Climatic Change

[Maha]

Indeed, the climate does change by itself. However, that fact does not preclude that humankind may have some influence on climate change.
And no matter what influence humankind may have upon climate change, it is still important to understand to what extent climate change (man made and/or natural) may impact upon the way we live our lives.

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

[Jantar]

...
So, would you assume, in the case of global warming, that during said warming:
a) Temperature differentials increase.
b) Temperature differentials decrease.
c) Temperature differentials stay the same.
d) It doesn't matter, it's just a conspiracy and we do not need to know more!
?

......

A very good question. Lets first off make the assumption that warming is occuring. Then to test the cause of the warming it is neccessary to seperate out the global data into latitudinal data.

If it is the solar effect (ie a more active sun) that is causing the warming then the results will occur in the equatorial regions first, and that would mean that temperature differentials will increase.

If it greenhouse gasses that are the cause then the warming will appear most in the polar regions and temperature differentials will decrease.

As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

[Naki Rat]

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

In terms of climate, yes, but there is a hell of a lot more going on in terms of resource depletion which is going to effect mankind a hell of a lot sooner than creeping sea levels and increasingly volatile weather patterns.

It's all put in easily digested form here
It's approaching 4 million views so must have some merit.

[Jantar]

Hi Jantar

I've been meaning to respond to your statements about recent global cooling, but haven't got around to composing a decent response. All I'll say for now is that the cooling (if any) in the last decade certainly hasn't been very large:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki...ure_Record_png

And has left the noughties as the warmest decade for quite a while.

Now, why do you think cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years?

Correct, the cooling hasn't been large, and if we remove the 1998 high and 1999 low from the data the linear trend is almost flat.

As for why I believe cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years? The PDO swung from its positive phase to its negative pahase in 1998 - 99. Each half cycle of the PDO lasts around 25 - 30 years, and as we are now 10 years into a downward half cycle that leaves 15 - 20 years of cooling before we see another upward trend in the temperatures.

[Dave Lobster]

As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

The religious ones??

[Badjelly]

What I was pointing out was that, what is going on now with the Planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all.

Something like what is going on now with the planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all. This is very well known. As I pointed out in a post in a thread a long time ago and far away (yesterday I think) the lates IPCC Working Group 1 report has a 66-page chapter on it.

Are you going somewhere with this?

[Badjelly]

As for why I believe cooling will occur for a further 15-20 years? The PDO swung from its positive phase to its negative pahase in 1998 - 99. Each half cycle of the PDO lasts around 25 - 30 years, and as we are now 10 years into a downward half cycle that leaves 15 - 20 years of cooling before we see another upward trend in the temperatures.

OK.

Are you aware that there a few people--the one whose name comes to mind is James Annan--who have been trying to interest climate sceptics in bets about temperature changes over the next decade or so? They haven't had very many takers.

[James Deuce]

The IPCC seems to forget that fuck all people care about the fake industry they've created because they struggle to get to the next pay day. Or even the next day. Nothing the IPCC proposes, or subsequent Government recommendations (which all seem to focus on moving billions of dollars around whilst achieving nothing) makes anyone's life easier or simpler or cheaper so most of the people who do pay attention from time to time roll their eyes and get ready to present their wallet for another exploratory from the Tax man, while the vast majority of the planet's population have no idea that the "crisis" is meant to be sparking changes in behaviour in them specifically. Or that there even is a crisis.

Stop with the bad news already. We've been hearing it so long it has been tuned out. Find another record and sell the changes and stop beating people for not believing in your particular brand of "change or die" politics.

[Maha]

Something like what is going on now with the planet has happened a several times since Earth was created, without the help from any humans at all. This is very well known. As I pointed out in a post in a thread a long time ago and far away (yesterday I think) the lates IPCC Working Group 1 report has a 66-page chapter on it.

Are you going somewhere with this?

Yeah back to bed, its given me a head-ache....

[Jantar]

Are you aware that there a few people--the one whose name comes to mind is James Annan--who have been trying to interest climate sceptics in bets about temperature changes over the next decade or so? They haven't had very many takers.

Sure. I have seen a couple of these challenges although not from this source.

I would be prepared to make a bet based on a temperature trend, but not on any actual numbers. The email hacking should give a pretty good idea why no scientist would be prepared to make such a bet. When data is altered, modified and misrepresented to show a desired conclusion, only a fool would make a bet with the very crowd that is modifying the data.

[Badjelly]

Sure. I have seen a couple of these challenges although not from this source.

I would be prepared to make a bet based on a temperature trend, but not on any actual numbers. The email hacking should give a pretty good idea why no scientist would be prepared to make such a bet. When data is altered, modified and misrepresented to show a desired conclusion, only a fool would make a bet with the very crowd that is modifying the data.

I might be prepared to make a bet, though only for a small, symbolic sum, as I am not really a betting man.

I don't quite grasp the distinction you draw between the trend and the numbers. The trend is based on numbers. Either way we're going to be talking about changes or differences in the numbers between one decade and the next.

I am not a member of the CRU crowd (and neither is James Annan).

The GISS Temperature series (GISTEMP) is, I believe, fully open. (It hasn't been as popular with sceptics recently as the CRU one, as it has warmed relative to the CRU series this decade because of the greater weight it gives to the Arctic.)

[Badjelly]

Yeah back to bed, its given me a head-ache....

I have that effect on people.

But one point I want to get across, because it seems to be completely missed--inverted even--in popular discusion, is that one reason climate scientists became concerned a few decades ago about the possibility of global warming was the discovery of the large swings in climate that have occurred in the last couple of million years, on a cycle of about 100,000 years. These have been driven (apparently) by changes in the Earth's orbit, changes that don't affect the total amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth, but do affect the distribution of that energy by latitude and time of year. Somehow these changes have driven large swings in the climate, suggesting the climate system is more sensitive than had been thought.

A geochemist called Wally Broecker wrote a series of books, one of which referred to twisting the tail of the climate dragon. I think it's a good metaphor and puts in perspective the claim that we don't what the effect is so we should continue to twist the tail ever harder.

[Mikkel]

If it greenhouse gasses that are the cause then the warming will appear most in the polar regions and temperature differentials will decrease.

Howcome? Are greenhouse gasses only present in the polar regions? If an increase in greenhouse concentrations was to occur - would the concentration only occur in the polar regions? Do we know for sure?

As for response d) hahaha. Can you envisage any scientists ever saying "we do not need to know more!"?

Not really, but the debate does not just include scientists at this point. And, unfortunately, answer d) seems to be quite popular with some segments of the debaters.

[Skyryder]

There's gonna be a lot of sick faces when man gets to Mars and discovers a dead civilisation along with a dead planet.



Skyryder

[Jantar]

Howcome? Are greenhouse gasses only present in the polar regions? If an increase in greenhouse concentrations was to occur - would the concentration only occur in the polar regions? Do we know for sure?
....

I believe the effect is not because the GG concentrations are higher in the polar regions, but more because the albedo is higher. The actual mechanics is beyond me, but all AGW models show more warming in the polar regions than in the equatorial regions, and all solar models show more warming the equatorial regions and less in the polar regions.

I'll see if I can source the reasons and mechanics behind this.