# Climate Change News



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 13, 2011)

Those who urge taking action to avert climate change have had a bad couple of years. First, there was "Climategate" - the hacking of damaging emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, then the row over the use of a wildly inaccurate claim concerning the melting of Himalayan glaciers in a publication by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the body tasked with reviewing and assessing research - and finally the failure of the 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to reach a meaningful international agreement on addressing global warming. 

This triple blow seriously damaged the public perception of the seriousness of the threat from climate change. Even worse, the global financial crisis and resulting economic fallout have convinced many people that there are far more important and urgent problems to throw resources at. This has all combined to undermine political support, as most clearly demonstrated by the increasingly sceptical public statements of the Republican candidates for next year's US Presidential election. 

However, there has been more encouraging news recently. Most notably, the conclusions of the Berkeley Earth Project, which was set up in the wake of Climategate to take a fresh look at the evidence. As reported by the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15373071) , the project was established by a noted climate change sceptic, University of California physics professor Richard Muller, with the help of funding from sources which included charitable foundations maintained by the Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists who have donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming.

Despite these unpromising circumstances, Professor Muller's team conducted an exhaustive analysis of all of the available data from the three major centres for climate research, whose work had been decried as unreliable and shoddy in climate sceptic circles: the collaboration between the UK Met Office and UEA's Climatic Research Unit; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Berkeley Earth Project finally concluded that the research and analyses carried out by these three groups was fundamentally correct.

_"Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Prof Muller._

_"This confirms that these studies were done carefully and that potential biases identified by climate change sceptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."_

This is worth emphasising: a thorough scientific study, funded with the help of climate sceptics and headed by a scientist who was himself a climate change sceptic, has concluded that those scientists warning about climate change were right all along. This deserves all the publicity it can get.

Next came calls for tougher action on climate change from big business in the form of The Corporate Leaders Group, a network of nearly 200 major companies spread over 30 countries, as described here *(*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15352764 ).

This stance was supported by the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, representing more than $20 trillion in assets including banking giants HSBC and BNP Paribas, who argued that the governments which were acting quickly to implement tough climate policies would reap the biggest investments and the biggest rewards. 

What Do We Know?

So what is the current state of scientific research into climate change? What is known and, of equal importance, not known? The _New Scientist_ magazine has helpfully put together a simple guide to exactly that, here *(*http://www.newscientist.com/special/climate-knowns-unknowns?DCMP=NLC-nletter&nsref=climateknownunknowns ). To summarise very briefly:

*We know* that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but we don't know how far the levels of these gases will rise.

*We know* that other pollutants are cooling the planet, but we don't know by how much.

*We know* that the planet is going to get a lot hotter, but we don't know how much hotter, nor how the climate will change in specific regions.

*We know* that the sea level is going to rise by many metres, but we don't know how quickly this will happen.

*We know* that there will be more floods and droughts, but we don't know whether there will be more hurricanes and the like.

Finally, we don't know how serious a threat global warming is to life, nor if and when "tipping points" (causing sudden accelerations in warming) will be reached.

It is of course frustrating that scientists cannot be more specific about what is going to happen where and when, but the massive complexity of the processes involved preclude this. Probably as a result, the public acceptance of the need for action - more specifically, the need for action which is costly now in order to stave off disaster later - is still not strong enough for most political leaders to take the action required. At the moment, the warming trends are steadily upwards, with the very limited reductions in carbon emissions achieved by the developed world swamped by the increasing industrialisation of the developing world - especially China and India - and the ever-growing global population which has now (more or less) reached seven billion and is projected to reach 9 or 10 billion by the middle of the century.

It is becoming ever more certain that we will not act effectively enough, quickly enough, to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to the extent needed to prevent global temperatures from rising to dangerous levels by the end of this century. Can anything else be done? The obvious answer is geoengineering - technical fixes to counteract the rise in greenhouse gases - and it may be significant that public acceptance of such an approach seems to be growing as described here *(*http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15399832 ). However, as I have already discussed in this article (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Global%20warming.htm ), there are serious problems with this approach. 

The path our generation takes now will decide what sort of future the next few generations will experience. At the moment, there appear to be few grounds for optimism. When faced with difficult and painful decisions, people are very prone to go through several stages (as governments have been doing over the current international financial crisis):
1. Denying there's a problem.
2. Hoping that it will go away if it's ignored for long enough.
3. Hoping that something will come up which will make hard decisions unnecessary.
4. Finally, reluctantly, taking the minimum action after waiting for as long as possible.

The problem with this tried-and-tested approach to muddling through is that the climate has enormous inertia. By the time the need for action has become obvious to all, the climate changes will have gathered such momentum that they will quite possibly be unstoppable. Humanity needs to fasten its metaphorical seat belt - we're in for a very rough ride.

(An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Metryq (Nov 13, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> *We know* that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but we don't know how far the levels of these gases will rise.
> 
> *We know* that other pollutants are cooling the planet, but we don't know by how much.
> 
> ...



You've hit all the high points of the AGW position: "Greenhouse gases" are the primary thermostat for the Earth, catastrophic sea level rise, extreme weather, and "tipping points." 

May I suggest *Watts Up With That* as a resource, including links to many other sites. Since site admin Anthony Watts is currently working on a project, most of the latest postings have been from guests. The right-hand column includes a link  to Ric Werme's guide to WUWT.

In a nutshell, the climate is always changing, and any honest researcher will admit that Earth's climate is incredibly complex. Anyone claiming to *know* with certainty, or that the "science is settled" has either been disinformed, or is selling something.

Check the various articles on Watts Up With That, read the reply forums, and check out some of the other linked sites. (Watts welcomes guest postings from all directions—you will not find him stacking the deck.)


----------



## TheTomG (Nov 13, 2011)

Earth's climate is incrediblt complex - agreed, which is why best we aim to have as little impact as possible, since its a complex and chaotic system and its impossible to predict the outcome. The horrible thing about complex and chaotic systems is that they can have crossover points where they no longer change incrementally, but do so suddenly and catastrophically (in the mathematical sense.)

So my take is "best to try not to mess with it." And while it has always been changing, it has been doing so to processes that are much slower / smaller than what the human race is doing, which adds a whole extra level of unpredictability as the chaotic system has never had these sorts of inputs before, so we can't look back into its history to try to make even vaguely educated guesses on what it might do.

So I am all for trying to have as little impact as we can since we don't know what might wake the sleeping dragon, and just what it might do (if anything) if we wake it.


----------



## Nik (Nov 13, 2011)

"This is worth emphasising: a thorough scientific study, funded with the help of climate sceptics and headed by a scientist who was himself a climate change sceptic, has concluded that those scientists warning about climate change were right all along. This deserves all the publicity it can get."

You will NOT convince the sceptics until Greenland sloughs its ice-cap, the North Pole is open water every year and there are sea-ways across Antarctica...

I'm in the happy position of living 'On The Hill', a Medieval dry-foot suffix. My kin on the coast are in a less sanguine position-- They only have spartina-grassed dunes between their homes and South-Westerly gales...


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 14, 2011)

Nik said:


> You will NOT convince the sceptics until Greenland sloughs its ice-cap, the North Pole is open water every year and there are sea-ways across Antarctica...


Even then, the hardened sceptics will argue that it's an entirely natural process and nothing to do with human activities...

However, people aren't just hardened sceptics or hardened believers. There will be a lot in the middle who are open to persuasion given clear enough evidence. 

The business of persuading people to change their minds is an interesting science which has been the subject of research and experimentation (also reported in _New Scientist_ recently). One finding is that people are far more likely to be persuadable by those who share their general outlook. So right-wingers who will never be persuaded by left-wingers will pay attention if other right-wingers use the same arguments. That is why the conclusions of the Berkeley Earth Project are so important; this is a former sceptic acknowledging that the science of global warming is valid.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 14, 2011)

Thanks, Anthony. This is some encouraging news. I'll bet the Koch brothers are kicking themselves (or getting some poor minimum wage slave to do it for them).


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Nov 14, 2011)

TheTomG said:


> So I am all for trying to have as little impact as we can since we don't know what might wake the sleeping dragon, and just what it might do (if anything) if we wake it.


 
James Lovelock predicts a "fever"...


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 14, 2011)

The last survey I heard about on BBC4, which I thought had the same credentials (in fact I thought it was this one) seemed to get a slightly different conclusion.

Yes they were surprised the evidence showed an increase in global temperatures, about one degree since their datum point.

However, they didn't conclude this was attributable to man made effects. 




> We know that greenhouse gases are warming the planet, but we don't know how far the levels of these gases will rise.
> 
> We know that other pollutants are cooling the planet, but we don't know by how much.
> 
> ...


 
These conclusions are not, as far as I can see, part of the report. These are generalisations. 

Greenhouse gases may well increase temperatures, but if those gases are not man made then there is little we can do to reduce them (from their actual source)

A sun spot here or there may change the deep sea temperatures, releasing huge quantities of methane, but without the means to control sun spots what can man do.

We don't know that the planet is going to get a 'lot hotter', that is just speculation.

We don't know the sea levels will get a 'lot higher'. That is also speculation - although I could accept the arguments given a warmer planet. (Expansion of volume etc)

We don't know there will be more, none sea level related, floods. More speculation.

There is no guarantee that there is a 'tipping point' to worry about. If there is an increased sea level there may well be a 'control parameter' of which we know nothing.

Having said all that, the one real problem this planet has and does face, is over-population, and that is certainly man made.

Sorry, but I remain firmly in the sceptic camp re man made global warming.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 14, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> These conclusions are not, as far as I can see, part of the report. These are generalisations.


Never said they were. If you read my OP, you'll see that these are taken from a recent _New Scientist_ summary of the current state of knowledge.



> Greenhouse gases may well increase temperatures, but if those gases are not man made then there is little we can do to reduce them (from their actual source)


It is fact that the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased considerably and with unprecedented speed over the last century and a half - which just happens to coincide with the Industrial Revolution and a huge increase in CO2 output from the industrialising nations. That isn't absolute proof of a connection, of course, but you are never likely to get absolute proof concerning such processes. It's a question of assessing the probabilities.



> A sun spot here or there may change the deep sea temperatures, releasing huge quantities of methane, but without the means to control sun spots what can man do.


The effect of changes in the sun's cyclical activity are being carefully monitored. At the moment it's going through a very quiet spell, which means reduced output. Despite this we're not seeing a fall in termperatures.



> We don't know that the planet is going to get a 'lot hotter', that is just speculation.


Is has been known for a long time that the concentration of greenhouse gases like CO2 has a direct impact on average global temperature; known through theory, and observed in practice. The current results of the most detailed climate models we have indicate that the temperature will increase by between 2 and 6 degrees C by the end of this century. 2 degrees will cause significant problems; 6 degrees would be catastrophic.



> We don't know the sea levels will get a 'lot higher'. That is also speculation - although I could accept the arguments given a warmer planet. (Expansion of volume etc)


Expansion of volume is already happening. The major increases will come through the melting of land-based ice. Greenland is already seeing a considerable increase in melting and in glacier movement. This will inevitably speed up as the temperature continues to increase.



> We don't know there will be more, none sea level related, floods. More speculation.


Again, the best climate models we have indicate that when the climate changes from one state to another, that is accompanied by an increase in extreme weather events.



> There is no guarantee that there is a 'tipping point' to worry about. If there is an increased sea level there may well be a 'control parameter' of which we know nothing.


There is no guarantee about anything other than death and taxes, but several potential tipping points have been identified - any or all of which can be expected to happen as the warming continues. 



> Having said all that, the one real problem this planet has and does face, is over-population, and that is certainly man made.


Well, at least we agree on something!



> Sorry, but I remain firmly in the sceptic camp re man made global warming.


Your privilege. I see this as a question of risk assessment. If the scientists are right as Professor Muller has concluded, the consequences of doing nothing to curb our greenhouse gas emissions will be somewhere between very serious and absolutely catastrophic. If they are wrong and we take the actions needed, the costs will be very much smaller. So the only sensible thing to do from the risk assessment perspective is to assume that they're right and act accordingly.

There is actually a bonus from taking action now anyway - measures to reduce our use of fossil fuels will reduce our dependence on oil supplies from some of the most volatile places in the world, as well as helping our trade balance by reducing the value of imports. The "green industries" can also generate a lot of jobs and economic activity, which we can certainly do with now. Throw these points into the equation and we'd be mad not to act.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 14, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> ...
> 
> There is actually a bonus from taking action now anyway - measures to reduce our use of fossil fuels will reduce our dependence on oil supplies from some of the most volatile places in the world, as well as helping our trade balance by reducing the value of imports. The "green industries" can also generate a lot of jobs and economic activity, which we can certainly do with now. Throw these points into the equation and we'd be mad not to act.


 
We actually agree on quite a number of points. I have no objection to the new religions  of climate change. I just think that we have to be careful that we don't embark on 'green technology' for the sake of it.

Take the issue of low energy light emitters.

Most of the new solutions to light in the home are inefficient and costly. 

Changing to low energy bulbs will require every household that employs a dimmer (an energy saving device, some might say) to change the dimmer circuit. This will require a large increase in devices (nothing being energy free to make) and a correxponding cost in energy for their manufacture, transport, storage, fixing and maintenance. I have never had a low energy bulb last long (2 years max if I recall). These bulbs are more expensive to manufacture both in carbon and financially, not to mention the introduction of mercury into the environment - something we have spent the last fifty years trying to reduce.

Other 'low energy' solutions are laughable, usually involving the fitting of halogen type bulbs - with their new fittings. The theory seems to be that because they are usually based on 12V they use less energy - However 40W is 40 watts regardless of the voltage used.

There have also been several reports of people checking the current used by low energy bulbs - I believe most people find they take more.

The recent change to lead free solder (OK more 'a get lead out of the environment' than an energy thing) forced most manufactures to scrap high carbon footprint machines and plant in order to meet the new regulations. No account of the Carbon price was considered. No account that the alternative to lead solder requires the soldering temperatures to be increased by 20-30 degrees - a near 8% increase in heat input for every soldering device on the planet (well certainly in the EU - but also China if they want to export to the EU)


Battery cars are well known to cost more carbon than they ever save. Green industries may create a lot of jobs, but I suspect they generate just as much unemployment somewhere else. It's like when governments/local authorities give grants to move to a new industrialised area - What happens is companies move for the grant, the workers don't always get the chance.

Yes there are things we can do to save resources and these should be followed where costs (carbon and financial) can be saved. However, I see a bandwagon, where if it says it's greener and more planet friendly it must be the case, which is utter nonsense IMO.


----------



## J-WO (Nov 14, 2011)

Low energy be damned. Time to swap to thorium reactors and work on nuclear fusion.


----------



## jojajihisc (Nov 14, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> This has all combined to undermine political support, as most clearly demonstrated by the increasingly sceptical public statements of the Republican candidates for next year's US Presidential election.



It should be clear that this isn't something they were more moderate on recently and because of a perceived bad year for climate change science scandals they have move further away from it. The Republican Party candidates make those public statements because it appeals to their base. An ideologically pure group (in both parties) that doesn't cope well with deviating from the party line.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> We actually agree on quite a number of points. I have no objection to the new religions  of climate change.


Naughty - as you are well aware, religions are based on faith while science is based on objective evidence. There is substantial objective evidence to support the case for climate change for which human activities are the major cause.



> Yes there are things we can do to save resources and these should be followed where costs (carbon and financial) can be saved. However, I see a bandwagon, where if it says it's greener and more planet friendly it must be the case, which is utter nonsense IMO.


I agree. We need to be more selective about which activities we support, and take a critical look at how "green" they are on every level. The most obviously beneficial are simple, cheap measures to reduce the heating (and cooling) costs of our buildings. 

I am very dubious about the huge push for wind power, which will always need backing up by other power sources - unless someone develops an economic way of storing the power they generate so that the peaks and troughs can be smoothed over. We need more nuclear power - soon!


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 15, 2011)

Don't get me started on wind farms.

Don't take my word for it. Did you see :-

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/01/london_array_shell_pullout/

Now I believe Shell knows a thing or two about energy and how to make money from it. If they couldn't see a way to do it you have to ask questions.

IMO the only reason they are being built is due to the government, desperate to meet its CO2 reduction commitment, is subsidising them at a cost we will pay for years, even decades to come. Once the grants run out these will just become eyesores on the landscape, like some weird relic for a future army of Don Quixote's.

I heard a report recently that the UK government may be having doubts on the subsidy they give to home owners to install solar panels. I suspect they didn't see the vultures circling, in the form of the companies offering to rent roof space, when they made the stupid original offers.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> I heard a report recently that the UK government may be having doubts on the subsidy they give to home owners to install solar panels.


They're halving it: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ies-condemned-UKs-biggest-business-group.html

Personally I've always thought that the old-fashioned type of solar panels used to heat up water seemed more sensible, rather than the expensive photo-electric ones.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Nov 15, 2011)

They are OK for 'them southerners', but for us hardy northerners it can be quite expensive to get the coverage needed.

Plus the potential for leaks in the loft could be another issue.

I was looking at a solar panel instalation recently - I have to say it didn't seem very secure. Not sure who pays if the thing rips your roof off.


----------



## Dave (Nov 15, 2011)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> They are OK for 'them southerners', but for us hardy northerners it can be quite expensive to get the coverage needed.


Even if it just heated your house water to 30 or 40°C and your boiler did the rest that would save a lot of energy. I think the pay back time on that kind of solar panel would be worthwhile for most people outside of some of the more rainy areas of the UK.

Without the subsidies, the pay back time is something close to 50 years with photo-voltaic cells and higher for wind turbines. However, the reason that these subsidies have been reduced now is that the scheme has been so successful, and because now that the production of these solar panels has been stepped up, economies of scale mean that they have become cheaper to make and buy. If every new house built was forced by law to have one, then the price would fall even further. 

These things need to be reviewed regularly, and in a rush to "do something" politicians make mistakes. The level of the subsidy may have been a mistake to begin with, but withdrawing half that subsidy without any notice is bound to hurt, and will undoubtedly set back the scheme now. That is just the way our taxes are wasted and squandered.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 15, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> Naughty - as you are well aware, religions are based on faith while science is based on objective evidence. There is substantial objective evidence to support the case for climate change for which human activities are the major cause.


That doesn't mean that belief doesn't come into it. The theoretical process of science is belief-neutral because it is based squarely on evidence. The idea, though, that by becoming a scientist, a human being is somehow changed into a robotic being who has no emotions and enthusiasms seems far-fetched. And given that science is (on Earth, and as far as we know) exclusively performed by human beings, its results need to be checked for signs of bias. I'm not referring to dishonest bias, by the way, merely that the decisions as to what science is done, and by what means, are choices to be made, and they're made by fallible humans. As are decisions based on the results of that science.

It does not help me to accept all the current hypotheses (and less well-founded statements) of climate science when its supporters base their appeal to the public on the numbers of scientists (most from outside the discipline) giving their support. Support is irrelevant. As is the fervour they demonstrate**. And neither does it help that climate science is a newish discipline that's trying to understand one of the more complex and chaotic system of which we are aware. This alone should mean that we should be sceptical about its (interim) findings.

None of which is to say that we should do nothing: even if there were a very small risk of catastrophic climate change, the extent of that catastrophe needs to be heeded (as risk is based on both probability _and_ the scale of an adverse outcome).



** - I can understand why this is: the changes required in society are so great (and potentially disruptive) that politicians are nervous about proposing any of it without be able to call upon the certainty of something far worse happening should nothing be done.


----------



## Dave (Nov 15, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> None of which is to say that we should do nothing: even if there were a very small risk of catastrophic climate change, the extent of that catastrophe needs to be heeded (as risk is based on both probability _and_ outcome).


Ursa that an example of the  Black Swan Theory.

But I also hate that in the US it has become a political issue. If you are a Democrat you fervently support it, if you are a Republican you rubbish it. That is not conducive to proper debate. What is interesting about the report in the OP is that it was instigated by a known Climate Change sceptic.

I was convinced myself when I saw the historical graphs of exponentially rising atmospheric CO² while still at school. Nothing has convinced me since that it is not caused by the Industrial Revolution or that the Greenhouse Effect is not real (the planet Venus shows us that.) To my mind, the only debate is over how much of an effect it will have, and how much of an influence the output of the Sun has on our Global temperature. 

I cannot see us ever getting an agreement to reduce CO² emissions to pre-industrial levels though, so we are going to have to live with the consequences of the higher levels and come up with engineering solutions to mitigate the effects.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> That doesn't mean that belief doesn't come into it. The theoretical process of science is belief-neutral because it is based squarely on evidence. The idea, though, that by becoming a scientist, a human being is somehow changed into a robotic being who has no emotions and enthusiasms seems far-fetched. And given that science is (on Earth, and as far as we know) exclusively performed by human beings, its results need to be checked for signs of bias. I'm not referring to dishonest bias, by the way, merely that the decisions as to what science is done, and by what means, are choices to be made, and they're made by fallible humans. As are decisions based on the results of that science.


No argument with any of that. But there is nothing a scientist likes better than to prove that an existing theory is wrong (except for proving that his/her own theory is right, of course). So any new theories are subjected to ferocious analysis by scientists trying to make a name for themselves. The end result of this process is that, eventually, only those theories which are soundly based on objective evidence survive. The rest are discredited and kicked aside.



> It does not help me to accept all the current hypotheses (and less well-founded statements) of climate science when its supporters base their appeal to the public on the numbers of scientists (most from outside the discipline) giving their support. Support is irrelevant.


That depends on where the support is coming from. The last survey figures I saw (from a few years ago) showed that 97% of climate scientists currently active in research in this field accept the theory that human activities are playing a significant role in the current warming trend. That is not irrelevant, it is significant. What is irrelevant are the opinions of any scientists who are *not* "climate scientists currently active in research in this field". Which seems to include an awful lot of the sceptics.



> And neither does it help that climate science is a newish discipline that's trying to understand one of the more complex and chaotic system of which we are aware. This alone should mean that we should be sceptical about its (interim) findings.


True. But the basic science behind the "industrialisation-greenhouse gasses-global warming" chain is simple and well understood. What is not clear are the exact implications of this in terms of the rate and nature of the climate changes in different regions. It is a logical error to say "we don't know everything, so we can't trust anything". We know enough to realise that we are facing a serious problem which it would be sensible to take steps to minimise. 



> None of which is to say that we should do nothing: even if there were a very small risk of catastrophic climate change, the extent of that catastrophe needs to be heeded (as risk is based on both probability _and_ the scale of an adverse outcome).


 Agreed.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

Dave said:


> I cannot see us ever getting an agreement to reduce CO² emissions to pre-industrial levels though, so we are going to have to live with the consequences of the higher levels and come up with engineering solutions to mitigate the effects.


I am afraid that you are right, and in that lies many dangers, including of course the dreaded Law of Unintended Consequences.

For instance: suppose that a high-tech way of absorbing CO2 or shielding us from some of the insolation is developed? Everyone heaves a sigh of relief and carries on churning out the CO2. Then some major disruption affects our society and the high-tech systems break down - causing a sudden and massive increase in the warming effect.

Another f'rinstance: suppose that something is done like distributing zillions of little reflective surfaces in orbit to cut down the insolation. Only it turns out to be _too_ effective and we get plunged into another ice age...

All of this assumes that geoengineering can be made to work. If it can be, we will be entering into yet another major experiment with the atmospheric systems on our planet. *Very* risky.


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 15, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> The last survey figures I saw (from a few years ago) showed that 97% of climate scientists currently active in research in this field accept the theory that human activities are playing a significant role in the current warming trend. That is not irrelevant, it is significant. What is irrelevant are the opinions of any scientists who are *not* "climate scientists currently active in research in this field". Which seems to include an awful lot of the sceptics.


I think where I have the biggest problem (and I've mentioned this elsewhere) is that while some of the processes within the climate are known, and some of the chemistry, for instance, is simple enough for even me to understand, the system, being chaotic, is not, not even for a genius (i.e. not me ). And even if it were possible to conduct wide-ranging experiments on the climate, which it isn't**, its chaotic nature means that were such experiments possible, they would not be reproducible, the cornerstone of the scientific process***.




** - This makes climate science hypotheses even less susceptible to experimentation than, say, social science ones: at least with the latter, one can isolate a group to examine the underlying dynamics; the climate is a linked world-wide system whose essence cannot be crammed into a lab.

*** - One side effect of this inability is the reliance on peer-reviewing of papers and modelling. While the former is a necessary gate through which serious research ought to pass before being unleashed on the wider world, it is no substitute for experimentation. Sadly, the phrase, peer-reviewed, is often brandished**** as if it were, thereby giving less-scrupulous opponents the opportunity to "play the man, not the ball". Similarly, a model is an artificial creation, one which builds in the assumptions of its creators; so saying that "the model shows..." is also likely to be unpersuasive to the uncommitted sceptic. (And given that the models must, by definition, be very complex, they cannot fully be tested; no complex software can.) All this means is that climate science, more than any other, will be a victim of political (and other non-scientific) debates.

**** - Not necessarily by the scientists themselves.


----------



## Metryq (Nov 15, 2011)

Dave said:


> I was convinced myself when I saw the historical graphs of exponentially rising atmospheric CO² while still at school.



Exponential? You wouldn't, by chance, be referring to the debunked "hockey stick" graph? The "hockey stick" completely glosses over The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming period—a time of great prosperity in Europe. England even became a rival to French-made wines due to the improved growing weather.

Atmospheric CO² concentration, along with a variety of other environmental factors, has risen and fallen over Earth's history. Paleo data typically shows a rise in temperature _followed_ centuries later by a rise in atmospheric CO². (Al Gore "zoomed out" far enough on his graph so that the two appeared synchronous.) This is due to the solubility of gases in water. However, there have been times when Earth's climate has been very warm, yet CO² was very low, and vice versa. "Greenhouse" gases (actually a misnomer) are only one tiny fragment of the puzzle—and CO² has barely a fraction of water vapor's IR trapping power.



> or that the Greenhouse Effect is not real (the planet Venus shows us that.)



A planetary scientist like Carl Sagan really should have known better. But as you noted, this has become a political issue for some, and Sagan was very political.

*Hyperventilating on Venus*

*The Reference Frame: Hyperventilating on Venus* (follow-up)


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

Ursa major said:


> And given that the models must, by definition, be very complex, they cannot fully be tested; no complex software can.


Not fully, in changing circumstances, but they can be tested as far as possible by entering past conditions and seeing if the model's results match up with what actually happened.

There are indeed all kinds of uncertainties in forecasting climate changes and there always will be. But if the very best information we can get tells us we are heading into trouble, it is sensible to pay attention and act.

Those who insist of having absolute proof before accepting any case will _still_ be demanding proof when their homes are flooded and they are dying of heatstroke...


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Nov 15, 2011)

Metryq said:


> Exponential? You wouldn't, by chance, be referring to the debunked "hockey stick" graph? The "hockey stick" completely glosses over The Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming period—a time of great prosperity in Europe. England even became a rival to French-made wines due to the improved growing weather.
> 
> Atmospheric CO² concentration, along with a variety of other environmental factors, has risen and fallen over Earth's history. Paleo data typically shows a rise in temperature _followed_ centuries later by a rise in atmospheric CO². (Al Gore "zoomed out" far enough on his graph so that the two appeared synchronous.) This is due to the solubility of gases in water. However, there have been times when Earth's climate has been very warm, yet CO² was very low, and vice versa. "Greenhouse" gases (actually a misnomer) are only one tiny fragment of the puzzle—and CO² has barely a fraction of water vapor's IR trapping power.


 
I am surprised to see these arguments being trotted out - _they_ were debunked years ago. I suggest that you study the linked articles here, which address your points: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462


----------



## Harpo (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't have time to rea through this entire thread, but I saw the OP mentioning the IPCC at the start.  The IPCC figures are always several years out of date, and they exclude the effects of melting permafrost.

What's wrong with using algae for biofuel?


----------



## Ursa major (Nov 15, 2011)

Anthony G Williams said:


> Not fully, in changing circumstances, but they can be tested as far as possible by entering past conditions and seeing if the model's results match up with what actually happened.


True, but there's a danger that models can be built that can recreate the historical record but that do not, in fact, tell the whole story. (Think Newton's equations, which, when first produced, could not take account of Relativity.) 

But there's a bigger problem: we're said to be heading towards a tipping point, but we have no experience of such an event, and we have not seen all the elements that make up and govern the climate operating at or beyond such a tipping point (although we do have records showing atmospheric CO2 at high concentrations, and we do know that they have since come down**). We are still, unfortunately, only scratching the surface of climate science, but know just enough to see the possible/probable downside(s) of the course we're currently still on. Worse: beyond trying to control our emissions, we have no idea what to do about it.



** - Without the intervention, adverse or otherwise, of the human race (which is a new factor, of which there's no historical record, by definition).


----------



## Interference (Nov 15, 2011)

Current concerns over particulate effects on health should be enough to concern us, whether or not "Climate Change" is.  Generating sufficient poisons to damage public health is, I humbly suggest, a bad thing, regardless of the weather.


----------

