What Is Causing The Warming ?

[PersianPaladin]

I have to admit I can't be bothered to subscribe to the thingybob, but from reading the first page, I think there is some truth behind it, though most likely exaggerated.

I totally agree that much of the "AGW is a hoax" stuff is fuelled by agendas of oil companies and the like who want to insist that we can continue to pollute with their products without a problem. Plus, for that matter, agendas of individuals who don't want to make uncomfortable lifestyle changes or kiss goodbye to cold snowy winters.

I am also seeing AGW being used as a means of furthering authoritarian control, though I don't think it's a conspiracy. Authoritarian policymaking is often favoured because it is the easiest/simplest way to address a problem (the H.Mencken quote in my signature springs to mind!) and it maximises control- again making it easier for themselves as the more control, the less uncertainty regarding the behaviour of the masses. What seems to be changing these days is that more people are starting to accept it as a necessary evil, for various reasons- and AGW can sometimes be one of those reasons.

Its not really a conspiracy given that this information is all out in the open. People are NOT happy about the economic approach that governments' have taken in dealing with this situation, and I pointed this out in the politics thread. What angers me is that affectivley we have a perfect storm being created by certain lobbyists in the banking and oil\gas industries which not only seeks to back anti-global warming arguments, but also one faction supporting big authoritarian and economically-damaging schemes to try and make anybody linked with pro-AGW science look bad. Hence some corporate faction is involved in trying to manipulate either side. So, you could say that the anti-AGW brigade are wrong but so are many beuracrats, private bankers (that work through proxy government-systems such as the Federal Reserve) in helping to fuel the anti-government anger. This creates a situation where people don't trust governments or anybody else to resolve the situation, so we arrive at a stale-mate because too many people fail to do their own research in terms of discerning the context.

Edited August 24, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[Roger J Smith]

I think there should be a new thread for Irish and Scottish readers,

What is Causing the Wetting?

(my guess, too much rain)

[Thundery wintry showers]

Re. PersianPaladin, I think you are largely correct, and it does indeed create, in effect, a two-pronged attack on action against AGW (or indeed the related issue of sustainability).

Sadly, many areas of policymaking are dominated by lobbyists polarising approaches towards one extreme or the other, leaving little room for anything in between. And indeed, most people don't do their own research- many are easily led by what the papers say for example.

[jethro]

The point on CO2 being innocuous is not a fact, it is an opinion, just like with the statements of those who say that recent solar activity cannot have warmed the atmosphere much. See this thread, for example, showing that the effects of CO2 on temperature are still prone to considerable uncertainty, e.g. the coefficient "a" given:

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/56056-general-climate-change-discussion/page__st__75__p__1569251entry1569251

It's important to mention this just because opinions, even if well-founded, should not be assumed as givens in the way that facts can be.

So how come, whenever someone comes up with a study that attributes global warming to GHGs, the study should include natural forcings- yet when a study holds natural forcings accountable, there is apparently no need to include GHGs? A double standard.

The argument "GHGs must be included to replicate the warming" is used to insist that at least some of the recent warming was down to AGW- not as a basis for the existence of AGW itself (there is a difference!).

Also, if natural forcings can account for all of the warming, it doesn't follow that AGW can't have been partly responsible. Just like, if AGW could account for all of the warming it wouldn't follow that AGW was entirely responsible. Such black and white absolutes can only follow if we have a near-perfect understanding of what forcings caused what amount of warming- and I doubt that we're even close to reaching that stage.

The opinion that CO2 is a fairly innocuous GHG is the opinion of the IPCC; the danger of adding lots of it to the atmosphere comes from the assumed feedback mechanisms being positive. The IPCC and the accepted theory of AGW is entirely dependant upon these positive feedbacks.

As the IPCC version of AGW and it's causes is the benchmark upon which all these discussions originate, I feel it is perfectly legitimate to refer to their opinion.

There is no double standard. The theory is that the warming we have seen can only be replicated in the models and accounted for if the addition of CO2 emissions is made to the calculations of all known natural drivers. In the words of the IPCC :

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure

2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM} The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of

solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,not warming.

And:

The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. {WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

The paper I linked to showed this to be false. It is not necessary to include CO2 to induce the warming, it is also possible to produce the same net results with Solar differences.

[Iceberg]

It's the Sun what did it....

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/solaractivandclimate-nethjgeosci.pdf

"As such the recent period of global warming does not appear to be exceptional from a historical perspective."

Here's info on the author, he should know what he's talking about:

http://www.cdejager.com/about/

Thanks for reminding me about this with your last post Jethro, I am reading it very early so sorry if this seems really silly.

The conclusions that the author draws are not at all backed up by his paper.

He spends his entire paper discussing past temperature changes al la moberg with sun cycles, and then goes on to say that all the current warming is attributable. However shows now actual temperature data, indeed his temperature data stops at approx 1970.

I don't think many people dispute that the sun was the main driver of the global climate 30 to 500 years ago, but this has no relavence on AGW thoery or current warming.

His thoery does not account for the current 0.13-0.2C of warming per decade we have been experiencing since 1970, indeed going from his graph his forecast was surely for temperature to be dropping sharply a while ago.?

I could be reading this wrong and please point out to me if I am.

I don't know the author and assume that this is a reputable journal, but it sure is a strange conclusion to draw from the data he presents.

[jethro]

Iceberg, sorry in a hurry this morning, post holiday mountain of work means I'm very short of time. Here's a few more links of the guys work plus details on who he is. If you click the Sun-Earth publications in the tab bar of the first link, there's more work to read, not all of it is copyright free for public forums, hence not supplying direct links to papers.

http://www.cdejager.com/about/

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-forecasting-jastp-71-239.pdf

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/2009-episodes-jastp-71-194.pdf

http://www.cdejager.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/solaractivandclimate-nethjgeosci.pdf

[Iceberg]

After the gentle prodding by Pete, I've just printed them off to read through them in my lunch break.

It would be interesting to hear the views of others on this work.

His theories on sun cycle revolving are very good, even if I don't understand or agree with why he extrapolates this to modern warming.

[Iceberg]

Right I've looked at 3 of the 4 links.

My views are that Jager understands solar variances/cycles very well, his thoery re sunspots and their occurances might well be right.

They stand as much chance as anybody elses IMO and it's a shame that we don't have a space craft that can penetrate the sun.

I think the issue I have is with his ascertion that current warming can be explained.

I've noted one of my thoughts on this above.

Now I'll say before I start that this isn't a slight on Jager, he might well have been illadvised by some of his colleagues.

Syun Akasofu advised Jager on the temperature data files that were used and I think he has been fraudulant in his advising, I know it's a strong word but I really mean it.

Syun is a well known Sceptic of Global warming not just AGW and routinely trotts out articles on how bad AGW science is.

To explain this accusation:

This should have been picked up in peer review and would have been if it were in a climate journal.

I've attached two diagrams one Fig 4 which is what Jager uses as the main evidence to support his findings that current warming is explainable by solar forcing.

The second diagram is well known to all as the HADCRU3 temperature data set.

Jager uses Moberg and Brohan to construct his temperature graph all the way upto 2005.

The thing that strikes you about this graph is that temperatures where higher in 1920 then they are now.

Now Jager has used Brohan, who for those that don't know is one of the principle compilers of the HADCRU3 data set. This should give Jager more credibility, I am sure it did to his reviewers.

However in his writing he says that only the data between 1970 and 2006 is Brohan based.

This leads to a graph which looks nothing like Brohans work (HADCRU3) and which isn't supported by anything to be honest. Moberg is used as a past temperature reconstruction and cannot in any way be compared directly to temperature datasets using actual recordings.

I am happy to accept that Jager did not know this but Syun certainty did and would know that Jagers Graph is not science, reliable or supported in anyway by any other data.

If you go back using Brohans work until it started and then use Moberg you find a very different graph which still supports Jager in his theory of the historical role of the sun on climate, but which does not support his ascertion that modern warming can be explained by it.

If I've missed something out or not understood something I am happy to be corrected.

[Iceberg]

Something similar was done in a paper by Veizers re the temperature graph being manipulated to fit an hypothesis. Even though the paper was peer reviewed.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/05/on-veizers-celestial-climate-driver/

It's in the addendum part 2 a bit of the way down.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The opinion that CO2 is a fairly innocuous GHG is the opinion of the IPCC; the danger of adding lots of it to the atmosphere comes from the assumed feedback mechanisms being positive. The IPCC and the accepted theory of AGW is entirely dependant upon these positive feedbacks.

As the IPCC version of AGW and it's causes is the benchmark upon which all these discussions originate, I feel it is perfectly legitimate to refer to their opinion.

There is no double standard. The theory is that the warming we have seen can only be replicated in the models and accounted for if the addition of CO2 emissions is made to the calculations of all known natural drivers. In the words of the IPCC :

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. This is an advance since the TAR’s conclusion that “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in GHG concentrations” (Figure

2.5). {WGI 9.4, SPM} The observed widespread warming of the atmosphere and ocean,together with ice mass loss, support the conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without external forcing and very likely that it is not due to known natural causes alone. During this period, the sum of

solar and volcanic forcings would likely have produced cooling,not warming.

And:

The observed patterns of warming, including greater warming over land than over the ocean, and their changes over time, are simulated only by models that include anthropogenic forcing. No coupled global climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the continental mean warming trends in individual continents (except Antarctica) over the second half of the 20th century. {WGI 3.2, 9.4, TS.4.2, SPM}

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf

The paper I linked to showed this to be false. It is not necessary to include CO2 to induce the warming, it is also possible to produce the same net results with Solar differences.

Can you show me where the IPCC says that CO2 has a minute effect and that assumed positive feedbacks are necessary to make it significant, and this being the basis of AGW etc? There is nothing in the post to back up that assertion.

I'm well aware that much of the supposed certainty over AGW comes from the assertion that CO2 is necessary alongside natural drivers in the models to replicate the current warming. What I don't get is this "CO2 is not necessary to produce the warming, so there is no need to consider CO2". That's like saying that if the input of solar activity is not necessary to produce the warming, then there is no need to consider solar activity. I also don't get how when the IPCC says that CO2 is necessary to explain the warming, it is open to question, but when someone else casts doubt on it, their assertions are to be accepted as gospel. I think there is a double standard here.

I will be interested to see what kind of rebuttals are available to Iceberg's points also. I don't think there's much doubt that solar activity can explain a lot of the temperature changes prior to 1970, the problem is whether or not it really accounts for the recent warming. If they can, then that's good news, but I always place some degree of scepticism be it for or against AGW.

[edveasey]

What causes global warming

In the past changes in globa temperature have been caused by natrual things such as position of major continents, out put of the sun, volcanic activity, and the position tilt of earths orbit, todays warming trend is caused by an increase in CO2 and methane levels.

The natural variability has been filtered out of many models and these have been varyfied with observations

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

What causes global warming

In the past changes in globa temperature have been caused by natrual things such as position of major continents, out put of the sun, volcanic activity, and the position tilt of earths orbit, todays warming trend is caused by an increase in CO2 and methane levels.

The natural variability has been filtered out of many models and these have been varyfied with observations

And they still will be. That is the problem with the models and that is why they have fallen fowl for 11 years.

BFTP

Edited September 7, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[edveasey]

And they still will be. That is the problem with the models and that is why they have fallen fowl for 11 years.

BFTP

Actually the models have been proven to be extremely accurate over the last 11 years, the prediction and effect of long term solar cycles and other cycles such as el Niño/la Niña events are very accurate, they of cause have a level of uncertainty but global climate is predicted in trends and not day to day weather and thats what they are very good at.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Actually the models have been proven to be extremely accurate over the last 11 years, the prediction and effect of long term solar cycles and other cycles such as el Niño/la Niña events are very accurate, they of cause have a level of uncertainty but global climate is predicted in trends and not day to day weather and thats what they are very good at.

Have they?????? Going over much trodden ground.

BFTP

[BUSHY]

Actually the models have been proven to be extremely accurate over the last 11 years, the prediction and effect of long term solar cycles and other cycles such as el Niño/la Niña events are very accurate, they of cause have a level of uncertainty but global climate is predicted in trends and not day to day weather and thats what they are very good at.

Oh dear really?

Well even the solar physicists have no clue anymore and that is official. What effect of long term solar cycles are we talking about here and exactly what models include these in their data input? I will answer that for you, none do.

The truth of the matter is that the climate models have not been able to predict a thing. The assumption was that CO2 was the main driver and virtually nothing else but that has proved to be erroneous.

It seems that we have to start from scratch and reassess the data anew. The climate can be predicted over lengthy periods I believe but first we need to establish exactly what the principle drivers are and how these all interact with each other. The issue is proving far more complicated than many would like to believe and mans input probably irrelevant or at best negligible.

Edited September 7, 2009 by BUSHY

[Solar Cycles]

Actually the models have been proven to be extremely accurate over the last 11 years, the prediction and effect of long term solar cycles and other cycles such as el Niño/la Niña events are very accurate, they of cause have a level of uncertainty but global climate is predicted in trends and not day to day weather and thats what they are very good at.

No they have been caught wrong footed, not one clilmate model predicted 11 years of static temperatures. That in my book, makes them as much use as a chocolate fireguard!

[edveasey]

No they have been caught wrong footed, not one clilmate model predicted 11 years of static temperatures. That in my book, makes them as much use as a chocolate fireguard!

I think most of us knew that 1998 was an extreme event and that it was more important to look at the underlying trends rather than a single year, as I've said before if you use a very hot year in each decade you'll see signs of cooling or static temperatures between 1991 and 1996, between 1983 and 1987 the long term average though has still increased.

[BUSHY]

Funny thing that, long term average etc. Let us assume that for 100 years the temperature was at 17 deg. Then for the next 100 years 18 deg. The alarmist view would be that for 100 years the the statistics would show that the temperature was rising year on year albeit at a small fraction. See what I mean?

[MR EXTREMES]

Funny thing that, long term average etc. Let us assume that for 100 years the temperature was at 17 deg. Then for the next 100 years 18 deg. The alarmist view would be that for 100 years the the statistics would show that the temperature was rising year on year albeit at a small fraction. See what I mean?

i see what you mean

its also funny as more and more scientist pick up on the flatline in temps,

then the man made global warming and total arctic meltdown increases in the media outlets.

thats funny aswell.

[Methuselah]

There's also the possibility that AGW is being cancelled-out by the quiet Sun; a situation that negates neither theory/hypothesis?

[Solar Cycles]

There's also the possibility that AGW is being cancelled-out by the quiet Sun; a situation that negates neither theory/hypothesis?

Aye, that could be the case. And we are all going to find out soon, which camp is nearer the mark!

[Methuselah]

Aye, that could be the case. And we are all going to find out soon, which camp is nearer the mark!

Indeed Solar. It could be, that both camps are equally wide of the mark?

[MR EXTREMES]

Aye, that could be the case. And we are all going to find out soon, which camp is nearer the mark!

it all depends on on how long quiet times last for,

and if some of whats written in the solar forum is to be believed then it could be a longtime infact long enough for most of us not to see the end result.

but will be intresting to see what happens in the next 2 or maybe more decades by that time i be 50 odd.

but this is getting more and more exciting by the day until another warming story hits the headlines tomorrow then my bubble is burst lol.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

There's also the possibility that AGW is being cancelled-out by the quiet Sun; a situation that negates neither theory/hypothesis?

Hi Pete

That is hitting the nail on the head re my argument. If the approaching minima [we are only entering it] cancels out AGW then the assertion will stand that CO2 doesn't DRIVE the climate?

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Hi Pete

That is hitting the nail on the head re my argument. If the approaching minima [we are only entering it] cancels out AGW then the assertion will stand that CO2 doesn't DRIVE the climate?

BFTP

Hey Fred, I've never said that it does. IMO, it's just a part of the puzzle???

By definition, GHGs increase temps - and a quiet Sun lowers them...Will this 'quiet Sun' lower global temps, Fred? I don't know.

It seems, to me, that everyone is confused just now: no-one knows what the Sun will do, and no one knows what AGW will do either...It could be a 'wait and see' situation??