Humans have less impact on climate?

[Mike B.]

Here is a link to an article in the "Telegraph:"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...AVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2006/12/10/nclimate10.xml

"The report paints a bleak picture for future generations unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced. It predicts that the climate will warm by 0.2 C a decade for the next two decades if emissions continue at current levels."

and yet:

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said."

?????????????

 

[a_unique_person]

Julian Morris has nothing to do with the IPCC, whatever he says is his own opinion, and nothing to do with peer reviewed science.

The Telegraph story is confusing. It appears to be saying that because there are man made aerosols in the atmosphere, which cool the earth, the effects of CO2 will be reduced. Which is not saying the science of CO2 warming is wrong, but is saying mankind is creating two effects at once, one which warms the earth, and one that cools it. The aerosols are a short lived phenomenon, while C02 is long lived.

 

[Rob Lister]

"However, Julian Morris, executive director of the International Policy Network, urged governments to be cautious. "There needs to be better data before billions of pounds are spent on policy measures that may have little impact," he said."

?????????????

Julian is a wise man, yet he was being kind -- he didn't say "will have Negligible impact", which is closer to the truth.

 

[a_unique_person]

Julian is a wise man, yet he was being kind -- he didn't say "will have Negligible impact", which is closer to the truth.

And you know this how?

 

[Meadmaker]

I mentioned this in another thread, but this one is fresher, so I'll say it here, too.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time last night. One thing that leaped out at me was the segment talking about the concensus among peer reviewed science journals. No one has published an article in a peer reviewed science journal questioning the scientific position that global warming is real, and humans are causing it.

Sure, Julian Morris, representing something called a "Policy Institute" isn't convinced. So? If someone writing in some sort of journal of meteorology had something to say about it, I would say that Al Gore, another politician, wasn't very credible. As it is, it seems that one side has politicians and scientists in their court. The other side has politicians, but no scientists.

Is that right, or is Al Gore telling stretchers again?

 

[gumboot]

I mentioned this in another thread, but this one is fresher, so I'll say it here, too.

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" for the first time last night. One thing that leaped out at me was the segment talking about the concensus among peer reviewed science journals. No one has published an article in a peer reviewed science journal questioning the scientific position that global warming is real, and humans are causing it.

Sure, Julian Morris, representing something called a "Policy Institute" isn't convinced. So? If someone writing in some sort of journal of meteorology had something to say about it, I would say that Al Gore, another politician, wasn't very credible. As it is, it seems that one side has politicians and scientists in their court. The other side has politicians, but no scientists.

Is that right, or is Al Gore telling stretchers again?

Seems to me scientist can't even agree over whether they agree or not. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me.

This sort of myth-making bias doesn't help anyone. I know so many people who think it's a 100% verified fully accepted scientific fact (on the level of "Gravity" or such things) that climate change is occuring, that it is unnatural, and that humans are the cause.

Now, I'm not intending to argue the validity of those claims, but I have seen disagreement on all three of these points from different highly qualified scientists who are experts in this field.

So clearly there is NOT a consensus.

-Gumboot

 

[a_unique_person]

Seems to me scientist can't even agree over whether they agree or not. Doesn't sound like a consensus to me.

Which scientists? What evidence? What papers?

This sort of myth-making bias doesn't help anyone.

In what sense is this myth making?

I know so many people who think it's a 100% verified fully accepted scientific fact (on the level of "Gravity" or such things) that climate change is occuring, that it is unnatural, and that humans are the cause.

Now, I'm not intending to argue the validity of those claims, but I have seen disagreement on all three of these points from different highly qualified scientists who are experts in this field.

Evidence?

So clearly there is NOT a consensus.

-Gumboot

You need to present evidence to support that claim.

 

[gumboot]

Which scientists? What evidence? What papers?

Don't ask me. You're the one bringing up "evidence" and "papers".

As for scientists... I was speaking of the collective group "scientists". So... those scientists.

In what sense is this myth making?

If one side promotes an argument that there is consensus, when there isn't, they are myth making. C'mon, at least try. This is all very straight forward.

Evidence?

You need to present evidence to support that claim.

Are you telling me you've never come across a qualified scientist that doesn't agree with the alleged "consensus view" on climate change?

Here's Some

-Gumboot

 

[skeptifem]

I think its accurate to say that the statement that there is a consensus is controversial by itself. I was snooping around and found some surveys, few that had more than 100 participants in it. Its hard to say, and I dont see how it matters anyway, how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?

 

[gumboot]

how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?

From my own anecdotal evidence your average person will often respond to a claim that "all the experts agree" with "oh well it must be true then".

Now, this problem is two-fold.

1) If the claim is incorrect, ignorant people are believing things that are false based, not on expert opinion, but a false claim about expert opinion (i.e. that it is in consensus).

2) If the claim is correct, more skeptical people who examine arguments before committing to a point of view may reject the hypothesis based on the deceptive and unscientific nature of the argument used by the person approaching them (that all the experts agree).

-Gumboot

 

[gtc]

Are you telling me you've never come across a qualified scientist that doesn't agree with the alleged "consensus view" on climate change?

Quite possibly. The Age and the ABC don't tolerate any dissent from the consensus view.

The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt ran a story about the lack of consensus and was subject to the full force of the ABC's fury. Here and here and here for more background.

The Sydney Morning Herald's cover story today asks whether bush was unnecesarily sacrificed firefighters focussed on protecting people and property.

Even as a regular reader of the Sydney Morning Herald, I find the Age to be quite stunningly partisan in its editorials and particularly in its cartoons and its columnists (note the assertion that American soldiers were caught on film peeing on the Koran - Terry Lane has form for incompetence).

 

[a_unique_person]

I think its accurate to say that the statement that there is a consensus is controversial by itself. I was snooping around and found some surveys, few that had more than 100 participants in it. Its hard to say, and I dont see how it matters anyway, how does proving a majority prove that the majority was correct?

It's not a majority, its the preponderance of evidence collected scientifically.

 

[a_unique_person]

Quite possibly. The Age and the ABC don't tolerate any dissent from the consensus view.

Scientific view, you mean.

The Herald Sun's Andrew Bolt ran a story about the lack of consensus and was subject to the full force of the ABC's fury. Here and here and here for more background.

Because he is an uniformed opinion writer.

 

[Soapy Sam]

For about 90% of the last 200million years, there probably were much reduced, or nonexistent ice caps at either pole.

For much of the last 2 million years, the planet has been colder than at any time in the preceding half billion.

For most of the last 55 million years, the overall trend of average planetary temperature has been downward.

Since about 20,000 BP, the trend has been upward, except for a major reversal between 12 and 10,000 BP when we had glaciers all over the place again.

Since then, it's been getting warmer, except for a period from about 1300 to the mid 19th century, when it went down again.

Choose one.

 

[a_unique_person]

And for the past few ten thousands of years, the climate has been incredibly stable and civilisation has flourished.

They can also measure the rate of change. The current increase is faster than normal geological rates of change.

 

[Soapy Sam]

AUP- Yes indeed, civilisation is an artifact of stable conditions. While humans thrived in the last ice age and emerged from it in a strong position, we could not support present populations through another one- and may be unable to do so through a period as warm as the Cenozoic optimum
The question is one of time scale.
The geological data cannot distinguish rapid changes on the same scale as day to day records. We are comparing apples with aardvaarks.That does not prove rapid change did not happen. Interestingly, when we start to get short term records from ice cores, the evidence suggests that extremely fast change is the norm rather than the exception.

Not that any of this alters the point that human society needs to be prepared for sharp change. The data do not unequivocally support the idea that humans are causing global warming- but that is a political argument of limited importance.
The important thing is to heed the warnings and prepare to cope.

Not needlessly polluting or squandering energy makes sense in any case.

 

[sphenisc]

For about 90% of the last 200million years, there probably were much reduced, or nonexistent ice caps at either pole.

For much of the last 2 million years, the planet has been colder than at any time in the preceding half billion.

For most of the last 55 million years, the overall trend of average planetary temperature has been downward.

Since about 20,000 BP, the trend has been upward, except for a major reversal between 12 and 10,000 BP when we had glaciers all over the place again.

Since then, it's been getting warmer, except for a period from about 1300 to the mid 19th century, when it went down again.

Choose one.

Why choose one? The options don't seem to be mutually exclusive.

 

[Soapy Sam]

They are exclusive or not , depending on the time scale we look at.
At any instant, temperature is going up or down. But what value is an instant if we are talking about the next century?

My point is just that while there is evidence that global warming is happening on the sort of timescale we might be interested in politically- 20-100 years, I have still seen no unequivocal proof that it is being caused by human activity.
(As opposed to being part of a natural cycle).
Nor do we have a reliable prediction for the 100-1000 year scale. It would be ironic indeed if we attempted intervention now which resulted in another Younger Dryas by the 24th century.

 

[a_unique_person]

In the United States, scientists as eminent as Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology, have denounced Gore's film as "shrill alarmism" or simply wrong in critical parts.

Lindzen. OK. That's it? That's the extent names of experts in the field.?

Dr Benny Peiser? He has no expertise in the field. If you go through the list of papers that deny global warming, they do no such thing, it's just Peiser demonstrating his ignorance.

We then have Bolt, as usual, giving us his own interpretation of what a scientist says, with no references or indication of where we can look the reference.

He takes on the bungled logic of past times when temperature rises occured before increases in CO2.

University of California's Professor Jeff Severinghaus and others note, at least three studies of ice cores show the earth first warmed and only then came more carbon dioxide, many hundreds of years later. So does extra carbon dioxide cause a warming world, or vice versa?

What he doesn't mention is that there were reasons for this to happen. Just as there is a reason for the current climate change, so there were complex mechanisms for past climate behaviour. It would take several paragraphs to detail the reasons, but for Bolt to make such a bald, simple assertion is just sheer ignorance. A false dichotomy. The history of changes in climate and interactions are much more complex than he makes them out to be.

And that worrying picture Gore shows of vanishing glaciers in the Himalayas? Newcastle University researchers last month said some glaciers there are now getting bigger again.

Cherry picking at it's finest.

IPCC predictions are what I would go with.

However as the head of the CSIRO climate change team says

Director of the CSIRO Climate Program, Bryson Bates, who is also a former Hunter Valley resident said whether farmers believed in climate change or not was not the point any more.
"YOU don't have to believe in climate change but you should manage the risk. Doing nothing is not longer an option."
Mr Bates said in every climate statistic that he has looked at there are noticeable changes.
"The evidence is compelling, recently observed changes are faster than expected," he warned.
Chair of the Department of Primary Industries run-forum was Arthur Burns from the Hunter Central Rivers Catchment Management Authority.
He said the forum was a chance to learn and it certainly was not a political forum.
Gary Alan from the NSW DPI, who is directing a Climate Risk Management project, said the day was also an information gathering exercise for him.
Mr Alan said long after the 10 forums being held around the state are finished that DPI staff will continue to keep in contact with everyone who attends.
"The DPI will also use its extension network that includes the Rural Land Protection Board to provide ongoing support for people in the Hunter," he said.
"Adaptation to the impact of further inevitable climate change will be necessary," Mr Alan said.
Current climate predictions indicate NSW will face greater extremes and variations in rainfall and temperature, which may affect the operation of many agricultural enterprises.
This was certainly reflected in the speeches of local industry representatives such as dairy farmer Simon Downes from 'Haddington,' Denman.
"As far as the dairy industry is concerned water is our main issue and we won't have any in a few weeks time."
John Sylvester from ‘Isis Hills' Timor, Murrurundi agreed the drought was the major issue but insisted people should not forget about water once the drought breaks.
"Everything is rush, rush now to build new dams until the drought breaks. We cannot let the politicians forget about it after that," he said.
Mr Bates forced a similar point when he said people were making the mistake of thinking the drought would not end but he believes it will.
He said there was a high level of uncertainty attached to the current climate change debate.
"We are not trying to predict or forecast what is happening in decades ahead only look at scenario analysis."
"Twenty-three such model scenarios exist throughout the world at the moment."
Mr Bates mentioned Al Gore's film ‘An inconvenient truth' as a particularly important one to watch.

That is, these are the possibilities, the IPCC predictions are conservative, and changes appear to be happening faster than predicted. Gores scenario could be correct.

Hurricanes for the US were less than expected, due to the sudden appearance of an El Nino, (which is what is giving Australia the current severe drought) and some other factors. However, the Phillipines is currently getting hammered by typhoons, with only a break of two weeks between the last two, at this late stage of the year.

Predictions for cooling? I'd like to know why. Gray is once again an outlier,

Gray’s view has been challenged, however.
Roger Pielke Jr., director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, said in an interview later Monday that climate scientists involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that most of the warming is due to human activity.
“Bill Gray is a widely respected senior scientist who has a view that is out of step with a lot of his colleagues’,” Pielke said. But challenging widely held views is “good for science because it forces people to make their case and advances understanding.”

http://www.reporterherald.com/Top-Story.asp?ID=6894

I'm sorry to raise these inconvenient truths just when so many of our scientists seem to prefer the certainties of faith over the uncertainties of evidence.

***** Andrew. "truths" they are not, just your twisting of facts, cherry picking, say so, ignorance.



Where there are some points of difference, you may possibly be correct in two points out of ten that are wrong.

 

[sphenisc]

They are exclusive or not , depending on the time scale we look at.

As the time scales are given in your statements, I don't understand your first point. All the time scales given are different and no set of them is mutually incompatible.

At any instant, temperature is going up or down. But what value is an instant if we are talking about the next century?

An instant isn't very useful, but none of the statements refer to an instant.

My point is just that while there is evidence that global warming is happening on the sort of timescale we might be interested in politically- 20-100 years, I have still seen no unequivocal proof that it is being caused by human activity.
(As opposed to being part of a natural cycle).

Why do you consider the cause an important point, rather than its solvability?

Nor do we have a reliable prediction for the 100-1000 year scale. It would be ironic indeed if we attempted intervention now which resulted in another Younger Dryas by the 24th century.

Not as ironic as destroying a large chunk of the human race while delaying another ice-age.