Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

Akrasia · 27-09-2013 7:05pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Two interesting paragraphs from the BBC today... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24282150

The report’s authors ultimately conclude that 15 years is still not a long enough timescale to draw firm conclusions about the pause. Scientific studies on the slow-down have cited uptake of heat by the upper oceans as a possible cause, along with the properties of particulate matter in the atmosphere which can reflect solar energy back into space. But published research is still relatively sparse.

But there remain inconsistencies between observed changes in the climate system and the conditions simulated by computers. An obvious one is the slowdown in warming since 1998. The report says this could be due to unpredictable variability in the climate and over-sensitive responses to greenhouse gases in some climate models.

So, in other words, you're saying we should wait another 15 years before taking proper action just to be sure that we're definitely dooming ourselves..

You should have a read of a book called 'the merchants of doubt'
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

27-09-2013 9:30pm

Being realistic, whether you're a sceptic or a believer it really doesn't matter, some of the changes are "baked in", CO2 will continue to increase until the store of fossil fuel is sufficiently depleted to to the point that it's consumption starts to decline. Then and only then will the CO2 levels stop rising.

The changes that were required a few decades ago would be unacceptable to modern BAU (Business as usual), consumerism in all its forms would have to have been curtailed as well as changing the economic/financial system so that it functions without infinite growth!

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 10:10pm

Akrasia wrote: »

So, in other words, you're saying we should wait another 15 years before taking proper action just to be sure that we're definitely dooming ourselves..

You should have a read of a book called 'the merchants of doubt'
http://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured/dp/1608193942

I'm not a denying the warming, I'm not even denying we're causing it, but I just object to apocalyptic, ideology-driven models and forecasts by vested interests in what is now another industry.

To put it another way, I think the thawing of the frozen wastes of Russia and Canada should prove more beneficial to humanity than the loss of, say, the Maldives will prove detrimental.

The implications of global warming are geopolitical as much as anything.

Macha · 27-09-2013 10:31pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

I'm not a denying the warming, I'm not even denying we're causing it, but I just object to apocalyptic, ideology-driven models and forecasts by vested interests in what is now another industry.

I see why you might see it that way but globally, the fossil fuel and nukes industries still receive more subsidies than the renewables and efficiency industry. If anything, it's these vested interests that have managed to skew the debate and paint what are the likely impacts of climate change as 'apocalyptic'.

HansHolzel wrote: »

To put it another way, I think the thawing of the frozen wastes of Russia and Canada should prove more beneficial to humanity than the loss of, say, the Maldives will prove detrimental.

There is no way that we can fully predict the impacts that climate change will have on every part of our lives: impact on agricultural yields, more extreme weather events leading to higher insurance costs, shifting of habitats and pests to new areas, on and on. It's basically an enormous roll of the dice and I am not willing to bet that we're going to end up in a better situation.

HansHolzel wrote: »

The implications of global warming are geopolitical as much as anything.

Absolutely. Countries like Saudi & Russia stand to lose hugely if Europe decides to develop its renewable and efficiency potential and cut the E500bn bill for oil imports it will pay this year alone. But that's just an example.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 10:42pm

What you are saying is all reasonable but, for one thing, I probably would bet on Canada becoming a leading wheat producer, and, for another - correct me if I'm wrong here - didn't Al Gore predict a 6m rise in sea level?

Gore and his film will prove a big stick to beat the environmental cause with in this area, I suspect.

PS I think fracking is idiotic.

robindch · 27-09-2013 11:16pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

I'm not a denying the warming, I'm not even denying we're causing it, but I just object to apocalyptic, ideology-driven models and forecasts by vested interests in what is now another industry.

So, you object to the scientific consensus because you sense a well-funded conspiracy?

Hans -- if you have a moment, could you document exactly who -- within the wind-farm, wave-power, solar-panel etc industries -- has enough cash to buy more "vested interests" than the oil industry already has?

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 11:18pm

I was thinking of service industry. Tertiary sector, white collar. Academic.

HansHolzel · 27-09-2013 11:20pm

i.e. the new Marxism

Macha · 28-09-2013 6:28am

HansHolzel wrote: »

I was thinking of service industry. Tertiary sector, white collar. Academic.

The largest company in the world is an oil company: Shell. Five out of the top ten biggest companies in the world are fossil fuel companies. The most profitable company in the world is ExxonMobil.

These guys dwarf the renewable energy, electric vehicle and efficiency companies. It is ExxonMobil and Shell that set the political agenda, pay staggering amounts of money in direct lobbying and have the resources to invest massively in indirect propaganda wars that create an artificial debate about climate change.

In Europe, the fossil fuel industry today received four times the amount of subsidies that the renewable industry receives, even though they're mature technologies and have enjoyed decades of subsidies and state support, infrastructure investment and favourable market rules. But you think the new guys are calling the shots?

HansHolzel · 28-09-2013 10:57am

We are evidently at cross-purposes here and I'm not disputing what Macha has posted last about subsidies and lobbying. A Norwegian I know who's in the oil business says that if there's one thing those companies know better than finding and extracting oil it's how to make money.

Nonetheless I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't referring to renewable energy companies but to elements in academia and the media who have a vested interest in extremist climate projections. I'm talking about things like Al Gore's sea deluge and the University of East Anglia scandal.

A rock from space probably has more potential to cramp our style than anything else, given recent hits in Arabia's Empty Quarter (1863), Tunguska (1908), Amazonia (1930) and that bang over Chelyabinsk last February.

Anyway, maybe it's all true and Madame de Pompadour was more right than she could have known. Après nous le déluge.

robindch · 28-09-2013 12:04pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

I was thinking of service industry. Tertiary sector, white collar. Academic.

HansHolzel wrote: »

i.e. the new Marxism

I'm not quite sure that I follow you.

Are you saying that there's so much money sloshing about in academic environmental sciences, that the 98% or so of environmental scientists worldwide who hold that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for it, have been corrupted to the point that anything they say can be ignored?

If so, where exactly is your evidence that this has happened? Who's paying for it?

HansHolzel · 28-09-2013 12:11pm

I'm not ignoring them at all, I'm just put off by too many wild claims as to what will happen.

Akrasia · 28-09-2013 3:08pm

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

The greenhouse effect is trapping more solar energy. Not small quantities of energy, we're talking about massive amounts here, for every 1 degree. The amount of extra energy we are adding to the biosphere is is the equivillent of 2 Hiroshema bombs every second.

When this much energy is added to the environment, there will be consequences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

Duiske · 28-09-2013 4:10pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

And there are some climate scientists who believe the effects of climate change will be much less. So here we have two groups of climate scientists whose thoughts are out of step with those of the IPCC, yet only one of these groups is labeled with the slur Deniers. How does that work ?

Filibuster · 28-09-2013 4:23pm

Akrasia wrote: »

You might think the claims are wild, but there are some climate scientists who think the IPCC is being too conservative and that the effects of climate change will actually be much worse

The greenhouse effect is trapping more solar energy. Not small quantities of energy, we're talking about massive amounts here, for every 1 degree. The amount of extra energy we are adding to the biosphere is is the equivillent of 2 Hiroshema bombs every second.

When this much energy is added to the environment, there will be consequences.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Breaking_News_The_Earth_is_Warming_Still_A_LOT.html

If the global warming lobby were serious about tackling AGW they would be looking for world population control, restriction on livestock farming & nuclear power. But they are motivated by other political agendas...

Solar vs CO2 vs Temp

Hiatus:

Hsn't the deep sea hit a hiatus aswell??

Akrasia · 29-09-2013 11:17am

Duiske wrote: »

And there are some climate scientists who believe the effects of climate change will be much less. So here we have two groups of climate scientists whose thoughts are out of step with those of the IPCC, yet only one of these groups is labeled with the slur Deniers. How does that work ?

There is a massive difference between the scientists who accept the science but think the IPCC are being too conservative, and the politically motivated lobbiests who don't care about the science and are trying to discredit the scientists and muddy the debate sufficiently to delay action that hurts their political or financial interests

Akrasia · 29-09-2013 11:22am

The 'Global warming lobby' are the scientific community who have presented the evidence for how dangerous global warming will be if we continue on as business as usual. It is up to the economic and political leaders to take the appropriate action required to mitigate the worse effects.

The first thing we need to do is reduce carbon emissions, how we do this is for policy makers to decide.

I personally think we need to invest much more public resources into zero carbon energy. It's expensive now, but a lot cheaper than dealing with the worst effects of global warming.

Macha · 29-09-2013 1:45pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

We are evidently at cross-purposes here and I'm not disputing what Macha has posted last about subsidies and lobbying. A Norwegian I know who's in the oil business says that if there's one thing those companies know better than finding and extracting oil it's how to make money.

Nonetheless I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't referring to renewable energy companies but to elements in academia and the media who have a vested interest in extremist climate projections. I'm talking about things like Al Gore's sea deluge and the University of East Anglia scandal.

I think I see your point but I don't think the media is actually making people aware of these projections. The role I see the media playing is in artificially perpetuating the debate on the issue. Take, for example, the fact that TheJournal.ie had a poll that asked readers believed in man-made climate change the day the world's climate scientists say they're 95% certain of this. What's next? A poll on if readers believe in the theory of gravity, that the earth goes around the sun, evolution vs creationism?

HansHolzel wrote: »

A rock from space probably has more potential to cramp our style than anything else, given recent hits in Arabia's Empty Quarter (1863), Tunguska (1908), Amazonia (1930) and that bang over Chelyabinsk last February.

Anyway, maybe it's all true and Madame de Pompadour was more right than she could have known. Après nous le déluge.

It's funny you should use that example because it's the narrative of The Observer's editorial on the issue today:

In his recent book Ten Billion, Stephen Emmott posed an intriguing question: what would happen if humanity discovered tomorrow that there was an asteroid on a collision course with Earth, one that would bring calamity on a precise date several decades in the future? An event like that could result in the eradication of a large chunk of life on Earth and would surely galvanise the planet, argued Emmott. Every scientist, engineer, university and business leader would be enlisted to find ways to deflect the errant asteroid and help our species survive. We might even succeed.

The idea is intriguing because humanity now finds itself facing just such a global catastrophe – except there is no specific date for our meeting with destiny and there is no asteroid. Nor is there any sign that we appear to be interested in trying to save ourselves or rescue our planet. The problem is that we face a threat that is manmade and insidious but which is every bit as dangerous as an asteroid impact – and that is global warming.

You know the scientists who makes the most public pleas for some sort of asteriod defence system? Neil deGrasse Tyson. He thinks action on climate change is needed. This is what he tweeted on Friday:

The shifting climate leaves us thinking of weather extremes that we survived rather than seasonal averages that we enjoyed.

Another way to look for evidence on this is to see what the people whose job it is to deal with risk management do on the issue. Take for example, Munich RE, not only an insurance company but a re-insurance company as well. They are the guys who can make massive losses as extreme weather events happen more often, etc. They are funnelling a huge amount of resources, research and money into better understanding the risks it represents to their business and how best to understand the issue:

http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx

djpbarry · 29-09-2013 3:09pm

HansHolzel wrote: »

Nonetheless I thought I'd made it clear that I wasn't referring to renewable energy companies but to elements in academia and the media who have a vested interest in extremist climate projections.

The idea that academics have any financial clout whatsoever never ceases to amuse. The EU recently agreed a figure of €70 billion for research funding, to spread over the next seven years. Meanwhile, ExxonMobil made a profit of $45 billion in 2012 alone.

djpbarry · 29-09-2013 3:10pm

Filibuster wrote: »

Solar activity peaked during the 50's (cycle 19) then again during the late 80/mid 90's (cycle 21/22). Solar activity is winding down and it will put a lid to the global warming hysteria:

Solar irradiance has only been directly measured since the 70’s?

Filibuster wrote: »

If the global warming lobby were serious about tackling AGW they would be looking for world population control, restriction on livestock farming & nuclear power.

I’ll agree with you on livestock farming, but good luck convincing the good people of Ireland (never mind the rest of the world) that beef is incredibly energy intensive to produce and should be perceived as a luxury item.

As for global population – red herring. The problem is not the number of people in the world. The problem is the lifestyle being lived by those at the top and to which everyone else is aspiring to.

And nuclear power? Has anyone yet shown that the world’s energy requirements can be met by nuclear power in a sustainable, affordable and environmentally sound manner? Nope.

Filibuster wrote: »

Solar vs CO2 vs Temp

Links to the sources of all these plots that you’re producing would be nice.

Duiske · 29-09-2013 8:17pm

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a massive difference between the scientists who accept the science but think the IPCC are being too conservative, and the politically motivated lobbiests who don't care about the science and are trying to discredit the scientists and muddy the debate sufficiently to delay action that hurts their political or financial interests

Here's the problem. The IPCC claims it reviews and assesses the most current scientific and technical information relevant to the understanding of climate change, and that this ensures an objective and complete assessment of the science. Yet you are saying that if a scientist thinks the IPCC may by underestimating the effects of climate change then that's fine, but if a scientist thinks they may be overestimating the effects, then they are a politically motivated science denier. So you have a choice here. You either have to label both groups with the obnoxious slur denier, or simply say they have opinions which differ from the science as assessed by the IPCC.

Akrasia · 29-09-2013 9:45pm

The vast majority of the people lobbying against the IPCC are not climate scientists.

I have no problem with scientists who are conducting climate research and getting published in reputable journals putting forth evidence that perhaps the climate sensitivity may be lower than the IPCC's estimates. Thats legitimate scientific dialogue.

I do have a massive problem with 'commentators' working for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph who constantly print oil industry propaganda, undermining the scientists and misrepresenting the science to the public.

Macha · 02-10-2013 8:40am

Akrasia wrote: »

The vast majority of the people lobbying against the IPCC are not climate scientists.

I have no problem with scientists who are conducting climate research and getting published in reputable journals putting forth evidence that perhaps the climate sensitivity may be lower than the IPCC's estimates. Thats legitimate scientific dialogue.

I do have a massive problem with 'commentators' working for the Daily Mail or the Telegraph who constantly print oil industry propaganda, undermining the scientists and misrepresenting the science to the public.

Yep, it's scientists vs sceptics on this one and some scientists in the UK are annoyed about the manner in which BBC coverage of the IPCC report seemed to put them on the same level:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/oct/01/bbc-coverage-climate-report-ipcc-sceptics

On one programme, the sceptic, Bob Carter who is funded by the Heartland Institute, got more time than the climate scientists!

PercyBlakeney · 07-10-2013 8:06am

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

Macha · 07-10-2013 9:17am

Dear God that post is brutal. Stating that something is a fact doesn't make it so. Provide some decent sources/evidence for your 'facts' please, at least the ones that aren't clearly opinions.

Akrasia · 07-10-2013 11:44am

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Wrong, Scientists have been measuring the ocean temperatures and have measured that there is a heat transfer from the surface to the deep oceans.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Source please, tell us exactly in the IPCC reports where 'all the scary scenarios' are downgraded?

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Dr Richard Lindzen hasn't been a Lead Author since 2001

He is one of the few working climate scientists who does not agree with the IPCC's conclusions, but that's nothing new. Lindzen had an interesting theory that a warmer world would produce more Cirrus clouds which would allow a greater proportion of long wave radiation to escape from the atmosphere and this would act as a natural break on global warming. However, that theory has been discredited and Lindzen himself admits that his 2009 paper was embarassing and had some very silly errors in how the satelite data was interpreted.

But despite acknowledging that the data on which he was basing his theory was wrong, he still hasn't changed his position. He just seems to be looking for data to fit his hypothesis, not looking for a hypothesis to explain the data (which is what he should be doing)

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

I guess you'll never be posting any links that are sourced from the Heritage foundation then? or the daily mail? or the Telegraph? or Wattsupwiththat?
or any of the other oil industry lobby groups?

There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

Meanwhile on the real world, the scientific community are now more certain than ever that global warming is real and we need to act to reduce carbon emissions or else we face ecological melt down

djpbarry · 07-10-2013 4:11pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago.

Hasn’t it? You’re saying that the increase in global temperature recorded over the last 15-20 years is outside the range predicted in earlier IPCC reports? Because the facts demonstrate otherwise:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1763.html
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Which scientists are these? A large factor in observed sea level rise is accelerated ice sheet melt. What happens to these ice sheets in the future is uncertain, for the simple reason that the mechanics are poorly understood. Nobody can state with any degree of certainty what will happen, but that does not mean there is no risk of collapse.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

So? Bertie Ahern told us that the Irish economy was grand and anyone who said otherwise should go kill themselves.

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

Well, you’ve posted several blatant mistruths on this thread. For example:

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility.

Except for all the scientific papers that demonstrate the planet is warming and mankind is largely responsible?

Duiske · 07-10-2013 5:51pm

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

djpbarry wrote: »

Which scientists are these? A large factor in observed sea level rise is accelerated ice sheet melt. What happens to these ice sheets in the future is uncertain, for the simple reason that the mechanics are poorly understood. Nobody can state with any degree of certainty what will happen, but that does not mean there is no risk of collapse.

I'm assuming what he is referring to is something that has been doing the rounds on blogs over the weekend. Even though I'd be described as a skeptic, (or worse, by some) I have to admit the skeptic bloggers are barking up the wrong tree with this one. The IPCC do in fact state in chapter 12, with high confidence, that the disintegration of either the Greenland or West Antarctic Ice sheets is highly unlikely. The problem is that in chapter 12 the IPCC look at potential scenarios of abrupt change within this century. So they are correct. No scientist has ever said the ice sheets would collapse within such a short time frame.
They also discuss other potential abrupt scenarios. Atlantic MOC collapse, catastrophic clathrate methane release, tropical forest dieback, etc. Again, because all these would take longer than a century to occur they are described in this chapter as being unlikely to occur. So if you look at Chapter 12 as asking "Assuming "W" is happening, how likely is it that "X,Y,Z" will occur within this century ?", then the IPCC are correct. The one that bucks the trend is Arctic sea ice. They state it as Likely (with Medium Confidence) that the Arctic Ocean becomes nearly ice-free in September before mid-century. But it should be added that this is under the high forcing scenario.

Akrasia · 08-10-2013 10:46am

People often underestimate just how powerful the Climate Change Deniers are.

One of the main groups that support the Climate Denial industry are the Heritage Foundation who have been very heavily shaping government policy in the US and have also been involved with the Heartland Institute's 'Non Governmental International Panel on Climate Change' (co-sponsoring the event in 2012)

They have been instrumental in keeping the few climate scientists who disagree with the IPCC to the front of the debate thereby maintaining the illusion that the reality of and/or potential danger from climate change is still hotly debated by the scientific community

Well, the Heritage Foundation have a sub-group called 'Heritage Action for America' and this is one of the main instigators of the current government shut down in the U.S.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101089459

They and other 'conservative groups', almost all of them active in the climate change misinformation campaign, had been planning this as a method of opposing 'ObamaCare' (which they oppose on ideological grounds) and their public defence of this position is that if 'Obama Care' goes through, Government debt will increase and this will lead to a risk of 'economic meltdown'

Basically, we have the leaders of a fringe extremist political movement who, on the basis of their fringe economic and political beliefs, are able to mount extremely effective campaigns that have shut down the worlds most powerful government and is holding it to ransom with the threat that it could force America into a default on it's national debt with global economic consequences.

This is the stuff of wingnut conspiracy theories, except in America, with the tea party and wealth concentrations at such unprecedented levels, tiny groups of very wealthy and very ideologically driven people are able to have a massive influence on any debate that they participate in.

It is ludicrous that some of the climate 'sceptics' on the internet think that it is government money that is distorting this debate. It absolutely is not, the governments funds research, private interests fund lobby groups and the lobby groups are extremely effective at, you've guessed it, Lobbying and Public Relations campaigns.

AngryHippie · 10-10-2013 11:30pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Fact 1: The Earth has not warmed in the way the IPCC predicted 15 or so years ago. All the warming warned of has not happened, and the best the IPCC can do is guess (it has no evidence of any kind) that "all the warming has gone into the deep oceans". Guesswork is not science.

Fact 2: All the scary scenarios warned about in the last 20 years (from permafrost melt to ice sheet collapse) have not happened, and are now been graded by scientists somewhere between "low confidence" to "exceptionally unlikely

Fact 3: IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused the IPCC of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence"

Fact 4: It is impossible to take a body which has been shown to tell lies seriously.

There is now more than enough solid evidence to demonstrate to any neutral party that the doomsday prognostications the warmist establishment has been trying to frighten us with these last two decades are a nonsense. The man-made global warming scare story has not a shred of scientific credibility. It's over.

You sir, are a buffoon. That is all

Macha · 11-10-2013 7:32am

AngryHippie wrote: »

You sir, are a buffoon. That is all

[mod]OK, let's keep the criticism to the post, not the poster. [/mod]

PercyBlakeney · 29-10-2013 2:48pm

Akrasia wrote: »

People often underestimate just how powerful the Climate Change Deniers are.

I dont know which "people" you are talking about. This is about facts and not personalities.

For example, one poster here claims that all the heat has gone into the deep oceans and thats why we have not seen the rise in temperatures predicted.

However, that is to mislead as one guess is that maybe thats what has happend. But guesses are not facts, they are guesses, and to claim a guess is fact merely exposes the prejudices of those who do that.

It may well be the man's activites are in part responsible for a little global warming. However as CO2 levels continue to rise more or less as predicted, the warming associated with the rise of CO2 has not. Thats a problem.

In what is a very polarised debate, its telling that those who "believe" in global warming call those who question "deniers", trying to label them with the same word used for holocaust deniers.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 3:06pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

It may well be the man's activites are in part responsible for a little global warming. However as CO2 levels continue to rise more or less as predicted, the warming associated with the rise of CO2 has not.

You're saying the Earth has not warmed in line with predictions?

PercyBlakeney · 29-10-2013 3:20pm

djpbarry wrote: »

You're saying the Earth has not warmed in line with predictions?

That depends on which predictions you want to use. I am not looking here to play a game and try to catch you out (which your post appears to want to do).

It seems to me you are on one "side" and any evidence to the contrary you want to either dismiss or rubbish, and any evidence which you see is on your "side" you want to believe. I've read many of your previous posts and I hope you don't mind that thats the impression.

I hope I am big enough not to play those sorts of games, and open enough to look at evidence itself, and not just bits of evidence which might back up our position, and block out all or any evidence which may make us feel uncomfortable.

It's a complex issue, and also the science is not explaining how something works (like a battery) but is attempting to predict what will happen. Explainaing how a battery works is relatively easy, but to convince someone what is going to happen in 50 years time requires trust, and unfortunately those who are trying to convince the rest of us have the additional problem that they have in the past abused that trust and overstated their case based on flimsy or non existent "evidence".

Then the next question is even if the climate does increase a little, will that be, on balance, better or worse.

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

Grudaire · 29-10-2013 3:45pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

Have not warmed, or have not warmed as predicted?

Because I'm pretty sure they haven't gotten colder :pac:

PercyBlakeney · 29-10-2013 3:50pm

Cliste wrote: »

Have not warmed, or have not warmed as predicted?

Because I'm pretty sure they haven't gotten colder :pac:

"I'm pretty sure" is not an argument. How sure are you as to whether the ice is greater or lesser this year than last year, on both poles?

Turtwig · 29-10-2013 4:00pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

"I'm pretty sure" is not an argument. How sure are you as to whether the ice is greater or lesser this year than last year, on both poles?

Not that confident. My guess is that ice grew in the Antarctic and grew in the Arctic. From last years levels because Arctic see Ice levels were very low last year even when taking into account the current trend of ice reduction.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 4:02pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

That depends on which predictions you want to use. I am not looking here to play a game and try to catch you out (which your post appears to want to do).

It seems to me you are on one "side" and any evidence to the contrary you want to either dismiss or rubbish, and any evidence which you see is on your "side" you want to believe. I've read many of your previous posts and I hope you don't mind that thats the impression.

I hope I am big enough not to play those sorts of games, and open enough to look at evidence itself, and not just bits of evidence which might back up our position, and block out all or any evidence which may make us feel uncomfortable.

It's a complex issue, and also the science is not explaining how something works (like a battery) but is attempting to predict what will happen. Explainaing how a battery works is relatively easy, but to convince someone what is going to happen in 50 years time requires trust, and unfortunately those who are trying to convince the rest of us have the additional problem that they have in the past abused that trust and overstated their case based on flimsy or non existent "evidence".

Then the next question is even if the climate does increase a little, will that be, on balance, better or worse.

So, for example, the polar ice caps have not "warmed" as were predicted, for example.

That’s a remarkably long-winded way of not answering a simple question.

The Earth has warmed. The degree of warming is within the range predicted.

You want to argue otherwise?

PercyBlakeney · 29-10-2013 4:11pm

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a remarkably long-winded way of not answering a simple question.

The Earth has warmed. The degree of warming is within the range predicted.

You want to argue otherwise?

Unfortunately it's not always possible to answer in an unqualified way. If you are just looking for someone to play along and answer "yes" and "no" to your questions, then you'll have to find someone who thinks that is possible. I don't always think its possible to answer in an unqualified way like that, and most answers are more complicated than just a simple "yes" or "no"

PercyBlakeney · 29-10-2013 4:14pm

Jernal wrote: »

Not that confident. My guess is that ice grew in the Antarctic and grew in the Arctic. From last years levels because Arctic see Ice levels were very low last year even when taking into account the current trend of ice reduction.

Sure, you may well be right. That implies over a longer time than one year that the sea ice can definitely be said to be receding. My understanding is that the sea ice is unpredictable insofar as it recedes then grown back from year to year and has not shown a definite trend to be generally receding over the last 50 years.

djpbarry · 29-10-2013 4:16pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not always possible to answer in an unqualified way.

Did I say you had to?

You said that warming has not risen in line with predictions. I'm asking you to explain that statement.

Akrasia · 29-10-2013 11:39pm

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

I dont know which "people" you are talking about. This is about facts and not personalities.

The fact is that the overwhelming weight of evidence supports the theory of Anthroprogenic global warming, and the data is overwhelmingly consistent with the global warming hypothesis.

Another fact is that the scientific community are overwhelmingly in agreement with the IPCC conclusions while those who are campaigning against the IPCC are doing so in order to protect their own political and financial interests.
The Koch brothers for example have billions of dollars invested in tar sands. They're pumping a lot of resources into creating the illusion of uncertainty to protect their own interests.

For example, one poster here claims that all the heat has gone into the deep oceans and thats why we have not seen the rise in temperatures predicted.

This is in the IPCC report, it's not just one poster in here, that's what the science says

However, that is to mislead as one guess is that maybe thats what has happend. But guesses are not facts, they are guesses, and to claim a guess is fact merely exposes the prejudices of those who do that.

It's not a guess, it's a conclusion from data that has been collected and analysed by climate scientists.

It may well be the man's activites are in part responsible for a little global warming. However as CO2 levels continue to rise more or less as predicted, the warming associated with the rise of CO2 has not. Thats a problem.

You are cherrypicking data. The trend in all of the graphs show that the planet is warming. If you only look at a few years of data, depending on which few years you can show warming, no change or cooling in the earths climate. The trend is absolutely within the range predicted by the IPCC in the last report and just because the warming appears to have slowed down over the last few years, it doesn't mean that it won't surge ahead in a year or two. If you look at the graphs, that's what they show, Peaks and troughs but the peaks get higher and the troughs get higher as average temperatures continue to increase.

In what is a very polarised debate, its telling that those who "believe" in global warming call those who question "deniers", trying to label them with the same word used for holocaust deniers.

The debate is only polarised because one side are science deniers who refuse to look at the data and engage in tricks and distortions for political and economic gain.

It is polarised in the same way that the 'debate' over tobacco causing cancer was polarised, and aids caused by HIV is polarised, and evolution versus creationism is polarised. In all of these 'debates' we have one side honestly discussing the science, and the other side trying to manufacture doubt and imploring 'balance' and 'teach the controversy'

Duiske · 30-10-2013 1:28am

For example, one poster here claims that all the heat has gone into the deep oceans and thats why we have not seen the rise in temperatures predicted.

Akrasia wrote: »

This is in the IPCC report, it's not just one poster in here, that's what the science says

Are you absolutely certain that the IPCC report explains the slowdown in warming by saying that all the heat has gone into the deep ocean ? Could the science possibly have hinted at other explanations, such as reduced solar and volcanic activity ? Your reply to PercyBlakeney above reads like one of Dana Nuccitelli's stock twitter responses.

Akrasia · 30-10-2013 11:45am

Duiske wrote: »

Are you absolutely certain that the IPCC report explains the slowdown in warming by saying that all the heat has gone into the deep ocean ? Could the science possibly have hinted at other explanations, such as reduced solar and volcanic activity ? Your reply to PercyBlakeney above reads like one of Dana Nuccitelli's stock twitter responses.

Here we go again. Introduce uncertainty. If we are not absolutely certain of something, then the 'debate continues'

The IPCC is not absolutely certain about anything. No genuine scientist is absolutely certain about anything. No genuine debater expects absolute certainty as the minimum standard for the other side of the debate.

That is what deniers do. They breed the illusion of debate, they play up on uncertainty on the basis that if the science is 'not absolute certain' that it is a legitimate position to oppose action on tackling global warming.

Can I be 'Absolutely certain' that Homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo? No. Does this mean that Homeopathy is legitimate? No.

We progress and advance human knowledge and understanding by taking the best evidence available and building on it.

The IPCC have measured increases in the deep ocean temperature and say that it is likely that this is due to global warming. The reason they can not say it is certain, is because we haven't got the data to support that claim, but the measurements, as limited as they are, are all consistent with the global warming hypothesis and inconsistent with the anti-global warming brigade's position.
Here's the link the section of the IPCC report that deals with the effects on our oceans.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf?bcsi_scan_c6b2e1b18dc6970f=0&bcsi_scan_filename=WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf

If you are genuinely interested in the science, have a read through and see the data that the scientists are working with.
If you are a denier you will see words like 'Likely' and interpret this as 'Not Certain'. If you are genuine, you will take these statements as an honest expression of the confidence we have in the data available to us.

Duiske · 30-10-2013 3:58pm

Akrasia wrote: »

Here we go again. Introduce uncertainty. If we are not absolutely certain of something, then the 'debate continues'

Let's deal with facts here. Its you introducing uncertainty, not me. It is not in the IPCC report, nor does the science say that the recent slowdown in temperatures is caused by all the heat going into the deep ocean. The IPCC attempts to explain the slowdown as a combination of ocean heat uptake and natural variation, with ocean, solar and volcanic being 3 possible sources of the natural variation. Yes, the oceans are warming, but to simply say the oceans are taking up all the excess heat and "the science says so", is simply wrong. Your use of the obnoxious slur, denier, is misplaced but wasn't totally unexpected.

djpbarry · 30-10-2013 5:00pm

Duiske wrote: »

Your use of the obnoxious slur, denier, is misplaced but wasn't totally unexpected.

[MOD]Let's keep it civil please.

If anyone has a problem with a post, use the 'report post' function.[/MOD]

Akrasia · 30-10-2013 5:08pm

Duiske wrote: »

Let's deal with facts here. Its you introducing uncertainty, not me. It is not in the IPCC report, nor does the science say that the recent slowdown in temperatures is caused by all the heat going into the deep ocean. The IPCC attempts to explain the slowdown as a combination of ocean heat uptake and natural variation, with ocean, solar and volcanic being 3 possible sources of the natural variation. Yes, the oceans are warming, but to simply say the oceans are taking up all the excess heat and "the science says so", is simply wrong. Your use of the obnoxious slur, denier, is misplaced but wasn't totally unexpected.

Ok, first of all, I am not calling you a science denier. I am pointing out the strategy that is used by the economically and politically motivated anti global warming campaigners is specifically to trumpet uncertainty and to muddy the waters in the debate by denying the science.

It's a very simple but effective strategy.

Secondly, I never said that "all" of the 'missing' heat is stored in the deep oceans. I said that climate scientists have measured the deep oceans and have found that they are warming and that this is likely due to global warming.

There are other mechanisms at play too including natural variation and volcanic activity and all the other elements that can contribute to the earth's energy balance.

When I bring up the deep ocean warming, It is to challenge the assertions by the misinformed and those quoting professional denier organisations who say that global warming has paused or stopped or even reversed.

These assertions are made regardless of what the evidence is because no matter how many indicators that there are that global warming is continuing, the professional deniers will find one or two anomalies that they can point out and play the uncertainty card.

Akrasia · 31-10-2013 9:51am

Here's a really interesting table from NASA
It shows the monthly Land-Ocean temperature trends going back to 1880 based on the average temperature between base period: 1951-1980

September 2013 is tied with September 2005 as the warmest on record, but the real picture here is the trend across the months and the years and the decades.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

31-10-2013 9:52pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770
Global emissions of carbon dioxide may be showing the first signs of a "permanent slowdown" in the rate of increase.
According to a new report, emissions in 2012 increased at less than half the average over the past decade.
Key factors included the shift to shale gas for energy in the US while China increased its use of hydropower by 23%.
However the use of cheap coal continues to be an issue, with UK consumption up by almost a quarter.

So, it's still rising, but, not as fast as predicted. The rise is obviously a non-linear equation, a bit like needing four times the power to make a car go twice as fast.

So where does that leave most of the doomier climate models?

Eoghan Barra · 01-11-2013 9:15pm

Deleted User wrote: »

So where does that leave most of the doomier climate models?

These are mostly based on the very real probability of positive feedback, caused for example by the massive release of methane from the seabed and permafrost as temperatures rise (methane is 25-30 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2). There are many other potential causes of feedback and unfortunately they are practically all positive. (Not positive in the sense of 'good', but in the sense that they greatly amplify, rather than counteract, the trend, i.e. rising temperatures.) Recent evidence suggests that these are already beginning to occur. If they kick in seriously, the effects of human activities on the atmosphere will be pretty insignificant by comparison (hence, cutting emissions will make little or no difference at that point), but it will have been human activities that triggered them in the first place.

The palaeoclimatological record clearly shows that very minor rises in temperature (in the past generally caused by very slight periodic variations in the Earth's tilt and orbit) have the tendency to trigger these positive feedbacks which, in turn, bring on huge jumps in temperature. The planet literally moves to another, much hotter, stable state - with catastrophic results for lifeforms, which, this time around, will include us.

Once that has happened it's impossible to go back. In contrast to previous occasions, in this case it is very definitely we, rather than any other influences, who are making this happen through CO2 emissions (31,600,000,000 tons into the atmosphere in 2012 alone: how could that not be causing massive damage in some shape or form?), other greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation etc. There are no excuses for what we are doing, as the international scientific community has produced evidence as conclusive as it could be of what is happening and why. If we chose to ignore that, then we have only ourselves to blame for the consequences.

Climate Change: The Megathread - Read Post #1 before posting

Comments