What Do We Think About Climate Change

Its oscillates, it vacillates, its climate, its a cycle... more CO2, less CO2 we have had it all and yet we have not spiraled off into hell yet. Don't ya think that just maybe its a self balancing system that is in a constant state of flux oscillating between extremes far greater than our leaders are scaring us with now? Oh the myopic hubris to believe we are a force that can change its direction in a few short years. We are concerning ourselves with the ships political life and ignoring the navigation while we heading for another iceberg... typically human!

 

If only the loons were self-balancing, they might be less "loonish".

I am not talking about waterfowl.

 

Proof is plentiful. The ubiquitous ~20x figure accounts only for the direct thermal effects. The last ~6X results from methane's longer residence time than CO2. This last point is important as some scientists who study the residence time of methane say that methane is really more like 40-50X as potent a greenhouse agent, simply because of residence time. The 26X is really a 'safe', conservative estimate.

I don't bother digging up references for your requests, Diego. It's just not worth the effort.

Jimbo

 

About belching and farting....very rapidory
http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2009/07/greenhouse-gases-and-livestock.html

 

January 27, 2010 'The Times' newspaper - front page, lead article to be precise.

Science tsar John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.

John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding.

Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports.

He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

He said that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

“Certain unqualified statements have been unfortunate. We have a problem in communicating uncertainty. There’s definitely an issue there. If there wasn’t, there wouldn’t be the level of scepticism. All of these predictions have to be caveated by saying, ‘There’s a level of uncertainty about that’.”

Professor Beddington said that particular caution was needed when communicating predictions about climate change made with the help of computer models.

“It’s unchallengeable that CO2 traps heat and warms the Earth and that burning fossil fuels shoves billions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere. But where you can get challenges is on the speed of change.

“When you get into large-scale climate modelling there are quite substantial uncertainties. On the rate of change and the local effects, there are uncertainties both in terms of empirical evidence and the climate models themselves.”

He said that it was wrong for scientists to refuse to disclose their data to their critics: “I think, wherever possible, we should try to ensure there is openness and that source material is available for the whole scientific community.”

He added: “There is a danger that people can manipulate the data, but the benefits from being open far outweigh that danger.”

Phil Jones, the director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and a contributor to the IPCC’s reports, has been forced to stand down while an investigation takes place into leaked e-mails allegedly showing that he attempted to conceal data.

In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Professor Beddington said that uncertainty about some aspects of climate science should not be used as an excuse for inaction: “Some people ask why we should act when scientists say they are only 90 per cent certain about the problem. But would you get on a plane that had a 10 per cent chance of crashing?”

Mike Hulme, Professor of Climate Change at the University of East Anglia, said: “Climate scientists get kudos from working on an issue in the public eye but with that kudos comes responsibility. Being open with data is part of that responsibility.”

He criticised Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, for his dismissive response last November to research suggesting that the UN body had overstated the threat to the glaciers. Mr Pachauri described it as “voodoo science”.

Professor Hulme said: “Pachauri’s choice of words has not been good. The question of whether he is the right person to lead the IPCC is for the 193 countries who make up its governing body. It’s a political decision.”

The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt

Sea levels

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095

Arctic sea ice

Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially

Global temperatures

The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.

Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend
++

The scientists are enjoying their moment of glory in front of the cameras before admitting its a hoax and skulking back into oblivion.

 

Looks like Boston fell off the wagon again. I never claimed to be a scientist, Boston has. Once again he engages in ad hominem attacks and insults, arguments from authority, and just plain drunken rage that someone challenges his "superior" intellect. I mentioned peer review papers because he so reveers the concept but fails to mention that simply being peer reveiwed doesn't prove a theory. In fact, considering the way his beloved College of Cardinals protecting the dogma of AGW have hijacked the peer review process and turned it into a propaganda machine the process has become meaningless. With the AGW house of cards becoming a soggy mess of cardboard after so much of the world pissing on its phony assertions and junk science, expect folks like Boston to become even more shrill than he has up to now. When all you have to prop up your neurosis and zero growth, wack job cultist views is some really poor work,sloppy research,and not at all subtle fraud and deceitt, you end up with effluent like the type that Boston posts all the time. His cultural elitism would be offensive if it were not so pathetic and insular. But I kind of like the guy, he makes the rest of us look so balanced.

 

And you expect others do. Not good enough. You are not even realising that 26 is even more than what I said, so it works fine for me, but I'd like to know that for a little more certain. Just taking it from you is not good enough either.

You are not a scientist, nor in the know.

But of course, when it comes to confirming your own opinions, you suddenly do not want to. Wonder why?

Shaky and fragile argument.

 

Well spotted by RHP. I liked the part: "Science grows and improves in the light of criticism."

Not belting and hanging the oponent. Discussing and weighing the pros and cons, in search of truth.

Something resident authorities here lack abundantly.

 

It's not that I won't do it; it's already been done before, earlier in the thread. It's just that I won't do it for you.

Jimbo

 

A good judge of character I see.

 

You mean clouds and precipitation really do control/limit the water vapor concentration? Golly, gee, I would NEVER have guessed that! Thank god for NASA!

Jimbo

 

Errata:

"Thank God" should read "Thank Dwight D. Eisenhower"



Jimbo

 

The latest on the global warming scam.
Biofuel has spinned off from the global warming scam as one of the proposed solutions. Biofuel is now linked to famine in third world countries growing biofuel stock in stead of food.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ptics-plenty-of-ammunition-20100127-mywc.html
If you run the you tube interview you will get a few seconds of publicity by woolworths, sorry about that but I can not delete it. Bloody capitalists!

 

Zed, always a bitter soul. If jimbo had a bit of common sense, he could have said that long time ago, and I would have looked it up. But he preferred to be arrogant, almost as you are.

That isthe only weapon you guys have, no? Forgetting that you are presenting someone else's opinion because you have no idea whether the one you are quoting is actually telling the truth either.

True, some are hellbent on drumming up climate change without much of evidence, but that does not mean that there isn't an element of human contribution. That has been established long time ago. It is just not as alarming as it is presented nowadays.

Will be laughable if another series of emails pops uip debunking skeptics too.

Wouldn't eliminate the arrogance, but would make some look like real primates.

 

I think there's are some scientists in this thread who have NEVER guessed that either....