Climate Change & Global Warming

[Carlos]

I think "projected" is the important word here. How many scientists at the end of the last century had models which predicted there would be a decade of cooling ahead? Can you name even one?

What decade of cooling? We've just had the hottest decade ever recorded. Show me this decade of cooling.

 

Sorry, I should have said the one in which there has been no statistically significant warming. But you have dodged the question. Tell me who had a model in 1998 which did not expect the warming trend to continue. Can you find one? Because I have not been able to.

I had a bit of a trawl on that subject last night and didn't find anything too solid either. There are 1998 papers looking at NAO and ENSO effects on climate, but they seem to have expected a positive NAO effect to continue at that point.

I was surprised to see that the multi-decadal NAO effects were apparently only recognised in 2001, so that likely goes some way to explaining why they were not in models before, if not exactly backing up the idea that we know exactly what's going on

To play devil's advocate there is of course the reciprocal argument - which models produced by those sceptical of AGW prior to 2000 predicted steady temperatures now?

[Evil Inky]

if CO2 prevents heat radiating away from the earth surely it would prevent heat radiating in to the atmosphere canceling out most if not all the effect.

The back of an envelope explanation:

The energy comes in (from the sun) at visible wavelengths, to which the atmosphere is relatively transparent. This energy then heats up the Earth, which produces infra-red radiation, increasing amounts of which are trapped by the rising levels of carbon dioxide.

 

( But as you have a scientific/engineering background Mr Shagger, I suspect you knew that already )

[ArabiaTerra]

I don't think "scientists" are lying. You are using an ad hom argument to suggest I believe in outlandish conspiracy theories to discredit my arguments which you cannot answer. Personal attacks are not allowed by the shetlink terms and conditions, so either quote a post of mine where I say this is driven by NWO conspiracy theories, or apologise.

Fair enough, Crofter, I apologise unreservedly for insinuating that you bought into Koy's NWO fantasies.

 

I was exaggerating to make a point. The point being that if you think the scientists are lying to you, then the logical conclusion to draw from that is a vast overwhelming conspiracy covering thousands of scientists from hundreds of different universities and research institutions in dozens of different countries, which is not just implausible, but actually ludicrous.

 

Now, you say you don't think the scientists are lying. Good. So what's your problem with AGW then? The scientists say it's happening, and we both agree they're not lying, so what are we arguing about?

Tell me who had a model in 1998 which did not expect the warming trend to continue. Can you find one? Because I have not been able to.

You're question is flawed, in two ways. Firstly, using 1998 as a base is flawed because it was an exceptional El Nino year, the strongest El Nino in the temperature record, possibly the strongest in a thousand years (I haven't checked this so I could be wrong on that one). This makes it an outlier. Try using 1997 or 1999 as your reference and see if the line is still flat.

 

Secondly, as Phil Jones said in his interview, 10 years is too short a time to show a temperature trend as the signal tends to be swamped by natural variations.

 

So, to answer your question, no model predicted the flattening of the trend, and they wouldn't have done because they are not programmed to resolve trends over such a short period, that is assuming such a flattening occurred, which it didn't.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT, that argument is the ancient fallacy of "affirming the consequent":

1: Human GHG -> warming

2: There is warming

Therefore 3: The warming is caused by human GHG

You missed a couple of steps there.

 

1: Human GHG -> warming

2. There is warming

3. We have a mechanism for the warming (CO2 + other greenhouse gases)

4. The mechanism is provided by human emissions of GHG.

5. We can find no other natural mechanism to explain the warming.

6. We can find no mechanism to show the human GHG are not causing the warming. (Which you would require if you want to show that human emissions are not responsible for the warming.)

7. Therefore the observed warming is caused by human emissions of GHG.

 

The argument does not prove that all, or even most of, any warming is caused by human GHG. I don't deny 1 or 2, but they do not prove 3 - there might be any number of other causes.

Science will never give you the mathematical proof you seem to be looking for, all it can offer is a balance of probabilities. But there are not "any number of other causes". Scientists have looked hard for other causes. They have found nothing.

 

For a start, we know that there are astrophysical causes - f'rinstance, Piers Corbyn, who absolutely dismisses all AGW arguments, predicted all the cold weather we've seen in December, January and February, practically to the day, last July, while the Met Office, working from their belief in AGW, were promising us a "mild winter" as late as the end of November. As the Good Book says (Matthew, 7:20), "By their fruits shall ye know them".

Weather not climate. And anyway, how do you know it wasn't just a lucky guess? If this guy has a plausible explanation for the observed warming that doesn't require AGHG's (See point's 5&6 above) then he should publish in the scientific literature, he'd be the most famous scientist alive (he is a scientist isn't he?). If he doesn't then he's irrelevant.

 

What we need is the proof that human GHG are causing all, or most of, the observed warming - in fact, to the threatening extent we're all supposed to worry about ... and that - the unspoken assumption behind all AGW arguments - is remarkably absent, at least from the interweb pages I've seen.

I've shown you the evidence which convinces me, if you choose not to believe it then that's your choice. I think you are setting an unreasonable burden of proof which science cannot give you.

 

Re the "Spectrum of Greenhouse Radiation" graph, you left out the caption, which includes the words "Greenhouse effect from water vapor is filtered out" - great, let's just disregard the main GHG.

It was disregarded because it has not changed. The other greenhouse gases have changed and it is the change which is important and which is causing the warming.

 

At least some evidence for increased radiation at longer wavelengths is in Golovko and Kondranin's paper "Anomalous Global Redistribution of the Earth Radiation Budget Components" (2004? - Couldn't find an accurate date or a link for it, I'm afraid, it's sitting among hundreds of other files in my "Politics\AGW" subdirectory. It should be findable from its name.

Time-series of global outgoing radiation fields have been reconstructed for the last 20 years using satellite observations from various space systems including some Russian systems. It was detected that during the past two decades global outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) increased (considerably energy, emitted from the tropics and certain region of the northern hemisphere). The reflected solar radiation decreased by a smaller amount.

(quote from the beginning of the abstract - the curious punctuation is theirs.) Fig. 3 in their paper shows the anomaly they found over 1985 - 2003; the longwave anomaly over that period increases from about -5% to +5%, the shortwave anomaly decreases from about +3% to -3%. So, the radiation at CO2 wavelengths (as you have noted) has decreased (about -6%); the radiation at longer wavelengths (as I have noted) has increased (about +10%). Q.e.d.

I can't find the paper, but an increase in radiation at longer wavelengths simply suggests that there is more energy in the system, which is what is predicted by AGW. It doesn't disprove anything

 

And actually, I'm entirely in agreement with this, re. the icecaps but could be said of the whole AGW scenario:

There's still 4 years to go, let's wait and see.

Yes, let's wait and see. No apocalypse -> no need to worry; apocalypse -> er, maybe we should. Too much of the AGW movement seems to be based on that word we keep coming across - forcing.

 

This brings me back to the central reason why I am posting here in the first place.

 

We can sit here and debate until the apocalypse comes (or not), but when it is upon us, it will be too late to do anything about it. whereas, if we act now, we can still limit the damage.

 

I think we have enough information to make the decision, more than enough. And we can't afford to wait any longer. We can't wait another 10 years for even more evidence, we've already wasted the last 20.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

[mod] Personal attacks removed - consider this mod edit a warning[/mod]

 

Currently for the 6 + billion of us on this planet , fossil fuels is the single thing that :

Keeps us all alive via an industrialised food industry .

Allows us to live with the best quality of life in living history

Food , Medicine , housing , heating energy , transport , travel , recreational pursuits , modern technology , education all these thing and many more came about and are still maintained because we use fossil fuels .

Now I do agree a change to renewables is a good thing and that change is already happening , what the climate is going to do in reaction to all this , well its just speculation , maybe it will get warmer or colder and maybe a few billion people will die of starvation in a hundred or so years time , but you should not be sitting awake all night worrying about such things , worrying about things which have not yet happened and remains to be seen if it will happen is mentally disturbed , even retarded gibbons dont worry about such things .

Now this utopian clean energy world you want yesterday , and I would like to see before I die , its not going to come overnight and this is the important thing A.T - its going to take another 30 , 40 , 50 years to put in place and its going to take the continual burning if fossil fuels to put all this infrastructure in place ! (this is realistic )

So get a grip man , you aint gonna change anything , "chill out man" , if you pardon the pun

[Carlos]

but you should not be sitting awake all night worrying about such things , worrying about things which have not yet happened and remains to be seen if it will happen is mentally disturbed , even retarded gibbons dont worry about such things

 

Hmmm... maybe this whole debate just comes down to different personality types

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_perception

[ArabiaTerra]

Currently for the 6 + billion of us on this planet , fossil fuels is the single thing that :

Keeps us all alive via an industrialised food industry .

Allows us to live with the best quality of life in living history

Food , Medicine , housing , heating energy , transport , travel , recreational pursuits , modern technology , education all these thing and many more came about and are still maintained because we use fossil fuels .

Agreed, and we won't be living without fossil fuels anytime soon. However, the one place where we can quickly eliminate fossil fuel use is in power generation. It is the easy target. It's also where the bulk of the coal, the most carbon intensive fossil fuel, burned in the world is used. Our first priority needs to be the elimination of coal burning for power generation.

Now I do agree a change to renewables is a good thing and that change is already happening

But it's not happening fast enough.

, what the climate is going to do in reaction to all this , well its just speculation

No, it's science, and the predictions are terrifying.

, maybe it will get warmer or colder and maybe a few billion people will die of starvation in a hundred or so years time , but you should not be sitting awake all night worrying about such things , worrying about things which have not yet happened and remains to be seen if it will happen is mentally disturbed , even retarded gibbons dont worry about such things .

I love the way you just casually write off the lives of billions of people: "It's all in the future, don't worry about it". What if it's your children?

Now this utopian clean energy world you want yesterday , and I would like to see before I die , its not going to come overnight and this is the important thing A.T - its going to take another 30 , 40 , 50 years to put in place and its going to take the continual burning if fossil fuels to put all this infrastructure in place ! (this is realistic )

So get a grip man , you aint gonna change anything , "chill out man" , if you pardon the pun

The thing is, the science is telling us that in order to avoid dangerous levels of change (>2 degrees C), CO2 emissions globally have to be falling by 2020 at least, 2015 preferably. They are still going up!

 

Climate change is not like a ticking bomb where we can wait 'til the last minute, then cut the wire, it's like a supertanker. To stop it we need to reverse the engines long before we can see the reef, and right now we are still accelerating.

 

Look at the windfarm, it's projected to take about 5 years to build so that's 2015 before it's fully operational, and that's if we started building it tomorrow. The way things are going it will be at least another 2 years before construction even starts (assuming the nimby's don't kill it entirely). All the offshore wind, wave and tidal schemes are years behind that. I doubt if we'll see anything significant on that front before 2020.

 

We've squandered the last twenty years arguing and prevaricating. Time's up.

[KOYAANISQATSI]

I apologise unreservedly for insinuating that you bought into Koy's NWO fantasies.

The point being that if you think the scientists are lying to you, then the logical conclusion to draw from that is a vast overwhelming conspiracy covering thousands of scientists from hundreds of different universities and research institutions in dozens of different countries, which is not just implausible, but actually ludicrous.

 

Now, now AT; that's just you resorting to the usual tactic of misdirection, false interpretation and a dash of outright lying about anything I've said.

It was never stated that all scientists are lying if they back AGW; no more than it was said that Stephen Hawkings is lying when he rattles on about the big bang and the properties of never seen black holes. He's just WRONG and so are you.

 

There are of course those who have quietly slipped the AGW drama into their usual neverending scheming towards total global control, in the same way they have used the likes of planting bombs in towers, economic collapses and whatever else they can.

There are monkeys and there are grinders.

By your logic It would be like me saying that you are in on the NWO plan.

This is, as you say; implausible and ludicrous.

You have been taught how to dance well for them though.

 

When beliefs that are normally regarded as the province of science become subject to an ideology that decides in advance what answers are required and censors the evidence in ways that steer beliefs toward them, then, regardless of what incidental use might be made of computers, satellites, and other kinds of advanced engineering and technology, what's going on isn't science. But most of the world has never learned to tell the difference – or maybe cared that much.

 

And that's serious in a society where scientists have come to occupy the position previously enjoyed by the high priesthood, of being revered as the source of true knowledge and providing the justifications for the policies that the governing authority pursues. The danger is that pronouncements made in the name of science will continue to be unquestioned and used as pretexts for controversial or oppressive rulings long after any grounds on a scientific basis have ceased to exist.

 

For anyone with stakes in the manmade disaster business, it had everything going for it: lurid images of polar meltdown, drowning cities, and dried-up farmland; a threat of global dimensions that demanded coordinated global action, and hence the institution of a global policing authority that had long been the dream of those who would abolish sovereign nation states; limitless opportunities for tax-funded "further research" and worthy political causes; and all the usual suspects to blame for opponents of industrial civilization and the Western way of life in general. Frustrated academics and intellectuals with cravings for recognition but nothing to offer that anyone would vote for at the ballot box or freely spend their money on in the market place could become voices behind the throne and make the world notice them. Even the villains of the piece had something to gain with the promise of enormous subsidies and tax incentives in return for diverting their efforts into environmentally friendly projects and "alternative" energy sources that had the one common attribute of being utterly incapable of supplying the needs of an advanced, technology-driven society, and likely to price energy – and hence just about everything else – beyond the means of most people in all but approved and rationed amounts.

 

In an age conditioned to accepting anything that comes out of a computer with uncritical awe and bedazzlement – Garbage In, Gospel Out – the next best thing to a infallible papal pronouncement on the veracity of the theory as an article of faith could be produced in the form of complex computer models with the appropriate assumptions and outcome built-in.

 

the perfect formula. A universal gravy train. The Great Social Equalizer – although some would remain more equal than others.

 

Over 34,000 scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing evidence that gases released through human activity pose any threat to the future.

 

Nevertheless, with eyes and minds fixated on political and ideological goals, and all faculties that might connect with reality apparently on hold, the coterie who would dictate the world's future met with the intent of agreeing an agenda that would send energy usage and living standards back to levels appropriate to the nineteenth century, while four inches of snow fell outside, and unprecedented early blizzards were blanketing Europe and setting records in the American Midwest. This at the end of a year that has seen China's coldest winter in 100 years, Baghdad having its first snow in recorded history, record levels of Antarctic sea ice, and record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile.

 

But such inconvenient truths as facts don't matter when you're pushing an ideology, either because it's what will bring big breaks your way or because you genuinely believe you're saving the planet.

 

Oh the weather outside is frightful, 

But the fire is so delightful,

And since we've no place to go,

Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

[crofter]

 

Oh the weather outside is frightful, 

But the fire is so delightful,

And since we've no place to go,

Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!

 

 

It's only weather, not climate you know!

[KOYAANISQATSI]

^http://i46.tinypic.com/24cxu1w.jpg

[crofter]

Why not ? It's still a 40% increase.

Yes, it is indeed. But 40% of not very much.

So what increase would concern you, then ? 100% ? 200% ?

 

Here is CO2 increase since 1960 with a y axis starting at zero:

 

http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/primer/CO2inPerspective.gif

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Yeah, so?

 

Your point is...?

[Guest Anonymous]

No, it's science, and the predictions are terrifying.

 

show us what predictions have panned out as "predicted"

all the computer models put forward by the scare mongers have failed to correctly predict current tempretures. but your excuse for that is this one is better than the last one, over and over again.

 

and that is true even when you disregard the data that does not fit with the predictions so then the data is manipulated to fit, and then you crow loudly "see i was right all along"

[ArabiaTerra]

No, it's science, and the predictions are terrifying.

 

show us what predictions have panned out as "predicted"

all the computer models put forward by the scare mongers have failed to correctly predict current tempretures. but your excuse for that is this one is better than the last one, over and over again.

 

and that is true even when you disregard the data that does not fit with the predictions so then the data is manipulated to fit, and then you crow loudly "see i was right all along"

Read and learn.

[crofter]

Read and learn.

 

Real climate is not an objective scientific site. Look back through this thread for the previous discussion.