General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Methuselah]

That could be a good idea, CB???

[Admiral_Bobski]

That could be a good idea, CB???

...and, as if by magic, a thread was created...

http://forum.netweat...marians-corner/

CB

EDIT - Had to correct my grammar...now that's ironic...

Edited November 13, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Dartmoor_Matt]

An interesting article in today's Times (aprostophe in the right place? :lol:) regarding the view of the population regarding climate change and our role in it. Worringly 15% said they didn't believe the world was warming but less than 50% think it is our fault.

Not sure why the political alleigance of a person makes a difference, but Tory voters are more likely to be sceptical than Labour or Lib Dem.

Anyway linky

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=10&submitted=Get+Report

Well ,6th warmest (land temps) and 5th warmest ocean temps for Oct.

Is this the monthly trend we should be seeing for a 'cooling' world?

It seems to me that we shall be posting quite a warm year when the final figures come out?

Sadly the U.S. has been cold and wet so no doubt we'll be told the global figures are all wrong by weathermen across the Atlantic (and maybe one of our own?).

I wonder how El Nino is doing?

[jethro]

Either monthly figures both warm and cold matter, or they do not. You can't have it both ways. A cold month or two used to demonstrate a cooling world is shot down in flames, the same rules apply for warm months.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Sure they can. Its what keeps this thread going.

Did anyone see the article in the Sunday Times? New evidence suggests that the Younger Dryas took 6 months to come about, not the previously suggested 10 years. The article also states that the earth has warmed and cooled by 7c at least 20 times in the last 60,000 years alone. Which makes the IPCC estimates small fry compared to what has happened naturally since the creation of the Earth.

Which leads me to the point us sceptics believe. Yes we are warming, but this is NORMAL! The last 10,000 years of stability are NOT normal.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Methuselah]

Either monthly figures both warm and cold matter, or they do not. You can't have it both ways. A cold month or two used to demonstrate a cooling world is shot down in flames, the same rules apply for warm months.

That's a fair comment, Jethro...But (IMO) month-after-month of 'top ten' temps do, quite clearly,(?) negate any notion of a cooling climate?? On the other hand, they don't suggest any warming either...

Which leads me to the point us sceptics believe. Yes we are warming, but this is NORMAL! The last 10,000 years of stability are NOT normal.

Yes, we are warming (in the decadal sense?); and yes, a large proportion of that change is almost certainly natural..But, the one thing my-own scepicism has so-far failed to do, is to convince me that manmade CO₂ is not a GHG...Ergo it contributes to warming???

[Gray-Wolf]

And it's that last 10,000yrs , and the reasons some scientists give for the lack of climate 'swings', that you seem to have omitted Matt!

If we hear of the linking of the Re-forestation of the Mayan lands promoting our 'mini ice age' then it could be that the climate is very sensitive to greenhouse forcings?

Could we wrongly be looking at global climate as a 'stable' entity when we should be seeing a very volatile one?

If our deforestation over the past 8,000yrs can really provide enough of a climate nudge to prevent this volatile nature then what could we surmise from it?

Changes in land use , deforestation and yet it provides no visible signs of warming? Wouldn't that suggest that we should have been entering a 'cooling' phase but the trend was 'interrupted' and 'masked' by our messing with the carbon cycle?

If we were supposed to be in a 10c cooler phase right now then wouldn't this mean we have actually offset this 'cooling' by 10c?

So what of the GHG forcings of the last 150yrs? What of the 'rebound' from this natural cooling phase we have masked?

I think I'd rather stay with our current understanding and , as other do, deny the relevance of 1 bog in Ireland (if its good for the goose an' all that!)

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Eh? Logic would state that we were going to warm up anyway. We are afteral coming out of the last BIG ice age.

[Gray-Wolf]

Eh? Logic would state that we were going to warm up anyway. We are afteral coming out of the last BIG ice age.

In the article he says;

“In the period from 65,000 to 10,000 years ago there were periods of abrupt warming and cooling roughly every 1,500 years, when the temperature in Greenland might fall or rise by 10C in a decade.”

so what of the past 10,000yrs? Are we to believe that this 'see-sawing' halted just in time for the stability that gave rise to modern civilisation?

We know that the poles warm fast and more than lower latitudes so we may only be looking at 3c fluctuations in the temperate regions but we are still not seeing, or hearing of, and such fluctuations over the period.

If we look at the MWP as the last such 'warm phase' our temps didn't hike by that amount did they? if they did and the 'mini ice age' is the cool phase then where does that lead us? Do we have another 300yrs of 'natural warming' in front of us? Do we have something above our heads that can now trap that 'natural' warming?

So many questions eh?

[Methuselah]

Eh? Logic would state that we were going to warm up anyway. We are afteral coming out of the last BIG ice age.

Then, how do we expain two periods of cooling: after the MWP and into the LIA?? Just because we were once in an Ice-Age doesn't imply continuous ad infinitum warming - natural or otherwise???

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think you miss my point.

There are probably masses of things going on that are affecting the natural process but they are only affecting it, not changing it. Nothing is going to happen that hasn't happened at somepoint before in the Earth's history. That we are alive to witness it should be regarded as a good thing, not something we should try and alter.

Then, how do we expain two periods of cooling: after the MWP and into the LIA?? Just because we were once in an Ice-Age doesn't imply continuous ad infinitum warming - natural or otherwise???

Nor does imply we won't. Thats the fun. We just don't know

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.terradail...lacier_999.html

This is taken from the above text;

And yet, Oxfam warned Bolivia will be hit disproportionately as thousands of Andean farmers and La Paz residents depend on melt waters from the glaciers, which accounts for 15 percent of the capital's supply. Nearly half of the country's energy supply -- 40 percent -- comes from hydroelectric sources. The apparent injustice is fueling a government-backed civil lobbying effort to push for "international climate justice" and pressure industrialized countries to compensate populations hit by their "climate crimes."

Never mind CO2 taxes ! how about 'fines' for our polluting ways?

Edited November 16, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Thundery wintry showers]

Eh? Logic would state that we were going to warm up anyway. We are afteral coming out of the last BIG ice age.

The world isn't as black and white as that, unfortunately. The problem is not change, it is rate of change. If natural forcings were going to produce a warming of 1C over the 21st century, but humans then added a further 3C to it, it would make a big difference.

There are probably masses of things going on that are affecting the natural process but they are only affecting it, not changing it. Nothing is going to happen that hasn't happened at somepoint before in the Earth's history. That we are alive to witness it should be regarded as a good thing, not something we should try and alter.

That presupposes that humans aren't having a significant impact on it, in addition to any natural forcings. If this presumption is false, then by continuing as we are, we will be altering it.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The world isn't as black and white as that, unfortunately. The problem is not change, it is rate of change. If natural forcings were going to produce a warming of 1C over the 21st century, but humans then added a further 3C to it, it would make a big difference.

That presupposes that humans aren't having a significant impact on it, in addition to any natural forcings. If this presumption is false, then by continuing as we are, we will be altering it.

Has anyone proved that humans are having a significant impact?

You see thats the problem with this whole subject, until we get to the end result (which will be never, or when the sun expands) we won't know. Whose to say that we bring economies to their knees by cutting carbon emissions by 80% and still the world warms up- as well as ruining the living conditions of most of the world. There'd be some supremo egg on faces me thinks.

Of course this is still all ifs and buts.

Edited November 16, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[jethro]

More doom and gloom from the Telegraph this morning; thought the METO were supposed to be steering away from extreme forecasts, if the reporting in this is correct, I'd suggest a meeting between Vicky Pope and John Mitchell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6585444/Global-warming-will-bring-killer-heat-floods-and-storms-to-Britain.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6585451/How-global-warming-will-hit-everyday-life.html

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Interesting that global warming will destroy commercial forests in the north of Europe, but an article from the same paper claims that the worlds oldest trees in the US near the tree line are experiencing growth above the norm. Blamed on? Yup. Global warming.

[Devonian]

Interesting that global warming will destroy commercial forests in the north of Europe, but an article from the same paper claims that the worlds oldest trees in the US near the tree line are experiencing growth above the norm. Blamed on? Yup. Global warming.

I think the articles worth reading.

Anyway lets address your two points. You contrast two tree related issues. You don't say, though it's important, that one refers to some time into the future the other now - I really think you need to be time consitent here . So, yes, I'd not be surprised to read that Bristle Cone Pines are doing well now, they grow in a cold, harsh place, any warming will benefit them (which, as an aside, is why they make good temperature proxies, as your point rather confirms).

Now, the forest story is about some time in the future. If it warms a lot (and the paper is only reporting what the Met O have found - I for one don't know better than them), again IF it warms a lot, then it seems reasonable to me to think forest fires will become more common and pest species needing warmer weather likewise.

More doom and gloom from the Telegraph this morning; thought the METO were supposed to be steering away from extreme forecasts, if the reporting in this is correct, I'd suggest a meeting between Vicky Pope and John Mitchell.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6585444/Global-warming-will-bring-killer-heat-floods-and-storms-to-Britain.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6585451/How-global-warming-will-hit-everyday-life.html

Jethro, I think the Met O should tell us about what they think about the future - I'd be very disturbed if they decided/felt they could only report their finding if they were 'good news'.

I wonder how any newspaper can write about some news that is serious/bad/unwelcome without it being open to a dismissive 'it's just doom and gloom' type reply? Not report it?

Edited November 17, 2009 by Devonian

[jethro]

I think the articles worth reading.

Anyway lets address your two points. You contrast two tree related issues. You don't say, though it's important, that one refers to some time into the future the other now - I really think you need to be time consitent here . So, yes, I'd not be surprised to read that Bristle Cone Pines are doing well now, they grow in a cold, harsh place, any warming will benefit them (which, as an aside, is why they make good temperature proxies, as your point rather confirms).

Now, the forest story is about some time in the future. If it warms a lot (and the paper is only reporting what the Met O have found - I for one don't know better than them), again IF it warms a lot, then it seems reasonable to me to think forest fires will become more common and pest species needing warmer weather likewise.

Jethro, I think the Met O should tell us about what they think about the future - I'd be very disturbed if they decided/felt they could only report their finding if they were 'good news'.

I wonder how any newspaper can write about some news that is serious/bad/unwelcome without it being open to a dismissive 'it's just doom and gloom' type reply? Not report it?

How can the headline of 'Global warming will bring killer heat, floods and storms to Britain' be interpreted as anything other than "doom and gloom"? It's extreme and attention grabbing, that's what journalists do.

My criticism was of the Telegraph, not the METO - hence "if the reporting in this is correct".

The METO are at liberty to tell us whatever their findings show, good, bad or indifferent and I wouldn't expect otherwise but Vicky Pope earlier this year criticised the extreme, exaggerated claims made by some quarters. Her viewpoint was that it mis-represented the science, was counter-productive and wrong; I agree with her views.

In the instance of Pine Beetles, the greatest problem has been caused by vast expanses of mono-culture, mono-culture always allows species specific pests to thrive. The Lodge Pole Pine is favoured by the building industry so swathes of it have been grown as a cash crop. We have interfered in the eco system by creating huge areas of mature Lodge Poles which are the favoured tree of the beetle, ordinarily forest fires would have prevented this happening. A slightly warmer climate has little to do with this problem, less cold winters may have played a part but as the larvae have an ability to metabolize glycerols thus creating their own anti-freeze, a slight rise in temperatures has little impact - they can survive temperatures as low as -37c.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think the articles worth reading.

Anyway lets address your two points. You contrast two tree related issues. You don't say, though it's important, that one refers to some time into the future the other now - I really think you need to be time consitent here . So, yes, I'd not be surprised to read that Bristle Cone Pines are doing well now, they grow in a cold, harsh place, any warming will benefit them (which, as an aside, is why they make good temperature proxies, as your point rather confirms).

Now, the forest story is about some time in the future. If it warms a lot (and the paper is only reporting what the Met O have found - I for one don't know better than them), again IF it warms a lot, then it seems reasonable to me to think forest fires will become more common and pest species needing warmer weather likewise.

Your post implies that trees don't grow in warm climates... if its warmer and wetter 'up north' then perhaps we shall have rainforests? Even if we don't, they have vast forests in Africa, Australia, and in all the main warm areas.

Part of the problem with the 'climate change hype' is the assumption that neither we nor nature can adapt. Which is a bit strange really, since history would imply that we do and it does.

Edited November 17, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Iceberg]

Nature does adapt, but do you know what timeframe is takes to switch to a different ecosystem pyramid point ?.

It can take hundreds of years.

Humans can and do adapt, but that adaptation is often sudden and violent, the more advances a socio-economic a civilisation is the more difficult it is to adapt and the more violent that adaptation is.

[Devonian]

Your post implies that trees don't grow in warm climates...

That's right, there are no trees in the tropics....Well, no, what I'm saying it trees have habitat ranges. Clearly the trees of of Taiga aren't suited to the tropic and vice versa. The question is, how much temperature change can trees adapt to and I think the answer can, in part, be found by looking at their existing ranges and seeing what climates they don't grow in.

if its warmer and wetter 'up north' then perhaps we shall have rainforests? Even if we don't, they have vast forests in Africa, Australia, and in all the main warm areas.

Part of the problem with the 'climate change hype' is the assumption that neither we nor nature can adapt. Which is a bit strange really, since history would imply that we do and it does.

Right, so if we have rainforest up north the species will have changes - though if we get to that stage the tropics will have been destroyed by heat!

I think nature can adapt, and to quite a lot of what we throw at it. But, I think the more we throw at 'nature' the less diversity we'd see, the more drab a planet we'd have. Besides, do we really have to throw things at nature to make it adapt, why can't we just leave it alone?

Edited November 17, 2009 by Devonian

[laserguy]

I'm looking at this page almost goggle-eyed with the 'warming' related nonsense before me. I really need to get out of this asylum PDQ.

Anyway,I've been saying for ages that the term 'denier' is far more apt for the AGW fraternity. Why.....?

http://www.climatech...the-deniers-now

Keep the character assassination of the author to yourselves - I've heard it all before,and it's as boring and as hollow as the case for CO2-inspired AGW. And besides,the guy is right.

[Devonian]

I'm looking at this page almost goggle-eyed with the 'warming' related nonsense before me. I really need to get out of this asylum PDQ.

Anyway,I've been saying for ages that the term 'denier' is far more apt for the AGW fraternity. Why.....?

http://www.climatech...the-deniers-now

Keep the character assassination of the author to yourselves - I've heard it all before,and it's as boring and as hollow as the case for CO2-inspired AGW. And besides,the guy is right.

I'm sick of character assassination myself. So, I don't like it when George Monbiot is described, in your link, as an 'extreme leftist' because it's simply wrong. I don't like it when Al Gore is ad hommed like he is on WUWT today ( I wont link to it, I wont do such mud slinging such a compliment).

So, I have a lot stympathy with you rejection of character assassinations.

SO, yes, lets deal with the fact. For them we have to look at the data, not just wave it way with 'Hanson is a ****' here or 'Gore is a ****' there. So, lets look at the facts, lets go through the data, check out the temperatures, the trends, the state of the cryosphere, sea temperatures, greenhouse gas concentrations, solar output, even GCRs. Specifically, in this piece you quote, is it really the case that "Record cold temperatures are occurring everywhere." as your author says? Could have fooled me...

Edited November 17, 2009 by Devonian

[Dartmoor_Matt]

On the lighter side of climate change, be that warm, cold or indifferent, it is good to see that the ice breaker that got stuck in the ice has started to move again. Unprecedented conditions apparently. Ice, in the Antarctic. How unprecedented. :lol:

So question: Does the fact that it got stuck in said unprecedented conditions mean that the world is cooling, or that it broke free mean that the world is warming up? Tricky. Perhaps it just means 'thats the way the cookie crumbles'

BBC News