Climate change - how little I know ?

karkus30

Ex Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2002
Messages
14,016
Reaction score
1,208
Points
2,254
Having some idle time at work (not as nice as you might think :( ) I thought I would do a bit of Interweb research.

My reasoning.......as climate change seems to be happening, we may well be on the way to a warm period such as the Medieval Warm period. That being the case, during that period people must have lived in areas not prone to flooding. Simple logic really, but I can only get the maps through the National Archives which is going to cost, so I just kept going to try and find out how the whole world reacted during that period.

The research was inconclusive, but what I began to understand is a simple fact..........change in the climate is far from simple and although it can be linked with sea level rise, it is not wise to try and model anything off a few measurements.

For instance:

During 1979 solar activity on the Sun was at its highest peak of an 11 year cycle (this 11 year cycle is well documented). The solar flares caused our atmosphere to expand. Thats the reason skylab fell out of the sky, the atmosphere engulfed it and slowed its orbital speed. During the middle ages we had a mini-ice age, this was when the suns activity was at its lowest, but it would be conjecture to consider this as the reason for the ice age. In the same way as mans contribution to the greenhouse gases is responsible for global warming. Interestingly there was activity on the Sun during this period but only on its South pole.

An expanded atmosphere can contribute to global warming, but again, not in isolation. It depends very much where it has expanded and the axis of the Earth. This axis is constantly moving with respect to the sun (this is what makes the seasons change) and can cause localised warming which in turn can create huge climate changes.

So, with just these two variables alone it becomes almost impossible to predict anything with any certainty (bearing in mind we have trouble predicting day to day weather patterns).

Now you need to add a few more variables into the mix.....

Techtonic movement, the shifting of the earths crust. This is not something that happens every million years but something that is happening right now. At one time all the dry land was situated at the North Pole where it was tropical, at one time we had no seasonal variation at all (modern day plants that produce seeds are a survival response to the sudden onset off seasonal variations).

Techtonic movement can alter sea levels fast as the ocean floor rises or lowers. It can plunge highland into flood planes and lowland into mountains and while its doing this it is also altering the climatic patterns and can cause enormous shifts in climate from relatively small movements. It is interesting that land masses in the Yukon, Hudson Bay and Quebec are now rising land masses where they were once the epicentre of glaciation.

Next we have magnetic variations, again, this also has an effect on the atmosphere and its constantly moving making the poles change from North to South (its why you have to apply a magnetic variation to compass readings as true North and magnetic north are different and continue to move year on year).

Then there is an effect from losing ice at the poles......apparently this could alter the speed at which the Earth spins and its angle to the Sun.

Then theres the amount of dust in the atmosphere. get a couple of big volcanoes to erupt and you could be plunged into another ice age almost overnight.

Now, I am not an expert in all this, but it does strike me that there is a lot more going on to alter the climate than we can possibly consider, how anyone can say we are having a major effect. Infact, even if we were having a major effect the whole eco system is so unstable we might wish we had pumped out even more Co2 when the big hand of nature throws the dice.

Nothing man builds is permanent and nothing resists nature, reducing our co2 output is just another version of us trying to impose some control over nature, its just a benign act for all its good intentions. Nature decides when its time to change, its sort of like our own lives, you can eat the best thing, excersise regularly etc, but be wiped out by any number of unexpected things right in your prime, you cant defend against that, you just enjoy the life you have while you have it.
 
There is a vast amount of complexity in the climate system. But recent warming is acyclic. That's the whole point. Many of the factors underlying previous climatic shifts are simply not applicable to the changes that have occurred in the last few decades.

Like many in here, you underestimate the depth and breadth of the research that has formulated the current consensus. You think the conclusions have been reached by "modelling off a few measurements", and nothing could be further from the truth.
 
There is a vast amount of complexity in the climate system. But recent warming is acyclic. That's the whole point. Many of the factors underlying previous climatic shifts are simply not applicable to the changes that have occurred in the last few decades.

Like many in here, you underestimate the depth and breadth of the research that has formulated the current consensus. You think the conclusions have been reached by "modelling off a few measurements", and nothing could be further from the truth.

But what does it matter anyway. Even if it is acyclic, even if we are hastening change, somewhere along the line the climate is going to change despite our contributions, infact our contributions are purely natural evolution anyway. We have been happily burning forests and overcultivating land for thousands of years, putting dams up to create vast lakes etc all this is part of our instinctive survival.

Let me ask you a question, if, tommorow there was a sudden eruption from one of the many super volcanoes around the world. If the atmosphere was so choked with dust that the temperature plummeted due to the solar radiation being reflected would you still be so worried about switching lights on, driving the car to somewhere to buy food or leaving the heating on to keep warm in freezing temperatures ? I wouldn't, I would try and survive.
 
"science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth"

Cutting through the huge amount of politicisation and bandwagon jumping ain't easy.
e.g compare the ozone story described here
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000759

Also has plenty of content on the political things masquerading/being sold/ as science. Advocacy and science very different things with very very different goals.

And a huge amount of dollars are being chased on the back of this - look at Al Gore's firm. Also remember that the Kyoto Protocol establishes a carbon trading framework i.e.creates a market where non existed before. With India and China economies going gangbusters will this actually reduce their carbon emissions or just tap into the wealth generation going on there ? ?

For more on the solar stuff this is pretty good
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
helps if you have A level on Uni level maths (if your A levels are recent it may need to be Uni level..)

The International Arctic Research Center explains the 'passion' here:-
http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/index.php
and argues (correctly) for need to establish scientific rigour.

Of course politics always trumps reality so the chance of it actually happening are small IMV. Something the bandwagon jumpers are relying on I think.
But unless and until it is established then its all just agendas and sales talk.
At the moment it is still a hypothesis being sold as scientific fact on the back of consensus - see quote at to of this for how much store you can place in consensus science.
 
But what does it matter anyway. Even if it is acyclic, even if we are hastening change, somewhere along the line the climate is going to change despite our contributions
And in the end, we are all going to die anyway. I fail to see your point.

infact our contributions are purely natural evolution anyway. We have been happily burning forests and overcultivating land for thousands of years, putting dams up to create vast lakes etc all this is part of our instinctive survival.
I think you may have an inadequate understanding of "natural evolution". Mankind, perhaps uniquely amongst life on earth, makes choices about what to do on the planet. Some of those choices turn out to be better than others. Some of them turn out to be disastrous. Look at the history of the Aral sea for a recent example of some poor choices.

Let me ask you a question, if, tomorrow there was a sudden eruption from one of the many super volcanoes around the world. If the atmosphere was so choked with dust that the temperature plummeted due to the solar radiation being reflected would you still be so worried about switching lights on, driving the car to somewhere to buy food or leaving the heating on to keep warm in freezing temperatures ? I wouldn't, I would try and survive.
You point eludes me yet again. You are comparing a natural disaster over which we have no control with a potential one over we have considerable control. The earth might be struck by a giant meteorite in the future and we might all be wiped out. Does that uncertainty render everything we do in the meantime pointless?
 
You point eludes me yet again.

I suspect his point is, enjoy today and don't worry too much about tomorrow .... it might never come.

But then, I'm not being deliberately stupid.
 
"science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth"
Ah, yes. Consensus as the new heresy.

For more on the solar stuff this is pretty good
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
helps if you have A level on Uni level maths (if your A levels are recent it may need to be Uni level..)

Climate sensitivity redefined according to simplistic climate models. Didn't Viscount Monckton try that? And then the resulting discrepancy explained by cosmic ray cloud seeding. No trend in GCR since 1952 though. An inconvenient truth indeed...
 
"Science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth"
You call it heresy - but it is true. Science does not work by consensus, as a physicist you know this.

The failings of the complex GCM models well documented in lots of places.
Wither Occam ?

as for GCR - see fig 6 on
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
at least counter Shaviv's argument with some verifiable references

You seem to have missed the entire gist of my post.
Advocacy on your part perhaps ? ?
 
"Science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth"

You call it heresy - but it is true.
You missed the point. I was referring to the idea that a view is suspect precisely because there is a consensus around it. Consensus has become the new heresy.

Your own postings provide ample evidence for this. You scour the Internet looking for articles which castigate the IPCC for alleged political bias, or damn the science as flawed. You always fail to notice when they disagree with each other. It's good enough that they disagree with the IPCC: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Presumably the lack of consensus amongst AGW sceptics is now to be regarded as a virtue.

The failings of the complex GCM models well documented in lots of places.
Not well documented at all. Merely hand-waving arguments about how difficult it all is.

Wither Occam ?
Occam held that entities should not be multiplied unneccessarily. That isn't a call to disregard essential complexity. The climate is complex. It follows that realistic models will be complex too. You won't get a better model by throwing away all the interactions.

as for GCR - see fig 6 on
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
at least counter Shaviv's argument with some verifiable references
Good starting point here. Lots of references included, but not all online.
 
You are pro the 'consensus' - post 2 here and many others.
Calling it 'heresy' is mere spin as heresy to try to ad weight to the 'consensual view' is by definition "an opinion or doctrine in philosophy, politics, science, art, etc., at variance with those generally accepted as authoritative".
When of course science does not work by consensus.
This is on a par with calling people 'denialists'

As for the IPCC is it discredited because of its political methods. (advocacy again). The Chapter on Hurricanes just one small example but the whole shooting match is discredited.
As for the depth and validity of its work, and the alleged but untrue 'agreement of 2,500 scientists' here is an example of what just one of the reviewers went through.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640#more-640

the comments there well worth going through as well.
You will find yet another discussion about the failings of GCMs.

try the link to
http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunder/id19.html
Not bad for a young 'un.

Rigorous scientific foundation underpinning the AR4 ? Not at all.
 
You are pro the 'consensus' - post 2 here and many others.
You misunderstand the meaning and value of a scientific consensus on climate change. The point is that there are many unknowns, and much debate within the climate research community about details. The IPCC is in fact a very conservative organisation, and the "consensus" reflects a core set of data and projections upon which the vast majority of researchers are agreed.

It is not like choosing to take a vote on the value of Pi (as the state legislature of Indiana once did).

As for the depth and validity of its work, and the alleged but untrue 'agreement of 2,500 scientists' here is an example of what just one of the reviewers went through.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640#more-640

I'm afraid I lost interest as soon as I read his name. I do not regard McIntyre as a credible figure, given his track record of errors and false accusations.

An article by some American schoolkid? No thanks. Perhaps after he's submitted it for peer review.
 
Oh dear....here we go again...and we were doing so well.

:boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring: :boring:
 
If you have nothing to say, there are quieter ways of not saying it.

I have plenty to offer but I can't educate the ineducable! :D

But then, I'm not being deliberately stupid.

Sadly I don't think it was deliberate. :rolleyes:
 
"I'm afraid I lost interest as soon as I read his name. I do not regard McIntyre as a credible figure, given his track record of errors and false accusations."

Well the IPCC has more regard for him than you do - they invited him to be a reviewer. His experience with them well worth reading - as are the comments on the linked page. The IPCC does not come out as conservative at all
Well at least you disagree with the IPCC on something.

Some kid ? Untrammeled by prejudices and opinions, who has come up with a causal linkage. Being under 21 doesn't make someone automatically wrong.

Remember the story of the schoolteacher in the 1780s who gave the class of 10 year olds the task of adding all the numbers between 1 and 100 (to occupy their time while the teacher did something else). They all started adding up furiously but one of them came out with the answer very very quickly.
Being young does not preclude being right, any more than being an adult precludes error.

We were doing well for a while.

"science does not work by consensus; there is no vote on truth"
 
"I'm afraid I lost interest as soon as I read his name. I do not regard McIntyre as a credible figure, given his track record of errors and false accusations."

Well the IPCC has more regard for him than you do - they invited him to be a reviewer.
Only because they were asked to invite him. He was nominated by someone outside the IPCC. Imagine the fuss he'd have kicked up if they had then declined to invite him. He obviously just wanted to make trouble, and you can see it in the self-righteous whining that oozes from every paragraph.

Some kid ? Untrammeled by prejudices and opinions, who has come up with a causal linkage. Being under 21 doesn't make someone automatically wrong.
No. But even you must concede that it is highly unlikely that a 15-year-old girl will have come up with an entirely new explanation for global warming that disagrees not only with the combined intellects of the IPCC contributing scientists, but with all the alternatives proposed by any GW sceptic I have previously encountered. Just a teeny-weeny chance she might have got it all a bit wrong, don't you think?

It was while I was trying to find the cause of the unusual cooling period from 1945 to 1975 that I noticed a possible breakthrough.
Ah, the arrogance of youth...
 
.
"Let me think about that for a nano-second. No."

Ah, the arrogance of the warming brigade.... 'We are right, you are wrong and anyone who disagrees will be re-educated'.
 
.
"Let me think about that for a nano-second. No."

Ah, the arrogance of the warming brigade.... 'We are right, you are wrong and anyone who disagrees will be re-educated'.

Indeed.

If they set up a Gulag I hope it is somewhere warm. Oh hang on everywhere will be warm soon. Free holidays !!!
 
Hey, Steve. I've been reading a bit more of your child genius's thesis. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

Greenhouse gasses are a natural part of the Earth's temperature stabilization process, this is what keeps the earth from freezing at night. During the day, sunlight heats the Earth's surface, some of the heat from the sun, and heat being re-radiated by the Earth's surface, is absorbed by greenhouse gasses. As day turns to night and the sun is no longer heating that part of the Earth, the greenhouse gasses still have the absorbed heat from the sun, thus keeping the night air at higher temperatures.

Well, that's a novel theory I must say. Any comments? I know you appreciate scientific rigour, so I expect you'll want to show me some empirical evidence to back this up.

Clouds are also an important part of water vapor because they cool the Earth during the day because of high albedo. But they heat the Earth at night because of the energy stored in the clouds.
And that one's even better!
 
'We are right, you are wrong and anyone who disagrees will be re-educated'

Or mind wiped and reprogrammed.. :eek: :rolleyes: :devil:
 
Hey, Steve. I've been reading a bit more of your child genius's thesis. I particularly enjoyed this bit:



Well, that's a novel theory I must say. Any comments? I know you appreciate scientific rigour, so I expect you'll want to show me some empirical evidence to back this up.


And that one's even better!

Check her data (which have not commented on) she has found what looks like a good causal link.

Is there a site somewhere that shows the case for the MM GW hypothesis from first principles ? Haven't seen it on your fave - Realclimate.

And that shows why the southern hemisphere is not warming up under all this 'global' warming. Those pesky NASA bods again.
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=264777&party=rep
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom