quote:

the 'green taxation' you mention is pretty vague.

Only this week we are hearing about proposals for such taxes on air travel. I think this is quite specific and as a direct consequence of the politicians acting on the current science.

quote:

To attribute that spending directly to the science is not strictly true.

If it were simply a matter of providing independence from Russian gas Europe could opt to make greater use of the large coal reserves in the new Eastern states of the union. Since the technology exists to burn coal as cleanly as natural gas it is probably the CO2 argument that makes this a political non-starter.

quote:

For a physicist, you've stopped talking about the science itself rather quickly.

I could bore you to death with the science if you like but you did not ask for that 8-)=

Not to get too off-topic, but the nuclear thing is also partly because there is going to be a rather worrying gap in the provision of energy supplies when the current active nuclear goes offline. But you have a point about the uranium, and there's many questions about how much carbon it actually produces.

Clean coal is beginning to look more attractive with carbon sequestration as a medium-term measure as we switch to mini-grids and H2.

There's also the rather obvious point that the less we rely on Middle Eastern oil, the less fraught our foreign policy becomes.

quote:

I could bore you to death with the science if you like but you did not ask for that

Well your political views are pretty short-sighted (see my comment on coal by the way), so maybe you should respond to the person who questioned your assumptions about cloud formation.

quote:

Well your political views are pretty short-sighted

This sort of personal attack is exactly why there will be no reasonable debate on this issue. Perhaps you would like to justify this attack?

quote:

maybe you should respond to the person who questioned your assumptions about cloud formation.

I have made no posting making any assumptions about cloud formation. Perhaps you would be good enough to identify what posting I should have responded to?

So we are being limited politically when it comes to sourcing gas/coal abroad. We have created all these boundaries for ourselves and after all the Wars to exercise the rogue testosterone what have we accomplished????..to tie ourselves up in knots over issues that we have created..no one else. Poor political choices again! hehe love this forum site, I was so stressed before this 'find' it's liking boxing for the mind LOL

Cloudman, the cloud formation post was made by SteveM on the previous page.

It wasn't a personal attack, I just think you have failed to look at the pragmatics of security of energy supply in the coming decades - you have a knee-jerk reaction to renewables because you think it de facto leads to an interventionist approach to economic policy. This need not be the case, and it is notable that interventionism occurs in all conventional energy sectors (oil and nuclear especially).

I fail to see how you can come to any conclusion as to what I think to renewables from what I have posted beyond the widely accepted view that they are currently rather expensive per KW/hr. You might be surprised that I am working towards making my own house 100% biofuel.

I see no problem, security-wise, with Europe relying on coal reserves within its own borders and utterly fail to see how that constitutes political short-sightedness.

Perhaps I should say that I am very much in favour of renewables. However, many of the technologies are so rapidly advancing (PV for example) that I think we need to buy as much time as possible to allow these technologies to develop. I believe that private investment in these areas will not flow until the development rates have settled - there is effectively deflation in the renewable technologies market. No one will want to be stuck for say 30 years trying to make a profit out of outdated renewables technology.

I now see that Steve_M was asking if I was a proponent of the Lindzen's iris effect. My stance is simply that we have not done the measurements to anything like the required accuracy to know what has happened, is currently happening or is likely to happen in the future with regard to clouds. I should add that this is not a criticism of my ex-colleagues in the field - I am simply trying to point out how extraordinarily difficult the measurements are. If I have a criticism it is for those who failed to accept the arguments for instrumentation research to promote more accurate measurments of cloud physics parameters in the past. Perhaps they felt that the accuracy of the existing instrumentation was adequate for the purposes of the time. I think that is looking short-sighted now.

OK, so we actually have a degree of agreement about energy policy. As you will see from my previous post I am not neccessarily against coal if we use carbon sequestration. Though I believe it should only be a transitionary measure as in terms of the long-term future of our civilization, even the coal will eventually run out. I would also note that there is a relatively large amount of private investment in PV (www.newenergyfinance.com), though I personally believe there will be some sort of bubble-bursting in the clean energy sector before the robust technologies fully come to light. This is dependent on the natural market mechanisms in operation (something I'm sure you'll advocate, as it seems you are economically conservative).

Your point about the science itself seems to be pretty specific and perhaps indicative of a personal experience in academia. I would urge you to get a response about this point from someone working on that specialist area and post the repsonse up here. Perhaps at www.realclimate.org. Given the numerous approaches to climate science I don't think one potential issue with cloud measurement instrumentation is enough to disprove manmade climate change, though I agree we need to continue to make incremental progress in the accuracy of observations.

Once again I might surprise you. I think the case for renewable energy is quite independent of the question of global warming. It does not need "sexing up" by tying it to global warming and global warming does not need sexing up in order for us to pursue renewables.

I'm also not opposed to government intervention in the area - quite the reverse - however I accept that, at least in the UK, private investment will be the principle way anything will be done.

As for the instrumentation thing - yes, it is built out of a long personal experience. I know that the attitude to the instrumentation persists but I am likely to endanger the careers of those still in the field who's confidence I still have were I to be more specific. The measurements in many cases are only just possible if no compromise is made. Sadly those compromises are made.

quote:

I don't think one potential issue with cloud measurement instrumentation is enough to disprove manmade climate change

No, but as you saw from CloudManNow's comments cloud and aerosol physics provide the biggest uncertainty in the whole equation and, if the IPCC were brutally honest those uncertainties massively undermine the case either way. I doubt, even now, given the whole data set from the satellites and terrestrial data, that the effect of clouds on the global heat budget could be calculated for a single day to the accuracy of 1W/sq.m. as a piece of now-casting let alone forcasted.

Don't get me wrong - I am not arguing for or against man-induced global warming. I am arguing for an honest acceptance of the limitations of the science. I think the poor state of cloud physics measurements might come as a surprise to the climatological modellers who are plugging that physics into their models.

"I think the poor state of cloud physics measurements might come as a surprise to the climatological modellers who are plugging that physics into their models."

I very much doubt that, it's a very hot topic.

It has implications for regional scale projections and long term projections.

But the evidence clearly shows that as models can project, analyse individual events, and hindcast with skill, they are good enough for medium term projections of gross measures like global average temperature.

quote:

they are good enough for medium term projections of gross measures like global average temperature.

I'm afraid we are simply going to have to disagree on that one

quote:

Originally posted by Cloud Man:

quote:

they are good enough for medium term projections of gross measures like global average temperature.

I'm afraid we are simply going to have to disagree on that one

Well if you want an evidenced discussion just ask, I have my evidence.

Ok - perhaps you can find me the papers that deal with how the increased acidification of the sea surface will affect the production of marine aerosol. How the change in surface temperature will affect sea-surface winds and how, in turn, that will affect production of aerosol at the sea surface and the vertical transport of those CCN into, say, marine stratocumulus. How in turn this will affect the coverage and optical properties of these clouds allowing for the, no doubt, modified updraft speed at the base of these clouds (which affects the peak supersaturation and hence the proportion of CCN activated).

Cloud Man - I have nothing against a discussion of the science and I am sure you are qualified to have an in-depth discussion about your qualms. But I would appreciate it if you give me unequivocal answers to the following questions:

- Do you think that the documentary put the science in the right context?
- Do you agree with all of the assertions the programme made? If not, which do you agree with?
- Do you think there is solid evidence against AGW?
- Do you think that the IPCC or members of it are deliberately suppressing debate about certain aspects of the science (such as marine aerosol) for political reasons?

quote:

Originally posted by Cloud Man:
Ok - perhaps you can find me the papers that deal with how the increased acidification of the sea surface will affect the production of marine aerosol. How the change in surface temperature will affect sea-surface winds and how, in turn, that will affect production of aerosol at the sea surface and the vertical transport of those CCN into, say, marine stratocumulus. How in turn this will affect the coverage and optical properties of these clouds allowing for the, no doubt, modified updraft speed at the base of these clouds (which affects the peak supersaturation and hence the proportion of CCN activated).

Sorry not my area of reading. And these are exactly the reasons I steer clear of impacts debate. All I will say about the future is

1) the more CO2 we emit, the warmer the planet will get.

2) for a doubling of CO2 we'll likely face an equilibrium temperature rise of ~3degC. (Notably Annan and Hargreaves work ongoing)

3) Further details, detailed impacts we'll have to wait and see.


I can see exactly what you're getting at, the idea of pH affecting albedo or outgoing longwave (OLR) is new to me. Thanks.

A few questions, if you don't mind:

Is the main factor for generating CCNs due to biological or chemical activity?

In terms of biota: Is the impact on DMS producing organisms the main issue in the generation of CCNs, or are other non DMS producing marine organisms involved? Do we know how these will be impacted by sea pH?
[Lovelock mentions DMS, dimethyl sulphide, in "Revenge of Gaia" - but I can't track down what he says right now.]

In terms of physical processes: would ocean pH affect spray as a forming mechanism for CCNs?

So are you saying that even though Lindzen's Earth Iris hypothesis has been kicked into the long grass, ocean pH could still act as an unforseen negative/positive feedback on albedo and OLR and hence GAT?



For what it's worth I am concerned about whether or not we are responsible for the recent warming (used to be a sceptic). I'm only here because of the GW Swindle spin-job.

1) Solar activity changes match fairly well to past changes in global average temperature (GAT).

2) Since 1950 Cosmic Ray Flux - no trend. Since 1976 no change in Total solar Insolation (TSI).
yet
3) Since 1975 3 decades of continual GAT increase, total ~0.6degC, ~0.2degC/decade.

4) Stratospheric cooling, indicative of enhanced greenhouse effect (Strato warming would be implied by TSI increases).

5) Studies of increase of CO2, e.g. Seuss effect - show increase is anthropogenic in origin. Acidification of oceans - thus not outgassing.

6) Proven ability of the models to project into the future (Hansen et al 1988) and ability to hindcast proven. Studies like Meehl et al (Additivity attribution) show that the warming post 1970 is due to enhanced greenhouse effect.

So we have a period since the 70s in which the Sun has been ruled out as a warming factor. During which a ramp-like increase of temperature has occurred. And models attribute this to increasing temperature. Diurnal trends (indicator of enhanced greenhouse) are more uncertain, Stratospheric cooling (indicator of enhanced greenhouse) is much more certain and has been attributed to CO2 with only a small contributory effect from CFCs.

Therefore the warming trend is 'very probably' (personal opinion - 'IS') due to human emissions of CO2.

A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) of Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is at http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137&Itemid=83
just one quote:

quote:

The material presented was a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming as presented by the main world community of climate scientists and by the IPCC.

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) of Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Added to Wikipedia's article. It may well end up being the best place to discredit the documentary as Wikipedia tends towards neutral assessment.

quote:

Originally posted by Winston Smith:

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) of Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Added to Wikipedia's article. It may well end up being the best place to discredit the documentary as Wikipedia tends towards neutral assessment.

Excellent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:

quote:

Originally posted by Winston Smith:

quote:

Originally posted by WordSmithy:
A critique by Sir John Houghton (former co-chair IPCC Scientific Assessment working group 1988-2002) of Channel 4 "The Great Global Warming Swindle"

Added to Wikipedia's article. It may well end up being the best place to discredit the documentary as Wikipedia tends towards neutral assessment.

Excellent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

I was peripherally involved in a Wiki based debunking of Christopher Mockton's Telegraph piece.

It was dropped from Wiki when they got a letter from his lawyer. Watch that space.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CobblyWorlds:
"So its OK to look at small time scales when you want to provide evidence FOR global warming, but not OK when you want to provide evidence against?"

Mmmmm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

"The major component of [eccentricity] variations occurs on a period of 413,000 years"

"The obliquity variations are roughly periodic, with a period of approximately 40,000 years."

"The Earth goes through one complete precession cycle in a period of approximately 20,000 years"

"The inclination of Earth's orbit drifts up and down relative to its present orbit with a cycle having a period of about 70,000 years"



Now where are we:

0.6degC in a century (IPCC 2001).

10,000 years contains 200 centuries.

The current warming is due to a Milankovitch cycle. (I choose the smallest as it gives the smallest result - so avoiding more embarasment than needed)

Therfore using your theory I have just shown it was about -60 degrees C 20,000 years ago. (OK it's a bit unfair but now do you see)

[QUOTE]
Errr, no sorry I don't! Your figures seem to support my argument that a few decades is far too small a period to measure 'climate change'.

0.6 in a century? OK what about the centry before, and the one before that, and the next one and the next one after that.

Your argument is like saying that if your spin a roulette wheel 10 times and get 8 reds and only 2 blacks, then this 'proves' that the wheel is biased towards red. It proves nothing of the sort the number of spins is far to low to draw this conclusion.

Andy.

It's quite clear that Milankovitch cycles are not relevant.

quote:

Errr, no sorry I don't! Your figures seem to support my argument that a few decades is far too small a period to measure 'climate change'.

0.6 in a century? OK what about the centry before, and the one before that, and the next one and the next one after that.

Your argument is like saying that if your spin a roulette wheel 10 times and get 8 reds and only 2 blacks, then this 'proves' that the wheel is biased towards red. It proves nothing of the sort the number of spins is far to low to draw this conclusion.

Roulette Wheel - a totally random system.

Climate - a complex but essentially causal system.


Scientists don't think CO2 is causing the recent warming because it's what they want to believe. They do so because of evidence.

The physics is very clear - more CO2 means more warming. The most likely equilibrum temperature rise is around 3degC for twice pre-indsutrial levels of CO2 (560ppm likely by 2040 to 2050).

Here's a new fraud that has been spotted by an associate.

I have to admit that when I saw the programme I was surprised by the amount of cooling between 1940-70 that they showed in their graph being reasonably familiar with the global temperature reconstructions such as:

google: annual global temperature

and select the Met Office link at the top.

Compare it with the programme if you watch it again.

It appears they chopped off the last 20 years of data, then stretched the graph to 2000 to accentuate th