General Climate Change

[Hiya]

Yeah yeah.

Try this.

If I've been inconsistent then please point out where.

Yeah yeah (you know I'm right and so does everyone else that reads this).

That link doesn't say anything about doubling carbon dioxide concentrations.

What about the source from which you read this statement, can I see that?

[Devonian]

Yeah yeah (you know I'm right and so does everyone else that reads this).

Now you're the one making a statement...

That link doesn't say anything about doubling carbon dioxide concentrations.

What about the source from which you read this statement, can I see that?

He both references and links to them - but I can't read things for you. However, if you think you know better write it up for all to see.

It's well known and accepted atmosphere physics that the warming effect of doubling CO2 conc from 280 ppm (so we're some way from doubling pre industrial concentrations) will be about 1C. Now, for you to convince me otherwise, you'll have to present some links and refs for me to read.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Devonian

[Hiya]

Now you're the one making a statement...

He both references and links to them - but I can't read things for you. However, if you think you know better write it up for all to see.

It's well known and accepted atmosphere physics that the warming effect of doubling CO2 conc from 280 ppm (so we're some way from doubling pre industrial concentrations) will be about 1C. Now, for you to convince me otherwise, you'll have to present some links and refs for me to read.

I'm afriad I don't see it, do you have any links to some papers that say that rather than a website on which anything can be written?

[Yorkshiresnows]

Which one quotes the 300% figure?

(and, btw, the IPCC report is a summary and not peer reviewed science)

It depends on where we are on the power law curve. If we are low, then the temperature will be nowhere near ~1, more like ~6C, if we are very high then the temperature, again, will be nowhere near ~1C, more like 0.01C.

Pretty obvious, really, and I am a little bit embarrased to have to point it out.

errhhhhhh !!!

Read them, they all point to a massive amplification factor. I've given you the papers and yes they do point to 300% as was originally stated (you can always throw in the Peter Taylor book if you want to ...... but you will never read that will you !).

The point is the IPCC predictions concerning Co2 rely on massive amplification via cloud effect feedback .... which is very controversial

Do you know anything about publishing scientific data / papers ?

I do, I've published over 12 with 4 more to come this year.

To publish, you need two independent specialists in the field to peer review your data, then, the scientific journal or whatever will also view and comment if they believe you need to provide additional information or evidence for your argument.

The IPCC reports are summaries, Yes, but from peer reviewed papers. What on earth is your point here anyway ?

Think you need to do a little more study !!

Y.S

[Devonian]

I'm afriad I don't see it, do you have any links to some papers that say that rather than a website on which anything can be written?

The article I linked to contains numerous references to peer reviewed papers.

Again, if you know better I'm happy to read anything you care to post. Indeed I can get to the Met Library in Exeter and get most anything, if I have the reference.

errhhhhhh !!!

Read them, they all point to a massive amplification factor. I've given you the papers and yes they do point to 300% as was originally stated (you can always throw in the Peter Taylor book if you want to ...... but you will never read that will you !).

The point is the IPCC predictions concerning Co2 rely on massive amplification via cloud effect feedback .... which is very controversial

Do you know anything about publishing scientific data / papers ?

I do, I've published over 12 with 4 more to come this year.

...

In what journal? Or, can you give us the title of one of your papers?

[Yorkshiresnows]

The article I linked to contains numerous references to peer reviewed papers.

Again, if you know better I'm happy to read anything you care to post. Indeed I can get to the Met Library in Exeter and get most anything, if I have the reference.

In what journal? Or, can you give us the title of one of your papers?

Hi

Mutation Research, I'm a genetic toxicologist by trade.

As for titles I'd rather not, as I guess I can be associated with the use of animals - if you P.M me then I could give more info.

Y.S

[Hiya]

The article I linked to contains numerous references to peer reviewed papers.

Again, if you know better I'm happy to read anything you care to post. Indeed I can get to the Met Library in Exeter and get most anything, if I have the reference.

It does, however you cannot point out where your statement comes from.

I don't know better nor am I saying you are wrong, I simply want to you to back up your statement with some sort of evidence and you can't do it.

[Devonian]

Hi

Mutation Research, I'm a genetic toxicologist by trade.

As for titles I'd rather not, as I guess I can be associated with the use of animals - if you P.M me then I could give more info.

Y.S

OK, fair enough and thanks, I perfectly understand you're reluctance to go further. Would you say a climatologist has the understanding of the subject to effectively critique the work of a genetic toxicologist?

[Yorkshiresnows]

OK, fair enough and thanks, I perfectly understand you're reluctance to go further. Would you say a climatologist has the understanding of the subject to effectively critique the work of a genetic toxicologist?

Not sure I understand your point?

Please, I am not nor will ever post on here to deliberatley upset or wind somebody up.

I have just been reading up on the whole Co2 thing, find the whole debate interesting and wanted to put my point across, open a discussion.

Anybody and everybody has the right to critique anybody, as long as they provide a decent and argued rebuttle.

I have provided peer reviewed papers to support my point that I was asked to provide. All they do is to highlight (in my opinion) that the issue of how CO2 is supposed to warm our climate is controversial and possibly flawed. I am sure that there are plenty of scientific papers available that support the role of Co2.

That we have warmed is not at issue, to my mind its whether natural cycles have caused this warming, how this may have happended, and what the future holds (in my opinion a possible cooling).

Anyway, enough.

Y.S

The more you look at Co2 its role in all this doesn't quite add up (at least to me)

[Devonian]

It does, however you cannot point out where your statement comes from.

I don't know better nor am I saying you are wrong, I simply want to you to back up your statement with some sort of evidence and you can't do it.

Which 'proves' what? That you can't be bothered to look yourself? That true scientist (like you?) sit back and wait for others to feed them? Haven't you got an enquiring mind? If you think I can't give an answer why not look for one yourself and post it here rather than all these asides about me?

I'll keep looking for that perfect ref, I'll even have a look in the Met library next time I'm there.

Not sure I understand your point?

My point is I'd go to you to learn about your specialism and I'd go to the people at the Hadley Centre to learn about AGW - not Peter Taylor.

Please, I am not nor will ever post on here to deliberatley upset or wind somebody up.

I accept that.

Edited March 28, 2010 by Devonian

[jethro]

Ok folks this is crossing the line from bantering debate to downright rudeness. You're all aware of the code of conduct, participating here means you have all agreed to abide by it. Currently, you're not.

Tone it down, be polite and respectfull or expect posts to go missing.

[VillagePlank]

This "doubling" thing has been popping up again and again over the last few weeks and I've bit my tongue about it, I got into a big argument a year or two back about this and came to the conclusion that there is no point in posting anything of substance. This concept is probably about as basic as you can go, but it is just a turn of phrase to a lot of people.

I personally can't be bothered but you might be... to make a wee spreadsheet/table explaining where the above numbers came from.

Certainly can, and already have here.

YS -> Also, this is the only place where I've explicitly seen the 300% written down (by me) And, although it derives directly from peer-reviewed research, it doesn't actually count as peer reviewed research.

[Yorkshiresnows]

Ok folks this is crossing the line from bantering debate to downright rudeness. You're all aware of the code of conduct, participating here means you have all agreed to abide by it. Currently, you're not.

Tone it down, be polite and respectfull or expect posts to go missing.

Hi V.P,

Okay, I accept that ......... but this is really missing the thrust of the argument I was putting forward.

Can you accept that the IPCC (and all of the computer models that have projections of future temperature rise) rely on an amplification factor regarding cloud that is at the very least controversial ?

If this is so (and the papers you asked me to provide do show this), then the question of Co2's role in the recent rise in global temperatures should be examined (particularly so, given the steep rise from 1980 to 2000 and subsequent plateau / slight fall, since .......... which does not fit with the recent Hadley centre provided image of their projections (see UK MET site)).

I have seen further data which also suggests that ENSO / PDO and other teleconnections have until 2007 also not been incorporated into the computer modelling of climate (I do not have the links for these at the moment).

Going forward can we say for definite that natural cycles have not had a major part to play with anthropogenic impact a much smaller element?

I don't know the correct answer to this only that there were unusual cyclic patterns that reached synergy towards the end of the last century, which could have accounted for the steep rise in global temperatures.

I find this all very interesting and keeps your mind open ?

Y.S

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100326101117.htm

Welcome to the Anthropocene Epoch folks.......

[Thundery wintry showers]

I think it's possible, but represents an extreme case scenario. It strikes me as far more likely that any anthropogenic global warming will merely slow down, or speed up, the transition to the next ice age. We've had higher CO2 concentrations in the past and it hasn't caused global meltdown.

The real problem with AGW is about rapid change over small timespans, rather than effects on geological timescales.

[kold weather]

I think the difference is TWS we could end up with even higher levels of Co2 then previous times?

I've got a question, does anyone know the top limit the Co2 concentration can reach, given there is only so much carbon that can be 'unlocked' from the ground so to speak?

[Roo]

We've had higher CO2 concentrations in the past and it hasn't caused global meltdown.

But isn't the problem that humans have a far more precarious relationship with natural resources than they have before?

Had there only been a few of us, more naturally adapted to our environments and living a mostly nomadic/shifting existence which would allow us to move with the resources then I am sure we could ride this out. As it is, there's a huge number of us living cheek by jowl, in areas where we naturally shouldn't, with scarse resources and no idea how to live from the earth.

In that scenario, even a small change could be catastrophic and, as such, bears no comparison to the past.

[jethro]

But isn't the problem that humans have a far more precarious relationship with natural resources than they have before?

Had there only been a few of us, more naturally adapted to our environments and living a mostly nomadic/shifting existence which would allow us to move with the resources then I am sure we could ride this out. As it is, there's a huge number of us living cheek by jowl, in areas where we naturally shouldn't, with scarse resources and no idea how to live from the earth.

In that scenario, even a small change could be catastrophic and, as such, bears no comparison to the past.

But don't you also have to balance that with our now far greater abiity to grow foodstuffs, transportation and technology? There are many thousands of folk in this country living cheek by jowl in tower blocks, densely packed housing estates etc, most, if not all have neither the knowledge or land available to live from but they all survive on food grown and imported for them.

What we have lost on one hand is given with the other?

[Thundery wintry showers]

I'm not sure whether we really are better placed to cope with climate change than in the past, but it's a pretty safe bet that we can easily adapt to a small rate of change, but will have huge difficulties adapting to large rates of change. How rapid the change has to be for it to cause serious problems is a big unknown that is still under debate, I don't have a strong opinion on that.

But that's what it boils down to: the planet can probably cope with AGW, but can we? In addition I see the unsustainable consumption of finite resources as having even larger potential to screw us over than AGW- and there is less uncertainty over this factor.

[laserguy]

But that's what it boils down to: the planet can probably cope with AGW, but can we? In addition I see the unsustainable consumption of finite resources as having even larger potential to screw us over than AGW- and there is less uncertainty over this factor.

Sure the planet can cope with warming and cooling,no matter how extreme or how rapid (by our definitions) - it's done it countless times before and it'll do it countless times again when the only vestiges of our residency will be a few indestructible artefacts. As for the second sentence of your paragraph,let's have a huge thermonuclear war and get it over with - that's probably where we're headed and the only solution to this (A)GW nonsense.

[Thundery wintry showers]

There's a huge problem with the last part of the post: if we accept that we can't improve on the worst case scenario, we won't. Accepting that problems can't be helped is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[pottyprof]

We can do things.. We can help with the current situation..

Lets just say that I applied for a government grant for solar panels.. Lets say the company came out and said "we can't fit them because your roof is too small".. Lets just say I said "well can I have some smaller ones?".. and lets just say that they said "no we cant because we are paid by the government to create energy and because we can't hit the generation targets set by the government, we cant fit them.." So it's no longer a government grant...

What they have done is replace the grant system with companies who give you free panels on your roof that the installation company still owns and you get the energy from them for free but anything sold back to the grid belongs to the installation company.. There is no chance now of selling your spare electricity back to the grid if you do it on your own because it was all kept quiet that you had to register by the beginning of March...

Your roof has to be capable of supporting the panel sizes. So as long as you have a detached house or a south facing semi of old council house size then forget it.. (btw.. councils are not currently allowing rented stock to have these panels installed)

So do the UK government really want us to generate our own electricity to help the environment??

Edit.. Forgot to add.. If you want planning permission to fit and control your own panels then you will be likely to be refused unless you sign up to one of these panel generators schemes.. So bang goes a bit more of your cash.

[Roo]

What we have lost on one hand is given with the other?

That may apply for the richer, Western, world who will always have more buying power to consume whatever is still there. However globally, if supplies start to get limited, the poorer nations will be the first to suffer. Our hugely resource intensive global food production system means that the slightest climate change will cause problems.

You can see it happening already: poorer countries unable to feed their own people due to drought/famine, etc and yet those same countries managing to export food to the West. And then on top of this, these same countries have to deal with the creeping spread of diseases like malaria and typhoid, increased child mortality, etc, etc, which will only get worse with AGW...

If we marshalled our resources equally, then I'd agree with you: there should be enough for all, but under the current system, if AGW is happening, our global ability to adapt fast enough just isn't there. In the West, we don't care enough to use our technology on those who need it most (.....or do they even need it? some would argue that all they need is for us to stop manipulating the systems that have served them well until the West got into the bargain...)

Anyway, this is all getting of the climate change path so I'm off to get my breaskfast!

[sunny starry skies]

Messy debate ver the past few days! Anyway, just here to post a couple of links...

First of all, another good summary on the reason why we think that humans are the dominant cause of global warming:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html

Yes, it's a blog post, but there are plenty of references to the peer-reviewed literature therein. The crucial point is that the spatial/temporal nature of the warming is that which is expected from CO2 and not from other sources, such as the Sun.

Doubling CO2 - too many posters are perhaps not aware of the literature on climate sensitivity:

Knutti and Hegerl 2008 is a good reference for that: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n11/abs/ngeo337.html

Full text at: http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf

and discussed at the ever-excellent Skeptical Science: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Working-out-climate-sensitivity.html

Something for VP (maybe for discussion in the technical thread?) - To my knowledge, the logarithmic effect of CO2 is the consequence of the saturation and broadening of the CO2 absorption line in the IR spectrum of heat leaving the Earth. This is understood and quantified, and therefore the logarithmic effect is accounted for when calculating sensitivity. So (as you know), for example if somebody predicts a 2C rise for a doubling of CO2, the next doubling will cause a further 1C rise (ignoring other feedbacks). But the position we are on the logarithmic curve is not open to question, as we understand the spectrum of radiation leaving the Earth?

http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2010/02/18/greenhouse-effect-revisited/

For those who still believe the foolish fallacy that CO2 followed climate in the past therefore can't be leading it now, how about a lecture by Richard Alley at AGU:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

sss

[Admiral_Bobski]

For those who still believe the foolish fallacy that CO2 followed climate in the past therefore can't be leading it now, how about a lecture by Richard Alley at AGU:

http://www.agu.org/m...deos/A23A.shtml

sss

I agree that it is a logical fallacy to say that "because CO2 lagged temperature in the past it can't be leading it now."

But that logical fallacy, and your rebuttal, sidestep the issue of correlation and causation.

I have watched about 40 minutes of the lecture, and I intend to finish it off later on today. It is a very good lecture: he outlines his points very clearly and concisely, and in an entertaining way (which is always good ). I agree with (or can't argue against) almost everything he says.

But...!

There is an assumption, in his lecture, that CO2 causes temperatures to rise. Never does he show how, where or when CO2 became a significant factor in historical temperature increases - he simply says that "we can't explain it without CO2, but we can explain it with CO2." Well, just because we can't explain it without CO2 does not mean that there is no explanation that omits CO2.

He has shown numerous examples of correlation, but no actual examples of causation. In fact the best causative explanation he can give is that "we can't explain it any other way." I'm sorry, but that's not causation, that's assumption.

Anyhoo, I have to dash off for a while, so I'll catch up with the rest of the lecture later on.

CB