What happened to Global Warming?

[JerrySeinfeld]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

Fortunately for us, Galileo didn't think in terms of "consensus".

My favorite line:

“One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over.”

Odd prose for an outfit (the BBC) which has been a reliable champion of AGW.

[Moonlight Graham]

People should read peer-reviewed scholarly sources on climate change, not some reporter's findings. How the heck do we know his "facts" and stats are correct?

Same goes with Al Gore.

[PocketRocket]

I've always been a member of the "We're not absolutely sure one way or the other, so why take chances" camp.

If we are indeed in for 10-20 or even 30 years of "cooler" temperatures, we can see what happens with all those glaciers which have receded in recent times. Whether or not they start making a comeback should give us a fairly good yardstick....

[Riverwind]

I've always been a member of the "We're not absolutely sure one way or the other, so why take chances" camp.

Well you are not sure that your house might burn down but would you pay $100,000/year for a policy? Risk must always be balanced against cost.

If we are indeed in for 10-20 or even 30 years of "cooler" temperatures, we can see what happens with all those glaciers which have receded in recent times. Whether or not they start making a comeback should give us a fairly good yardstick....

If something else is causing the warming then the glaciers would still retreat and that would not provide any evidence that action on CO2 is necessary or helpful.

There is absolutely no direct evidence that supports the claim that CO2 caused the majority of the recent warming - it is claim based on the the claim the warming cannot be explained unless CO2 is added to the models. A 30 year 'stall' in the warming would demonstrate that climate models have missed something big and that it is not possible to claim that nothing else could explain the warming.

[Riverwind]

People should read peer-reviewed scholarly sources on climate change, not some reporter's findings. How the heck do we know his "facts" and stats are correct?

Peer review does not help either since there are plently of peer reviewed papers that are junk. The best way to build confidence is an open process where all of the analyses are conducted openly with publically available data. Anyone should be able to verify that the analyses have been done correctly and it should be easy to to provide counter analyses if someone disagrees.

Peer reviewed journals are supposed to provide this but the have failed to live up to their responsibilities by allowing authors to keep data secret and by imposing rediculous limits on the length of responses to bad papers that make it through peer review. There are a few scientific blogs that try to fill the gap left by the journals but that has created a rediculous situation where some peer reviewed papers are used by policy makers and propogandists even though they have been shown to be junk on blogs because it takes time and money to get the ideas on blog into the peer reviewed literature. In my opinion, if the information is out there in whatever form and it should not be ignored simply because it has not gone through process.

Edited October 18, 2009 by Riverwind

[Dreamer]

It's very little to do with CO2. When you place frosted stuff into your microwave, do you think much about CO2? Influence of solar and outer space radiation to our planet is much more sufficient than carbon dioxide.

[weareone]

There may be a good offshoot of global warming, but I am not sure. They are predicting the Northwest Passage will be ice free shortly which means that shipping to the Pacific Ocean will be significantly shortened. No longer will ships have to go down to the Panama Canal to gain access to the Pacific. Not good for the Panamians but maybe good for global trade. Probably pros and cons to this issue.

[eyeball]

Probably pros and cons to this issue.

There are prostitutes and confidence men at at every turn in this issue.

[Argus]

There may be a good offshoot of global warming, but I am not sure. They are predicting the Northwest Passage will be ice free shortly which means that shipping to the Pacific Ocean will be significantly shortened.

Yeah, the problem was the northwest passage was navigable by the Vikings - well before anyone invented the internal combustion engine. So why was that again?

[PocketRocket]

Riverwind: thanks for the reply. If I may.......

Well you are not sure that your house might burn down but would you pay $100,000/year for a policy? Risk must always be balanced against cost.

That's more than the value of my house. However, there is a flaw in your analogy.

If my house burns down, I can build another.

If we make the planet uninhabitable, it would be kinda hard to replace it.

If something else is causing the warming then the glaciers would still retreat and that would not provide any evidence that action on CO2 is necessary or helpful.

No question. Warmth is warmth, whether it's caused by the sun or by a fire.

There is absolutely no direct evidence that supports the claim that CO2 caused the majority of the recent warming - it is claim based on the the claim the warming cannot be explained unless CO2 is added to the models.

True again, but the fact that significant measurable increases in amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere have occurred in recent times should give us some cause for concern, even if it's not directly related to warming. The planet's atmosphere has evolved over millions of years, right along with the flora and fauna. Is it wise to tamper too much with such a delicate mixture???

A 30 year 'stall' in the warming would demonstrate that climate models have missed something big and that it is not possible to claim that nothing else could explain the warming.

Anyone dealing with such a huge collection of variable as a planet's atmosphere, or any ecosytem for that matter, is bound to miss something.

The science guys can only do the best they can, but science also evolves....

[Sir Bandelot]

There is absolutely no direct evidence that supports the claim that CO2 caused the majority of the recent warming - it is claim based on the the claim the warming cannot be explained unless CO2 is added to the models.

But they have measured the co2 levels directly, and they are increasing. So this in combination with the model that shows the effect of co2 increasing is strong evidence. I don't know if youwould call it 'direct'. No other evidence is as direct as that.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/...91008152242.htm

[Shady]

Yeah, the problem was the northwest passage was navigable by the Vikings - well before anyone invented the internal combustion engine. So why was that again?

Exactly. And they travelled from Greenland, named after its once green landscape.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Exactly. And they travelled from Greenland, named after its once green landscape.

I always thought they were trying to make the people in Iceland jealous.

[JerrySeinfeld]

That's more than the value of my house. However, there is a flaw in your analogy.

If my house burns down, I can build another.

If we make the planet uninhabitable, it would be kinda hard to replace it.

There is a flaw in your analogy too: a 1 degree change in global temperatures over the past century is hardly "uninhabitable"

In fact, history has shown that warmer conditions have been more amenable to life, not hostile to it.

[Riverwind]

But they have measured the co2 levels directly, and they are increasing. So this in combination with the model that shows the effect of co2 increasing is strong evidence. I don't know if youwould call it 'direct'. No other evidence is as direct as that.

That is not evidence that CO2 CAUSES the temperature to rise. That is just evidence that CO2 levels have gone up which I do not dispute. If you look at evidence from the ice cores you will see that CO2 only rises after the temperatures rise. The AGW claims is that the majority of warming in the last 50 years was caused by CO2 yet there is no one shred of evidence outside of the climate models that supports that claim. Edited October 20, 2009 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

That's more than the value of my house. However, there is a flaw in your analogy.

If my house burns down, I can build another.

If we make the planet uninhabitable, it would be kinda hard to replace it.

Well the claim that planet would become uninhabitable is complete and total fiction that is NOT supported by any science. AGW is only a human economic problem because our large population and fixed settlements make it harder to adapt to sudden changes. But the planet will still be more that habitable no matter what we do with CO2.

Anyone dealing with such a huge collection of variable as a planet's atmosphere, or any ecosytem for that matter, is bound to miss something.

The science guys can only do the best they can, but science also evolves....

Of course, except when you have a huge number of politicians, activists and businesses who depend on a certain set of scientific conclusions. This makes it next to impossible to change conclusions as new evidence comes in and that is a huge problem.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Of course, except when you have a huge number of politicians, activists and businesses who depend on a certain set of scientific conclusions. This makes it next to impossible to change conclusions as new evidence comes in and that is a huge problem.

Especially when any scientist who presents evidence contrary to the "consensus" he is ostracized or brandished as a liar.

That kind of reaction doesn't strike me as scientific. The closest thing I would akin such a reaction to is...well, religion.

Reminds me a lot of Galileo.

[GostHacked]

I'll tell ya what happend to Global Warming .. it got cold feet.

[M.Dancer]

I for one will welcome global warming with open arms and an open mind. I think climate change is inevitable whether it is natural or man made and only a fool wouldn't think about the possible economic benifits.

[Sir Bandelot]

That is not evidence that CO2 CAUSES the temperature to rise. That is just evidence that CO2 levels have gone up which I do not dispute. If you look at evidence from the ice cores you will see that CO2 only rises after the temperatures rise. The AGW claims is that the majority of warming in the last 50 years was caused by CO2 yet there is no one shred of evidence outside of the climate models that supports that claim.

Well, I believe in science but not politics, and the mechanism of retaining heat in greenhouse gases is well understood. I read a book about planet Venus last year that explained that the study of the venusian atmosphere led to the discovery of the greenhouse effect. Carbon Dioxide has certain electronic properties that make it transparent to solar radiation, but absorb light at lower infrared frequencies. This allows energy from the sun to pass through, where it heats planet surface and reflects the heat as IR radiation. But the CO2 in the atmosphere blocks this radiation from being able to escape. back out into space.

I wouldn't say there is "not one shred of evidence", but there is "some" evidence.

[Riverwind]

Well, I believe in science but not politics, and the mechanism of retaining heat in greenhouse gases is well understood.

The basic physics is well understood but the complex feedback mechanisms within the climate system are not understood at all. We simply do not know how much warming to expect from a given amount of CO2. The only people playing politics are the activists who take a well known fact and try to use that to claim that a long list of related assumptions must also be true.

This allows energy from the sun to pass through, where it heats planet surface and reflects the heat as IR radiation. But the CO2 in the atmosphere blocks this radiation from being able to escape. back out into space.

Sure. And the basic calculations based on this physics suggest the earth will not warm more than a 1-2 degC even if CO2 doubles from its current concentration. All of the scary scenarios peddled by alarmists require that this CO2 effect be amplified by a myriad of complex feedbacks involving water and the clouds. There is no conclusive evidence that such large feedbacks exist and the recent cooling trend starting to look like pretty strong evidence that they don't exist.

Clouds are the biggest wild card because the could theoretically do anything from cancelling out the entire CO2 effect or amplifying it into a true disaster. They are also something that the climate models can not model which means errors in the cloud approximations could mean that all of the climate model outputs are completely wrong. That is why we cannot treat the climate model outputs as useful information - they might be right but they could be completely wrong.