Is Climate Change Really Happening?

[John Buchan]

A wealth of evidence now puts beyond question our world is warming. Here in the UK four of the five hottest years over a 330 year period have occurred during the last ten years. Globally, the ten hottest years on record have all occurred since the beginning of the 1990s. Side effects such as floods, threatened by sea level rises are occurring more frequently. The change in climate is accelerating and the impacts in terms of environment, society and economy are being felt all over the world.
Naturally occurring greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) including water vapour, create a natural greenhouse effect which tends to keep the surface of the earth around 33° C warmer than it would otherwise be, helping to sustain life on earth.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, concentrations of the natural greenhouse gases have risen as a consequence of human activities such as fossil fuel use, land-use change and agriculture.
Climate change mechanisms are complex however there is no doubt that the increase in concentration of greenhouse gases above that which has naturally occurred has contributed to global warming. CO2 forms 86% of the basket of greenhouse gases, and is released into the atmosphere primarily by burning fossil fuels: oil, petrol and natural gas.
If we can reduce carbon dioxide levels i.e. generate low carbon emissions, this will reduce the impact of climate change for future generations.

So what are forum members doing to change their carbon footprint.

[clownboy]

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate
By DAVID STRINGER (AP) – 58 minutes ago

LONDON — Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online — stoking debate over whether some scientists have overstated the case for man-made climate change.

The University of East Anglia, in eastern England, said in a statement Saturday that the hackers had entered the server and stolen data at its Climatic Research Unit, a leading global research center on climate change. The university said police are investigating the theft of the information, but could not confirm if all the materials posted online are genuine.

More than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists is included in about 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents posted on Web sites following the security breach last week.

Some climate change skeptics and bloggers claim the information shows scientists have overstated the case for global warming, and allege the documents contain proof that some researchers have attempted to manipulate data.

The furor over the leaked data comes weeks before the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen, when 192 nations will seek to reach a binding treaty to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases worldwide. Many officials — including U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon — regard the prospects of a pact being sealed at the meeting as bleak.

In one leaked e-mail, the research center's director, Phil Jones, writes to colleagues about graphs showing climate statistics over the last millennium. He alludes to a technique used by a fellow scientist to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, but is contradicted by other evidence which appears to show a rise in temperatures is continuing.

Jones wrote that, in compiling new data, he had "just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline," according to a leaked e-mail, which the author confirmed was genuine.

More at source

[Lucas]

I think the issue is if you look at the data on a microscopic (relatively) scale, it's getting cooler over the last couple years. If you look at it over a larger period (although still very small) it's getting warmer over the last century and a half. If you look at over an even larger scale, it's cooling, and so on and so forth.

What matter isn't what's good or normal for 'Mother Nature', only what's good for humanity. And even that's not very clear cut: obviously, the status quo is very good for the US. Russia? Saharan Africa? They might find some 'climate change' to be beneficial.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by clownboy

More at source

Here's current commentary: Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’? – Telegraph Blogs

This is being called 'Climategate.'

I'll tell you what is a dangerous long-term trend: increasing failure of the self-policing process in the professions. Hopefully, this will break-open wider, and we'll get some reforms.

[Westerner]

Global climate change is a fraud which politicians can use to control the masses.

Global Climate Change Hoax: The Greatest Fraud in Human History - Atlas Shrugs

[Fredfredson]

1) Global Climate Change is real and inevitable PERIOD.

2) Is human activity changing the global climate? Yes no question.

3) How much of the current rate of change is human caused? Still being studied.

4) Is the ongoing climatic change dangerous for the current population of the planet. Yes no question.

5) Is change dangerous for the corporate status quo. Yes no question.

6) Has there been drastic natural climate change episodes in the past. Yes no question.

7) Can our current population be sustained under significant changes in climatic conditions (heat OR cold). No.

8) Will humans be able to do anything collectively to improve our likelihood of getting through significant climate change, natural or man made, without a massive die off? No, see point 5 above

9) Why can't humans make the changes needed to prevent such a calamity? See point 5.

F

[R Lance]

The reason isn't question #5 but answers to #2 and 3#

Convince mankind, mankind is the cause, and it would change answer to #5

Deciding if change is warming or cooling might help convince the public also, if its even a problem.

[Fredfredson]

In a sense you are right but the really big issue is question 7.

It doesn't matter whether it is getting colder or warmer, if the climate shifts very far from the norm in the last 10,000 years billions of people will die.

We must make changes and make them fast.

Oddly enough many of those changes are also the ones we would need to make to reduce anthropogenic global warming.

Global human populations are way to close to the line now, imagine the consequences of a multi year, major food crop failure.

Couple that with global financial instability and resource misallocation and there is the makings of a massive die off of human populations across the globe.

That may seem very "gloom and doom"ish but taken as a whole we are sitting on a knife edge and climate change is just one of the things that could push us over.

F

[roadkill]

Global climate change is a fraud which politicians can use to control the masses.

Of course you are right, Westerner. It is a fraud perpetrated by economic interests that would be wounded by a greenhouse gas trading regime or tax impost. They are pretending to us that nothing is going wrong.

Climate scientists' models do not always provide useful predictions: neither the 330 millimetres of rain that fell in a single day on the English Lake district earlier this week, nor the 40 degree temperatures that have afflicted eastern Australia, 15 degrees above normal the last few days. It would be fair to say that models still have room for improvement.

Researchers at University of Texas reported on November 23 in Nature Geoscience, using satellite remote sensing measures, that the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet is not stable, contrary to previous predictions. It is melting, losing up to 57 billion tonnes of ice per year. This is another respect in which past climate models have failed.

But if our situation is actually worse than climate models have shown, are scientists toning down bad news, just to avoid alarming us.

[Sir Digalot]

you gotta figure that with more people in the world it is going to get warmer anyway, just like a large room that is cold but gets warm when it is full of people

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

you gotta figure that with more people in the world it is going to get warmer anyway, just like a large room that is cold but gets warm when it is full of people

That alone isn't enough. I mean if you were to put that comparison to scale it would be like 1 person standing in the middle of Grand Central Station.

The problem isn't the person standing in the room, it's the person standing in the room building a bon-fire out of the floor timbers.

[Lucas]

Originally Posted by roadkill

Of course you are right, Westerner. It is a fraud perpetrated by economic interests that would be wounded by a greenhouse gas trading regime or tax impost. They are pretending to us that nothing is going wrong.

Climate scientists' models do not always provide useful predictions: neither the 330 millimetres of rain that fell in a single day on the English Lake district earlier this week, nor the 40 degree temperatures that have afflicted eastern Australia, 15 degrees above normal the last few days. It would be fair to say that models still have room for improvement.

Researchers at University of Texas reported on November 23 in Nature Geoscience, using satellite remote sensing measures, that the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet is not stable, contrary to previous predictions. It is melting, losing up to 57 billion tonnes of ice per year. This is another respect in which past climate models have failed.

But if our situation is actually worse than climate models have shown, are scientists toning down bad news, just to avoid alarming us.

I'm shocked you believe anything that comes from Texas. Isn't that like the epicenter of all you dislike? Weird.

[Sir Digalot]

Originally Posted by Underhill

That alone isn't enough. I mean if you were to put that comparison to scale it would be like 1 person standing in the middle of Grand Central Station.

The problem isn't the person standing in the room, it's the person standing in the room building a bon-fire out of the floor timbers.

i understand that i was just using it as an example that all things else being equal if you increase the population, you are still increasing the heat load, regardless of anything else we do, 200 billion people on the planet would be a significant heat load compared to 4 billion.

[Underhill]

Originally Posted by Sir Digalot

i understand that i was just using it as an example that all things else being equal if you increase the population, you are still increasing the heat load, regardless of anything else we do, 200 billion people on the planet would be a significant heat load compared to 4 billion.

When you are talking miles of atmosphere, I suspect it would still be a drop in the bucket in and off itself. If the average human body puts out 300 BTU's that isn't much of a concern. But the 30 billion furnaces and air conditioners, 10 billion cars (or whatever they use for transport in the future) the 400 billion cows and chickens... It all adds up.

But yeah I understand your point.

[Sir Digalot]

it's closer to 600+ btu's but the point was being made that in a homeostatic environment and increase of one variable will make a difference so to say that NO difference however small is what is happening is plain wrong, we are probably saying the same thing but in a different way i.e. iam trying to point out on the most simplistic basic level ( look who we are talking to) that 2 people produce twice as much heat as one person by just being, so to say that we do not affect theclimate in anyway is a simple lie.

anyway i re read you post and we agree *LOL*

now if otherpeople would agree too... maybe we would all get somewhere

[flogger]

Human induced climate change is perhaps the biggest hoax perpetrated on the general public in my lifetime and heres why.


People do not understand that they have no proof of "Global Warming" being caused by man outside of useless computer models?

All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of dollars" it is infallible. Plugging in biased, incomplete or flat out wrong data combined with poorly understood systems into a "model" that includes god knows how many guesses and assumptions will give you junk. Garbage in = Garbage out. The more complex the model the more "mysterious" it seems. Processing more complex data in more complex ways via guessing gives you more complex junk results. But since the models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results you want) they get results that "seem" likely, except it is based on a complex serious of junk calculations and data.

The problem is computer models need exact information (accurate data and the correct procedure to process the data) to get exact answers, without that you get junk results, period. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.

Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use random numbers to get a right answer on a calculator but you do not know if you are to add or multiply those numbers and that "right answer" you have no way to confirm because it is 50 years from now. Sound crazy? Welcome to Global Climate Modeling.

What the modelers do is they keep playing with the numbers in a much more complex way until they think they guess right. A useless exercise. These same climate models computers are used to predict your weather and you know how accurate they are. But damn! Al Gore and Gavin Schmidt can certainly tell your what the climate will be 50-100 years from now! Give me a break.

Why are we not turning to models to predict the future for everything? Because they can't, not even remotely. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and wham - the model is wrong. No kidding.

Modeling 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give you accurate weather 3 days out? Don't be fools, , Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate.

"Man-Made" Global Warming is an invented hysteria based on a politically driven agenda that suits many across the political spectrum and as soon as we purge ourselves of this latest 'religion' the healthier mankind will be. I dont fear climate change but I do fear what these 'worthies' will have in store for as should we not robustly challenge thier views, just because its soooo ....unfashionably non PC to do so. The billions that have already been squandered on this non problem should not be further added to in manufacturing another round of computer contrived disinformation as there are no doubt as many climate models as there are modellers and none of them have gotten it right so far . Lets spend it where it CAN actually benefit humanity for a change I say .

Computers are ultimately calculators NOT crystal balls like some in the climate community would have you believe and unless the data used in this calculator and its method of calculation is correct then it is worthless. At present we have no certainty of either factor frankly so ultimately its all just guesswork yet this guesswork is what these gurus would like us to hang mankinds future upon ! The real world climate doesnt seem to want to comply at the moment so as far as I'm concerned without the contrivance of computer modelling the whole AGW premise is junk science at its most dangerous.

[Fredfredson]

So I see you know as much about computer modeling as climate science.

Thanks for making that clear up front.

F

[flogger]

Glad I could oblige. If you have any more questions feel free ....... unless of course ignorance is bliss,

Perhaps you should consider given that the isoptopic signature of fossil fuel Carbon can be tracked and that signature is largely missing suggesting the rise in CO 2 is primarily a natural phenomena. To go into more detail. I happen to have made a special effort to study this particular corner of the debate in depth and the answers dovetail into virtually all other facets of the debate as well, so please indulge me to address this point first

Firstly you should know that the mean half-life of atmospheric CO2 was already well-established decades before the start of the debate about climate change. Until 2009, there were 36 studies of the half-life of atmospheric CO2 conducted between 1957 and 1992. Two more studies were completed and published this year. The range of half-life periods obtained from the 36 studies were between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of these 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less. The simple average for the 36 studies is 5.6 years. Not even one of these studies showed a half-life anywhere close to the "50-200 years" of Houghton, et al 1991, which is unabashedly attributed to computer modeling, and on which the IPCC continues to rely for their tabulations.

We have to admit that whatever we observe about CO2 concentration in our present atmosphere, and then whatever hypothesis we form concerning CO2 concentration, must be consistent with the considerable weight of the well-established body of knowledge contained in the 36 studies . No one anywhere has suggested that any of these studies is deeply flawed or that the conclusions about the CO2 residence time is in error. The methodology of the studies is not in question, either.

The amount of cumulative anthropogenic releases is fairly well tabulated, and reliably believed to be about 250 billion metric tons totally, and about 8 billion metric tons annually, at present. Using these two pieces of the puzzle (releases and residence time expressed as half-life), we can reconstruct the atmosphere as it exists today within a mere few ppm of actual measurements. But the key point is that in order to successfully reconstruct the atmospheric CO2 content from cumulative emissions, we must use the ~5.6 year half life.

But what happens when we reconstruct the present atmosphere using the AGW orthodoxy's numbers for residence time, namely a "50-200 years" half life? When the IPCC does so, they find that the atmosphere contains only half of the expected CO2! The half life figure the IPCC uses must be wrong; ALL previous studies based on actual measurements conducted over a ~60 year period by diverse teams in different countries all came to the conclusion: that CO2 has a short residence time.

As an additional proof, we can measure the fraction of fossil fuel sourced CO2 which is contained in the present atmosphere. This is possible because carbon from ancient sources has a significantly different isotopic 'signature' than carbon from recent sources. Specifically, the signature for recent 'naturally sourced' carbon is agreed to be ~ -7 pdb. The isotopic fingerprint of ancient fossil carbon is agreed to be ~ -26 pdb. All the isotopic mass-balance studies done so far show a figure of ~ -7.5 to -7.8 pdb, which is close to the signature of pre-industrial carbon, with some slight shift toward the fossil signature of -26 pdb. Using simple calculations, the present atmosphere contains about 4% 'fossil-sourced' carbon using the reliable and well-accepted methods of testing.

Now the IPCC and all the believers in the AGW orthodoxy assert that anthropogenic releases are the cause of the observed CO2 rise. Because of (among other things) the isotopic signature, we can test this hypothesis. The IPCC specifically claims that 21% of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is due to anthropogenic releases, but NO study is offered in support of this claim. 21% corresponds to about 75ppm, which when subtracted from 380ppm gives us 305ppm, very close to the "pre-industrial baseline" figure, thus the 21% attribution amount to an "all or nearly all" attribution.

If we accept that "all or nearly all" of the observed CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic releases, and that CO2 has a long residence time as claimed by the IPCC (Houghton, et al, 1991), then it's a simple matter to calculate the expected isotopic signature of the carbon in the present atmosphere; we have all information needed to make this calculation. The expected mass-balance figure is ~-11pdb for the 21% attribution. The problem is, no mass-balance study yet can confirm that the mass-balance signature of the CO2 in our recent atmosphere is ANYWHERE CLOSE to -11pdb, but rather in the -7.5 to -7.8pdb range, very close to the signature of recent CO2 of around -7pdb.

Thus the isotopic mass-balance measurements CONSISTENTLY falsify the argument that "all or nearly all" of recent CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic releases. The idea that CO2 has a long residence time is only the result of computer modeling done in 1991, and contradicts ALL the measurement studies ever done. The implication of a ~5 year half life is that of the 750 billion metric tons total atmospheric CO2, between 135 and 150 billion metric tons of CO2 is 'fluxed' from the atmosphere annually, totally swamping out the puny 8 billion metric tons of annual human emissions.

The fact that the IPCC's 'expected' isotopic signature is missing from all measurements does not support the conclusion that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, or that anthropogenic emissions have significantly contributed to recent CO2 increases. The fact that the IPCC's tabulations have a 50% error of missing CO2 is further confirmation that this hypothesis is in error, and the explanation of the carbon cycle proffered as a corollary to the AGW hypothesis is also wrong.

The postulate that the oceans are sinking the 'missing' CO2 cannot be squared against the well-treaded science of Henry's law; the oceans are simply too warm to have absorbed such an enormous amount of carbon (on the order of 12,500 billion metric tons or ~50X cumulative anthropogenic emissions, or 400 billion metric tons annually) nor can it be plausibly asserted that this amount of CO2 is being released or has ever been released, or could ever be released as it exceed all the carbon embodied in all the world's fossil fuel reserves.

These glaring contradictions are ALL the result of trying to assert that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere when we already knew from reliable direct measurements that this is impossible. Its these glaring misrepresentations of science which the IPCC presents in its summary to policymakers that have made a total mockery of the whole AGW premise in my view and that politics is now in the driving seat.

[jfuh]

Originally Posted by Lucas

I think the issue is if you look at the data on a microscopic (relatively) scale, it's getting cooler over the last couple years. If you look at it over a larger period (although still very small) it's getting warmer over the last century and a half. If you look at over an even larger scale, it's cooling, and so on and so forth.

Really? Cooling in an even larger scale is it? Let me guess your comparing to the Jurassic age when the continents weren't even at where they are now?

[Uplifter]

Originally Posted by flogger

Glad I could oblige. If you have any more questions feel free ....... unless of course ignorance is bliss,

Perhaps you should consider given that the isoptopic signature of fossil fuel Carbon can be tracked and that signature is largely missing suggesting the rise in CO 2 is primarily a natural phenomena. To go into more detail. I happen to have made a special effort to study this particular corner of the debate in depth and the answers dovetail into virtually all other facets of the debate as well, so please indulge me to address this point first

Firstly you should know that the mean half-life of atmospheric CO2 was already well-established decades before the start of the debate about climate change. Until 2009, there were 36 studies of the half-life of atmospheric CO2 conducted between 1957 and 1992. Two more studies were completed and published this year. The range of half-life periods obtained from the 36 studies were between 2 and 25 years, with a mean of 7.5, a median of 7.6, and an upper range average of about 10. Of these 36 values, 33 are 10 years or less. The simple average for the 36 studies is 5.6 years. Not even one of these studies showed a half-life anywhere close to the "50-200 years" of Houghton, et al 1991, which is unabashedly attributed to computer modeling, and on which the IPCC continues to rely for their tabulations.

We have to admit that whatever we observe about CO2 concentration in our present atmosphere, and then whatever hypothesis we form concerning CO2 concentration, must be consistent with the considerable weight of the well-established body of knowledge contained in the 36 studies . No one anywhere has suggested that any of these studies is deeply flawed or that the conclusions about the CO2 residence time is in error. The methodology of the studies is not in question, either.

The amount of cumulative anthropogenic releases is fairly well tabulated, and reliably believed to be about 250 billion metric tons totally, and about 8 billion metric tons annually, at present. Using these two pieces of the puzzle (releases and residence time expressed as half-life), we can reconstruct the atmosphere as it exists today within a mere few ppm of actual measurements. But the key point is that in order to successfully reconstruct the atmospheric CO2 content from cumulative emissions, we must use the ~5.6 year half life.

But what happens when we reconstruct the present atmosphere using the AGW orthodoxy's numbers for residence time, namely a "50-200 years" half life? When the IPCC does so, they find that the atmosphere contains only half of the expected CO2! The half life figure the IPCC uses must be wrong; ALL previous studies based on actual measurements conducted over a ~60 year period by diverse teams in different countries all came to the conclusion: that CO2 has a short residence time.

As an additional proof, we can measure the fraction of fossil fuel sourced CO2 which is contained in the present atmosphere. This is possible because carbon from ancient sources has a significantly different isotopic 'signature' than carbon from recent sources. Specifically, the signature for recent 'naturally sourced' carbon is agreed to be ~ -7 pdb. The isotopic fingerprint of ancient fossil carbon is agreed to be ~ -26 pdb. All the isotopic mass-balance studies done so far show a figure of ~ -7.5 to -7.8 pdb, which is close to the signature of pre-industrial carbon, with some slight shift toward the fossil signature of -26 pdb. Using simple calculations, the present atmosphere contains about 4% 'fossil-sourced' carbon using the reliable and well-accepted methods of testing.

Now the IPCC and all the believers in the AGW orthodoxy assert that anthropogenic releases are the cause of the observed CO2 rise. Because of (among other things) the isotopic signature, we can test this hypothesis. The IPCC specifically claims that 21% of the CO2 in the current atmosphere is due to anthropogenic releases, but NO study is offered in support of this claim. 21% corresponds to about 75ppm, which when subtracted from 380ppm gives us 305ppm, very close to the "pre-industrial baseline" figure, thus the 21% attribution amount to an "all or nearly all" attribution.

If we accept that "all or nearly all" of the observed CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic releases, and that CO2 has a long residence time as claimed by the IPCC (Houghton, et al, 1991), then it's a simple matter to calculate the expected isotopic signature of the carbon in the present atmosphere; we have all information needed to make this calculation. The expected mass-balance figure is ~-11pdb for the 21% attribution. The problem is, no mass-balance study yet can confirm that the mass-balance signature of the CO2 in our recent atmosphere is ANYWHERE CLOSE to -11pdb, but rather in the -7.5 to -7.8pdb range, very close to the signature of recent CO2 of around -7pdb.

Thus the isotopic mass-balance measurements CONSISTENTLY falsify the argument that "all or nearly all" of recent CO2 rise is due to anthropogenic releases. The idea that CO2 has a long residence time is only the result of computer modeling done in 1991, and contradicts ALL the measurement studies ever done. The implication of a ~5 year half life is that of the 750 billion metric tons total atmospheric CO2, between 135 and 150 billion metric tons of CO2 is 'fluxed' from the atmosphere annually, totally swamping out the puny 8 billion metric tons of annual human emissions.

The fact that the IPCC's 'expected' isotopic signature is missing from all measurements does not support the conclusion that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, or that anthropogenic emissions have significantly contributed to recent CO2 increases. The fact that the IPCC's tabulations have a 50% error of missing CO2 is further confirmation that this hypothesis is in error, and the explanation of the carbon cycle proffered as a corollary to the AGW hypothesis is also wrong.

The postulate that the oceans are sinking the 'missing' CO2 cannot be squared against the well-treaded science of Henry's law; the oceans are simply too warm to have absorbed such an enormous amount of carbon (on the order of 12,500 billion metric tons or ~50X cumulative anthropogenic emissions, or 400 billion metric tons annually) nor can it be plausibly asserted that this amount of CO2 is being released or has ever been released, or could ever be released as it exceed all the carbon embodied in all the world's fossil fuel reserves.

These glaring contradictions are ALL the result of trying to assert that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere when we already knew from reliable direct measurements that this is impossible. Its these glaring misrepresentations of science which the IPCC presents in its summary to policymakers that have made a total mockery of the whole AGW premise in my view and that politics is now in the driving seat.

There are massive inaccuracies with this hypothesis. Please could you send me a copy of your study.