Global warming update!

Interesting question Mike but how can anyone disagree with “all the scientists” when they continue to disagree among themselves?

Zokes, as an aside it was interesting that you have drawn on the Ganges river basin and the concept of MDCs helping LDCs leapfrog certain aspects of the development phase. I would argue that the evidence on this is mixed at best. I have just been supervising GCSE geography revision (sadly a dangerous place to reject force fed ideas about GW!) and sustainable farming systems including subsistence rice farming along the Ganges. So nature (edit and other factors) provides a sustainable farming system, albeit only a subsistence one. MDCs try to impose the “Green revolution” and high yield variants across much of the LDC world. Fortunately lessons were learned about the failures here in the rest of Asia and the Ganges area has rejected many of these so-called advances and maintained a more sustainable farming system. And geography students get to learn all about “appropriate technology” (2 marks) !!

Interesting question Mike but how can anyone disagree with “all the scientists” when they continue to disagree among themselves?

I think it’s fair to say that there’s an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists that the average global temperature is rising and that the causes of this are man-made. There may be some scientists who disagree, but they’re in the minority. On specifics, the climate scientists might disagree but not on the overall picture.

The latest Met Office release indicates that cooling natural forces are countering warming man made ones

So since the Met Office didn’t understand these natural forces which have buggered up their forecasts could it be other natural warming forces which accounted for some of the warming in the 1980s and 1990s. After all the temp rise in the first half of the twentieth century was greater than the temp rise in the second half despite manmade CO2 emissions being far less.

Likewise the temps didn’t rise over 40 years from 1940 – 1980 despite rising CO2 emissions.

While man’s CO2 will affect the climate perhaps the models are wrong in the amount of forcing they attribute to it compared to natural variations.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

teamhurtmore

the “disagreements” amongst scientists tend not to be about the fundamental big picture stuff, but tweaks at the edges….often these “disagreements” are nothing more than revisions by one group of anothers figures in the result of more evidence, datasets, research etc. It’s quite wring to categorise this sort of stuff as disagreements…there’s good examples of this process going on now with ice sheet melting rates and sea level rise. The state of knowledge of ice sheet dynamics when the last IPCC report was done was very limited, everyone knew that, so the assumptions they made about it and the subsequent resultant sea level rise over the coming 100 years was cautious and couched with terms like “low confidence”. In the interveneing 4 years loads of different groups have been studying intensively some quite different aspects of Ice sheet dynamics, that waork is now finding itself into tightly coupled air/ocean/cryosphere models, and numbers for sea level rise are now being generated which look a bit different to the numbers in the IPCC report from 2007, and confidence about their validity is aslos becoming quite a bit higher

Is this a “disagreement”…on one level yes, but the people who did the assessments from pre 2007 will quite happily accept the more current work, but their origial papers are still out there, and will no doubt be misquoted by the usual crowd in an attempt to generate confusion, or mislead the great and the good into thinking the latest work is controversial and untrustworthy

It’s frankly a bit of a shocker to see someone who is a geography teacher who thinks the evidence is mixed, I’d suggest you just haven’t understood the science and you should rewind back to first principles a bit.

People who tend to study it for a living tend to disagree with you.

Zokes, as an aside it was interesting that you have drawn on the Ganges river basin and the concept of MDCs helping LDCs leapfrog certain aspects of the development phase. I would argue that the evidence on this is mixed at best. I have just been supervising GCSE geography revision (sadly a dangerous place to reject force fed ideas about GW!) and sustainable farming systems including subsistence rice farming along the Ganges. So nature (edit and other factors) provides a sustainable farming system, albeit only a subsistence one. MDCs try to impose the “Green revolution” and high yield variants across much of the LDC world. Fortunately lessons were learned about the failures here in the rest of Asia and the Ganges area has rejected many of these so-called advances and maintained a more sustainable farming system. And geography students get to learn all about “appropriate technology” (2 marks) !!

Given that I work in something called the Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, you’re preaching to the converted here! What I was mainly talking about was LDCs skipping the profusely burning oil and coal part of development. One things for sure: we don’t need to grow more food, we just need to do much better at managing what food we do grow. I think gwaelod covered the rest

I would agree that there are significant attempts to generate confusion and mightily relieved to note that confidence is “quite a bit higher”. Perhaps in time that will be high in absolute terms rather than relative!

No need worry about the teaching bit – I was merely supervising 😉 Have no fear the candidates know what is best for them, and they will regurgitate the force fed ideas. In much the same way I was forced to do as a geography student albeit in those days we had to describe global cooling rather than warming.

Zokes – yes, my comments were an aside. It was the posting of the Ganges map that was just a co-incidence with what I was doing. That must be very interesting work. In the past I was involved (largely indirectly) with the application of mobile telephony to the provision of banking services in Africa. Happily that was a more positive case study but not without it’s own hiccups!!!!

No need worry about the teaching bit – I was merely supervising Have no fear the candidates know what is best for them, and they will regurgitate the force fed ideas. In much the same way I was forced to do as a geography student albeit in those days we had to describe global cooling rather than warming.

Actually, I’ll revise my earlier statement to mike. It’s clear you are merely a denier, as opposed to a sceptic after all

No you were correct first time!

irc could you draw a line of best fit through your data and let me know what temperature was doing during the period you are discussing

Most data sets include land , air and sea temperature as well

Does Vostok Ice core data have any relevance today? It looks like a clear pattern over history even though this data is quite dated. I’m quite ignorant of the issue TBH so be gentle 😳

it relevant in the sense that it shows us [ whihc no one disputes] that temperature has changed over time [ the forcing effect is the sun generally [ see below] and this is then made worse by the rise in C02 levels.

When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth’s orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.

and the two graphs together

*Milankovitch cycles CLICKY

basically the earth orientates towards the sun as it “wobbles on it axis” and warms and cools over large periods of time due to this – we should be cooling now for example. No one disputes that natural climate change occurs the issue is whether the current change is natural or man made.

Good source of info and debunking of the myths about it from link below – it does “believe” in man made changes – plenty of poor science out there if you want a sceptics site but there is not one I could rate

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

JY – you are correct to highlight that website, which I have used before. Its a great of example of the excellent and the annoying. The very first section typifies the current debate. It starts with the categorical statement that “Climate reacts to whatever forces it to change at the time; humans are now the dominant forcing.” We then get a lot of very interesting analysis including the (widely accepted 😉 ) view that CO2 levels amplify temperature changes. Sadly, little specifics on just how much of this is man-made but, no fear, we reach the equally categorical conclusion that, ‘it tells us that climate is highly sensitive to the greenhouse warming we’re now causing.”

Enough said!

Sadly, little specifics on just how much of this is man-made

Its not really in debate though as to how much is man made though is it. I mean really no on is debating whether we are producing C02 no one hence why its not listed as an argument.
Do you want some analysis of whether burning stored carbon releases C02 or something? Do you doubt this?
Nonetheless with a quick search you find this

Manmade CO2 emissions are much smaller than natural emissions. Consumption of vegetation by animals & microbes accounts for about 220 gigatonnes of CO2 per year. Respiration by vegetation emits around 220 gigatonnes. The ocean releases about 332 gigatonnes. In contrast, when you combine the effect of fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, human CO2 emissions are only around 29 gigatonnes per year. However, natural CO2 emissions (from the ocean and vegetation) are balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Land plants absorb about 450 gigatonnes of CO2 per year and the ocean absorbs about 338 gigatonnes. This keeps atmospheric CO2 levels in rough balance. Human CO2 emissions upsets the natural balance.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions-intermediate.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-pollutant.htm
Red line is actual measure
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

This wouldn’t make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into the atmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-levels-airborne-fraction-increasing.htm

Fossil fuel emissions rose steadily in recent decades, contributing 8.7 ± 0.5 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. This is 41% greater than fossil fuel emissions in 1990. CO2 emissions from land use was estimated at 1.2 ± 0.4 gigatonnes of carbon in 2008. Note the proportionally higher uncertainty compared to fossil fuel emissions.

If you are still in doubt THIS LINKY gives actual measures, sources, references and rationale. like I said no one can possibly doubt that man is creating c02 its preposterous to suggest otherwise.
To summarise we are responsible for th increase the cycle can cope with the natural stuff and is absorbing about 45 % iirc of our emissions

In short all the C02 increase is down to us pretty much

Didn’t the Greenland Ice core data have readings as high as that of Mauna Loa before the timeline in the graph above? (a million graphs on this topic on the web, a bleeding nightmare to find out which ones are considered acceptable.)

I’m not skeptical as such just a bit ignorant of all the issues and would like to understand more, (sorry to waste the time of those that already understand.)
I will do a bit more research on some of the facts and figures quoted in the thread.
Interesting debate.

Didn’t the Greenland Ice core data have readings as high as that of Mauna Loa before the timeline in the graph above?

Sort of see the graph above with both temp and C02 [ it now at a higher level than for the last 450,000 years and above any level on that graph.
It is highly likely that it has been higher at some point in the earth history [4.54 billion years old] as we have times of volcanic eruption and presumably very high temps when the planet was just forming – temperature where we would not survive.

No one is saying that temperature and C02 levels would remain constant if mankind was extinct they would continue to naturally fluctuate.
The debate is about whether we are creating C)2 and whether this is causing any warming.
Its hardly difficult to work out that human activity is producing C02 – if there is debate [ its largely from non scientists of the right wing persuasion] it is about what this will do to temperature even though everyone accepts its a greenhouse gas. Very few now argue temperature is not rising though they used to.

One figure that amazed me when I was researching some stuff at uni was that until c.1955-1960, the biggest anthropogenic source of GHGs was from simply ploughing fields.

As has been alluded to, one of the main issues is threshold events and feedback loops such as loosing albedo from snow/glaciers, ocean acidification, methane release from submarine sediments (potentially cataclysmic if sudden), Antarctic terrestrial ice melting etc etc.

Add to that the fact that places like the Gangees delta, East Anglia etc will be rather Atlantis-like in <100 years and it’s not something that we can simply ignore really.

http://Www.chasingice.co.uk I went to see this last night. It’s touring round the uk at the moment.

Very beautiful photography and all the evidence you will need that climate change is happening and we have accelerated it at a pace never before seen to occur naturally.

One figure that amazed me when I was researching some stuff at uni was that until c.1955-1960, the biggest anthropogenic source of GHGs was from simply ploughing fields.

I doubt that, but you’re in the right industry…

Try methane from rice paddies

Surprised at the rabidness of the greenies – seems to stem from a heightened sense of self importance

The end is nigh, the end is nigh.
yes it is, global warming (if it is happening..) could bring that on quicker but equally something else could **** us up so try and enjoy it while it lasts eh?

Get on with enjoying your life, be sensible and relax a little and you’ll probably live longer.
I fear more for a future where militant Eco warriors dictate how many kids we can have or how often we can plow our rice paddies.

Obvious troll is terribly obvious

Not trolling these are my beliefs.

Excellent – please take a walk to the middle of Afghanistan and start writing some graffiti about prophets. Take a video camera too so it will give us all a giggle.

Zokes. I am a Muslim. People in my family have fought in the British army in Afghanistan.
If you feel strongly about something try and keep your comments on topic and not post as an attack another person.

Surprised at the rabidness of the greenies – seems to stem from a heightened sense of self importance

If you feel strongly about something try and keep your comments on topic and not post as an attack another person.

Ok if you are not a troll then you are not that bright

Any one know how long until fossil fuels run out?

Why are you surprised mega? STW is merely reflecting the real world. A little understood topic (nb, Met Office’s description of the current state of knowledge on natural cycles) combined with massively entrenched and polarised positions. Question any side at your peril!!!!!

Any one know how long until fossil fuels run out?

Even in human time scales, not long.

Actual time frame isn’t really know. Any figure given will be a guess, some educated, others less educated.

Still, not like we rely on fossil fuels for much.

allmountainventure – Member

Any one know how long until fossil fuels run out?

chuffing ages.

coal? – we’ve got loads of it.

gas? – we’ve got loads of it.

oil? – well, we’ve got something like 70ish* years of the kind of stuff that we buy from saudi arabia, but there’s a mind boggling amount when we include all the stuff that needs a bit more processing – tar sands, oil shale, etc. (see Alberta)

(*if you add up all the claimed reserves, and divide it by the annual consumption, then we’ve got almost exactly 100 years left, but it’s generally accepted that most countries are a bit optimistic when they’re asked how much they’ve got…)

exactly 100 years left

We have very different ideas of “chuffing ages”

but that’s just the easy stuff.

there’s much more than that when you look at oil/tar sand/shale, much much more.

many hundreds of years worth.

of all the important natural resources that we’ll run out of, fossil fuels are way down the list.

many hundreds of years worth.

Sorry, Im probably not coming across how I’d like.

By human time scales I’m talking millennia.

sorry, i’m probably being a bit flippant.

my point is that we cannot rely on the depletion of fossil fuels to curb our use in such a way to limit the impact of climate change.

There are going to be Energy Wars well before the natural hydrocarbon reserves actually “run out”. If we don’t pull our fingers out, and invest in a generation system that has sufficient power density (nuclear for example) to support our ever growning power consumption, it’s going to get messy!!

For example, when asked in a survey, “Would you like wind turbines or a Nuclear power station to be built” most people naturally answer “wind turbines”. But, that isn’t the real question, which should be “Would you like wind turbines and rolling blackouts in your power supply, or nuclear power generation and no blackouts”. I’d bet the answer would be very different…….

Of course, some things are really going to struggle without cheap abundant hydrocarbon fuels, for example, air transport. Battery electric plane anyone? (too heavy to fly, and only can taxi for 12miles before the battery is flat 😉

Speaking of which, any seen owt about the remake of Mad Max?

I reckon the Energy Wars started around twenty years ago.

Why are you surprised mega? STW is merely reflecting the real world.

What scientists saying one thing right wing polemicist denying it and presenting no evidence?

A little understood topic

What do you mean? It s a very well understood topic – what is your point ? You dont understand? See cancer example earlier- is this well understood or poorly understood? \our understanding cannot tell you which smoker will get cancer so we should reject it all ?

combined with massively entrenched and polarised positions. Question any side at your peril!!!!!

My position is not entrenched- i am scientist so it is evidence based if you want to alter my opinion simply present some data that refutes the current scientific consensus – will I have a long wait? or will i just need to endure more philosophical attacks without any data?

Its funny how global warming is the right wing [non scientist] conspiracy and really i did expect better of you THM

We dont always agree but i always had you down as a rationalist who followed the evidence

Indeed JY – rationalist who “tries” to follow the evidence and dislikes calling others who disagree “not very bright” 😉

A “little understood topic” – not my words, the words of Met Office. Happy to take their word for it, they are scientists after all 😉

Happy to take their word for it

When it suits you. 🙂

I know, confirmation bias DD. I’m uniquely affected by it. 😉

A “little understood topic” – not my words, the words of Met Office.

What did they say about whether there was man made global warming as I feel certain you want to maintain your halo of non bias.
Your evidence and data was once more absent 😕

I am genuinely surprised you are doing this

imagine TJ did this over say OBR revising the growth figures after they have more data- i feel sure you would be saying exactly the same things as you are here.

The same things can be said they go it wrong before,no one really understands, its poor modelling etc

Get on with enjoying your life, be sensible

Exactly. I would say not filling the air with pollutants would come under ‘sensible’.

Imagine if CO2 was a sicky green colour, smelled nasty but was otherwise harmless. I think we’d have found a way to sort it out pretty quickly.

What all of us do all day every day is the equivalent of throwing McDs wrappers out of the car window. That would get universally condemned on here and anywhere else. Just because we can’t see CO2 people go a little bit stupid.