Climate change another name for Weather

[Garpal Gumnut]

Still raining here.

Now the New Scientist not known to be kind to those of reason is coming around to debunking the Gore Kool Effect.

There was also no significant warming trend from between 1977 and 1985, or between 1981 and 1989 - and those periods certainly weren't the end of global warming. Now, as if more evidence were needed, two climate scientists have produced more data showing that the current lull in no way contradicts the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing long-term warming.


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/has-global-warming-really-stop.html

gg

 

[MrBurns]

It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.

If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.

Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.

These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.

gg

Agreed

 

[basilio]

Now the New Scientist not known to be kind to those of reason is coming around to debunking the Gore Kool Effect.

Full publication of the New Scientist blog on Global warming actually shows the scientific background of the arguments and the intent of the writer.

Has global warming really stopped?
.JPGMichael Le Page, biology features editor

According to some records of past temperatures there has been no significant surface warming between 1998 and 2008.

"Now the world is COOLING!" the bloggers scream. As if this means we can all stop worrying about global warming.

I am not sure how anyone who takes even a brief look at records of past surface air temperatures for themselves can jump to such conclusions. It's blindingly obvious that even when there's a long-term warming trend, over shorter periods temperatures may fall.

There was also no significant warming trend from between 1977 and 1985, or between 1981 and 1989 - and those periods certainly weren't the end of global warming. Now, as if more evidence were needed, two climate scientists have produced more data showing that the current lull in no way contradicts the fact that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing long-term warming.

David Easterling of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina and Michael Wehner of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley in California looked both at observed temperature records and at climate model predictions for the 20th and 21st centuries. Their paper is in press in Geophysical Research Letters. Their conclusion?

"We show that the climate over the 21st century can and likely will produce periods of a decade or two where the globally averaged surface air temperature shows no trend or even slight cooling in the presence of longer-term warming."

It'd be nice to think their contribution would make a difference. But I doubt it will change the minds of those who dismiss the idea of climate change despite the key evidence from physics and chemistry, despite the evidence from past climate changes and despite dramatic changes such as collapsing ice shelves in Antarctica, the shrinking of summer sea ice in the Arctic and the retreat of glaciers all around the world.

I suspect that claims such as "Global warming stopped in 1998" will give way to claims such as "Global warming stopped in 2017" and "Global warming stopped in 2033", even as the long-term warming trend becomes ever clearer.

Thank goodness President Obama listens to the real scientists.

Categories: Environment

 

[Blissbomb]

Everyone was so gung ho about saving our environment, melting pola bears and carbon foot prints. Dont hear much about it anymore? Been placed in the to hard basket! Wear so busy trying to save ourselves financially.

 

[basilio]

Are any forum readers interested in the scientific analysis of the oft repeated arguments that GW is basically BS.? I came across an excellent website which managed to discuss all the arguments with both good references and a relatively easy to understand language.

Cheers

http://www.skepticalscience.com/

About Skeptical Science

Skeptical Science was created by John Cook, an ex-physicist (majoring in solar physics at the University of Queensland). My interest in global warming began when I got into some discussions with a skeptical family member who handed me a speech by Senator Inhofe. It took little research to show his arguments were misleading and lacking in science.

Since then, I've scoured peer reviewed scientific literature in an attempt to penetrate the political agendas and cherry picking. I've noticed two patterns in global warming skepticism. Firstly, many reasons for disbelieving in anthropogenic global warming (AGW) seem to be political rather than scientific. Eg - it's all a liberal plot to spread socialism and destroy capitalism (or sometimes just plain dislike for Al Gore). As one person put it, "the cheerleaders for doing something about global warming seem to be largely the cheerleaders for many causes of which I disapprove".

Beneath the politics is a more elemental instinct - an aversion to alarmism. We've been burnt before. The media predicted an ice age in the 70's which never eventuated. Y2K was going to destroy society - it was barely a hiccup. And I won't deny there are alarmists in the global warming camp. Urgent cries that the ice sheets are on the verge of sliding into the sea. Or emotional pleas to save those cute little polar bears. Sadly, alarmists seem to be the loudest voices in the global warming debate. But that doesn't change the science underneath.

So I ignore the distracting politics and ad hominem arguments. Instead, I concentrate on the science. And I noticed when the discussion did get to science, the same flawed skeptic argument continue to propogate through the blogosphere, Chinese whispers style. This website is an attempt to examine all the scientific arguments that reject AGW.

Questions of funding

Some have queried if I receive funding to produce this website. I receive no funding and have no affiliations with any organisations or political groups. Skeptical Science is strictly a labour of love - maintained in my spare time. The design was created by my talented web designer wife. I did all the programming (which was built from scratch, not using any pre-existing CMS, I might add).

 

[enigmatic]

What a misserable day the market is closed and its raining outside..
Stupid climate change it hasnt rained here for atleast 10years on the 13th of april...
Hang on that means it has happened before.. Big deal get over it maybe we should just adjust to our climate for a change instead of changing it to suit us..
Umbrella today..

 

[Smurf1976]

Everyone was so gung ho about saving our environment, melting pola bears and carbon foot prints. Dont hear much about it anymore? Been placed in the to hard basket! Wear so busy trying to save ourselves financially.

It's no secret that there's a relationship between environmentalism and economic cycles with both peaking at the same time.

If those who seek to "save the earth no matter what the economic cost" get their way then we'll end up trashing the entire planet as both the economy and concern for the environment fall in a hole. Plenty of third world examples of just that and some closer to home too.

 

[Green08]

In the SMH 13th April - yesterday in the Opinion section of the News, there was an interesting article.

Professor Ian Plimer Australia's eminent geologist has written a book entitled, Heaven and Earth.

"An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meterology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history".

He doesn't dispute the dramatic flux in climate change "Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the curcial relationship between climate and solar energy".

Should be interesting reading.

 

[ghotib]

I read that piece with interest. Plimer is one of my heroes because of his consistent political campaign against the pretence that creationism is science, so his equally consistent campaign against political action to change civilisation-caused carbon emissions troubles me.

Without seeing the book, which is not yet published, comment is obviously speculative. So I speculate that Plimer's long view is too long for human civilisation. Certainly earth has known periods hotter than are now predicted for this century and beyond, and it's quite capable of sequestering all the carbon we've been putting into the air and oceans and cooling down again. But the planet is already about as warm as humans have ever known and is warming faster than humans have ever known. I don't think there's a serious risk that we'll wipe ourselves out. I do think there's a serious risk of a population crash and collapse of civilisation if humans don't change our behaviour quickly. That won't affect the planet any more than the exinction of the dinosaurs did, or even the collapse of the Mayans or the Roman empire. But it sure ain't what I'd like for my descendants.

Ghoti

 

[spooly74]

I read that piece with interest. Plimer is one of my heroes because of his consistent political campaign against the pretence that creationism is science, so his equally consistent campaign against political action to change civilisation-caused carbon emissions troubles me.

I can see why it would. I wasn't aware of his work against creationist stupidity but from the few selective quotes from the article, I not sure that his new book is anything more than opinion.

Below is a talk from last August, again, a bit light on scientific facts, and considering this speech and the title of his new book 'Heaven and Earth', I'm inclined to give it a miss.

 

[Mr J]

I've never paid much attention to global warming. Noise, coincidence, factors we don't know of or understand etc, it just seems there's too much uncertainty to take such a strong stand against it. To me it just sounds like the herd jumping on the latest bull market. I'm surprised so many scientists go along with it, but then there's no law that states scientists can't be fools, have agendas or ruled by fear.

That said, while I have serious doubts about global warming, there's nothing wrong with keeping our environment reasonably clean. After all, we have to live in it. As I type this, I look out at the cloud of smog hovering above the harbour .

 

[rederob]

I've never paid much attention to global warming. Noise, coincidence, factors we don't know of or understand etc, it just seems there's too much uncertainty to take such a strong stand against it. To me it just sounds like the herd jumping on the latest bull market. I'm surprised so many scientists go along with it, but then there's no law that states scientists can't be fools, have agendas or ruled by fear.

The scientists that "go along with it" are the ones involved, for the main, in specific and concentrated research that suggests man-made influences are speeding what otherwise what could be "normal" or natural processes.
There is an increasing pool of active "deniers" who prefer to believe that man has had no impact on climate change, and generally latch onto discredited science that is constantly regurgitated - the "throw enough mud principle".
It seems that as more information is comes out each year that supports the AGW hypothesis, the bigger the effort to "deny" its veracity.

 

[IFocus]

I have tried to keep an open mind on this issue but I do believe these guys as apposed to the politics of yes and no groups.

Today's Australian

Revealed: Antarctic ice growing, not shrinking

Australian Antarctic Division glaciology program head Ian Allison said sea ice losses in west Antarctica over the past 30 years had been more than offset by increases in the Ross Sea region, just one sector of east Antarctica.

"Sea ice conditions have remained stable in Antarctica generally," Dr Allison said.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25349683-601,00.html

 

[Green08]

Dr Allison on to say which is fact, the majority of ice beneath the water surface will not raise sea levels (no brainer which most haven't thought about). It is the exposed ice above the sea level in these regions. Most of the focus has been on Greenland and the Artic, But the convertor current has the warm water flowing towards greenland before it plunges down alongside Canada. The Antarctica receives the full blast of deep cold older water on the converter belt.

There is Climate Change no doubt about it. I wouldn't be surprised if after warming things get very cold very fast. Dependant on the converter belt. I wish there was more upto date information as it has a more profound effect directly on our weather.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Dr Allison on to say which is fact, the majority of ice beneath the water surface will not raise sea levels (no brainer which most haven't thought about). It is the exposed ice above the sea level in these regions. Most of the focus has been on Greenland and the Artic, But the convertor current has the warm water flowing towards greenland before it plunges down alongside Canada. The Antarctica receives the full blast of deep cold older water on the converter belt.

There is Climate Change no doubt about it. I wouldn't be surprised if after warming things get very cold very fast. Dependant on the converter belt. I wish there was more upto date information as it has a more profound effect directly on our weather.

Just like a stock price; after it goes up it comes down. Though, I think not a hold and forget approcach to cyclical conditions. The stupidity we see from investors also applies to man made climate change propagandists.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Prof.Plimer is the main force extant in the cause against the "Church of Climatology"

Now please READ HIS BOOK.

And can we please now end this thread.

It is a honeypot for the disastrous left, who now have only the Weather to blame for the lack of uptake of their disastrous leftie ideas.

Perhaps Joe should endow the power to have a thread ended by its originator after exhaustive left wing nitpicking Gorebore anti democratic whingeing godbothering people who don't respect the other side of the argument.

gg

 

[rederob]

Prof.Plimer is the main force extant in the cause against the "Church of Climatology"

Now please READ HIS BOOK.

And can we please now end this thread.

It is a honeypot for the disastrous left, who now have only the Weather to blame for the lack of uptake of their disastrous leftie ideas.

Perhaps Joe should endow the power to have a thread ended by its originator after exhaustive left wing nitpicking Gorebore anti democratic whingeing godbothering people who don't respect the other side of the argument.

gg

When it's clearly "proven" that there is no case supporting climate change then the thread will come to its natural end.
Plimer makes many good points, and much has been mentioned of them in one way or another in this thread.
He cannot, however, show that man's massive consumption (read "burning") of carbon-based fuels in less than 2 centuries, has a natural precedent.
Nor can he show that the destruction of carbon sinks (read "clearing of forests") ever previously occurred so rapidly.
Moreover, neither Plimer nor any other scientist has demonstrated that increasing atmospheric CO2 levels can lead to significant and sustained global cooling.

 

[ghotib]

Well GG, If you start a thread with a deliberately (I think) provocative title you can't really complain if people continue to be provoked.

Climate change is not another name for weather. An argument that pretends they are the same thing is never going to get anywhere. Neither is an argument that jumps from science to public policy and back again without being sure that all parties are talking about the same thing.

There is not and never will be clear, 100% reliable knowledge of what the weather will be at any given point on the earth on any given day under any given carbon emission scenario, but that's not what climate science is about. I think this blog posting is a pretty good summary of how scientists (including Plimer) think and why many of them believe the policy issues of climate change are acute even though there are many unanswered scientific questions. It's from Michael Tobin at http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/05/falsifiability-question.html.

Friday, May 2, 2008
The Falsifiability Question
OK, the new meme among the denialists is that the tide is with them, that their evidence is overwhelming, that we must be religious zealots not to be able to see the overwhelming evidence that, um, that "very not what the IPCC says". I think we need to talk about the balance of evidence, someday, but I'd like to address the "falsifiability question", i.e., what evidence would it take to shake me of my firm "belief" in AGW.

There is some implication that there is an "AGW theory" and that there is an argument in its support, and that said argument is a cohesive thread starting with Fourier and ending at the dreaded-extremist-boogeyman-Gore, and that failure of any chain in said argument necessarily implies "see, so no carbon policy is necessary". (I'm missing a few steps in their reasoning here, too, but that's another topic still.)

I claim there is no "AGW theory" in the sense that there is an argument that four colors suffice, or more fairly, that stars follow an evolutionary path based on their mass. AGW is not an organizing principle of climate theory at all.

Hypotheses, organizing principles, of this sort emerge from the fabric of a science as a consequence of a search for unifying principles. The organizing principles of climatology come from various threads, but I'd mention the oceanographic sysyntheses of Sverdrup and Stommel, the atmospheric syntheses of Charney and Lorenz, paleoclimatological studies from ice and mud core field work, and computational work starting with no less than Johnny von Neumann.

The expectation of AGW does not organize this work. It emerges from this work. It's not a theory, it's a consequence of the theory.

Admittedly it's a pretty important consequence, and that's why the governments of the world have tried to sort out what the science says with the IPCC and its predecessors. That tends to color which work gets done and which doesn't, and I think it should. As Andy Revkin pointed out, it may be time to move toward a service-oriented climatology, or what I have called applied climatology. The point is that this amounts to application of a theory that emerged and reached mathematical and conceptual maturity entirely independent of worry about climate change.

So attacks on climate change as if it were a "theory" make very little sense. Greenhouse gas accumulation is a fact. Radiative properties of greenhouse gases are factual. The climate is not going to stay the same. It can't stay the same. Staying the same would violate physics; specifically it would violate the law of energy conservation. Something has to change.

The simplest consequence is that the surface will warm up. That this is indeed most of what happens is validated pretty much in observations, in paleodata, in theory and in simulation. Further, all those lines of evidence converge pretty much about how much warming: about 2.5 C to 3C for each doubling of CO2. (It's logarithmic in total CO2, not in emitted CO2, guys, by the way.) There's no single line of reasoning for this. There are multiple lines of evidence.

If you want to convince me that the sensitivity is less than 2 or more than 4, you will have to provide quite a good deal of evidence, but I don;t think this is what the denialists have in mind when they ask me what would "falsify the hypothesis". In fact, though, they haven't defined their terms. If the sensititivity is less than 1, is the supposed hypothesis falsified? What if it is more than 6? If the onset time is a hundred years rather than ten?

They want to know what it would take to pry my free of my "beliefs", but they are not beliefs, they are estimates. Estimates of the sensitivity (2.8 C per doubling). Estimates of the built-in delays (about twenty years for full effect of current concentrations). Estimates of the threshold of excessively high social risk (some range here but I go with 2 C ~ 450 ppmv).

What would it take to change my opinion of the threshhold to 451 ppmv? A nice dinner at Fonda San Miguel, margaritas included, would surely do it. If that constitutes a falsification, bring it on.

Really, though, I don't understand the question. If these numbers wobble around a bit that might shift the optimum policy a bit, but we're so far from the optimum now that it's not worth putting much thought into it yet. The numbers, however, are never going away. There will always be a sensitivity, a response curve, a risk threshold. If you are asking what evidence could make me believe that there are no such numbers, I can't actually imagine it.

That's not because I have a blind attachment to some theory. It's because the numbers must exist, and we have lots of evidence as to what they might be.

What would it take to change my estimate of the numbers? That depends by how much. What would it take to convince me that the meteorology and oceanography I have learned is wrong? I don't know. What would it take to falsify any mature quantitative science?

Ghoti

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Well GG, If you start a thread with a deliberately (I think) provocative title you can't really complain if people continue to be provoked.

Climate change is not another name for weather. An argument that pretends they are the same thing is never going to get anywhere. Neither is an argument that jumps from science to public policy and back again without being sure that all parties are talking about the same thing.

There is not and never will be clear, 100% reliable knowledge of what the weather will be at any given point on the earth on any given day under any given carbon emission scenario, but that's not what climate science is about. I think this blog posting is a pretty good summary of how scientists (including Plimer) think and why many of them believe the policy issues of climate change are acute even though there are many unanswered scientific questions. Ghoti

According to Dictionary.com climate is weather conditions. So if climate changes weather conditions change. So climate is another name for weather. Source:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/climate

 

[Green08]

And can we please now end this thread.

It is a honeypot for the disastrous left, who now have only the Weather to blame for the lack of uptake of their disastrous leftie ideas.

Dear GG

You give me the giggles - fancy a leftie like me talking about Pilmer.

We just drove 900 kms from South Melbourne to Sydney yesterday and the climate changed several times!! sporatic buckets of heavy rain to greet us. Tomorrow the final journey to the High country where I'm sure it will be different again.

Completing the obligatory L's, my daughter do 120 hours of driving with me I elected to burn through diesel (I make no apologies for any damage this does - my car is maintained - this is a job to be done) close to 4000 kms on all types of road (would have driven me crazy going around the suburbs) in the span of 6 days. She has done exceedingly well