A Sensible Article About Global Warming

[Adrian II]

The Assassin is right, you know. Ground station measuremens have long been replaced or corrected by measurements in various layers of the atmosphere as well as a wealth of other findings from Arctic ice-layers to paleobiological research.

If you want to know more about state of the art meteorology and climate science I suggest you read the successive IPPC reports. They are all available online and they are quite accessible if you take the time to read them thoroughly. Set apart a weekend and a bucket of coffee. Or a six-pack, whatever floats your mind. You will be surprised both by the level of sophistication of modern climate science and by the huge complexity of the subject.

The Assassin is wrong, though, when he says time is over for the one hand and other hand thingy. It never is. He would do well to read those reports himself. The gist of them is nothing but statements about the one hand, the other hand and the best educated guess as to which hand deserves most credit under which conditions.

[English assassin]

The Assassin is wrong, though, when he says time is over for the one hand and other hand thingy. It never is. He would do well to read those reports himself. The gist of them is nothing but statements about the one hand, the other hand and the best educated guess as to which hand deserves most credit under which conditions.

if you want absolutely certainty, AII, then I take it you restrict your opinions to the subjects of death and taxes?

IIRC the latest IPCC report says it is more than 90% likely that observed warming is caused by man's actions, and the best estimates for global temprature increase this century are between 1.8 and 4 C ? That really puts that part of the debate beyond the one hand other hand stage for me.

I agree that what we doabout this is still debatable. I'm not all that clear what the consensus is on the likely effects of, say, a 2.5 degree rise, or even if there is a consensus. It certainly seems to be true that rises of a similar size, over a not dissimilar timescale, have happened before without the world being knocked off its axis. On the other hand we didn't have between 6-9 billion people trying to live in a globalised economy whilst past climate fluctations took place.

I'm not sure that the case for donning carbon sackcloth has been made out yet, but I am pretty sure the case for proceeding with caution is made out.

Which happens to be where lemurs article came in i guess.

[Idaho]

I see the situation as akin to a bunch of people living in a tower block. Over the years the block occasionally has tiny wobbles. And over the years people living in the block have increasingly knocked through internal walls. There has been an increase in recent years of walls being knocked down and wobbles. So far this is just a correlation. However if the building falls down that'll be cold comfort.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This bit I never get. 400 years ago the height of medical science for a headache was to drill a hole in your skull. Do you refuse to take aspirin because doctors in the past had mistaken ideas about headaches?

400 years ago we were in the midst of a mini iceage where the CO2 count was higher than now and there was no manufactring using carbon fuels to speak of. That kind of flies in the face of all this CO2 and humans being the cause of global warming.

[English assassin]

400 years ago we were in the midst of a mini iceage where the CO2 count was higher than now and there was no manufactring using carbon fuels to speak of. That kind of flies in the face of all this CO2 and humans being the cause of global warming.

That would be great..... except the CO2 count was higher than now is I am afraid completely untrue.

While we are on the subject of past climate fluctuations, that is ANOTHER point in the anti argument that I don't get. Can anyone spot the non sequitur in this argument for me:

"In the past, the climate has fluctuated without man made CO2 being the cause. Therefore, if the climate is fluctating now, man made CO2 is not the cause."

[Gawain of Orkeny]

That would be great..... except the CO2 count was higher than now is I am afraid completely untrue

Show me.

"In the past, the climate has fluctuated without man made CO2 being the cause. Therefore, if the climate is fluctating now, man made CO2 is not the cause."

Your stance is better?

"In the past, the climate has fluctuated without man made CO2 being the cause. Therefore, if the climate is fluctating now, man made CO2 is the cause."

Im sure that global warming is more a function o the sun and how close it is and how hot is burning over man made CO2 emissions. Now if you can put a thermostat on the sun you maybe able to control global warming and cooling. Until then your just throwning bandaids on a chest wound.

[Ser Clegane]

Interesting approach, Gawain.
You make a claim:

400 years ago we were in the midst of a mini iceage where the CO2 count was higher than now

and when it is disputed you ask for it to be disproved instead of backing up your original claim.

Then:

Im sure that global warming is more a function o the sun and how close it is

I assume that there is more to it than just you "being sure"?

BTW, welcome back to the Backroom, Gawain

[Louis VI the Fat]

Reports.
The gist of them is nothing but statements about the one hand, the other hand and the best educated guess as to which hand deserves most credit under which conditions.

Most of those educated guesses are about the results, the extent, the consequences of human actions on the climate.

The causes, the determinants of global climate are rarely in dispute. Forests play a part in the weather, soil use plays a part, the chemical make-up of the atmosphere is a determinant.

If you cut forests, this will have an effect, if you replace soft undersoil with tarmac or otherwise developed areas this will have an effect. Emission of substances will have an effect.

Just exactly what effect, how or to what extent is not always clear, or sometimes simply theoretical. This is the on the one hand / on the other part of scientific doubt.
Scientifically quite undisputed is that human activity is a determinant of global climate.

Edit: how very rude of mine. Good to see you again, Gawain. Welcome back in the backroom!

[Gawain of Orkeny]

and when it is disputed you ask for it to be disproved instead of backing up your original claim

Well I saw it on the history channel . But i couldnt find a link. There are many however on how 450 million years ago the CO2 level was 10 times higher and we were in a real iceage.

I assume that there is more to it than just you "being sure"?

Ive posted links to this many a time. Its just to simple to be true i guess. Besides if that is the truth theres no money to be made by it.

Scientifically quite undisputed is that human activity is a determinant of global climate

You should qualify that statement dont you think?

Scientifically quite undisputed is that human activity can be to the determinant of global climate

would be more correct.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

BTW, welcome back to the Backroom, Gawain

Good to see you again, Gawain. Welcome back in the backroom!

Thanks guys. Good to be here. But Im afraid its just temporary. Well Ill still be here but as soon as my new PC is built its back to MTW2 full time for me. So I wont be here that often. Better bash me while you can.

But I am shooting for that magic 12k in posts LOL

[Ser Clegane]

Better bash me while you can.

[Adrian II]

Most of those educated guesses are about the results, the extent, the consequences of human actions on the climate.

The causes, the determinants of global climate are rarely in dispute. Forests play a part in the weather, soil use plays a part, the chemical make-up of the atmosphere is a determinant.

The temperature effects of the make-up of about 90% of our atmosphere are unknown. Thus I was told yesterday afternoon by Rob van Dorland, a Dutch meteorologist and one of the lead authors of the latest IPCC report. The role of aerosoles and clouds and even the heat absorption of CO2 under varying conditions have all been studied insufficiently. All conclusions are tentative. Van Dorland is deeply disappointed that more money is being spent worldwide on climate policy than on climate science, even though the latter is far more urgent. But hey, that's only a leading scientist speaking. Don't let it distract you from your hobby horses, guys.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Van Dorland is deeply disappointed that more money is being spent worldwide on climate policy than on climate science, even though the latter is far more urgent. But hey, that's only a leading scientist speaking. Don't let it distract you from your hobby horses, guys.

Well that's funny. Rob van Dorland told another reporter, from Reuters, that he urged the Dutch government to drastically spent on climate policy:

DE BILT, Netherlands - Global warming is posing a risk to river shipping in northwest Europe as summers are expected to become drier, the Dutch meteorological institute KNMI said on Tuesday.

KNMI's climate scenarios envisage that summers would become hotter and the number of rainy days in summer would decrease by 2050, while winters would be milder and wetter, Rob van Dorland of the KNMI atmospheric research department told Reuters. [/B]
[...]
Van Dorland urged the Netherlands, where rivers and canals are abundant, to alter its water management and start storing more water during the winter, which could later be used for irrigation and drinking during dry summers.

Rising sea levels is another big concern in the Netherlands, where two-thirds of the land mass is below sea level.

The KNMI predicts that global warming is likely to raise sea levels along the Dutch coast between 0.35 to 0.85 metres by the end of the century, forcing construction of higher dykes.

The KNMI forecasts that Dutch temperatures will rise by 0.9 to 2.3 degrees by 2050. It also expects the number of heatwaves and extreme downpours to increase in northern Europe.

When adressing his climatologist collegues, he seems a bit less reserved about stating that the alteration of the substances in the atmosphere due to human behaviour is a determinant for our climate:

In the (sub)tropical southern hemisphere (SH), anthropogenic biomass burning emissions cause an increase of O3 mixing ratios in the dry season (September-November). We calculate a relative increase in O3 mixing ratios due to anthropgenic emissions of about 30% in the pristine SH middle and high latitudes to about 100% in the polluted NH boundary layer. The model simulations suggest that the absolute increase of tropospheric O3 mixing ratios are significantly affected in the tropical regions and, during summer, in the middle and high NH latitudes. Under these conditions the radiative forcing of climate by increasing O3 is relatively large. We calculate a global and annual average radiative forcing by tropospheric O3 perturbations of 0.42 W m−2, i.e., 0.51 W m−2 in the NH and 0.33 W m−2 in the SH

Working for a climate research institute, he wouldn't have any incentive to urge journalist to write that the funding of climate research institutes needs to be drastically increased, wouldn't he? I mean, he's only a scientist...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Can't trust a guy with a mullet and a moustache, eh?

[Adrian II]

Well that's funny. Rob van Dorland told another reporter, from Reuters, that he urged the Dutch government to drastically spent on climate policy:

He doesn't. He calls for altered water management.

As for the tentative results he referred to in that quote, I would counter that photochemical O3 production from anthropogenically emitted precursors contributes about 30% to the present-day tropospheric O3 content, which is roughly equal to the natural photochemical production. Transports of stratospheric O3 into the troposphere contribute about 40%. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, the O3 maximum over remote northern hemisphere (NH) areas has shifted from winter to spring, when photochemical production of O3 is relatively efficient.

So there.

And he is a hell of a nice guy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would counter that photochemical O3 production from anthropogenically emitted precursors contributes about 30% to the present-day tropospheric O3 content, which is roughly equal to the natural photochemical production. Transports of stratospheric O3 into the troposphere contribute about 40%. As a result of anthropogenic emissions, the O3 maximum over remote northern hemisphere (NH) areas has shifted from winter to spring, when photochemical production of O3 is relatively efficient.

So there.

There is no way you know less about the subject of anthropgenic O3 emissions in tropospheric O3 mixing ratios than I and I can't stand being outbluffed so I'll counter by saying that emphasis should be on a better understanding of the budgets of O3 and CO in the middle and upper northern hemispheric (NH) troposphere. Latitudinal and seasonal variations of the mean values and the local variability of O3 and CO can be assessed. CO is moreover applied as tracer of polluted (surface) air, that is, as a measure of O3 precursors. This enables us to assign positive or negative O3–CO correlations and their slopes α = dO3/dCO to O3 produced by photochemistry or to O3 imported from the stratosphere. In the tropics, photochemical O3 production clearly dominates all year round, with mean O3–CO slopes of 0.45–0.53 in spring/summer and 0.20–0.27 in autumn/winter, leaving a high annual net O3 production rates in the troposphere of 17.6 × 1010 O3 molecules cm−2 s−1.

So there.

[TevashSzat]

I would try to make some counterargument to adrian, but alas I can't seeing I'm a biochemistry person with some minor interest in neurology