Climate change another name for Weather

[It's Snake Pliskin]

While the skeptics conjure media attention by virtue of their skepticism alone, many climate scientists are getting on with the business of determining the actual extents and effects of an increasingly warmer atmosphere.

In the absense of waffling on what time frame are you referring to?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

rederob, What do climate change deniers want to debate?

No one is denying climate change. It happens even without man.

The scientific arena continues to provide a forum for debate, while past issues seem to have been pretty well covered.
Global warming is proven. Debating it is a waste of time.

Is it? The silliness of this remark is just hilarious. Of course the earth warms as it is meant to with its atmosphere sustaining life.

The manmade contribution to warming is not proven beyond doubt.

Naturally.

On the balance of probabilities our science suggests that forcings from increased CO2 levels have had an impact.

Who's science is that?

Intellectually moribund deniers of climate change regurgitate ad infinitum the slim pickings of a now decimated camp

. One in ten is out?

Repackaging themselves as "skeptics" they hide in their twisted wreck of junk science thinking they are immune from justifying their perverse beliefs.
"Oh, it's just weather."
Isn't it just.

Do they hide behind Co2?

 

[rederob]

Surely, you could only consider a model conservative if the projections made are below observations.

What data or alternate models imply that things may be worse than expected based on current emissions scenarios?

If you don't want to go through the Congress papers, don't ask silly questions.

 

[rederob]

In the absense of waffling on what time frame are you referring to?

I repeat, for your benefit: Global warming is proven. Debating it is a waste of time.

Distraction, fabrication and obfuscation are important tactics to deniers of climate change. Unable to comprehend the overwhelming evidence that our earth is on a collision course with severe weather events, they appease their minds with irrelevances.

On a recent BBC radio program on climate change denial an articulate person (Patrick) suggested we needed an open debate amongst the respective camps so that he could be swayed one way or the other. He must be oblivious to the debates happening around the world on a regular basis in various media. They generally "prove" that the respective camps remain entrenched. Because the future contains few certainties, deniers can rightfully say that scientists simply don't know what's going to happen! And scientists will generally respond with probabilities rather than definitives.

If scientists are not sure what is going to happen, why believe them?

That's not the right question. The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.

When thousands of scientists in a highly specialised field start to draw similar conclusions an interesting question to ask is if they could be wrong.
There is always that chance.

A better question to ask is if they are right, what are the consequences and it there anything we can do?

Or do we keep asking them, "what time frame are you referring to?"

 

[spooly74]

If you don't want to go through the Congress papers, don't ask silly questions.

Just asking you to back up your statements.

Between 2,000 and 2,500 researchers from around the world attended three days of meetings during which 600 oral presentations (together with several hundred posters on display) were delivered on topics ranging from the ethics of energy sufficiency to the role of icons in communicating climate change to the dynamics of continental ice sheets.

I don't have the time to wade through all the papers, but thankfully you did, which led you to your statement.

Again, specifically, what new data from the conference (congress ) suggests the the IPCC models are on the conservative side?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I am planning a conference on the Psychosocial mindset of Weather Denial.

It will be on Hayman Island and I intend applying for sponsorship to those companies and organisations who stick their head out the window to figure out whether its going to rain or not.

gg

 

[Smurf1976]

I repeat, for your benefit: Global warming is proven. Debating it is a waste of time.

It is proven that the Earth's temperature fluctuates and that this has included a period of warming since the mid-1970's and at various times prior to that. It can thus be said that global warming itself is proven, although the cause is not proven.

The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.

The answer to that depends on why they are researching in the first place?

If it's for the love of it then any claims made are likely to be based on their research.

On the other hand, if they or the source of their funding has a vested interest in the outcome of the research then the reason for making any claim about the results of that research may well be commercial rather than scientifically based.

 

[rederob]

Just asking you to back up your statements.
I don't have the time to wade through all the papers, but thankfully you did, which led you to your statement.
Again, specifically, what new data from the conference (congress ) suggests the the IPCC models are on the conservative side?

If you aren't bothered to read the papers then you can wait till June when a comprehensive set will be available.
You can then choose not to bother reading them too.

 

[spooly74]

If you aren't bothered to read the papers then you can wait till June when a comprehensive set will be available.
You can then choose not to bother reading them too.

What papers Rob? There was hundreds of presentations across the spectrum of science at this self elected get together.

You stated that the IPCC's models are now on the conservative side and refuse to back it with any link whatsoever.

Conservative with respect to temp?
Conservative with respect to sea level?

You can't just appeal to authority and say "read it". Read what? What paper should I read? All of them?

I'm positive not all the presentations projected 'worse than expected' climate, so I'll wait for you to simply post a link, or I'll wait till June, whichever comes first.

 

[rederob]

You stated that the IPCC's models are now on the conservative side and refuse to back it with any link whatsoever.

Actually, I quoted from the Congress preliminary conlusions.
Stop being lazy.
If you have contrary information, put it up.

 

[spooly74]

Actually, I quoted from the Congress preliminary conlusions.
Stop being lazy.
If you have contrary information, put it up.

Correct me if I've interpreted this wrong.

The claim being made is this:

In particular, the congress concluded that, according to recent observations and given high rates of observed emissions, the worst-case IPCC scenario trajectories (or even worse) are being realized.

which led to your statement:

It would appear that the IPCC models are leaning on the conservative side of the climate curve and things may be worse than most expected.

I would like to see what data they are referring to, with particular emphasis on the terms "recent observations" - "worst case" - "are being realised".

Below is a chart of recent observed temp from GISS (red) and Hadcrut (purple) vs multiple model runs. It shows the worst case scenarios (or even worse) are not currently met. Nowhere near it.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

rederob

Debating it is a waste of time.

And the strategy is already known.

Distraction, fabrication and obfuscation are important tactics to deniers of climate change. Unable to comprehend the overwhelming evidence that our earth is on a collision course with severe weather events, they appease their minds with irrelevances.

How can the Earth collide with a weather event that is inside the Earth's atmosphere? Verbose cliches don't help the debate.

On a recent BBC radio program on climate change denial an articulate person (Patrick) suggested we needed an open debate amongst the respective camps so that he could be swayed one way or the other. He must be oblivious to the debates happening around the world on a regular basis in various media. They generally "prove" that the respective camps remain entrenched. Because the future contains few certainties, deniers can rightfully say that scientists simply don't know what's going to happen! And scientists will generally respond with probabilities rather than definitives.

You can call me Patrick.

If scientists are not sure what is going to happen, why believe them?

That's a very good question.

That's not the right question. The right question asks what gives rise to a scientist making a claim in the first case.

This is an even better question.

When thousands of scientists in a highly specialised field start to draw similar conclusions an interesting question to ask is if they could be wrong.
There is always that chance.

Yes. And we could also ask where their funding comes from and what that funding is for.

A better question to ask is if they are right, what are the consequences and it there anything we can do?

We know the answers to that. Clean up the planet, water, ground and air.

Or do we keep asking them, "what time frame are you referring to?"

It's quite a pertinent question for those making claims without credible unbiased funded research results.

Spooly,

Thanks for the resources you have provided.

 

[rederob]

The IPCC report received some criticism for not taking into account the melting ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic when estimating future rising sea levels, and new knowledge obtained since then and presented at this week’s congress suggests that sea levels could rise by more than a metre by 2100 – far more than the IPCC estimate of between 18 and 59cm.

Approximately 10 percent of the world’s population, or 600 million people, live in flood-danger areas and scientists warned the impact of sea level rise on them will be ‘severe’.
Dr John Church of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research said recent satellite data and ground observations show sea levels rising at least 3mm per year – a rate well above the 20th century average.

‘Sea levels are currently rising at a rate that is above any of the model projections of 18 to 59cm.’

Skeptics want "neat" answers.
The myriad of climate impacts does not lend itself to such neatness.
Temperatures do not rise linearly. Nor will sea levels. And occasionally ice sheets will be lesser one year than the previous.
The Congress canvassed issues far and wide and raised awareness of impacts from local level to global levels.

 

[rederob]

It's quite a pertinent question for those making claims without credible unbiased funded research results.

The issue of a warmer earth has been done to death in this thread.
You just don't want to accept it.
Good for you.

As for the science "funding" issue, it is proven beyond doubt that the energy sector continues to fund hundreds of lobbyists and skeptics.
On the other hand, governments would keenly fund scientists who could show climate change was a fiction of the imagination because they could then direct billions of dollars towards more socially beneficial things. To suggest governments have a vested interest in promoting the impending dangers of climate change is fanciful. There are no votes in falsifying climate change.

As for tabling a year-old short-span chart on temperature, onya spooly. Now, what did it mean in a global decadal context? And how was it relevant to global climate change models that actually show declining temperatures within an overall theme of increasing average temperatures?

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Skeptics want "neat" answers.
The myriad of climate impacts does not lend itself to such neatness.
Temperatures do not rise linearly. Nor will sea levels. And occasionally ice sheets will be lesser one year than the previous.
The Congress canvassed issues far and wide and raised awareness of impacts from local level to global levels.

You've obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor.

gg

 

[rederob]

You've obviously never heard of Ockham's Razor.

gg

And you haven't heard of AGW.

 

[basilio]

The challenge of the global warming debate is that if the theory and subsequent observations of thousands of scientists is true then our emissions of CO2 are effectively making the world uninhabitable for the current ecosytems (which naturally includes us ) within a century.

The science goes on to say that to have any chance of slowing the process and in fact preserving some part of the planet for life as we roughly know it, we must make totally radical changes to how we produce energy and in the lifestyles we lead. That observation of course brings the issue into total conflict with the current major energy producers (fossil fuel industry) and large parts of the current economic system ( the parts that simply want us to consume "as-much-as-possible-forever" )

And finally the thought that we may be facing a catastrophe of the highest order within our lifetimes is the stuff of nightmares and very few people want to willingly entertain such thoughts.

So overall it's hardly surprising that:

1) The fossil fuel industries have devoted much energy and cleverness to questioning and clouding the issue.

2) The vast majority of the players in the current economic system don't want to know about climate change.

3) And most of the ordinary punters aren't impressed with the thought that our future is looking very bleak.

Other factors that influence how we make sense of the situation are some of the current "givens" or mythologies of the 20th century. For example

1) The future can only get better as science and business progress us to more and more prosperity....

2) The Western civilised world through its mastery of economics, science, business etc deserves unlimited success by virtue of its enterprise and hard work....

3) Technology can solve any problem...

4) There are no limits to growth and Growth is Go(o)d

5) And finally. If anything does goes wrong there will be a magical solution (like in the movies...!!) that will fix everything up by the morning....

Do these strike any chords with other forum readers?

Lets consider some other public health/public interest issues with a history and how our society reacted to them.

Smoking.. Lovely little habit that really does make the smoker feel good. A relaxant as well as a stimulant and very addictive.
Unfortunately medical science discovered in 1935 in London that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. For the next 50-60 years however the industry relentlessly moved to discredit the science, attack the researchers, produce their own contradictory research through their own institutes, buy political influence, pull the job creation card and so on while smokers died like flies.

And smoking is still a very highly profitable, legal industry. Not much of a signpost for respecting the efforts of truthful science is it?

Asbestos A great, great product. Many uses. Unfortunately mining it, using it and breathing in the dust condemns many people to a miserable, painful death 30-40 years later.
This was all understood 50-60 years ago. But the industry refused to accept the science because it was going to cost them money. And so for the last 40 years we have witnessed the inch by inch struggle to have clear scientific evidence accepted and the product banned. And now we are seeing the companies face huge ongoing payouts while tens of thousands of people die and millions more are exposed to crumbling asbestos in buildings around the world.

The list can be expanded at will. My point is that GW and humanities role in the current situation is another clear problem which science has recognised way beyond any reasonable doubt.
It is also the biggest catastrophe facing all of us and unfortunately the same forces and factors that resulted in the needless deaths of millions of people are now likely to destroy most of life on earth and almost all of us.

How sure am I that we are facing a critical problem? In the end one of my reality touchstones is the insurance industry. They have a very strong interest in making sure their bets on events are based on the best evidence. They don't want BS or spin, just the facts.

That's why smokers had big life insurance premiums way before there were warning signs on cigarette packets.

That's why the reinsurance industry has been front and centre on warning about global warming and assessing the risks to property that will result from the inevitable consequences of fire, flood and cyclones.

And it's why we shouldn't be surprised if in the next year, in the light of the scientific updates on the pace of GW, there isn't some fundamental revision of which coastal areas will be insurable. That is reality.

My last point. On a personal level if any of us went to doctor and during an examination they discovered a very serious condition that threatened our health, in fact of life, how determined would we be to disregard his assessment ? Sure we would get a second opinion. We may even want a third. How about a fourth or fifth? Will we only be happy when we find someone who can confidently tell us that this problem that the first 10-1000 doctors agreed on was in fact not a problem and that they were mistaken or simply just too self interested to give the right diagnosis?

 

[spooly74]

As for tabling a year-old short-span chart on temperature, onya spooly. Now, what did it mean in a global decadal context?

Seeing as you offered nothing, temp seems an obvious metric to compare IPCC predictions against the claims being made .... remember?
The chart clearly shows that recent observations should not cause such sensational claims.
The up-to-date chart below shows that the short term trend is negative.

And how was it relevant to global climate change models that actually show declining temperatures within an overall theme of increasing average temperatures

No model that I'm aware of predicts a 10 year trend of cooling based on current emissions, so I'll ask for a cite please.

The IPCC report received some criticism for not taking into account the melting ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic when estimating future rising sea levels, and new knowledge obtained since then and presented at this week’s congress suggests that sea levels could rise by more than a metre by 2100 – far more than the IPCC estimate of between 18 and 59cm.

The IPCC do take Greenland and the Antarctic into account but use past flow rates and emphasise "but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future." Thats a pretty basic error in the article.

The IPCC also state:

"Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking"

It looks to me like this self-elected University congress has just taken data from the IPCC's 3rd assessment report, and ignored the limitations in the 4th.
Till June.

 

[Knobby22]

Great post Basilio.

 

[rederob]

Seeing as you offered nothing....

I offered increased sea levels.
Sea levels rise when substantial quantities of ice melts - due to increasing temperatures. And they rise when increasing temperatures heat the oceans, thereby expanding their volume.
If it was getting colder it would be difficult for sea levels to rise.
By the way, your chart of the temperature "anomaly" nicely confirms that the earth is warming (over a statistically significant period). Typically this anomaly is expressed as a deviation from the average temperature baseline period of 1951-1980. Note that climate scientists prefer a 30 year baseline period to infer subsequent deviations.
Your short-period temperature chart simply shows the possibilities of temperature variations, and the short-term trend.
Clearer representation of global temperature trends is found at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/