It's never been in balance before. The climate has always been changing. Besides, to what "balance" are you referring?

No, but the way in which their importance is unknown because there are so many other variables involved.

Yes but because the system is chaotic, it means that the consequences could be anything so trying to prevent one particular scenario that may or may not happen is a distraction from preparing from all manner of other scenarios that are just as likely to happen.

Good.

Glaciers reducing in size and poikilothermic species going to higher latitudes/altitudes are undeniable evidence the Earth is getting hotter.

However I think it is related to natural cyclic Earth motions and redistribution of ocean streams rather than pollution.

__________________
Never stop questioning.

http://www.circlemakers.org

So, what you are saying is that, because there are many factors involved about which we may know little or nothing, we should treat the things that we [to an albeit limited extent] do, as though they are nothing to do with us: Nature will provide?

All I'm seeing with the anti-GWT folks, is a refusal to do anything other than to carry on as usual. There seems to be no intention of preparing for anything?

As Pteranodon says above: the evidence for GW itself is "undeniable". But, while the link to greenhouse emissions is still a matter of debate - what difference does it make? Would you rather we all prepared for an Iceage?

Are the affected flora and fauna mistaken? I'm sure that they are not being influenced by any scientific consensus; they are reacting to what's happening...But, then, they don't have time to argue over the semantics of the word "balance"...

What would you have us do instead? We don't know what will happen and how whatever we do will affect it. If you think you might be coming down with some undetermined illness, you don't shovel down as many pills as you can find. Until we know that a different course of action will be better, there is no use in second guessing our current course of action. We mustn't fall into the manner of politicians and always start doing something just for the sake of doing something so we can feel satisfied with ourselves. We have to know we're doing the right thing.

Then that's not me. Some say we are heading towards climate optimum, which is a good thing. But if we're not, then we need to develop ways of dealing with things. If an Ice Age is on the way, and a piece by Tunga says it could come quickly if supernovae have their way, then we need to be able to deal with the problems of cold and reduced agricultural yields. Biotechnology can make plants more resilient to cold and grow faster with less support from an atmosphere enriched in water and carbon dioxide. It will also enable us to produce more medicines in greater quantities to handle diseases that might flourish in colder conditions. Fission power and other forms can increase our supply of energy, which will obviously be needed. And of course there is the energy efficiency thing, which is to be promoted by newer and better technologies, not by rationing and punitive measures. Above all, we need to be in a position to adapt, which means we need to remain prosperous as a society. Some say that policies at tackling alleged AAGW will be seriously damaging to the economy. I don't know if this is the case. I remain skeptical of scare stories on all sides. But if it is the case, then it would mean we would be endangering the very thing that could help us survive whatever the universe throws at us.

We need to remain flexible and not get entrenched in the dogma of the latest Armageddon of the week story. It is when we keep on chasing these phantom doomsdays that we do ourselves the most damage. We should keep progressing so we do things better. The better we are, the more we'll be able to adapt to whatever problems arise.

I'm sorry. I'm not a politician. I don't have all the answers. I won't propose a fixed set of policies aimed at dealing with a particular phantom threat just so it looks like I'm doing something and secure the vote of my constituents.

I have to say, you've set up a neat little Kobayashi Maru there. Either I say we should carry on as usual, in which case I appear short sighted and uncaring, or I propose a particular set of policies, in which case I'm forced to advocate a particular outcome. Either way, it's not good for me.

Maybe we should just carry on as usual. What's so bad about that? Incandescent light bulbs are being replaced by halogens, flourescents and other more efficient ones. Noisy and clunky cathode ray tubes and being replaced by LCD screens, which are much more efficient. VHS is on the way out and more efficient DVDs are now the main medium (they are smaller yet store more information at higher quality so they require less energy and materials in production). Architecture is becoming more sophisticated producing better buildings that reduce heating bills. Household appliances are always becoming more efficient. Engines are becoming cleaner throwing out less particulates and real pollutions. More and more people are gaining access to the benefits of modern technology. Sounds like a good course to me. Sure it's not perfect, but what is?

Okay, so I'm probaly not being particularly coherent here. Let me try again.

The UNFCCC works on the premise that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions will lead to climate catastrophe so they propose that we take some drastic measures to curb emissions and if we do that, the threat will be eliminated. I think we have agreed that the premise is at best undetermined (especially given that carbon dioxide levels seem to be the consequence of temperature changes, not the cause). I think we've also agreed that what awaits us is unknown. Therefore concocting any framework to deal with a given potential outcome is futile because we a) don't know that a given outcome will happen and b) don't know that the framework would be of any good in dealing with that particular outcome. So I guess what we really need to do is to carry on as usual but be wary of what unexpected things lie around the corner. To use a driving analogy, you don't know if someone is going to rush out in front of you from that side road ahead. It might happen, but that doesn't mean you divert to avoid that intersection. You proceed past the intersection with awareness.

Two things Pete. First, this "general concensus" is a myth. I don't know what the exact percentages are, but there are plenty of researchers who consider GWT bereft of supporting evidence. And this leads to the second ... you have to judge the theories based upon the weight of supporting evidence. Without a doubt there in the realm of discourse there is a real dogfight going on, but in the realm of actual evidence GWT is getting routed! Just look at what we've been talking about on this thread. The article I linked to at the start is a research review. Its written as a summary and does not require a technical background.

Its long ( ), but I hope if you haven't had a chance you'll work your way through it ... because its an excellent summary of scientific research that contradicts GWT claims.

And I'm still waiting for somebody to provide any hard evidence that verifies any aspect of GWT besides CO2 levels increasing. This is another one of these GW points that has become "concensus" in the arena of discussion without being scientifically verified. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Nobody disputes that. But is it important enough to force climate changes? The evidence suggests the answer is "no". For example, ice cores show that CO2 increases lag behind temperature increases (see pages 302-303 of the article - pages 6 and 7 printed out).

Given the lack of evidence verifying any of the GWT predictions, GW does not provide a justification for taking any actions. Glom and I have both pointed out other reasons for cleaning up emissions, increasing enery efficiency, and developing alternative energy sources. Just because we find GWT extremely deficient, that doesn't mean our position is anything goes.

What are you referring to? Studies like the study that showed lilacs are blooming a whopping 4 days earlier than in 1965 when we were in a cooling trend? Researchers are over-reaching when they claim these types of results are evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Ultimately the issue of causality is the heart of the matter. If one cannot show within reasonable doubt that the warming is caused by man then there is no reason to make drastic changes. To do so would be our attempt to “manage” the environment. Not something that I would want to trust to some consensus treaty based upon extrapolated data and climate models.
Speaking of treaties, we are left with Kyoto. Kyoto allows no fence sitting. Either we get with the program (**opinion alert! with the sure worldwide economic depression that it will induce) or we do not ratify. IMO if you want to take a position in the middle then you must be against Kyoto. I have to agree with Glom and Dgruss on this: there are lots of things that we need to do including increasing auto efficiencies, reducing emissions, etc. but making drastic and arbitrary changes to suit some treaty will not have my support. Excuse the politics, but any GW discussion eventually comes to politics.

__________________
There's never a Greek philosopher around when you really need him.

Thank you for those posts guys. I'll now go and do some more research...

I've also put a link from net-weather, as I'm sure they'll find it very interesting..

I'm wending my way through these papers. And, I concede, he should be listened to...

That said: he denies that any balance applies yet invokes negative-feedback mechanisms [eg. clouds]. I always understood "negative feedbacks" as mechanisms that attempt to drive a disequilibrium back towards equilibrium??? If there is no "balance" why the need for negative feedback?? #-o #-o

My only other concern is, what I interpret as, his cry of conspiracy. I'm not saying that there isn't one - it just taints his claims IMO... 8-[ 8-[

All sides' views should be aired IMO, that's fine. But how am I to know whether his papers were rejected for scientific or political reasons? He could be either a misunderstood genius or a loony for all I can ascertain... #-o #-o

I will keep looking though...If you can point me toward other sources, I'll be more than happy to look at them...

Thanks again, guys!!

Fair question. It's not quite about returning to equilibrium. Negative feedback simply refers to a situation where a chance in some factor prompts a response that reverse the change. For example, an increase in temperature drives more water circulation increasing the cloud cover, which increases albedo, thereby redcuing the temperature. If that one feedback was the only factor then there would be such a thing as equilibrium. However, with the climate, there are a million processes, some giving negative feedback, some positive and other doing all sorts of other weird things, so there is no equilibrium.

Sorry, which paper are you reading?

In addition to Glom's response, it should be noted that the GW advocates rely heavily upon positive feedbacks. For example, if CO2 causes warming,then that will lead to more evaporation of water (the most important greenhouse gas) which leads to even more warming. Meanwhile, warming would also cause the permafrost to release more CO2 which leads to even more warming.

The problem with these scenarios is that the climate system can't be that simple or it would have already happened. CO2 has fluctuated a lot in the past. If the climate was so sensative to such changes, then why hasn't a runaway greenhouse already happened? Why should our activities be such a trigger, when similar natural changes aren't.

Conspiracy claims usually do elicit that response from undecided people such as yourself and I understand. The evidence should stand on its own without the need for the conspiracy claim. But in this case I think the conspiracy claim is an important component ... because the issue is so politicized.

For example, why does the IPCC emphasize the surface temp. records which have less coverage, greater data uncertainty, and contamination from urban heat island effects compared with satellites which have complete coverage and small uncertainty in data? If the satellites indicated a warming instead of a cooling would the IPCC still ignore them?

Then there are little games like this which as far as I can see serve no other purpose than to mislead the public.

I'm not sure that rejection of papers is a major issue here. The paper I cited has 4 1/2 pages of published references that illustrate the flaws of GWT. There was the case of McKitrick's paper that criticized the Mann hockey stick reconstruction which Nature has rejected. But there is plenty of published research that refutes GW claims.

You're going to have to decide for yourself who you think has the stronger case. One of the problems is that pro-GW researchers like to make these claims that extend well beyond what their results can support. For example - the lilac blooming study.

Perhaps the best way to approach it is to see if you can find answers to questions such as this:

1. If CO2 forces climate changes, then why do ice cores indicate CO2 levels rise about 800 years after warming begins?
2. If CO2 is an important climate forcer, then why was it cooling between 1940 and 1975 ... and why do satellites show a very slight cooling since then?
3. Why isn't there a significant rise in sea level?
4. Why are glaciers advancing?
5. Why is productivity of plant growth increasing?

If GW advocates can successfully answer those questions, then perhaps they'll have a toe to stand on.

Is CO2 the only proposed mechanism for climate change? If not, one possible explanation for the above observation may be that dead vegetation that had been covered by the ice (or was otherwise frozen) may have warmed up to a point where decay processes can kick in. Just a thought.

On a personal level I'm more concerned about the local cooling effects of climate change if the Gulf stream screws up. (Guess where I live. )

Yes, I'll readily concede that point. It's undeniable...

I don't know the answer to that. Perhaps we're just to-far out from the Sun for it to happen? To some extent, though - it does depend upon what you mean by a "runaway greenhouse" - 10C, 20C, 200C?

Yes, I agree there, it has become a heavily politicized debate. Personally, I find this a shame, as there shoul be no need to doctor results. But, that's down to "activists" who make it there business to spread as much alarm as possible IMO. It's an even bigger shame when politicians jump on the bandwagon..

Does the IPCC really ignore them? I've heard that Satellite data only refers to the upper atmosphere...if that's indeed the case you'd expect them to show a cooling..?

Can't disagree at all there. Chicanery like that gets on my nerves as much as anyones!!


:x


In an honest attempt to answer your questions:

1.With the exception of today's cycle of warming, the climate was responding to purely "natural" factors...I don't think that anyone's denying that such changes have occurred in the past - and will continue in the future...Then, of course, there's the Snowball Earth Hypothesis; that the Earth only ever warmed-up because of the build-up of CO2??

2. There's nothing in GWT that precludes natural cooling from outweighing manmade warming. Does satellite data refer to Earth's surface or the upper atmosphere?

3. The way I understood it, The Maldives are in imminent danger of being submerged by rising sea-levels.

4. The majority of glaciers have been retreating since the 1900s. I don't think that GWT insists that ALL OF THEM retreat all-of-the-time.

5. In a world of increasing temperature AND increasing CO2, you'd expect plant productivity to increase. With more raw-materials to work with and more available energy for metabolism, photosynthesis would be expected to proceed at a faster rate...If GW scenarios have a positive side then that surely is it...


I hope that I've been honest in trying to address your questions. I also read Glom's post before I replied...



PS I'll link the pictorial misrepresentation thingy to net-weather...

The satellites measure from the surface to 8 km altitude. And they measure the entire surface as opposed to the surface measurements that have less coverage and contamination from the urban heat island effect.

So the satellites are measuring the lower atmosphere, not the upper atmosphere. GW predicts the lower atmosphere should warm and that is not what the satellites are observing. In fact the IPCC model has already predicted a present temperature 0.70 deg C warmer than what is observed.

Is IPCC ignoring this? Freitas points out that the IPCC summary for policymakers (2001) uses the surface temperature records exclusively.

The problem is that GW advocates are assuming that all of the sudden because of the small increase in greenhouse gases that any climate changes are anthropogenic. They ignore the Sun's influence and they're ignoring the evidence contradicting their own claims. Its naive of them to take the position that nature did its thing for billions of years and then we take over with the industrial revolution.

It has not been scientifically demonstrated that CO2 is an important climate forcer ... even before we started increasing it. The ice records indicate it responds to temperature changes rather than force temperature changes.

But the IPCC computer models upon which all the policy proposals depend suggest that warming is what should happen. If natural mechanisms are capable of overwhelming any CO2 influence (which the evidence suggests is the case) then the concern is overblown right from the start.

Figure 23 of the Freitas paper is important. There is no trend of increasing sea level. Does that mean that places cannot experience an increase in sea level? In the absence of any dramatic overall rising trend, there is no reason to think that natural factors will not dominate regional variations in sea level.

Hubbard glacier has been steadily advancing. Perhaps good science would allow for significant warming and glacial advance, but the environmental groups harp on this issue as evidence of global warming. In fact if the planet warms you can have more precipitation and growing glaciers as Freitas notes. In reality, this is another one of these examples where you probably have to have dramatic changes to support a global warming scenario and those changes just are not observed.

Here is an example of what the env. groups are willing to do to slant this issue.

I agree, but the problem here is that the env. groups are trying to claim growth is going to be hurt by extreme weather patterns. Increasing CO2 should be expected to fertilize plant growth. If there is no climate forcing from the CO2 increases, then the increases can only be a benefit (at least on the ppm scale we're talking about). Studies are showing that growth is in fact improving.

To summarize, I think the problem the GW advocates are facing is that they're relying on the presumption that a calamity will eventual ensue from the CO2 increases. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for the rest of us that don't enjoy calamity, none of the dramatic changes that we should be starting to see are actually ocurring. There is no evidence for dramatic warming, glacial retreat, sea level rise, or extreme weather events.

This leaves them in the position of only being able to say that if we're right, then we can't wait to take action. But why should we even trust them that action is necessary when not only are their predictions not bearing out -they're being contradicted?

I have no doubts about your honesty! Its refreshing to discuss this with someone who isn't just taking all the GW rhetoric on faith. Thanks!

This paper is quite interesting. They seem to be in the middle on some issues. They say that carbon dioxide increases can be largely attributed to human activities, while we argue that anthropogenic emissions are smaller than the error on natural discharge. The also make no mention of any extraheliospheric forcings such as GCRs, although there are some interesting bits about the role of tides. It's a good read though.

Thanks for the info guys...I'll get back to you when I've had a chance to read it all...

In one of your posts, you mentioned "activists". Well, I don't know if the term applies to our New-Age Travellers and Tree Huggers et al. but, between their "activities," they seem to drive about in clapped-out old bangers and leave a trail of filth behind them. Why do they pollute the very environment they so vehemently profess to care about?? #-o #-o #-o #-o

Cheers guys.

You're not likely to find them buying a new car because that would be promoting greenhouse gases, even though a new car, such as a Micra or a small diesel can be far more environmentally friendly than any of that old crap.

There are many examples of eco-warriors spouting things that are worse for the environment. This article talks about such policies with agriculture, whereby their so-called Green organic farming is in fact an environmental disaster waiting to happen because it means far more land will need to be farmed to produce the same amount of food and that means more biodiverse forest must be cleared to make room for more monoculture.

The article says that the much maligned US actually has active and widespread reforestation because it embraces fertilisers and pesticides and biotechnology, which have allowed them get the same yield from far less land, the result being the biodiverse forests have reclaimed what was monoculture a hundred years ago. (Remember, use of these chemicals is not the danger. Overuse its.)

The problem is in the third world, where some people won't allow them to have fertilisers and pesticides and biotechnology, where they use basically organic farming, which requires large areas of forest land to be cleared to be farmed in order to produce a decent crop under this inefficient regime. They are also still using firewood and energy crops, in the form of feed for beasts of burden, which means more deforestation.

So yes, many environmentalists don't really make much sense. They are still hung up on the delusion that environmentally friendly equates with primitive and that delusion is causing the doom of rainforests and biodiversity across the world.

Saruman provoked the wrath of the Ents because he did not use nuclear power.

It is long isn't it??

The hot topic lately in environmental science is low-level pollutants, things that are too minute to measure but ubiquitous in soil, water, and air. The studies that are coming in are not very positive. Fertilizers aren't so bad in this regard if they avoid the synthetic additives, but most pesticides are just plain bad news. We're only now starting to evaluate the long-term effects of low-level, continuously applied chemicals.

Hmm... this article is omitting all the developing nations that use pesticides like they're demented. Pesticides are cheap to buy where environmental regulation is lax. Costa Rica sprays the stuff on their banana farms until it creates its own runoff. A host of other nations follow their lead, or blow right past it. Ironically, the U.S. is a major exporter of pesticides it restricts or bans from domestic use. Fertilizers are more expensive however; much higher bulk quantities are required.

Just this week in the local paper, a news report that Blackcomb/Whistler Mountain (major ski resort out west, for those that don't know) is making plans for the imminent global warming such as opening new high alpine areas and investing in more snow making machines.

Tha article trotted out the the usual "most climate scientists agree that global warming is man-made..blah...blah...blah", then quoted a study from the 90's (probably 5 years long) that the upper glacier has been retreating. No kidding! Anyone who hikes in the back country knows every glacier in the area has been retreating.

__________________
Earth First! We'll mine the rest later.