Global Cooling

[weather eater]

The bottom line is that, just as a few hot years do not prove global warming is real, neither do a few cool years prove it is not. Models suggest that it is perfectly possible for a decade or two of cooling to occur even when there is a long-term warming trend.

And here is the nub of the question, because the whole thing can be flipped, are the models actually showing a decade or two of warming in a long term cooling trend. Maybe the models are right and it’s the interpretation that’s wrong, and its why the sceptics question the CO2 argument. I find its wise to be sceptical of both arguments.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Question: have we accumulated enough information to confidently state that a trend does or does not exist?

next: if a person is not satisfied with the information that is currently available or used, given its incredible quantity and variety, then said person is not going be satisifed with the addition of further data. It's not the input, it's the result which some people find unpalatable, so, in order to avoid the result, the easiest thing to do is deny the validity of the evidence.

we have several hundred years worth of measurements, and several hundred thousand years worth of proxy-based estimates. But it would make no difference if we had sizteen zillion signed affidavits by Saint Joan; if you want to deny scientific results, you will. This is not the same as refuting scientific hypotheses, or demonstrating errors in research work; these are rational and methodological practices. If you feel uncertain about GW, it should ideally be because you have a reason to doubt the science, not a need to run away from it.

P

The science of AGW hypothesis admits uncertanties. If the science is uncertain and based on hypothetical assumptions surrounding not fully compliant partially tested feedbacks - which it is, and a number of those feedbacks are not (to date) replicating 'outside the lab, then surely that is good reason to hold back judgement and to have to some doubts about the science?? Therefore surely there is full entitlement not to be fully satisfied, and to question which data is used. If the science is uncertain and incomplete then I would suggest it is quite logical to believe that further data (attained through further research and testing of ALL of these uncertain feedbacks) is required. In that important sense, dissatisfaction is fully justified is it not? Unless one is already fully sold on the hypothesis, in which case it is understandable that you can overlook the existing uncertainties and see the outcome as a given. But it is unreasonable to expect everyone to necessarily follow suit.

The doubts principally surround the sheer number of positive man made feedbacks that are being assumed. Key word again, assumed. That is a big ask to simply expect everyone to sign up to without question. There is a big danger that other feedbacks, including natural negative feedbacks (like solar as one example) are being underestimated in this process of admitted uncertainty. Surely it is wise to take those into account and not dismiss the possibility that they could be being underestimated? Could AGW proponents in that sense be in some kind of potential denial? To quite fairly and vaildly turn this 'accusation' (for want of a better word)completely around?

As for the majority of sceptical people - It has nothing whatsoever with 'denying' the vaildity of the evidence. Denial suggests closing one'e eyes to something that has been irrefutably found to be happening - and saying it isn't happening. However the evidence is far from complete, so I am not sure how one can fully deny something that hasn't been found to be wholly evident. Scientific results are just that. Results. It doesn't necessarily equate to truth. Especially when based on incomplete hypothesis.

AGW proponents have very high expectations in this regard and continue to get too far ahead of themselves and expect too much of others who are looking at a bigger picture. Cart before the horse, one of my old analogies comes to mind yet again.

Edited September 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Methuselah]

Aye, there are many assumed assumptions:

The assumed to be upcoming Solar minimum will, it is assumed, produce cooling; AGW predictions are assumed to be overestimated, underestimated or spot on; MetO LRFs are assumed to include AGW-bias; recent warming is assumed to be caused by either AGW or Natural Cycles; all +ive feedbacks are assumed to be being overestimated, whilst all -ives are assumed to be being underestimated; all AGW scientists are bent - and many many more that I can't be bothered with...

But, even being a natural-born sceptic, if I want medical advice I ask a doctor; a chemistry lesson, a chemist; grammatical advice, a linguist...I guess I could surf the Internet's lunatic-fringe for said advice? But, on the other hand, I might blow myself up with aromatherapy substances, due to not reading the labels properly...

I know it's an assumption, but genuine experts tend to know a lot more about their-own fields than I do...

[jethro]

These threads all seem to over-lap, makes it difficult to decide where to post this but as the conversation has been about uncertainties, thought I'd add it here.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0908/0908.4410v1.pdf

I've only very quickly scan read it, I've added it here as it's quite a good demonstration of the level of uncertainty about climate change in general and water vapour in particular. The AGW theory relies heavily upon the influence of extra CO2 being amplified by water vapour (positive feedback), this paper explores some of the uncertainties and the difficulty in modelling those changes with any degree of accuracy.

[weather eater]

Aye, there are many assumed assumptions:

The assumed to be upcoming Solar minimum will, it is assumed, produce cooling; AGW predictions are assumed to be overestimated, underestimated or spot on; MetO LRFs are assumed to include AGW-bias; recent warming is assumed to be caused by either AGW or Natural Cycles; all +ive feedbacks are assumed to be being overestimated, whilst all -ives are assumed to be being underestimated; all AGW scientists are bent - and many many more that I can't be bothered with...

But, even being a natural-born sceptic, if I want medical advice I ask a doctor; a chemistry lesson, a chemist; grammatical advice, a linguist...I guess I could surf the Internet's lunatic-fringe for said advice? But, on the other hand, I might blow myself up with aromatherapy substances, due to not reading the labels properly...

I know it's an assumption, but genuine experts tend to know a lot more about their-own fields than I do...

Given the amount of assumptions and the level of uncertainties about all aspects of climate change, be it AGW or natural forcings, it amazes me how many are so quick to assume the worse, or to assume that everything is benign and no need to worry. I have to say in life I've always tried to work too the theory of assume the worse, and hope for the better, then you're always prepared and sometimes pleasantly surprised. Better safe than sorry would be another way to put it, maybe rather too simplistic when dealing with climate change. One of the reasons for delaying action brought forward by the sceptic camp, is that we need more time and better models, I have a feeling that only models that show no AGW forcings will be accepted by many in the sceptic camp.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Given the amount of assumptions and the level of uncertainties about all aspects of climate change, be it AGW or natural forcings, it amazes me how many are so quick to assume the worse, or to assume that everything is benign and no need to worry. I have to say in life I've always tried to work too the theory of assume the worse, and hope for the better, then you're always prepared and sometimes pleasantly surprised. Better safe than sorry would be another way to put it, maybe rather too simplistic when dealing with climate change. One of the reasons for delaying action brought forward by the sceptic camp, is that we need more time and better models, I have a feeling that only models that show no AGW forcings will be accepted by many in the sceptic camp.

I don't know which sceptics you are referring to here, but from within my own position, (and how I would wish speak for the majority of sceptics) none of that is an accurate description. It is not about a model only showing any one set of forcings, natural or manmade for that matter, it is about not making assumptions about one set of forcings (man made) and using those alone to signal action. If, hypothetically, the science advocated purely action based on solar forcing for example, as vitallly important as I personally believe that area to be, it would still not be a sensible mandate for action without testing of all feedbacks and associated interactions.

I think we have been through and round this issue so many times before, and repeatedly attempts are made to clarify the true position, but it seems to no avail. Using the current time we have available to explore the uncertainties regarding ALL feedbacks and cautioning about the very real risks of making assumptions about the number of positive man made feedbacks that AGW hypothesis alludes to, is in no way, shape or form a signal for advocating inaction. If there are uncertainties, as I think everyone at least agrees, then action in the form of better understanding the uncertainties and assumptions in ALL feedbacks is surely a much more sensible form of action towards the truth, rather than advocating action purely on the strength of a hypothesis about one area of forcings that works on advocating such action based on those assumptions that surround the uncertain and unfinished science theory that underpins AGW and what the IPCC et al depend upon.

What say we get to a few decades time and we find that the assumed positive feedbacks have been overstated and we have acted to save ourselves from 'the assumed 'worst' that AGW predicts but it hasn't arrived as expected and we are presented with other problems instead and not time to deal with them because we thought we knew best at this time? What time might there be left then to go back and re-look at the uncertainties and potential holes in the science that exist now? The AGW crusade may have left very little time to look at another and unforessen problem(s) which has been overlooked due to the defeaning cries for acting on what we already (assume) to know. How can we reach a consensus and mandate for action now when the science that underpins it is incomplete? The worst case scenario that is being built on to justify action depends on the information and data that is being supplied to predict that worse case scenario. If that information and data is built around assumptive hypothetical science then what are the chances that the future scenario being predicted could be wide of the mark. It might mean there is nothing to worry about in such a situation, but on the other hand it might also mean that we have fresh problems to deal with and the bogeyman involved is not AGW afterall.

Ok, people are going to turn that around (as always) the other way and say that the assumed worst is still too much a risk to ignore, but if that 'worst' is based on uncertainty, who is to say that, due to said uncertainty, a wholly different kind of 'worst' presents itself in those decades time that has been been ignored on the basis of a juggernaut at all costs AGW programme that is not wholly tested and remains an incomplete and uncertain hypothesis?

Who will be suggesting 'act now' then?

Edited September 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[edveasey]

Hi

Whilst I agree with you that there are levels of uncertainty, models take this uncertainty into account running thousands of times using different sets of figures within levels of uncertainty each time. What is then published is a high estimate, low estimate and and a mean (The media never run a story telling us the mean or the low estimates of climate change over the next century hence all we get shoved down our throats is the extremely high figures) but even if we were to take the average and lower estimates the estimated effects of global warming are still going to be devastating for many people in the world.

[weather eater]

I did not mean you Tamara, I've always got time for your posts, even if I don't always agree with them. I would say that history is littered with disastrous consequences because of in-action when things looked uncertain.

Edited September 22, 2009 by weather eater

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I did not mean you Tamara, I've always got time for your posts, even if I don't always agree with them. I would say that history is littered with disastrous consequences because of in-action when things looked uncertain.

I should have qualified my post much better to make it clear that although I was replying to you, I was not intending to voice any frustration straight at you. I saw the post and what it said but I should have phrased it in such a way that it did not sound like it was directed personally back at you. It was a generalisation, in terms of what you said, but not a personal reposte.

As people know, I don't like that sort of thing when it happens to me - so I am especially sorry for allowing it to happen to you

Edited September 22, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[La Bise]

Very good post by NSSC. I'll ask the following question, what steps that are being taken now to reduce our contribution to climate change would cause problems further down the line?

Most of the measures bring their own benefit, reducing pollution, more recycling, less rampant consumerism, more nature conservation. Even if AGW turns out to be nothing but hot air in a few decades, we and our progeny will benefit from it. If some unknown/misunderstood natural force is forcing the changes then the challenge will be different but in the meantime, the best bet is to assume AGW is real and try our best to reduce its effects. Not doing anything is a very stupid option.