Climate Change Denial (1 Viewer)

[Pompadour444]

Hi guys waiting for the next round, any chance of showing links to the letters that you speak about, at least us mere mortals can also see what you are talking about and quoting, if possible please.
Steve

 

[Simon M]

Actually, I haven't retreated from that - I still don't think it's the proven cause. I think it's a possible cause, but like Bosnich, Lindzen, etc. I am not sure that poorly understand natural factors, which seem to have caused climate change in the past, have been excluded.

But we know the relative radiative forcing properties of CO2, Methane and other gases through laboratory experiments. When modelled for the global system (coupled with other important factors such as atmospheric water vapour, dust and CFC etc) these numbers and predict reasonable accuracy with the warming which has already occured since the beginning of the industrial revolution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GCM_temp_anomalies_3_2000.jpg). Now admittedly these models have some limitations but they are improving all the time as understanding of the incredibly complex implications of the mixing of gases changes predictions of the was they trap vs reflect heat (E.g http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98GL01908.shtml). And these aren't any back of the envelope calculations, temperature and gas budgets are calculated in three dimensions for units down to a few kilometers cubed, producing millions of interacting variables. In fact even fairly recently computer processesing requirements have been an issue!
However these models do predict a the overall rise with a high degree of inaccuracy and the predictions for any given time in the last 110 years has never been greater than 0.2 degree C from observed temperatures.
Disproving models with a high degree of predictive accuracy requires an alternative explanation, which neither changes in solar irradiance nor natural variability (which is actually only predicts the short term oscillations on the line) can explain.

 

[Simon M]

I didn't say there won't be feedbacks, but I (like Bosnich, Lindzen, etc.) am sceptical about the feedbacks being positive. If they are negative, the warming would be less than 1 degree C. I refer you to Bosnich's letter on the evidence re. negative vs. positive feedbacks. By all means feel free to disagree with him.

So now now it's about the scale of the feedbacks. Well here is where the science is least certain, but even in abscence of any feedbacks the models for the radiative forcing of CO2 included in my last post predict a continued increase in temperatures. Even another 1 degree rise over the next century will be pretty bad for birds. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2004.00327.x/full
However some feedbacks are already becoming pretty clear. Methane levels are now at their highest for 400,000 years and continue to rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Methane-global-average-2006.jpg
This is most likely due to the continued melting of arctic permafrost
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7107/abs/nature05040.html
Shakhova et al. (2008) It is estimated that not less than 1,400 Gt of Carbon is presently locked up as methane and methane hydrates under the Arctic submarine permafrost, and 5-10% of that area is subject to puncturing by open taliks. They conclude that "release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage [is] highly possible for abrupt release at any time". That would increase the methane content of the planet's atmosphere by a factor of twelve. http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU2008/01526/EGU2008-A-01526.pdf
Methane is of course molecule for molecule around 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050718214744.htm - this also in several peer-review papers but not in any I could cite more than the abstract of).
Obviously a feedback deals with predicting the future rather than modelling the past and no-one is claiming with absolute certainty that such feedbacks will trip the earth into catastrophic warming. However, the predictive models which include such feedbacks seem extremely worrying, and there is suggestion that similar feedbacks have caused mass-extinctions in the past. http://web.archive.org/web/20071025225841/http://nmnaturalhistory.org/pdf_files/TJB.pdf

 

[John Cantelo]

To be honest I don't pretend to understand the detailed science of this debate - which is why I tend to side with the overwhelming majority professionals in this matter; global climate change is happening and is supported by the evidence. For the most part the naysayers are not professionally trained in the relevant disciplines and persist in pushing theories/'facts' long after they have been discredited. (One example will suffice - it is repeatedly claimed that Polar Bears are increasing ignoring a) if they are this is more likely to do with legal protection than proving climatic statis and b) the expert view is that they are declining overall). Many of the loudest voices come from a particular economic/social viewpoint (e.g. Lord Lawson) which trumps scientific integrity. I would recommend those with an interest in this (and related debates) reading "Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming" by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway (Bloomsbury, 2011). This is a fascinating study of how a small cadre of influential scientists obscured, essentially for politico-economic reasons, compelling evidence for many environmental problems. It traces a clear thread through various previous cause celbres showing that opposition to what science was clearly showing came from a political stance that feared 'socialism/big government' rather than a scientific analysis. Interesting.

However, what I am aware of, as someone with an interest in wildlife, is the increasing number of ways the natural world is reflecting, and thus supporting, an overall warming of the climate. Flowers emerging earlier, birds moving north earlier (e.g. Black Kites shifting their migration pattern about a month earlier than previously or Brambling range shifting northwards) and so on. This trend is best reflected in changes in insect distribution since these fast breeding organisms more quickly react to change. One example is Violet Dropwing (an African species) which was first found in Spain, where it is now quite common, in the late 1970s, reached France in the 1990s and is still spreading north. When examples like this are repeated time and time again demonstrating they are not isolated "one-offs" then even the most obdurate doubter ought to conclude that something is happening to the climate,

 

[jurek]

I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.

Changing climate does mean also 1) that warmer climate will be positive for many regions 2) all calculations show that adaptation to new climate is MUCH cheaper than prevention 3) current climate policies are not cost-effective, in fact are very wasteful.

Europe 1) cannot prevent warming climate anyway, because it accounts for a fraction of worldwide emissions 2) adapting/mitigating warmer climate is much cheaper than basically killing the economy to prevent the change 3) human population will benefit from warmer climate - changing from cold boreal to balmer Meditrerranean climate 4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages.

As evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.

 

[Simon M]

I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.

Changing climate does mean also 1) that warmer climate will be positive for many regions 2) all calculations show that adaptation to new climate is MUCH cheaper than prevention 3) current climate policies are not cost-effective, in fact are very wasteful.

Europe 1) cannot prevent warming climate anyway, because it accounts for a fraction of worldwide emissions 2) adapting/mitigating warmer climate is much cheaper than basically killing the economy to prevent the change 3) human population will benefit from warmer climate - changing from cold boreal to balmer Meditrerranean climate 4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages.

As evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.

I just constructed a long reply showing how virtually everything you've said is the opposite of what is shown by the actual evidence but birdforum logged my out when I pressed send. I think a more succinct reply is just to tell you to type 'climate change extinction risk', 'extinction caused by climate change' 'economic impacts of climate change' 'social impacts of climate change' and 'ecological consequences of climate change' 'the stern review' into the scholar tab on google or even wikipedia.
And in future at least bother to seperate positive and normative statements, it seems your thought process makes little distinction between them.

 

[Simon M]

4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages.
As evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.

But this is an entirely different rate of warming and species are obviously not adapting as evidence by the 866 peer-review studies! reviewed here... http://www.law.arizona.edu/AdaptationConference/PDFs/ParmesanAREES_Impacts2006.pdf
In fact multiple species level extinctions have already been observed as have changes in communites structures and ecosystem cycles.

I think jurek yours is the most scientifically ignorant post I have ever read. At least Squonk has some grasp of the evidence which exists.

 

[jurek]

@Simon M
Before spitting abuse at others, I suggest you get your reasoning right.

I commented that European wildlife is able to adapt to climate change. You respond by showing a paper from Texas, which mentions - that exactly what I said, European wildlife is adapting to cimate warming by shifting ranges north, breeding earlier etc.

ZERO example of species extinction in your paper, other than some frogs is Costa Rica - where it is only hypothesised that with colder climate, those frogs might have avoided introduced fungus. In fact, other frogs in regions with constant climate also succumbed to the same fungus.

So stop abuse.

 

[Simon M]

@Simon M
Before spitting abuse at others, I suggest you get your reasoning right.

I commented that European wildlife is able to adapt to climate change. You respond by showing a paper from Texas, which mentions - that exactly what I said, European wildlife is adapting to cimate warming by shifting ranges north, breeding earlier etc.

So stop abuse.

The paper I cited was a global review. Where something is written has no relevance. I gave you far more credit than you deserve.
http://www.pnas.org/content/99/9/6070.full
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v439/n7073/abs/nature04246.html
"the study of butterflies in northern Britain concluded that approximately half of the recent population-level extinctions were likely to have been caused by climate change"
http://webpages.icav.up.pt/PTDC/BIA-BEC/099915/2008/3.Thomas et al 2006 Oikos.pdf


And by the way, we're now into one of my fields of study, I know two of the authors of the previous paper so if you need me to keep beating you over the head with the virtually endless catalogue of scientific literature demonstrating the ecological impact of climate change I can.

Since you obviously can't work out how to google the search phrases I included previously here is some actual information on the socio-economic impacts of climate change.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFMPA21B1303M
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review
http://www.ehleringer.net/Biology_6964/Literature/Rosenzweig.pdf
http://books.google.de/books?id=07F...ge&q=climate change social inequality&f=false
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378003000827

 

[Imaginos]

Trophic level asynchrony in rates of phenological change for marine, freshwater and terrestrial environments

Abstract: "Recent changes in the seasonal timing (phenology) of familiar biological events have been one of the most conspicuous signs of climate change ... We present a standardized assessment of 25 532 rates of phenological change for 726 UK terrestrial, freshwater and marine taxa. The majority of spring and summer events have advanced, and more rapidly than previously documented. Such consistency is indicative of shared large scale drivers. Furthermore, average rates of change have accelerated in a way that is consistent with observed warming trends ... For the first time we show a broad scale signal of differential phenological change among trophic levels; across environments advances in timing were slowest for secondary consumers, thus heightening the potential risk of temporal mismatch in key trophic interactions. If current patterns and rates of phenological change are indicative of future trends, future climate warming may exacerbate trophic mismatching, further disrupting the functioning, persistence and resilience of many ecosystems and having a major impact on ecosystem services."

Climate change and the recent emergence of bluetongue in Europe

Abstract: "Bluetongue, a devastating disease of ruminants, has historically made only brief, sporadic incursions into the fringes of Europe. However, since 1998, six strains of bluetongue virus have spread across 12 countries and 800 km further north in Europe than has previously been reported. We suggest that this spread has been driven by recent changes in European climate that have allowed increased virus persistence during winter, the northward expansion of Culicoides imicola, the main bluetongue virus vector, and, beyond this vector's range, transmission by indigenous European Culicoides species - thereby expanding the risk of transmission over larger geographical regions. Understanding this sequence of events may help us predict the emergence of other vector-borne pathogens."

(This paper was published in 2005, in 2006 it appeared in the northern Europe, resulting in major losses in the agricultural sector, including 42% mortality in Belgian sheep flocks.)

Birds are tracking climate warming, but not fast enough

Abstract: "Range shifts of many species are now documented as a response to global warming. But whether these observed changes are occurring fast enough remains uncertain and hardly quantifiable. Here, we developed a simple framework to measure change in community composition in response to climate warming. This framework is based on a community temperature index (CTI) that directly reflects, for a given species assemblage, the balance between low- and high-temperature dwelling species. Using data from the French breeding bird survey, we first found a strong increase in CTI over the last two decades revealing that birds are rapidly tracking climate warming. This increase corresponds to a 91 km northward shift in bird community composition, which is much higher than previous estimates based on changes in species range edges. During the same period, temperature increase corresponds to a 273 km northward shift in temperature. Change in community composition was thus insufficient to keep up with temperature increase: birds are lagging approximately 182 km behind climate warming. Our method is applicable to any taxa with large-scale survey data, using either abundance or occurrence data. This approach can be further used to test whether different delays are found across groups or in different land-use contexts.


Yeah, all hunky dory. (and note - no blog-science references)

 

[jurek]

virtually endless catalogue of scientific literature demonstrating the ecological impact of climate change I can.

I thought that you are just rude, now I see you have problems with understanding and reasoning.

Ecological impact is a meaningless catchphrase. Ecology is always changing and everything, anytime, had, has and will have ecological impact. Studying it is interesting activity, but this is NOT what society is concerned about.

To dupe people into paying billions of pounds and euro in the middle of economic crisis, you should demonstrate more. That the impact is only negative and of magnitude really justifying billions of pounds spent. And - most importantly - the money will be spend the best way possible. The facts speak opposite.

Here is an example of the recent, realistic not alarmist approach:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-16730834
"Climate change this century poses both risks and opportunities, according to the first comprehensive government assessment of its type."

"Hotter summers leading to between 580-5900 deaths above the average per year by the 2050s." but: "Milder winters leading to 3,900-24,000 fewer premature deaths by the 2050s, significantly more than those forecast to die as a result of hot weather." I would say 4-6 times more.

So you can stop picking only scary stories and throwing at people.

 

[Imaginos]

I don't want to try to defend the work of everyone whose name crops up in this discussion.

But you're quite happy to defame the hundreds of scientists who, whilst they don't have blogs, are actually working in the field and know enough about the subject to write papers and advance scientific knowledge of climate change and its effects.

Example:

But if you apply a sceptical mind to these 'rebuttals' and try to understand the technical details, it starts to look as though the 'authorities' themselves don't really understand the issues, and are just parrotting other 'authorities'.

I can only refer people to his blog 'Climate Audit' where he may have already dealt with your criticisms (or he may not; I don't know).

I can tell you that he hasn't, and that appealing to blog-science is a pretty poor show.

I read all sorts

Not enough primary literature and too much partisan blogging by the looks of it.

Well, let's just deal with one hockey stick at a time.

Why? Can't find any rebuttals to the massive loss of Arctic Ice in blogland?

Squonk, apparently you are a teacher. Would you accept from your students an essay that presented the conspiracy theories of a blogger documented in a book by a chartered accountant in preference to the testimony of experts in their field? If so, I've got a good website for you to teach them: http://www.timecube.com/, or maybe this: http://conservapedia.com/Main_Page

 

[Simon M]

And obviously extinction is the endpoint of decline so here are some european birds with declines causally linked to climate change...
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009AGUFMPA21B1303M
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2hh11ya8wyd74dpl/
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/42/16195.short

 

[John Cantelo]

I think so-called climate activists deriberately misdirect the debate to get dotations to ineffective climate subsidies under "moral panic" of supposedly catastrophic change.

Changing climate does mean also 1) that warmer climate will be positive for many regions 2) all calculations show that adaptation to new climate is MUCH cheaper than prevention 3) current climate policies are not cost-effective, in fact are very wasteful.

Europe 1) cannot prevent warming climate anyway, because it accounts for a fraction of worldwide emissions 2) adapting/mitigating warmer climate is much cheaper than basically killing the economy to prevent the change 3) human population will benefit from warmer climate - changing from cold boreal to balmer Meditrerranean climate 4) has wildlife already adapted to fast change during the passing of Ice Ages.

As evidenced by southern birds, butterflies etc spreading north. Including John's Dropwing, all the cool white egrets colonizing Europe etc.

I'm afraid that I'm not quite as sanguine about the ramifications of climate change as Jurek. Climate instability may cause greater problems than simple 'warming' and the switching off of the gulf stream may indeed make large areas of Europe (densely populated all) much colder. How cost effective adapting to climate change will be, rather then moderating its influence, depends rather on how disruptive the changes prove to be and there seem to be a wide variety of opinions on this matter. Although wildlife may adapt in the short term and, ultimately, in the long term, the intervening period as things become less predictable could be a less then positive experience for humanity. Some 'climate change sceptics' blythely talk abot the relocation of whole populations as if this could be achieved by simple fiat. Indeed the Micawberish 'everything will turn out OK' seems more an excuse for inaction than a rigorous anaylysis. I hope Jurek's right in what I regard as a somewhat optimistic view, but I suspect that in reality things will prove a lot more problematical,

 

[jurek]

And obviously extinction is the endpoint of decline so here are some european birds with declines causally linked to climate change...

Simon, you are simply ridiculous by scaring people that every bird shifting range northwards in warming climate will go extinct.

I understand that scientists try to get research grants by studing "global warming with everything" but this is plain wrong.

 

[jurek]

Climate instability may cause greater problems than simple 'warming' and the switching off of the gulf stream may indeed make large areas of Europe (densely populated all) much colder.

Yes, I also heard that, but this idea seems to be abandoned. As well as ideas about 6m sea level rise, Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035 etc etc.

However, eg. percentage of European pollution against China and India (which made sure it will not follow climate policies) remains firm fact.

 

[fugl]

I understand that scientists try to get research grants by studing "global warming with everything" but this is plain wrong.

God, the old gravy train argument again. How pathetic!

 

[Squonk]

For Pompadour444: apologies, here's the letter to which I was referring:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2012/2/12/a-letter-to-paul-nurse.html

But you're quite happy to defame the hundreds of scientists ... Example:

"But if you apply a sceptical mind to these 'rebuttals' and try to understand the technical details, it starts to look as though the 'authorities' themselves don't really understand the issues, and are just parrotting other 'authorities'."

By 'authorities' I was not referring to scientists working in the field of climate, as I thought was clear in the original context (but apologies if not). Regarding defamation of scientists, in this thread I think that was started by your side in this argument (albeit not by you).

hundreds of scientists who, whilst they don't have blogs, are actually working in the field

Some professional climate scientists have blogs too, including several of the scientists that I named earlier.
Roy Spencer: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Judith Curry: http://judithcurry.com/
Roger Pielke Snr.: http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

I can tell you that he hasn't

I'm not even sure what your criticisms are or whether they are valid, but you could always post them in comments at McIntyre's blog.

appealing to blog-science is a pretty poor show.

The boundaries between 'blogging' and 'science' seem to be blurring more and more in recent years, as shown by the links above.

Likewise Steve McIntyre posts most of his work on his blog, but he has also published in the peer-reviewed literature.
(For those who want a link to his blog: http://climateaudit.org/)

Not enough primary literature and too much partisan blogging by the looks of it.

See my 'blurring' comment above.

Well, let's just deal with one hockey stick at a time.

Why? Can't find any rebuttals to the massive loss of Arctic Ice in blogland?

No, it's because I don't know much about the other hockey sticks, and I don't have the time to educate myself. I haven't even looked for any 'rebuttal' to the loss of arctic ice, which was especially pronounced in 2007, as it is quite clearly shown in the satellite imagery.

Would you accept from your students an essay that presented the conspiracy theories of a blogger

I don't think 'conspiracy theories' is an accurate description of the book's content. It is more about the blogger's (McIntyre's) attempts to reproduce the hockey stick graph from the same data. It merely lays out a sequence of events which (I think) speak for themselves.

a book by a chartered accountant in preference to the testimony of experts in their field?

Certainly the scientists responsible for the 'hockey stick' graph are painted in a poor light by the book, but certainly not climate scientists in general. The aforementioned Judith Curry is quoted on her Wikipedia page thus:

"I’ve been engaging with skeptics since 2006 (before starting [my blog], I engaged mainly at [McIntyre's blog]). People were suspicious and wondered what I was up to, but the vilification didn’t start until I recommended that people read The Hockey Stick Illusion. The book itself, plus more significantly my vilification simply for recommending that people read the book, has pushed me over the ledge and into a mode of aggressively challenging the IPCC consensus."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Curry

 

[Imaginos]

Some professional climate scientists have blogs too, including several of the scientists that I named earlier.

Interesting that you left out the blog that is run by a number od climate scientists, each one of which has more climate papers than any of yours put together.

www.realclimate.org


But as I alluded, blogs are blogs, science is carried out in the journals as they provide a quality control absent in blogland - hence Judith Curry, for all her publications elsewhere has no more authority than the timecube guy when it comes to her blog.

To actually see the science there's no better place than the IPCC which was set up to collate the current knowledge (see here) and the references contained therein.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question.

 

[Squonk]

Interesting that you left out the blog that is run by a number od climate scientists, each one of which has more climate papers than any of yours put together.

www.realclimate.org

Yes, that's another one, and one that is much discussed at the other blogs (and in the book "The Hockey Stick Illusion").

To actually see the science there's no better place than the IPCC

This is something which is increasingly being questioned, e.g. see Judith Curry quote above. The procedures by which the IPCC selects papers to cite, selects its authors, responds to reviewer comments, etc., have all come in for some criticism. Some of the events related in the 'Hockey Stick Illusion' are illuminating in respect of this.

There's also this recent book which I haven't read and so can't vouch for, but the quote from Richard Tol (see 'Product Description') is certainly striking:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Delinquent-...VB8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1329248791&sr=8-1

Anyway, you didn't answer my question.

I'm happy for you and anyone else reading to make their mind up whether I did or not.