Global warming update!

I’ve not bothered reading any of the above but suggest that global warming must be a good thing. The melting polar caps release more water to turn to rain. So more for the increasing population to drink, as long as they move to the right areas.

you want to alter my opinion simply present some data that refutes the current scientific consensus

Well, the key problem is that the observed data does refuse to fit the current scientific consensus, and the IPCC modelled predictions have had to be repeatedly revised downwards.

Trenberth to Mann Email:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming : but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Notice that – the data is/are (a whole other argument) wrong – which flies against one of the key principles of science, that when scientific data fails to support a theory, then one may have to rethink the theory!

the key problem is that the observed data does refuse to fit the current scientific consensus*

well if a quote from the climategate hack does not disprove then I dont know what does.
Even you accept its only may so not the strongest point you will ever make
* is it really your view that data does not match the view of all the scientists and they have all just made a big mistake – should be a piece of piss to prove that.

My bold

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[15] However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests.[16] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations

* that is just not true

maxtorque – Member
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!!

so where are you getting the uranium from in this plan of yours to avoid energy wars?

So are we talking thousands of years of fossil fuels or hundreds?

Molgrips has a point. I’ve just lit my wood burner so it’s stinking out the street and filling the air with fine particles that are very unhealthy, but it’s carbon neutral.

are we talking thousands of years of fossil fuels or hundreds?

Hundreds with ever harder ways of getting to it – Arctic oil or fracking gas for example

Hundreds with ever harder ways of getting to it – Arctic oil or fracking gas for example

I think the more worrying figure is it takes an estimated 3 million years for the earth to form 1 years worth of fossil fuels at current consumption levels.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html

Nice link but the deniers do like to use the record high year id el nino in 98 as the start point [ though iirc we had 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record in the intervening period!]

rather than

then then moan about cherry picking data

The issue for fossile fuels is likely to become economic before it becomes actually scarce. (In someways it already is).

For example, battery electric cars are currently un-economic compared to conventional cars, but if fuel prices doubled, which they easily could (harder to find, extract, refine poor quality crude supplies, and more people wanting it (commercial pressures), then those uneconomic batteries suddenly become viable!

Ignoring the climate change arguments, moving to a more renewable or a higher energy density system is only a good thing in the long run. Funnily enough, the very thing that has made certain Gulf states rich on oil money, could also make them rich on renewables (lots of sunlight = lots of photosynthesis = lots of plant matter = lots of oil, But now, lots of sunlight = >solar energy generation (via various methods))

Nice link but the deniers do like to use the record high year id el nino in 98 as the start point [ though iirc we had 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record in the intervening period!]

What you can’t get away from, is that the recognised and accepted modelled predictions laid forth by the experts in the field were for a continued increase throughout this period and this has not only spectacularly not happened, but the models have been revised downwards to reflect this.

Which means that the predictions and modelling that we have been told were reliable, consensus, and based on the best science available were fundamentally wrong.

so Junky, if the predictions were wrong two years ago, have been continually wrong in their predictions for the past sixteen years, then why on earth do you feel that they can be relied upon now?

I like your use of “spectacularly” and “fundamentally”. Lends you more credibility, so it does. Keep it up!

So, you’re actually disagreeing, or saying I’m wrong? or just relying on passive-aggressive faint praise to try and dismiss an argument which is factually correct?

Can you show anything to support your claim that the models are inaccurate then?

Let’s forget adverbs. Everybody knows they’re the tool of the lazy writer. So let’s see your best graphs then.

Red line is the model, blue line is the actual:

is that the recognised and accepted modelled predictions laid forth by the experts in the field were for a continued increase throughout this period and this has not only spectacularly not happened, but the models have been revised downwards to reflect this.

there are graphs and everything to show you the trend [ i know how much you like them] – You quoted me saying 8 out of 10 of the hottest years since records began. Also the earlier link debunking this claim and removing weather – el nino high for example from the graphs shows it is still an upward trend and a revision downward is still an increase hence your “wise” choice of words- suggesting a drop would be the spectacular claim you make but it is not what has happened .

Which means that the predictions and modelling that we have been told were reliable, consensus, and based on the best science available were fundamentally wrong.

What is this Hyprebole day at Zulu mansions?
By fundamently wrong you mean not 100% accurate. I gave you the model of smoking whereby they cannot tell me how many smokers would die if there was an increase in smoking nor which ones would die. I dont class that model as fundamentally wrong it is just incomplete like any complex model. As long as the broad prediction of increase is accurate we would hold the model to be sound and the theory sound – we would not reject it because it was say 15 % out on how many cancer sufferers we get what we would do is remodel it whilst still maintain that smoking caused cancer- well i would who knows what you would do.
Its nothing like you describe and saying fundamentally wrong is fundamentally wrong 🙄

so Junky, if the predictions were wrong two years ago, have been continually wrong in their predictions for the past sixteen years, then why on earth do you feel that they can be relied upon now?

Your description of this is at best spin and at worst lies.
However rely on them or rely on you …its a tough choice I will get back to you on that on

dismiss an argument which is factually correct?

its just possible you believe that but I doubt it. i dont think anything you have said [ possibly ever on here 😉 ] is factually accurate

Notice that – the data is/are (a whole other argument) wrong – which flies against one of the key principles of science, that when scientific data fails to support a theory, then one may have to rethink the theory!

The worrying thing is that you clearly have no idea how science works. It is equally possible that measurements are not accurate enough – especially when it comes to measuring fractions of a degree, averaged across the planet.

This is a common argument between modellers and empiricists. A model may only be as good as the data that feeds it, but it is also a fallacy to assume that measurements are perfectly accurate. In which case, predictions from a model based on correct theory may on occasion give more correct results than apparent measured values.

People get too caught up in the temperature thing and fail to see the wood for the trees. A lot of us on this forum have been around for half a century or so – what have you experienced? I’ve come to expect more storms that are more intense, more freak weather events, more humid Summers, less snow at low altitudes.

It’s not just my imagination; I spent some time checking climatic data and the winters of my youth were colder, the Summers were drier. It’s all on the Met Office site and Méteo de France. No flooding events in my local area from 63 to 82, 13 since 82.

I’m in a part of the world in which the climate is getting warmer, some parts are getting cooler and overal ther’s a smalll warming. What we mustn’t lose sight of is that there is climate change and the changes are consitent with a higher energy regime in the atmosphere as predicted by a greenhouse gas model.

predictions from a model based on correct theory may on occasion give more correct results than apparent measured values.

I’m just going to get my head around that for a minute. 🙂

In the meantime, I thought I’d read somewhere that current models have been quite successful in “predicting”* temperatures back to around 1800, no?

*I’m not sure how one describes “predicting” the past, but you know what I mean.

well its easier to predict the past as a rule DD
shortest assesment is here

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-8-1.html

FAQ 8.1, Figure 1. Global mean near-surface temperatures over the 20th century from observations (black) and as obtained from 58 simulations produced by 14 different climate models driven by both natural and human-caused factors that influence climate (yellow). The mean of all these runs is also shown (thick red line). Temperature anomalies are shown relative to the 1901 to 1950 mean. Vertical grey lines indicate the timing of major volcanic eruptions. (Figure adapted from Chapter 9, Figure 9.5. Refer to corresponding caption for further details.)

I’m just going to get my head around that for a minute.

Another way of putting it would be that models based upon long term data may be more accurate than new short term data.

But it’s late here, and I’ve a carbon sequestration grant to finish writing before I can go to bed

Where are you zokes? Are you in Aus? Seems like the local press are stirring things up a bit today!

I bet a lot of people would love that quote – “models based upon long term data may be more accurate than new short term data.” A new avenue for willy-waving!

Yeah, I get ya zokes.

Sleep tight.

Sleep tight.

Sleep is something I’m dreaming about!

Whoever came up with the idea of turning harmless pdf documents into “SmartForms” needs rodgering sideways with a baseball bat wrapped in razor wire.

Then they should be shot to death, repeatedly.

He is from Bolton area originally but was driven from these fine shore by the drastic cuts in science

He is indeed in Oz.

Yours
Stalker 😉

I’ve been spending a little time reading some of the internet info on this subject (nothing too taxing for my tiny mind so sorry to the better informed in advance.)
It is widely accepted that the Ice Core data is our best indicator of natural cycles over the last 400 thousand years

It is widely accepted that the current short term but accelerated rate of warming is due to man made climate change due to the earth being sensitive to very small atmosphere changes (It looks as though there is still debate to be had on how much we really know abut the earths atmosphere, how sensitive it is and how the Earth will cope with these changes.)

Some of you seem to be suggesting that we should do everything we can to get the cooling going again.. Why?

Some of you seem to be suggesting that we should do everything we can to get the cooling going again.. Why

Not really sure I understand your question tbh

Do you mean why do we think Global warming is a bad thing?

As for the “cooling going again” what exactly does this mean?

theocb – Member
Some of you seem to be suggesting that we should do everything we can to get the cooling going again.. Why?

Junkyard – Big Hitter
As for the “cooling going again” what exactly does this mean?

i think theobc is referring to the chart/s he posted, from that it looks like we’re due another slow slide into an ice age.

(in a similar way: we’re due another north/south pole reversal. It might not happen, but they’ve been spookily regular and reliable upto right now)

theo: i’m an idiot, my understanding of these things is limited by own stupidity.

here’s how i grasp it:

life as we know it has evolved/survived within the temperature range shown on the chart/s you posted.

and, as is suggested, the temperature range is at least partly affected by the CO2 content of the atmosphere.

it’s one thing for the earth’s life-forms to slowly re-adapt to an atmosphere/temperature range their ancestors survived relatively recently (in evolutionary terms).

it’s quite another asking them to quickly adapt to an atmosphere/environment not seen for many millions of years.

maybe everything will be fine.

maybe things could get a little tricky.

is caution such a bad thing?

On theobc’s graph, the present = 1950. How much warmer than the 1950 temperature did the natural cycle take us? How much higher are we now predicted to get?

The post glacial climatic optimum ended about 5000 tears ago. Overall it was 1 or 2°C warmer but some areas benefited more than others with northern continental ares being several degrees warmer. If you Google “climatic optimum” you’ll find lots of info.

In terms of CO2 were now up to 330ppm which is off the graph. Again Google will be more accurate than my memory.

Yes, we were heading for another ice age which according to some was overdue. Clearly that wouldn’t have been a good thing. Getting above the range that we know gives the best growing conditions over the greatest land area isn’t a good thing either even if Britain feels a bit chilly most of the year. Back in the climaitic optimum it was very wet and humid as the peat bogs testify.

So, you’re actually disagreeing, or saying I’m wrong? or just relying on passive-aggressive faint praise to try and dismiss an argument which is factually correct?

I was using sarcasm.

I think the CO2 levels are over 390ppm now but I don’t think the temp has followed quite as sharply just yet.
Yes as ahwiles (and Edukator) said. The graphs show a natural cycle over the last 400 thousand years and it appears as if we should now be rapidly heading for a much cooler climate.
I was just asking why one way is perceived to be better than the other?
I do appreciate and understand the side of not knowing how the Earth and fauna/flora will respond if we go over it’s (short term) historical limits but we know that living things began in much harsher environments in the distant past so why try to maintain the current living things as if they will be the last or the best?

What are we actually trying to achieve by reducing our impact? Are we trying to reverse or prolong the process?

What I’m thinking in Basic terms:-

If we continue to have an effect on warming then the world will become hostile then population will decrease, CO2 will drop sharply and we will head for hostile icy times

If we reverse our impact on the climate then it looks as though we should be heading for hostile icy times

If we try and control climate at a level that suits humans then the Earth is doomed because we will devour it.
Sh1t the bed I’m off for a drink, it don’t look good.
Seriously though what are the options on the table and their outcomes?

If we continue to have an effect on warming then the world will become hostile then population will decrease, CO2 will drop sharply and we will head for hostile icy times

Once in the atmosphere CO2 is extremely persistant. Levels won’t drop sharply in response to a drop in human activity. What we’ve already released will affect climate for the next thousand years or so – or longer depending on the model.

My point wasn’t a fully fledged theory as I’m sure you can see. 😀
Sharply on a long term scale. A significant drop over 10000 years is sharply on a scale of hundreds of thousands of years. VOSTOK data shows potential for a significant drop over this time frame and also shows potential for natural temp swings of 20 degrees in the same time period. Temperature will reduce much quicker than the CO2

I see 3 options and none of them are perfect. How do we know what’s best?

Temperature will reduce much quicker than the CO2

Again, not so. Google it;

Hang on, this time I’ll Google it myself.

Edit: no I won’t it’ll take me ages to find a reference anyone here would accept. Google something about the same buffers that slow temperature response to increasees in CO2 also slow the temperature response to falls in CO2. Then consider you have turned over the oceans and changed ocean circulation patterns and things could take a very long tiem indeed to mend.

no I won’t it’ll take me ages to find a reference anyone here would accept

Chuckles

your not wrong on either point

(in a similar way: we’re due another north/south pole reversal. It might not happen, but they’ve been spookily regular and reliable upto right now)

Shenanigans!

@Edukator; I disagree 😉 my source is basic historic ice core data so where did you get your info from. (you bleeding google it if you want to say I’m wrong, I think that is the STW way :D) It’s really not important but feel free to carry on because I’m happy to learn.(email me some links)

Regardless of that what are you saying the options are? Don’t all the options come with baggage? Is one clearly the favourite?
Surely anyone who has a basic understanding of this Global Warming problem will be able to tell me in simple terms what the options and perceived outcomes are.
I completely understand if you have had enough of explaining basic stuff to the ignorant but this all seems a bit odd, people all over the web can argue till the cows come home about the facts of manmade climate change but no one has any info on the outcome of our master plan.