Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
Kawasicki said:
plunker said:
The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?
Dunno the mechanism, though the rate of change is similar to today, so obviously it isn't that unusual.
Jinx said:
plunker said:
The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?
The same one as today that doesn't involve plant food 
I hesitated to bring up physical plausibility while you were around, given your incredible open-mindedness towards some of the more 'alternative' climate theories out there - in an anything but CO2 type way of course
Rhyolith said:
Yes, the media exists for most as a means of entrainment. Why it is aloud to continue being labelled as a reliable source of information is, let alone an unbiased one (looking at you BBC), is beyond me... but thats politics and subjective opinions again.
The IPCC was written in part to solve this problem. The summary reports contain simple statements that can be understand by everyone, but state the uncertainty unlike the newspapers. I know a lot of people don't trust it, but if you don't have the time to go through all the actual research (like most of us) then its probably the most accurate summary of Human Induced CC that your going to see.
For me this is moving on to what to do about this problem with the information we have, so I am making another thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The IPCC is a joke though, remember the "hockey stick" saga?The IPCC was written in part to solve this problem. The summary reports contain simple statements that can be understand by everyone, but state the uncertainty unlike the newspapers. I know a lot of people don't trust it, but if you don't have the time to go through all the actual research (like most of us) then its probably the most accurate summary of Human Induced CC that your going to see.
For me this is moving on to what to do about this problem with the information we have, so I am making another thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Rhyolith on Friday 11th November 09:14
TX.
Terminator X said:
Rhyolith said:
Yes, the media exists for most as a means of entrainment. Why it is aloud to continue being labelled as a reliable source of information is, let alone an unbiased one (looking at you BBC), is beyond me... but thats politics and subjective opinions again.
The IPCC was written in part to solve this problem. The summary reports contain simple statements that can be understand by everyone, but state the uncertainty unlike the newspapers. I know a lot of people don't trust it, but if you don't have the time to go through all the actual research (like most of us) then its probably the most accurate summary of Human Induced CC that your going to see.
For me this is moving on to what to do about this problem with the information we have, so I am making another thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
The IPCC is a joke though, remember the "hockey stick" saga?The IPCC was written in part to solve this problem. The summary reports contain simple statements that can be understand by everyone, but state the uncertainty unlike the newspapers. I know a lot of people don't trust it, but if you don't have the time to go through all the actual research (like most of us) then its probably the most accurate summary of Human Induced CC that your going to see.
For me this is moving on to what to do about this problem with the information we have, so I am making another thread: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Edited by Rhyolith on Friday 11th November 09:14
TX.
king up the planet. On the otherhand a graph without vertical scales going back to the pre-cambrian proves little other than the climate and CO2 levels do change. That there is no information as to the source of the data or error bars means it is only useful to someone wanting to believe it.
plunker said:
Kawasicki said:
plunker said:
The other thing is physical plausibility - how likely is it that the global average temperature in the holocene has spiked up 1C and down again in the space of a couple of hundred years and by what mechanism?
Dunno the mechanism, though the rate of change is similar to today, so obviously it isn't that unusual.
Jinx said:
No you are missing the point.
We have no evidence - the resolution of the past data is such that rates of change far greater than the current post 1950 changes could have happened but we would be none-the-wiser.
The proxy data is poor and given as NOAA have decided even the measurements we do have in the past need changing is there anything we can say with any certainty?
I am not missing the point. you looking at it too simplistically. If the changes your want to look at are higher resolution than the data you have to analyse them, then you don't just have nothing, you just have a higher uncertainty. This kind of goes back the the whole thing about "proof" again... there is not just either an answer or not an answer. We have no evidence - the resolution of the past data is such that rates of change far greater than the current post 1950 changes could have happened but we would be none-the-wiser.
The proxy data is poor and given as NOAA have decided even the measurements we do have in the past need changing is there anything we can say with any certainty?
Further your seeing the data as fixed points in the timeline, most of them don't work like this. Take the example of the glacial valley again: If you know there was a glacier there 10'000 years ago you can infer it was cold enough then to support a glacier, but you also know it was cold enough to support a glacier for years before then (because glaciers take time to form) so thats not just one point, about many years of cold climate for that region.
Terminator X said:
The IPCC is a joke though, remember the "hockey stick" saga?
TX.
Is it? The Climate scientists I have spoken too don't seem to think so.TX.
mondeoman said:
Heard on the news this morning that man made co2 has flat-lined for the last three years. Yet Mona Louie is recording ever increasing atmospheric co2, and the temperatures have been flat for the last 15-18 years.
How do you scientifically square this circle....?
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 200 years.How do you scientifically square this circle....?
Temperatures have not been "flat" for the last 15 - 18 years:
According to woodfortrees.org:
15 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/...
18 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/...
Note: this website is referred to by the denier websites... when it suits them. In fact, that's how I first found out about it.
If you play around with short periods like this you'll see you can make it go flat, or down, or anything you like really. The site owner mentions this here:
http://woodfortrees.org/notes#trends
durbster said:
mondeoman said:
Heard on the news this morning that man made co2 has flat-lined for the last three years. Yet Mona Louie is recording ever increasing atmospheric co2, and the temperatures have been flat for the last 15-18 years.
How do you scientifically square this circle....?
CO2 remains in the atmosphere for up to 200 years.How do you scientifically square this circle....?
Temperatures have not been "flat" for the last 15 - 18 years:
According to woodfortrees.org:
15 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/...
18 years:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/...
Note: this website is referred to by the denier websites... when it suits them. In fact, that's how I first found out about it.
If you play around with short periods like this you'll see you can make it go flat, or down, or anything you like really. The site owner mentions this here:
http://woodfortrees.org/notes#trends
robinessex said:
Still on about bloody planet temperature, when no one has answered the question, does it matter ?
OK, I'll have a go. Yes CO2 has been higher in the past, as have temps. So have sea levels - by 200m, (possibly more). The changes in temperature that resulted in these pre-historic sea levels may have been caused by different combinations of factors - the sun's output, earth's orbit and the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Analysis of the current changes shows that the only plausible factor behind the temperature changes is the emissions of greenhouse gasses. If I recall correctly, the current likely impacts of temperature on sea level are to increase the sea level around the UK by 0.7 to 1.2m over the next 100 years - (this increase isn't even globally btw). The current sea level rise is caused by thermal expansion of the oceans and by the loss of land-based ice cover etc. A few posts back, Terminator x referred to this as still being related to the end of the ice age. Unfortunately it isn't - that stabilised about 6000 years BP after the inundation of Doggerland. (have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise OK it's Wikipedia but it gives a reasonable summary). In the UK This means that we will have to make significant investments (i.e £10s of billions) to improve the coastal defences around low-lying cities like London, Hull etc.In addition, the temperature changes aren't even across the planets surface. I recently posted a link WMO report summarising the global climate over the last 5 years. A 1 degree average change translates into 3-5 degrees at the Arctic resulting in increased ice sheet melting (including that on Greenland). It also increases the risk of permafrost melting leading to more methane emissions (more greenhouse gasses). Much is made of the attempt to keep emissions down in an attempt to limit the the increase in temp to 2 degrees. The reasoning behind this is about trying to avoid the positive feedback loops that could happen with reduced absorption of CO2 by the oceans and increased emissions of Methane etc. A 1-2 degree rise may actually be quite beneficial to the UK in nett terms but would be a significant problem elsewhere (1m + sea level rise in Bangladesh? New York, Tokyo?) bigger increases in temp and the knock on effects on sea level could well mean having to re-locate many of the worlds capital cities etc etc.
Here's a plan for the UK.
Can HS2 and spend the cash on sea defences for Hull and other useful places that act as ports.
Move the UK capital city status to Birmingham (thus effectively helping the northern powerhouse and eliminating any possible need for HS2 now that the budget has been spent elsewhere.
Slowly move out of London over the next few decades and allow it to sink into its underground house extensions.
Do not rebuild the Palace of Westminster. Completely unnecessary once the capital has moved. Several more billions that can be re-directed to somewhere useful for risk reduction purposes.
There we go - few starters.
Humans have, generally, always moved and adapted. They are pretty good at that although insects may be better.
If supposed Climate Changes do not occur (for whatever reason) we can be fairly certain that humans, taking things into their own hands to "control stuff", will end up trashing their own environment. Just like now really, but in a different way.
Can HS2 and spend the cash on sea defences for Hull and other useful places that act as ports.
Move the UK capital city status to Birmingham (thus effectively helping the northern powerhouse and eliminating any possible need for HS2 now that the budget has been spent elsewhere.
Slowly move out of London over the next few decades and allow it to sink into its underground house extensions.
Do not rebuild the Palace of Westminster. Completely unnecessary once the capital has moved. Several more billions that can be re-directed to somewhere useful for risk reduction purposes.
There we go - few starters.
Humans have, generally, always moved and adapted. They are pretty good at that although insects may be better.
If supposed Climate Changes do not occur (for whatever reason) we can be fairly certain that humans, taking things into their own hands to "control stuff", will end up trashing their own environment. Just like now really, but in a different way.
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 15th November 23:40
NASA finds there is a net accumulation of ice in the Antartic-
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mas...
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
Then there is this simulation of distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere-
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/a-closer-look-...
Which further helps to illustrate that it is all rather complex.
They do also point out that the rate of accumulation of ice is slowing, I think part of the problem is that there always appear to cases that contradict warming. For all we know we have warmed up the climate and prevented the onset of a glaciation event, lower sea levels may be useful, but not if large parts of the northern hemisphere are under ice.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mas...
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
Then there is this simulation of distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere-
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/a-closer-look-...
Which further helps to illustrate that it is all rather complex.
They do also point out that the rate of accumulation of ice is slowing, I think part of the problem is that there always appear to cases that contradict warming. For all we know we have warmed up the climate and prevented the onset of a glaciation event, lower sea levels may be useful, but not if large parts of the northern hemisphere are under ice.
Toltec said:
NASA finds there is a net accumulation of ice in the Antartic-
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mas...
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
I love the precision in those numbers.http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mas...
“The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,” Zwally said. “But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.”
LongQ said:
I love the precision in those numbers.
No doubt measured at different sites, using different equipment over the years and perhaps not even directly, with careful corrections for tides, weather, expansion due to temperature and uplift due to loss of the down thrust of the ice covering in the last ice age. It's all in the statistical analysis which is all really, really complicated so we should just trust the scientists.
Oddly if the 0.27mm isn't from the Antarctic and it is in fact sucking up 0.23mm then something else is adding half a mill which sounds nicely approximate. Where is it coming from though? On the other hand have they just used the estimates for ice melting to calculate how much the sea level is rising so we are really about half a mill better off? It is probably out there somewhere, but it is too late to start looking tonight.
On the subject of trusting scientists, anyone else remember doing Millikan's oil drop experiment at school?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment
It was not too long after the controversy about his measurements arose which my teacher was aware of, I hadn't realised that later work had refuted this all be it at the cost of the results appearing less certain than Millikan stated.
Scientists are human, at one point I wanted to become a physicist enough to study it at university so I understand that quite well, I just ended up going down a more practical path.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff