Shelagh

The information I have pooled together is freely available on the Internet. I neither wrote nor agree with most of it; I offered it to show the reasons for my scepticism. In the event the messenger is bring blamed for all the information that is currently available. I've even been accused of martyrdom, which isn't my style at all.

 

I wish you all a very happy New Year, and good luck to all the climate scientists and much success with new discoveries in 2016!

Hmmmm... OK.... So we agree to agree? I'm confused?

 

Edit/ cross posted/ @ shelagh,

The literature is confusing. Here are the two most recent studies:

 

Oxford University: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014JD022022/full

 

Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter: http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150623/ncomms8535/full/ncomms8535.html

But this is what I don't understand: if you don't think CO2 is responsible for climate change, why do you think new technology is required?

New technology will be available by 2030, not because it is required but because technological advances are always ongoing. Two research papers have been published since this paper was presented at the astronomy conference, both of which produced models suggesting that the cooling effect would be slight and would be limited to the northern hemisphere. With such differences of opinion, we won't know the full impact for at least five years. By then, with further research, the predictions will be more accurate.

Maybe the prediction is correct but then we have more than a decade to prepare for the possibility that the prediction turns out to be false. But then you dont seem to believe in predictive models, so why this one?

 

I don't believe in the models. I believe in looking through the window to see what the real world is doing and taking the necessary steps to make the world a cleaner, safer place.

If that does happen, it might just slow down some of the effects of CO2. Which would obviously be welcome, to buy a bit of time if nothing else. But then the Sun's output will rise again and we will be back on the same track.

If the prediction is correct, the cooling effect will occur over the period of a decade, by which time many changes will have taken place and new technology/research will be available:

 

The model predicts that the magnetic wave pairs will become increasingly offset during Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then during Cycle 26, which covers the decade from 2030-2040, the two waves will become exactly out of synch, cancelling one another out. This will cause a significant reduction in solar activity. In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other, peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a Maunder minimum, says Zharkova.

I'm unsure whether this is scientific/relevant enough or not. This research suggests that diminished solar activity around 2030 will have a cooling effect:

 

Their predictions using the model suggest an interesting longer-term trend beyond the 11-year cycle. It shows that solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s, to conditions last seen during the Maunder Minimum of 1645-1715. Over the cycle, the waves fluctuate between the Suns northern and southern hemispheres. Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent, says Zharkova. http://astronomynow.com/2015/07/09/royal-astronomical-societys-national-astronomy-meeting-2015-report-4/

 

Shelagh

 

We do not work like that. You either discuss matters with all members or you bow out completely. You do not get to make an argument for all to see and then refuse to answer those who challenge you. By the way - "agreeing to disagree" is pretty nearly the antithesis of science; we agree to follow the evidence not to stick to our prejudices in the face of it.

 

Your attitude in the two global warming threads leaves a lot to be desired. Your arguments have seemed to consist of a foul admixture of straw men, argumentum ad ignorantiam, and bald assertions; we will not allow this to continue - especially in a thread on a subject which is settled science.

 

This is a science forum and we refuse to allow political and rhetorical arguments to flourish in the science fora. The attitude displayed in the quoted post will not be tolerated - if you wish to continue to post on climate change without risking sanction please limit yourself to scientific arguments founded on fact rather than personal opinion and anecdotage.

 

Please explain how I should discuss matters with members on my "ignore" list.

Thank you for finally answering a question. It is sad that your response lacks any substance, but is little more than unsupported opinion.

 

Perhaps we cannot control the climate, but we sure as hell can stop fucking it up¹.

 

 

1. There are occasions when thoughts are best expressed in Anglo Saxon/Middle English. I believe this to be one of them.

Ophiolite, we will have to agree to disagree. This is my last response to you; even if you ask me a question, I will not reply.

Gross and unsavoury stupidity!

 

We have upset the natural world by dumping enormous quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. ( Do you deny this? If so why?) The intention of those you are arguing against is to reduce this dumping and eventually eliminate it (Do you deny this? If so why?), allowing the balanced, natural condition to be regained over time. (Do you deny this? If so why?) In short, those who accept AGW are committed to reducing human interference with the natural world, (Do you deny this? If so why?) while those who deny wish, in their arrogance and ignorance, to continue disrespecting the natural world. (Do you deny this? If so why?)

Without human interference, smog will remain a problem in Chinese cities. Without human interference, homes that are currently under water in the UK will suffer the same circumstances over and over again. Without human interference, arsonists will continue to set fire to forests and grasslands. Without human interference, years of drought will persist because of poor management of water resources. Human interference is essential in creating a better world. Humans can control the environment; they cannot control the climate.

OK. Let's try again without my sarcastic comments which were obviously a distraction from the serious questions. 1. What, exactly, are you saying is nonsense? 2. As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them? (Do you need me to quote the post where you have said this?) 3. But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

1. I did not misuse or misrepresent the data presented. The extremes of temperature are there for everyone to see. It is nonsense to say that graphs should only be reproduced by one group of people.

 

2. I did not make any claims about anything. That seems to be part of the frustration of the AGW supporters here: the fact that I have not denied the possibility of climate change, only failed to accept that there is a link to human activity. The uncertainty in the models is not from the collected data; it is from how that data is being used to predict a trend.

 

3. Climate change is ongoing. The idea of being in control of the climate by changing human activity, and thus modelling the world to suit humans, shows a lack of respect for the natural world. We are not in control. Climate science will not determine the future; the way people adapt and cope with climate change will determine the future.

This is nonsense; I have said none of this:

 

 

As your link says, that graph is derived from models. But you claim that models are too inaccurate to be used, therefore why are you using them?

 

But if you are happy to use models for the last two thousand years why are you unhappy to use models for the present and near future?

 

Can you really not see how inconsistent your position is?

(And, of course, you can't help but be inconsistent because you are arguing based on blind belief, rather than science.)

 

So far, your best arguments have been:

 

• "CO2 is harmless but I think it would be a good idea to spend money reducing it"
• "Climate models show the climate has changed but climate models are too inaccurate to use"
• "Scientists agree that the data shows that CO2 causes climate change but I am going to believe a novelist and assorted liars instead"

This is probabily more an issue with science reporting than science itself.We all know, and all acknowledge that extreme weather events have always been part of normal weather patterns. It is the frequency and in some cases the magnitude of these extreme events that appears to be increasing.

Frequency is actually declining: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/10/01/extreme-weather-failing-to-follow-global-warming-predictions-hurricanes-tornadoes-droughts-floods-wildfires-see-no-trend-or-declining-trends/

 

These are two great example of your cognitive dissonance (hypocrisy / dishonesty / whatever) when it comes to this subject.

 

1. That data is from the models that you say are wrong. Therefore you should not be using it.

 

2. The fact that there has been change in the climate in the past is obviously true. Perhaps you could explain why you think that our understanding of past causes of climate change proves that our understanding of current climate change is wrong? (Presumably because some ignorant tabloid journalist told you so.)

Nonsense, the graph is plotted data that anyone can plot for themselves from the data listed here: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/moberg2005/nhtemp-moberg2005.txt

Exactly, and any confusion in the literature around 1900 is not really going to cut it as evidence. Indeed they could be. As we learn more the fears may change, not nessisarily for the better. Science is not 'set in stone' in that respect.However, you should be aware of the great advances that have been made in computer modelling of the climate. It is naive to think that the science is greatly off: indeed today we really explore the 'probability space' and place estimate on confidences. The subject is maturing all the time and I doubt anyone really thinks that climate change will be good for everyone.

... but people are motivated by hope. Resistance to climate change can have amazing results:

 

Are these actual claims made in scientific papers or are they rather an attempt to sensationalise science? I suspect they are a bit of both and highlight the extreme possibilities. However, the extreme claims should not distract you from the science of climate change. You seem to be focusing in on the wrong things.

Maybe the way that climate change is presented focuses attention on the extremes too much. This graph shows that extremes are normal and not unprecedented:

 

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7079/full/nature04575.html

No. That is exactly the same thing: more CO2 = warmer.

 

How blinded by political prejudices do you have to be to think that warming is not the same thing as warming. Extraordinary.

 

But also, you complain that we need better models. We now have better models, which is why we know that older fears about an ice age were mistaken. And of course, in future, we will have even better models (as some of your own links and quotations confirm).

Yes, yes, I accept that CO2 is seen as the main cause of warming by both past and present climate scientists. As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

I do not see the relevance of Arrhenius' 1896 study of greenhouse gases, other than he was the first to study such effects. This reminds me of attacks on relativity by going back to the first papers by Einstein who was doing very pioneering things. We do not care what Arrhenius predicted or not, scientists have taken his ideas and refined them, retested them and so on. Any attack on greenhouse gases and their potential for climate change should be based on modern findings.

I'm sorry if you feel that greenhouse gases are under attack. A 97% concensus can hardly feel under attack from the remaining 3%!

I'm not sure that analogy works. There you had a model, based on all the known factors, which failed to produce the expected results. And also that model was not based on cause and effect but rather on correlations.

 

Climate models are quite different. For one thing, they do produce the expected results (as you said, the world is very old and this gives us a lot of data to test models against). The effect of CO2 is not based on an observed correlation ("oh look CO2 and temperature have both gone up") but on the well-known underlying causes, in other words the physics. These effects were predicted long before it became a problem: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

Arrhenius thought that burning fossil fuels would protect against the possibility of entering a mini ice age. Modern climatologists argue that the burning of fossil fuels will destroy the polar ice caps with subsequent devastating effects on global climates. The antithesis to Arrhenius's predictions:

 

Arrhenius' absorption values for CO2 and his conclusions met criticism by Knut Ångström in 1900, who published the first modern infrared spectrum of CO2 with two absorption bands, and published experimental results that seemed to show that absorption of infrared radiation by the gas in the atmosphere was already "saturated" so that adding more could make no difference. Arrhenius replied strongly in 1901 (Annalen der Physik), dismissing the critique altogether. He touched the subject briefly in a technical book titled Lehrbuch der kosmischen Physik (1903). He later wrote Världarnas utveckling (1906) (German: Das Werden der Welten [1907], English: Worlds in the Making [1908]) directed at a general audience, where he suggested that the human emission of CO2 would be strong enough to prevent the world from entering a new ice age, and that a warmer earth would be needed to feed the rapidly increasing population:

 

"To a certain extent the temperature of the earth's surface, as we shall presently see, is conditioned by the properties of the atmosphere surrounding it, and particularly by the permeability of the latter for the rays of heat." (p46)

"That the atmospheric envelopes limit the heat losses from the planets had been suggested about 1800 by the great French physicist Fourier. His ideas were further developed afterwards by Pouillet and Tyndall. Their theory has been styled the hot-house theory, because they thought that the atmosphere acted after the manner of the glass panes of hot-houses." (p51)

"If the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] in the air should sink to one-half its present percentage, the temperature would fall by about 4°; a diminution to one-quarter would reduce the temperature by 8°. On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4°; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8°." (p53)

"Although the sea, by absorbing carbonic acid, acts as a regulator of huge capacity, which takes up about five-sixths of the produced carbonic acid, we yet recognize that the slight percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere may by the advances of industry be changed to a noticeable degree in the course of a few centuries." (p54)

"Since, now, warm ages have alternated with glacial periods, even after man appeared on the earth, we have to ask ourselves: Is it probable that we shall in the coming geological ages be visited by a new ice period that will drive us from our temperate countries into the hotter climates of Africa? There does not appear to be much ground for such an apprehension. The enormous combustion of coal by our industrial establishments suffices to increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air to a perceptible degree." (p61)

"We often hear lamentations that the coal stored up in the earth is wasted by the present generation without any thought of the future, and we are terrified by the awful destruction of life and property which has followed the volcanic eruptions of our days. We may find a kind of consolation in the consideration that here, as in every other case, there is good mixed with the evil. By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates, especially as regards the colder regions of the earth, ages when the earth will bring forth much more abundant crops than at present, for the benefit of rapidly propagating mankind." (p63) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

... or narwhals.

Climate models aren't predicated on the change being caused by CO2. Climate models simply take all of the effects that we measure and combine them. CO2 being the cause is the conclusion, not the assumption.

 

If it's not CO2, then what's causing it? Science doesn't shrug its collective shoulders at "it's natural". The various energy sources and sinks can be (and are) studied.

In the mid 1980s, a group of researchers at the University of Strathclyde were involved in a computer science research project. They used expert system technology to devise a program that could perform the same task as a cheese tester in a cheese factory. In order to build a system with a set of rules and knowledge base, the team asked the expert to explain how he decided on the maturity of the cheese. The tester explained the tests that he performed on the cheese. These tests became the expert system rules. When they tested the system against the real expert, the results were not the same. They asked the tester if he did anything else that they hadn't incorporated into the program. After trial and error, the deciding factor turned out to be smell. When the tester crumbled the cheese to check the consistency, gases were released. These gases determined the maturity of the cheese.

 

When you say that CO2 is the cause of global warming, it is possible that CO2 is not the deciding factor; the real cause may yet to be discovered. I have an open mind about global warming and the underlying cause. I feel that there are still a lot of unknown factors.

You are scarcely entitled to ask someone to answer questions when you have meticulously avoided doing so in the other climate thread.

 

These threads are meant to be about the science of climate change. You have ensured that they have become about you, your dishonesty, your hypocrisy, your rudeness, your delusions and your ignorance. Congratulations!

I won't throw a wobbly if dimreepr doesn't answer my question. It was loaded question, anyway, and I never answer loaded questions.

dimreepr, please answer my question. Thank you.

If climate change isn't caused by CO2 then what is the point wasting money on projects like that?

If climate change isn't caused by CO2, will the present climate models be replaced? If so, by what?

With or without climate change, this sounds good to me:

 

Can we really pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere to matter?

There are some very established ways of doing it, like reforestation. They're all limited because the biosphere itself is under so much pressure. But there are some new options. Seaweed farming is one example. Seaweed grows 30 to 60 times faster than land-based plants. One study said if you could just seed nine per cent of the world's oceans with seaweed farms, you would be drawing out the equivalent of all current emissions as well as providing 200 kilograms (per capita) of high-quality protein a year for a population of 10 billion. That's huge. Now, nine per cent of the world's oceans is an area about 4.5 times the size of Australia. It's a massive area. But the potential is there. People are now thinking about this. There are also the chemical pathways, which to me are much more interesting because they're new. An example is carbon-negative concrete. Concrete production is five per cent of global emissions now, but there are now methods of making concrete that's carbon-negative, meaning as it sets over years it absorbs CO2 into its structure. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/10/28/finding-hope-within-the-doom-and-gloom-of-climate-change.html

You have evidence for that, presumably? (And, I hope, better evidence than that used for climate change. Or is this "mere speculation and exaggeration"?)

Did you know that In the UK, 79,000 fires are started on grass and heathland every year. This is an average of 216 every day! Fire can spread faster than you think and can destroy a tent in less than 60 seconds. http://www.manchesterfire.gov.uk/safe4summer/Personal-Safety.html

 

The combination of scorching temperatures and the start of the school holidays on Friday will make this weekend a peak for brush fires, many of which are started deliberately by children. The hot, dry weather has turned large areas of countryside into a tinder box, with 21 grass fires a day recorded in the London area this month.

 

This weekend could be a bit of a peak for grass fires, as the holidays start and the continuing dry weather increases the risks of fires spreading rapidly, said John Ballard, a spokesman for Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service. We would urge parents to keep an eye on their kids.

 

Chobham Common in Surrey, the largest nature reserve in the South-east, caught fire on Monday night and destroyed five acres of ancient lowland heath that is home to hundreds of species, such as the rare Dartford warbler.

 

Emergency crews also tackled three separate blazes on common land around nearby Godalming, as well as in Carlisle and elsewhere in Cumbria, and another in Bolton.

 

All have been blamed on arson and the concern is that, with high temperatures and low rainfall forecast to continue for at least another month, unsupervised children will inflict increasingly severe damage on the countryside by setting fires that accelerate rapidly. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/wildfire-warning-as-britain-enjoys-best-summer-in-years-8711604.html

 

Over the last week firefighters across the South Wales Valleys have fought more than 500 fires which were started deliberately. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/valleys-burning-shocking-pictures-show-9078587

You clearly think that the uninformed opinions of miscellaneous liars, fiction writers and right-wing politicians are more important than objective data about the natural world.

The natural world is unpredictable. Scientists are learning a great deal, but climatology is in its infancy; the world has been around for a very long time.

We're talking about an objective consilience about a global dilemma, while you're trying to make everything anecdotal and subjective. That's not science.

In other words, scientific simulations are more important than the natural world. I don't agree.

Do you have any examples of these "outrageous predictions"? Or is this yet another grossly dishonest and offensive strategy to avoid the discussing the science and your irrational beliefs?

"By the start of the twenty-first century, the serious risks associated with the continued tinkering with the planet's thermostat had become all too apparent. They included a wide range of problems:"

 

severe and unprecedented droughts affecting agriculture in some areas.

 

Droughts are a relatively common feature of the weather in the United Kingdom, with one around every 5-10 years on average. These droughts are usually confined to summer, when a blocking high causes hot, dry weather for an extended period. However droughts can vary in their characteristics. All types of drought cause issues across all sectors, with impacts extending to the ecosystem, agriculture and the economy of the whole country in severe cases of drought. The south east of the country usually suffers most, as it has the highest population (and therefore demand) and the lowest average precipitation per year, which is even lower in a drought. Even in these areas in severe droughts, the definition, impacts, effects and management are all minimal in comparison to drought prone areas such as Australia and parts of the United States. In recent years however, the summers of 2007, 2008, 2009 and August 2010 were wetter than normal, 2007 being wettest on record.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

Droughts, short or prolonged, are not uncommon occurences. They can be meteorological droughts:

 

A drought is usually defined as an extended period of weather (usually around 3 weeks) where less than a third of the usual precipitation falls.

 

In the United Kingdom an absolute drought currently defined as a period of at least 15 consecutive days or more where there is less than 0.2 mm (0.008 inches) of rainfall., although before the 1990s a drought was defined as 15 consecutive days with less than 0.25mm (0.01 inches) rain on any one day. This previous definition sometimes led to confusion, as many argued that if less than 0.25mm of rain fell in 30 days, is that 2 droughts and if 0.26mm fell after 25 days, is the drought over? This led to the new definition but many believe hindsight is the best way to judge if a drought has occurred.

 

In the longer term, drought in the United Kingdom can also be defined as a 50 per cent deficit over three months, or a 15 per cent shortfall over two years.

 

Compared to other countries, the United Kingdom definition of a drought is much less severe. In Libya in the Sahel region, a drought is usually only recognized after two years without any measurable rainfall. If this were to happen in the United Kingdom, the consequences would be disastrous.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

or hydrological drought:

 

A different type of drought is the hydrological or agricultural drought whereby moisture is in the soil but little is getting to vegetation, either because it is frozen (which can occur in severely cold winters in the United Kingdom) or because of very high temperatures which means that the rate of evapotranspiration is exceeding the rate of uptake of water from the plant (which can be seen in the United Kingdom, on hot days, when plants wilt as their stores of water are depleted).

 

A hydrological drought can occur, after a relatively dry winter whereby the soil moisture storage, reservoirs and water table have not risen sufficiently to counteract the warm summer weather. These sort of conditions can go over several years, even with above average rainfall at the time as the rainfall only slowly percolates through the water stores and replenishes them.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

severely inflating global food prices

 

Last month saw a 5.2% fall in global food prices, the biggest drop in seven years, according to the UN. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34211715

making conditions more favourable for wildfires in other areas:

 

As drought conditions continue, groundwater levels drop and this provides excellent conditions for fires to develop. With hot, dry weather and no moisture underground, trees lose moisture and become very flammable in dry conditions. This leads to wildfires which usually is the main impact of drought in the United Kingdom, with moorland vegetation such as heather badly affected as the peat bogs dry out. Also, these fires can continue, even when seemingly put out, as the smoldering peat re-ignites the dry vegetation. However, during severe droughts, many trees can burn, and people's lives can be at risk, as in the 1976 drought when a fire encroached on a hospital, and only a wind direction change saved the patients' lives. As embers can be transported easily, and if drought is severe enough, fires can start miles away from their original position as they are transported by wind and even dust devils. With these situations, roads are often closed to prevent loss of life and further damage. These fires also can destroy wildlife habitats, and this can also threaten wildlife.https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drought_in_the_United_Kingdom

Summer fires in the UK are most often started by teenagers. The problem is exacerbated in drought years.

 

increases in extreme rainfall events leading to widespread inundation, destruction of crops, casualties and property loss/damage.

 

The number of UK flood barriers is increasing as more towns and cities find they are at risk of a higher incidence or are facing their first occurrences of flooding.

The UK is now the seventh most vulnerable nation in the world to flooding and the likelihood of the need to evacuate the home is rising year on year.

The main reasons for this are a combination of properties which are built close to each other, the use of floodplains for new development and the concreting over of green areas such as gardens.https://www.floodblockbarrier.com/flood-protection-news/vulnerability-of-the-uk-to-flooding/

Sea level rise over the decades would again affect agriculture due to loss of fertile low-lying lands and would also lead to population displacement and mass-migration. Mankind was, in essence, busily engaged with making areas of the planet's surface uninhabitable for future generations.

This is mere speculation and exaggeration.