Climate Control.

Which facts would those be? Perhaps you would also care to provide some evidence to back up your statements?

Evidence - overwhelming some might say - exists for the hockey stick style increase of climate temperature. I used to work in atmospheric physics as a mathematical modeller though not in climate research, I was looking at the area somewhat above that. I wouldn't place any credence in the climate sceptics mud slinging on this topic. The short comings of the original study such as they were have long since been addressed. There is no such primary evidence and the fundamental points made by the graph are correct and validated through a myriad of different and independent studies of evidence from every conceivable record. The nay sayers are no more valid then the claims that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as man. Plenty of online resources exist for you to look at debunking all of the anti climate change myths and they are rooted in hard science not the media debate and hysteria on both sides and it is on a scientific basis I take my position.

 

Try,

Anyway,

Where? If you take every proxy reconstruction then exclude tree rings, you don't get a hockeystick. You get a very clear MWP. So you appear to be implying that tree rings are the only valid proxy? Except that they go wrong after about 1960 and don't reflect the current warming. The latter is direct from the CRU and not controversial...

Oh, primary evidence is Iron Age artifacts and Roman buildings appearing at the base of retreating glaciers. Or the rise of the Inca in Peru.

If your case for AGW was better you wouldn't need the hockey stick to sell it. After all AGW is happening right now, the last warming was 1000 years ago, it really shouldn't be relevant.

Paul

 

My Nobel Moment. By JOHN R. CHRISTY

"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html?apl=y&r=179474



When someone starts to shout “but its in the peer-reviewed literature†I usually respond that peer review is not the finish line, meaning that the science of some particular point is settled. It is merely the starting point, where now a proposition is in the public domain and can be checked and verified and replicated and criticized and potentially disproved or modified.

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

 

I suggest you learn some basic physics as well as study the earths ancient history. Without the baseline level of CO2 in the atmosphere the earth would have frozen from pole to pole early in its existence and would still be frozen today. This is well established. I dont see how the "primary evidence" you state has anything to do with the facts at hand. Tree rings are not the only proxy and they dont go wrong from 1960 to the present day. That argument has suggested a long time ago and the passing of time revealed it as a fallacy, however the sceptics dont seem to have caught up and still use it.

Lets see some peer reviewed lit from the climate sceptics - without that what you are saying is just hot air. The starting point was a long time ago - the consensus is now overwhelming in favour of global warming. Greater than 99% of scientific studies support it, a small minority that don't are produced by partisan government bodies and other institutes that are funded by oil companies etc. Detailed written evidence exists in both cases that both types of organisation accepted global warming as fact long ago but published otherwise to obfuscate it. Tens of thousands of studies have checked verified and improved the theory. The scientific debate is over bar the details. The non-scientific debate rages on but is nothing to do with the truth and is unconnected with the scientific debate except in the minds of the sceptics.

 

Nick, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. This should be obvious from the minor temperature increase and the substantial CO2 increase. Against a background of about 25C of greenhouse warming.

Anyway I'd be interested in your peer reviewed literature showing good correlation between tree rings and recent temperatures. The 'divergence problem' is well known, and even discussed in the CRU mails.

For most 'warmers' catastrophe is a matter of faith, you are in a position to do rather better. So far I'm disappointed.

Paul

 

Most atmospheric mechanisms are non linear therefore there is no contradiction. Your statement is erroneous and based on inadequate understanding of the nature of the physical mechanisms of dynamical systems incorporating feedback mechanisms. It is not a "minor" green house gas. It is weaker than some other gases like methane etc on a per molecule basis but is present in far higher concentrations therefore has more effect. Without it the earth would be a frozen ball of ice. Doubling that level of CO2 is in no way required to provide an equivalent level of warming again. At far higher levels way above what could be caused by burning of all fossil fuels the mechanism would result in runaway global warming turning the earth into an inferno like venus. This has not occured to the presence of plate tectonics on earth that are absent on venus. Effectively we are on a "plateau" of stability with an ice ball on one side and a furnace on the other. Even within this region complex nonlinear thresholds also exist flipping the climate between different stable states - i.e. loss of the amazon, liberation of gases from the tundra and oceanic methyl hydrates.

One has to look at the trends over decades and over wide geographical - the odd temporal or spatial blip means nothing. The idea that the stick went wrong in the 60s was put forward decades ago at first. It then ended up looking rather silly 20 years later on... however the sceptics still propagate this idea hoping if they throw enough mud then some of it will stick, just like the creationists do.

I have said nothing about "catastrophe" that is just hysteria by the greens etc. The earth is under no threat, but we face difficulties if we do not adjust our lifestyles and an ounce of prevention will be far cheaper than a pound of cure. There is no faith involved. While warming forecasting models I will admit could be better there is no issue with the fundamental science.

 

Meanwhile, the polar bears have started to eat one another.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6760103/Starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism.html

Why are they doing that, mummy?

 

can't bear it any more..

Apparently an adult bear will occasionaly kill and eat a cub, younger inexperienced bears without the hunting expertise will also opt for an easy kill.


returning to the climate con ... versation.
As previously said, and as many say, what is wrong with an a 'purly scientific' open and unbiased collective agreement on the matter,why should we feel that the argument of one position is gospel, why should we naturally dismiss ourselves from investigation of good argument of the opposite, since when has 'questioning' become frowned upon.
Doesn't it raise suspicions when routes are hidden, when discussion is closed so open debate is ruled pointless, it's beyond science, it is Politics, it is a game, and the game is to manipulate, to massage, to fudge, to lie, unless i fool myself (as many do at every election) that they really do care. I can't see it another way, nor can i afford to, there are too many to ignore that feel there is something desperately wrong with the IPCC findings, they aren't stupid and are only in search of truth, meaning to discover, not to sleepwalk in the easy footsteps of misdirection.
It astounds me that the many can so easily accept the findings of the ipcc, that can so easily rubbish the possibility of them being wrong.

 

You are so clever spica, thanks. Can't think why it's a news headline, really.

It must be great to be so certain about the climate change science. Is this your career? If not, then you could always switch over. It doesn't seem that difficult, does it?

 

you have the acid touch ?

as earlier your Question regarding Ocean Acidification..here's the unedited reply just recieved from my marine bio friend.

Acidification I know nothing off apart from the theory. I'm soon to start working on an air quality model and have been doing some research in metereology (Watch out Micheal Fish) but apart from the occasional aside about how the changes in climate are affecting datasets there has been little on climatology. Problem is the size of the data. They infer from the rate of change in certain measurements. But they have to extrapolate out from strange measurements in soil and long lived trees and the like what was going on before. But in general its undeniable that the polar icecaps are shrinking and sea levels are rising and carbon in the atmosphere is increasing . Plug those into any climate model and the results look pretty bad. The problem with all scientists is it is in their interest to come up with something interesting - hence they have a vested interest in producing a media sensation to justify their existence. I knew someone in the lab at plymouth who went to get some data from a prominent scientist, he couldnt get him through the normal channels but got his home email; the prof sent back a reply saying he had fabricated his results for the last 10 years and had come clean and was going off to find god and repent.

 

I think you have your signs inverted.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, the majority of the greenhouse comes from water vapour. The issue is what happens when the CO2 rises substantially. The answer remains unknown. In the absence of other factors a doubling of CO2 produces about 1C of warming, over quite a range of densities. This would imply that most of the warming from the pre-industrial density to the likely end density has already happened, and it broadly matches reported average temperatures.

To generate alarm, and get to go to Tahiti for conferences, you need to have feedbacks that create runaway warming. This is where the science really becomes speculation.

FWIW.

Paul

 

That's a great story, and I like the happy ending. It seems to me that there is a lot of unjustifiable certainty among the climate change sceptics. Paul Ranson isn't an expert in this field, AFAIK. He has good taste in loudspeaker, however. It also seems to me that this area of science seems fraught with general uncertainty. I think that there are far too many humans, and natural selection is about to wave its arbitrary wand in our direction.

Seems an awful shame about the polar bears, but there you go.

 

James,

The certainty seems to lie with the alarmists, especially the uninformed ones for whom it is more or less a religious faith. Which is disappointing when one can be informed as to the lack of actual certainty.

Which I think is why there is so much talk of polar bears rather than the actual argument that dangerous AGW exists. This seldom seems to be articulated, although it is really quite straightforward. I suppose the faithful don't want to know about uncertainties. You will note that even Nick with his multiple PhDs just waves his hands.

I make no claim to be an expert, but I'm clearly more informed than Al Gore. Or in fact the chairman of the IPCC.

Paul

 

Hi Paul,

Our species is programmed to be "alarmists", via natural selection. The people who took a laissez-faire attitude towards, say, tigers, found that their genes weren't passed on to subsequent generations. In the uncertain case of AGW, the safer collective course would appear to be alarmist.

 

Evolution has also given the more advanced forms of humanity the ability to conceptualize the paper tiger...

It is obviously in everybody's interest to reduce their energy consumption, it would be nice if the AGW alarmists would follow suit.

Paul

 

But if we don't really know whether it is paper or real, then we are gambling on the proposition that it is paper. To an ignoramus like me, there does seem to be a global scientific consensus that it is a real one.

 

It's not binary.

There is undoubtedly AGW, and significant influences on the environment from other pollution, land use changes, deforestation, cultivation etc. The question is whether AGW as a result of CO2 emission is likely catastrophic. This is unanswered. If you look at all the commentary and propaganda the question is rarely addressed at all. Can we (as a nation) pay back our debt, build sea walls and suffer the economic consequences of large cuts in carbon output? How do you arrange the priorities?

As a thinking person clearly favouring the AGW hypothesis, how much warming do you expect?

Paul

 

The IPCC and climate change are not the same thing. The former can be wrong on some points without the latter being false.

 

Afraid not you just missed the point. What you call hand waving is simply your inability to comprehend the complex issues at hand. Your sole recourse is to impugn "those know it all phds with their god darned book learning". Its called the "george bush" technique and he and many other creationists attempt to apply it to darwin.

Taken a look at Venus recently and considered the effects of the the fact that the suns luminosity increases 10% per billion years? Thought not... How about the runaway global cooling during the Cryogenian due to reduction of co2 levels? Seems you missed out that one. How about the numerous temperature spikes due to release of methyl hydrates past a critical temperature. Completely neglected that one it seems. The earths ancient past is littered with runaway global and cooling events.

Your numbers are pulled out of a hat I am afraid. The atmosphere simply cant work that way and the historical record clearly shows it. Its a nonlinear system which flips between stable states.

Climate charge denial... darwin denial... holocaust denial its all the same and the first is by far the most important.

The alarmism is trying to claim that the only way to tackle global warming would be ruinous in an economic sense and that all proponents of global warming are preaching that a catastrophe is coming. Both of these are incorrect. Studies show that, bar massive increases in the cost of air travel, that the economic cost to meet the required targets would be pretty trivial over the long term even in comparison with the most benign predictions of the consequences of not meeting them. The same measures would be necessary even if global warming wasnt taking place just due to the fact of the earths increasing population and the shortage of resources, especially energy. Dont tell me you think "peak oil" is alarmism too?

 

I should add that water vapour (the most important greenhouse gas) is closely coupled with Co2 increase - for instance if man made global warming occurs the earth will get hotter increasing the water vapour content of the atmosphere due to increased evaporation from the oceans causing yet more warming. While CO2 accounts for only around 25% of the greenhouse effect (hardly minor and some 8C out of 32C total contribution by the greenhouse effect) it is the most important constituent by far when considering man made effects as mankinds activity does not directly affect the atmospheric water vapour levels to any significant degree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus

The section on the heartland institutes list is most enlightening!