The Taboo Of Not Subscribing To Anthropological Global Warming

[jethro]

Well, OK.

but the minute you use that word (or a derivative of it) 'assume' you are on a hiding to nothing. That you might have endless experience in dealing with the subtleties of the debate is commendable, but, ultimately, futile, unless it is framed in such a manner to either make those assumptions clear, or completely eradicates them.

Both are impossible.

But it's tiresome to endlessly have to point out the bleeding obvious, it's far easier to credit folk with a degree of intelligence.

The Tiara has a chin strap too.....

[VillagePlank]

But it's tiresome to endlessly have to point out the bleeding obvious

I agree that it seems obvious, but even a cursory reading of the last few days on this particular thread shows that that is far from the case.

Edited October 24, 2011 by Sparticle

[IanM]

It's all been going so well too. Can we try to keep on track please, a bit of back and forth is fine, but keep it at discussion level, 'clever' insults and endless pedantics don't do the overall content of this thread any justice and will be removed.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Wouldn't the easiest way to beat any taboo's and conflict be to forget all about the two sides, ignore the traditional concept of pro or anti AGW and adopt an attitude of knowledge seeking, regardless of what it reveals? Strikes me that both in the general public and the science community, too much time and effort is spent trying to prove one side of the debate over the other - science, real science doesn't have views, it has facts.

Some excellent points there.

Re. Sparticle's rebuttals, the "real science doesn't have views, it has facts" statement reads more to me like a reference to 'real' science being a search for the objective truth rather than a quest to reinforce one's own views on the subject, rather than being meant 100% literally. I think, to be absolutely pedantic, 'real' science aims to approximate the truth as closely as possible. Sometimes it is possible to reach the truth absolutely and verify it (e.g. various laws of thermodynamics) while at other times it isn't (e.g. I can't see climate science proving that given X amount of anthropogenic forcing and Z amount of natural forcing the climate will warm by exactly Y degrees- in that area we have to settle for narrowing the uncertainty bounds).

[Alan Robinson]

Lol.

Are you trying to wrest the Pedant's crown from my head? I think it's only fair to warn you that it's more of a Tiara, very sparkly and definitely too girly for you.

I hadn't thought of you as girly Jethro. Is there something you keep from us?

Anyway, science is obviously not in a state of rest, however little progress we might see in our short lifetimes. The development of technology is a clear indication of how many admirable discoveries in the past have since been supplemented or perhaps superceded. Materials technology is a particularly fine example.

I personally suspect that climate science is in its infancy, and am unafraid to say so. Where is the taboo?

Edited October 25, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

I hadn't thought of you as girly Jethro. Is there something you keep from us?

Anyway, science is obviously not in a state of rest, however little progress we might see in our short lifetimes. The development of technology is a clear indication of how many admirable discoveries in the past have since been supplemented or perhaps superceded. Materials technology is a particularly fine example.

I personally suspect that climate science is in its infancy, and am unafraid to say so. Where is the taboo?

Girly.....it's no secret, I may spend all my working life plodding around in leather wellies but there's a sizeable collection of killer heels for weekends.

I hate this distinct division between the two sides of this debate but accept it's there so I'll address these questions accordingly....

For those who support the AGW theory, what would it take for you to to think that the case for man's contribution to the warming has been seriously over-stated or mis-interpreted?

For those of you who do not support the theory of AGW, what would it take for you to think that the case for natural climate variance has been over-stated?

Is there a point, or level of research which people from both sides will re-consider their views, or are the views sacrosanct, not open to change as the case for both sides is unprovable in science and likely to remain so for a very long time?

[Methuselah]

A fascinating thread...Oddly, I've always been a 'believer' in both anthropogenic and Natural causes of climate change. IMO, politicization always creates false dichotomies.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm with you on the 'stance' thing Pete.

How can folk deny either of our climate?

We can see 'Nature' at work all around us but then , it's hard not to see man made change all around us?

When 'deniers' use 'Urban heat islands' as a weapon against AGW I have to scratch my head.

As posted earlier " See Local, Think Global!"

[Alan Robinson]

dichotomies.

A very apt word.

[knocker]

When 'deniers' use 'Urban heat islands' as a weapon against AGW I have to scratch my head.

Funny enough there is a recent paper on this.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/su-ui101811.php

[Thundery wintry showers]

Girly.....it's no secret, I may spend all my working life plodding around in leather wellies but there's a sizeable collection of killer heels for weekends.

I hate this distinct division between the two sides of this debate but accept it's there so I'll address these questions accordingly....

For those who support the AGW theory, what would it take for you to to think that the case for man's contribution to the warming has been seriously over-stated or mis-interpreted?

For those of you who do not support the theory of AGW, what would it take for you to think that the case for natural climate variance has been over-stated?

Is there a point, or level of research which people from both sides will re-consider their views, or are the views sacrosanct, not open to change as the case for both sides is unprovable in science and likely to remain so for a very long time?

As an "AGW supporter" (though less ardent about it than some), I would need to see strong scientific evidence that the current generation of climate models are overestimating climate sensitivity to anthropogenic forcing and/or underestimating sensitivity to natural forcing. At the moment, I see some evidence that points this way, but also some that points the other way, so while I hope that AGW is being overestimated, it is more hope than belief.

[pottyprof]

I think it would be very difficult for anyone to deny that man hasn't caused damage to ecosystem even to the point of causing warming. I think that the problem of not knowing how much damage we have done is something that we're all struggling to get our heads around. The fact that some research appears to contradict the official thoughts on AGW doesn't give some people the confidence to believe it. For example recent research shows evidence that a 1 metre rise in sea level is within natural variation and the current observed rise isn't what had been expected. The sun is also playing it's own game. We are currently learning some of it's rules and learning how they fit into the huge list of unknowns that is our climate. We know very little about what is happening below our feet and as has been pointed out, we know more about space than we do about the internal workings of the earth. While it's ok to have a best guess, the whole subject of climate change it being told in a way that people do find difficult to understand. Climate scientists are looked upon in a similar way as MP's are. The amount of so called "discussion" that is nothing else but a conflict of inflated egos and done in a manner that wouldn't look out of place in a children's playground, is something that we all come across while trying to learn. It is a complete turn off. We need answers, not clashes of egos. That goes out to all involved. Until it stops and people have things explained properly, in a manner that switches people on, then we will always have this "us and them" situation and very little will be gained by anyone.

[Alan Robinson]

For example recent research shows evidence that a 1 metre rise in sea level is within natural variation and the current observed rise isn't what had been expected.

Maybe the missing sea is in the stratosphere as vapour

[full_frontal_occlusion]

Does the Chinese postion reported today lend any credance to the argument?

Leaving the obvious distancing themselves from the Americans and the need to gain global approval as a leader taking its place on the world stage, does their stance signal a real concern?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15444858

ffO.

[mcweather]

Does the Chinese postion reported today lend any credance to the argument?

Leaving the obvious distancing themselves from the Americans and the need to gain global approval as a leader taking its place on the world stage, does their stance signal a real concern?

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15444858

ffO.

Thats an interesting piece there FFO. I would imagine that with China having a population of 1.3 billion compared the United states 312 million that the position on per capita emmisions stated by the chinese is a relatively easy one to take. With that huge excess in population compared to the states I would imagine that China could actually produce a lot more CO 2 overall than the states at some point but then hide behind the fact that per capita they are producing less for each person. Its would seem that all you need to be top of the good guys league on CO2 is a massive population.

Edited October 27, 2011 by mcweather

[Gray-Wolf]

Any move by China to reduce emissions must be welcomed but also comes with a price tag for the world. If we are to see the amount of Sulphate's drop off then i would imagine we face the same type of global temp Hike we saw in the 80's when our own 'clean air acts' began to have impact ( 7 years for the Sulphate's to leave the atmosphere??). Unlike the 80's we now have only a 1/3 of our Arctic ice cover come minimum so any further 'Hike' in temps must surely be the thing that tips us into an ice free Arctic come Sept each year.

The extra energy this puts into the climate system must be significant over a decadal period and so coupled with an atmosphere ever more capable of holding onto heat may drive us into other 'positive feedback loops' so hastening many of the worst aspects of AGW ( seas level rise, chaotic climate, Methane releases etc.).

Again , only time will tell ( I believe) but it does not stop anyone hazarding a guess as to whether this will prove beneficial to Humanity/the Planet or not.

[knocker]

The latest carbon emissions report by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre and PBL Netherlands Environmental Research Agency.

After a decline in CO2 emissions in 2009 of 1% (including a correction for the leap year 2008), global emissions have jumped by more than 5% in 2010, which is unprecedented in the last two decades, also the absolute figure of 1.8 billion tonnes of additional CO2, leading to about 33.0 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions for 2010. Global consumption of coal and natural gas (responsible for about 40% and 20% of total CO2 emissions, respectively) grew in 2010 both by 7% and cement production emissions (contributing 4% to the total) by 11%. In 2010, colder winter months than in 2009 in many regions (Blunden et al., 2011) increased the demand for gas for space heating which also contributed to the increase. Together with a low 1% increase in 2008, when the first impacts of the global credit crunch became visible, and the 1% decline in 2009, the last three credit crunch years show an average annual growth rate of 1.7%. Since this 3-year average percentage is almost equal to the long-term annual average of 1.9% for the preceding two decades back to 1990, one could say that the very large emissions growth in 2010 made it up for the two preceding recession years. Although there is uncertainty in these figures, especially for countries with fast emerging economies and for the most recent statistics, our preliminary estimate for total global CO2 emissions in 2010 is believed to have an uncertainty of about 5% and the increase of 5% may be accurate to 1%-point (see Annex 1 for more details).

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf

[jethro]

Any move by China to reduce emissions must be welcomed but also comes with a price tag for the world. If we are to see the amount of Sulphate's drop off then i would imagine we face the same type of global temp Hike we saw in the 80's when our own 'clean air acts' began to have impact ( 7 years for the Sulphate's to leave the atmosphere??). Unlike the 80's we now have only a 1/3 of our Arctic ice cover come minimum so any further 'Hike' in temps must surely be the thing that tips us into an ice free Arctic come Sept each year.

The extra energy this puts into the climate system must be significant over a decadal period and so coupled with an atmosphere ever more capable of holding onto heat may drive us into other 'positive feedback loops' so hastening many of the worst aspects of AGW ( seas level rise, chaotic climate, Methane releases etc.).

Again , only time will tell ( I believe) but it does not stop anyone hazarding a guess as to whether this will prove beneficial to Humanity/the Planet or not.

Please could you explain how and why the atmosphere is ever more capable of holding onto heat.

[songster]

Increased CO2 levels, surely? I thought even those who doubt the level of human contribution to climate change accepted the basic physical premise: increased CO2 leads to increased heat retention! A second factor is perhaps increased water vapor content - heat being held as the latent heat of evaporation?

I guess it depends on whether GW is referring to increased ability to absorb/retain heat, or increased total heat capacity.

Edited October 28, 2011 by songster

[Alan Robinson]

Please could you explain how and why the atmosphere is ever more capable of holding onto heat.

Perhaps the volume of atmosphere is increasing. Sublimation.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Alan Robinson

[jethro]

Increased CO2 levels, surely? I thought even those who doubt the level of human contribution to climate change accepted the basic physical premise: increased CO2 leads to increased heat retention! A second factor is perhaps increased water vapor content - heat being held as the latent heat of evaporation?

I guess it depends on whether GW is referring to increased ability to absorb/retain heat, or increased total heat capacity.

The relationship between CO2 and the atmosphere is logarithmic; a doubling of the concentration doesn't lead to a doubling of temperature increase. Although increasing emissions is of course a cause for concern, it doesn't lead to rampant temperature increases.

The expected feedback loops of increased water vapour leading to increased temperature rises due to energy retention, as far as I know, hasn't as yet been shown to be happening (although it's been a while since I last checked).

The decrease in Sulphur emissions which has the potential to cause warming and may happen as a consequence of China cleaning up their act, has to be balanced against other factors. The current much quieter Solar cycle dwarfs the potential impact of Sulphur, the expected and widely predicted much smaller still, next Solar cycle (and possibly the one after) again dwarfs the potential impact of a reduction in Sulphur emissions.

The balance between Sulphur emissions and soot deposits has yet to be fully understood, the Sulphur cools but the soot warms by reducing albedo. The Arctic is a desert climate, the reduced ice cover has been shown to possibly increase precipitation both in the Arctic and further afield; the dirty. soot covered, Arctic ice is being covered by fresh, clean snow - how this delicate balancing act affects the overall albedo budget is yet to be understood.

It's all well and good hazarding guesses about the future but you have to factor in both sides of a coin, not just one - increasing carbon emissions and decreasing sulphur doesn't have just one possible route, it has many counter-balancing factors to consider.

[knocker]

Relevant to the discussion.

The human cause of climate change: Where does the burden of proof lie?

Dr. Kevin Trenberth advocates reversing the 'null hypothesis'

The debate may largely be drawn along political lines, but the human role in climate change remains one of the most controversial questions in 21st century science. Writing in WIREs Climate Change Dr Kevin Trenberth, from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, argues that the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is now so clear that the burden of proof should lie with research which seeks to disprove the human role.

In response to Trenberth's argument a second review, by Dr Judith Curry, focuses on the concept of a 'null hypothesis' the default position which is taken when research is carried out. Currently the null hypothesis for climate change attribution research is that humans have no influence.

"Humans are changing our climate. There is no doubt whatsoever," said Trenberth. "Questions remain as to the extent of our collective contribution, but it is clear that the effects are not small and have emerged from the noise of natural variability. So why does the science community continue to do attribution studies and assume that humans have no influence as a null hypothesis?"

To show precedent for his position Trenberth cites the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which states that global warming is "unequivocal", and is "very likely" due to human activities.

Trenberth also focused on climate attribution studies which claim the lack of a human component, and suggested that the assumptions distort results in the direction of finding no human influence, resulting in misleading statements about the causes of climate change that can serve to grossly underestimate the role of humans in climate events.

"Scientists must challenge misconceptions in the difference between weather and climate while attribution studies must include a human component," concluded Trenberth. "The question should no longer be is there a human component, but what is it?"

In a second paper Dr Judith Curry, from the Georgia Institute of Technology, questions this position, but argues that the discussion on the null hypothesis serves to highlight fuzziness surrounding the many hypotheses related to dangerous climate change.

"Regarding attribution studies, rather than trying to reject either hypothesis regardless of which is the null, there should be a debate over the significance of anthropogenic warming relative to forced and unforced natural climate variability," said Curry.

Curry also suggested that the desire to reverse the null hypothesis may have the goal of seeking to marginalise the climate sceptic movement, a vocal group who have challenged the scientific orthodoxy on climate change.

"The proponents of reversing the null hypothesis should be careful of what they wish for," concluded Curry. "One consequence may be that the scientific focus, and therefore funding, would also reverse to attempting to disprove dangerous anthropogenic climate change, which has been a position of many sceptics."

"I doubt Trenberth's suggestion will find much support in the scientific community," said Professor Myles Allen from Oxford University, "but Curry's counter proposal to abandon hypothesis tests is worse. We still have plenty of interesting hypotheses to test: did human influence on climate increase the risk of this event at all? Did it increase it by more than a factor of two?"

###

All three papers are free online:

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.142

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.141

http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/wcc.145

Edited November 4, 2011 by weather ship

[jethro]

Hmmmm.

The rules of most long established things are pretty well defined for a reason, it's a benchmark or standard to ensure a level of quality and an equal, inbiased playing field - I'm not sure that not being able to fulfill that standard is a reason to change the standard.

[Methuselah]

I generally go with the idea that the burden of proof lies with those engaged in the dissemination of the theory. Whatever the theory. But that doesn't mean that it's okay for 'objectors' to make equally untestable counter claims of their own...

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thing is, though, the existence of AGW as a mechanism is pretty much "proven"- take the logrithmic relationship with CO2 for example, or the nature of "greenhouse gases" allowing shortwave radiation in and absorbing/reflecting longwave radiation.

But the extent to which human activity is contributing to climate change, the magnitude of global climate sensitivity etc. are unproven, thus meaning that for instance when groups make claims of "we have committed ourselves to a 3 degree rise by 2100" (as opposed to just "human activity is capable of warming the global climate") the burden of proof should then be on the groups' claims.