The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[jethro]

But climate isn't static, it never has been, it never will be.

The AGW theory rests entirely upon saying what we have seen in recent decades cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. That's a brilliant statement, an amazing all encompassing sentence which describes everything and explains nothing.

Trouble is it also entirely hinges upon knowing everything there is to know about natural cycles both present and past, accurately measuring both present and past and then extrapolating it into the future.

In order for the first statement to be true, we have to be certain of the second and we're simply not. Gauging how close we are to the latter being true is impossible as each new discovery over-turns the last - how do we know when we know all we need to know?

As things stand we can only really say that POTENTIALLY we have the power to change the climate, POTENTIALLY we may already have done so, POTENTIALLY we may cause long term and possibly irrevocable harm.

In the drive to both establish the theory and provoke change the word 'potentially' seems to get forgotten about.

[Gray-Wolf]

Whilst I was still fit to work and we were working the Kyoto protacol into the general development plan for my area the 'buzz phrase' was "Think global, act local". We've posts on here saying I can see it (pollution/environmental destruction etc) on a local scale but how does that apply globally? All is connected and so , if it helps the " Think global when you see local"?

Edited October 18, 2011 by Gray-Wolf

[greybing]

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

What change,CO2 reductions ,what?

[greybing]

I'm just surprised that greybing had the authority to start a thread down here?

I though we ALL had to go to our Mod's a petition for such? apparently not?.

Anyway greybing , odd that Graham Nash could spawn from the same town eh? ( I studied at Eccles 6th form by the well so know your locale very well).

As for piers? well , Ha! Ha! Ha! , nice one! (very funny :-)...)

Can anyone say that we do not alter the environment we live in and that those changes did not enforce change???(greybing, I remember 'Eccles fields' even before the 6th form was built and it was green open country from the East lanc's to Monton......due mainly to the 'black Harry' disused railway taking coal from Agecroft to the mcr ship Canal) . We can see the way we have encroached over (and into?) the lands we live on but the atmosphere is 'clear' and we rely upon 'Science' to measure the changes there. And Change there has been. Would anyone dare stand up and claim to know enough to reassure us that those changes are without consequence, that they are mute?

Debate may rage over how much we are responsible for the changes we have noted over our 'living ' (48 years for me) but 'change' there has been.

I was unaware of any permission needed to post .I also studied at Eccles colege.Why is it odd that someone should come from my neck of the woods?I find the piers comment a little much unless of course you have investigated his methods [as much as that is possible] and find them wrong .I strongly know we have an inpact on our enviroment.And I find it really disheartening that concrete is the new green .Change there has been,certainly this is true ,In terms of the climate/weather, I would like toget to the bottom of the warming trend and any cooling trends that may happen subsequently..For the record I have no argument with global warming ,the evidence for this over the last 30 years or so is undoubtable.I am just unsure whether it is CO2 related and I shall endeavour to find out as much as possible from all sides on this subject,Piers included.

But climate isn't static, it never has been, it never will be.

The AGW theory rests entirely upon saying what we have seen in recent decades cannot be explained by natural cycles alone. That's a brilliant statement, an amazing all encompassing sentence which describes everything and explains nothing.

Trouble is it also entirely hinges upon knowing everything there is to know about natural cycles both present and past, accurately measuring both present and past and then extrapolating it into the future.

In order for the first statement to be true, we have to be certain of the second and we're simply not. Gauging how close we are to the latter being true is impossible as each new discovery over-turns the last - how do we know when we know all we need to know?

As things stand we can only really say that POTENTIALLY we have the power to change the climate, POTENTIALLY we may already have done so, POTENTIALLY we may cause long term and possibly irrevocable harm.

In the drive to both establish the theory and provoke change the word 'potentially' seems to get forgotten about.

Could not agree more.

Edited October 18, 2011 by greybing

[Thundery wintry showers]

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

I don't think it is, indeed in my opinion it helps to fuel scepticism because some of the cleverer people can spot the difference between what they're being told on one hand, and the actual reality on the other.

Re. the general discussion in the thread, climate has always changed and always will, but the concern is over the impacts that human activity (especially the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation etc) are having on the climate system. It's undeniable that there are impacts, the questions centre on the sign and magnitude of the impacts on the climate, and whether they will tip the balance towards a warmer or colder climate (relative to what we'd have had if we hadn't been churning out lots of gases).

There is a physical science basis behind AGW, for example at first principles there is a logarithmic relationship between temperature and CO2. The often-criticised positive feedback with water vapour also has a scientific basis- the warmer the atmosphere, the more water it can hold, and water vapour allows plenty of solar radiation in but intercepts some of the longwave radiation going out. The so-called "greenhouse gases" have the same effect. What we can't do from the science basis is determine climate sensitivity with respect to anthropogenic forcing.

Thus scientists tend to use climate models, and represent the workings of the atmosphere as accurately as possible, then make projections based on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. It isn't a foolproof method by any means, but a large majority of the results point towards further enhanced warming in the 21st century due to human activities, relative to the state we'd end up in via natural variability alone, and that's why the scientific community overwhelmingly believes in at least some degree of AGW. I thought the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report covered the range pretty well with its 1.1 to 6.4C. I maintain hopes that AGW is being predominantly overestimated and that the actual warming will end up nearer 2C rather than 4-6C, but we still have a long way to go before we can substantially narrow down the range of possible values (indeed it has grown with each successive IPCC report) and there remains the possibility that the warming could accelerate significantly during the mid to late 21st century.

[greybing]

What do people think about the 'hockey stick graph ' and the disagreement about whether co2 rose first or temp rose first then temp?

Edited October 18, 2011 by greybing

[jethro]

What do people think about the 'hockey stick graph ' and the disagreement about whether co2 rose first or temp rose first then temp?

That's a completely different discussion which in science has no definitive answer; let's not spoil this interesting thread by dragging all that up again.

[greybing]

That's a completely different discussion which in science has no definitive answer; let's not spoil this interesting thread by dragging all that up again.

You are right,my head is a little 'funny' at the moment.

Edited October 18, 2011 by greybing

[shuggee]

Shuggee - You said “For me, not agreeing with hypotheses around AGW is about having equally rigorously scientifically-based alternative theories that stack-up”. That is a bizarre approach. When the earth was believed by all to be flat, it didn’t make it any more true then than it is now. Any theory has to stand on its own two feet and just because we don’t know the answer doesn’t make any existing theory “good enough for now”.

Bizarre? The approach has a name: It's called Scientific Method (clicky) or click here.

It's thanks to that method that I am able to sit in a warm, watertight, well-lit house, with a laptop typing into a micro processor and communicating with you.

[loafer]

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

[knocker]

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

Absolutely correct. All you need is a blog and you can talk a load of rubbish with the certain knowledge that someone will quote it in a forum.

[Alan Robinson]

Does anyone here think it right that the case for AGW should be over-stated in order to motivate change?

No, but it is. At the risk of repeating myself, my opinion is that politicians are using the AGW idea to cover up their helplessness over peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak debt, peak this, peak that, exponential increase in world population etc etc. Politicians know full well our lifestyle is unsustainable, they have no attractive practical vision for the future, and so we must all stop burning so much oil, coal and gas. They want us to accept inevitable economic downturn, and offer us environmental excuses as a dummy to suck on.

I am quite sure the basic science about so-called greenhouse gases is correct, but like many others, I consider the overall process most complex. For example, the process of the oceans soaking up heat and carbon dioxide is not fully understood. There remains controversy over the whole business of ice core data and historical atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science seems wavering over the role of the sun and cosmic rays on cloud, playing down the sun's role, notwithstanding that if it "went out", all life on Earth is done for. And what about the effect of CFC gases on ozone? It seems that has had a considerable effect on stratospheric temperatures and thus parts of our climate mechanism that are most difficult to research practically, and those CFCs are not going away for the next few years. How have they affected global temperatures since, say, 1970?

Given all this, I'd say it is not unreasonable to be moderately skeptical of dogma, whatever its object.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Alan Robinson]

My point was that you don't have to have alternative proven hypotheses to disagree with an existing theory.

Can I come to your assistance? I'd say that because there is a scientific theory about certain observable phenomena, that theory is not necessarily a panacea. In support of my postulation I give you the conflict between relativity and quantum theory over gravity.

If science has taught us anything at all, it is this; there is always room for improvement in our knowledge.

[loafer]

Your assistance is most welcome.

[jethro]

Another thing which seems to have happened in this era of AGW and the internet is the complete reversal of usual scientific practise. Prior to this period in time if a new scientific theory was discovered or proposed, the onus was upon the scientists involved to show it was correct; if objections or questions were raised, the burden of proof was firmly on the new theory side to answer them and prove their theory to be correct. Nowadays and with this theory in particular, any questions raised are met with demands to 'prove it' or 'lots of us agree so we must be right'.

Doesn't seem like sound scientific practise and I can't see the same process being repeated elsewhere, in other branches of science - why is AGW treated so differently?

[Alan Robinson]

Another thing which seems to have happened in this era of AGW and the internet is the complete reversal of usual scientific practise. Prior to this period in time if a new scientific theory was discovered or proposed, the onus was upon the scientists involved to show it was correct; if objections or questions were raised, the burden of proof was firmly on the new theory side to answer them and prove their theory to be correct. Nowadays and with this theory in particular, any questions raised are met with demands to 'prove it' or 'lots of us agree so we must be right'.

Doesn't seem like sound scientific practise and I can't see the same process being repeated elsewhere, in other branches of science - why is AGW treated so differently?

Agreed.

I do wish however we could all also agree that until an idea is proven, it is a hypothesis. Theories are validated hypotheses, and much of what is called Global Warming Theory remains hypothesis.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[Downburst]

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.

Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

[Radiating Dendrite]

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.

Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

Nobody can question the fact that climate changes and will continue too. The last Ice Age is definitive proof of this, indeed more recently episodes such as the LIA and the Medievil Warming Period show the sharpness of the changes that can occur.

The principle argument with AGW is whether the warming is natural or human induced, with AGW theorists proposing that it is induced by man and not mother nature.

Personally, I do not think we are doing the planet any favours chucking all our rubbish into the atmosphere, but whether this can overide the system and cause warming I simply do not know and I don't believe anyone knows!

[full_frontal_occlusion]

If it's not an impertinent question, then what would it take for the majority of people to be convinced that the warming trend is exacerbated by Human influence or that in the next few years we are in danger of exceding a tipping point?

Because if the science is not convincing enough now, then will it ever be or will people still say it's inevitable there is nothing that can be done?

Does global panic need to set in and what would cause that panic for the developed and industralised populations to take heed if it's not already too late?

ffO.

[greybing]

No, but it is. At the risk of repeating myself, my opinion is that politicians are using the AGW idea to cover up their helplessness over peak oil, peak phosphorus, peak debt, peak this, peak that, exponential increase in world population etc etc. Politicians know full well our lifestyle is unsustainable, they have no attractive practical vision for the future, and so we must all stop burning so much oil, coal and gas. They want us to accept inevitable economic downturn, and offer us environmental excuses as a dummy to suck on.

I am quite sure the basic science about so-called greenhouse gases is correct, but like many others, I consider the overall process most complex. For example, the process of the oceans soaking up heat and carbon dioxide is not fully understood. There remains controversy over the whole business of ice core data and historical atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. Science seems wavering over the role of the sun and cosmic rays on cloud, playing down the sun's role, notwithstanding that if it "went out", all life on Earth is done for. And what about the effect of CFC gases on ozone? It seems that has had a considerable effect on stratospheric temperatures and thus parts of our climate mechanism that are most difficult to research practically, and those CFCs are not going away for the next few years. How have they affected global temperatures since, say, 1970?

Given all this, I'd say it is not unreasonable to be moderately skeptical of dogma, whatever its object.

Totally agree.

[weatherobsuk]

I'm 50/50 on it. Whilst us humans have to accept that on a global scale climatological changes are just invariably a natural process, there are certain parts where we are contributing to that change. Maybe not to a point where it would lead to parts of downtown London, NYC etc being flooded with increasing sea heights, or encroaching desert sands from the Sahara swamping mainland Europe. But just look all around you even in the bedrock of the UK and you can see 'climate change' as a natural process.

Here in the Peak District nearby we have vast reserves of limestone within the White Peak, these traps hold billions upon billions of tonnes of stored CO2 from when the UK was once where Bermuda now is. We are releasing this stored CO2 on a daily rate by industrially mining the rock out of the ground from numerous sites all across the landscape. not just leaving huge scars many miles across per mine, but also the legacy of that stored CO2 being brought back to the surface from man-made activity. Not only through this but coal, oil, other natural resourced industrialisation that is also having the same effect.

There's a reason why the Earth 'cycles' these vast stored CO2 reserves, and we are destroying that cycle for our own ill-concieved purposes. I am against driving global-warming & climate change onto the population, as they don't go around in 100-tonne dumper trucks or use TNT to blow holes in the ground, the population just wants basic energy to live from. Its the industrialisation complex who is to blame.

[Alan Robinson]

Did anyone see that program with Neill Oliver (Scotish guy, long hair) on the bronze and iron age last night? About the time the bronze age ended there was a large climate change, cooler, far wetter, about 800, to 600 BC I think he said. Caused huge grief.

Also, I am burning "Turf" (peat) here. Laid down 8,000 to 10,000 years ago. Now the good Turf come from the bottom of the bog. It is almost black, more density, burns hotter and longer. One thing is that it contains oak, amazingly preserved oak peices, I mean the twigs are like you cut them 3 months ago, and if you want oak logs, we call it "bog oak", good for carving etc. You see all these bogs had been Ash, Scots pine, Oat and elm forests. Then with the arrival of the first humans they were cut down and in additoin there was a rapid increase in rainfall that flooded the areas. This was so quick that the last forest is still there, at the bottom of the bog. It was like the flip of a switch, yet what amazes us is this. Look at a windsept Irish bog, then imagine how the hell could an Oak gorw there so soon after the ice age. Well it must have not been swampy, been as warm as it is today at least and drier on the west coast, less windy. Try planting an oat there now and see how long it survies. I am deduce as a lay man, that our climate changes naturally for sure and perhaps more rapidly than we are led to generally belive. I wish that the AGW folks would also explain this to people.

That reminds me of Simon Schama and his History of Britain. Skara Brae in the Bronze Age had a climate similar to UIshant, or even Belle Isle in the Bay of Biscay today. Evidence? DNA from fish species found in a Skara Brae rubbish tip.

If it's not an impertinent question, then what would it take for the majority of people to be convinced that the warming trend is exacerbated by Human influence or that in the next few years we are in danger of exceding a tipping point?

Because if the science is not convincing enough now, then will it ever be or will people still say it's inevitable there is nothing that can be done?

ffO.

More theory and less hypothesis I'd say.

[4wd]

The mining of limestone is entirely insignificant, not least because it isn't destroyed but re-used.

Concrete is actually a CO2 store for example.

Climate has always changed, sometimes quite abruptly.

Adapting to changes happens all the time already - future changes whether AGW enhanced or not will be coped with just as well because they won't be outside the extremes we already cope with perfectly well.

In short the thousands of researchers trying to show that AGW disaster is round the corner would be better off researching ways to continue our already successful coping strategies.

Fossil fuel use will decline steadily through the next century with no politically inspired interference, due to increasing scarcity.

On a global scale this is what will happen anyway no matter what those who wish to control our lives think.

[VillagePlank]

Well, back in the old days (when I was called VillagePlank) I tried to develop a theory based on a little known differential equation called the leaky integrator (well little known outside of those that write neural networks - often it's called a leaky bucket) that would entirely dismiss the concept of human-induced climate change. Indeed, we went so far as to include volcanic emissions, ENSO, etc - we got it to the stage where r² > 0.8, and signficance was nearly 90% (not the 95% required by the scientific method) Alas, my poor knowledge of science, particularly oceanography, and thermodynamics along with spending £10k on papers (knowledge isn't free, you know) ground the project to a halt.

Even to this day I think there is something there; this is not without evidence. Many of you will know that there was a problem with the global temperature around the middle of the last century - temperature readings were taken from buckets on ships next to the engine room. The leaky integrator showed that this was the case (without our knowledge of this problems existence) and I had to put a constant in to correct it to the Hadley temperature series. There are coincidences and then there are coincidences .....

I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find the thread where all of this was done in the open (think 'free' software) Alas, you'll also find lots of bickering and arguing, baiting and biting - which, honestly, I am too embarrassed to go back and look. Perhaps the mods could dig out the walkthrough and one of the results posts with the charts? (removing all the, ahem, excesses, of course) Just for interest, of course - I've since lost all my files, although I'm sure if there's a resurgence of interest, I could recreate it ....

And, yes, the taboo of attempting to travel against the tide of consensus was overwhelming at times and it directly caused my mate, Captain Bobski, to leave this forum forever.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Sparticle

[loafer]

There's a reason why the Earth 'cycles' these vast stored CO2 reserves, and we are destroying that cycle for our own ill-concieved purposes.

I don't see why we aren't simply part of one of the cycles - given these cycles exist, surely the acceleration of release of CO2 simply brings forward the timing of natural compensatory factors to switch the cycle and restore it again? The human race is hugely and mistakenly arrogant to believe it actually has some control over nature.