CLIMATE MADNESS HOTS UP!
Friday, January 2, 2009 at 11:02AM 
A New Year and some new hysteria from the the global warming alarmists. This time they have decided that things are SO BAD that we need a "Plan B" to save the planet and they have some ideas!
"The plan would involve highly controversial proposals to lower global temperatures artificially through schemes that either reduce sunlight levels by man-made means or take CO2 out of the air. This "geoengineering" approach – including schemes such as fertilising the oceans with iron to stimulate algal blooms!"
So, the arrogance of the AGW hordes becomes manifest. They may not understand the complexity of climate changes but they are going to change it themselves by manipulating the elements using highly dangerous and unknown schemes. So, they will inject suphur particles into the upper atmosphere, they will pollute our oceans and send vastly expensive mirrors into outer space. It really is time these Gaia goons were stopped in their tracks before THEY cause climatic disaster.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (14)
They already have with this biofuel ballix.
Interesting summary here of where the real scientific debate is now, and it most definitely is not over:
"How much will the earth warm if we double the amount of atmospheric CO2, or its equivalent in other greenhouse gases? That value is called climate sensitivity. If all else remains equal, it’s fairly easy to calculate: about half a degree C, a figure accepted by most proponents and skeptics of AGW alike. It's also a value far too small for concern. With that sensitivity, the planet would warm by maybe a quarter of a degree by the year 2100. Yawn.
But there's a wrinkle in that simple calculation. As greenhouse gases rise, other things change as well. Some are positive feedbacks, which lead to more warming. Some are negative feedbacks, which counteract the warming. Scientists in the modeling community tend to believe positive effects predominate; they bandy about sensitivity values from 2C all the way up to 6C or more. Observational earth scientists (primarily geologists, meteorologists, and some atmospheric physicists) tend to believe negative effects dominate, and that the actual value may be even smaller than 0.5C.
The problem is that no real evidence exists for strong positive feedbacks. Worse, they seem contradicted by the paleoclimatic history of the planet, which has never experienced runaway warming even when CO2 levels were ten or more times higher than they are today. Over geologic time, CO2 correlates very poorly with temperature, leading one to conclude that it's a very weak greenhouse gas.
There is other evidence against a high sensitivity. But the real point is this. Whichever side is right, the media (and a few researchers) have forgotten one of the basic rules of science. Until a theory can predict the unexpected, it should always be viewed critically. The ancient Greeks knew the stars moved, and they had a thousand theories to predict why it would keep happening. Until we can explain past climate shifts and successfully predict future trends, global models are educational toys. Not indisputable evidence."
Peter,
"Interesting summary here of where the real scientific debate is now"
The real scientific debate is occurring on the dailytech website? Sure.
Where are the research papers?
"That value is called climate sensitivity. If all else remains equal, it’s fairly easy to calculate: about half a degree C, a figure accepted by most proponents and skeptics of AGW alike."
BS. The other things being equal figure is 1.5K (1.5C).
"Observational earth scientists (primarily geologists, meteorologists, and some atmospheric physicists) tend to believe negative effects dominate, and that the actual value may be even smaller than 0.5C."
Sure they do. And despite what anyone says it 'may be', the commonly accepted value based on all available evidence is still about 3C, and very unlikely to be less than 1.5
If someone wants to argue that it could be even less certain than that, and could be as much as 6C, well then we better stop increasing CO2 concentration so quickly until we understand the implications. Right?
Frank
Your position is that the debate is over. Mine is that there is still genuine uncertainty.
You are (I think) a mathematician. Check out Roy Spencer's challenge to the climate modellers here:
"Back in 1997, Bob Cess (climate researcher, cloud expert) said in an interview with Science magazine’s Richard Kerr,
“…the [climate models] may be agreeing now simply because they’re all tending to do the same thing wrong. It’s not clear to me that we have clouds right by any stretch of the imagination.”
In the last year or so I have become convinced that this is indeed what has happened…..the models are all doing the “same thing wrong”. While I have addressed this before, I am going to continue to harp on this issue until one or more climate modelers finally has a light bulb go on in their head and says, “Ahhh…I see what you’re talking about now…”. The issue is critical, and could completely change our perception of the role of clouds in climate change."
David look what you have started a clash of the geeks - maths and science in debate oh dear
climate models, light bulbs, clouds,
"Observational earth scientists (primarily geologists, meteorologists, and some atmospheric physicists) tend to believe negative effects dominate, and that the actual value may be even smaller than 0.5C."
SMALLER THAN 0.5C..... AS A WELL KNOWN SCOTTISH SCIENTIST HAS SAID "WE'RE DOOMED"
Campbell
Thanks for that enlightened contribution to the debate.
Did any of these climate models predict this years cooler temperatures?
Mark,
Why would a climate model predict the weather?
Who asked about the weather? I was asking whether the cooler climate of 2008 had been predicted by any models.
Anyway, surely the weather is a result of the climate?
Mark,
"Who asked about the weather? I was asking whether the cooler climate of 2008 had been predicted by any models."
But there wasn't a cooler climate in 2008. There was some cool weather in some places at some times. The models do not even attempt to predict that.
Nor was it especially 'cool'. The 2000s have been warmer than the 1990s. Did the models predict that? Yes. Would it make any difference if they hadn't? Only that we'd have even less reason to be complacent.
"Anyway, surely the weather is a result of the climate?"
More the other way round. The climate is roughly speaking the average pattern of the weather.
Think about what you understand by 'the climate of the Spanish coast', say. If you got a single rainy day, or even a whole week, in a spanish coastal resort, you wouldn't conclude that the climate there had changed. You wouldn't tell your friends you'd had some bad climate on your holiday.
I don't understand all of this about "some cool weather in some places at some times. The models do not even attempt to predict that."
Surely, if the models are at all accurate, they would be able to predict local variances. The models are reputed to model 1 km cubes, so why can't they say "in october 2008 the mean temp at coordinates x.y will be z", or "the average global temperature is predicted to be x in december 2008". Either they are modeling the climate accurately or they are not. I find it fascinating that we don't regularly hear of how the models were accurate.
Mark,
"Surely, if the models are at all accurate, they would be able to predict local variances."
Why? If I had a model of population growth or traffic patterns in London, must I be able to predict how many babies will be born in each hospital, or how many car journeys will occur next Tuesday before it is useful?
"The models are reputed to model 1 km cubes, so why can't they say "in october 2008 the mean temp at coordinates x.y will be z", or "the average global temperature is predicted to be x in december 2008""
Because there is short term variation that is inherently chaotic and there is no attempt to model it, since it averages out over the long term. Again, think of how you understand climate when you pick somewhere to go on holiday. If you book a sun holiday, it might well rain that week. But the chances of sun are better than the chances of rain. That's a climate model so simple that you can do it in your head - it is still useful even though you can't use it to predict the weather on any given day. It's useful enough that you essentially bet money on it. Book a sun holiday and more often than not, you will get sun.
Even as climate goes, they don't claim to have regional forecasts. In some respects they are not even forecasts, as they are dependent on the scenarios chosen. It's more like 'if X, Y, and Z take this track, then this will tend to happen'. Even something like a volcanic eruption or an economic blip can affect things in the short run (e.g. if you look at the graph of CO2 over time, there is a small but noticeable blip when the soviet union went pop).
As far as the 1km cubes go, the models are currently better than the ability to compute them. So they could be expected to get better just with advances in computing power over the next years.
"Either they are modeling the climate accurately or they are not."
The models aren't perfect and they don't need to be. If anything they have underestimated the warming that has occurred. For example one question you could ask is whether they are better than guessing. The answer is clearly yes - for example they have clearly got the sign of the trend right over the last 30 years or more.
Plus even if the models were completely useless, or we had no models at all, the result would only be that we had no idea how much warming we would get or how fast. We'd still know to expect it because there is plenty of evidence for it apart from models.
So that would argue for even more caution. It's like the difference between pointing a gun at your head that you knew probably wasn't loaded yet, versus one you knew nothing about at all.
I see, so what is the definition of "long term" according to the believers? Apparently it's not one month or one year. So how many years do we have to wait to see the reality match the models?
As to your assertion that the models have clearly worked for 30 years, this obviously nonsense. If that were true we would have been told in 1978 that warming was coming and that we should change. We were not. We were told cooling was coming.
"The models aren't perfect and they don't need to be. If anything they have underestimated the warming that has occurred."
It just a minor detail, but since we're talking about destroying civilization here, I'd really like it if the models were accurate. I mean, it would look bad if we took apart civilization and then turned it out that we were wrong, because, say, the world was going through a natural cycle, and we thought it was man made but even though we knew our models weren't accurate we decided to destroy civilization anyway.
And surely the fact that these models that we are betting the future on DID get the warming wrong, is a warning sign that the models should not be trusted?
I would like to see a report from 1998 that says, the temp over the next 10 years will look like this... and a comparison with what actually happened. And for the model to have been accurate to 0.1C. I don't see that.
Anyway, I think the right approach is to carry on doing exactly what we are doing. On the current path we will find renewable energy sources that really work. Oh wait, we already have one, it's called a breeder reactor. Silly me.
Or, we could shut down civilization and ride it all out in our stone huts.
Mark,
"I see, so what is the definition of "long term" according to the believers? Apparently it's not one month or one year. So how many years do we have to wait to see the reality match the models?"
Reality already matches the models fairly well for over a century, and long term is about 30 years.
"If that were true we would have been told in 1978 that warming was coming and that we should change. We were not. We were told cooling was coming."
No you weren't. The majority of scientific publications in the 70s were about greenhouse warming.
"And surely the fact that these models that we are betting the future on DID get the warming wrong, is a warning sign that the models should not be trusted?"
But they didn't get the warming wrong.
And since you would like us to bet the farm on your opinion, where is your model? Presumably it is far superior. I mean, surely you are not merely consulting your bowels and pontificating from a position of complete ignorance here? You will surely have a model accurate to within 0.1C, since you would not hold others to a standard you do not meet yourself before asking them to believe that the current path was safe. Let's see that model.
"I would like to see a report from 1998 that says, the temp over the next 10 years will look like this... and a comparison with what actually happened. And for the model to have been accurate to 0.1C. I don't see that."
Why 0.1C? Just sounds good? I doubt you could even quantify what that really means. I also doubt that you have looked, since papers of that sort do exist.
And with all due respect, why should I care what you would like to see? I don't see any evidence that you have even a rudimentary understanding of what you are talking about.
"we're talking about destroying civilization here [...] On the current path we will find renewable energy sources that really work. Oh wait, we already have one, it's called a breeder reactor. Silly me."
Yes silly you. Nobody's talking about destroying civilisation, and even if they were it would have zero bearing on the question of whether increased CO2 could lead to dangerous warming or not.