General Climate Change Discussion

[tundra]

Don't know if this has been posted already.

Taken from WUWT this is a slide show from a Jasper Kirkby of CERN explaining the centre's cloud experiment.

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?re...mp;confId=52576

[Solar Cycles]

Don't know if this has been posted already.

Taken from WUWT this is a slide show from a Jasper Kirkby of CERN explaining the centre's cloud experiment.

http://indico.cern.ch/getFile.py/access?re...mp;confId=52576

I was already aware of Kirkby's work, for me another cog in what drives our climate. For the warmists, more evidence to ignore!!

[laserguy]

Oh boy,here we go again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8130907.stm

Just the latest example of why 'AGW' is fast becoming my number one source of humour these days. Yeah I know,it's an age thing and don't get out as much as I used to...

[Methuselah]

Oh boy,here we go again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8130907.stm

Just the latest example of why 'AGW' is fast becoming my number one source of humour these days. Yeah I know,it's an age thing and don't get out as much as I used to...

After an initial ROFL moment, but having studied ET at Uni, that does make sense; however, it has nothing to do with AGW per se. That a smaller animal can survive the 'modern winter' better than cold ones is hardly surprising really...But it's still funny! :lol:

[Gray-Wolf]

In answer to your first part.... Relies entirely upon man's contribution upsetting the balanced system to a significant degree.

So which bit of "upsetting the planet should we look at? De-forrestation maybe? Does this alter the system? Monoculturing vast areas? does this alter the system? Driving one creature extinct? does this alter the system? Adding an alien species into an area? Does this alter the system?Polluting oceans? does this alter the system? Altering (measurably) the atmospheric mix? Does this alter the system?

You know full well (I suspect) the impacts man has on his planet and yet you appear to play them down as 'trivial' and 'without significant impact'.

We cannot 'sidestep' our impacts on the planet over our time here (be it 40,000yr old burning of the NE Australia to our own deforrestation of Great britain) as though they change nothing by their occurance ( if so tell it to Megalania or the European Wolf).

How's about another Newtonianism? To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Are we exempt from this on our home planet? (or are the religions that hold that everything was placed here for man's use gaining support? )

Nearly mid July and still no melt pools in sight. Obviously the Arctic is cooler this year.

Well to most people that is.

Mid September looks like being fun this year T

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I see nothing to be gained by procrastinating. Whether we are talking CO2 and it's role in AGW or not we need to be introducing alternatives to our energy sources both to provide adequate power for the developing nations (look at how much energy per capita China used to use compared with today's figures and then apply that to the rest of Asia,Africa and south America and go figure the numbers ) and to allow them to attain the same state of 'development' as us fortunates.

The loss of species is inexcusable but we insist on B.A.U. so as not to incur 'costs' for the consumer (be they tax or unit price rises).

The mis-use/mis-management of agricultural resources for the benefit of the first world is also inexcusable (who needs baby sweetcorn in February??)

NSSC, it is the same picture if we try to save the world from man's dalliance or try to save man for his own sake is it not??? Why sit back and watch it all occur to only then concede that if we had acted earlier we could have made a difference?

The loss of species is inexcusable. The pollution of our rivers, land etc is not justified.

Likewise, if man can be proven to be the overriding factor in terms of 'last straw' changes in climate then that needs change too. At the moment AGW remains pure hypothesis that I can't help feeling has been built up to fix a guilty human environmental conscience that in some eyes is actually guilty before being given the chance to be shown to be innocent.

The trouble with taking an environmental conscience brush to 'all things planet' is that we automatically assume that man is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Sometimes indeed he is shown to be, but it is not going to happen through unproven hypothesis. We still need to prove the link between all causes and effects and take into account natural variabilty that may or may not make any human contribution effectively override any such variability. We can't make assumptions about this hypothesis whilst it remains, just, a hypothesis and we must make any risk assessment/costing based on ALL feedbacks and not just assumed positive one's that suit one's 'guilty conscience'

The trouble with AGW is that it takes this broadbrush assumption based around the guilty human conscience into climate in the same way as it may do with sustaining crops, saving forested rural areas, and sustaining endangered species. In that it is unquestionably always man who is to blame, so he must be, unquestionably to blame for climate variability too. On that basis it is easy, I suppose, to see how the hypotheis of indestructable humanly induced positive feedbacks are bombproof , the 'last straw' and override all else in the eyes of many AGW ultra progressives. A well intentioned conscience in danger of going (or gone) too far in other words.

I think it may be this that makes people attain such beliefs and forebode armeggeddons? The principle of being responsible and having such a conscience is noble and to be admired, but when taken as an absolute it appears fanatical, intensely narrow focussed and in danger of missing so much more that has 'always been'. It is that that makes it seem like an OTT religion. IMO anyway.

You say you know mans impact on climate (and in the case of this thread the doomed fate of the ice in the arctic) as a result of the woeful mismanagement you perceive. That reflects the level of conscious responsibility that you hold, which is well intentioned, but surely it must first be shown that what you believe you 'know' is actually true. Appearing to be a prophet and suggesting that the rest of us will one day wake up to what you 'know' is not going to help make the changes in others that you would like

Edited July 11, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[jethro]

So which bit of "upsetting the planet should we look at? De-forrestation maybe? Does this alter the system? Monoculturing vast areas? does this alter the system? Driving one creature extinct? does this alter the system? Adding an alien species into an area? Does this alter the system?Polluting oceans? does this alter the system? Altering (measurably) the atmospheric mix? Does this alter the system?

You know full well (I suspect) the impacts man has on his planet and yet you appear to play them down as 'trivial' and 'without significant impact'.

We cannot 'sidestep' our impacts on the planet over our time here (be it 40,000yr old burning of the NE Australia to our own deforrestation of Great britain) as though they change nothing by their occurance ( if so tell it to Megalania or the European Wolf).

How's about another Newtonianism? To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Are we exempt from this on our home planet? (or are the religions that hold that everything was placed here for man's use gaining support? )

Said in the most sincerest of fashions.....(honestly)

Well done Ian! A superb post neatly and completely side-stepping the issue of CO2. The almost exclusive focus upon emissions of both the IPCC and yourself, thus negating the need to answer my question (remember the one I said wanted answering). In case you missed it, here it is again:

If we and our CO2 emissions have warmed the atmosphere, what is the mechanism for retaining that heat and creating positive feedbacks where previously there had been negative ones, is the question I need answering.

This question has nothing to do with the proposed scenario of CO2 preventing heat loss to space.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

So which bit of "upsetting the planet should we look at? De-forrestation maybe? Does this alter the system? Monoculturing vast areas? does this alter the system? Driving one creature extinct? does this alter the system? Adding an alien species into an area? Does this alter the system?Polluting oceans? does this alter the system? Altering (measurably) the atmospheric mix? Does this alter the system?

You know full well (I suspect) the impacts man has on his planet and yet you appear to play them down as 'trivial' and 'without significant impact'.

We cannot 'sidestep' our impacts on the planet over our time here (be it 40,000yr old burning of the NE Australia to our own deforrestation of Great britain) as though they change nothing by their occurance ( if so tell it to Megalania or the European Wolf).

How's about another Newtonianism? To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Are we exempt from this on our home planet? (or are the religions that hold that everything was placed here for man's use gaining support? )

Mid September looks like being fun this year T

You still need to able to prove that however significant mans effect may be, it is able (or is already able) to override the natural system. The natural climate system is the most complex natural system of all. It is for AGW to consider ALL the feedbacks and it is necessary to be able to show unequivocally that all the assumed man made positive feedbacks a) exist in the first place show how they interract with negative feedbacks and overcome them and c) do sums (net costing/weighting) based on that.

The reality is that AGW does a net costing c) based on assumptions that a) is a 'yes' and that the assumed positive feedbacks are out of control (despite existing uncertainties and blank spaces surrounding many areas of temp and CO2/emission feedback processes) and override a). The information fed into IPCC computer models is based around those assumptions.

[Methuselah]

If I cover the outside of my house with heat-reflectant material but carry on using the same amount of heating, what will happen? My house's interior will get warmer. That's thermodynamics pure and simple and, until someone finds a way of getting energy out of nothing, thermodynamics will always reign supreme..? Whether or not I can ascribe x joules to the settee, y joules to the mantel-piece or z joules to my filing cabinet is really not the point. Whichever system we want to talk about, the arithmetic remains the same...One doesn't need to understand every single detail of every single internal mechanism to do the sums that matter.

In effect, we are adding energy to the system. I don't pretend to know where every joule is going, how every joule traverses the system, how long every joule will remain latent - nobody knows all that. But, to conflate our ignorance of mechanism with denial of thermodynamic reality is, I think, stupid at best...

So - we've 'lost' some of the energy, so what? It's still there, somewhere!

[weather eater]

And round and round we go. Two points I would make after reading the last few pages, the first being that it matters not whether we break the ice loss of 2007, because the only relevant factor is that we are constantly seeing record or near records of Artic sea loss, year in year out and as yet there is little or no support in regards improved summer ice retention or for a cooling world, coming from the Artic, at least not this year, period as they say in America.

Secondly in regards natural cycles and AGW theory, the fact is that what we know of both these theory’s is based mainly on the work of climate scientists and it is certain that our knowledge of both is incomplete. The way this thread reads is that AGW theory is based on flawed climate models and poor science whereas natural cycles are some how handed down from god and unquestionable, set in stone. I find it difficult to believe that scientific proponents of AGW many of whom will be experts in natural cycles and pale climatology have not taking this knowledge into their theory’s of climate warning. Given the dangers of global warning it would seem to me to be better to act on what we do know rather than wait on what we don’t know.

I would describe myself as a +1 in regards climate change and the arguments of those that deny or think mans influence on climate is negligible are failing at this time to convince me otherwise as much as I desperately want to believe them.

[weather eater]

What is this natural system that keeps getting talked about, if volcanoes add CO2 to the atmosphere that’s a natural system and can effect climate, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere its not a natural system and therefore it has no effect on climate, what kind of argument would that be. Either CO2 is a driver in climate and therefore climate change or it is not.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

And round and round we go. Two points I would make after reading the last few pages, the first being that it matters not whether we break the ice loss of 2007, because the only relevant factor is that we are constantly seeing record or near records of Artic sea loss, year in year out and as yet there is little or no support in regards improved summer ice retention or for a cooling world, coming from the Artic, at least not this year, period as they say in America.

Secondly in regards natural cycles and AGW theory, the fact is that what we know of both these theory's is based mainly on the work of climate scientists and it is certain that our knowledge of both is incomplete. The way this thread reads is that AGW theory is based on flawed climate models and poor science whereas natural cycles are some how handed down from god and unquestionable, set in stone. I find it difficult to believe that scientific proponents of AGW many of whom will be experts in natural cycles and pale climatology have not taking this knowledge into their theory's of climate warning. Given the dangers of global warning it would seem to me to be better to act on what we do know rather than wait on what we don't know.

I would describe myself as a +1 in regards climate change and the arguments of those that deny or think mans influence on climate is negligible are failing at this time to convince me otherwise as much as I desperately want to believe them.

Totally incorrect. No climate 'sceptic' is professing anything is 'set in stone'. That is the point. The questioning is regarding AGW hypothesis being 'set in stone'. That doesn't automatically mean that natural negative feedback is bombproof either but how do we know what the 'dangers' of global warming are until we can demonstrate the actual existence of assumed feedbacks that are supposed to produce those 'dangers' in reality?? We can't act on 'knowing' as much as we think we do because we are, actually, merely making assumptions about what we think we know.

Edited July 11, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[weather eater]

Totally incorrect. No climate 'sceptic' is professing anything is 'set in stone'. That is the point. The questioning is regarding AGW hypothesis being 'set in stone'. That doesn't automatically mean that natural negative feedback is bombproof either but how do we know what the 'dangers' of global warming are until we can demonstrate the actual existence of assumed feedbacks that are supposed to produce those 'dangers' in reality?? We can't act on 'knowing' as much as we think we do because we are, actually, merely making assumptions about what we think we know.

Tamara that seems to me to be a bit like waiting for Hitler to invade Poland to prove he is a monstrous tyrant, some of the denying at the moment reads like Chamberlain’s little piece of paper, cooling in our time. You say we cant act on what we don’t know but how is that different to not acting on what we don’t know, it seems to me that the dangers of non action far out way the dangers of action.

[Methuselah]

What is this natural system that keeps getting talked about, if volcanoes add CO2 to the atmosphere that’s a natural system and can effect climate, if we add CO2 to the atmosphere its not a natural system and therefore it has no effect on climate, what kind of argument would that be. Either CO2 is a driver in climate and therefore climate change or it is not.

I understand your frustration, WE. I've made the very same point myself...

I'm not 100% sure; but I think that the thrust of the deniers' arguments lies in obfuscation:

Whilst they readily acknowledge CO2 as a GHG (especially when it comes from undiscovered undersea volcanoes!), they prefer to concentrate on man's collective epistemological weaknesses re. internal feedback mechanisms? We don't know EVERYTHING!

For my part, I don't need to fully understand (to the nth degree) each and every conceivable feedback mechanism - heat-storage, heat-loss, cloud-formation, deep sea heat-dispersal - blah blah blah, to know that for balance energy-in=energy-out. I did go to college/university!

What we currently have is energy-in>energy-out...The question should be, where's the extra energy going?

Totally incorrect. No climate 'sceptic' is professing anything is 'set in stone'. That is the point. The questioning is regarding AGW hypothesis being 'set in stone'. That doesn't automatically mean that natural negative feedback is bombproof either but how do we know what the 'dangers' of global warming are until we can demonstrate the actual existence of assumed feedbacks that are supposed to produce those 'dangers' in reality?? We can't act on 'knowing' as much as we think we do because we are, actually, merely making assumptions about what we think we know.

But, the laws of thermodynamics ARE set in stone...Where's the extra energy going?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Tamara that seems to me to be a bit like waiting for Hitler to invade Poland to prove he is a monstrous tyrant, some of the denying at the moment reads like Chamberlain's little piece of paper, cooling in our time. You say we cant act on what we don't know but how is that different to not acting on what we don't know, it seems to me that the dangers of non action far out way the dangers of action.

I'll repeat once more what I have said umpteen times on these threads - it is fine to take responsibility for the environment and not be gun-ho with emissions etc etc but there is a difference between that and trying to make out that we must act to save our planet on the basis of sketchily understood feedback systems on which a lot of assumptions about positive feedbacks are being presented as facts. '

Again, I ask you - how do you know with any confidence what the dangers are when they are based purely on supposition? I am rather bemused by your Hitler/Poland analogy. To claim anything like that requires something rather more definitive than a mere hypothesis that adds up, apparently, to climate man-induced ablation.

WW2 invasion can of course be looked at in heinsight with all the dangers that 'ensued' plus in that case I think there was a lot more than hypotheis and theory to go on to suggest the potential dangers that did indeed ensue.

Anything 'might' happen. On the basis of acting 'just in case' of every worst case scenario we may as well all run round like rabbits planning for every possible catastrophe imaginable. Just where do you draw the line??

I'm really not sure how I can be 'denying' something that is not yet proven as real in terms of the extent to which it is being professed?? Given more convincing evidence about human induced forcings over natural one's then I might be more convinced. And I might tailor the sort of action required accordingly. But until then I can't deny something that is not yet shown with any conviction to be real. By suggesting I am denying something you are suggesting it is already fact. It isn't. It is hypothesis. I do wonder how many times that has to be repeated!

[Methuselah]

Do we have 10,000 years? We still haven't 'proven' evolution by natural selection - to the deniers?

I get it. Let's all just wait until afterwards?

Thank God I'll be dead by then!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Do we have 10,000 years? We still haven't 'proven' evolution by natural selection - to the deniers?

I get it. Let's all just wait until afterwards?

Thank God I'll be dead by then!

After what exactly? What exactly is coming??

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I understand your frustration, WE. I've made the very same point myself...

I'm not 100% sure; but I think that the thrust of the deniers' arguments lies in obfuscation:

Whilst they readily acknowledge CO2 as a GHG (especially when it comes from undiscovered undersea volcanoes!), they prefer to concentrate on man's collective epistemological weaknesses re. internal feedback mechanisms? We don't know EVERYTHING!

For my part, I don't need to fully understand (to the nth degree) each and every conceivable feedback mechanism - heat-storage, heat-loss, cloud-formation, deep sea heat-dispersal - blah blah blah, to know that for balance energy-in=energy-out. I did go to college/university!

What we currently have is energy-in>energy-out...The question should be, where's the extra energy going?

But, the laws of thermodynamics ARE set in stone...Where's the extra energy going?

To give you an example of that - oft repeated by me. The clouds hypothesis. AGW hypothesis depends upon the existence of assumed positive feedbacks in clouds having a trapping/amplifying effect that on the basis that CO2 continues to increase unchecked will assist up to 75% of the projected warming that AGW proponents and the IPCC etc predict over the next century. There is a lot riding therefore on this theory bearing out in reality. It is already being shown 'outside of the theory lab' that negative feedbacks exist instead of positive one's that mean that you can keep producing all the CO2 you like but without the supposed trapping mechanism and a reflective mechanism into space perhaps existing instead then none of that assumed positive heat amplification is going to occur.

So there is no certainty by any means that the assumed energy is trapped and goes on to produce a trapped positive cumulative feedback system. 75% is lot of heat amplification to be riding on...

The 'denier' term continues to be unhelpful and not representative of the position.

Edited July 11, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[weather eater]

The analogy with WW2 is clear, to wait invites the possibility of being in a position of being powerless to alter events.

I do understand the frustration of clear evidence of the dramatic consequences of AGW aside, from artic summer ice melt. It is very frustrating to watch weather events on the news and hear climate change mentioned every time, as if severe weather events have never happened in the UK in truth I have seen no evidence that the UK is experiencing any more severe weather events than it has always done. So far the clearest example of climate change that I have observed is the lack of cold winters and while snow in London may have got a few excited last year, there was little evidence up here of a cold winter, an area traditionally one of the snowiest in England. You’re right of course nothing is set in stone but it seems to me the evidence is still pointing to man having a major impact on the earth climate, its not a case of over riding natural cycle’s but augmenting them.

[Methuselah]

After what exactly? What exactly is coming??

I'm glad you asked that, Tamara...Because I don't know. (any more or any less than you do?)

You've agreed that CO2 is a GHG , have you not? Ergot, you've agreed that there is more energy within the 'earth system' than there otherwise would be?

All I'm saying is that that 'extra' energy will, sooner or later, manifest itself. I don't know how, but I don't believe that all the polar ice will melt overnight - my response to Jethro's post above should have made that clear - but something must give eventually?

What I definitely don't understand, is why 'warmists' must understand ALL the minutiae of our planet's myriad feedbacks whereas 'deniers' merely need state uncertainty/incredulity?

By now, you should realize that I too am skeptical of many of the 'Armageddon-esque' claims of the doomsayers!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

The analogy with WW2 is clear, to wait invites the possibility of being in a position of being powerless to alter events.

I do understand the frustration of clear evidence of the dramatic consequences of AGW aside, from artic summer ice melt. It is very frustrating to watch weather events on the news and hear climate change mentioned every time, as if severe weather events have never happened in the UK in truth I have seen no evidence that the UK is experiencing any more severe weather events than it has always done. So far the clearest example of climate change that I have observed is the lack of cold winters and while snow in London may have got a few excited last year, there was little evidence up here of a cold winter, an area traditionally one of the snowiest in England. You're right of course nothing is set in stone but it seems to me the evidence is still pointing to man having a major impact on the earth climate, its not a case of over riding natural cycle's but augmenting them.

ok - I guess from how I see it we can anticipate any possibility though if we want to. I just think it invites excess neurosis and excess 'what ifs'.

I'm afraid I don't yet see the more dramatic AGW outcomes that others do. I need to be fully convinced of the extent of any AGW impact first. We might well affect our climate - but how much does it amount it or does it amount to anything at all. If the feedbacks don't work as anticipated.

To Pete's point - I think you do have to examine the minutae of each feedback. The clouds example is a good one. Whether it works or not in reality depends on a lot of AGW theory coming good. Just one example.

Have a nice Saturday night all

[Methuselah]

Have a nice Saturday night all

You too!

[Admiral_Bobski]

...that seems to me to be a bit like waiting for Hitler to invade Poland to prove he is a monstrous tyrant...

If I may extend the analogy a little...

Rather than waiting for Hitler to invade Poland, why don't we get the most powerful 20 nations together and pledge to kill 80% of all Germans by 1960. That'll solve the problem, won't it?

CB

PS - Yes, I know Hitler was an Austrian, but that might endanger the extensibility of this analogy.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The trouble with taking an environmental conscience brush to 'all things planet' is that we automatically assume that man is to blame for everything that goes wrong. Sometimes indeed he is shown to be, but it is not going to happen through unproven hypothesis. We still need to prove the link between all causes and effects and take into account natural variabilty that may or may not make any human contribution effectively override any such variability. We can't make assumptions about this hypothesis whilst it remains, just, a hypothesis and we must make any risk assessment/costing based on ALL feedbacks and not just assumed positive one's that suit one's 'guilty conscience'

Firstly, humans do not get the blame for everything that goes wrong among the mainstream scientists. The tabloids certainly like to blame anything on "human-caused global warming" but most scientists are aware of things that can go wrong due to natural causes. For instance it is fallacious to blame individual weather events on AGW, the only connection that can be legitimately made is frequency/exceedance of specified thresholds.

The problem with the conclusion is it seems to imply that we need to know everything before we take action to address AGW. What is often forgotten is that inaction is, in itself, a form of action- i.e. we choose not to do anything to address AGW. Turning that on its head- shouldn't there also be some emphasis on sceptics and/or deniers to show that AGW is not happening before we decide not to bother addressing it?

However we do need to consider a lot of different angles and it is certainly dangerous to take a line that "anything that addresses AGW is a good thing" for example. The idea of addressing AGW is to help preserve a good quality of life for future generations- we will not achieve this by bringing in such a degree of draconianism that everyone ends up very poor.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm glad I'm not the only 'Happy Larry' in this country

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/c...se-1742759.html