General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Gray-Wolf]

Thank you for the ferreting S.S.S.

What more can be added?

It appears , to me, that month on month ,year on year, we nudge towards the point where to deny our impacts is just plain silly.

It's sad that we needed to spend so long playing the pedants game before some of the brighter minds amongst us consented to join but even they know when enough is enough (don't they?).

The petrochemical's right wing puppet's cannon fodder may take a while longer but you'd probably always have suspected that they were malcontents with axe's to grind and issues to find wouldn't you?

Edited February 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'd be more inclined to be open to ideas if everyone who was at all scepitcal about any warming be our fault wasn't constantly tarred as some evil being who obviously can't tell left from right.

The fact is many an intelligent person isn't signed up wholesale to the idea, and I know lots.

A Met Office prediction of a warmer year in a run of warm years hardly requires a budget of millions does it?

[Gray-Wolf]

I was teasing D.M. ! it's far to simplistic a caricature to be accurate!

I've always thought ,though, that it would be most interesting to find out 'why' folk choose their personal positions if they don't ,necessarily, follow the science as keenly as ourselves?

Does the media really own the sound bites for tomorrows snap break or do folk choose their particular stance because of more personal intellectual engagements?

Rest assured there are more folk of 'opinion' than of 'informed opinion'

Edited February 10, 2010 by Gray-Wolf

[sunny starry skies]

I'd be more inclined to be open to ideas if everyone who was at all scepitcal about any warming be our fault wasn't constantly tarred as some evil being who obviously can't tell left from right.

The fact is many an intelligent person isn't signed up wholesale to the idea, and I know lots.

A Met Office prediction of a warmer year in a run of warm years hardly requires a budget of millions does it?

Aye, but the point is the accuracy of the forecast. A mean error of 0.06C is really rather small over that time period, when many skeptics would have you think that the climate wasn't doing what climatologists expected? A budget of millions is required to make good short-term forecasts (particularly for a difficult place like the UK for weather), of which the Met Office are acknowledged as among the best in the world. Their seasonal forecasts, though, can be binned for all their value. Trouble is, people with an agenda have taken their seasonal forecasts as being the same as their climate ones, which is a blatant lie.

If you 'know lots', then please tell us why you think the premise of the greenhouse effect, which can be demonstrated in any science lab, and which is shown to keep us something like 33C warmer than we otherwise would be, suddenly would not change when we increase the second-most important GHG by 35% (and consequently demonstrably set off positive feedbacks)? And why do the observations of global temperature (at different levels in the atmosphere and in oceans) change fit with this theory as predicted, this theory that was proposed before the temperatures changes significantly? Why, when the hard science of AGW has passed every test of its basic soundness, and there is no coherent alternative proposed, let alone any success in disputing the core science, do people like you who 'know lots' still claim great levels of uncertainty. I'm looking for the uncertainty, but nobody here is willing to propose any of:

a) data showing that the world is not warming [fair enough as most people do accept the warming is real]

data showing that CO2 does not have a significant effect on climate, despite the fact that the radiative properties of CO2 are one of the reasons Earth is habitable; or

c) data showing that GHGs are not influencing climate directly

d) a coherent alternative hypothesis, with appropriate physical mechanisms that are measurable and demonstrable to be operating in the real world.

And if all that sounds very confrontational, it's meant to be. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept new suggestions, but that I've not heard new suggestions, or seen real data to upset the theory. I keep asking and haven't got anything back! [and as a nod to the hard work on the LI, it's undoubtedly interesting but correlation does not mean causation (see the progress and failure of Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), and so as I've said before I remain cordially unconvinced until there's a mechanism to support the correlations]

As a final thought: Why does nearly every government in the world accept AGW theory, as demonstrated by COP15 among other things, regardless of whether their electorate disputes it? Could it be that they have reviewed the evidence and find it compelling? The tax reason doesn't fly because (1) unpopular taxes are a really bad idea with the people (2) there are many easier ways to raise tax without inventing new ones.

sss

Edited February 11, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Solar Cycles]

Aye, but the point is the accuracy of the forecast. A mean error of 0.06C is really rather small over that time period, when many skeptics would have you think that the climate wasn't doing what climatologists expected? A budget of millions is required to make good short-term forecasts (particularly for a difficult place like the UK for weather), of which the Met Office are acknowledged as among the best in the world. Their seasonal forecasts, though, can be binned for all their value. Trouble is, people with an agenda have taken their seasonal forecasts as being the same as their climate ones, which is a blatant lie.

If you 'know lots', then please tell us why you think the premise of the greenhouse effect, which can be demonstrated in any science lab, and which is shown to keep us something like 33C warmer than we otherwise would be, suddenly would not change when we increase the second-most important GHG by 35% (and consequently demonstrably set off positive feedbacks)? And why do the observations of global temperature (at different levels in the atmosphere and in oceans) change fit with this theory as predicted, this theory that was proposed before the temperatures changes significantly? Why, when the hard science of AGW has passed every test of its basic soundness, and there is no coherent alternative proposed, let alone any success in disputing the core science, do people like you who 'know lots' still claim great levels of uncertainty. I'm looking for the uncertainty, but nobody here is willing to propose any of:

a) data showing that the world is not warming [fair enough as most people do accept the warming is real]

data showing that CO2 does not have a significant effect on climate, despite the fact that the radiative properties of CO2 are one of the reasons Earth is habitable; or

c) data showing that GHGs are not influencing climate directly

d) a coherent alternative hypothesis, with appropriate physical mechanisms that are measurable and demonstrable to be operating in the real world.

And if all that sounds very confrontational, it's meant to be. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept new suggestions, but that I've not heard new suggestions, or seen real data to upset the theory. I keep asking and haven't got anything back! [and as a nod to the hard work on the LI, it's undoubtedly interesting but correlation does not mean causation (see the progress and failure of Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), and so as I've said before I remain cordially unconvinced until there's a mechanism to support the correlations]

As a final thought: Why does nearly every government in the world accept AGW theory, as demonstrated by COP15 among other things, regardless of whether their electorate disputes it? Could it be that they have reviewed the evidence and find it compelling? The tax reason doesn't fly because (1) unpopular taxes are a really bad idea with the people (2) there are many easier ways to raise tax without inventing new ones.

sss

That's all very well asking others to provide proof. but where is your proof, that CO2 is responsible for the warming now. And by that I don't mean projected temp rises, made by computer models. Both sides of the camp can only assume, so please less of the patronising lecture!

[VillagePlank]

As a nod to the hard work on the LI, it's undoubtedly interesting but correlation does not mean causation (see the progress and failure of Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), and so as I've said before I remain cordially unconvinced until there's a mechanism to support the correlations

The goal of the work done on the LI is

(i) To find out if there is any delay in solar activity and climate response

(ii) If there is to find out what the relationship is.

So whilst I would be absolutely over the moon to find a corresponding physical process that describes it (ocean, clouds, etc) I do not intend to pursue this apart from the idle chatter we've had here. The very best I can hope for is statistical significance of the correlation which, if it turns out to be true, means the conclusion is already written: 'the hunt must now be on for the physical basis'

If I have made some other indication that I am trying to achieve more than this then I must profoundly apologise, and I hope this sets the record straight.

Edited February 11, 2010 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

This is stuck in the rear window of an old MOD Daimler which my neighbour swears he'll do up one day, it makes me smile every time I see it.....how times have changed eh. Anyone have any idea when this would date from?

[Devonian]

That's all very well asking others to provide proof. but where is your proof, that CO2 is responsible for the warming now. And by that I don't mean projected temp rises, made by computer models. Both sides of the camp can only assume, so please less of the patronising lecture!

Where does he ask for proof? YOu're playing the proof game...

So, less of the misrepresentation please.

[Solar Cycles]

Where does he ask for proof? YOu're playing the proof game...

So, less of the misrepresentation please.

Well is not asking a, b, c, and d, just that? Maybe you should read the whole post, before jumping to conclusions, AGAIN!

[Devonian]

Well is not asking a, b, c, and d, just that? Maybe you should read the whole post, before jumping to conclusions, AGAIN!

C'mon, you know the difference between 'proof' and asking questions.

[sunny starry skies]

That's all very well asking others to provide proof. but where is your proof, that CO2 is responsible for the warming now. And by that I don't mean projected temp rises, made by computer models. Both sides of the camp can only assume, so please less of the patronising lecture!

oops, back to the hoary old 'proof' point! A couple of posts ago I presented one small part of the evidence that CO2 is directly responsible for the warming right now...

1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, as proven many times over in physical experiments, without which Earth would be a much colder place. This has been known for a century.

2) We have increased significantly the concentration of this, and other, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, observational evidence.

3) Observational evidence of global temperature rise steadily since the 1970s, without significant interruption. Departures from the rising trend are readily accounted for by volcanic, ENSO and solar irradiance variations.

4) Observational evidence confirms that changes are occurring in accordance with the theory: lower tropospheric temp rises, stratospheric cooling, enhanced change at high latitudes, ocean heating, glacier melt, sea ice loss. No other theory predicts these observed changes.

5) Direct observational evidence for a reduction in the quantity of radiation leaving the Earth, which has to equal warming, and crucially it's in the specific wavelengths expected for GHGs.

6) Direct observational evidence for increased downward infrared radiation, as expected from an enhanced greenhouse effect.

7) Measured sensitivity of Earth's climate to doubling of CO2 by looking at palaeoclimate records - best estimates in the 2C - 4.5C range, but very few lower than 1.5C. We have seen a ~40ppm rise since 1970 (~14% of pre-industrial), and a ~0.5C temperature rise in that time, in line with expectations.

Did I mention climate models... oops, no I didn't, because I don't need to but the best models we have support these observations, and allow for forecasts of future temperature change based on our understanding of the measured forcings of Earth's climate. The forecasts for each subsequent year, which are the ones that can be made in the light of the best available data on all of the forcing factors (except for the utterly unpredictable volcanic), are very good, as in the Met Office example I indicated. If the factors were totally wrong, it would take an awful lot of luck to get the errors so small.

So, my argument is that although there is no such thing as absolute proof, there is ample evidence to show that this theory is at present as sound as any other scientific theory you care to mention. The one thing I will be absolutely strong on is this assertion that somehow there isn't observational evidence to support the theory... there's bucketloads of it! The theory is not based on forecasts, or models, or assumptions of this, or that... unles you suggest that the assumption that the total concentration of GHGs will continue to rise is invalid.

I'll ask yet again. Where is the direct evidence that invalidates each (or even some) of the seven points of observational evidence backed by a simple physically-based theory I have raised above?

Or... if you like... where is the alternative theory that explains all of these observations, and somehow negates the CO2 from doing what it has done for millennia (for example it's remarkably hard to have ice ages without CO2 to amplify the orbital forcing)?

Why is it so patronising to ask for evidence to the contrary? Surely it's more patronising to suggest that all the lines of observational (let alone modelling) evidence and physically-based theory are wrong, just because you think they have to be wrong? Are you (and other doubters) afraid of presenting evidence that supports your views?

sss

[VP, I understand and accept fully your efforts, and the goals you have set for the LI, and of course have no problem with them whatsoever. I was merely making the general comment before other people jumped in arguing that the LI explains everything!]

Edited February 11, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[VillagePlank]

[VP, I understand and accept fully your efforts, and the goals you have set for the LI, and of course have no problem with them whatsoever. I was merely making the general comment before other people jumped in arguing that the LI explains everything!]

Hi SSS - it might be worth taking a quick peek at this post that explains the testing methodology of the LI.

And I don't think many people are relying on the LI to counter AGW, either. It's certainly not had that much of an impact as far as I can see. It's good to see most people reserving judgement - since, I don't know the results, yet, that seems to me to be a very wise thing to do.

(EDIT - And I also completely agree with your analysis on the state of climatology such that it is hard, indeed *very* hard, to counter the theory unless something new, unusual, and extraordinary comes along)

Edited February 11, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Aye, but the point is the accuracy of the forecast. A mean error of 0.06C is really rather small over that time period, when many skeptics would have you think that the climate wasn't doing what climatologists expected? A budget of millions is required to make good short-term forecasts (particularly for a difficult place like the UK for weather), of which the Met Office are acknowledged as among the best in the world. Their seasonal forecasts, though, can be binned for all their value. Trouble is, people with an agenda have taken their seasonal forecasts as being the same as their climate ones, which is a blatant lie.

If you 'know lots', then please tell us why you think the premise of the greenhouse effect, which can be demonstrated in any science lab, and which is shown to keep us something like 33C warmer than we otherwise would be, suddenly would not change when we increase the second-most important GHG by 35% (and consequently demonstrably set off positive feedbacks)? And why do the observations of global temperature (at different levels in the atmosphere and in oceans) change fit with this theory as predicted, this theory that was proposed before the temperatures changes significantly? Why, when the hard science of AGW has passed every test of its basic soundness, and there is no coherent alternative proposed, let alone any success in disputing the core science, do people like you who 'know lots' still claim great levels of uncertainty. I'm looking for the uncertainty, but nobody here is willing to propose any of:

a) data showing that the world is not warming [fair enough as most people do accept the warming is real]

data showing that CO2 does not have a significant effect on climate, despite the fact that the radiative properties of CO2 are one of the reasons Earth is habitable; or

c) data showing that GHGs are not influencing climate directly

d) a coherent alternative hypothesis, with appropriate physical mechanisms that are measurable and demonstrable to be operating in the real world.

And if all that sounds very confrontational, it's meant to be. It's not that I'm unwilling to accept new suggestions, but that I've not heard new suggestions, or seen real data to upset the theory. I keep asking and haven't got anything back! [and as a nod to the hard work on the LI, it's undoubtedly interesting but correlation does not mean causation (see the progress and failure of Friis-Christensen and Lassen 1991), and so as I've said before I remain cordially unconvinced until there's a mechanism to support the correlations]

As a final thought: Why does nearly every government in the world accept AGW theory, as demonstrated by COP15 among other things, regardless of whether their electorate disputes it? Could it be that they have reviewed the evidence and find it compelling? The tax reason doesn't fly because (1) unpopular taxes are a really bad idea with the people (2) there are many easier ways to raise tax without inventing new ones.

sss

If you actually read what I post, you will see that it quite cleary refers to my knowing lots of intelligent people.

And as such I've not read the rest of your post, as it probably doesn't apply.

[sunny starry skies]

If you actually read what I post, you will see that it quite cleary refers to my knowing lots of intelligent people.

And as such I've not read the rest of your post, as it probably doesn't apply.

My mistake, but those 'intelligent people' don't seem to be climate scientists, as the evidence, some of which I outlined in my last post, is so far in favour of the mechanism and trend as outlined in the AGW theory. I wouldn't go to a dentist about heart trouble, so why should I go to someone other than the thousands of climate scientists to find out about the state of the climate? Especially when I'm entirely capable of reviewing the evidence and making my own mind up based on the evidence itself, as seen in the real world and as presented by the aforementioned climate scientists [and in the fortunate position of having journal access to see most papers, something which I think should be universal BTW].

By the way, if you want to engage in a debate, it's probably best to read what other people write [irony duly noted in the face of my error - I have no problem accepting and correcting small errors, just like the IPCC]...

sss

[Thundery wintry showers]

Many people are inherently intelligent, but from this, it doesn't follow that they will be good judges of climate science. Firstly, they need to make use of their intelligence (so many of us tend to accept things without question, and jump to strong conclusions about things without analysis) and secondly, they need to learn enough about the subject in order to be able to have a fair understanding of it. That's not saying that all views bar those of the established scientists are wrong, but rather that a view is less likely to carry much weight if it's based on no understanding at all, as opposed to a partial understanding which can sometimes be enough to be able to form reasonable judgements.

Personally I don't think there's much room for argument with the existence of AGW and the physical mechanism behind it. What's more debatable is how much of an effect it's going to have, but I think the quoted range of 2 to 4.5C sounds quite reasonable given the balance of evidence and the low likelihood of our non-sustainable practices being cut anytime soon.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

My mistake, but those 'intelligent people' don't seem to be climate scientists, as the evidence, some of which I outlined in my last post, is so far in favour of the mechanism and trend as outlined in the AGW theory. I wouldn't go to a dentist about heart trouble, so why should I go to someone other than the thousands of climate scientists to find out about the state of the climate? Especially when I'm entirely capable of reviewing the evidence and making my own mind up based on the evidence itself, as seen in the real world and as presented by the aforementioned climate scientists [and in the fortunate position of having journal access to see most papers, something which I think should be universal BTW].

By the way, if you want to engage in a debate, it's probably best to read what other people write [irony duly noted in the face of my error - I have no problem accepting and correcting small errors, just like the IPCC]...

sss

But you should see a neuro surgeon if you have excessive hiccups.

Also, as far as I know, you do not need to know the in and out of climate science to be deemed intelligent in this country? But granted, none of them are climate scientists.

However, did the theory match the pattern or the pattern match the theory, for example if you take the number '4' and ask someone how they might get to '4' the majority I suspect would say '2+2' but you could also have '1+3' or '8/2' and so on and so forth.

Which is why, before I sign up wholesale to the AGW theory, I want to make sure there is no other possible explanation. We are, I think, along way from that at the moment.

Afterall, 30 years ago, these same climate scientists said we were heading for an ice age.

[sunny starry skies]

But you should see a neuro surgeon if you have excessive hiccups.

Also, as far as I know, you do not need to know the in and out of climate science to be deemed intelligent in this country? But granted, none of them are climate scientists.

However, did the theory match the pattern or the pattern match the theory, for example if you take the number '4' and ask someone how they might get to '4' the majority I suspect would say '2+2' but you could also have '1+3' or '8/2' and so on and so forth.

Which is why, before I sign up wholesale to the AGW theory, I want to make sure there is no other possible explanation. We are, I think, along way from that at the moment.

Afterall, 30 years ago, these same climate scientists said we were heading for an ice age.

Nice try, but no cigar:

The scientists did not predict a coming ice age in the 1970s. The media did (lesson there, perhaps?). Oddly enough, the scientists predicted global warming due to CO2 forcing, and before the main warming happened.

From "Skeptical Science", and look at the enclosed reference for the evidence:

"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."

Peterson et al (2008). THE MYTH OF THE 1970S GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS.

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf

To answer your other question, the pattern matches the theory, not the other way round.

sss

[Gray-Wolf]

Isn't it horrid when pesky facts get in the way of your gut feelings?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

In 1972, a group of leading glacial-epoch experts met at Brown University to discuss how and when the present warm interglacial period might end. A large majority agreed that "the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near." Near, that is, as geologists reckoned time. Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries."

<A href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#1079">Kukla et al. (1972), p. 191; Kukla and Matthews (1972); "large majority" according to Flohn (1974), p. 385

Source: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm

So in 1972, 'future human activity' wasn't factored in.

So, it seems, as ever, the facts can't be whatever we want them to be.

[Methuselah]

Isn't it horrid when pesky facts get in the way of your gut feelings?

Aye mate...That's just how I felt once I had accept GW...

[Gray-Wolf]

Aye mate...That's just how I felt once I had accept GW...

I had a flirtation with dog racing and it was horrid when my 'gut feeling' trailed in sixth.........

[sunny starry skies]

<A href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/bib.htm#1079">Kukla et al. (1972), p. 191; Kukla and Matthews (1972); "large majority" according to Flohn (1974), p. 385

Source: http://www.aip.org/h...mate/cycles.htm

So in 1972, 'future human activity' wasn't factored in.

So, it seems, as ever, the facts can't be whatever we want them to be.

I think you quoted yourself out of the argument. Apart from the 42-7 majority of scientific papers predicting GHG-induced warming, lets look at your quote:

"the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near." Near, that is, as geologists reckoned time. Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries."

It was entirely reasonable to look at Quaternary history and the Milankovitch theory and suggest that, in the absence of human activity, a new glacial episode should occur. Unfortunately most climate scientists were already predicting that human activity would have an impact, and it has done just that, most dramatically since 1972. As I mentioned on another thread, we've just passed a 65 deg N insolation minimum, which may well, in an unaltered world, have been enough to trigger the onset of glaciation. This hasn't happened, and the theory that explains why it hasn't happened, has been around since before the most dramatic effects of the same theory.

Pesky facts do really get in the way, don't they! Once upon a time I believed (probably more like I hoped) that the Sun was the main driver of change...

sss

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I think you quoted yourself out of the argument. Apart from the 42-7 majority of scientific papers predicting GHG-induced warming, lets look at your quote:

"the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near." Near, that is, as geologists reckoned time. Unless there were impacts from future human activity, they thought that serious cooling "must be expected within the next few millennia or even centuries."

It was entirely reasonable to look at Quaternary history and the Milankovitch theory and suggest that, in the absence of human activity, a new glacial episode should occur. Unfortunately most climate scientists were already predicting that human activity would have an impact, and it has done just that, most dramatically since 1972. As I mentioned on another thread, we've just passed a 65 deg N insolation minimum, which may well, in an unaltered world, have been enough to trigger the onset of glaciation. This hasn't happened, and the theory that explains why it hasn't happened, has been around since before the most dramatic effects of the same theory.

Pesky facts do really get in the way, don't they! Once upon a time I believed (probably more like I hoped) that the Sun was the main driver of change...

sss

I don't think I did, since it is clear that they aren't sure IF there will be any. You implied they were all signed up to the idea.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Can I just quickly ask - when exactly did global warming start?

I always thought it was supposed to be within a few years of the industrial revolution, but these days everyone seems to be saying that it started in the mid-1970s (around the time that the Sun ceases to be a "viable" explanation for it).

And if it was in the mid-1970s then what does it mean to have "excessive" warming over a period of only 30-35 years?

CB

[Dartmoor_Matt]

I'd of thought it started as the last ice age ended... as to when we apparently got involved, well, who knows.

Oh wait, no that can't be right, 'because its all our fault.