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

djpbarry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Eoghan Barra

On RTE radio yesterday evening:

Meteorologists are saying that the storm that hit the Philippines is possibly the strongest storm on record to make landfall, anywhere, ever.

12 million people are affected, the toll in death and damage will be enormous.

An interviewee said this is the 24th serious storm to batter that part of the Philippines this year.

And yet no connection was made with (or even mention of) climate change, as far as I heard.

What planet are they on?

fits

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

And yet no connection was made with (or even mention of) climate change, as far as I heard.

What planet are they on?

Filipino minister broke down from desperation during the last climate talks after typhoon Bopha.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/08/typhoon-haiyan-rich-ignore-climate-change

More talks next week where yet again, little will probably happen outside of EU at least.

djpbarry

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Meteorologists are saying that the storm that hit the Philippines is possibly the strongest storm on record to make landfall, anywhere, ever.

I've heard it said it's likely one of the most powerful, but the most powerful?

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

An interviewee said this is the 24th serious storm to batter that part of the Philippines this year.

How does that compare to other years?

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

And yet no connection was made with (or even mention of) climate change, as far as I heard.

What planet are they on?

It's not possible to link one particular weather event with climate change.

fits

djpbarry wrote: »

I've heard it said it's likely one of the most powerful, but the most powerful?

To make landfall, yes it appears to be the strongest recorded but I guess coming days will tell

How does that compare to other years?

Normally 20. I believe this was the 25th actually. Again, unreliable media is the source.

It's not possible to link one particular weather event with climate change.

Actually methods are being developed with attribution science, particularly in relation to extreme heat events.

From WMO report on extremes
http://library.wmo.int/opac/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=15112

The occurrence patterns of climate extremes and high-impact events and anomalies can be influenced by human-induced climate change and it is likely that the number and intensity of at least some of these types of events are consequently increasing.
Owing to the naturally high internal variability of the climate system, however, it is still difficult to assess in a systematic way the degree and amount of climate-change influence on a single observed event. In an attempt to reduce the uncertainty of such an assessment, recent studies have led to the emergence of science-based methodologies to conclude with more confidence whether the risk of a given individual extreme event
or anomaly has increased or whether such an extreme event might have occurred in a different way in the absence of human-induced climate change.
Applying such methodologies to the recent most extreme heatwaves shows that the 2003 European heatwave, for example, is considered to be among those events for which human influence had probably substantially increased the likelihood of its occurrence.
On the other hand, natural climate variability can also be important in some cases. For example, the extreme magnitude of the 2010 Russian Federation heatwave demonstrates the important effects of natural climate processes in amplifying some climate extremes.
The science of attribution requires carefully calibrated, physically based assessments of observed weather and climate-related events, including comparisons of ensemble-based model simulations where particular climate drivers (e.g. concentrations of greenhouse gases) are excluded. The underlying global and regional climate conditions are then objectively considered to assess the extent to which the likelihood of occurrence of
individual climate extremes might have changed had such climate drivers been absent.
Subsequent statistical analyses provide probability expressions for a climate threshold to be exceeded (e.g. positive temperature anomalies associated with a heatwave) and what fraction of the risk of exceeding the threshold is attributable to a particular influence (climate driver). Attribution science is still a matter for extensive research.

djpbarry

fits wrote: »

Actually methods are being developed with attribution science, particularly in relation to extreme heat events.

Oh I know - I was just reading an article on the subject yesterday:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6159/688.short

The point is that at this moment in time, the science is still shaky. Hence, very little mention of climate change with regard to what's happening in The Philippines right now and rightly so.

Eoghan Barra

djpbarry wrote: »

...very little mention of climate change with regard to what's happening in The Philippines right now and rightly so.

Good luck trying to tell that to the Filipinos - and those in all the other parts of the world most on the receiving end of what's happening to our climate.

Headlines of the Guardian article in Fits' link:

Typhoon Haiyan: what really alarms Filipinos is the rich world ignoring climate change.

As Haiyan batters the Phillipines, the political elites at the UN climate talks will again leave poor countries to go it alone.

djpbarry

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Good luck trying to tell that to the Filipinos - and those in all the other parts of the world most on the receiving end of what's happening to our climate.

If Filipinos are claiming there is a direct link between Haiyan and climate change, then they are incorrect.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

fits

djpbarry wrote: »

If Filipinos are claiming there is a direct link between Haiyan and climate change, then they are incorrect.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

how are you so certain that anthropogenic forcing isn't a factor?

Turtwig

fits wrote: »

how are you so certain that anthropogenic forcing isn't a factor?

I doubt he is certain. It's a single event. Climate is a statistical phenomenon so you can never say one single event is caused by climate change. You can only say a frequency of events are likely caused by it.

Eoghan Barra

Jernal wrote: »

Climate is a statistical phenomenon so you can never say one single event is caused by climate change. You can only say a frequency of events are likely caused by it.

Well put.

So if you are living in a part of the world where life is becoming almost impossible due to worsening weather patterns, you can say to yourself:
'This frequency of events is likely caused by climate change. However, there is no direct connection between climate change and this specific storm, drought, flood etc., as it is only a single event.'

fits

Well, if for example, and this is conjecture, because i dont have figures to hand, the sea surface temperature of the pacific has been steadily rising over thirty years hence giving more energy to intense storms such as this one... Well that's a direct link isn't it? There's natural variability and then there is anthropogenic forcing on top of that. I'm not saying its definitely the case here im just surprised that people can say that's an incorrect assumption.

At what point is it ok to say yeah climate change was a big factor in that?

fits

actually just looked up and no major trends in pacific sst so nevermind previous post. ( and posting from phone)

Turtwig

There are two separate issues here:
The first is the build up of heat content in the oceans. How that affects the formation of hurricanes/typhoons is unclear. Does it lead to less frequent storms with more intensity? More frequent storms with less intensity? More frequent storms with greater intensity? Or some other combination?

The second is that we're talking about a weather event that occurred. It's like trying to pin an exaggerate cigarette to someone's lung cancer. You simply cannot do it. You can say to a smoker that the cigarettes made them more likely to get cancer but can never actually say that an individual cigarette caused the cancer.

Eoghan Barra

Jernal wrote: »

It's like trying to pin an exaggerate cigarette to someone's lung cancer. You simply cannot do it. You can say to a smoker that the cigarettes made them more likely to get cancer but can never actually say that an individual cigarette caused the cancer.

Good analogy in more ways than one: as others I'm sure have pointed out, there are parallels between the tactics of the tobacco companies in denying the link between cancer and smoking in the past, and other interests in denying the connection between fossil fuels and climate change more recently.

But, in any event, it is reasonable to make a direct connection when someone who has smoked all their life gets lung cancer, whether it can be proved or not, and despite the minor possibility that the cancer might have appeared anyway. Ditto with the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall.

Eoghan Barra

fits wrote: »

At what point is it ok to say yeah climate change was a big factor in that?

For some people, never.

djpbarry

fits wrote: »

how are you so certain that anthropogenic forcing isn't a factor?

I’m not certain at all. We have no idea either way – that’s the point.

djpbarry

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

So if you are living in a part of the world where life is becoming almost impossible due to worsening weather patterns, you can say to yourself:
'This frequency of events is likely caused by climate change...

No, you can say that “this frequency of events might be a result of climate change...”

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

But, in any event, it is reasonable to make a direct connection when someone who has smoked all their life gets lung cancer, whether it can be proved or not, and despite the minor possibility that the cancer might have appeared anyway. Ditto with the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall.

That’s a very poor analogy. A better analogy would be as follows.

Suppose you have an office with a certain number of people working in it. Suppose there was no law against smoking in this office and one person in the office smoked heavily, but nobody else did. For arguments sake, let’s say this smoker’s “second hand” smoke was evenly distributed throughout the office. Now, we could certainly say that there probability of someone in the office developing lung cancer has increased. However, if any one person did develop lung cancer, it would be very difficult to establish a causal link.

Duiske

Eoghan Barra wrote: »

Ditto with the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall.

This piece from the NY Times suggests that while this was a big storm, describing it as "the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall" is an exaggeration. Full article.

Before the typhoon made landfall, some international forecasters were estimating wind speeds at 195 m.p.h., which would have meant the storm would hit with winds among the strongest recorded. But local forecasters later disputed those estimates. “Some of the reports of wind speeds were exaggerated,” Mr. Paciente said.

The Philippine weather agency measured winds on the eastern edge of the country at about 150 m.p.h., he said, with some tracking stations recording speeds as low as 100 m.p.h.

The United States Navy’s Joint Typhoon Warning Center used satellite analysis to estimate sustained winds at 195 m.p.h., with gusts up to 235 m.p.h., but that measured the center of the storm when it was over the ocean.

Eoghan Barra

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s a very poor analogy. A better analogy would be as follows.

Suppose you have an office with a certain number of people working in it. Suppose there was no law against smoking in this office and one person in the office smoked heavily, but nobody else did. For arguments sake, let’s say this smoker’s “second hand” smoke was evenly distributed throughout the office. Now, we could certainly say that there probability of someone in the office developing lung cancer has increased. However, if any one person did develop lung cancer, it would be very difficult to establish a causal link.

So long as you're happy...

Eoghan Barra

Duiske wrote: »

This piece from the NY Times suggests that while this was a big storm, describing it as "the strongest recorded storm ever to make landfall" is an exaggeration. Full article.

While it may not turn out to be the strongest storm on record (though meteorologists are saying that's possible), it can hardly be called just 'a big storm'.