Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[jethro]

For how long will so-called 'sceptics' rabbit on about 'unknown feedbacks'? Are we supposed to assume that they - whatever they are - are all negative, or what? Or, do we assume that, like most of things Natural, they add-up to near zero?

 

Sounds like the 'last chance saloon' to me...

 

I'm guessing for as long as those of the pro persuasion, rabbit on like we know everything already.

 

Suggested reading......http://xocarson.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/a-review-of-on-bullsuper duper-by-harry-frankfurt/

[knocker]

Given what I've read  on here don't you thing most of the bullonions comes from the other corner? Not least because they seem to be lacking in credible scientific arguments.

Edited October 7, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

 

Sorry this slipped into the wrong thread and just to confirm it was peer reviewed by Christopher Walter Monckton,

[UV-RAY]

 

Sorry this slipped into the wrong thread and just to confirm it was peer reviewed by Christopher Walter Monckton,

That looks like Dr James Hansen, so he's a closet nazi now!

Edited October 7, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

These are studies ,theories and out dated analysis ? Not sure what your point is ?

 

"""The Greenland Ice Sheet is projected to contribute to sea level after 2100, initially at a rate of 0.03 to 0.21 m per century for stabilisation in 2100 at A1B concentrations"""

 

"""""The only study of seasonal snow cover in the Southern Alps found no trend over the 1930 to 1985 period (Fitzharris and Garr, 1995) and has not been updated"""

 

etc

 

0.03 to 0.21 is a factor of 7

 

Studies, theories and analysis, on different natural feedbacks, natural climate forcings and whatnot. I'm sure you can dig out a little more than that Stew? There are hundreds of pages on the stuff! (I used the last IPCC report because the full physical sciences section for the new one hasn't been released yet).

 

Anyway, the pages upon pages of data stand in contrast to the assumption:

 

I think we are already seeing this unfortunate process play out, and the IPCC missed a good opportunity to seize this chance to be a little more sanguine and balanced in their latest predictions and in doing so therefore demonstrate that they are taking more seriously natural cyclical drivers to make their research and findings much less one dimensional and appear less selective, skewed and biased to suit and match a pre-conceived agenda.

 

Lots of data in the report on natural cycles, and of course, still awaiting the important studies that have been overlooked. Blogs don't count!

[Methuselah]

I'm guessing for as long as those of the pro persuasion, rabbit on like we know everything already.

 

Suggested reading......http://xocarson.wordpress.com/2012/04/12/a-review-of-on-bullshit-by-harry-frankfurt/

But, ignoring the fact that this is not the thread for sceptics, why all the fuss? What's to be gained from acknowledging something to be unknown, and then going on to assume that it's really just what one needs...if this and if that ad infinitum?

 

As I've said before, we all make assumptions; and the quickest to point out those made by 'others' are just as prone, if not more so. However vociferous are the denials...

[jethro]

But, ignoring the fact that this is not the thread for sceptics, why all the fuss? What's to be gained from acknowledging something to be unknown, and then going on to assume that it's really just what one needs...if this and if that ad infinitum?

 

As I've said before, we all make assumptions; and the quickest to point out those made by 'others' are just as prone, if not more so. However vociferous are the denials...

 

Those of the pro persuasion seem to litter the sceptic thread.

 

As I'm neither pro, nor anti, preferring to inhabit the middle ground of accepting AGW, merely question the magnitude already witnessed, I figure like you, I can flit between the two threads; I thought I'd take a step into this thread for a change and answer your question.

 

As for fuss, there is none from me. I find the bluster from both sides of this debate endlessly amusing. Assumptions.....yes, we all make them. Neither side is immune. I find the flag waving of scientific studies on things we do know, to counter those we don't, as funny as the flag waving of things we don't know, to counter the things we do. Although I do remain endlessly bemused by the certainty and confidence of both sides.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I suppose we're all in the middle ground then, seeing as none of us are certain of the magnitude of man's impact on the climate.

 

There will always be things we don't know. But using them as excuses for inaction, or to claim a grand global conspiracy behind a whole branch of science, is rather stretching things.

What I find quite amusing are the claims that pro-AGW scientists and organisations ignore natural climate variability, from the people who've gotten most of their data on natural climate variability from the same pro-AGW scientists and organisations they accuse of ignoring it.

[VillagePlank]

The problem is, BFTV, is artificial segmentation of the debate. I cannot claim that I know *who* is to blame for that, but any reasonable person, with reasonable intelligence, can see that man affects the climate - it's the degree of, therein, that's the issue. The most laughable claim, in my view, is when an opinion is proferred relating to UHI effects. That we should strip them from the temperature record. Err, well, no: these metropolis' are part of the climate, and it's plainly obvious that man is affecting the climate! An fun irony if ever there was one.

Bugger. Posted in the wrong thread.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

The problem is, BFTV, is artificial segmentation of the debate. I cannot claim that I know *who* is to blame for that, but any reasonable person, with reasonable intelligence, can see that man affects the climate - it's the degree of, therein, that's the issue. The most laughable claim, in my view, is when an opinion is proferred relating to UHI effects. That we should strip them from the temperature record. Err, well, no: these metropolis' are part of the climate, and it's plainly obvious that man is affecting the climate! An fun irony if ever there was one.Bugger. Posted in the wrong thread.

I don't know, Spark; it seems equally germane to both 'sides'???

[Fergus Brown]

TBH I'm struggling a bit here. So much of what is exchanged in the threads is framed in adversarial terms - you're either for or against, pro or anti, alarmist or denialist. Yet at the same time many of us contributing to the dialogue are pointing out our own particular views are not 'standardised'. I think all of us have to look at ourselves and ask if we are being fair to each other? So often, we make assumptions about what others' meanings or intentions are, and simultaneously take exception when others do the same to us.

 

This is not the way to agreement or even progress towards agreement on anything. The needle is stuck, as so many have pointed out. So: can we jog the track on a bit (for some younger people: this uses a metaphor based on the days of Vinyl...)? Is it possible to find a way where agreement can be reached, or are we condemned to an eternal recurrence of all that has gone before?

 

Communities and Forums are potentially useful tools - they allow us to focus on numerous threads of discussion and at the same time to go into detail on specifics. But this doesn't work if we (yes, me too) bring our baggage of assumptions and pre-judgments with us. so, as a staring point:

 

Is it important to understand the World we live in and our interaction with? Yes or no? No qualification required.

 

Is the World really made up of 'people like us' and 'people not like us' - or are people (and here, that means this community) simply more complex than that?

 

Finally (for now); is there anyone out there who honestly wants to learn/understand/explore a specific topic that can be isolated and discussed (for example, John's interest in the role of Volcanism in the Global Heat Budget) amongst free-thinking people who respect each others' thoughts even if they disagree with them?

[Gray-Wolf]

So maybe we need an AGW thread? Seems a little radical I know .........

[stewfox]

So maybe we need an AGW thread? Seems a little radical I know .........

 

 Agree, never seem to know why we started two threads, as your posting into vacuums. 

 

I lean towards the other thread but I don't think, man has no influence at all.

 

Maybe threads for 10/20/30/40% etc sceptics

[Fergus Brown]

 Agree, never seem to know why we started two threads, as your posting into vacuums. 

 

I lean towards the other thread but I don't think, man has no influence at all.

 

Maybe threads for 10/20/30/40% etc sceptics

 I have a suggestion...

 

well, more of an idea half-thought through, tbh.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Fergus Brown

[Fergus Brown]

This is for those of us who have an active interest in the subject and like to think we are open-minded ('pro' or 'anti' or whatever).

 

This came up on the interblognetosphere today; http://www.skepticalscience.com/earths-climate-system.html

 

I read it and found it helpful. It ties together lots of stuff and explains it in a way I can understand. I have a couple of open questions:

 

1. Is this a reasonable summary of the earth's climate system?

 

2. Are there any elements of it which you think are unfair, inaccurate or misleading?

 

3. If the answer to (2) is Yes, which one of these elements do you challenge?

 

Suggestions - It's a long-ish bit of writing but it really helps if you can, even if it takes a day or two, actually read it. Also, try to stick to one criticism at a time.

 

If anyone bothers to reply and if there is more than one challenge, we can decide between us where we want to start.

[knocker]

Last Hours

 

Great video.

 

http://lasthours.org/

[knocker]

Alaska is world's laboratory for climate change research

 

http://www.adn.com/2013/10/05/3111739/alaska-worlds-laboratory-for-climate.html

Edited October 9, 2013 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

This is for those of us who have an active interest in the subject and like to think we are open-minded ('pro' or 'anti' or whatever).

 

This came up on the interblognetosphere today; http://www.skepticalscience.com/earths-climate-system.html

 

I read it and found it helpful. It ties together lots of stuff and explains it in a way I can understand. I have a couple of open questions:

 

1. Is this a reasonable summary of the earth's climate system?

 

2. Are there any elements of it which you think are unfair, inaccurate or misleading?

 

3. If the answer to (2) is Yes, which one of these elements do you challenge?

 

Suggestions - It's a long-ish bit of writing but it really helps if you can, even if it takes a day or two, actually read it. Also, try to stick to one criticism at a time.

 

If anyone bothers to reply and if there is more than one challenge, we can decide between us where we want to start.

 

It appears to be a pretty concise overview for us 'beginners' (and is also being refined to make it more so as folk pull up issues). Maybe it should be included at the head of this Section so we all know what hymn sheet we are singing from?

[Fergus Brown]

Here is something for anyone who struggles with the argument about the reliability/value/etc of computer models:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/09/nobel-prize-simulating-chemical-reactions

 

Apparently, complex computer models can do quite useful things, and some scientists can do good work with them.

 

I'd also observe that, generally, earth system models are orders of magnitude more complex..

[knocker]

Inside the Pallin glacier tunnel, exposed by melting ice - video

 

Project Pressure aims to create the world's first glacier archive, a visual time capsule using geo-tagged photographs to document the world's vanishing glaciers in order to highlight the impact of climate change. In this expedition, members of the team explore a tunnel in the Pallin glacier in northern Sweden, which has become accessible as the melting glacier has shrunk

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/video/2013/oct/10/inside-pallin-glacier-tunnel-melting-ice-video

Edited October 10, 2013 by knocker

[knocker]

Southern Alps' ice levels show sharp decrease

Ice levels in the Southern Alps dropped by almost 15 per cent in the past four years, new research from climate scientist Jim Salinger shows.

Dr Salinger's new book Living in a Warmer World, launched last night, cites research showing the ice volume in the Southern Alps decreased from 44.08 cubic km in 2008/09, to 37.59 cubic km in 2011/12.

This 14.7 per cent volume loss - which takes in measurements from all the glaciers in the Southern Alps - was an ongoing response to regional warming, Dr Salinger said.

Since official records began in 1977, glaciers in the Southern Alps had lost 30 per cent of their ice.

Forty per cent of this was from the 12 largest glaciers.

Edited October 11, 2013 by knocker

[Jimmy0127]

Southern Alps' ice levels show sharp decreaseIce levels in the Southern Alps dropped by almost 15 per cent in the past four years, new research from climate scientist Jim Salinger shows.Dr Salinger's new book Living in a Warmer World, launched last night, cites research showing the ice volume in the Southern Alps decreased from 44.08 cubic km in 2008/09, to 37.59 cubic km in 2011/12.This 14.7 per cent volume loss - which takes in measurements from all the glaciers in the Southern Alps - was an ongoing response to regional warming, Dr Salinger said.Since official records began in 1977, glaciers in the Southern Alps had lost 30 per cent of their ice.Forty per cent of this was from the 12 largest glaciers.

Is this a problem, though? Alpine glaciers cover a minute area of land, albedo, forcing, etc etc. Surely the less ice, the better! More room for cattle to roam - more cheese...

 

[4wd]

Clearly not an irreversible trend.http://www.sonntagonline.ch/ressort/aktuell/3241/

Actually that original story is about New Zealand.

[knocker]

Edited October 13, 2013 by knocker

[Fergus Brown]

Is it important that glaciers are shrinking?

 

It is if they are contributing to seal level rise -which they are.

 

It is if they form glacial lakes which then collapse and inundate valleys, villages and crops.

 

It is if your entire fresh water supply depends on glacial meltwater which is cut off or diverted as the glaciers retreat.

 

It is if you are looking for evidence that the balance that once existed in the global climate system is in a perilous state.

 

I'd say yes, generally speaking it is important.