Article by on climate change by James Lovelock

[gregorach]

Paleoclimatologists use ice sheets, tree rings, and other data to model the climate as it was before. Where is the problem with calling it one aspect of climate modelling?

That's not what it's called. Modelling and reconstruction are quite different things. One of the key things in science is the use of precise terminology.

GCMs don't base everything just on physics: they use trends and events (not just climate, but political and economic) to attempt to predict the future. If they didn't, then they would be useless.

The models themselves are based on physics. The scenarios the models are used to investigate involve economic projections, but those projections are not part of the model itself.

 

[Doc]

You know, I see a parallel between the climate change issue and MMR vaccination.

With MMR, virtually the whole scientific community made an evidence based decision that MMR did not cause autism.

A small number of people, (who were not immunologists, paediatricians or epidemiologists) were extremely vocal arguing it did.

Watching the news, you would think it was a 50/50 split, as in the interests of 'balance' each view got equal coverage.

Now there is much less discussion and all the new evidence is in line with the previous evidence. MMR vaccination rates are recovering. But not before we have had a number of completely preventable dead and damaged children.

 

[gunslinger]

Sorry to go off at a tangent.

I am not disputing the claims,for the benefits of MMR as I am not a doctor,although TBH I trust them as much as politicians.

The thing I find very strange is ,when I was a kid if any of your mates got measles,mumps or rubella (as we called it German measles) you were sent to play with them. So everyone got it and got over it.
I have this discussion many times with friends of my age group, and I have never yet found anyone who knows a single person who was killed or disabled in any way from any of these illness's.

So what changed ??

GS

 

[gregorach]

I'm really not getting started on the whole MMR business - I'll leave that to Doc.

However, to return breifly (and hopefully finally) to the topic of AGW, those making arguments about the economic costs of mitigation might like to read this: Surprise—Economists Agree!
A consensus is emerging about the costs of containing climate change.

If you look closely at what climate economists are saying, you can discern two areas of basic agreement. First, there is a broad consensus that the cost of climate inaction would greatly exceed the cost of climate action—it's cheaper to act than not to act.

[...]

The second area of consensus concerns the short-term cost of climate action—the question of how expensive it will be to preserve a climate that is hospitable to humans. The Environmental Defense Fund pointed to this consensus last year when it published a study of five nonpartisan academic and governmental economic forecasts and concluded that "the median projected impact of climate policy on U.S. GDP is less than one-half of one percent for the period 2010-2030, and under three-quarters of one percent through the middle of the century."

 

[gzornenplat]

You know, I see a parallel between the climate change issue and MMR vaccination.

I agree that there is a parallel, but there are major differences - with MMR, no-one disputes
that there is a problem in the first place (those viruses cause those diseases), the cost of
the cure to the individual is zero, the cost to industry and jobs is zero, the cost to the
country is little more than a banker's bonus, and the individual can choose whether to
participate or not.

 

[gregorach]

Actually, there are plenty of people who dispute the idea that those viruses cause those diseases. Plenty of anti-vaxers do not accept the germ theory of disease at all.

 

[gzornenplat]

Actually, there are plenty of people who dispute the idea that those viruses cause those diseases. Plenty of anti-vaxers do not accept the germ theory of disease at all.

How many doctors?

 

[gregorach]

About as many as there are climatologists who dispute AGW, and it depends on exactly what you mean by "doctor". For one, there's Dr Christiane Northrup MD, who has claimed that Pasteur recanted the germ theory on his deathbed:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/08/woo_and_antivaccinationism_in_mainstream.php

 

[ASH]

I would just like to add a few comments to this lively thread!

There are many "systems" which are well known and understood by scientists that cause major climate change. For example:

-The effect of the Sun and it's rythmical cycles
-The ocean currents and changes in salinaty
-Volcanic activity
-Plant cover
-Ice cover

All these elements have their own effects and reactions to each other and yes they will all happen with or without human interaction.

I don't think anybody disputes this, but what climate scientists are saying is that our actions do impact on these systems and I am not just talking about CO2 but water/land usage all have an impact. I quite agree their should be serious debate and analysis of climate data to understand these impacts but I find it ridiculous that people even question that Humans have an impact on their environment.

I do despair when I hear the comments "well it will happen anyway so why bother". Just because something will happen does not mean you can make efforts to reduce the risks involved and not make matters worse.

I agree with some of the comments above about focusing on our ability to adapt to climate change as this is also important but let us find solutions and actions that do not require going to earths store cupboard and getting some more as that is not sustainable.

The detail of climate systems and how they interact is complex but that does not stop non specialists understanding the need to reduce our impact on our environment.

I think we all understand that in the summer it is warmer so we turn off /down our heating, we don't leave it on or turn it up because we can't be bothered as it will get warmer what ever we do. An over simplified example I know but just highlights how wrong it is to do nothing.

May the debate continue!

 

[Husky]

Not perfectly on topic but I found this interesting.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/0,1518,606763,00.html

 

[gregorach]

Jevons paradox strikes again! The EU "cap and trade" system is a bad joke - not that the idea itself is flawed, but the implementation (whereby they issue more certificates than are actually needed and give them away for free) is completely stupid. It almost as if it was designed to fail...

 

[gzornenplat]

Hi Ash,

I agree with all you say (except turning the heating off in summer - my heating is set to
kick in at the point where I feel cold and I want it to do that based on current temperature,
not the season - sorry if that is not 'the right thing to do' )

I'm not a denier of climate change, or that mankind is causing it, but I do require proof
before I believe in something and there are many problems with the various theories that
are presented. For example, sea levels will rise because the ice caps will melt, but at the
same time, there are people who say that the Gulf Stream will change its course and so
will the jet streams, and the northern hemisphere will experience another ice age.

So there are contradictions and if you ask about these, then proponents seem to select
only the forecasts that fit their view and interpret them in the same way that some people
justify things with selective quotes from the bible.

There are other problems that don't seem to have a logical basis: CO2 lags temperature
change and therefore is (if the correlation indicates cause and effect) an effect of
temperature change. GWers say that other factors started the increase and that CO2
causes temperature change as well. There is no proof that other events did that, but
GWers say that there must be or their theory is stuffed.

It may be true, though, but if temperature causes CO2 rise and CO2 rise causes
temperature rise, then both will spiral upwards out of control and that hasn't happened
in the past. CO2 levels have been way above what they are now, and they came back
down naturally.

'CO2 has a logarithmic effect, though' the GWers say, but if that is true, it is self-
limiting.

Those are just a couple of examples, but there are many others - why has there been
no global temperature increase in the last 10 years (IPCC figures) but CO2 is still 'out
of control'?

The detail of climate systems and how they interact is complex
but that does not stop non specialists understanding the need to reduce
our impact on our environment.

In the UK, we need to manage our environment. There isn't a square mile
in the UK that is how it would be if mankind didn't exist. Maybe the odd remote island
or two.

The need to reduce our impact on our current environment is true whether GW is
happening or not and whether AGW is a fact or not. Not chopping down trees to
make shelters when you can buy a re-usable tarp for a few quid would be a start.

 

[gregorach]

There are other problems that don't seem to have a logical basis: CO2 lags temperature
change and therefore is (if the correlation indicates cause and effect) an effect of
temperature change. GWers say that other factors started the increase and that CO2
causes temperature change as well. There is no proof that other events did that, but
GWers say that there must be or their theory is stuffed.

Oh, come off it - Milankovitch cycles fall out of Newton's Theory of Gravitation and Laws of Motion. You got a problem with orbital dynamics as well now? Perhaps we do need that NASA software after all...

why has there been
no global temperature increase in the last 10 years (IPCC figures) but CO2 is still 'out
of control'?

Because 1998 was a record-breaking El Nino year. I knew someone was going to bring that up, which is why I opted for a pre-emptive strike way back at my post of 10-02-2009, 14:25 . There's still weather - i.e. there is a lot of noise overlaid on the trend. What some claim as proof of "no global temperature increase in the last 10 years" is actually just reversion to the mean following an exceptional positive excursion.

 

[gzornenplat]

OK then, let's take Jan 2000 - Jan 2009 12-month moving average, and let's take satellite-sourced data for the lower troposphere

 

[gregorach]

1. That's far too short a period to discern any climatic trends.

2. That's not actually temperature data (I can see that just by looking at the y-axis labels) - it's either temperature anomaly (in which case I'd need to know what the baseline is), or it's cumulative variation, in which case it shows continuous warming.

3. Whichever data it is, it still shows a positive anomaly / trend for most of the period. You can't claim that one or two cold years at the end of the series shows a clear trend.

A longer time-series chart (temperature anomaly baselined to 14 C) shows the trend quite clearly:

[Source]

And before you ask, the downward deflection from 1940-1970(ish) is due to the albedo effects of high-altitude sulphate aerosols formed by burning high-sulphur coal.

You can't seriously claim that the downward deflection at the very end indicates a reversal of the climate trend - it's just weather.

 

[gzornenplat]

"You can't seriously claim that the downward deflection at the very end indicates a reversal of the climate trend - it's just weather"

I didn't.

 

[gregorach]

So your statement about "no global temperature increase in the last 10 years" wasn't actually intended to be relevant to the debate at all then?

 

[gzornenplat]

So your statement about "no global temperature increase in the last 10 years" wasn't actually intended to be relevant to the debate at all then?

I'll spell it out then: I did not say that the downward deflection at the very end indicates a reversal of the climate trend.

 

[gregorach]

Then why mention it?

 

[gzornenplat]

Then why mention it?

Because amongst other things, I don't have an explanation why in recent years CO2 has increased and temperature hasn't.