Scientists predict 'millenium winter'......

[carlosMM]

OK so far. I did not know that weather could operate at such a large time period; no wonder climate scientists are always saying weather =/= climate whenever people bring up cold winters.

well, there are things that result in quite drastic weather changes over the course of several years (e.g., El Nino / La Nina) that arguably are climate oscillations. For our debate here, however, that's not relevant, so I'd like to count such things as weather, too (and mention when they threaten to screw decade-long means or so). For example, January to October 2010 was very warm worldwide because of El Nino, then a very strong La Nina came in and ruined all predictions based on a continued El Nino (but, to answer your previous criticism further, e.g., the UK Met Office had made a prediction explicitly saying that 2010 will be warmest if El Nino continues, but that a La Nina could make is less warm than earlier years. Denialists conveniently ignored the caveat and yelled foul play later.)

Another example of "weather" as far as we are concerned is Arctic oscillation, which was responsible for the very cold last winter in NA and Europe (but the rest of the world got roasted, so the global average was high). Do we care for that when we talk climate? Obviously yes, if we talk about the weather we will have in a few decades, or the climate in a specific place. But for the general pattern worldwide it doesn't really matter much. So we had (almost unusually) cold weather, Australia had very warm weather.

let's continue:

11) climate has varied strongly throughout Earth's history

12) the overall balance of energy on earth can be affected by changes in incoming energy and outgoing energy.

13) the physical properties and processes relating to climate have not changed (i.e., there is no mystery chemical that was doing something to climate that today does not exist anymore, so other such nonsense). Processes in the past can be expected to repeat themselves today if the same conditions exist.

14) Most gases present in the atmosphere are not influenced by radiation (i.e., we can ignore them), including nitrogen, oxygen, noble gases.

15) others, especially CO2, methane and water vapor, absorb infrared radiation

16) these gases show the ability to absorb IR radiation not only in the lab, but also in the atmosphere, keeping energy in the atmosphere that would, if no or a reduced amount of the gases were present, be given off into space. This is termed greenhouse effect.

17) an increased greenhouse effect leads to warming, a reduced one to cooling, because more / less energy is retained.

OK so far? if you are not sure about any point (e.g., is Co2 a greenhouse gas?), just say so!

 

[carlosMM]

Climate change is more of a long term change in environmental and therefore ecosystem. Anyone attempting to deny weather change is loony.

in fact, the opposite is usually done by denialists: they use cherrypicked weather data to "disprove" climate change. Lord Monckton is a prime example

 

[deanej]

Denialists conveniently ignored the caveat and yelled foul play later

The press conveniently ignored it too. I bet most people never knew it was there.

Overall good so far, though I do have a question on the water vapor part. Some people (such as first comment to this story: http://www.grist.org/article/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect) claim that as CO2 goes up, water vapor goes down. But other sources say the opposite is true. Which is right?

 

[carlosMM]

The press conveniently ignored it too. I bet most people never knew it was there.

Yup - why actually deal with what the press release says, when you can shorten it to a one-sentence thing any moron can understand?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8406839.stm

"This means that it is more likely than not 2010 will be the warmest in the instrumental record that dates back to 1860."

However it added: "A record warm year in 2010 is not a certainty, especially if the current El Nino was to unexpectedly decline rapidly near the start of 2010, or if there was a large volcanic eruption.

"We will review the forecast during 2010 as observation data become available."

as you can see these are verbatim quotes from the press release. Why so few media carry the true content is obvious: shorten to adjust to readers'/listeners' attention span. Many reports also insisted on giving "equal time/space" to "the other side". Oh well!

Overall good so far, though I do have a question on the water vapor part. Some people (such as first comment to this story: http://www.grist.org/article/water-vapor-accounts-for-almost-all-of-the-greenhouse-effect) claim that as CO2 goes up, water vapor goes down. But other sources say the opposite is true. Which is right?

Yeah, lots of people claim lots of things. You'll find comments here claiming the earth is 6000 years old. Guess what? but let's not jump ahead too much
(in fact, water vapor at the Co2 range we are talking about follows CO2, IIRC, so a CO2 increase jumpstarts a positive feedback loop, but also somewhat increases albedo [how light earth is, which determines how much visible light is thrown back into space]).

OK, let's stick to greenhouse effect for a bit:

18) an increased greenhouse effect equal less outgoing energy, shifting the energy balance and creating warming (see 12). This effect should warm nights proportionally more than an increase in incoming energy (visible light).

[DAYTIME: incoming light stays the same, thus the energy absorbed stays the same, and the amount of light reflected stays the same. IR is absorbed slightly more, though. Thus, a small increase during the say.
NIGHTTIME: no incoming, no outgoing. All the balance that's there to alter is IR, so more retention has a bigger influence than during the day.]

19) Because the IR radiation goes from the ground out to space, an increase of CO2 in the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) will increase the amount of energy absorbed there, and lead to warming in the troposphere. However, the IR radiation absorbed there will not be available to the higher level (stratosphere), so the stratosphere should be cooling.
In contrast, higher available incoming (visible) light should lead to an increase of absorption by the earth's surface, and thus influence day and night equally.

(note that 19) is a simple prediction based on nothing but the geometry of the sun-earth system and the IR-absorbing properties of greenhouse gases. No other factors are taken into account)

 

[pob]

Is climate change disprovable with the statistics available? No

Is global warming seen so far a significant change from earth's normal cyclical change in climate? No way of knowing for sure.

Does that mean we have to do something about it to stop the earth from turning into dessert a la late game Civ 4? No. The earth has a habit of cycling between ice age and nice warm planet. There is no reliable evidence to show that this won't continue to happen despite the recent warming. (Although there are worries about carbon deposits in ice melting etc.; I think it likely there are other feedback systems to push the planet back to ice age rather than "heat age".)

Does it mean we should do something to decrease global warming? Yes, if only to not have to tell our grandkids about how our generation ruined their planet if it does happen.


Scientists (particularly ecologists) are often flawed in wanting to maintain the status quo (keep the earth at its current nice warm temperature; try to revive nearly dead species whose natural habitats no longer exist). The first priority should be to preserve humanity; second priority to preserve workable ecosystems (not necessarily existing ecosystems) for other life. So in the long term, we should look to avoid the next ice age, rather than an overheated planet, as earth covered in ice is much more difficult to cultivate.


To pull it vaguely back on topic: The way climate change is reported by the press should have no bearing on how it is dealt with. On a national level, the solutions should be found apolitically by an unbiased thinktank (if such a thing can exist); on an international level, there should be large economic incentives for countries to reduce their environmental impact. The decisions should be kept out of reach of those who have vested interests in how climate change is managed.

 

[carlosMM]

Is climate change disprovable with the statistics available? No

To the contrary, a warming trend unprecedented within the entire existence of the genus Homo is statistically certain, there are well-known mechanism explaining it, and all aternative explanations suggested hitherto have been shown wrong.

OOPS!

Does that mean we have to do something about it to stop the earth from turning into dessert a la late game Civ 4? No. The earth has a habit of cycling between ice age and nice warm planet. There is no reliable evidence to show that this won't continue to happen despite the recent warming. (Although there are worries about carbon deposits in ice melting etc.; I think it likely there are other feedback systems to push the planet back to ice age rather than "heat age".)

Erh, so? If earth warms on average 5°, then continues to fluctuate into ice ages in a time scale of a few thousands of years, that still wreaks havoc with our grandchildren's world. Talk about draughts, flood, hurricanes, rising sea levels..... What good does it do to solve the problems we face in a few thousand at a much slower rate if within the next 200 years things will change rapidly and violently?

Does it mean we should do something to decrease global warming? Yes, if only to not have to tell our grandkids about how our generation ruined their planet if it does happen.

I fully agree that this si the stance that should be taken if there was any doubt left. However, the evidence is rock solid.

Scientists (particularly ecologists) are often flawed in wanting to maintain the status quo (keep the earth at its current nice warm temperature; try to revive nearly dead species whose natural habitats no longer exist). The first priority should be to preserve humanity; second priority to preserve workable ecosystems (not necessarily existing ecosystems) for other life. So in the long term, we should look to avoid the next ice age, rather than an overheated planet, as earth covered in ice is much more difficult to cultivate.

I disagree - if we ignore the short term consequences it is gonna screw up, in very predictable ways, the lives of billions of people within 200 years. We have triggered and are continuing to fuel change at an unprecedented rate. This will definitively lead to massive desertification worldwide, will screw up marine food chains, and thus much reduce our food supply. Preserving the "status quo" means preserving a world in which climate change is driven by natural forces, and thus slowly - if you look at rapid changes in the past these coincide with the largest mass extinctions.

To pull it vaguely back on topic: The way climate change is reported by the press should have no bearing on how it is dealt with. On a national level, the solutions should be found apolitically by an unbiased thinktank (if such a thing can exist); on an international level, there should be large economic incentives for countries to reduce their environmental impact. The decisions should be kept out of reach of those who have vested interests in how climate change is managed.

Yup!
Votes can be bought by buying public opinion, which can be done by buying the press, which is being done directly and indirectly. Which is exactly the kind of *excrement* mentioned in the OP.

 

[pob]

Maybe I should clarify what I said:

To the contrary, a warming trend unprecedented within the entire existence of the genus Homo is statistically certain, there are well-known mechanism explaining it, and all aternative explanations suggested hitherto have been shown wrong.

OOPS!

I said "disprove", i.e. climate change is stastically certain. This does not mean it will significantly budge the earth from its ice age cycles.

Erh, so? If earth warms on average 5°, then continues to fluctuate into ice ages in a time scale of a few thousands of years, that still wreaks havoc with our grandchildren's world. Talk about draughts, flood, hurricanes, rising sea levels..... What good does it do to solve the problems we face in a few thousand at a much slower rate if within the next 200 years things will change rapidly and violently?

Even if global warming isn't significant, something would have to be done to maintain the current climate patterns (to suit mankind) as the climate fluctuates over long periods of time: earth's most common climate state is a big ball of ice. Maintaining the status quo shouldn't be the aim (as it would be impossible); it should be keeping the planet able to sustain humans and other life, even if it is at the cost of losing some land to rising tide levels and altered climate patterns.
Extreme weathers exist without global warming, and if the increase in frequency is due to climate change, their frequency may reduce over time, it isn't possible to tell reliably. Again, this goes back to scientists wanting to keep the status quo, as they ony consider what may happen when certain tempering factors are removed, and they do not consider that new tempering factors may appear.

I disagree - if we ignore the short term consequences it is gonna screw up, in very predictable ways, the lives of billions of people within 200 years. We have triggered and are continuing to fuel change at an unprecedented rate. This will definitively lead to massive desertification worldwide, will screw up marine food chains, and thus much reduce our food supply. Preserving the "status quo" means preserving a world in which climate change is driven by natural forces, and thus slowly - if you look at rapid changes in the past these coincide with the largest mass extinctions.

It is not possible for mankind to maintain ecosystems effectively, particularly marine ecosystems. Ecologists are too naiive in the variables involved. Life finds a way: a loss for one species is usually a new niche to fill for another species. I don't think there is any proof of increased desertification (it is one of the few proofs the naysayers of climate change have that backs them up).


I guess my point is: we should adapt the world to us, rather than adapt us to the world or try to keep the world exactly the same.

Also: I hate ecologists!

 

[carlosMM]

Even if global warming isn't significant, something would have to be done to maintain the current climate patterns (to suit mankind) as the climate fluctuates over long periods of time: earth's most common climate state is a big ball of ice.

Over what time period?
Cause if you talk about the Holocene, that's wrong... if you talk back including the Pleistocene, that's wrong... if we go all the way back to K/T boundary it get wronger still.....

An important point you seem to miss is that "ball of ice" was only true for a very short time, and that was over 650 million years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
During ice ages many parts today inhabited by powerful civilizations were frozen over, but that's a very far cry from "iceball". Also, the next ice age, should ti come, is really far away.

Maintaining the status quo shouldn't be the aim (as it would be impossible); it should be keeping the planet able to sustain humans and other life, even if it is at the cost of losing some land to rising tide levels and altered climate patterns.

You seem to be using a scarecrow version of an ice age to argue for not limiting global warming - but both premises are questionable: that an ice age would be worse than what we are currently introducing, and that our current warming doesn't push earth out of the ice age bracket. Especially the latter will be a problem once Arctic ice is mostly gone, there simply won't be much albedo at the North pole to start a growing ice cap with.

Extreme weathers exist without global warming, and if the increase in frequency is due to climate change, their frequency may reduce over time, it isn't possible to tell reliably.

Yes it is: increases energy in the atmosphere will lead to more violent weather - that may abate long term, but that's again way outside the window during which we wreck havoc.

Again, this goes back to scientists wanting to keep the status quo, as they ony consider what may happen when certain tempering factors are removed, and they do not consider that new tempering factors may appear.

But they do - so far, though, all the suggested tempering factors (some of which work just fine, thank you) suck at helping us. Just thunk of global dimming via pollution - man did that do us good! Yes, it kept temps down, in fact induced global cooling despite rising CO2 - but at what cost?

Yes, long term earth will come into a (near-)equilibrium again - but so far nothing suggests that the now induced warming won't have all the listed bad consequences before such an equilibrium is reached. Basically, you promise that somehow, somewhen, things won't be too bad - care to suggest something of substance?

It is not possible for mankind to maintain ecosystems effectively, particularly marine ecosystems.

What do you mean? Do you mean that once we screw one up we can't manage to keep it going? True, which is why we must stop screwing them up.

Ecologists are too naiive in the variables involved.

Nope - they are just not as naive as you, who seems to think that natuer will find a way to our liking. They know very well that all we do are stopgap measures.

Life finds a way: a loss for one species is usually a new niche to fill for another species.

There you go.....
let's put this very simply: going from 10,000 sypecies to 5,000 within a few decades makes the ecosystem highly unstable. Our food supply depends on stability. Do you really think it is a good idea to let mass extinction happen?

I don't think there is any proof of increased desertification (it is one of the few proofs the naysayers of climate change have that backs them up).

Oh really?
There is sufficient proof for altered weather patterns, and how quickly they alter. Forests and soils need hundreds of years to grow, if changes happen in lesser time then forests will shrink in one place, but not be able to grow elsewhere. Overall, a loss of forests. Same is true for many other plant-rich systems, e.g., savannah compared to desert.
Much of the desertification is obviously caused by other reasons, most of them man-made, too. Doesn't really help.

I guess my point is: we should adapt the world to us, rather than adapt us to the world or try to keep the world exactly the same.

Hm, who just said that we can't get to grips with ecosystems? And now you want to actively shape them..... weird!

 

[pob]

Hm, who just said that we can't get to grips with ecosystems? And now you want to actively shape them..... weird!

Keeping together a struggling misunderstood ecosystem is very different to creating a new controlled one.

I agree with the rest, I know my argument is weak and I have no further justification of my reasoning without spending a few days digging through journals, which probably wouldn't get me far anyway.

 

[carlosMM]

Keeping together a struggling misunderstood ecosystem is very different to creating a new controlled one.

think of Biosphere 2, and other similar projects. None worked