Shermer flips GW stance

[CapelDodger]

Leads me to the question "where are we now?" What interactions between our nearly circular orbit, inclination of the earth, location of continents and oceans and their relative heat retention and transmission characteristics, sunspot activity, and energy output cycle of the sun are taking place?

The continents and oceans are pretty much where they were 100,000 years ago, they move at a sub-glacial pace. The last significant change was the rising of the Panamian Isthmus, 3-4 million years ago, which closed off communication between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans. Nothing of similar note has occured recently (unless it's gone unnoticed, which is highly unlikely).

In the orbital cycle, we should be in a cooling phase leading to rapid ice-spread in a few thousand years. It's not something that jinks around, unless another star passes close by - which, again, is unlikely to be going unnoticed.

The sun has been monitored by satellite since the 80's, and nothing much is happening there.

Heat retention on Earth has increased with increased greenhouse gases. That's hardly surprising. It's otherwise known as greenhouse warming, and was predicted.

I just don't see the GW issue simply as "man's pumping more CO2 into the air, and that's causing everything".

There are feedbacks, positive and negative. But they're feedbacks from the original warming - which is caused by the greenhouse effect. I'll only be shown to be wrong on that if the warming stops while CO2 levels continue to rise, and I'm as certain that won't happen as I am that summer will be warmer than winter.

 

[blutoski]

The site mentions other influences on climate, which are not in question. Nor are they applicable to the warming of the last century or so, because they do not operate on such a time-scale.

And some are pretty damn cheesy. Sunspots? There isn't even any mechanism for how sunspots may affect climate at all ever, and no evidence they change much beyond what we observe in the current cycling. More desperation than explanation, imo.

You speak of changes that occur over vast time-scales. The Milankovich cycle, which may explain the ice-age cycle, has a period of about 110,000 years. In 10 or 20,000 years the ice may well be back, kilometres-thick, over New York and old York. That has nothing to tell us about what's going on now.

One of the interesting counters to global warming is the comment that we once believed in global cooling. Impending ice age was the big panic, and now scientists are being polyannas in the other direction.

This is because all the climate models showed we were sort of overdue for a cooling trend. This hasn't changed: if the last quarter million years shows anything, it's that there's a reliable cycle, and we should be over the temperature hump and well into a cooling stage.

Now, add to this the 'Little Ice Age' that global warming critics always bring up... this was consistent with the climate pattern, and should be continuing. But suddenly, it reversed! Coinciding with the industrial age? It's just a coincidence? C'mon!

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

So, if no katrinas hit after the hurricane season is over, will you do the same as you require the "Environmental skeptics" to do if some katrinas do hit?

If your answer is no, then how does that not make you a hypocrate.

If your answer is yes, what is the nominal limit at which this means the "Environmental skeptics" are wrong and should admit it. And what is the nominal limit at which you are wrong and should admit it.

More katrinas doesn't prove that the world is warming since there are too many variables. However it's a hint at what is happening. Hurricanes are stronger when the water is warmer. Stronger hurricanes and more frequent hurricanes means the water is getting warmer.


The so called "environmental skeptics" are already wrong. No "limits" there. They should admit it right now.

 

[kevin]

One of the interesting counters to global warming is the comment that we once believed in global cooling. Impending ice age was the big panic, and now scientists are being polyannas in the other direction.

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

 

[CapelDodger]

3) The final cycle of 22,000 years is the wobble of the earth on it's axis. When the axis shifts from pointing to the Pole Star to more Vega, the winters will be more cold, the summers more hot.

To add a little more detail, the distance from the sun during Northern hemisphere summer determines the amount of heat that is absorbed over the year. The Northern hemisphere has more land-area at mid-to-high latitudes than the Southern, and land absorbs more heat than ocean. Both absorb much more than ice does.

Fascinating stuff, but associating it with current warming is, you'll agree, bull-hickey. Ice-cover is crucial, IMO; it can change quickly but only passively. It's a response to an influence - or "forcing" in the jargon. I can remember when the Brecon Beacons were snow-covered, spurning the sun's low-angled caresses, for two or three months every year. Now it's hardly two or three days. Not as spectacular as glacial-retreat, I admit, but not an isolated phaenomenon. Not just a signal of warming, but a cause.

 

[CapelDodger]

And some are pretty damn cheesy. Sunspots? There isn't even any mechanism for how sunspots may affect climate at all ever, and no evidence they change much beyond what we observe in the current cycling.

There does seem to be a climate cycle associated with the sunspot cyle, under all the noise from vulcanism, El Nino, and the weather generally. Solar radiation, measured from above the atmosphere, peaks with the sunspot peak but the variation is very small (on the order of 0.1%, biased towards the ultra-violet that is mostly absorbed in the stratossphere). The climate variation is also small.

One of the interesting counters to global warming is the comment that we once believed in global cooling. Impending ice age was the big panic, and now scientists are being polyannas in the other direction.

This is because all the climate models showed we were sort of overdue for a cooling trend. This hasn't changed: if the last quarter million years shows anything, it's that there's a reliable cycle, and we should be over the temperature hump and well into a cooling stage.

The models you speak of were pretty much imaginary back in the 70's. The idea that we're living in an inter-glacial period, and they have a limited life-span, was based on geological observation and theorising, not computer models. This is an important point. Another is that the "impending Ice Age" was a media creation, not a message from the scientific community. There was never an equivalent to the IPCC before ... well, the IPCC.

Now, add to this the 'Little Ice Age' that global warming critics always bring up... this was consistent with the climate pattern, and should be continuing. But suddenly, it reversed! Coinciding with the industrial age? It's just a coincidence? C'mon!

Had the LIA been a global phaenomenon the Industrial Revolution probably wouldn't have happened by now, if at all before the next inter-glacial. It was mostly a North Atlantic experience (which suggests a local cause) projected onto the global scale by Eurocentric minds. It coincided with the Maunder Minimum in sunspot number (not to be confused with the number of sunspots) during the 17th and early 18thCE. Correlation became causation - however tenuous - in the 19thCE. In the 20thCE historians discovered the non-European world and down-graded the LIA to a local influence. That hasn't got through to everybody yet. Some still think that Ice Fairs in London means there were Ice Fairs in Nanking.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/

Awesome.

 

[Hindmost]

The people at Real Climate talk about validating their models here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=100
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/et-tu-lt/

thanks.

I was also looking at this because of recent hurricane predictions. The number of hurricanes predicted was low compared to the actual number of storms for 2005. This year, the prediction of the number of storms has increased when compared to recent averages. I really don't think the models can make such accurate predictions on a year-to-year basis. Trends would have to be based on longer time periods.

glenn

 

[kevin]

thanks.

I was also looking at this because of recent hurricane predictions. The number of hurricanes predicted was low compared to the actual number of storms for 2005. This year, the prediction of the number of storms has increased when compared to recent averages. I really don't think the models can make such accurate predictions on a year-to-year basis. Trends would have to be based on longer time periods.

glenn

I don't believe climate models attempt to calculate the number or intensity of hurricaines on a year to year basis. Physics would say that with more energy being in the ocean the number and intensity of hurricanes should increase but they don't point to a specific hurricane and say "that was global warming".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...tions-to-tighter-hurricane-intensitysst-link/

I think it's a big mistake to claim katrina as a global warming event. The damages to New Orleans were much more due to the failings of mankind than the weather.

 

[Yahzi]

There is precedence. I am sure those little anerobes had their own discussions as they slowly poisoned the planet with oxygen.

So we do know it is possible for living organisms to make enough change in the global environment to cause themselves much misery. The question then becomes, not if mankind is destroying his environment, but when we will reach the level of self-destruction? And what will we do about it?

And finally, how much easier would it be to solve the problem then, if we started doing something about it now?

 

[Badger]

The site mentions other influences on climate, which are not in question. Nor are they applicable to the warming of the last century or so, because they do not operate on such a time-scale. The site does not present any mechanism for the current warming. It does get into dissing climate models, for some reason; the connection with the title is a tad obscure.

I posted the site after a brief google in response to your statement that there was only one mechanism.

There is a consensus in the field that greenhouse warming is a major contributor to the current warming. The mechanisms may not be well understood by you, but they are well understood by the scientists involved.

I think the dominant influence is greenhouse warming, which aligns me with the scientific consensus.

You use the phrases "well understood" and "scientific consensus". Neither are true.

There is quite sufficient data to determine that the current warming is very unusual. Nothing similar has been experienced on a global scale in recorded history.


You speak of changes that occur over vast time-scales. The Milankovich cycle, which may explain the ice-age cycle, has a period of about 110,000 years. In 10 or 20,000 years the ice may well be back, kilometres-thick, over New York and old York. That has nothing to tell us about what's going on now.

bolding mine

Did you mean to say "Recorded History"....which only goes back several thousands of years? If so, that's a pretty thin slice of the ole pie.

Capel, you have your mind made up that AGW is occurring and is a big deal. That's probably fine for you.

I need more info in order to make up my mind one way or the other.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't believe climate models attempt to calculate the number or intensity of hurricaines on a year to year basis. Physics would say that with more energy being in the ocean the number and intensity of hurricanes should increase but they don't point to a specific hurricane and say "that was global warming".

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/09/hurricanes-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/reactions-to-tighter-hurricane-intensitysst-link/

I think it's a big mistake to claim katrina as a global warming event. The damages to New Orleans were much more due to the failings of mankind than the weather.

Deniers such as Dr Gray (IIRC) from the NHC put an interesting spin on this. Because hurricanes need other factors besides the raw ingredient of warm water, these other factors such as wind shear mean there won't be an increaese. That is, even though the waters are warmer longer, wind shear will also be higher. Wishful thinking.

 

[TobiasTheViking]

More katrinas doesn't prove that the world is warming since there are too many variables. However it's a hint at what is happening. Hurricanes are stronger when the water is warmer. Stronger hurricanes and more frequent hurricanes means the water is getting warmer.


The so called "environmental skeptics" are already wrong. No "limits" there. They should admit it right now.

So, that's a no? Gotcha.

 

[Almo]

The thing that worries me most about global warming is the potential for a runaway greenhouse effect. A feedback loop on that scale would be disastrous. I know we're not sure of many of the details, but the mere suggestion of its possiblity worries me.

If burning too much fossil fuel might start one, then I'm for burning less fossil fuel. The thing about using oil for transport is that oil is terribly useful for so many other things, it seems silly to burn it. So I feel that one response to help prevent the decidedly unknown possibility of a runaway greenhouse is something we should be doing anyway.

 

[CapelDodger]

I posted the site after a brief google in response to your statement that there was only one mechanism.

Your point being? That the existence of a propaganda-piece with an appropriate title is somehow evidence?

You use the phrases "well understood" and "scientific consensus". Neither are true.

Yes, they are.

Did you mean to say "Recorded History"....which only goes back several thousands of years? If so, that's a pretty thin slice of the ole pie.

Something that hasn't happened before in several thousand years has to be unusual, surely. Climate proxies go much further back, and tell us the same thing. The timescale of the current warming is far shorter than orbital influences or continental drift. Antarctica hasn't drifted off the south pole, nor has the planet suddenly shifted on its axis or adjusted its orbit. Some shorter-term, unique influence must be in play to cause such an unusual effect. On a very closely monitored planet the one that stands out is increased atmospheric CO2 load.

Capel, you have your mind made up that AGW is occurring and is a big deal. That's probably fine for you.

I need more info in order to make up my mind one way or the other.

You seem to have your mind made up that it's impossible to know, while yourself knowing hardly anything about the subject.

 

[Badger]

Your point being? That the existence of a propaganda-piece with an appropriate title is somehow evidence?


Yes, they are.


Something that hasn't happened before in several thousand years has to be unusual, surely. Climate proxies go much further back, and tell us the same thing. The timescale of the current warming is far shorter than orbital influences or continental drift. Antarctica hasn't drifted off the south pole, nor has the planet suddenly shifted on its axis or adjusted its orbit. Some shorter-term, unique influence must be in play to cause such an unusual effect. On a very closely monitored planet the one that stands out is increased atmospheric CO2 load.


You seem to have your mind made up that it's impossible to know, while yourself knowing hardly anything about the subject.

Nope.

 

[Brian the Snail]

You use the phrases "well understood" and "scientific consensus". Neither are true.

What do you mean by "scientific consensus" here? If you mean that every scientist in the world agrees, then you're right, there's no consensus. But then that means there's no consensus on evolution, the Big Bang, or whether HIV causes AIDS either.

If you mean something else, you might find this useful. The whole site is worth reading BTW, as it rebuts many of the standard arguments.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

What do you mean by "scientific consensus" here? If you mean that every scientist in the world agrees, then you're right, there's no consensus. But then that means there's no consensus on evolution, the Big Bang, or whether HIV causes AIDS either.

If you mean something else, you might find this useful. The whole site is worth reading BTW, as it rebuts many of the standard arguments.

WARNING: 2nd hand info follows

NPR had an interview with Gore yesterday on the topic of An Inconvenient Truth. One of the items of interest was highlighted from the film. One researcher showed that in the last 10 years, for ~920 peer-reviewed publication articles on GW there was consensus that we (human beings) are a contributing factor to GW. Whereas, in the last 14 years, for alot (can't remember #) of non-peer-reviewed publication articles on GW (from NY Times, WP, etc) both sides were given equal time.

 

[CapelDodger]

WARNING: 2nd hand info follows

NPR had an interview with Gore yesterday on the topic of An Inconvenient Truth. One of the items of interest was highlighted from the film. One researcher showed that in the last 10 years, for ~920 peer-reviewed publication articles on GW there was consensus that we (human beings) are a contributing factor to GW. Whereas, in the last 14 years, for alot (can't remember #) of non-peer-reviewed publication articles on GW (from NY Times, WP, etc) both sides were given equal time.

The BBC has a policy of "balance" on contentious or political issues - which includes AGW. Every time Radio 4's Today has an item on AGW they have some present the counter-positon. One scientist pointed out (on the programme) that in the last few years dozens of scientists have appeared to warn about AGW, while only two - Singer and Stott - have presented the counter-"argument". There really is a consensus within the scientific community. Great efforts have to be made outside that community to keep the issue contentious.

Cultists will never change their minds, and blithely ignorant wishful-thinkers will always have proganda sites to stroke them. But denialism is fast losing ground in the general population.

 

[Badger]

The BBC has a policy of "balance" on contentious or political issues - which includes AGW. Every time Radio 4's Today has an item on AGW they have some present the counter-positon. One scientist pointed out (on the programme) that in the last few years dozens of scientists have appeared to warn about AGW, while only two - Singer and Stott - have presented the counter-"argument". There really is a consensus within the scientific community. Great efforts have to be made outside that community to keep the issue contentious.

Cultists will never change their minds, and blithely ignorant wishful-thinkers will always have proganda sites to stroke them. But denialism is fast losing ground in the general population.

So, are you saying I should follow your dogma, even though the evidence hasn't convinced me yet?