General Climate Change Discussion

[Thundery wintry showers]

Historically warm periods have been much kinder to populations than cold ones, if we have managed to warm the atmosphere and extend the growing season thus giving us a greater chance to feed people, I'd say it's not entirely a bad thing. Cold kills far more people than warmth. The evidence for drastic sea level rises is speculative (to put it kindly), if it does happen it will be such a gradual process that will allow more than enough time for re-location. Irrespective of the validity of the science, I find it very difficult to see anything other than positives for a globally warmer world, there's an increasing number of people to feed, we need to be able to do that.

I'm afraid that's rather too simplistic as it depends on the degree and rate of warming. If we were talking a warming of 1 or 2C over 100 years, the above would probably be correct, at least for developed countries (but see below). If on the other hand we were talking 4-6C of warming, it probably would fall wide of the mark, as it would require adaptation that may be too quick for humans to cope with.

In particular it is worth noting that the regions that would be most likely to benefit from a warmer world are developed regions, while in many developing countries, marginal climates may be pushed over the edge. So if AGW ends up significantly responsible for such a warming, it will be the developing countries who pay for the developed countries' pollutive ways.

In recent posts I'm seeing a recurrence of the sceptic idea, "You can't say that AGW is certain, because the science isn't settled. On the other hand, AGW is being vastly overestimated." So the science isn't settled... but on the other hand, it is? Uncertainty over one thing being true doesn't make the opposite of it true!

As for the dishonesty from those who promote AGW- I think there is some, mainly in the form of making out that the science is much more "settled" than it really is.

[VillagePlank]

You therefore think some of the science behind AGW dishonest? Which science?

I would like to report this post. I don't want it removed, and I will post this remark in the debate, anyway.

It is unacceptable to split arguments, on the sole basis of trying to construe an argument, Whilst I accept that Cap'n Bob sometimes does not portray, using the English language, quite the accuracy he might need to, nor does anyone.

Indeed, I am sure that I will find myself on the backend of countless arguments should I accidentally post something that is open to question.

I find that it is not fair, nor condusive to debate to pick apart a simple phrase where the meaning, in the context of the time is clear, in order to get a "rise" or perhaps, if one were sympathetic, to "stimulate" debate.

As you know I don't often do this often (if ever), and I regret that I have to.

Edited July 14, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It's touchy subject for some warmists, you see they like to put all those who support agw on a pedestal. I don't know why Tamara, it just seems they are unwilling to acknowledge a few of the scientist involved in AGW could be, shall we say BIASED in their findings! (sounds better than crooked, liars, etc ) For me their are a number of skeptics who fall into the same bracket, but I seek the truth, and therefore remain unbiased in my views!!

Hi I'm a bit dubious over one or two things that Monckton for eg has said. I guess I am disappointed that as a sceptic he has rather 'let the side down' in terms of his attitude rather. The trouble is when you get the sort of touchiness from a few AGW proponents (not all by any means) who insist on elevating all their favourite scientists to a god like status who can say no wrong, then you start to get some sort of an idea why some sceptic responses and attitudes become withering in return. That is not to make it right, but you can see the cycle that is set up.

I think regarding the AGW is overestimated bit then it is a case of the science not being settled in any one direction - but the sceptic sentiment would be that assessment of all feedbacks is required before any premature statement regarding AGW hypothesis within this context is professed. In that sense it is being suggested that AGW is overstated. Furthermore by dint of that the AGW feedbacks may be being overstated. I'm not sure that many sceptics are making as progressive and radical claims in terms of natural negative feedbacks. David Dilley (GWO) for eg has made a long term assessment based on natural causes but he is not 'force feeding' it to people as a given. Merely asking people to give it some consideration in terms of the potential major long term forcing mechansims he discusses

Edited July 14, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Admiral_Bobski]

It is unacceptable to split arguments, on the sole basis of trying to construe an argument, Whilst I accept that Cap'n Bob sometimes does not portray, using the English language, quite the accuracy he might need to, nor does anyone.

You think my accuracy in the English language is bad - you should see what it's like in French!

CB

[VillagePlank]

You think my accuracy in the English language is bad - you should see what it's like in French!

CB

Mines just as bad, and I don't even speak French. The point is that everyone knew what you meant, but an attempt at an argument was made out of it which has polluted, once again, two pages of interesting debate on the basis of a point in case of English.

In my mind, and I suspect most other people's mind, 'mostly' means - "I accept with some room for doubt which, currently, is unquantifiable"

I never complain - except about my own posts, and, really, I am ashamed to even do this.

But enough's enough.

[Devonian]

Mines just as bad, and I don't even speak French. The point is that everyone knew what you meant, but an attempt at an argument was made out of it which has polluted, once again, two pages of interesting debate on the basis of a point in case of English.

In my mind, and I suspect most other people's mind, 'mostly' means - "I accept with some room for doubt which, currently, is unquantifiable"

I never complain - except about my own posts, and, really, I am ashamed to even do this.

But enough's enough.

Me?

I asked a question, that is all. I ask a question when I see something that I question. Please don'tsuggest a motive that was not there.

[VillagePlank]

I asked a question, that is all. I ask a question when I see something that I question. Please don'tsuggest a motive that was not there.

No you didn't you made an inference. It's there for all to see. It's especially clear with the use of the word "therefore" If you'd have asked a nice little innocent question, why summarise and then use "therefore"? Creating a straw-man, perhaps?

You might as well ignore this, because it will get us all nowhere. As you can see, this post is full of supposition, too. (evident by endless question marks!)

Edited July 14, 2009 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

I'm afraid that's rather too simplistic as it depends on the degree and rate of warming. If we were talking a warming of 1 or 2C over 100 years, the above would probably be correct, at least for developed countries (but see below). If on the other hand we were talking 4-6C of warming, it probably would fall wide of the mark, as it would require adaptation that may be too quick for humans to cope with.

In particular it is worth noting that the regions that would be most likely to benefit from a warmer world are developed regions, while in many developing countries, marginal climates may be pushed over the edge. So if AGW ends up significantly responsible for such a warming, it will be the developing countries who pay for the developed countries' pollutive ways.

It was simplistic in as much as it was brief with little detail, in historical terms it was an entirely accurate statement.

The prospect of 4-6c of warming is an erroneous assumption (IMO). It takes the IPCC extreme projection and assumes all feedback to be positive; there is little to no evidence to support this.

If we are talking run away climate change, temperatures rocketing over a short time span then yes, I agree, times will be tough. Realistically, we should be talking about gradual change giving plenty of time for populations to adapt. Assuming climate change is a fact of life, assuming (with no evidence to say otherwise) that we continue to warm at the same pace as the last 100 years, then mass human devastation is nothing more than a scare mongering tactic.

Warm climate has historically lead to population growth. Cold climate has lead to population decline. Here is a peer reviewed paper which details in length the effect temperature has had upon population, on a global scale.

http://www.pnas.org/content/104/49/19214.full

[Devonian]

No you didn't you made an inference. It's there for all to see. It's especially clear with the use of the word "therefore" If you'd have asked a nice little innocent question, why summarise and then use "therefore"? Creating a straw-man, perhaps?

You might as well ignore this, because it will get us all nowhere. As you can see, this post is full of supposition, too. (evident by endless question marks!)

I asked a question because that question came to mind. Don't, please, tell me what I did.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Hi I'm a bit dubious over one or two things that Monckton for eg has said. I guess I am disappointed that as a sceptic he has rather 'let the side down' in terms of his attitude rather.

Yes, I often find myself thinking "sceptic X raises some good points so why does he/she have to spoil it by throwing in a load of nonsense with it?". This was especially true of the Great Global Warming Swindle.

[VillagePlank]

I asked a question because that question came to mind. Don't, please, tell me what I did.

Why do you tell others what they inferred, then?

EDIT: ah well, I knew there was a good reason to keep out of these debates. See you in a couple of months time when I've forgotten why I keep out of this

Edited July 14, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Solar Cycles]

Yes, I often find myself thinking "sceptic X raises some good points so why does he/she have to spoil it by throwing in a load of nonsense with it?". This was especially true of the Great Global Warming Swindle.

TBH though, that happens on both sides of the debate TWS. I think we have got to the point were one side doesn't trust the other, and therefore it becomes a point scoring exercise. How do we combat such attitudes? I for one can't see an end to the point scoring, until some middle ground can be found!!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I asked a question because that question came to mind. Don't, please, tell me what I did.

VP is right - this argument is going to get us nowhere, and it should really probably all be deleted for taking the thread off topic.

Having said that...

What you asked, Dev, was a loaded question. "Which science do you think is dishonest?" Pretty much any answer I gave would have resulted in your stock answer of (to paraphrase) "I'm disgusted at how people can accuse good, decent, upstanding scientists of dishonesty..." blah, blah, blah.

As I said a while ago, I am disappointed that you chose to take the conversation down that path rather than being happy that I was defending pro-AGW science.

If it's any consolation whatsoever, I also accuse Einstein of dishonest science - I hold Einstein in the highest of regard, and he was a genius in many ways, but his "Cosmological Constant" was dishonest. He put it in there to force a result from his equations rather than accepting the conclusions of his work.

The fact that a cosmological constant has subsequently been found is neither here nor there - it doesn't vindicate him in the slightest because he was unaware of the true cosmological constant.

Being dishonest as a scientist - on occasion - does not make you into a moustache-twirling Dick Dastardly, and yet you seem determined to promote that viewpoint.

CB

[Devonian]

Why do you tell others what they inferred, then?

EDIT: ah well, I knew there was a good reason to keep out of these debates. See you in a couple of months time when I've forgotten why I keep out of this

No.

Final time. I asked a question. People ask question to get answers to questions they have. So, yes, I did wonder what CB meant. So I asked a question, a question that came to mind.

If that make me a bad person so be it.

Edited July 14, 2009 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

It was simplistic in as much as it was brief with little detail, in historical terms it was an entirely accurate statement.

The prospect of 4-6c of warming is an erroneous assumption (IMO). It takes the IPCC extreme projection and assumes all feedback to be positive; there is little to no evidence to support this.

If we are talking run away climate change, temperatures rocketing over a short time span then yes, I agree, times will be tough. Realistically, we should be talking about gradual change giving plenty of time for populations to adapt. Assuming climate change is a fact of life, assuming (with no evidence to say otherwise) that we continue to warm at the same pace as the last 100 years, then mass human devastation is nothing more than a scare mongering tactic.

Warm climate has historically lead to population growth. Cold climate has lead to population decline. Here is a peer reviewed paper which details in length the effect temperature has had upon population, on a global scale.

But we can't say for certain that 4-6C is an erroneous assumption, just as we can't say for certain that the warming will only amount to 1-2C at most. There is actually plenty of evidence to support the 4-6C rise, especially at high latitudes, and it is based on the IPCC's High Emissions scenario. Whether it's good evidence is somewhat open to question though.

Why should we realistically be talking about gradual change giving plenty of time for the population to adapt? There is plenty of evidence to support it, but also plenty of evidence on the contrary- I find that assumption no more convincing than the equally uncertain assumption that change will be rapid.

Re the peer reviewed paper, the problem is that the warmest periods were not significantly warmer than the current one (say, at most 1-2C warmer) and the cold ones were substantially colder. If today's climate leads to more prosperity than a colder climate, it doesn't follow that it will continue to become more prosperous the warmer it gets. Also it is extremely doubtful these days that continued population growth would actually be a good thing, if we were to get it.

It does annoy me in these discussions when climate sceptics insist that there is no evidence for something that supports AGW, when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence but they disagree with it- essentially a subtle way of expressing opinions as facts.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But we can't say for certain that 4-6C is an erroneous assumption, just as we can't say for certain that the warming will only amount to 1-2C at most. There is actually plenty of evidence to support the 4-6C rise, especially at high latitudes, and it is based on the IPCC's High Emissions scenario. Whether it's good evidence is somewhat open to question though.

Why should we realistically be talking about gradual change giving plenty of time for the population to adapt? There is plenty of evidence to support it, but also plenty of evidence on the contrary- I find that assumption no more convincing than the equally uncertain assumption that change will be rapid.

Re the peer reviewed paper, the problem is that the warmest periods were not significantly warmer than the current one (say, at most 1-2C warmer) and the cold ones were substantially colder. If today's climate leads to more prosperity than a colder climate, it doesn't follow that it will continue to become more prosperous the warmer it gets. Also it is extremely doubtful these days that continued population growth would actually be a good thing, if we were to get it.

It does annoy me in these discussions when climate sceptics insist that there is no evidence for something that supports AGW, when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence but they disagree with it- essentially a subtle way of expressing opinions as facts.

Even with assumed sustained high emissions it still requires the positive feedback theory of warming amplification to be true and to verify. In tandem with this, it also assumes the existence of no negative feedbacks and/or total overriding of any negative natural feedbacks.

It might be the case that all the IPCC model solutions point to a range of greater or lesser warming trends - but we equally can't dismiss any possibility, however small or large, that a reverse cooling trend may also occur.

[Methuselah]

No.

Final time. I asked a question. People ask question to get answers to questions they have. So, yes, I did wonder what CB meant. So I asked a question, a question that came to mind.

If that make me a bad person so be it.

Please guys, bury the hatchet? I was on the verge of asking Dev's question, but thought 'better'of it - sometimes it's better to give the benefit os doubt and take things as they're said...

Please Dev and AF - let it rest???

[jethro]

But we can't say for certain that 4-6C is an erroneous assumption, just as we can't say for certain that the warming will only amount to 1-2C at most. There is actually plenty of evidence to support the 4-6C rise, especially at high latitudes, and it is based on the IPCC's High Emissions scenario. Whether it's good evidence is somewhat open to question though.

Why should we realistically be talking about gradual change giving plenty of time for the population to adapt? There is plenty of evidence to support it, but also plenty of evidence on the contrary- I find that assumption no more convincing than the equally uncertain assumption that change will be rapid.

Re the peer reviewed paper, the problem is that the warmest periods were not significantly warmer than the current one (say, at most 1-2C warmer) and the cold ones were substantially colder. If today's climate leads to more prosperity than a colder climate, it doesn't follow that it will continue to become more prosperous the warmer it gets. Also it is extremely doubtful these days that continued population growth would actually be a good thing, if we were to get it.

It does annoy me in these discussions when climate sceptics insist that there is no evidence for something that supports AGW, when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence but they disagree with it- essentially a subtle way of expressing opinions as facts.

If we are to consider evidence that is bad in order to make a point, then I see little reason to continue. The mood of the afternoon appears to be a niggling one.....

When I said there is little or no evidence for a 4-6c rise in temperatures I was basing that comment upon GOOD evidence, GOOD science, my opinions on whether or not I agree with it are irrelevant. The IPCC high emissions scenario to achieve such a rise in temperatures also relies entirely upon positive feedback of vast magnitude; you yourself doubt those feedbacks and have said so many, many times. Why change your stance now? I thought we had established a level of communication whereby we both understood what we thought was reliable, likely and reasonable in the science to date.

I have seen no evidence to support the idea of rapid climate change on a scale that populations cannot adapt to. I have seen many an apocalyptical article which says many meters of sea level rise to follow the demise of Antarctica and Greenland. If I'm wrong then please post links to the peer reviewed papers I have missed rather than say I have made an assumption.

The paper I linked to... a 1-2c rise in temperatures, not a great deal higher than today but actually in the realms of reality of the IPCC when not referring to their extreme end of range. My original comments on this subject today were in reference to a warming world actually being mostly beneficial, so I'm confused as to why cold was colder back then is relevant? We're talking about how historically, warm periods have been more productive.

Whether or not continued population growth is a good thing or not is not part of this debate, morally I see no one with the ability nor right to make that judgement call as the inevitable result of a negative decision has to be one of "who do we allow to die".

I have expressed no opinions as facts. I have expressed an opinion based upon fact and provided an in-depth, peer reviewed paper to support my opinion. Historically, warmer periods have been beneficial to mankind. Opinion and fact combined.

[Methuselah]

Okay guys...

I've seen what Ian is saying and what Jethro is saying...So, why not take the IPCC's 'middling' increase of, say, 3-4C and plan accordingly?

[jethro]

Okay guys...

I've seen what Ian is saying and what Jethro is saying...So, why not take the IPCC's 'middling' increase of, say, 3-4C and plan accordingly?

Adaptation has always been my preferred option.

I do however get a tad shirty when I'm accused of being a sceptic who ignores things I don't agree with. I'm a moderate person, there's never been anything on here to suggest otherwise. There are sceptics on the fringe who ignore evidence in the same way that there are pro folk who leap on every nuance of change to pronounce disaster.

Leave me out of the extreme fringe element thank you very much.

[Methuselah]

Adaptation has always been my preferred option.

I do however get a tad shirty when I'm accused of being a sceptic who ignores things I don't agree with. I'm a moderate person, there's never been anything on here to suggest otherwise. There are sceptics on the fringe who ignore evidence in the same way that there are pro folk who leap on every nuance of change to pronounce disaster.

Leave me out of the extreme fringe element thank you very much.

Eh? Whoever said that 1-2C was extreme? I'm trying to bring us all together, Jethro...We can agree on nothing or we can agree on something! So, you find adaptation preferable? Well, so do I! We'll all need to adapt.

[jethro]

Eh? Whoever said that 1-2C was extreme? I'm trying to bring us all together, Jethro...We can agree on nothing or we can agree on something! So, you find adaptation preferable? Well, so do I! We'll all need to adapt.

Crossed wires Pete......

It was a reference to the post from TWS

"It does annoy me in these discussions when climate sceptics insist that there is no evidence for something that supports AGW, when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence but they disagree with it- essentially a subtle way of expressing opinions as facts."

Sorry if I confused you, wasn't intentional.

[Methuselah]

Crossed wires Pete......

It was a reference to the post from TWS

"It does annoy me in these discussions when climate sceptics insist that there is no evidence for something that supports AGW, when the reality is that there is plenty of evidence but they disagree with it- essentially a subtle way of expressing opinions as facts."

Sorry if I confused you, wasn't intentional.

No problemo...

[VillagePlank]

No.

Final time. I asked a question. People ask question to get answers to questions they have. So, yes, I did wonder what CB meant. So I asked a question, a question that came to mind.

If that make me a bad person so be it.

NO!!!

Dev don't make yourself out to be a victim here; you victimise people enough as it is.

You use the word therefore, so you are making a judgement not "just asking a question" You can't get away with bullying so easily my friend. As CB has already said you loaded the question with bias and inference. Do you want me to repost the question with the resulting analysis - you seem to be keen at being pedantic, perhaps my turn?

Shame on you.

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi V.P. !

Hope your OK?

Getting back to things.I can't help but notice that in the area that is purported to show the impacts of AGW first (the higher latitudes) the more 'simplistic model' (the flat ocean basin in the Arctic) has us ahead of times in the impacts we were 'expecting' to witness.

Google Arctic melt and you can see that in 05' folk were still mooting 50 to 100yrs for a complete summer melt out of the pack and yet here we are.

Do the same for 'Arctic Amplification' and read the late nineties papers, not due for a number of years yet eh?

So, in the area we expected human induced climate chaos to impact first we were in the ball park with the impacts but miles out with the rapidity of our impacts.

The rest of the globe?

The tropics are expanding, the polar Jet is shifting north, storm tracks are shifting north, mountain glaciers are melting out, permanent snow caps are dissapearing, species are retreating upslope to keep up with the environmental shifts in sub/tropical uplands.

<_<