Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

I see the failure of understanding the difference between weather and climate is coming around for the ninth time. But still a quick glance to see if anything has changed, Good lord last winter was the 33rd coldest on record in the US. Who would've believed it?

 

 

[knocker]

 

I see the failure to understand climate & weather are intrinsically linked is coming around for the ninth time

 

 

 Of course they are intrinsically linked which is why I posted the graph which is over a period of time. What you cannot do is link one years/seasons weather event with changing climate without some very substantial scientific reasons for so doing. I mean if you do that you might find that the very cold winter in Ohio was due to global warming. Streuth, heaven forbid.

 

I'm slightly concerned that you had to consult the Cambridge Dictionary.

Edited July 4, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Is drgl bringing up that old Dr. Viner quote/misquote again? Where he said, referring to the future generations, that children won't know what snow is? And then when snow happens, it will cause chaos?

 

Anyway, global warming = warming of the globe on average (which means most places will warm, some will stay the same, the odd place here or there may temporarily cool, but on average the planet warms.This then results in various other climate changes)

Regional cold weather = regional cold weather.

 

Anyway, the coldest winter months we've recorded for the CET aren't the absolute coldest possible in the current/recent climate. Given the right, albeit incredibly unlikely, conditions we could blitz most of our record cold months.

For example, the coldest January on record is -3.1C in 1795, yet the mean of the record low daily mean temps for January is -7.4C, and the absolute record low daily mean is -11.9C, for the 20th. This indicates that any day in January is capable of achieving a daily mean of below -10C, yet for some days, the record lows are less than -6C. So even in a warming world, there is still the potential the set new regional record low monthly temperatures, given the right set up. It's whole different matter when it comes to hemispheric and especially global record cold means, where global cooling is required, not just a redistribution of the warm and cold air masses.

 

[Gray-Wolf]

The troubling thing, BFTV, is that they can physically sit and watch images of the globe and see ( like the rest of us?) the way the atmosphere is running? They can watch the Arctic spill its guts over a continent, or a jet delivering warm airs into the Arctic, or even an endless stream of depressions form and head our way without any sign of a huge polar cold pool slowly growing south and encompassing ever more regions in cold....... so they surely already know that these 'cold outbreaks' are mere redistributions of the planets warm/cold.

 

They have access to 'global' mean temp records and can see the globe warming decade on decade ( without pause) so they already know that more places must be warmer or the same compared to those that are cold so why do they pounce on the 'exceptions' of cold temps? Are they trying to mislead themselves ( and others?) that the records are somehow wrong and that we do not face what the experts tell us is the most likely climate future that we face?

 

I'm sure in the past that you , like me, tried to show them the reality that we accept but I'm now mellowing into a personal belief that my early 'intuitive' observations, that they showed all the first signs of Bereavement ( Denial), were quite astute and that for a number of  folk in the man made thread appear quite true? Until those poor souls progress in their grieving they will never be open to accepting the reality?

 

Myself I'm a raging 'catastro-optimist' so am able to look at the dire forecasts knowing all along that we'll all be fine!

 

I honestly now think it best  ( for me at least) to just point out the reality of any inaccuracies that they may post ( which might accidentally mislead others) and leave it at that? The group who are, to me, appearing to suffer from stage 1 grieving would never accept anything that might have to link to anyway? in fact they would argue black was white and accuse me of all manner of dreadful things ( as you see with folk suffering in this stage of large emotional bereavements) rather than concede to the facts they are so desperately trying to avoid accepting?

 

Facts are facts and linking to the source means that other folk can use their own sceptical approach to any new findings/research/data and draw their own , personal, conclusions? 

Edited July 4, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-69#entry2997886

 

I'm surprised by your graph Keith. Surely a follow of the pseudonymous Mr 'Goddard' ought to plot UK temperatures in relation to maximum/minimum global ones in which case they are a flat line. Likewise surely you would plot emission on a scale of total planetary carbon in which case that to is a flat line.

 

Bingo, perfect correllation...

Edited July 5, 2014 by Devonian

[SW Saltire]

Hi everyone. Not posted in here before.

I do believe the climate is changing but I'm unsure as to the extent to which man kind is responsible.

Could anyone outline a few key reasons - in their opinion - that irrefutably prove we are the cause? A summary if you will

I'm open minded on this issue and it's hard to wade through te pages of claim and counter claim that cover the net.

Obviously skeptics can reply too.

Also, if we are the cause then isn't it rather depressing that despite our efforts, other countries such as China are producing far more pollution than ourselves and show little sign of stopping

Edited July 5, 2014 by SW Saltire

[Devonian]

Hi everyone. Not posted in here before.I do believe the climate is changing but I'm unsure as to the extent to which man kind is responsible.Could anyone outline a few key reasons - in their opinion - that irrefutably prove we are the cause? A summary if you will I'm open minded on this issue and it's hard to wade through te pages of claim and counter claim that cover the net. Obviously skeptics can reply too.Also, if we are the cause then isn't it rather depressing that despite our efforts, other countries such as China are producing far more pollution than ourselves and show little sign of stopping

Firstly, this forum runs two threads, one 'pro' one 'anti' so you should only expect pro replies in this thread. Skeptics are expected to reply in their thread - I don't make the rules...Anyway, there IS a greenhouse effect. That is known science. There ARE greenhouse gasses. We, humanity, ARE adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. The question is how great is the man made effect not its existence.Climate changes for a variety of reasons, or climate 'forcings'. The human caused forcing is growing but not yet dominant. As the human effect grows, then its effect will become more obvious.Don't expect or call for proof, this isnt maths. But, do accept evidence, data and science over bloggers, those anti science, those whose interests benefit from disputing the evidence and data.

[SW Saltire]

Firstly, this forum runs two threads, one 'pro' one 'anti' so you should only expect pro replies in this thread. Skeptics are expected to reply in their thread - I don't make the rules...Anyway, there IS a greenhouse effect. That is known science. There ARE greenhouse gasses. We, humanity, ARE adding greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. The question is how great is the man made effect not its existence.Climate changes for a variety of reasons, or climate 'forcings'. The human caused forcing is growing but not yet dominant. As the human effect grows, then its effect will become more obvious.Don't expect or call for proof, this isnt maths. But, do accept evidence, data and science over bloggers, those anti science, those whose interests benefit from disputing the evidence and data.

Thanks, I did wonder why there were two threads that basically mirror one another from the quick scrolling I saw.2nd paragraph - exactlyOk, yes true. 'Irrefutable' was perhaps too high a burden of proof to put on that then. However, for a science theory to be accepted it must be proved beyond all doubt, no?I suppose evolution is pushed and yet it has doubts cast over it. Same idea. Evolution did probably occur but it doesn't disprove god etc. we haven't observed a change of kind so it's not irrefutable (we don't see half man half ape people... Well depends which town you go to hahaIt's just if we had this technology at the start of the MWP then would we not be saying the same stuff? For hundreds of years we have said this warmth is here to stay etc. of course this would have been completely untrue. A bit like the m*dern winter theory championed by a particular person on/used to be on this very forum.It was proved to be false... However pre 2008 it seemed quite convincing or had momentum behind it shall we say.Why have temperatures not risen in the last (almost 18 years?)I'm just playing the devils advocate here as I'd like to see what people say. Like I say I'm not a 'non-believer' but before I start paying taxes going to wind farms and solar panels etc I want to be convinced that it's true 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's the burden of proof of a criminal court so that's seems fair as opposed to 'irrefutable'.Or at least 'on the balance of probabilities' - civil court.EDIT - regarding your last paragraph. Particularly the sentence "Don't expect or call for proof"...WHY NOT!?!Is that not the words of creationists (apart from the bible i suppose) believe because we say it's happening. Is that the complete polar opposite of the foundations of scientific theory?People prove things through experiments and this can be repeated and importantly seen thus it can be proved.How am I ever expected to accept something if I can't see, hear, touch or view evidence on the subject.Otherwise that would be blind faith... I'm sure people who believe passionately in GW don't think it's a blind faith Edited July 5, 2014 by SW Saltire

[Devonian]

Thanks, I did wonder why there were two threads that basically mirror one another from the quick scrolling I saw.2nd paragraph - exactlyOk, yes true. 'Irrefutable' was perhaps too high a burden of proof to put on that then. However, for a science theory to be accepted it must be proved beyond all doubt, no?I suppose evolution is pushed and yet it has doubts cast over it. Same idea. Evolution did probably occur but it doesn't disprove god etc. we haven't observed a change of kind so it's not irrefutable (we don't see half man half ape people... Well depends which town you go to hahaIt's just if we had this technology at the start of the MWP then would we not be saying the same stuff? For hundreds of years we have said this warmth is here to stay etc. of course this would have been completely untrue. A bit like the m*dern winter theory championed by a particular person on/used to be on this very forum.It was proved to be false... However pre 2008 it seemed quite convincing or had momentum behind it shall we say.Why have temperatures not risen in the last (almost 18 years?)I'm just playing the devils advocate here as I'd like to see what people say. Like I say I'm not a 'non-believer' but before I start paying taxes going to wind farms and solar panels etc I want to be convinced that it's true 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's the burden of proof of a criminal court so that's seems fair as opposed to 'irrefutable'.Or at least 'on the balance of probabilities' civil court.

I look at it another way. Why have temperatures not fallen for 18 years? If were having no effect why 18 years with high temperatures? Science doesn't prove thing beyond doubt, if it did how come not a single science has declared such a proof? No, science looks at the evidence and data and comes up with testable theories. So far, for many decades, well arguably a couple of centuries, our greenhouse effect theory works as does the implications of that - if you change greenhouse gas concentrations there will be climate effects. Finally, do you have another theory that better fits the evidence and data? Edited July 5, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

There are plenty of reasons for switching to renewable energy without even entering the global warming debate. Pollution, resource depletion and environmental impact being three..

Edited July 5, 2014 by knocker

[SW Saltire]

What do you mean by 'not a single science has declared such a proof'... Gravity has been proved, the boiling point of water has been proved. Electrons, neurons etc have been proved. The make up of chemical compounds, the composition of the earth etc have been proved.

Firstly, I don't actually need a theory to have a go at man made GW. I don't have to believe in the Big Bang and everything that goes with that to criticise Christianity...

Secondly, yes these gases that are emitted probably (there's that word again) have an effect. What that effect is there is no clear indication. An alternative theory is this warming is just part of the natural cycle of the planet, history has shown warmings and coolings... What makes this one any different? That's the point here. How do we know WE are the cause, where's the evidence to such a theory? There has to be evidence... It's just wether this evidence is true and has been accurate is the next question but anyway.

A lot of estimates have not come true and been gross exaggeration a and this has fueled scepticism regarding GW

[SW Saltire]

There are plenty of reasons for switching to renewable energy without even entering the global warming debate. Pollution, resource depletion and environmental impact being three..

Are the the first and third factors not linked quite heavily with GW? Surely they are. We could switch to fracking or we could spend lots on making nuclear safer but if we are the cause of GW then we should invest in renewables to stop emitting such a large carbon footprint.

[knocker]

Are the the first and third factors not linked quite heavily with GW? Surely they are.We could switch to fracking or we could spend lots on making nuclear safer but if we are the cause of GW then we should invest in renewables to stop emitting such a large carbon footprint.

 

They are linked only in the sense it involves fossil fuels. I'm just saying then even if global warming wasn't an issue it still makes sense to reduce the use of fossil fuels. A major switch to nuclear power is probably not a viable option given the finite availabilty of uranium. We no doubt will switch to fracking but regarding global warming it's not the greatest option due to the release of methane and of course it's still a fossil fuel.

[SW Saltire]

True, but renewables wouldn't take such pressing concern.

Why should we pay carbon tax on our cars if GW isn't man made then? I'm sure there is more. Thus, I'd like some kind of evidence or reasons why people subscribe to the notion that we are the cause. If so are we the sole cause etc

Just wondering how you have all arrived at this oarrt of the forum, you all must have reasons that are made of more substance than faith

[knocker]

If we accept that the carbon cycle plays a major role in regulating the temperature on earth now and in the past, It would be a darn sight colder if it didn't, then it follows if we interrupt the natural carbon cycle by adding huge amounts of carbon that had naturally  been buried for millions of years then basic physics tells us that this will impact the earth's temperature. The same thing would happen if the carbon originated from volcanoes. Variation in the past can be attributed to other causes as well as CO2, such as orbital changes, strength of the sun.

 

We have been doing this since the industrial revolution and coincidentally the temperature has been rising ever since. Of course natural variation also plays a role so CO₂ becomes the main driver. If as some argue, CO2  plays no part, then you have to ignore established science and also come up with an alternative explanation for the temperature rise that coincides with the IR. 

 

Regarding car tax why not. Apart from CO2 burning hydrocarbons also produces CO, NO2 and particulate matter. It requires catalytic converters to remove and they require not that abundant metals such as platinum, rhodium and palladium and this is where pollution enters the equation. Many thousands die each year because of it and many more have aggravated health problems.

 

A simple explanation of the greenhouse effect and global warming which I'm sure you are familiar with already.

 

EDIT

Wrote this in a hurry last night when nodding off. When I mentioned physics above I should have been more precise and said radiative physics. Radiation processes are a crucial part of setting the surface temperature and are especially important if you want to consider how adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere might influence surface temperatures.

 

To the question how can we be sure it isn't something else I should have elaborated a tad more. We can’t, but just because it could be something else, doesn’t invalidate our current understanding. The other issue with this argument is that if it is something else, and this something else is somehow significant, you’re counting on two unlikely outcomes. One is that something we haven’t thought of has a major influence on our global surface temperatures. The other is that our current understanding of the processes that we think do influence our surface temperatures is wrong. Anything is possible, but this seems rather unlikely.

 

 

http://www.columbia.edu/~vjd1/greenhouse.htm

Edited July 6, 2014 by knocker

[SW Saltire]

Thanks for that Knocker.

So the question is how great an effect we are having and thus raising temperatures above where they naturally would be.

Most estimates to date have been greatly exaggerated.

[knocker]

Well I think you can see some of the effects already.

 

Not sure how you know the current estimates have been exaggerated. True it's an area that has a fair bit of uncertainty but i believe the 2C-4C for the doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels to be reasonable. Studying transient climate sensitivity. is one of the key areas of research at the moment.

 

A short explanation of this.

 

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/how-much-will-earth-warm-if-carbon-dioxide-doubles-pre-industrial-levels

Edited July 6, 2014 by knocker

[Devonian]

Thanks for that Knocker.So the question is how great an effect we are having and thus raising temperatures above where they naturally would be. Most estimates to date have been greatly exaggerated.

I'm tempted to ask you to prove your assertion .....

[BornFromTheVoid]

Thanks for that Knocker.So the question is how great an effect we are having and thus raising temperatures above where they naturally would be.Most estimates to date have been greatly exaggerated.

There can be no doubt that we have an effect, even without CO2, we've drastically altered many ecosystems that effect climate, we've altered the surface albedo of the planet, we've put loads of particulate matter into the atmosphere altering clouds and atmospheric circulation.As far as most estimates being exaggerated, that isn't quite the case. The rate of warming over the last 15 years or so has been on the lower end of projections, but only for the surface air temperatures. This can be attributed to very unusual set of processes kicking in at once, such as starting off the period with a massive El Niño which caused a natural spike in global surface air temps, then we changed to record strong Pacific trade winds driving huge amounts of heat into the deep ocean, -ve PDO, increased aerosols from industrial and volcanic activity, the quietest solar cycle in over a century. These things should produce a sharp cooling trend, but instead we continue to slowly warm.But all these things trying to cool the planets surface are oscillatory in nature, so they will soon switch back to promoting warming instead. As it is, in recent months with just neutral ENSO conditions, we been challenging and beating several of the warmest months we've ever recorded, even while natural drivers are trying to cause cooling.

Edited July 6, 2014 by BornFromTheVoid

[keithlucky]

El Nino threat over pacific is cooling http://news.yahoo.com/peru-says-el-nino-threat-over-waters-cooling-232314417.html

[Crepuscular Ray]

Would Keith's post be better in the dedicated E.N.S.O. thread?

[Devonian]

Would Keith's post be better in the dedicated E.N.S.O. thread?

or in 'his' thread?

[Crepuscular Ray]

Oops. Didn't express that very well. What I meant was, "Keith", perhaps if you posted that link in the dedicated E.N.S.O. thread, you might provoke some interesting discussion."

[keithlucky]

or in 'his' thread?

Sorry D just replying to comment on El Nino

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi SWS!

 

Busy watching Le tour out of my window ( well all the S**T that comes through before!) so I'll keep it short?

 

As BFTV pointed out we have a plethora of 'natural' forcings that ought to be driving 'average global' temps down yet they stubbornly remain high with the past ten years being the warmest decade in our records. Instead of jumping all over the reduction in warming surely folk should be concerning themselves with why these 'naturals' are not impacting the kind of changes they ought than jumping all over the reduction in warming rates( the deniers/misleaders not you!).

 

To see 'warm records' being set over such a period is bonkers (IMHO) with the past two Nina's being the 'warmest' ever recorded across the globe and the Arctic sea ice in full retreat amid this 'global warming slowdown'? We've seen a doubling in Greenland mass loss over this period and massive increases in Antarctic mass loss? We have seen 'heat' temp records massively outnumber 'cold' records and again it occurring when we are told temps are 'flat-lining'???

 

If we accept that 'naturals' are still overpowering any AGW signal then what will the flip side of this suite of 'natural drivers' bring? We have many areas that are suffering badly at the moment so how will the resumption in Augmented Warming treat these areas and will this cause impacts in themselves ( Arctic albedo flip, mass loss from ice sheets , Amazonian droughts, monsoon issues, drought issues etc)?

 

It would be nice if we had the 60yrs to wait ( well 30 now) to see how both faces of the naturals impact our growing GHG forcing ( CO" has still remained above 400ppm even though our northern hem 'greening' should have dropped it back into the high 390's so what is going on there? are sinks having issues???) but I honestly think that it will be too late by the time we are at the end of the next period of 'Naturally augmented' warming and questions , such as your own, will be mute as the impacts will be so obvious and above anything 'natural' that we have records of???