Paleoclimatic records

[MangoChutney]

Hi guys

 

I'm new, so apologies if you have covered these questions before. I should also declare that I am sceptical of MMGW, GW - yes, MMGW - no, although I hopefully have an open mind. I'm not a scientist or climate change expert, just an interested passer by, who believes in conserving the earth's resources

 

1 Quotes from Chapter 6 of IPCC AR4 pages 436 / 474 respectively:

 

"There are markedly fewer well-dated proxy records for the SH compared to the NH, and consequently little evidence of how large-scale average surface temperatures have changed over the past few thousand years.."

 

"Knowledge of climate variability over the last 1 kyr in the Southern Hemisphere and tropics is very limited by the low density of paleoclimatic records."

 

The IPCC offers various levels of (high) confidence for MMCC and they say they are 90% sure GW is MM, but they only have less than 50% of the data supported by temperatures records. I think this is like saying in a court of law "Yes, M'lud, I am sure it was the accused, because I saw him from behind, although I wasn't wearing my glasses at the time"

 

How can the IPCC be 90% sure with less than 50% of the data from the world?

 

2 Dramatic climate change can occur in the space of a human life time, although 8000 years ago a human lifetime was considerably less than today.

 

8000 years ago, Britain was not an island, but part of Europe. The north sea did not exist. This has been shown to be true by archaeologists. They have also shown in a very short period of time, temperature rose by 7C and melt water flooded the land and formed the north sea. They consider the time taken to be a human lifetime or 30 - 50 years.

 

Is it possible that GW could be natural?

 

3 Do you accept the findings of Prof. Dennis Bray that, of 530 leading climate scientists, 30% were sceptical of and 10% strongly disagreed with the IPCC report

 

4 Do you accept that as chairman of GIM, Al Gore has a vested interest in promoting MMGW? Perhaps if Al Gore wasn't making so much money out of GW with his company Generation Investment Management, I would be more inclined to listen to his "documentary". Dents his credibility IMHO an inconvenient truth for Al Gore

 

5 Could the weakened of the magnetic field (10% since roman times) amongst other natural phenomena influence climate and cause temperature rises?

 

Perhaps I would be less sceptical if the IPCC's remit wasn't: “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."

 

A body who's purpose is to report on "human-induced climate change" is unlikely to report that it isn't us after all, are they?

 

Like I said at the start, I am willing to be converted, but when I see the vast amounts of money being made by big business and vested interests and the number of new taxes invented, it pushes me further down the sceptical route

[tomgwyther]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle+duration%3Along&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

Have a look at this program, originally transmitted on UK's C4.

 

I wouldn't advocate changing ones opinions based on one video, but it does state some compelling scientific evidence.

 

1. the sun has a much bigger effect on Earth's temperature than man made Co2

 

2. that it's the rising temperature that causes the sea to release more Co2 into the atmosphere. i.e hot climate equals Co2 increase, not the other way around.

[MangoChutney]

The GGWS broadcast by C4 in the UK really should be treated with extreme caution, mostly because it's director / producer was Martin Durkin, who is an ex-member of the Revolutionary Communist Party and is also the author of other such programs, which have selectively edited contributors statements to give the view that the director wishes to express and not the original view of the contributor. Google his name and you will see

 

Al Gore's film should also be treated with extreme caution, because of Al Gore's role in Generation Investment Management and the considerable sums of money he is earning off the back of GW

 

What we really need is Horizon to do an in-depth investigation into the causes, presenting both sides of the discussion and balanced, not sensational, reporting in the press

 

JMHO

[bascule]

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle+duration%3Along&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

Have a look at this program, originally transmitted on UK's C4.

 

I wouldn't advocate changing ones opinions based on one video, but it does state some compelling scientific evidence.

 

1. the sun has a much bigger effect on Earth's temperature than man made Co2

 

Wrong

 

See also:

 

 

2. that it's the rising temperature that causes the sea to release more Co2 into the atmosphere. i.e hot climate equals Co2 increase, not the other way around.

 

Wrong

[SkepticLance]

Bascule's posted graph illustrates a point I have been making for some time. The increase in greenhouse gases correlates nicely with temperature increase over the past 30 years, but not earlier.

 

The big increase from 1910 to 1940 correlates best with sunspot activity. The relatively settled temperatures of 1940 to 1975 correlate with neither.

[1veedo]

How can the IPCC be 90% sure with less than 50% of the data from the world?

Because they're addresses two separate questions here. One is about the paleoclimatic records and the other is about whether current warming is caused by humans.

Is it possible that GW could be natural?

No.

 

In rearguards to #4 Al Gore is not a scientist so what he does is of little significance, except in politics.

A body who's purpose is to report on "human-induced climate change" is unlikely to report that it isn't us after all, are they?

Well scientists are already certain of the first part that global warming is caused by humans but the IPCC is actually trying to understand "the human and natural drivers of climate change" not just human drivers. But in a broader sense by understanding both you can better understanding how human drivers interact with the climate. And if we werent effecting the climate then that would have been the answer of the IPCC. No/0 is a perfectly good answer. Nobody says they have to come out positive.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3028847519933351566&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle+duration%3Along&total=29&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

 

Have a look at this program, originally transmitted on UK's C4.

 

I wouldn't advocate changing ones opinions based on one video, but it does state some compelling scientific evidence.

 

1. the sun has a much bigger effect on Earth's temperature than man made Co2

 

2. that it's the rising temperature that causes the sea to release more Co2 into the atmosphere. i.e hot climate equals Co2 increase, not the other way around.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656640542976216573&q=%22global+warming+swindle%22&total=263&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

[bascule]

How can the IPCC be 90% sure with less than 50% of the data from the world?

 

Statistical analysis

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error

[MangoChutney]

SkepticLance

 

"Bascule's posted graph illustrates a point I have been making for some time. The increase in greenhouse gases correlates nicely with temperature increase over the past 30 years, but not earlier."

 

Good point and one with which I agree

 

1veedo

 

"How can the IPCC be 90% sure with less than 50% of the data from the world?"

 

Because they're addresses two separate questions here. One is about the paleoclimatic records and the other is about whether current warming is caused by humans.

 

Surely the IPCC admitting that there is little evidence of how large scale temperatures have changed over the last few thousands years is a salient point that cannot be dismissed in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a weighty document that is intended to commit the world to very high expenditure and potentially condemn the third world to more poverty?

 

I'm not a lawyer, but I think in a court of law, the sceptics would have a field day with these lines.

 

"Is it possible that GW could be natural?"

 

No

 

That's a very confident answer.

 

Have you considered the weakening of the magnetic field by 10% since Roman times, the natural flooding of the North Sea 8000 years ago within a human lifespan, Canada having less gravity than the rest of the world, which is still on the rebound from the last ice age, the orbit of the earth around the sun which is not perfect?

 

Sorry, if that sounds combative, but I'm a sceptic who is willing to admit I am wrong, because I do have doubts and believe that we are a little to blame, mostly through population, change of land, deforestation (which ironically will be made worse by the rush to bio-everything), etc

 

"Nobody says they (IPCC) have to come out positive"

 

I agree, but think about how many bureaucrats would be out of work if they all packed up and went home

 

I seem to recall that eugenics was very popular amongst politicians and scientists during the early 20th century throughout the world and it was only after Hitler used it as an excuse to wage war that people started to change their minds. Seems to me that the great and the good get it wrong sometimes and the lone voice gets it right

 

Bacsule

 

="Statistical analysis"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

 

I am willing to be converted to the new faith, but at the moment I remain sceptical, although I am pleased to have found a debate that offers argument and not shouting

 

thanks guys

[1veedo]

Surely the IPCC admitting that there is little evidence of how large scale temperatures have changed over the last few thousands years is a salient point that cannot be dismissed in a couple of paragraphs tucked away in a weighty document that is intended to commit the world to very high expenditure and potentially condemn the third world to more poverty?

 

I'm not a lawyer' date=' but I think in a court of law, the sceptics would have a field day with these lines.[/quote']Within the closest error margin for degrees we have about a 300 year time error margin for the past 12 or so thousand years, and maybe longer. Some studies have better error margins but sense these studies tend to variate from each other slightly it's better to not single yourself out to 1 study. 300 years is about where we're at I'd say, and this is a fairly conservative estimate.

 

With anthropogenic climate change we are talking about ~250 years which is less than 300. Of course from an average we can be certain that over the past 12,000 years temperatures have not fluctuated this dramatically before, just within the Holocene.

 

All of this however is irrelevant to the second topic of discussion which is whether or not humans are "causing" global warming. We know that humans are causing global warming because of other reasons, mostly based solidly in physics, not because of correlation "well it never did this in the past until we built factories..."

Have you considered the weakening of the magnetic field by 10% since Roman times, the natural flooding of the North Sea 8000 years ago within a human lifespan, Canada having less gravity than the rest of the world, which is still on the rebound from the last ice age, the orbit of the earth around the sun which is not perfect?

Do you have any mechanism for climate change bassed of these variables? If not then you're not going to get anywhere. In science we need what's known as a model for a hypothesis. If this model proves accurate it becomes a theory, if inaccurate then it simply fails.

 

The magnetic filed switches all the time in geological history and I don't believe there is any correlation with a rise in CO2 and temperature. Gravity also varies across the planet and is perfectly normal. Just a little not-so-known fact -- everyone seems to think gravity is the same everywhere. One way you can detect an oil field for example is a change in the local gravitational field (not sure if it goes up or down though). And of course the North Sea flooded? I don't see any reason why that would cause global warming, either. If you have a mechanism for any of these factors causing global warming AND an explanation for why an increase in greenhouse gasses does not itself affect global temperatures, you might be in business.

 

 

Btw we had a discussion about statistics not too long ago.

 

http://scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=25328&page=2&highlight=statistics

 

I'm not sure why so many people "off the street" don't like statistics. I have a friend who always says "90% of statistics are made up on the spot" and you'd be surprised at how many people would agree with the statement "you can bend statistics to say anything." Maybe it's a bad experience in school or the misuse of statistics by politicians but statistical analysis is a very good way to be "90% sure."

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said :

 

you'd be surprised at how many people would agree with the statement "you can bend statistics to say anything."

 

The proper use of statistics cannot be 'bent' to say anything. However, the improper use can be used for almost any conclusion you care to throw at it.

 

I recommend the book : "Junk Science Judo" which is about the misuse of statistics, among other things, and is available on Amazon books. They have numerous examples of highly reputable researchers misusing statistics to support untenable conclusions.

 

The sad thing is that it is impossible for normal people (meaning you and me) to detect these abuses. Even for a Professor of statistics, many require long, hard study of the base data and statistical analysis to detect the mistakes, some of which are deliberate, and many of which are a result of selective perception.

[1veedo]

I personally like statistics. Take for instance that in a group of over 22 people there is a 50% chance that two or more of them share the same birthday.

 

Hint:work backwards from the probability that two of them don't share the same birthday.

 

But more to the point statistics are definitely good science. We're not talking about politicians here; just basic science, and most statistics that you find in science are good statistics.

[MangoChutney]

1veedo

 

I know gravity varies across the planet - the lower you are, the greater the pull of gravity, so at sea level gravity is stronger than stood on a mountain top. I think also there is a difference between the poles and the equator, but I can't remember which way round it is. Canadians are actually lighter than Americans and I'm not trying to be facetious here.

 

In answer to your question, do I have a mechanism for climate change based on the weakening gravitational field - no. Like I said, I am just an interested bystander, but it seems to me that changes in gravity must have an effect on the planet, as it is a big reason why we are here and not floating around in space.

 

When I say the North Sea flooded around 8000 years ago and the time it took was within a human lifespan, I was merely pointing out that climate change can occur within a very short space of time without human intervention. I wasn't saying the flooding of the North Sea, the land was called Doggerland btw, caused climate change. The flooding was more than likely caused by melting of glaciers / ice caps (the Scottish tsunami would have brought a rapid flood and draining rather than the persistent flood).

 

On the subject of glaciers / ice caps, I read that Greenland wasn't losing ice mass and may be gaining mass, although it is losing ice at the margins the interior is actually gaining ice mass.

 

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/subject/s/summaries/sealevelgreenland.jsp

 

I also read a similar thing was happening in Antarctica, where the west peninsular was losing mass, but the interior and east were actually gaining mass. (No link - sorry)

 

On the subject of Antarctica, the continents average temperature is something like -50C, if the planet warmed by 10C, accepting the poles warmed more than the rest of the planet, would a warming of 20C in Antarctica cause the ice to melt, because it would still be -30C on average?

 

If that much ice was to melt, would it really raise sea level, because the ice that is subject to most melt actually floats on the sea and therefore displaces it's own weight?

 

Assuming, as has been reported that when the ice melts, sea level will rise by anything up to 5 metres according to Hansen (although we should bear in mind he is not a glaciologist and therefore this is just his opinion), surely introducing that much cold water into the sea would have a net effect of counteracting sea level rise caused by rising temperatures causing expansion of the sea?

 

As far as statistics are concerned I'm in the same camp as SkepticLance - I simply don't know enough to comment, but I do believe that in the right hands statistics are important, but the moment somebody wants to make a point to support their particular argument, they have a tendency to be fudged - I mean this on both sides of the argument btw.

 

I do accept btw that the planet is warming

[SkepticLance]

1veedo said

 

But more to the point statistics are definitely good science. We're not talking about politicians here; just basic science, and most statistics that you find in science are good statistics.

 

This is probably correct. I use statistics myself in my own laboratory work - mostly simple stuff like T tests.

 

I was told a few years ago that no experiment of importance should be planned, or interpreted without a professional statistician being involved. I did not believe it at the time, but more recently have learned of the abuses of statistics (often by well meaning and educated scientists) due to lack of in depth knowledge of the subject. I have come to agree that professonals are definitely needed in anything apart from relatively simple studies.

[bascule]

Many of the climate scientists I used to work with had a Bachelors or Masters in statistics. When that isn't the case, statistics is still an integral part of the curriculum.

[1veedo]

When I say the North Sea flooded around 8000 years ago and the time it took was within a human lifespan, I was merely pointing out that climate change can occur within a very short space of time without human intervention.

Nobody denies this and it doesn't prove that global warming isn't caused by humans.

I also read a similar thing was happening in Antarctica, where the west peninsular was losing mass, but the interior and east were actually gaining mass. (No link - sorry)

 

On the subject of Antarctica, the continents average temperature is something like -50C, if the planet warmed by 10C, accepting the poles warmed more than the rest of the planet, would a warming of 20C in Antarctica cause the ice to melt, because it would still be -30C on average?

I'm not sure about Greenland because I thought it was melting. There was actually a news story saying that Greenland was melting much faster than previously thought so it could be that your information is a little old.

 

But with Antarctica the reason it's probably gaining mass (we're not completely certain) is because of increased precipitation, which over Antarctica is in the form of snow. Global warming effects more things that just global temperatures -- precipitation patterns being one of them. We actually don't have any good data proving that Antarctica is gaining mass -- the reason we think it's gaining mass is because on top of what little data we have to indicate this, climate models predicted it to happen in the first place, though in the future Antarctica is supposed to lose mass.

Assuming, as has been reported that when the ice melts, sea level will rise by anything up to 5 metres according to Hansen (although we should bear in mind he is not a glaciologist and therefore this is just his opinion), surely introducing that much cold water into the sea would have a net effect of counteracting sea level rise caused by rising temperatures causing expansion of the sea?

I don't think this is what most scientists (or any of them, actually) think.

[MangoChutney]

1veedo

 

Originally Posted by MangoChutney

When I say the North Sea flooded around 8000 years ago and the time it took was within a human lifespan, I was merely pointing out that climate change can occur within a very short space of time without human intervention.

 

Reply by 1veedo

Nobody denies this and it doesn't prove that global warming isn't caused by humans.

 

True, but it does prove rapid climate change occurs without human intervention. Biblical stories of flooding seem to be true.

 

I'm not sure about Greenland because I thought it was melting. There was actually a news story saying that Greenland was melting much faster than previously thought so it could be that your information is a little old.

 

I believe it is the latest news, but it's always difficult for laymen to know if there is anything later or if it has been refuted.

 

With climate models, Climate models struggle to "predict" past climate correctly and yet we believe they can predict the future.

 

Given the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and the shear number of variables, how can they possible be correct, especially when the climate modellers introduce fudge factors to get the answers they want?

 

The whole cloud process is practically impossible to model, but, I think you will agree, clouds have a very important effect on our climate.

 

How do you model The Butterfly Effect?

 

My understanding is there is less agreement on changes in precipitation and atmospheric circulation than agreement on temperature changes.

 

It seems to me that MMGW believers claim the reliability of models by selecting the most alarming bits to suit their argument.

 

The other thing I never understand is the obsession with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Surely more CO2 in the air means more plant growth, which is just the thing we need to tackle climate change, especially with all the nitrates we are pumping out?

 

I strongly believe we should not waste earths resources, because I think waste of anything is simply crazy. I recycled before it was trendy and I drive a small 2 seater car, so I am not exactly the 4 x 4 driving, I'm all right jack sceptic.

[foodchain]

1veedo

 

 

 

 

 

True, but it does prove rapid climate change occurs without human intervention. Biblical stories of flooding seem to be true.

 

 

 

I believe it is the latest news, but it's always difficult for laymen to know if there is anything later or if it has been refuted.

 

With climate models, Climate models struggle to "predict" past climate correctly and yet we believe they can predict the future.

 

Given the chaotic nature of the atmosphere and the shear number of variables, how can they possible be correct, especially when the climate modellers introduce fudge factors to get the answers they want?

 

The whole cloud process is practically impossible to model, but, I think you will agree, clouds have a very important effect on our climate.

 

How do you model The Butterfly Effect?

 

My understanding is there is less agreement on changes in precipitation and atmospheric circulation than agreement on temperature changes.

 

It seems to me that MMGW believers claim the reliability of models by selecting the most alarming bits to suit their argument.

 

The other thing I never understand is the obsession with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Surely more CO2 in the air means more plant growth, which is just the thing we need to tackle climate change, especially with all the nitrates we are pumping out?

 

I strongly believe we should not waste earths resources, because I think waste of anything is simply crazy. I recycled before it was trendy and I drive a small 2 seater car, so I am not exactly the 4 x 4 driving, I'm all right jack sceptic.

 

 

Its a proven fact that higher concentrations of CO2 means more energy basically retained by the earth. Now with that what do you expect will occur, nothing? The basic premise of global warming is not some drastically complicated scientific endeavor, it was forecasted by a Nobel prize winning physicist in the late 1800's in fact I think. You are right that no model today can account for every degree of change this growing amount of energy will bring along, but one thing that is sure is change and a gradual warming of the planet, similar to a frog in water slowly bring brought to a boil in most cases as far as human opinion or perception goes on the norm.

 

High concentrations of CO2 also seem to be present in most cases of greenhouse/icehouse transitions in terms of the earths past. The fact that the concentration of CO2 is increasing is not challenged past paid off pseudo skeptics, nor is what the main culprit for this is. Its also not challenged as to some of the roles this will play in the atmosphere for instance overall, in regards to trapping energy.

 

Lastly, Venus is the warmest planet in the solar system, far warmer then mercury which is far closer to the sun. Its atmosphere is a little over 98% CO2. I also shudder to think how life, which slowly evolves and basically faces mass extinction during rapid environmental change will shoulder yet another burden such as this. Human behavior is changing the planets environment, its simple action/reaction and the more bass fact to me of conservation of energy or the dynamics of such in a system that in essence provide that physical system. Do you think thermodynamics of an equation might change is you change the concentration of a part, or substitute another for that matter? Its a physical reality, regardless of perception, as in I can hate gravity all day, but I dont think gravity will care you know.

[MangoChutney]

Foodchain

 

Its a proven fact that higher concentrations of CO2 means more energy basically retained by the earth.

 

Agreed and I accept what you say about Venus etc, but CO2 makes up a tiny amount of the earth's atmosphere. I accept man is contributing to global warming, just not the extent that the politicians would have us believe.

 

A far more likely contribution to climate change is land use and deforestation, which, as I have said before, is being exasperated by the mad rush towards bio-everything. I seriously question if there is sufficient arable land in the world to satisfy the need for food and bio-everything. Cutting down forests to plant sugar cane to supple "green" energy seems madness to me.

 

But water vapour is a more potent GHG and we know very little about cloud formation, although hopefully the CERN experiment based on Svensmark's theory will spread some light on this.

 

CO2 is not a pollutant, but is essential to plant growth, but then it is far easier to tax CO2 than clouds!

 

Incidentally, I have a "cure" for global warming that would have lots of other benefits too, such as cleaner air, less flooding and a nicer environment!

 

Roof gardens, both intensive and extensive, have the ability to soak up CO2, attenuate rainwater, clean the air and look pretty. Add to all of this the ability for the soft landscape to absorb more of the heat from the sun (as opposed to hard landscape and roof tiling, which reflects the heat) and we are on a winning streak! One study suggests a green roof can reduce temperatures by as much as 4C in towns and cities.

 

The problem in the UK is public perception of flat roofs and contractors perceived problems with leaks and costs. Planners like them but the public want little boxes with pitched roofs and tiles, so planners generally don't approve them. Contractors have a resistance to anything remotely innovative, so won't even go down that route.

 

The other thing I wanted to say was I am seriously concerned that reporting of the reasons for global warning is very one sided.

 

In April 2007, Lord Lawson chaired a forum for GW sceptics in the European parliament, which was attended by many noted climate scientists

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but as far as I know, there was no media reports of this event, not even reports to scoff at their discussion and conclusions.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, I don't read everything, but if anybody has a report on this I would like to read it

[foodchain]

Foodchain

 

 

 

Agreed and I accept what you say about Venus etc, but CO2 makes up a tiny amount of the earth's atmosphere. I accept man is contributing to global warming, just not the extent that the politicians would have us believe.

 

A far more likely contribution to climate change is land use and deforestation, which, as I have said before, is being exasperated by the mad rush towards bio-everything. I seriously question if there is sufficient arable land in the world to satisfy the need for food and bio-everything. Cutting down forests to plant sugar cane to supple "green" energy seems madness to me.

 

But water vapour is a more potent GHG and we know very little about cloud formation, although hopefully the CERN experiment based on Svensmark's theory will spread some light on this.

 

CO2 is not a pollutant, but is essential to plant growth, but then it is far easier to tax CO2 than clouds!

 

Incidentally, I have a "cure" for global warming that would have lots of other benefits too, such as cleaner air, less flooding and a nicer environment!

 

Roof gardens, both intensive and extensive, have the ability to soak up CO2, attenuate rainwater, clean the air and look pretty. Add to all of this the ability for the soft landscape to absorb more of the heat from the sun (as opposed to hard landscape and roof tiling, which reflects the heat) and we are on a winning streak! One study suggests a green roof can reduce temperatures by as much as 4C in towns and cities.

 

The problem in the UK is public perception of flat roofs and contractors perceived problems with leaks and costs. Planners like them but the public want little boxes with pitched roofs and tiles, so planners generally don't approve them. Contractors have a resistance to anything remotely innovative, so won't even go down that route.

 

The other thing I wanted to say was I am seriously concerned that reporting of the reasons for global warning is very one sided.

 

In April 2007, Lord Lawson chaired a forum for GW sceptics in the European parliament, which was attended by many noted climate scientists

 

I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist here, but as far as I know, there was no media reports of this event, not even reports to scoff at their discussion and conclusions.

 

Of course, I could be wrong, I don't read everything, but if anybody has a report on this I would like to read it

 

Anything that enters politics get politicized and then polarized typically. I cant really offer any other advice on how to deal with that. Just look at the war in Iraq, a million different views basically, well, how can so many truths exist on an issue.

 

Science is pretty solid anymore on its stance about global warming, so is the observational science behind it, global warming contrary to public opinion is more then just computer models. Even though the models all pretty much reach the same conclusions.

 

I don’t know if the models account for everything. I mean the base of most energy webs is bacteria, if not all, so who knows exactly how everything will react to global warming. The point that gets redirected in the assault on how global warming will exactly play out is the fact that we face of ever growing CO2. The amount of CO2 is steadily climbing, its simply not dropping off some year. This means more and more on sinks, but to add to your idea about it aiding plant growth, well, agriculture is not about biodiversity to cut things short, which has a huge impact. Plus the reconfiguration of the environment in general, combine with overall loss of ecology that previous to human behavior was not occurring in such a fashion, it is rather complex and I am sure I don’t understand all of it, or even past 10% of it.

 

The speed of which global warming is occurring overall seems very slow, compared to say the march of time in evolutionary thinking(geological, biological, etc…) its extremely rapid, this is bad. If in a hundred years a rainforest becomes a swamp or a desert or vice versa, this is going to be lethal to life in general, and going about destroying life is also very bad for people. For instance, if you knock out say a rat population in a forest, well then the bug population will boom, which in turn will have a chain reaction of events and so fourth and so on. Its not just biotic factors either, its also abiotic of course and the relationship such share, say in the production of drinking water.

[MangoChutney]

Foodchain

 

The speed of which global warming is occurring overall seems very slow, compared to say the march of time in evolutionary thinking(geological, biological, etc…) its extremely rapid, this is bad. If in a hundred years a rainforest becomes a swamp or a desert or vice versa, this is going to be lethal to life in general, and going about destroying life is also very bad for people. For instance, if you knock out say a rat population in a forest, well then the bug population will boom, which in turn will have a chain reaction of events and so fourth and so on. Its not just biotic factors either, its also abiotic of course and the relationship such share, say in the production of drinking water.

 

I do agree with the above, but what if there is nothing we can do about it? Wouldn't the vast sums of money being spent trying to find a "cure", be better spent on learning to adapt? Helping the millions of people world wide who have no access to clean water, would save more people world wide than combating global warming, although over population could be one of the causes

 

Like I have said, recycling and not wasting the earths resources should, IMHO, be compulsory, because it it down right crazy to waste anything, but the world wide effort to combat something that may be natural seems to me to be as big a waste of resources, both financial and manpower.

 

That is not to say that we shouldn't be looking into the causes of global warming. What we really need to blind funding away from big business and politics, to properly investigate and try to mitigate this phenomena

[1veedo]

With climate models, Climate models struggle to "predict" past climate correctly and yet we believe they can predict the future.

Actually the models predict past climate change very accurately. They can even predict the future fairly well -- an example would be the 1988 GISS NASA / Columbia University model, one of and probably the very first computer simulation that is today, 20 years latter in Nasa's own words "right on the money." (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.columbia.edu%2F~jeh1%2Fhansen_re-crichton.pdf&ei=GRyqRrn_IovcgwSA1Z3uAw&usg=AFQjCNF4hCipW_HzJLxQFBfChVoeHnd4Qg&sig2=TmNysc2SKbfMRxvzhEhieA)

 

There are dificulties with predicting the future though. These arise from the fact that we cant predict how much CO2 / particulaes and everything else humans are going to emit. So climate models make range estimates bassed on low CO2 outputs and high CO2 outputs so you can look at the simulations and see "if we continue to produce at current levels temperatures will rise 2.5C, if we keep increasing at the same rate 4C, if we stop completely 1C, etc." Whichever path humanity ultimately takes determines if it's as low as 1C or if it's as high as 4C.

How do you model The Butterfly Effect?

Lol we're talking about averages here over the entire planet. I don't think most climate scientists are concerned about the butterfly effect.

The other thing I never understand is the obsession with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. Surely more CO2 in the air means more plant growth, which is just the thing we need to tackle climate change, especially with all the nitrates we are pumping out?

Not everything about global warming is bad. Economists used to be saying that by 2020 or even as soon as 2010 we wouldn't be able to feed everyone of the planet but now that they're looking at global warming they've pushed it back to around 2050 (if you're not acquainted with this issue there IS enough food to feed everyone we just cant transport it to all corners of the globe so people still do starve).

 

Of course more plant growth isn't always a good thing in and of itself. And warmer temperatures also means more parasites and bugs.

[MangoChutney]

It seems to me, we agree on quite a lot (conservation etc), just not what is at the root cause of this phenomena