

work as well as the mark-to-model software did for Bear Stearns.

[Thundery wintry showers]

That IS the point. Natural variation, or ‘noise’ is due to something. And at the moment,

whatever that is, it’s more important than greenhouse gases. In this case, ‘noise’ is not

some fairy force, it’s affecting the planetary climate. If we can figure that out, and stick it

in the computer models, they might have more success.

Easier said than done, but certainly a reasonable point. The main problem with the predictions of the IPCC and other groups is that they rely upon "all other things being equal", when in practice we could get a significant degree of natural forcing in either direction, which would add to any anthropogenic forcing. Either the IPCC needs to make it clear that it's an "all other things being equal" graph, or add natural variability to the uncertainty limits, or indeed do both.

However, the factors that caused the stagnation of global temperatures in the last decade are fairly well understood. The warming of the 1980s and 1990s probably wasn't down to anthropogenic forcing alone, as we had strongly positive NAO, frequent El Nino events and high solar activity- all of which tends towards a higher mean global temperature. Those factors have receded or reversed over the last decade, which would give a naturally-induced cooling trend.

Let's base an economic system and global taxes on fifty year forecasts from computer models that can't tell us the weather next summer

That argument, repeated ad nauseum over the internet, does not quite work. Long-term climate simulation models are very different to short-term weather prediction models, and the focus is on long-term trends and probabilities, not specifics. It does not follow that if we can't forecast next summer's weather we can't forecast what the trend is likely to be over the next 50 years.

[Devonian]

Yes.. Very good..

I like this bit...

"That IS the point. Natural variation, or ‘noise’ is due to something. And at the moment,

whatever that is, it’s more important than greenhouse gases.... "

I disagree.

If you look at global temperatures they continue to be very high compared to the last 100/150 years. It's not warming like mad 'tis true but temperatures are no where near as cold as say 100 years ago. Indeed, the noise looks like about a maximum of +-.15C/yr to me, yet temperatures have at most plateaued recently with this year likely still to be in the top 100 of warm years in that record, I can't see it 'falling' by more than .05C or so - an order of magnitude less than the noise. Something is keeping temperatures high....

Edited October 22, 2008 by Devonian

[HighPressure]

Something is keeping temperatures high....

Blimey first time I have ever agreed with Dev I think? However the reason is continued failure of Ocean sinks to absorb CO2!

[Gray-Wolf]

Something is keeping temperatures high....

NOAA has Sept temps (combined ocean/land) as ranking 9th in their records.

Seeing as we are now a number of years into the cyclical 'cool' spell it doesn't seem to want to be as cold as the other comparable points in the past where we've dropped into our 'cold 20'.

as TEITS says, the warm bits are getting ever warmer and the supposed 'cold' bits are getting forever milder.......just ask them on the models thread....esp. come January

[noggin]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_...the_viscou.html

I will amit to not having read all of this long letter yet. It is from Lord Monckton to John McCain, regarding his proposed policies on carbon emissions etc. A quick skim through it indicates, to me, a measured and well thought-out "argument" (for want of a better word) against McCain's proposals.

It is good to see calmness amidst the usual hysteria which surrounds this thorny issue.

Peace and love to all.

[Michael Winston]

Peace and love to all.

And to you too, Ringo!

Here's an interesting article from the BBC:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7682836.stm

' "These are some of the largest cloud systems in the world and we know that they must play a very significant role in climate change, yet we know that climate models do not represent them very well," he [Hugh Coe] explained.' (my italics)

I find it interesting that this has not been (apparently) sufficiently factored into climate models. Am I reading too much into this sentence? If I am, I can only apologise.

Kind regards,

Mike.

[jethro]

I find it interesting that this has not been (apparently) sufficiently factored into climate models. Am I reading too much into this sentence? If I am, I can only apologise.

Kind regards,

Mike.

No you're not; clouds are one of the great unknowns with the ability to greatly influence climate.

Google Roy Spencer, he's done quite a lot of work about clouds. Last year he published a study which showed clouds in the Tropics were not trapping heat as predicted by the IPCC models, instead high Cirrus clouds were forming, releasing heat to the upper atmosphere thus cooling climate, not warming. His study was later confirmed by NASA with the Aqua satellite.

The whole premise of AGW leading to large levels of warming is based on water vapour forming clouds and trapping heat, CO2 alone is not capable of creating this extra warmth, it relies upon the positive feedback loop.

Seeing as we are now a number of years into the cyclical 'cool' spell it doesn't seem to want to be as cold as the other comparable points in the past where we've dropped into our 'cold 20'.

Gray-Wolf, can you please explain those cooling cycles which we've been in for a number of years? As far as I'm aware the only natural cycle which is in a cooling phase is the PDO and this only switched to it's negative phase a few months ago. Yes, we're at Solar minimum but the perceived wisdom from a pro AGW perspective, is that reduced TSI has little impact upon temperatures. Does it or doesn't it?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Firstly, Noggin's article:

I don't know much about the pros and cons of free trade and "protectionism", so I can't really give a strong view on that. However, I would say that it's not enough to say to industrialising countries, "cap your emissions the same as ours or face the consequences", there has to be "carrot" measures as well, such as encouraging the use of efficient technologies seen in the West to replace the outdated, extra-pollutive technologies often seen in industrialising nations. That way, pollution reduces and the industrialising nations aren't prevented from developing.

I agree with most of the stuff about biofuels- it's been tokenism without much thought as to the effects, but it should not be used as an argument to say action re. climate change, rather it shows that poorly thought out action is bad. There is a difference.

Apart from that, it's a lot of the usual reasoning that prevails on this forum:

1. Climate scientists say global warming might be a serious issue. However, it's not certain to be true, therefore they're wrong.

2. Global warming is a non-issue and anthropogenic factors will just make it a little bit warmer. I know this, because I say so, and I'm right.

3. Alternatively, if global warming is an issue, climate change has always happened, and therefore it's a non-issue.

4. Therefore, we should do nothing about anthropogenic climate change.

And the multi-billion pound question: why the obsession that AGW is a non-issue, yet acknowledgment of the fact that energy supplies are declining, which neccessitates most of the same policies that would be needed to stop AGW anyway, yet insisting that such policies would be disastrous? Contradiction, hypocrisy, the lot.

Right, onto something a bit more common sense. Clouds are indeed a huge area of uncertainty- I think that's a very fair article by the BBC. There is plenty of research going on into the effects of clouds on radiative forcing, and as yet not many answers- but hopefully we'll get a better idea soon.

[HighPressure]

I am not a denier as I have said many times before but in search of some facts on this subject, be they pro or anti AGW.

So far I would say that humans do and have effected climate, but questions remain:

By how much and by what mechanism(s)? (many will know I have my own view).

Can governmental and World organisations such as the UN back with any degree of scientific certainty that reducing CO2 emissions will reverse or reduce GW? The answer here is NO even if CO2 were to be found the primary cause there is no certainty given the complexity of climate that GW can be reversed. Science itself tells us that chain reactions cannot be reversed so the science community left to its own devices is unlikely to make such claims.

If oil was 10 bucks a barrel and plentiful would our world leaders be making the above claims? I doubt it very much as I suggest you would hear something along the lines of: "We do not fully understand climate change and therefore much wait until sure as it would have an adverse effect on developing countries economies" or words to that effect.

I am no scientist but I am also no fool either, this debate is like trying to view a fight across the street through a thick pair of net curtains!

[acbrixton]

I am not a denier as I have said many times before but in search of some facts on this subject, be they pro or anti AGW.

If oil was 10 bucks a barrel and plentiful would our world leaders be making the above claims? I doubt it very much as I suggest you would hear something along the lines of: "We do not fully understand climate change and therefore much wait until sure as it would have an adverse effect on developing countries economies" or words to that effect.

I am no scientist but I am also no fool either, this debate is like trying to view a fight across the street through a thick pair of net curtains!

HP I suggest that you check your facts first: the average price of crude oil in December 1998 was $8.64 according to http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

regards

ACB

[Michael Winston]

No you're not; clouds are one of the great unknowns with the ability to greatly influence climate.

Google Roy Spencer, he's done quite a lot of work about clouds. Last year he published a study which showed clouds in the Tropics were not trapping heat as predicted by the IPCC models, instead high Cirrus clouds were forming, releasing heat to the upper atmosphere thus cooling climate, not warming. His study was later confirmed by NASA with the Aqua satellite.

The whole premise of AGW leading to large levels of warming is based on water vapour forming clouds and trapping heat, CO2 alone is not capable of creating this extra warmth, it relies upon the positive feedback loop.

Many thanks for that concise answer Jethro. It still seems to be a little 'grey' area and well worth keeping an eye on.

Kind regards,

Mike.

[Devonian]

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/an_...the_viscou.html

I will amit to not having read all of this long letter yet. It is from Lord Monckton to John McCain, regarding his proposed policies on carbon emissions etc. A quick skim through it indicates, to me, a measured and well thought-out "argument" (for want of a better word) against McCain's proposals.

It is good to see calmness amidst the usual hysteria which surrounds this thorny issue.

Peace and love to all. :lol:

It's pure politics and probably has no place here.

But, since it is, when the Viscount talks of the "European dictatorship" and says to Mr McCain "You must not transform your great nation into merely another stifling, inept, corrupt, bureaucratic-centralist dictatorship such as China, Russia, or the European Union." you don't think that it's just a tad hysterical and OTT to refer the Europe as a dictatorship equal to Russian and China?

[HighPressure]

HP I suggest that you check your facts first: the average price of crude oil in December 1998 was $8.64 according to http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

regards

ACB

I don't get the point you are making??

My point is that it is now $70+

[acbrixton]

I don't get the point you are making??

My point is that it is now $70+

My point is that even when the price of oil was very low in 1998 many western governments expressed concern about AGW; i.e. advocacy of AGW is not dependent upon high oil prices.

A small point: oil is now around $61-64 per barrel.

regards

ACB

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think the reality is a combination of both- AGW and oil prices are separate concerns in themselves, and past governments have indeed been concerned about one of those without the other being much of an issue (e.g. 1970s- oil prices, 1990s- AGW). But put both of them together, and we end up with two interlinked reasons to be concerned for the future of civilisation.

It's difficult to say which is the bigger concern- AGW has potential to be the bigger threat, but peak oil is the more certain to be a significant threat (I hope that isn't too confusing!) The connection between the two is that most of the policies that will help AGW will also help to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, and vice versa.

[Roger J Smith]

I can guess what the Viscount meant, it is standard conservative thought in North America to perceive Europe as being little different from Russia or even China in terms of being governed by socialist doctrines and by elites who allow for no intellectual dissent of any kind against established orthodoxies. An extension of this concept is that similar leftist elites now seek to impose similar groupthink on North America. They view all political groups of the centre and left as being part of a globalist conspiracy that has already suffocated freedom in Europe. This would include moderate Republicans and what we call "red Tories" in Canada, a faction of our current government here.

The Viscount may not be up to speed on John McCain's politics, in any context other than this year, he would be seen as a moderate Republican and he is already on record as believing in man-made global warming. The politicians don't get to choose labels, if the scientists change global warming to climate change, then they are along for the ride. Even George W Bush has made some statements in favour of the concept.

As far as elected politicians in North America, it is very much a minority position to encounter real skeptics on this issue, Sarah Palin is apparently one such person. In Canada, I can't even think of one total skeptic in elected office, there may be some in the government party, but if so, they are not offered Cabinet positions related to the environment.

The general public remains more divided and if there were not a more or less complete media blackout of skeptical positions there could easily be a slight majority who would be skeptical rather than endorsing of this issue.

The same dynamics apply to many other issues. The pro-life, pro-choice divide, the evolution vs intelligent design debate as it applies to human life in particular, same-sex marriage -- these are all propositions that are increasingly protected by media taboos that reinforce political positions, and academic groupthink. None of them have been "proven" so much as adopted by faith, pretty much the argument always used against skeptics, but in this temple, the priests of the dissident positions have been expelled and are coming under growing social ostracism.

This is the background to what the Viscount may have been saying to McCain, but he's not listening. On these issues, he would maintain the accommodation already established between mainstream conservatives and the lib-left orthodoxy in the judicial and academic realms. This sort of finely balanced arrangement, where moderates say "I see what you are doing and I don't agree but I also don't plan to do anything about it" has worked from Reagan to Bush in varying forms, but now Americans are being given a different choice -- agree fully, with the implied social(ist) revolution to follow, or maintain a hostile truce with the ground shifted slightly towards the centre again. This time around, the American voters, beset by a world of financial hurt and fully aware that the world has turned against them, may seek some cheap respect and love with Obama. And from the conservative viewpoint that's exactly what they'll get for a brief interval before the world finally surges through the barriers and tramples what is left of American freedom and turns North America into part of the mindless globalist macro-organism that has long since turned its back on its own origins and traditions.

Whether it really turns warmer or not will be irrelevant by that time, in this view, because global socialism was the real objective all the time, and so if that is achieved, who cares if the global warming theory is right or wrong? Did the former Soviet Union even have a pollution control program? No, but they certainly had lots to say about the environmental issues facing their adversaries. It is that sort of intellectual background that you can apply to what remains of a debate on climate change in North America. I gather that the only remnant of it in Eurasia is here on Net-weather. Perhaps that's an overstatement, but by how much?

It really is a complex issue embedded in a larger complex issue, the clash between the rational aspects of globalization and the legitimate fears of Americans that their way of life will be extinguished by a mindless globalism that neither knows nor cares about their traditions or constitutional protections. When I hear that only one per cent of public opinion in Europe favours McCain over Obama, then I have to conclude that there is very little balance in the larger questions involved, and that Americans would be wise to conclude that they face a very hostile world that has already been convinced that they are the source of all evil -- which must make those who are really evil quite happy.

Edited October 24, 2008 by Roger J Smith

[HighPressure]

I think the reality is a combination of both- AGW and oil prices are separate concerns in themselves, and past governments have indeed been concerned about one of those without the other being much of an issue (e.g. 1970s- oil prices, 1990s- AGW). But put both of them together, and we end up with two interlinked reasons to be concerned for the future of civilisation.

It's difficult to say which is the bigger concern- AGW has potential to be the bigger threat, but peak oil is the more certain to be a significant threat (I hope that isn't too confusing!) The connection between the two is that most of the policies that will help AGW will also help to reduce dependency on fossil fuels, and vice versa.

I agree with you TWS that its a combination of both issues, I don't seek to say that GW is only an issue because fossil fuels are a dwindling resource I don't believe that to be the case. What I do believe is that the Climate debate is being played with loaded dice in favour of AGW via CO2 emissions, but this loading is coming from organisations outside the scientific community. The UN, the IPCC, governments etc who all claim simply to have reported the consensus view within their conclusions, they had added such things as 95% confidence, to the UN sec general's comments last year "We can reverse climate change" etc all of which have very little scientific grounding even within the most staunch pro-AGW lobby. I have to ask myself why this particular debate should be subject to manipulation and spin between scientist and delivery, and I believe that dwindling fossil fuels and ability for governments to raise revenue from it is the reason.

I don't think that is healthy in such a serious debate, and I would not mind betting there are a lot of IPCC contributors not happy with the way their work has been spun but have kept their mouths shut through fear of losing funding....

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't think that is healthy in such a serious debate, and I would not mind betting there are a lot of IPCC contributors not happy with the way their work has been spun but have kept their mouths shut through fear of losing funding....

I don't think the IPCC contributors are necessarily worried about losing funding for this reason - but certainly, many of the contributors are less than impressed at the big difference between the work they produce, and the "results" that eventually find their way to the general public!

[noggin]

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/More_Skept...lmost_Daily.pdf

More learned people speaking out against AGW.

Oh, I see that the thread title has been changed to "........climate change debate". Now come on........if that doesn't smack of "moving the goalposts", then I don't know what does.

Or has it been generally accepted that AGW was not all it was cracked up to be?

Mods...please do not delete this post. It is genuine and the question put is a genuine question.

[Gray-Wolf]

Good job you don't believe in GHG's noggin!

================================================================================

=

Potent Greenhouse Gas From Computer Display And TV Manufacture Prevalent In Atmosphere

ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2008)

— A powerful greenhouse gas is at least four times more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated, according to a team of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Using new analytical techniques, a team led by Scripps geochemistry professor Ray Weiss made the first atmospheric measurements of nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃), which is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal mass of carbon dioxide.

The amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which could not be detected using previous techniques, had been estimated at less than 1,200 metric tons in 2006. The new research shows the actual amount was 4,200 metric tons. In 2008, about 5,400 metric tons of the gas was in the atmosphere, a quantity that is increasing at about 11 percent per year.

"Accurately measuring small amounts of NF₃ in air has proven to be a very difficult experimental problem, and we are very pleased to have succeeded in this effort," Weiss said. The research will be published Oct. 31 in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union (AGU).

Emissions of NF₃ were thought to be so low that the gas was not considered to be a significant potential contributor to global warming. It was not covered by the Kyoto Protocol, the 1997 agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions signed by 182 countries. The gas is 17,000 times more potent as a global warming agent than a similar mass of carbon dioxide. It survives in the atmosphere about five times longer than carbon dioxide. Current NF₃ emissions, however, contribute only about 0.04 percent of the total global warming effect contributed by current human-produced carbon dioxide emissions.

Nitrogen trifluoride is one of several gases used during the manufacture of liquid crystal flat-panel displays, thin-film photovoltaic cells and microcircuits. Many industries have used the gas in recent years as an alternative to perfluorocarbons, which are also potent greenhouse gases, because it was believed that no more than 2 percent of the NF₃ used in these processes escaped into the atmosphere.

The Scripps team analyzed air samples gathered over the past 30 years, working under the auspices of the NASA-funded Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) network of ground-based stations. The network was created in the 1970s in response to international concerns about chemicals depleting the ozone layer. It is supported by NASA as part of its congressional mandate to monitor ozone-depleting trace gases, many of which are also greenhouse gases. Air samples are collected at several stations around the world. The Scripps team analyzed samples from coastal clean-air stations in California and Tasmania for this research.

The researchers found concentrations of the gas rose from about 0.02 parts per trillion in 1978 to 0.454 parts per trillion in 2008. The samples also showed significantly higher concentrations of NF₃ in the Northern Hemisphere than in the Southern Hemisphere, which the researchers said is consistent with its use predominantly in Northern Hemisphere countries. The current observed rate of increase of NF₃ in the atmosphere corresponds to emissions of about 16 percent of the amount of the gas produced globally.

In response to the growing use of the gas and concerns that its emissions are not well known, scientists have recently recommended adding it to the list of greenhouse gases regulated by Kyoto.

"As is often the case in studying atmospheric emissions, this study shows a significant disagreement between 'bottom-up' emissions estimates and the actual emissions as determined by measuring their accumulation in the atmosphere," Weiss said. "From a climate perspective, there is a need to add NF₃ to the suite of greenhouse gases whose production is inventoried and whose emissions are regulated under the Kyoto Protocol, thus providing meaningful incentives for its wise use."

"This result reinforces the critical importance of basic research in determining the overall impact of the information technology industry on global climate change, which has already been estimated to be equal to that of the aviation industry," added Larry Smarr, director of the California Institute for Telecommunications at UCSD, who was not involved in the Scripps study.

Michael Prather is a UC Irvine atmospheric chemist who predicted earlier this year that based on the rapidly increasing use of NF₃, larger amounts of the gas would be found in the atmosphere. Prather said the new Scripps study provides the confirmation needed to establish reporting requirements for production and use of the gas.

"I'd say case closed. It is now shown to be an important greenhouse gas," said Prather, who was not involved with the Scripps study. "Now we need to get hard numbers on how much is flowing through the system, from production to disposal."

Co-authors of the paper are Scripps researchers Jens Mühle, Peter Salameh and Christina Harth.

Edited October 25, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Good job you don't believe in GHG's noggin!

================================================================================

=

Potent Greenhouse Gas From Computer Display And TV Manufacture Prevalent In Atmosphere

ScienceDaily (Oct. 24, 2008)

— A powerful greenhouse gas is at least four times more prevalent in the atmosphere than previously estimated, according to a team of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

Using new analytical techniques, a team led by Scripps geochemistry professor Ray Weiss made the first atmospheric measurements of nitrogen trifluoride (NF₃), which is thousands of times more effective at warming the atmosphere than an equal mass of carbon dioxide.

The amount of the gas in the atmosphere, which could not be detected using previous techniques, had been estimated at less than 1,200 metric tons in 2006. The new research shows the actual amount was 4,200 metric tons. In 2008, about 5,400 metric tons of the gas was in the atmosphere, a quantity that is increasing at about 11 percent per year.

Well thank god for that! Otherwise we would be plunged into an extensive ice age rather than just cooling.

BFTP