BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

Ok, new Forum clean slate... as it were.

Right, well this is, I feel, a very important subject that should concern us all on every level. Our Planet is rather small and getting all the more overcrowded by the day so the future of our climate should be of considerable concern to all.

Now as you may well know by now I'm something of a 'Global Warming' sceptic and let us clear up one point right away.. there is no such thing as a global warming 'Denier' (pronounced Dee-nigh-er) fact is Denier (pronounced Den-ee-air) is a unit of measurement of linear mass-density of a textile mono-filament, the former, erroneous connotation is a media generated 'wordlet' of no value whatsoever.
So there!
But flippancy aside I have to admit I was once something of a global warming advocate, indeed some 5 years ago the relationship between rising global temperatures and rising CO2 levels seemed inexorably linked to me and so it seemed quite natural to accept that unless we made serious efforts to curb our CO2 output we ran the very serious risk of turning the Earth into a new age Venus.

It all seemed so painfully obvious, after all the polar ice caps were shrinking at a frightening rate and several major continents were suffering the most severe drought for many decades. Indeed one of our own forum members posted a rather worrying link to an article that suggested the polar icecap would be totally ice free by 2013!! Scary stuff to say the least.

Then again I can never accept things on face value, its been a terrible handicap of mine but when some expert or other says something is 'so' I cannot help but want to know why? And so my enquiring mind led me into a surprisingly tortured web of misquotes, obscure references and disparate allusions to research of uncertain value which I have to say I found to be less than satisfactory. Basically it all comes down to some rather complex and unreliable computer modelling that finds it roots in theories proposed by, amongst others, the University of Norwich, who I have to say appear less than a little biased in there general appraisal of the situation.

So according to the 'global Warming' credo we are witnessing increased global temperatures, retreating ice caps and rising sea levels, which should surely be simplicity itself to prove .... shouldn't it?

Well look, I tell you what if anyone can find any actual genuine evidence that global temperatures are actually rising over the the long term, or that the icecaps (and I mean in general not just selective bits) are retreating or indeed that sea levels are rising (and I don't mean a few south sea atolls sinking due to tectonic subsidence) then I really would be very interested to hear about it.

No really, give it your best pitch, no holds barred please.

Here is your opportunity to put forward the clear unequivocal evidence that A/ Global warming is real and B/ It is man made.

Or not, as the case may be. We will let the jury rest on this.

Consider these images of polar ice from 2007 and 2009 respectively..

[Colm]

First I must warn you that this post contains no opinion on whether it's real or not !

I would hazard a guess that for many of us, the question of global warming has been influenced a bit by what we want to believe. To the point that it seems to be dictated by political alignment.

For me, the point is this: I don't know. What made me realise this is reading a debate once had on this Forum between Alun and James Franklin and although they both were arguing against each other they each managed to convince me as I was reading their post.

But then I realised, I really don't have a clue whether global warming is real or whether it's man-made. How could I? I was taking each poster at their word. I haven't done any proper research into it, other than reading the odd article in newspapers or on the Internet or watching the odd programme on telly. If the scientists who specialise in the field can't even agree, then how can I, or any of us possibly know?

I hate to sound depressing but there's no way I, or almost any of us can hear some piece of evidence one way or the other and draw a conclusion, unless we verify that evidence thoroughly, and personally do a huge amount of research into all the other evidence surrounding it.

To make matters worse, it's not something that can be left in the hands of the people... I might be spending a little too much time on religious fora where everyone has to respect each other's beliefs but this is not a topic for respecting each other's beliefs. This is one for finding out who is right and who is wrong. And then there's the problem of the results being tainted by people with an agenda.

In any case, there needs to be emphasis put on it. Public debate by the highest people in the field. Each point of evidence needs to be sorted out and where they disagree it needs to be determined who is correct. They need to meet up and debate it, because it seems to me that they are only talking to their respective politicians or employers and those politicians are telling us how it is (and obviously disagreeing)

[MattW]

I agree with Colm, to the extent that I have not personally recorded temperatures/ice thickness/CO2 levels etc, so how can I offer cast iron proof? In the same way that I'd wager that MPL didn't actually take those photos of the globe, so how does he KNOW they aren't faked? How do we KNOW he didn't fake them? I'm not suggesting for one moment that he did, just using this as an example of how easy it is to mistrust data.
Having said that, reducing our dependance on fossil fuels, reducing the amount of slow or non-biodegradable waste we leave scattered across the face of the planet, increasing the efficiencies of our engines, boilers, buildings etc all just seems like plain old 'Common Sense'.
I'm an ex-Friends of the Earth member, so I do have some direct experience of the Evangelical nature of some members of the Green Lobby, in fact it was this 'holier than thou' attitude which turned me off being part of the gang. 20 years ago I was 100% against the use of Nuclear Power, but am now 100% behind it as a viable alternative to the 'Dash for Gas'.
BUT, if you don't believe that theres any cause for concern, just carry on doing what you're doing. Theres nothing I can do to stop you. I personally hope that the majority of people will use their 'Common Sense' and make a difference.

Lets not fall out over this...

[M Paul Lloyd]

"Lets not fall out over this"

Indeed not. No, I just want to try and make some sense of what is becoming an increasingly unclear situation.

I have been trying to source information on the climate from those very authorities which underpin the 'consensus' of scientists who keep telling us global warming is real and our fault and yet their very own information (re the polar ice maps) seem to contradict what they are saying.

I am, at a very basic level, really, really confused by it all.

[The Beige Avenger]

This is the single most important issue EVER in the history of man-kind.

First off, I don't like the term "global warming" or any of the other buzz-phrases abused by the media. "Climate Change" sounds like the most accurate desciption of the phenomina observed throughout Earth's history.

Even a vague education in the geological history of the Earth would tell you that sea levels have always been changing due to both changing thicknesses of continental crust (due to techtonics) as well as changing levels of ice stored on land.

In addition, it is relatively well known that the Earth goes through cycles every 10-12 thousand years due to the wobble in the orbit (these are documented in the geological record and are known as Milankowitch cycles) which affects the temperature. The Sun, also goes through cycles but at a much shorter scale (a decade or two) to do with sun-spots.

So, here's the kicker: Earth's climate is constantly changing, man has absolutely nothing to do with it.

BUT...

Greenhouse gases help to trap heat and the levels of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere are added to by our industries. Greenhouse gases aren't a bad thing, we need them... but too much is certainly bad (look at Venus). So, man does have an impact.. how much of an impact? Well... we'll likely never know because we're doing the experiment right now.

So...

You basically have a couple of attitudes you can subscribe to...

I'm in the hippy bracket... but I am a lazy hippy hypocrite...

[M Paul Lloyd]

Trouble is CO2 levels are continuing to rise and yet for the last ten years global temperatures have fallen, which seems a little counter-intuitive, to my way of thinking at least.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Now then, this could prove interesting. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce wants the EPA to hold a 'Scopes'-like hearing on the evidence that climate change is man-made.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... 1567.story

I have been doing some poking around in the MET office climate website and I have to say a lot of what they are claiming as fact is actually looking a bit shaky at the moment. Indeed some of it is actually plain wrong.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/

Basically the entire premise for global warming is based upon rising temperature predictions which in turn rely almost entirely upon computer modelling, and well I'm sorry but I find it very difficult to believe that they can produce a computer model powerful enough to be capable of duplicating the Earth's weather over any sort of time scale.

I'm sorry to keep going on about this, and please ignore me if you prefer, but I really do feel that it is a very important subject that could have serious repercussions for us all.

[Flakkarin]

Well well, I was wondering when this would rear its ugly head again! (I thought about asking if anyone saved the 'Scientists Believe in Global Warming' topic form the old forum, wish I had remembered to).

I'll explain again below, in the best way I can, why I believe that climate change is real, and why even though it may seem sometimes that nothing is happening, I certainly don't see that as a reason to be complacent that nothing ever will.
But, first, I'll tell you a little about myself if you don't mind! (Feel free to skip to the science if you're not interested in where my opinion comes from)
Well, I started my Master's degree in geology, oohh, 5 years ago. In the first year at the good ol' U o Bristol the first year of Geology is the same as something called Environmental Geoscience, and, finding that much more exciting and genuine, I decided to switch. I wanted to save the world. CLimate change (at every stage of the Earth, not just now) is a pretty essential part of the course, and the evidence mounted to me. (In this case you can find my opinion either researched and informed or brainwashed, depending on your view of the university education system in the UK )
However, I soon became extremely bogged down by the media. I found that the pursuit of truth was so diluted by the media, and everything was hype. I realised that the general public was sick of all this trash (which pretty much half of it is) rammed down their throats that it was going to be pretty much impossible for me to save the world.
So I gave up largely on my dreams of saving the world from climate change, because all people wanted to do was argue with me, no-one wanted to listen any more. Now I study volcanoes (although I like to see what effect they have on the climate too).

Now! Away form my sad story and on the the science.

I believe climate change is man made because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Sounds simple? Let me give an example from the ancient past of how carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere is known to heat the planet, so much so it bought us out of the deepest ice age. This covered pretty much the entire globe, leading to it being termed 'snowball Earth'. How the hell do we get out of that? During an ice age of this scale, the normal cycles of the Earth stop, including weathering of silicate minerals form rocks. This is important because this is the only long term removal of CO2 form the atmosphere is from silicate weathering. During this time volcanoes were still spitting CO2 into the atmosphere, and since there was nothing taking it out anymore, it built up, and eventually warmed the planet enough to begin the runaway removal of the ice. For more details see here: http://www.snowballearth.org/end.htm

Right, so this CO2 is a greenhouse gas. What about humans? Well, we know we're putting CO2 into the atmosphere. We don't need fancy research to tell us that. It comes out of cars, chimneys, deforestation, you name it, we know we're producing it. And we have records of how much it's rising, the most famous is this:


To round up my view on the whole thing, it's this: CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We know we're producing a lot of it, and it's increasing. For me, to assume that this will do nothing is extremely naive. Just because not all of the things we are expecting haven't happened yet, doesn't mean they won't.
The science of predicting the exact results is a LOT more tricky than the science of knowing that something will happen. I admit the models and such are bad at predicting the future temps etc now, but the science is evolving, and I don't think these are any reason to disregard that climate change is a real consequence of our actions.

[The Beige Avenger]

What controls the climate?

The amount of incident energy (Sun's output, our distance from the Sun and our inclination relative to the Sun)

The atmosphere (greenhouse gases, winds)
-Biota affecting the atmosphere (algal blooms, forrests, livestock, human industry..)
-Geological processes (volcanic-related expulsions)

The oceans (ocean currents, climate stabilising to lower mean temperature)
-Seas, lakes and rivers too.

The land (elevation (higher = cooler), size (inland areas prone to large temperature swings)

Any others?

So, you see... even from me whizzing through a few things, our input is but one of a multitude of factors. I have a pretty strong gut feeling that our emissions have to make a difference but that difference will be superimposed on the larger scale changes going on.

<slight drift>
What I do find interesting is that generally, no one is really doing anything, impacting on a global scale, to reduce carbon emissions (that meaningless piece of paper the Kyoto Protocol aside). Unfortunately, until the US, China and Russia all make huge steps forward (maybe in the next decade or so) in terms of where their energy comes from, the rest of the world will wait.
Also
That there is no preparation for the things that are happening with regularity e.g. the floods in the low-lands of England... have the govt planned at all for future occurrences of this or will they just wait until it happens and try to fix the problem with sand bags and helicopters? I'd be digging some canals at least... remember, a vote for The Beige Party will ensure mediocrity in your country.
</drift>

[Ush]

I believe climate change is man made because carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

I would be happier if you wrote, "Man contributes to climate change...". Perhaps I am being petty but saying that it is caused by human activity is wrong.

I am a little suspicious of the measures of atmospheric CO2 taken from atop volcanoes. Surely we have better data than that?

I was afraid this topic would crop up again.

[Flakkarin]

Apologies for my phrasing, you're right of course, I just wrote it in a bit of a hurry (I noticed I wrote a few other things strangely...)

The taking of the measurement on a volcano doesn't make a difference, and there are plenty of other measurements, that one simply comes up a lot because its the first established, and hence the longest. This nice image compares it to a couple of other records:

[Ush]

Well if there are other measurements then ok.

If a volcano is active then surely it will contribute to the local CO2 concentration and measurement as will measurements taken near cities or flight paths etc? This is why I am skeptical of taking measurements near volcanoes.

I'm sure they've one their job right though and don't need me to question them.

[M Paul Lloyd]

Totally at one with you on the 'media' thing Flakkarin, they so often muddy the waters its hard to know what's right and what's not.

I also agree that in recent years the Earth's climate has warmed significantly which has also coincided with a very rapid rise in CO2 levels that is still going on even today and seemingly at a frighteningly accelerated rate. Whether this is down to human activity, a natural mechanism or a bit of both I cannot say but I do worry about it a lot.

However given that global temperatures have been going down for the last ten years, (please note that the Hadley Centre refer to 2008 as being "the tenth warmest over the last decade" which is in effect another way of saying it was actually the coolest, although they seem unable to actually admit that fact) I find it hard to accept that the two are inexorably linked, it just doesn't seem to fit the current modelling and that brings me to another concern of mine, everything boils down to computer modelling.

Now I admit I am no climatologist, nor an 'ologist' of any sort really, but I did train as an aeronautical engineer and I know first hand how difficult it is to predict differential pressure/temperature gradients within turbulent airflow, which is in effect what drives the weather, and I also know how poorly it is represented in even the most powerful of cutting edge computer modelling (because I maintain a close interest in the subject) so how anyone can claim that they can use similar software to predict climate change in such an incredibly complex environment such as the Earth's biosphere I really cannot say, but I do find it rather perplexing that the results are published as some sort of factual analysis!

It is argued that models of historical weather all run true to form in these model scenarios, I can only hope that they have been careful when they 'input all the data' and are accurate in what they believe they found.

As for ice ages of the prehistoric past, from what I can gather these may have been precipitated by the rise of various mountain ranges with the Appalachian range possibly being responsible for the ice age approximately 450 million years ago and again 40 million years ago when the Himalayas erupted, albeit over a rather protracted time period of course. This is thought to be the result of said Mountain formation respectively sucking up huge amounts of CO2 and creating a reverse greenhouse effect, but I know of no explanation as to how the CO2 was actually 'sucked up' unless the events created conditions that favoured an increase in organic life? but I note with interest that currently many forests are growing faster than in any period on record, which is thought to be the result of higher CO2 levels.

Then again atmospheric levels of CO2 remained (so I am led to believe) at least ten times higher during the period of the major ice age at the 450 million years point and yet it has to be presumed that average global temperatures were significantly lower than today. Why this should have been I cannot say other than to suggest that the sun was slightly cooler 450 million years ago (it is getting hotter with every year that passes) but whether it was sufficient a difference I really do not know? It all falls apart when you realise that the Earth was also nearer to the cooler sun 450 million years ago.

I could list a good 50 or more scientists who do not agree with one aspect or another of global warming science but that would prove very little as for every sceptic I am certain their exists a hundred believers. Suffice to say I find myself very much on the fence but still with a foot firmly placed in the sceptic camp.

So even though I cannot accept that a 0.8 degree rise in global temperatures over a 150 period is anything to worry about or that it is actually the result of rising CO2 levels I am looking into the UKCP09 guidelines for 'saving the planet' and planning a living roof experiment for my shed, with a view to extending same across part of the house roof if it proves successful.

The problem is, if the global warming/CO2 idea is correct then even if we pull out all the stops and make a really concerted effort to reduce our global CO2 production it could be 30 years before we will see any positive results. But if it turns out to be wrong, in the same way that said rising CO2 was thought to be a sign of a forthcoming ice age some 40 years ago, then it will be a bleak day for science and the environment as it will hand the oil burners a green card to 'go do as they damn well please' which I think we all agree is not a good idea at all?

[Flakkarin]

I know it always comes up that you distrust computer models greatly, and to be honest I've never quite known what to say about that, but when I start at my new university next month there's a handy course on atmospheric modelling which I hope to take with great interest! I'll be sure to share whatever I get out of it, with a sceptical eye of course!

I would love to go into this more, but unfortunately I leave the country on tuesday, so I'm a little preoccupied, and I don't think I can give it the time it deserves!

[Ush]

I personally have no problems with modeling. That is, as long as the models are a reasonable approximation of reality of course.

[Shadowwolf]

I would echo other sentiments in that to make a fully informed decision would require a level of knowledge and research that I do not have the time, and possibly the academic know how to achieve. I am left to take what easily digested reports there are and appraise the activities of both sides on the subject. Extremes that say there is no climate change are quite certainly wrong, whilst those that suggest that all change is essentially the result of human activities have not — as far as I can tell — made a sufficient case. When I hear of models with best guess numbers put in, or that current climate patterns closely match one of the models but not the other models. When I read of anthropocentric climate scientists who when upon failing to get the temperatures they wanted, go back and look for new numbers elsewhere to supply the desired end result. When I see that what is good for the anthropocentric side is wrong for any who do not agree; well I see a problem. The waters are hugely muddied by political affiliations, a desire by some to blame everything bad on us nasty humans, and those who have a green faith; oh and a ham fisted media. I certainly cannot conclude that whatever is going on it is most definitely not human driven. Given the strength of the 'it is all our fault', well I have not been convinced yet either.

[Colm]

Why is CO2 a green house gas? The idea as far as I know is that it lets heat into the atmosphere, but not back out? Why does it not block heat from coming in as well as keeping it from reflecting back out? Shouldn't the two cancel each other out?

[The Beige Avenger]

Good question Colm!

Think about winter...
When there is no cloud cover, it can be (and probably will be) bitterly cold.
Add in a thick blanket of cloud (water vapour = 'greenhouse gas') and the temperature won't be so cold because it traps the heat in.

Although not really a 'gas' water vapour is the most 'effective' greenhouse product.

They work by specifically absorbing specific wavelengths of light (heat in this case) and re-emitting it back to the surface. It doesn't reflect it back into space because it is not the incident radiation but the radiation coming from the heated surface of the Earth that is trapped...

[Ush]

I think it slows the release of energy into and out of the atmosphere.

[Ush]

They work by specifically absorbing specific wavelengths of light (heat in this case) and re-emitting it back to the surface. It doesn't reflect it back into space because it is not the incident radiation but the radiation coming from the heated surface of the Earth that is trapped...

Surely energy will strike the "top" of the CO2 molecules when entering the atmosphere and some of that energy will be reflected back "upwards" without ever hitting Earth's surface, and on it's way get "trapped" by other molecules?