Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[4wd]

The science is largely settled, in so far as we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas and its increase has contributed to at least most of the warming since the mid 20th century.

 

We know it's a greenhouse gas but there's no way to be certain the increased levels are responsible for 'most' of the 20th Century warming.Also we don't know how much response there will be beyond a certain point.It's known to be a logarithmic effect so doubling might have far less effect than a 10% increase we already had.Looking at the increasingly obvious lack of warming this century it may well be that little further warming will occur.If the 1C or whatever rise of the last 100 years is 'mostly' caused by CO2 and the total effect of doubling is below 2C then more than half the warming has already happened - an un-alarming prospect.

[BornFromTheVoid]

We know it's a greenhouse gas but there's no way to be certain the increased levels are responsible for 'most' of the 20th Century warming.Also we don't know how much response there will be beyond a certain point.It's known to be a logarithmic effect so doubling might have far less effect than a 10% increase we already had.Looking at the increasingly obvious lack of warming this century it may well be that little further warming will occur.If the 1C or whatever rise of the last 100 years is 'mostly' caused by CO2 and the total effect of doubling is below 2C then more than half the warming has already happened - an un-alarming prospect.

 

Evidenced based science can give us the ability to attribute the recent warming to CO2 with a high degree of confidence though.

 

Most things in the climate system is reliant on feedbacks, not just greenhouse gasses. So those claiming a rapid decrease in global temps due to solar conditions is just around the corner, should come under the same "sceptic" scrutiny as those claiming rapid warming from CO2.

 

The increasingly obvious lack of surface air temperature warming is over a short, Nina dominated time period. 2C is on the lower end of climate sensitivity levels, though it is possible. While a 2C increase may not be cause for concern for yourself 4wd, it would be alarming for many millions, if not billions of people.

[4wd]

Why would a further (less than) 1C be particularly alarming bearing in mind it would be incremental over decades.The main effect of all the scary warming so far seems to have been to make it colder. 

[Methuselah]

Why would a further (less than) 1C be particularly alarming bearing in mind it would be incremental over decades.The main effect of all the scary warming so far seems to have been to make it colder. 

Since 2010?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Why would a further (less than) 1C be particularly alarming bearing in mind it would be incremental over decades.

The main effect of all the scary warming so far seems to have been to make it colder.

 

Because 1C rise doesn't mean slightly milder weather globally. It mean, among other things,

[*]increased sea level rise,

[*]greater storm surge damage

[*]alteration to weather patterns (not good for agriculture)

[*]loss of summer Arctic sea ice

[*]massive reduction in global glacier cover (important for fresh water supplies to many millions)

[*]thawing of permafrost and subsequent displacement of many Arctic communities

And that's all if things turn out better than expected. Lets not forget the ocean acidification problems that come with continually forcing the ocean to absorb our CO2 emissions.

Edited May 23, 2013 by pottyprof

[keithlucky]

Arctic sea ice highest level for a decade ,so there cannot be any correlation in Sea ice area and Co2 .

 

Edited May 24, 2013 by keithlucky

[UV-RAY]

Arctic sea ice highest level for a decade ,so there cannot be any correlation in Sea ice area and Co2 .

 

Intriguing graph but I think its wise to wait until the end of the melt season. Lets hope this continues, though some may find a reversal quite upsetting, Lol.

[VillagePlank]

Hmm, Keith. I think you need to find out what the 'normal' range is before allocating cause to CO₂ or otherwise.

 

Here's my quick 'having a coffee' attempt,

 

 

Not at all definitive. This shows the 'normal' behaviour of sea ice extent over the last decade, and, this year is well within the range. Certainly not imminent doom, but neither a debunking of AGW. Nothing here indicates recovery or imminent failure since this year is well within the 'normal' bounds; indeed for a large part of it, it appears to follow the median!

 

Interesting that the biggest variation is at the end of the melt season. Plenty of blogosphere ammo, there ...

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sparkicle

[keithlucky]

Hmm, Keith. I think you need to find out what the 'normal' range is before allocating cause to CO₂ or otherwise.

 

Here's my quick 'having a coffee' attempt,

 

sie.png

 

Not at all definitive. This shows the 'normal' behaviour of sea ice extent over the last decade, and, this year is well within the range. Certainly not imminent doom, but neither a debunking of AGW. Nothing here indicates recovery or imminent failure since this year is well within the 'normal' bounds.

You missing the point with Co2 at so called record levels we should be seeing much lower Arctic ice but atm we are not(touch wood lol}

[VillagePlank]

You missing the point with Co2 at so called record levels we should be seeing much lower Arctic ice but atm we are not(touch wood lol}

 

Why should we be seeing much lower Arctic ice? As far as I can tell, Arctic Sea-Ice Extent is a poor proxy for global temperature.

 

AGW's signal is exhibited as an underlying trend not as a spot point on a timeseries. This is why you need to have 'normal' bounds - well, as close as you can, so you can try to see what is natural variation, and what isn't. You can't just point to a few days and then claim it's all over - well, you can, but once it drops below that median line (about 50% of the time, it will), you'll have egg on your face. However, I would raise my left eyebrow, if the red line in my graph started to edge above the top 'normal' line .... 

 

I agree that it's interesting that the rate of change of temperature has slowed down almost to a stop whilst we continue to pump out CO₂.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

You missing the point with Co2 at so called record levels we should be seeing much lower Arctic ice but atm we are not(touch wood lol}

With ice mass, perhaps; but, with extent, almost certainly not; kJ/km² wouldn't quite work...

[keithlucky]

Yet another die hard global  warmist admits GW is at a standstill for the last 12 yrs http://www.thegwpf.org/lord-stern-finally-admits-global-warming-standstill-real/

Edited May 27, 2013 by keithlucky

[knocker]

Yet another die hard global  warmist admits GW is at a standstill for the last 12 yrs http://www.thegwpf.org/lord-stern-finally-admits-global-warming-standstill-real/

 

But of course he also said. And of course Lord Stern is not a 'warmist'. I wish that bloody word could be eradicated. It has absolutely no meaning.

 

He said it was an “illusion†to claim that the short term flat line in global warming means that global warming is no longer a threat.

 

Edited May 27, 2013 by knocker

[keithlucky]

But of course he also said. And of course Lord Stern is not a 'warmist'. I wish that bloody word could be eradicated. It has absolutely no meaning.

Please read the stern report 2006 stern report on GW.

[VillagePlank]

Hmmm. Stern.

 

An economist; since when have they got anything right? He was wrong about the magnitude of climate change (5-6 degrees a 'real possibility' is now pretty much laughed at) he as wrong about mitigating the cost (2% GDP, annually) and he is probably wrong about the reasons for the great-global-warming-slowdown (being that it is far more likely, in my view, that natural cycles have a bigger impact than what was previously thought - particularly non-solar insolation solar factors - and he is not saying that, he is effectively implying this is just a blip, and the cycle will cycle the other way within 10 years - so where's the evidence for a 20 year natural cycle for climate?)

 

In summary. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and just in case you missed it, wrong again. Economists and climate science do not mix.

 

I think that something far more interesting is going on.

Edited May 28, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Jax]

I think the problem is we (as a whole) do not fully know or understand the mechanics of how our polar regions work, and more so how climate and they [the regions] interoperate, where we expect fall we are seeing rise/stability etc, think the bigger problem with the polar regions (as has been pointed to by other posters) is what real change does ice cause?

 

In that I mean, thickness not just cover, age? as in more new first year ice than older ice that lasts more than one year.

 

I did have link to the data somewhere that included estimates on "locked" CO2 within polar ice and permafrost, damned if I can find it now.

[Southern Storm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22656239

Here is a news article about plant matter sprouting back to life after god knows how long, buried under great swathes of ice!

so its fair to say that there was a lot less ice many years ago, how much less is anyone's guess.

very interesting if you ask me!

Edited May 28, 2013 by thunderman24

[keithlucky]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22656239

 

Here is a news article about plant matter sprouting back to life after god knows how long, buried under great swathes of ice!

 

so its fair to say that the there was a lot less ice many years ago, how much less is anyone's guess.

very interesting if you ask me! 

Anybody who thinks that lower than average Arctic sea and land ice is a exceptional,The headline read, Is the "North Pole turning to water" here is a  extract The royal society reports from 1817 It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.

(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations."

President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

[Methuselah]

Please try and remember that this thread is meant for sceptical posters, guys...

[keithlucky]

Please try and remember that this thread is meant for sceptical posters, guys...

I had a word please delete thie posts all none sceptical posts i have been warned so should they LOL.

[Southern Storm]

Anybody who thinks that lower than average Arctic sea and land ice is a exceptional,The headline read, Is the "North Pole turning to water" here is a extract The royal society reports from 1817 It will without doubt have come to your Lordship's knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated.(This) affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations." President of the Royal Society, London, to the Admiralty, 20th November, 1817 [13]

I know Gw's post has been removed, but I find funny that we have been told many times by some members from the other side of the debate, thatthe little ice age was local to western Europe, now that a glacier has retreated in Canada, and allowed us to see something green coming out of the ground, all of a sudden we're told that Canada was affected also! make your minds up! Edited May 28, 2013 by thunderman24

[keithlucky]

Support for GW is waning in the Governments around the World. http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2933188663&e=f4e33fdd1e

 

Edited May 29, 2013 by keithlucky

[Methuselah]

Support for GW is waning in the Governments around the World. http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2933188663&e=f4e33fdd1e

True Keith...But is that genuine scientific scepticism, or is it simply political expediency? The former, I take seriously; the latter is merely same old, same old - politicos looking after #1...

[keithlucky]

True Keith...But is that genuine scientific scepticism, or is it simply political expediency? The former, I take seriously; the latter is merely same old, same old - politicos looking after #1...

The funny thing is Tim Yeo was on the board of the makers of Wind Turbines so it"s has to be a change of beliefs unless of course he has bought shares in a oil company

[knocker]

Perhaps there are some fracking licenses on the horizon.