Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Tamara]

Hi Tamara,

 

IMO, the chapter of the AR5 which deals with Attribution shows a considered, balanced approach to all the potential forcings. I'd like to claim that the conclusions are all unequivocal but this would be untrue - within the assessment there are considerable variables which matter. What is unequivocal, however, is that there is no alternative way of accounting for much the change in climate since 1850 than 'anthropogenic' contributions. 

 

The interesting questions should be about -  given that we are changing our planet in ways which result, collectively, in a warming climate - are there changes we can make, collectively, to the way we deal with forests, water resources, energy generation, which could help reduce the potential future impacts? What should we spend our present wealth on for future benefit? What responsibility should we be taking now, for effects that we will never see? Are we, irrespective of all good intentions, basically nope - still swearing**d?

 

These are interesting issues, and the best answers depend on the view we take on things like the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of the Global System, the relative regional and global impact of different mitigation strategies, but, for me, most importantly, whether we, in this generation and this life, are willing to take responsibility for the decisions we make (or fail to make) now.

 

I fully support the environmental proposals, but I support them for other urgent and pressing environmental reasons. I agree we are changing and negatively influencing 'our planet' (I don't like this catchphrase) but not as yet in the ways attributed artificially to climate.

 

Of course if AGW theory was to be real, then such proposals would also be a sensible attempted insurance policy against man negatively altering the climate - but there is difference between this and automatically being persuaded by the science theory of it at this time. At this time I remain sceptical and open minded about the whole science and don't share your sense of attunement regarding the IPCC reasoning and predictions

[Tamara]

What would you consider the fixed and assumptive opinions, over say, the evidence based ones?

There is a high emphasis on the theorised existence of artificial positive feedbacks.

 

Understanding the stand alone nature of CO2 and GHG's in terms of their warning effects is one thing and nothing new in climate history. But in the absence of associated amplification feedbacks, then such warming is not sustainable through natural cyclical variation.

 

So believing that there is an extended and perpetuating artificial positive feedback relationship is another thing altogether. Especially in terms of the assumed number of them. And also especially in terms of the understating of natural feedback systems which climate history has evidential proof of their existence.

 

At this time there is no real hard evidence that can translate to any degree of estimable verfication - there is a therorised idea that they might exist that translates into great uncertainty instead.

Edited October 31, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר

[Fergus Brown]

I fully support the environmental proposals, but I support them for other urgent and pressing environmental reasons. I agree we are changing and negatively influencing 'our planet' (I don't like this catchphrase) but not as yet in the ways attributed artificially to climate.

 

Of course if AGW theory was to be real, then such proposals would also be a sensible attempted insurance policy against man negatively altering the climate - but there is difference between this and automatically being persuaded by the science theory of it at this time. At this time I remain sceptical and open minded about the whole science and don't share your sense of attunement regarding the IPCC reasoning and predictions

I agree with you that there are powerful reasons to act on certain things, like deforestation, which are definitively negative. The double benefit of this kind of action is that it produces a positive outcome irrespective of the AGW debate, but also, in the event that AGW turns out to be true, also acts to mitigate on this, so it's a global win-win.

 

It's a bit trickier with ocean acidification. This looks pretty much sure to be the consequence of CO2 emissions. Given enough time, the oceans would probably rebalance, but that would be over hundreds of years or more. As things stand, we have to deal with the current reality and consider whether we want to reduce the amount of future acidification. Which would require emissions controls.

 

I promise you I am not automatically accepting the science theory of the time. I've spent eight years reading, researching and communicating on the subject. When I wanted third party verification, I asked 1800+ scientists what they thought of the AR4, and their answer collectively was pretty unequivocal. That helped to sway my view.

 

I wouldn't describe my attitude to the Attribution chapter as 'attunement' - I can see gaps, uncertainties and questions which still remain to be answered. But I do accept the processes and procedures which go towards providing a balanced (if somewhat conservative) assessment of what most research, most of the time, is telling us about our relationship with climate.

 

Which all goes to show that there are other reasons, besides AGW, for us to do important things which, regardless of AGW, are good things to do. The BIG question is whether these things could be enough, in the event that, for whatever reason, the planet did actually end up warming by 2c by the end of the century. Don't know...

 

[Fergus Brown]

There is a high emphasis on the theorised existence of artificial positive feedbacks.

 

Understanding the stand alone nature of CO2 and GHG's in terms of their warning effects is one thing and nothing new in climate history. But in the absence of associated amplification feedbacks, then such warming is not sustainable through natural cyclical variation.

 

So believing that there is an extended and perpetuating artificial positive feedback relationship is another thing altogether. Especially in terms of the assumed number of them. And also especially in terms of the understating of natural feedback systems which climate history has evidential proof of their existence.

 

At this time there is no real hard evidence that can translate to any degree of estimable verfication - there is a therorised idea that they might exist that translates into great uncertainty instead.

 

It sounds very much like what matters here then is the Equlibrium Climate Sensitivity (the net balance of all know positive and negative forcings, and their uncertainties, in the event of a doubling of CO2). You are right to point out that this is one of the key 'open topics' in the assessment of the impacts of AGW. There are a number of studies, and a broad range of agreement, but the resulting estimates (and they must, to date, be estimates) do vary quite widely. What I can not find is a credible study which estimates ECS as nothing, or negative.

 

But this is a really important thing to get to grips with. Personally, I find the attribution chapter of the AR5 helpful in letting me get to grips with the issues and uncertainties, based on the work of people who are specialists and know what they are doing.

[knocker]

Sea level in the 5th IPCC report

What is happening to sea levels? That was perhaps the most controversial issue in the 4th IPCC report of 2007. The new report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is out now, and here I will discuss what IPCC has to say about sea-level rise (as I did here after the 4th report).

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/10/sea-level-in-the-5th-ipcc-report/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

[Fergus Brown]

This is interesting:

 

http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/comparisonofsealevelprojections

[Devonian]

Agree, you can't post anything with or without evidence against AGW without it causing world war III. I think I now remember why I rarely posted in these threads prior, better to let them rule the roost as it makes no difference to whats actually happening at the surface.

 

There has been one highly unpleasant post recently (to which I have referred to more than enough...). Other than that there has been a pretty good discussion with people, of all views, posting what they think refutes others pov's. I fail to see the problem with that? WW3? I think not. I don't think the stuff of the 'manmade' thread is beyond question, nor do I think views we see in the 'sceptic' thread are. If we stop asking questions we'll end up in pre chipping flints times...

Edited October 31, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-36#entry2824015

 

'Relevant' to what exactly?

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-36#entry2824125

 

Oh dear. See what we're up against?

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-36#entry2824125

 

Oh dear. See what we're up against?

 

It's interesting research but nowhere does it say 'made made co2 is insignicant' - I'm sorry but that is spin. Indeed it seems to me that this paper isn't going, how could it?, to change the concentration of CO2 in the air, or the isotopic fractions therein - but maybe I should check to see if there has been a sudden change...

Edited October 31, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

I know.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

[Devonian]

I know.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

 

Yup, an excellent article, I've lost and found several times, which shows, by several independent lines of evidence how it must (and sadly there really is no question about it) be the case that we are responsible for the rise of atmospheric CO2 conc. Indeed, savvy sceptics know this and know there is no point in arguing against such reality. No, an aspiring sceptic should realise their best career move is to focus on magnitude of warming - we all know that is uncertain.

[knocker]

Well there is this.

 

Gobsmacked! Dumbest article of the day at WUWT

Where does Anthony Watts find his cranks**? I don't know who Neil Catto is but he wrote probably one of the silliest, and shortest, articles that WUWT has seen in - oh, maybe several hours!

 

 

Edited October 31, 2013 by knocker

[Fergus Brown]

Keith's baseline concept - that there is more CO2 in the global system budget than we put there, is a fact.

 

The conclusions from this fact are, however, open to challenge. What is relevant is not how much there is, but how much more there is - in other words, the systemic imbalance of the atmospheric CO2 budget. Which is what accounts for recent temperature changes.

 

Side note; the article estimates that a certain type of subsea volcanic activity, which might produce around 2.5 -5.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year, is not otherwise accounted for in the global budget of subsea volcanic activity (not atmospheric CO2). This compares to the estimated 29,000 million tonnes of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 to date.

 

What is the relation between the first and the second?

 

[Gray-Wolf]

Maybe they'll take a trend line from the PETM to show how we're cooling Knock's?

 

And what the hey was all that about looking at what contributed what to the historic carbon cycle??? Sure it is interesting in it's own right and brings us a better understanding of our planetary out-gassing but what does that have to do with our releasing of ancient carbon cycle remnants that are engorging our current carbon cycle???

 

There are times I lose sight of just how many of the folk refusing the current data are basically incapable of actually understanding it in the first place........ pretty sad really..... the fact that the misleaders actually play to the floor (as opposed to the gallery) makes their tactic somehow even more heinous to me? It's one thing having valid concerns and voicing them but to take on a stance and then mislead those less able to understand is truly corrupt (imho).It is very easy to forget just how broad a group are involved in this debate and that those of least ability will vastly over estimate their own capacity to 'understand'.

 

Ho Hum.....

[Fergus Brown]

This is not strictly about the topic of this thread - it's about the bigger picture (e.g, the sort of thing Tamara and I agree matters).

 

It's not very long and it is not about AGW: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

[knocker]

Yes I read this the other day FG. In fact I thought I'd posted it but obviously not. Interesting.read.

[BornFromTheVoid]

There is a high emphasis on the theorised existence of artificial positive feedbacks.

 

Understanding the stand alone nature of CO2 and GHG's in terms of their warning effects is one thing and nothing new in climate history. But in the absence of associated amplification feedbacks, then such warming is not sustainable through natural cyclical variation.

 

So believing that there is an extended and perpetuating artificial positive feedback relationship is another thing altogether. Especially in terms of the assumed number of them. And also especially in terms of the understating of natural feedback systems which climate history has evidential proof of their existence.

 

At this time there is no real hard evidence that can translate to any degree of estimable verfication - there is a therorised idea that they might exist that translates into great uncertainty instead.

 

Can you give some examples of theorised artificial feedbacks? I'm not sure I'm aware of any artificial feedbacks (they all seem quite natural to me) especially none that are just theorised and have no physical and evidential basis to them.

 

CO2 doesn't rise and fall in the paleoclimate record without corresponding ups and downs in the temperature and other records, so large scale feedbacks in association with CO2 changes and other causes of temperature variations are quite well established.

[Methuselah]

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/11/1167.full

 

Pinched this link from t'other thread as, of course, the natural baseline amount of atmospheric CO₂ originates from volcanic outgassing...itself a fact that anyone who's ever studied geology will readily attest to. What I can't reach from the article, however, is that anthropogenic carbon dioxide is 'insignificant'...

 

And, as for all those mysterious, always assumed to be +ive feedbacks - a comprehensive list showing why they are all assumed to be +ive would be quite handy...It's only fair that 'sceptics' should disclose their trump card? As John Major was so fond of saying: put up or shut up? 

[Gray-Wolf]

This is what i was saying above Pete. folk are playing with the inabilities of others to fully 'understand' the subject matter and then, once anyone makes them feel 'foolish' for not understanding that which everyone else understands,  their embarrassment transmutes into aggressive indignation and we end up with a spat ( again ).

 

Certain folk bemoan my apparent 'arrogance' and I have always denied any intention to appear such. I do , however, try and always keep it simple ( so as not to exclude/shame those who may have a lesser ability to grasp the subject). My own limitations leave me feeling safer using 'big brush strokes' as a way to appreciate the dangers our changes pose to our way of being ( and the rest of the planets inhabitants!) but it still means I am able to appreciate the problem as being that small portion of the carbon cycle that we have added into the 'natural' carbon cycle. As such it matters not how big the natural carbon cycle is/has been but how our additions to it will cause global temps to behave?

 

The 'natural' carbon cycle had atmospheric concentrations at 280ppm, we have allowed that to rise to 400ppm. Those are the measurements and that 'change' is the forcing we need unravel to understand how temps will finally respond .

Edited November 1, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

This seems to be a good review of volcanic CO₂ emissions.

 

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/downloads/start.cfm?id=432

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

This is not strictly about the topic of this thread - it's about the bigger picture (e.g, the sort of thing Tamara and I agree matters).

 

It's not very long and it is not about AGW: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

 

 

Yes I read this the other day FG. In fact I thought I'd posted it but obviously not. Interesting.read.

 

It's definitely worth reading, and is pretty much spot on in it's assertions. AGW or no AGW is not the real issue, uncontrolled corporate capitalism, (and the myth of perpetual growth), is the biggest threat to planet earth.

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's definitely worth reading, and is pretty much spot on in it's assertions. AGW or no AGW is not the real issue, uncontrolled corporate capitalism, (and the myth of perpetual growth), is the biggest threat to planet earth.

 

Whisht now, stop criticising capitalism or go move to North Korea you commie

[Tamara]

I agree with you that there are powerful reasons to act on certain things, like deforestation, which are definitively negative. The double benefit of this kind of action is that it produces a positive outcome irrespective of the AGW debate, but also, in the event that AGW turns out to be true, also acts to mitigate on this, so it's a global win-win.

 

It's a bit trickier with ocean acidification. This looks pretty much sure to be the consequence of CO2 emissions. Given enough time, the oceans would probably rebalance, but that would be over hundreds of years or more. As things stand, we have to deal with the current reality and consider whether we want to reduce the amount of future acidification. Which would require emissions controls.

 

I promise you I am not automatically accepting the science theory of the time. I've spent eight years reading, researching and communicating on the subject. When I wanted third party verification, I asked 1800+ scientists what they thought of the AR4, and their answer collectively was pretty unequivocal. That helped to sway my view.

 

I wouldn't describe my attitude to the Attribution chapter as 'attunement' - I can see gaps, uncertainties and questions which still remain to be answered. But I do accept the processes and procedures which go towards providing a balanced (if somewhat conservative) assessment of what most research, most of the time, is telling us about our relationship with climate.

 

Which all goes to show that there are other reasons, besides AGW, for us to do important things which, regardless of AGW, are good things to do. The BIG question is whether these things could be enough, in the event that, for whatever reason, the planet did actually end up warming by 2c by the end of the century. Don't know...

 

We may have different views about AGW, but I think that this is an excellent post and is a very good example to illustrate how it is possible to have different opinions, yet still appreciate what the other has to say, when it is worded like this. I find what you say interesting - and despite my own views about any future warming of the sort depicted by IPCC I agree with the general premise of your post and that a lot of the precautions are eminently sensible whatever outcome there is in terms of climate variability

[Tamara]

 

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/11/1167.full

 

 

And, as for all those mysterious, always assumed to be +ive feedbacks - a comprehensive list showing why they are all assumed to be +ive would be quite handy...It's only fair that 'sceptics' should disclose their trump card? As John Major was so fond of saying: put up or shut up? 

I think it is perfectly clear and non mysterious, ABNS, as to what I am referring to. It is essential for the proposed atmosphere feedbacks, that are suggested to exist in a relationship to, and amplify the warmth created by carbon emissions, to be realised to verify the predicted range of solutions for further warming over the coming century as proposed by the IPCC. Research is ongoing into these feedbacks - there is considerable uncertainty in relation to them and (in my opinion) until there is more clarity and certainty about them, one way or the other, then I will continue to adopt the stance that that there is some assumption attached to them in terms of their actual presence, and, assuming they are present, their numbers.

 

That doesn't mean I think that the premise of the science is dismissive. As I keep repeating, it is important to be open minded. I am however simply yet to be persuaded by it.

 

Cloud feedbacks, for example, are known to be a large area of focus and could have a large influence, one way or the other, in terms of AGW verification. And then there are the considerable uncertainties with regard to natural forcing variabilities and such uncertainty relating especially to negative solar forcing in decades to come

 

If Fergus can discuss matters of different opinion in an open friendly and non obtuse manner with a 'sceptic' like me, then I would suggest it is possible for others to do so in addition.  So such rhetoric that you use here is unecessary and there is no 'put up or shut up' required  Plus you seem to be keen to bring politically motivated edges of disapproval into a lot of topics - this is a thread discussion about the science behind theorised atmosphere feedbacks.

 

Trump card? Isn't this rather silly and playing into the 'them vs us' theme that proves so unhelpful in these threads. Its not a competition afterall for one side or other of opinion to win a prize.

 

*Edited to say non obtuse*! 

Edited November 1, 2013 by Tamara תָּמָר