[Wild Fragaria]

So what's your proposed hypothesis other than the easy "BS"?

I don't have one, because I'm not a climatologist.  But as I said earlier, I know how to read the arguments of clientologists, and I have a not-too-shabby BS detector.

I am impressed by your not-too-shabby BS detector.  May I guess?  It's a gift, from a friend from high places?

[Flipside]

Be Nice

We all have BS detectors, problem is most people don't realise that it is self-tuned. For example, I consider sections of the Bible to trigger my 'BS Alert', but then, I am looking for things to trigger it. When it comes to science and religion, I think both sides could be accused on occasion of being so obsessed with minutae that they fail to see the bigger picture.

Maybe I'm one of a reducing few who still have faith in humanity itself, rather than in science or religion, I'm not sure, but in cases such as this, just as people attend church in the hope of redemption for their sins with only their own faith in what they believe to be right, I am perfectly prepared to apply the same conditions to Global Warming. Something is going on which is odd, the North Pole has melted, and the ice cores taken from them is estimated at 2 million years old.

Ice caps that have hung around for a couple of million years dont just melt. Something caused it. Was it man or natural causes? Does it matter? There are a number of techniques that man can use to reduce the number of damaging materials he puts into the atmosphere, even if those materials only have a small effect on the overall change, wouldn't the sensible thing be to take every precaution we can to delay the event until we can learn more of its nature and how to deal with it?

[aldo_14]

Additionally, who here likes smog? (don't raise you hands all at once, now)

[TrashMan]

First part: anecdotal evidence that doesnt hold much for proving the world is warming because it was warm last week at home.

Fisrt part - effects on nature that I can see for myself with my own two eyes.
It is easily deduced that humanity has a bad influence on the enviroment. Logic dictates that by increasing the pollution you're increasing the bad effects and sooner or later you'll reach some treshold where really bad things will start to happen.

What you're saying is that treshold hasn't been reached - I sugegst you look around and informed yourself.

B.t.w - where do you live if I may ask? In a big city?

Second part: Calling people blind in not believing in man made global warming is pretty much turning the whole movement into a religion, and that any scientist who disagrees with it is stupid, ignorant, and a 'blasphemer' of the religion.

WTF has religion to do with this?

Lemme ask you this:
If I were to put my hand on a puppy I would feel it's warm. If I'm to mesure it's temperature I'd know exactly how warm it is.
So if you were to say that the puppy is not warm and I say you must be blind or something - that somehow makes me religios fanatic?

[aldo_14]

well, my biggest problem with either side claiming to have an answer is it simply is imposable at this point for us to have enough data to make a causality, or for that matter even a strong corelational argument, the earth is 4 billion years old, if humans have been impacting the environment in a significant way it wouldn't have started shooting up until the most recent 50 years, 50/4 billion is not a lot of data. about all we can say for certainty is that the earth is a bit warmer now than it has been on average for the last few thousand years. if you through in all the variables and ice ages and the fact that humans are more productive when the planet is warmer, I find it hard to accept that a strong causal relationship can be shown at this point.

I'm not sure what your point is; there's pretty strong evidence of a rapid rise (the rise being the important part) in average temperature correlating to human industrial output (i.e. pollution).  And I don't think it's really applicable to assume that humans would have affected the climate earlier, because you have to consider the increasing industrialization of the southern hemisphere; not just the likes of China and India (I know, not SH) but South America, the Middle East, Africa et al have begun to contribute significantly (in case you're wondering, the argument for 'western' nations taking action first is that we've been lead pollutors for a long time, and are relatively rich so can afford to make the 'clean' change, allowing this adaptation to be passed on to poorer nations - but that's not a call to let the likes of China off the hook, just one to set an example to them)

Granted, correlelation is not causality, but there's a lot of work been done on the mechanics how things like emissions can cause climatic change, and surely it doesn't take a Nobel prize to go "carbon (etc) emissions can result in warming + emissions are continually increasing + temperature is notably increasing and at an increasing rate => emissions are likely to be impacting the global temperature"?  The other thing is, of course, that it's worth noting the temperature is reduced by pollution or atmospheric contrails (from planes),  namely the 'global dimming' effect (which has been suggested as a cause for the 40s-60s dip, incidentally, although I don't know how strong the science is for that one) which has significantly reduced sunlight reaching the planets surface (I think by 22% in Israel over, ummm, the last 20 or so years).  Of course, it's hard to judge global dimmings' effect; one attempt was after 9/11, which was the only time there was no flying over the US, and the temperature rose over 1C on average - I think the largest jump in over 30 years.

[Goober5000]

Also, you have absolutely no evidence for that 1000 year figure, given that temperature proxies beyond the 1600s or so are known to be unreliable and there is no basis for stating the MWP existed on a scale outside medieval europe.  Strangely, I've pointed this out before - still not reading?

As Bobboau said, the temperature proxies argument undermines your own case.

But you don't need temperature proxies to establish the 1000 year figure.  Just history.  Greenland was named for its verdant pastures, which Eric the Red and the Norse discovered when they settled there at around the year 1000.  They stayed there for nearly 500 years until they were driven off by the Little Ice Age.

It's always struck me as utterly bizarre to attack global warming as 'political' when the most powerful economic - and hence political - groups in the world are the polluting industries.

Yes, the industries are major political forces.  But they're only the reason why the regulations aren't being imposed faster.  California had incredibly strict zero-emissions regulations until the automobile lobbies convinced them to loosen them.  Kyoto had been signed under Clinton but was unsigned under Bush.

Then why do you quote links from paid & funded industrial lobby - dare I even say political - groups as if they were unbiased science?  To me that's where the BS detector should be going PING PING PING PING, same as it does with other fundamentally biased groups like the Discovery Institute.

They're on the defensive, and typically groups on the defensive are more accurate because they're under more scrutiny.  But since I've seen criticisms of the IPCC report as well, it's had for me to believe that no group is unbiased in this whole political environment.

[aldo_14]

I've already explained the temperature difference and the danger of using the localised MWP as a global indicator.  In my previous post, which you seem to have missed the point of .  I think I linked to it, too....

So why are regulations being imposed atall?  Because, what you're saying is that the various governments of the world are strengthening their power....by pissing off the very groups that fund them?  Hell, we've done ****-all to tackle emissions in the UK or US (I'd say the whole world, but I'd guess the Scandinavians are active in particular), in the former case even despite Kyoto.  All national governments have really done is piecemail looks-good-does-****-all legislation so far, setting 20 year targets so the next guy in power has to worry about it.  The prevailing attitude is one of selfishness and political expediency, and that extends to the population.  What the **** is wrong with zero-emissions or alternative fuel-source cars, anyways?  Why not push to have them regardless of global warming?

Also, "groups on the defensive are more accurate because they're under more scrutiny"?  I can't see a way in which you can possibly justify that; I've already cited the Discovery Institute, which is a perfect example of a 'defensive' group which is horrifically inaccurate and simply doesn't give a **** as long as it can get people to believe the tosh it trots out.  Are you seriously suggesting advertising - which is what a lobby group is, after all - is about accuracy?

[Huggybaby]

Why are Pluto, Mars, and other planets getting warmer?

[aldo_14]

Why are Pluto, Mars, and other planets getting warmer?

Pluto is a little more complex than that, the atmosphere is cooling but the surface warming. Another more recent article suggests Pluto is colder than expected.

 It doesn't seem clear to me that Mars is warming, because 'clear' (dark) areas previously covered with ice still have frozen CO2 (hence the darkness).  AFAICT not enough is known about the Martian climate to say what's going on; I don't think it's even known how tectonically active it is.   Apparently it's been argued, though, (because I can guess at least one of the other arguments going on in someones head ) that climatic change on Mars can be considered evidence for ways humans can affect Earths' climate - namely that if climatic change on Mars is being caused (exponentially/reinfocing..er..ly) by the evaporation of CO2 into the atmosphere, then it's also evidence that 'artificial' CO2 output here would affect our climate.

what other planets?

EDIT; oh, back on the subject of yon documentary; http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

See http://www.badscience.net/?p=386 for print scans with graphs.  This also mentions the flaws within MWP and sunspot arguments.

EDIT2; oh yes, and on the subject of this documentary and debate, let's see an email chain from when someone sent a critique to Martin Durkin  (the documentary maker) pointing out his error - http://ocean.mit.edu/%7Ecwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails.htm  (I'll quote it - Durkins' response is in bold)

-----Original Message----- From: Armand Leroi [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 March 2007 02:38 To: Martin Durkin; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: The Global Warming Swindle

Dear Martin,

I thought that your programme made some good points (the politics of the IPCC) and some bad points (anthropogenic global warming is a conspiracy to keep Africa underdeveloped). But what fascinated me were your scientific claims, in particular, your display of Friis-Christensen's time-series correlations between solar activity and terrestrial temperatures since 1860. The correlation was, indeed, amazing -- the two variables track each other perfectly! Maybe you're right: maybe it's all just the sun.

So, I looked up the paper. It was published in 1991 -- in SCIENCE -- and you can't get better than that. ( SCIENCE 254: 698-700). So looked to see who had cited it -- and promptly came across a series of papers by Peter Laut who argues that Friis-Christensen's data are wrong. And by that I mean bogus.

Now, I am no climate scientist -- but I can read these graphs; there's nothing complicated about them. And what Laut has to say is shocking and convincing (see attached summary article but there's also a much longer, and much more damning, technical article). He says that Friis-Christensen repeatedly engaged in "unacceptable handling of observational data". To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were wrong -- and may have been deliberately faked, for they were wrong in several different ways. And if you correct the data, the correlation in recent years goes away.

Fascinatingly, Laut points out that Friis-Christensen's data, far from having been suppressed, have received widespread media coverage (and they've been cited over 300 times in the scientific literature). Indeed, in 2001, Friis-Christensen and colleagues were the subject of a Danish TV doc in "The Climate Conflict", which presented them as an "ingenious mavericks who...now fight a scientific establishment represented by the IPCC." Gosh. Sounds familiar.

There is much more that could be said about your programme -- such as the gross caricature that it gave of a scientific community which, contra your film, continually debates the various causes of global warming -- but, as I said, I am not a climate scientist. But it does show -- what abundant experience has already taught me -- that, left to their own devices, TV producers simply cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I am very disappointed.

I am copying this to Lou Bolch. And to Simon Singh, Ben Goldacre, and Olivia Judson -- fellow connoisseurs of this sort of thing.

Best

Armand

-----Original Message----- From: Martin Durkin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 09 March 2007 09:53 To: Armand Leroi; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: The Global Warming Swindle

You're a big daft cock

-----Original Message----- From: Simon Singh [mailto: [email protected]] Sent: 09 March 2007 10:48 To: Martin Durkin Cc: [email protected]; 'Armand Leroi'; [email protected] Subject: RE: The Global Warming Swindle

Dear Martin,

I have not paid the same attention to your programme as Armand has done, but from what I did see it did indeed seeem to be an irresponsible piece of film-making. If you can send me a copy of the programme then I will examine it in more detail and give you a more considered response - my address is below - thanks.

I suspect that you will have upset many people (if Armand is right), so it would be great if you could engage in the debate rather just resorting to one line replies. That way we could figure out what went wrong/right and how do things better/even better in the future.

Best Regards, Simon. Ps. Armand, I think you missed Olivia Judson off your (cc) list.

----Original Message----- From: Martin Durkin [mailto:[email protected]]

Subject: RE: The Global Warming Swindle To: Simon Singh < [email protected], [email protected]

The BBC is now a force for bigotry and intolerance. Most of the temperature rise in the past 150 years happened before 1940. Most of the human CO2 happened in the latter part of the 20 century.

Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing. The IPCC's own figures show the hottest year in the past ten was 1998, and the temp has been flat-lining now for five years. If it's greenhouse gas causing the warming the rate of warming should be higher in the troposphere than on the surface. The opposite is the case. The ice core data shows that temperature change causes the level of atmospheric CO2 to change - not the other way round.

Why have we not heard this in the hours and hours of **** programming on global warming shoved down our throats by the BBC?

Never mind an irresponsible bit of film-making. Go and **** yourself.

you can see some more info at http://ocean.mit.edu/%7Ecwunsch/

[Huggybaby]

Other planets: Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Triton.

Question: If weather models can't accurately predict even a few days in advance, how can they be relied upon to predict even longer periods into the future?

Also, Dr. Claude Allegre changes his mind: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

[Flipside]

Because Weather Models are completely different from Environment models. We can't tell you where it's going to rain next, but by looking at each years rainfall, we can tell you whether the trend in rainfall is going up and down.

Oh, and...

Calling the arguments of those who see catastrophe in climate change "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers," Dr. Allegre especially despairs at "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." The world would be better off, Dr. Allegre believes, if these "denouncers" became less political and more practical, by proposing practical solutions to head off the dangers they see, such as developing technologies to sequester C02. His dream, he says, is to see "ecology become the engine of economic development and not an artificial obstacle that creates fear."

That's not exactly a change of mind from what I read there, it's merely a warning that Global warming is a scientific problem and should be tackled as thus, not a political one which should be used to generate fear and panic. But he's not saying there's nothing to be worried about, he's effectively saying 'Get up off your arses and DO something!'.

As for Jupiter and Triton, measuring the temperature of planets halfway across the Solar System is hardly an exact art. Jupiter is a 'warm' planet, but a very turbulent one, we can only really tell the surface temperature at any one time. Triton is much the same, we really don't have accurate enough graphs to start making definitive comments on the matter.

[aldo_14]

Other planets: Jupiter, and Neptune's moon Triton.

Question: If weather models can't accurately predict even a few days in advance, how can they be relied upon to predict even longer periods into the future?

Also, Dr. Claude Allegre changes his mind: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

My understanding is that it isn't really analogous to compare short term local forecasting with long term weather modelling; AFAIK they are actually radically different prospects.  Normally, IIRC, the long term climate models are tested by shoving the variables back to that of, say, 100 years ago and then ran forward - from what I've seen they're pretty accurate in doing so.

The thing about Jupiter is that it's a vast planet hit by a comet fairly recently, so i'm not sure it's a very good model for earth climatology.

Incidentally, apparently Mars warming is suggested to be due to Malkovitch Cycles, regular 'wobbles' in the tilt of the planets orbit that are believed to have led to similar ice/warm ages on Earth.

This page has a little bit on it, anyways

In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.

The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.

Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.

And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.

Reading the thing about Allegre is curious - for one thing, Kilimanjaro isn't gaining snow AFAIK (more recent report, although Kilimanjaro is only a footnote)... it'd be nice to see some more direct quotes (apparently, his claim about the snows of Kilimanjaro was based on a piece of work covering glaciation over millions of years, and his other claim to support his position was based on a misunderstanding of what climate models predict for snowfall on the artic ice sheet).  I've read that he actually hasn't published anything on climate change and perhaps isn't best qualified (supposedly qualified by a geologist), although I'd note the source wasn't the best (http://boards.historychannel.com/thread.jspa?threadID=700010352&tstart=45&mod=1173243321167).  There's always a feeling of being a hypocritical bastard pointing this out for an eminent scientist, but it has been suggested elsewhere, and I guess it's up to you to consider when weighing his opinion (namely, retired scientist-turned-politician who hasn't published any work in climate change/climatology) - although it's likewise worth tempering that with his original position and saying that, yes, there have been non-climatologists (and indeed politicians or other media peeps) who have been involved in actively 'promoting' global warming without knowing the science themselves.

Anyways, like Flip said, it's hard to judge what he meant anyways without a full set of quotes, in context.  I would agree that (mostly political) scaremongering about global warming has threatened to create a boy-who-cried-wolf effect; whilst I believe the scientific consensus is that the risk is we will relatively soon put the climate into a reinforcing heating phase, the impression people are given is of humanity raising the temperature all by itself (rather than 'skewing' natural changes into a heating phase), and that things like hurricanes can be directly approportionted (which is wrong; it's possible, plausible even, but it's only a hypothesis until research can be done).  The risk is still huge - one that threatens the long term survival of humanity - but not the All life Will Die / 'Day after Tomorrow' style threat that is pushed.  Y'know, like the difference between humanity being pushed to the brink of extinction (possible, and economic and social collapse is a real risk in the long term), and all life on earth being wiped out (not so likely).

(incidentally, on the '90%' thing earlier.  The 90% example given in the quoted times article was a personal guess by the scientist involved, and retracted when he was unable to repeat his experiment - the 90% figure given in IPCC reports is based on the consensus of, I believe, about 450 scientists)

[Ulala]

Why are Pluto, Mars, and other planets getting warmer?

The Martians just hit their own industrial revolution, duh. 

[Huggybaby]

So Triton, Pluto, Jupiter and Earth are all warming, but for four different reasons?

Measuring planets far away may be more difficult, but is there any difference in the techniques used to measure weather on Mars or Jupiter than on Earth?

Also, you mentioned a tipping point, a reinforced heating phase. Has such a thing ever happened before?

[aldo_14]

So Triton, Pluto, Jupiter and Earth are all warming, but for four different reasons?

Measuring planets far away may be more difficult, but is there any difference in the techniques used to measure weather on Mars or Jupiter than on Earth?

Uh huh, I believe so.  I think it's mainly infared radiation for the planets (but this is complicated with distance as stellar radiation can 'swamp' the signal), but for earth a number of measurements are used (such as ground-station thermometers).  Apparently ground & satellite measurements show a marked difference on earth (the temperature change appears significantly 'colder' from space, some global warming skeptics cherry pick this as 'proof').  Annoyingly, it's somewhat difficult to find a good source to explain exactly what goes on, but methinks you'd be looking at a massive ground-station factor.

It's quite plausible you can have several planets warming at the same time for different reasons.  For one thing, surely Pluto is one of the least likely planets to be affected by (as I think you're intimating) changes in solar activity (which AFAIK is in a cooler period than a few decades ago)?  Also, for it to be something sun-related, every planet would surely need to be warming up?  Finally, if Mars is - as I understand it - wobbling, then it's pretty likely to be down to a Malinkovich cycle (if that's the correct term to use).  Also, vis-a-vis Triton, surely it'd also imply every one of Jupiters satellites warming too?  Unless you imply theres a strong cooling trend on every non-warming planet/satellite observed, which is surely less likely than coincidental warming on, I dunno, 4?

Also, you mentioned a tipping point, a reinforced heating phase. Has such a thing ever happened before?

Yes; IIRC all climate cycles have this; specifically a point where the climatic change is such that it creates a reinforcing effect, for example melting frozen peat bogs holding methane gas, releasing carbon frozen in artic ice, etc.  This - http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2005/09/30 - gives a bit more detail.  It's a natural part (positive feedback) of the warming (and cooling) cycle process; it's just that we risk starting it 'artificially', i.e. kick starting a new ice age (an ice age because what happens is the heat eventually causes evapouration, then this blocks sunlight which allows more snow formation, etc, and eventually the whole planet cools).

Venus is an extreme example of a self-reinforcing heating phase going to far; AFAIK that's unlikely in this case, but you'd still see conditions not particularly comfortable for human habitation...

[Huggybaby]

Normally, IIRC, the long term climate models are tested by shoving the variables back to that of, say, 100 years ago and then ran forward - from what I've seen they're pretty accurate in doing so.

So it's possible to model what has already happened. When will this method allow us to do a reliable forecast?

but methinks you'd be looking at a massive ground-station factor.

How many ground stations are on Earth now?

For one thing, surely Pluto is one of the least likely planets to be affected by...changes in solar activity

Of course---it's further from the sun, but affected nonetheless.

(which AFAIK is in a cooler period than a few decades ago)?

I don't know, but if I google "Pluto warming" I find many articles which state otherwise.

On the self-reinforcing thing, I ask again, has such a thing ever been proved to happen before?

It's quite plausible you can have several planets warming at the same time for different reasons.

Possible yes, but isn't plausible a strong term? Occam's razor and all that.

Also, vis-a-vis Triton, surely it'd also imply every one of Jupiters satellites warming too?

Yes, but I don't know if the other satellites are being monitored or to what degree, so I can't say.

[Flipside]

http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3830

Gurwell believes this discrepancy is due to Pluto's surface being composed primarily of nitrogen ice while Charon's is mainly water ice. The small amount of sunlight reaching the planet converts nitrogen ice to gas but doesn't heat the surface. There isn't enough solar energy to melt the moon's water ice.

"The atmosphere, although thin, creates a buffer," Gurwell told Astronomy. "Energy vaporizing the nitrogen-ice surface makes for a colder temperature in what I call an 'anti-greenhouse effect.'"

So, oddly enough, it's another of these misunderstandings that seems to be happening on both sides. Pluto is not getting colder, it is merely colder than expected.

Edit : Although, in all fairness, they did recieve a shock later when they found out that it was, in fact, getting warmer...

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

[Ace]

For one thing, surely Pluto is one of the least likely planets to be affected by...changes in solar activity

Of course---it's further from the sun, but affected nonetheless.

Ummm... inverse square law. The effect is quite... quite... minimal.

Also on the 'Jupiter is warming' keep in mind that Jupiter produces more heat and radiation than it receives from the sun.

[Ghostavo]

Also, remember that Pluto's orbit is quite unlike that of other planets. Hell, sometimes it's closer to the sun than Neptune is.

[Bobboau]

ok, the thing with the other planets is, if they are getting warmer by a similar degree as the earth is getting warmer, then the cause of the earth's additional warmth is caused most likely by a change in the sun and human activity will have little effect on earth's climate change.

as of now I have seen no evidence to support this, and I bet there's only a very small amount of anecdotal evidence (prove me wrong), our understanding of other planet's climactic history is so much vastly worse than our understanding of earths that I can't see how it could be posable for someone to even suggest that any other planet is getting warmer or colder on any useful scale. hell we don't even have complete data for a full year for some planets.