Your views on climate change

[Crolacia]

Global warming is not caused by humans (well,maybe a little part is). Governments support that so they could give us some more taxes. But yes,we should invest in cleaner solutions! I say,legalize cannabis but only for making oil and rope from it.

[Laerod]

Furthermore, the amount of times that climate data has been shown to be incorrect (or falsified) really makes it clear that no-one really has any concrete idea of what the future holds climate wise.

For which you have sources, of course. Of course.

I too would like to see the factual evidence used to support the quoted statement.

[Avenio]

Furthermore, the amount of times that climate data has been shown to be incorrect (or falsified) really makes it clear that no-one really has any concrete idea of what the future holds climate wise.

You mean the 'Climategate' e-mail non-event? No, not really.

[Farnhamia]

Furthermore, the amount of times that climate data has been shown to be incorrect (or falsified) really makes it clear that no-one really has any concrete idea of what the future holds climate wise.

I'm interested to know what data (i.e. observation and quantification) have been "falsified".

There was the incident of the stolen emails in which some UK researchers said mean things about climate change skeptics. That obviously invalidated all their work, don't you think?

[Laerod]

Global warming is not caused by humans (well,maybe a little part is). Governments support that so they could give us some more taxes. But yes,we should invest in cleaner solutions! I say,legalize cannabis but only for making oil and rope from it.

Name said taxes or the laws and proposals trying to implement said taxes

[Romennore]

(Image)

(dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471.
(blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.
(light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277.
(lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.
(light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253.
(yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.
(orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143
(red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781
(red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265
(dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v ^[2] was used.

Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). , Journal of Climate, 16: 206-223.

The Global Cooling Myth

Every now and again, the myth that “we shouldn’t believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970′s they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling” surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say “in the 1970′s all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming” (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn’t stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I’m talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we’re only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40′s to the 70′s (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976). Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970′s), based on reading the papers is, in summary: “…we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate…” (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms – the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling – but didn’t know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970′s, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”. The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call “imminent” (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes “a full-blown 10,000-year ice age” (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn’t. The piece isn’t from “Science”; it’s from “Science News”. There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the “ice age” strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, “Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate” is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn’t know enough to make predictions. From the “Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations”, we find that they said we should:

Establish National climatic research program
Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
Develope Climatic index monitoring program
Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
Adoption and development of International climatic research program
Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

The cooling trend from the 40′s to the 70′s now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
Interpretations of future changes in the Earth’s orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

Further Reading:

Imbrie & Imbrie “Ice Ages: solving the mystery” (1979) is an interesting general book on the discovery of the ice ages and their mechanisms; chapter 16 deals with “The coming ice age”.

Spencer Weart’s History of Global Warming has a chapter on Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations.

An analysis of various papers that mention the subject is at http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

This^^^

[Vellosia]

I'm interested to know what data (i.e. observation and quantification) have been "falsified".

There was the incident of the stolen emails in which some UK researchers said mean things about climate change skeptics. That obviously invalidated all their work, don't you think?

Considering they falsified graphs and data, yes.

And, another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciergate

If the IPCC can't get it right, how can anyone really have any idea what is going to happen?

[The USOT]

Strangely whilst I do acknowledge that we do not cause the majority of climate change, I still support green economics strongly.

Ignoring physical ecological changes (e.g. Amazon rainforest and the pollutants of the ocean), I still think cutting down, recycling and using more renewable resources will be better for us all in the long run.

[Thalam]

I'm interested to know what data (i.e. observation and quantification) have been "falsified".

There was the incident of the stolen emails in which some UK researchers said mean things about climate change skeptics. That obviously invalidated all their work, don't you think?

Ah yes, I forgot all about that! I withdraw my skepticism.

[Farnhamia]

Global warming is not caused by humans (well,maybe a little part is). Governments support that so they could give us some more taxes. But yes,we should invest in cleaner solutions! I say,legalize cannabis but only for making oil and rope from it.

You're in Stage 3. Stage 1 is denying climate change completely. Stage 2 is, yeah, okay, it's changing but humans aren't contributing. Stage 3 is you, it's changing, we contribute but only a little. Stage 4 is, is it hot in here? Stage 5 is, why isn't the damn government doing anything about this? Stage 6 is, it's really hot in here, doesn't anybody notice?

[Laerod]

There was the incident of the stolen emails in which some UK researchers said mean things about climate change skeptics. That obviously invalidated all their work, don't you think?

Considering they falsified graphs and data, yes.

And, another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciergate

If the IPCC can't get it right, how can anyone really have any idea what is going to happen?

Did you bother reading it?

There has been considerable political controversy over a small number of errors found in the report, and there have been calls for review of the process used to formulate the report. A large number of scientists with expertise in climate change have stated that these issues do not undermine the conclusions of the report that recent “warming of the climate system is unequivocal” and is largely due to human activities.

[Keronians]

On a climatological scale, 12,000 years isn't really that much. Especially when you see that in the Pleistocene, everything happening now happened several times before. And using that as a guideline, we are at the peak of an interglacial.

The previous interglacials did not have seven billion humans pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. We've changed the circumstances.

Climate change is, in a word, complicated.

I mean, you have all these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, preventing heat from escaping into space. On the other hand, we are heading for another ice age in a few thousand years.

Another problem is that CFCs break down ozone into oxygen. This creates holes in the ozone layer. Logically, this may allow heat to escape. However, it eliminates our natural protection from UV radiation.

Then, as the globe gets warmer, ice melts. Ice, being shiny (yes, yes, I know it's not a scientific word) and white, reflects heat back into space. So, it may cause global warming (since the ice is no longer there). However, the sea will ALSO get warmer, which would in turn result in more rapid cloud formation. So, we may see the heat getting reflected back into space, compensating for the lack of ice.

And then, of course, the dangerous reaction between sulphur dioxide and oxygen creating sulphur trioxide... Leading to nasty things like acid rain.

[Thalam]

There was the incident of the stolen emails in which some UK researchers said mean things about climate change skeptics. That obviously invalidated all their work, don't you think?

Considering they falsified graphs and data, yes.

And, another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciergate

If the IPCC can't get it right, how can anyone really have any idea what is going to happen?

Because a small number of inaccuracies in one report invalidate an entire scientific field.

[Xsyne]

Let's try an analogy. A 70 kilo male human's body contains about 40 liters of water. Now, let's add a bit more than 2 liters of water to his body, or about 1/19 of the already present water. What happens to him?

The addition of water without a corresponding addition of electrolytes results in a phenomenon known as water toxicity. Fortunately, even when consumed in a short period of time 2 liters isn't enough to kill our guinea pig, but it will make his life very unpleasant for quite some time.

And that's analogous to the climate how?

The person is the global climate, the water is the carbon dioxide. The electrolytes, unfortunately, aren't anything. If they were we could counteract climate change just by adding them in proportion to the CO2 we're releasing.

[Avenio]

Considering they falsified graphs and data, yes.

You mean the 'Climategate' e-mail non-event? No, not really.

[Vellosia]

Considering they falsified graphs and data, yes.

And, another example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaciergate

If the IPCC can't get it right, how can anyone really have any idea what is going to happen?

Because a small number of inaccuracies in one report invalidate an entire scientific field.

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

[Avenio]

should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.
Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

Newton's still right on a macrological scale. His findings just don't work as well one you start factoring things like subatomic particles and relativity. Like so;

[Keronians]

Because a small number of inaccuracies in one report invalidate an entire scientific field.

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

When did Newton turn out to be wrong?

... In science, not religion.

[The Merchant Republics]

Climate change I believe, has been confirmed by enough independent sources to justify it as a real and pertinent issue facing our planet at this time.

Though the actual theory of distinctly anthropogenic climate change is not quite so justified in my mind, without a doubt humans are contributing to global climate shift, but we are by no means solely to blame for it.

The most serious issue I believe we are facing today is deforestation and ocean pollution, provided these two things could be adequately checked, the relatively small amount of human contributed CO2 could be effectively removed from the system adequately with minimal concessions to lifestyle and comfort. Air pollution and CO2 emission themselves honesty ought to be relegated to a backseat position because there is simply no way for humanity to effectively eliminate their carbon footprint without mass starvation and a return to pre-industrial levels of wealth.

[Laerod]

Because a small number of inaccuracies in one report invalidate an entire scientific field.

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

Newton's laws of motion aren't wrong, they're inaccurate at obscenely high speeds. Similarly, you seem to be holding the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change to a much higher standard than that against it, leading me to believe your claims of only trying to be accurate are a lie.

[Reeso Marinya]

No such thing as global warming or climate change.

[Vellosia]

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

Newton's laws of motion aren't wrong, they're inaccurate at obscenely high speeds. Similarly, you seem to be holding the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change to a much higher standard than that against it, leading me to believe your claims of only trying to be accurate are a lie.

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

[Farnhamia]

Because a small number of inaccuracies in one report invalidate an entire scientific field.

It is a shame that you cannot acknowledge that such such inaccuracies cast doubt where science should be concrete. I'm not seeing that.

Remember, for 200 years everyone thought Newton was right - but he turned out to be wrong. People are far too willing to put all their faith into something. I urge caution.

There is always doubt in science. You don't understand how it works, you want everything to absolute the first time out of the box. It just doesn't work that way. New data comes in, ideas change.

And Newton was right. It's just that we've found more detailed, more accurate ways of describing the universe. Newton himself said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants. " Newton himself is one such giant, on whose shoulders modern scientists stand.

[Keronians]

Newton's laws of motion aren't wrong, they're inaccurate at obscenely high speeds. Similarly, you seem to be holding the evidence in favor of anthropogenic climate change to a much higher standard than that against it, leading me to believe your claims of only trying to be accurate are a lie.

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

When was it proven that an object will NOT remain stationary or move at a constant velocity when all forces acting on it are balanced?

When was it proven that F=ma is wrong?

Newton is only inaccurate in absurd circumstances.

[Avenio]

A Law cannot be a Law if there are exceptions. And, actually, Newton is always wrong. Just, on an everyday level, his equations give very accurate answers - but not completely accurate answers.

Proof that Newton's equations are wrong, s'il vous plait.

But, it seems no-one can even consider caution.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to decrease our carbon output and impact on the environment, just in case climate change is true, rather than risk the opposite?