Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

[o00scorpion00o]

Joe Bastardi is a weather man, not a climatologist - and is a known climate change denier.

Bastardi is a nut I can only listen to him 30 seconds max before I have to turn off, but why didn't you mention Al Gore ? he's a bigger nut without any qualifications at all, but he supports man made warming ? Could it be you approve of his unscientific ranting harming the warming cause as much as Bastardi harms the non man made warming cause ?

Please - read Naomi Oreskes book "Merchants of Doubt" - the same people that brought us the ad campaigns to keep us smoking even when doctors understood that smoking kills people are back doing global warming propaganda.

Indeed I will look it up.

Most - about 90% - of what you say you're confused by are the direct result of the information warfare done by the fossil fuel industry and by oil- and coal-funded groups that exist for only one reason - the make US - the common people - stop trusting science so that they can keep selling us their product.

I'm not confused, I'm angry with both sides, trust me it's not just the U.S!

I understand completely what you're saying in your posts - I truly understand your confusion - because I love maths and science, was a conservative Republican from before I could vote (back in the days when 'conservative' meant taking care of the planet...), served a military career during the Reagan/Thatcher years, the fall of the Berlin Wall, and through "project Iraqi Oil part Deux". By all measures, I should be on the side of deniers and big oil.

I'm not confused I'm pissed off the way the public (I) are being used in both sides of the argument, the question I would ask Americans, Canadians etc all those who are not crucified with energy tax, would you accept the science if you were forced to pay such high energy taxes or would you question it ?

Look at the websites - look at who runs them and who the writers are. Watts is not a scientist. Neither is Bastardi. Look to places like Sourcewatch so you can see who's paying for these people to spread disinformation and work from there. Validate your sources first before reading their information because there is a very well funded and very vocal fossil-fuel and political disinformation campaign - and I'm sorry to say that the majority of it comes from the US. To say that it's disturbing to see this country allowing the same types of propaganda and disinformation tactics used in the former Soviet Union and Nazi Germany is putting it mildly - I'm ashamed that the US has been the source of the world's disinformation that is killing people around the world.

The U.S promotes cheap energy, inflicting less pain on its citizens than the E.U, just imagine if North Americans in general had to pay E.U energy prices ? yes you wouldn't not stand for it. We need cheap energy for a decent quality of life. Until there is a viable alternative we should not be extorted like we are for energy. But Climate change is used as an excuse to extort people for income to Governments and renewable energy companies.

Cheers.

 

[o00scorpion00o]

The problem is too much so called scientific information is pushed out to convince the public that each side is right rather than concentrate on real science and it's too late now because public confidence in the science is dropping !

 

[Stoaty]

I'm not confused I'm pissed off the way the public (I) are being used in both sides of the argument, the question I would ask Americans, Canadians etc all those who are not crucified with energy tax, would you accept the science if you were forced to pay such high energy taxes or would you question it ?

I would question it only if there was not a scientific consensus that this is a huge problem. The reason a lot of people don't want to accept that climate change is happening and that we are the main drivers of it is that the necessary steps to combat the problem are not palatable to them.

PS I don't think there are two real "sides". There are the climate scientists who are the ones best equipped to know what the probabilities are and there are those who don't like the scientific results.

 

[o00scorpion00o]

I'm not confused I'm pissed off the way the public (I) are being used in both sides of the argument, the question I would ask Americans, Canadians etc all those who are not crucified with energy tax, would you accept the science if you were forced to pay such high energy taxes or would you question it ?

I would question it only if there was not a scientific consensus that this is a huge problem. The reason a lot of people don't want to accept that climate change is happening and that we are the main drivers of it is that the necessary steps to combat the problem are not palatable to them.

PS I don't think there are two real "sides". There are the climate scientists who are the ones best equipped to know what the probabilities are and there are those who don't like the scientific results.

I don't believe the climate scientists have the best motives, I don't believe either side of the argument has the best motives. I question both arguments as each can provide scientific documents and some can't be peer reviewed because it doesn't fit in with the general conciseness as to what constitutes climate science.

My head hurts, it's 10.20 pm time for bed!

 

[DanCar]

Hi Andy,
Thanks so much for your response.

Is the science settled over global warming? If so when?

This is a very, very broad question, Dan. It's HUGE. Science, by it's very nature is never 'settled' on anything.

What do I say or what do I point those people to who claim it is settled? Seems like a silly statement to me.

There never will be 100% certainty in anything, because each time one extends one understanding 'one more step' one can see farther - and that brings new questions and that leads to another step. That's the first problem with the question.

We've known about the greenhouse effect in general since the early 1800s, and knew how changes in greenhouse gas concentrations affect temperature in the late 1800s. That covered the basics - the greenhouse effect keeps the planet warm enough for us to live on, and if we increase the concentration of gasses the planet will warm.

In a very rough nutshell, all of the climate science work since them has been to examine each subsequent smaller piece. ...snip...

Put me in the skeptical camp. What about this article that states that predictions are off by a large percent because soot is a big cause of warming? http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-01-15/national/36385685_1_black-carbon-impact-of-carbon-dioxide-soot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm going to jump on my pulpit and say what I think about it.
It is a lot of paranoia. Only the paranoid survive It is not as bad as the alarmist think it is. Can you imagine Siberia with -40 C winter temp going to -37 C? Not a big deal. Over population is going to do more harm to species than global warming due to CO2. We should be focusing the right amount of energy on the right problem. I'm not a fan of the global warming CO2 hysteria. I bought a Nissan Leaf because I love clean air. I dream about clean air in the cities compared to cars emitting toxic fumes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_emissions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm also surprised to find out that the electric car is a better car than a combustion engine car regardless of the environmental issues.
Would be good if we did the right things for the right reasons rather then the right things for the wrong reasons. Thanks for listening.

 

[RegGuheert]

forbes -> one day in 2012 set an all-time record for Antarctic ice for that day of the year

Antarctic sea ice satellite record goes back to Nimbus 1, which I suspect you will never see in Forbes.

Within our measurement precision, we demonstrate that 1964 Antarctic ice extent is likely higher than any year observed from 1972 to 2012.

http://www.the-cryosphere.net/7/699/2013/tc-7-699-2013.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2012 isn't a record.

No one said 2012 was a record. There was a record set for a particular day of the year. But 2012 was above the 33-year average.

 

[RegGuheert]

Again, the IPCC models do not account for variations in the amount of global cloud cover, which is a global issue. THAT is why they were unable to predict this effect.

Let's check with the horse, shall we?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html

In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity (e.g., Senior and Mitchell, 1993; Le Treut et al., 1994; Yao and Del Genio, 2002; Zhang, 2004; Stainforth et al., 2005; Yokohata et al., 2005). Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks (Colman, 2003a; Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006; Section 8.6.2, Figure 8.14). Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.

Thanks for that!

I guess I should have said "properly account for global cloud cover variations". Since they do not include the effects of the solar activity, they do not capture the effects we are seeing today.

And hence the reason we are outside the 95% confidence band after 20 years. Being outside the 95% confidence band is virtually indistinguishable from guessing. The IPCC models have no credibility beyond about 10 years, IMO. In fact, the 1990 estimates have been below the "Low" estimate of temperature every year since they were made with the exception of 1998 (at which point the politicians proclaimed we were above the high estimate)!

 

[WetEV]

It is not as bad as the alarmist think it is. Can you imagine Siberia with -40 C winter temp going to -37 C? Not a big deal.

Polar warming will be much larger than the global average. Can you imagine Siberia with 10C winters and 35C summers?

For example, the fossil wood from forests on northern shore of Axel Heiberg Island shows several clear signs that it never froze there while the trees were growing. Not even in winter. Today, this area rarely gets above freezing.

 

[WetEV]

No one said 2012 was a record. There was a record set for a particular day of the year. But 2012 was above the 33-year average.

Global change will not be the same in every region.

Classic example was at the peak of the last ice age, Maldives Islands were about the same yearly average temperature as they are today. CLIMAP study showed slightly warmer, more recent work shows slightly cooler. Difference is less than a degree. Summer was almost surely hotter at the peak of the ice age than today.

Why? With snow and ice covering much of Asia, there was no summer monsoon. The monsoon takes heat and moisture from the Indian Ocean around the Maldives and transports it inland. No monsoon winds to cool the summer, hotter summer.

Rather than focusing on just the Arctic or just the Antarctic, why not look at global sea ice area?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

Rather than focusing on just the Arctic or just the Antarctic, why not look at global sea ice area?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's pretty cool! Thanks!

 

[Stoaty]

Rather than focusing on just the Arctic or just the Antarctic, why not look at global sea ice area?

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

How about looking at arctic sea ice volume?

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/04/11/1854651/arctic-sea-ice-the-death-spiral-continues/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[thankyouOB]

ask the fishies:

World’s fish have been moving to cooler waters for decades, study finds

Fish and other sea life have been moving toward Earth’s poles in search of cooler waters, part of a worldwide, decades-long migration documented for the first time by a study released Wednesday.

The research, published in the journal Nature, provides more evidence of a rapidly warming planet and has broad repercussions for fish harvests around the globe.

Warming oceans are driving species toward the poles, affecting harvests around the globe, researchers say.
University of British Columbia researchers found that significant numbers of 968 species of fish and invertebrates they examined moved to escape the warming waters of their original habitats.Previous studies had documented the same phenomenon in specific parts of the world’s oceans. But the new study is the first to assess the migration worldwide and to look back as far as 1970, according to its authors.

The research is more confirmation that “global change is real and has been real for a long time,” said Boris Worm, a professor of marine biology at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, who was not part of the study. “It’s not something in the distant future. It is well underway.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/worlds-fish-have-been-moving-to-cooler-waters-for-decades-study-finds/2013/05/15/730292e8-bcd7-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?hpid=z4" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[AndyH]

Again, the IPCC models do not account for variations in the amount of global cloud cover, which is a global issue. THAT is why they were unable to predict this effect.

Let's check with the horse, shall we?
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-3-2.html

In many climate models, details in the representation of clouds can substantially affect the model estimates of cloud feedback and climate sensitivity (e.g., Senior and Mitchell, 1993; Le Treut et al., 1994; Yao and Del Genio, 2002; Zhang, 2004; Stainforth et al., 2005; Yokohata et al., 2005). Moreover, the spread of climate sensitivity estimates among current models arises primarily from inter-model differences in cloud feedbacks (Colman, 2003a; Soden and Held, 2006; Webb et al., 2006; Section 8.6.2, Figure 8.14). Therefore, cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.

Thanks for that!

I guess I should have said "properly account for global cloud cover variations". Since they do not include the effects of the solar activity, they do not capture the effects we are seeing today.

And hence the reason we are outside the 95% confidence band after 20 years. Being outside the 95% confidence band is virtually indistinguishable from guessing. The IPCC models have no credibility beyond about 10 years, IMO. In fact, the 1990 estimates have been below the "Low" estimate of temperature every year since they were made with the exception of 1998 (at which point the politicians proclaimed we were above the high estimate)!

I've not read all of the IPCC reports, nor have I read all of the individual papers that go into even a section of any of the IPCC reports. Of the material I have read, however, I am left with a very, very strong indication that they are very conservative in their conclusions, that they state very clearly the limiting factors in their analysis, and give a thorough accounting of uncertainties and tolerances.

For example - their conclusions on sea level rise make clear that because they have no good way yet of quantifying ice loss from land areas in response to global warming, that they cannot tell exactly how much sea level might rise in 5 or 10 years. This is just one example of 1. why science must continue to work on understanding all of the billions of pieces of this puzzle and 2. why science must MUST do a better job communicating with the public - because the media is not a worthy communicator of technical material and the vacuum in public is being filled by outright lies and manipulation.

Your stallinga link is an example of this, Reg - my 10 year old has a website -I wouldn't look there for climate information! This gent appears to be skilled at putting pictures on a webpage and then making his personal opinions of the IPCC known. This is not science - this is politics. If you or anyone else doesn't like the IPCC, then get into the actual published papers. If you get into the papers, however, you'd damn well better read ALL of them with an open mind FIRST - otherwise you're not analyzing, you're simply supporting your own beliefs. Go for the numbers and leave the other garbage where it belongs - in the garbage can.

 

[klapauzius]

This again is a debate that is really puzzling. I doubt ANYONE on this forum (myself included) has real competence and experience to discuss all the aspects of global warming. It takes decades of study to become a climate scientist.

Why do any of us, especially the skeptics, think that we can lead a meaningful scientific debate on the topic?

That is preposterous.

As it stands, most SCIENTISTS who are involved in the field think GW is real, its man-made and that some action is required. That should be enough for anyone.

 

[AndyH]

This again is a debate that is really puzzling. I doubt ANYONE on this forum (myself included) has real competence and experience to discuss all the aspects of global warming. It takes decades of study to become a climate scientist.

Why do any of us, especially the skeptics, think that we can lead a meaningful scientific debate on the topic?

That is preposterous.

As it stands, most SCIENTISTS who are involved in the field think GW is real, its man-made and that some action is required. That should be enough for anyone.

Amen.

The only thing I could add about the forum, is that it's much easier to debunk the denialsphere than to conduct atmospheric research. Unfortunately, that's dealing with the disease of the manufactured debate - which has absolutely nothing to do with the real science.

Sigh.

 

[Stoaty]

As it stands, most SCIENTISTS who are involved in the field think GW is real, its man-made and that some action is required. That should be enough for anyone.

What do you mean "most"? Are you talking about the 97% figure that was just reaffirmed in a recent study?

"Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[downeykp]

As it stands, most SCIENTISTS who are involved in the field think GW is real, its man-made and that some action is required. That should be enough for anyone.

What do you mean "most"? Are you talking about the 97% figure that was just reaffirmed in a recent study?

"Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is the problem with this debate, the 3% believe they are right and the other 97% are just lefties with an agenda. But Stoaty, you are talking about science. The other 3% are talking capitalism.

 

[klapauzius]

As it stands, most SCIENTISTS who are involved in the field think GW is real, its man-made and that some action is required. That should be enough for anyone.

What do you mean "most"? Are you talking about the 97% figure that was just reaffirmed in a recent study?

"Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/05/15/2014211/study-finds-97-consensus-on-human-caused-global-warming-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/most" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sure, 97% = most
seems consistent.

 

[AndyH]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco[/youtube]

 

[Stoaty]

"Food supply under assault as climate heats up"

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/food-supply-under-assault-climate-heats-1C9909477" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;