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

PercyBlakeney

Akrasia wrote: »

There are lots of hockey stick graphs, and the IPCC today have said that they are 95% - 97% certain that human activity has caused the unprecedented climate change we are currently experiencing

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

There are lots of hockey stick graphs, and the IPCC today have said that they are 95% - 97% certain that human activity has caused the unprecedented climate change we are currently experiencing

The sun causes climate change. What will the IPCC call the "hiatus" in AGW in the next report? Perhaps they should invest in another computer model.

HansHolzel

Akrasia wrote: »

That BBC report was from the 23rd of September and it was speculation about what will be in the actual report. Today part 1 of the 5th IPCC report on Climate change has been released, perhaps we should focus on this, and not speculation from before.

The subsection from 23/09 is included in today's BBC news story. Its content is clearly not speculation.

Furthermore, the experience of last fifteen years is not speculation and the IPCC isn't stupid enough to deny its existence.

Akrasia

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

The validity of Michael Mann's hockey stick graph has been debated to death. The 'Hide the decline' argument has been comprehensively dealt with and you can see the arguments here
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline.htm

The only people who are discussing Michael Mann's hockey stick now are climate change deniers. All the serious climate change scientists have moved on, Michael Mann's graph has been accompanied by many other graphs that are all based on independent analysis and independent data sets and are all consistent with the IPCC's position

Akrasia

PercyBlakeney wrote: »

The problem is the IPCC said they were certain that the Humalayas would be ice free by 2035 too, and just because the IPCC sasy something doesn't mean it's right or accurate.

I thought you looked at 'All' the evidence. Yet you keep coming back to one or two anomalies.

Do you have a view on the particular point about the data the other poster brought up, or do you prefer to ignore it because it doesn't sit well with your view that Mann's hockey stick graph is accurate?

As a scientist, would you not be a little worried about the use of data in that way, and making the data fit the theory, rather than the other way around?

Scientists have to manipulate data all the time. When you are converting data from one format to another, you need to use mathematical fomulas and 'tricks' to accurately convert this data while retaining the scientific value of the data.

In climate records we use proxy data and these datasets are imperfect. We have to adjust the data to take into account of the known imperfections and this is perfectly valid as long as the methodology is recorded and the reasoning is justified.

If you think this is scientifically dishonest, then throw away your GPS. The clocks on the GPS satelites are constantly adjusted to take into account the effects of time distortion due to relativity. The only reason the GPS stays accurate is because we use 'tricks' to keep the clocks on the satelites synchronised with the clocks here on earth.

Michael Mann recorded his 'trick' in the methodology, that was included in the peer review, and his graph has been reproduced by independent scientists using the same dataset using his methodology.

Despite the fact that the climate change deniers constantly go on about it, there was nothing wrong with Michael Mann's scientific methodology and those who claim he fraudulantly fixed the data are in danger of repeating a libel.

edit (when i say 'We' above, I don't mean to imply that I am a climate scientist, I am not)

Akrasia

Filibuster wrote: »

The sun causes climate change. What will the IPCC call the "hiatus" in AGW in the next report? Perhaps they should invest in another computer model.

The vast majority of the worlds experts in the field completely disagree with you.

Akrasia

The 'Hiatus' as you call it, was a slight decrease in ocean surface temperatures, which has slowed down the warming in the atmosphere air and land.
While the ocean surface temperatures did not increase, the deep ocean temperatures did, and overall heat content in the oceans is likely higher now than 10 years ago.
.
There was still warming over the last decade. The last decade was still the warmest decade on record

It says a lot when the global warming deniers can say there has been no global warming for a time when the world has never been warmer than any other time on record.

There were more record High temperatures during the last decade than at any other time on record.

HansHolzel

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'Hiatus' as you call it,

It's what the global warming industry calls it!

Macha

HansHolzel wrote: »

It's what the global warming industry calls it!

[mod]Please try and provide some constructive input.[/mod]

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

The 'Hiatus' as you call it, was a slight decrease in ocean surface temperatures, which has slowed down the warming in the atmosphere air and land.
While the ocean surface temperatures did not increase, the deep ocean temperatures did, and overall heat content in the oceans is likely higher now than 10 years ago.
.
There was still warming over the last decade. The last decade was still the warmest decade on record

It says a lot when the global warming deniers can say there has been no global warming for a time when the world has never been warmer than any other time on record.

There were more record High temperatures during the last decade than at any other time on record.

Instrument records have only begun to be recorded for the past 150 years. We are at the top of a solar cycle, of course temperatures are at their highest. It's a natural cycle and people are flapping their arms about like lunatics about it.




Deep Ocean Temperature
Again this is the jig-saw scissors coming out. Their computer models predited the arctic to be free of ice, the glaciers melting, hurricanes every 2nd week. Now that this hasn't happended they are saying "opps the energy actually went 3 miles under the ocean but its gonna come and get ya"



Look at the above graphs the deep ocean temperature follows the solar activity.

Macha

Filibuster, no one is arguing that solar activity doesn't contribute but that has been factored into the models. There is still a huge chunk of warming that cannot be explained in any way other than by increased GHG emissions.

The new IPCC Summary for Policymakers is out: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Key paragraphs:

The RF due to changes in solar irradiance is estimated as 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m−2. Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes from 1978 to 2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in a RF of –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between the most recent minimum in 2008 and the 1986 minimum. {8.4}

The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}

There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.

Akrasia

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

Turtwig

Akrasia wrote: »

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

As and aside there is some phenomenon where the solar outputs from the sun typically seem to have a 10 year latency on their affects on the Earth. It's just something to do with latent heat from the ocean. Anyone have anything more than a vague inkling on this?

That said with the sun's minimums, even a possible maunder minimum, you wouldn't have expected warming of the magnitudes observed. So the sun can't really be it.

Macha

HansHolzel wrote: »

Please try to be a fair moderator. Mine was a reasonable observation on the use of the word "hiatus" in this context.

[mod]No in-thread discussion of moderation. If you have a problem, take it up with a PM.Post deleted[/mod]

Filibuster

Akrasia wrote: »

Solar output peaked in the late 70s, but oceans have been warming faster and faster

How does less energy from the sun cause increased temperature in the ocean? (it only takes 8 minutes for energy to reach us from the sun)

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:

Turtwig

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:


http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/cyclcomp1.gif?w=640&h=433

We've had a decade of probably the lowest solar activity in the century and yet we also had one of the warmest decades in the century. Bit strange.

Filibuster

Jernal wrote: »

We've had a decade of probably the lowest solar activity in the century and yet we also had one of the warmest decades in the century. Bit strange.

Like I said before, temperature records have only been recorded for 150 years. We are still at the top of the solar maximum.

Again:

Macha

According to the above graph, average solar irradiance peaked around 1980 and had a continual downward trend until 2010. How do you explain temperature increases during this time period?

Also, 2013 is the peak of this solar cycle yet the sun is set to be its quietest for 100 years. Yet temperatures continue to rise.

Akrasia

We'll have to wait until September 30 before we can download the full report, but I've read through he summary and they have (of course) examined the evidence for solar climate forcing and the conclusions are that variations in solar output have had an insignificant effect on the total global warming that we have experienced since the start of the 20th century.

HansHolzel

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.

Akrasia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HansHolzel

i.e. the new Marxism

Macha

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

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.