Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Cronus
...but surly if the ocean was going through what could be considered a serious ph issue then more marine biologist would be jumping up and down...or are they and i have missed it?

It's not just Australian marine biologists who are jumping up and down. The British have been jumping up and down for years:

The Royal Society (2005). Ocean Acidification due to Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide. Policy Document 12/05, London UK, (www.royalsoc.ac.uk), 60pp

Even Prince Charles is jumping up and down over climate change, but, alas, his critics dismiss his concerns by pointing out the amount of energy he consumes by living in such large homes.

[Cronus]

Global climate is changing rapidly due to human activities and will result in continued rising temperatures both on land and in the sea.

Sorry but this has still not been proven conclusively, there are far to many variables for someone to make that assumption..regardless of 'climate models'.

The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) has warmed ~0.4oC since the 19th century

Is there a valid temperature record showing this, i would hate to think this is an assumption.

The GBR could be 1-3oC warmer by the end of this century

I don't like the word 'Could' when used in doomsday predictions...it implies guess work and lack of facts....either it will or it won't.

Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2, the principal greenhouse gas)

The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor which constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gases and only 3.62% attributed to CO2 man made and natural.

Like i said, i don't doubt GW is happening, i just doubt the consensus that man kind is wholly responsible...climate models can be made to show anything you want..especially when there's money on the table and the man made global warming theory is a multi-billion pound/dollar industry

As for the whole point about the coral reef bleaching's in 1988 and 2002 these were caused by ENSO events and are entirely natural and in no way attributed to climate change...they do however give a perspective of what CAN happen should the oceans water change temperature rapidly.

Seeing as you are also impressed by other peoples opinion on subjects when those people carry significant weight in their field....

People ask "is it clear that human activity is directly responsible for climate change?" The context for answering this question must be another question: to what extent can the climate change all by itself?

The answer to the alternative question is: "a very great deal." Modern human beings appeared some time after about 50,000 years ago, and even then, anthropologists tell us that their numbers were very small until about 4000 years ago. Nonetheless, taking a cautious view, one might only examine climate change prior to 100,000 years ago.

Inferences about climate change before instruments and written records is the province primarily of geologists and geochemists. Their message is a very clear one: Earth has undergone enormous variations in climate state with changes taking place over times ranging from decades to millennia and longer.

Among the most extreme changes are the glacial-interglacial cycles in which, with the continents in their modern configuration dating back several million years, enormous ice caps waxed and waned over the Northern Hemisphere. Thus the UK, as well as all of western Europe, was under several kilometres of ice for thousands of years, interspersed with long intervals of a more benign climate such as that we have today.

These switches have taken place at intervals of between about 80,000 and 120,000 years for the last million years. Prior to that time, they appear to have occurred intermittently at about 40,000 year intervals. Even more dramatic changes took place in the deep past. It has been argued that during the Neogene period (about 24 to 1.8 million years ago), that the entire Earth froze over. Alternatively, over most of Earth's history, there were apparently no glaciers at all.

The glaciations are only the most dramatic of the inferred natural variability of the system.

Another problem concerns the counter-intuitive (for most people) behaviour of the consequences of random fluctuations in systems that have any kind of memory. As an example, consider the situation considered long ago by K. Hasselmann. The ocean is to be regarded as simply a completely passive reservoir of water with an initial temperature, T0. As such, its only physics we care about is its ability to store heat for very long periods (out to thousands of years in some instances).

Now we heat and cool the ocean over some small region using the atmosphere. To determine whether the ocean is to be heated and cooled on any given day, we simply flip a coin: if it's heads, we heat the ocean. If it's tails, we cool it by a like amount. Because we assume we have a true coin, the long-time average temperature of the ocean is the starting temperature, T0. Hasselmann pointed out, however, that the actual time history of temperature in this model ocean is very different from being near T0! Almost all the time, it is rather far from T0; in fact, the probability of its being T0 tends rapidly towards zero.

Most of the time, the ocean is either warm or cold compared to T0 and tends to stay that way for extended periods (we cannot predict whether it will be warm or cold, or the time interval over which it will stay warm or cold, but we can confidently predict the statistics of its departures from T0.

A consequence of this type of behaviour (and which a reader can easily check by having a small computer do the coin-tossing many times) is that systems with a memory of the past history of forcing can have very strange, unintuitive, behaviour that violates "common sense." The behaviour here can be understood by noting that if one tosses a true coin 2 million times, the probability of exactly 1 million heads and 1 million tails is very small. Instead, one expects a finite surplus of one or the other corresponding to excess heating or cooling.

So now we come to the modern climate problem. We know that it is capable of remarkable changes without human intervention. We also know that it has elements with very long memory times (the ocean, the ice caps, and some land processes including the biota). There is the possibility of solar fluctuations about which we know very little. The instrumental record only goes back about 300 years (being very generous) and global coverage is only really available following World War II. In many cases, we have no direct evidence for the spatial structures of natural variations and so find it almost impossible to compare observed changes with those known not influenced by human activities.

Many scientists therefore rely upon numerical models of the climate system to calculate (1) the nature of natural variability with no human interference, and compare it to (2) the variability seen when human effects are included. This approach is a very sensible one, but the ability to test (calibrate) the models, which can be extraordinarily complex, for realism in both categories (1) and (2) is limited by the same observational data base already describe. At bottom, it is very difficult to determine the realism by which the models deal with either (1) or (2)

Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.

Written by Professor Wunsch. Professor Wunsch is Cecil and Ida Green Professor of Physical Oceanography,Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a listed contributer to the IPCC reports.

[Ninong]

Cronus,

Everything you quoted from my post is from the official position paper of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, a well respected authority on marine science and an official agency of the Australian government.

Their positions are backed by their own decades of extensive scientific research. I can't think of any governmental agency that would be more credible when it comes to issues involving coral reef ecology.

[Cronus]

I appreciate that, i'm just stating that those bleaching events you mentioned were the cause of natural events and nothing to do with GW...and ENSO events are recognized and well documented....apart from the bit about water vapor which is a scientific fact the other stuff is just me making comment on their 'facts'.
For every one claim for man made GW their is a counter claim against it and until recently it's all been one way (and still is with gross disproportionate media reports and the like) with anybody questioning it basically called a heretic.

[Ninong]

Cronus,

The bottom line for Dr. Carl Wunsch is the very last sentence in the quotation you posted:

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

Dr. Wunsch is pointing out the complexities in predicting climate change. These complexities are very well known. The natural cycles, including the extremely long astronomical cycles, are not new to science.

Recently Dr. Wunsch appeared in a film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on your Channel 4. Dr. Wunsch is not too pleased with how that turned out as can be seen by this piece in the Guardian on 11 March 2007:

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
The principal greenhouse gas is water vapor which constitutes 95% of all greenhouse gases and only 3.62% attributed to CO2 man made and natural.

And what does this mean? What is the most important factor in determining how much water vapor is in the atmosphere? Ponder that for a while, and think about the points where state changes happen for both water and CO2. Then tell me if that 3.62% is insignificant.

[Cronus]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
And what does this mean? What is the most important factor in determining how much water vapor is in the atmosphere? Ponder that for a while, and think about the points where state changes happen for both water and CO2. Then tell me if that 3.62% is insignificant.

I never said it was insignificant...i was merely stating a fact. approx 1% out of the 3.62% is attributed to man made CO2

[Cronus]

Originally posted by Ninong
Cronus,

The bottom line for Dr. Carl Wunsch is the very last sentence in the quotation you posted:

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

Dr. Wunsch is pointing out the complexities in predicting climate change. These complexities are very well known. The natural cycles, including the extremely long astronomical cycles, are not new to science.

Recently Dr. Wunsch appeared in a film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, broadcast on your Channel 4. Dr. Wunsch is not too pleased with how that turned out as can be seen by this piece in the Guardian on 11 March 2007:

A leading US climate scientist is considering legal action after he says he was duped into appearing in a Channel 4 documentary that claimed man-made global warming is a myth. Carl Wunsch, professor of physical oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said the film, The Great Global Warming Swindle, was 'grossly distorted' and 'as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two'.

He says his comments in the film were taken out of context and that he would not have agreed to take part if he had known it would argue that man-made global warming was not a serious threat. 'I thought they were trying to educate the public about the complexities of climate change,' he said. 'This seems like a deliberate attempt to exploit someone who is on the other side of the issue.' He is considering a complaint to Ofcom, the broadcast regulator.

You are correct and i have nothing against movement to a greener society as i stated already, just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins...that very same paragraph..

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

And for the record i thought the The Great Global Warming Swindle was a poor piece of film.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
You are correct and i have nothing against movement to a greener society as i stated already, just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins...that very same paragraph..

Since we're all making sentences bold

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. "Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

[Cronus]

Don't really see your point in highlighting the same text as Ninong that i've already replied to.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
just the premise that it's all our fault and their is irrefutable evidence to suggest it and then using tax's to pay for our sins

That comment made me believe that you missed the point, so I thought I would highlight it again. Too many people don't understand what science really is; they think that if it isn't black and white it isn't true, or that it shouldn't be believed. The lack of concrete conclusions is prevalent in many fields, not just climatology.

[RichardS]

Originally posted by scottras
Re alternative power source, I absolutely agree, all thos power source I mentioned will not power a city nor will they make a large dent in the need for fossil fuels, at least straight away. But they can do in time. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to power source with less environmental impact.

Well that is a bit of a problem then isn't it? According to absolute science of global warming ,which only a fool would doubt, we don't have much time? Remember at best we only have 93 years until we are under water, or as little as a decade or two depending on which GW science you listen to.

So the absolute science of global warming has made a prediction and has proposed a solution that just doesn't match the prediction. Can you see how that might make someone question how valid that prediction is?

If you truely believed that disaster was imminent wouldn't you be proposing radical things like switch to nuclear immediately, build giant CO2 scrubbers, reduce the population by any means necessary, whatever it takes. Instead of only proposing "feel good" green solutions that you've already said are not good enough.

[scottras]

Originally posted by RichardS
Well that is a bit of a problem then isn't it? According to absolute science of global warming ,which only a fool would doubt, we don't have much time? Remember at best we only have 93 years until we are under water, or as little as a decade or two depending on which GW science you listen to.

So the absolute science of global warming has made a prediction and has proposed a solution that just doesn't match the prediction. Can you see how that might make someone question how valid that prediction is?

If you truely believed that disaster was imminent wouldn't you be proposing radical things like switch to nuclear immediately, build giant CO2 scrubbers, reduce the population by any means necessary, whatever it takes. Instead of only proposing "feel good" green solutions that you've already said are not good enough.

Now now lets not get petty. Just take a breath and relax. The only person I have seen so far that calls science of global warming absolute is your good self. As far as I know global warming is not even a science. That would be climatology and a mix of a few others that research the climate and attempt to predict its future.

No one is suggesting we flick a switch to "green" energy sources. That would be impossible. And switching to nuclear immediately is also impossible. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to alternative energy sources. This will give time for industry to catch up and produce more efficient ways of harnessing these energy sources.

This has already started to happen with solar energy, but demand is needed to truly get things going.

[Cronus]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
That comment made me believe that you missed the point, so I thought I would highlight it again. Too many people don't understand what science really is; they think that if it isn't black and white it isn't true, or that it shouldn't be believed. The lack of concrete conclusions is prevalent in many fields, not just climatology.

And you are missing my point....we have politician's and environmentalists stating that there is irrefutable proof that we are causing global warming when NON of the facts can state that 100%...to stand there and say 'IT DEFINITELY IS' happening and saying 'IT COULD BE HAPPENING' are two completely different opinions.

[billsreef]

Forget the politicians and armchair environmentalists for minute, consider the climatologists instead. They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend, they are saying our increasing contributions of greenhouse gases are excaberating a natural trend. In other words our contribution to greenhouses gases is making natural trends happen faster and will likely make peak of the natural trend higher than would naturally occur without our ever increasing contribution of greenhouse gases.

[RichardS]

Now now lets not get petty. Just take a breath and relax. The only person I have seen so far that calls science of global warming absolute is your good self. As far as I know global warming is not even a science. That would be climatology and a mix of a few others that research the climate and attempt to predict its future.

No one is suggesting we flick a switch to "green" energy sources. That would be impossible. And switching to nuclear immediately is also impossible. What I am suggesting is a steady switch over to alternative energy sources. This will give time for industry to catch up and produce more efficient ways of harnessing these energy sources.

This has already started to happen with solar energy, but demand is needed to truly get things going.

Okay I think I understand now. Global disaster is right around the corner because of us. So we should all get solar panels and windmills and then the global disaster will still occur but we can all feel good about ourselves for trying. That makes perfect sense now that I think about it more.

Basically, we're all screwed and the world is going to end. Lucky for me, I heard that from a preacher on the radio 30 years ago. Since I've had time to get used to that idea, I'm very relaxed.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by Cronus
And you are missing my point....we have politician's and environmentalists stating that there is irrefutable proof that we are causing global warming when NON of the facts can state that 100%...to stand there and say 'IT DEFINITELY IS' happening and saying 'IT COULD BE HAPPENING' are two completely different opinions.

Yeah, I know, and it's unfortunate that some people say those things because it harms the credibility of the entire issue. However, whether or not the possibility of human induced GW is 95% or 100% is a moot point. The same things need to be done in order help the problem. I'm not willing to rely on that 5% chance that GW is entirely natural.

[virginiadiver69]

Originally posted by billsreef
They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend,

Unfortunately that is EXACTLY what "they" are saying. Even worse, it is the selfish Americans with their big cars and houses that are creating the problem with accusations such as "we are only 12% of the worlds population but contribute 70% of "greenhouse gases"".
This is just another bogus issue in the long line of attempts to knock world power countries down to size. To many Americans feel guilty for the prosperity that we have EARNED and enjoy so they like to sit around and navel gaze about how we need to change our way of life. Believe me, when this one blows over there will be another "end of the world" prediction to take it's place.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
Unfortunately that is EXACTLY what "they" are saying. Even worse, it is the selfish Americans with their big cars and houses that are creating the problem with accusations such as "we are only 12% of the worlds population but contribute 70% of "greenhouse gases"".
This is just another bogus issue in the long line of attempts to knock world power countries down to size. To many Americans feel guilty for the prosperity that we have EARNED and enjoy so they like to sit around and navel gaze about how we need to change our way of life. Believe me, when this one blows over there will be another "end of the world" prediction to take it's place.

Bill's quote make more sense when you don't take it out of context. I'm sorry that you feel this is all a scam to bring down the US. It must be hard to hear that we aren't the perfect guiding light for humanity.

Originally posted by billsreef
They are not actually saying man is creating a warming trend, they are saying our increasing contributions of greenhouse gases are excaberating a natural trend.

[virginiadiver69]

You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like, but can you actually dispute what I have to say?
Did I say I thought we were a "perfect guiding light for humanity"? I don't see how I could be under such an assumption with people like you so gleefully cheering that we are not.

[HippieSmell]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like, but can you actually dispute what I have to say?
Did I say I thought we were a "perfect guiding light for humanity"? I don't see how I could be under such an assumption with people like you so gleefully cheering that we are not.

Sure I can dispute what you say, it's easy. Why do you think this is all about "knocking world powers down to size"? The proponents of GW are industrialized countries. You don't hear about Zimbabwe trying to reduce emissions. Why would industrialized countries want to shoot themselves in the foot for no reason? They don't. It's just that they see the writing on the wall and realize that their way of life is unsustainable. You seem to feel that we "earned" our way of life, so we don't have to change it. The problem is that we're also going to "earn" our demise. Adapt or perish. Earth is going to earn the Galactic Darwin Award if we're not careful.

[scottras]

Originally posted by RichardS
Okay I think I understand now.

Well obviously not and I am wasting my time trying to explain it to you. So, I will not try anymore.

[Ninong]

Originally posted by virginiadiver69
You can make your sniveling and sarcastic comments all you like...

Here at Reef Central, we believe that dialogs between participants should be conducted in a friendly and helpful manner. If you disagree with a posting, please express yourself in a way that is conducive to further constructive dialog. Conversely, when you post on any given subject, you must be willing to accept constructive criticism without posting a hostile or inflammatory response. Personal attacks of any kind will not be tolerated. Please let’s work to insure that Reef Central remains a friendly and flame free site where everyone, especially newcomers, can feel free to post questions without fear of being unfairly criticized. Thank you for your cooperation.

[virginiadiver69]

I am assuming you are directing this toward hippie, the person who made the "sniveling and sarcastic comments".

[virginiadiver69]

Originally posted by HippieSmell
The proponents of GW are industrialized countries.

The proponents of this farce are world bodies such as the UN and scientist who know where their bread is buttered at.

Originally posted by HippieSmell
You don't hear about Zimbabwe trying to reduce emissions.

No, you don't. Along with Asia or Western Europe. This goes back to my earlier point that we (Americans) have this massive guilt trip for being as successful as we are. People of Africa or Western Europe have much more REAL and immediate problems to deal with. They don't have the time to talk themselves into the idea that we mere mortals have any influence on Mother Nature.

Originally posted by HippieSmell
Sure I can dispute what you say, it's easy.

Then please do. Are you denying the fact that it is the U.S. that is commonly held up to blame for this "crises" While other "poor" countries are given a free pass ?