BBC: Are we changing planet Earth?

[ar81]

A few days ago producer Nicholas Brown from BBC came to Costa Rica for the premier of spanish version of the documentary "Are we changing planet Earth", presented in a EU movie festival.

The documentary is narrated by David Attenborough.
It is about climate change.
It was quite an honor to have him here.

And as I posted this, I wonder what do you think about climate change.

 

[GregBurch]

I'm pretty sure the climate changes.

 

[MajorTom]

It also changed a lot before "human civilization." So the issue now is how much are we changing it, and whether or not we can stop the human component of the change...whatever that is...for better or for worse.

Too simplistic?

 

[bujin]

If you can get hold of it, watch "Earth: The Climate Wars", a BBC documentary by Dr. Iain Stewart.

There will always be sceptics on this sort of issue, but Dr. Stewart does a great job in cutting through the crap in this 3 part series, tracing the "history" of the climate problem, showing where scientists got things both right and wrong, detailing the argument from both sides, and most importantly showing the evidence.

The conclusion is simple - yes, the climate is changing, as it has done naturally throughout the life of the earth, but in the last century, the change has been very different to anything that has happened in the past. Humans are affecting the global climate, and unless we change our characteristic short-sightedness, the future is something to be pretty damn worried about.

 

[tl8]

If you can get hold of it, watch "Earth: The Climate Wars", a BBC documentary by Dr. Iain Stewart.

There will always be sceptics on this sort of issue, but Dr. Stewart does a great job in cutting through the crap in this 3 part series, tracing the "history" of the climate problem, showing where scientists got things both right and wrong, detailing the argument from both sides, and most importantly showing the evidence.

The conclusion is simple - yes, the climate is changing, as it has done naturally throughout the life of the earth, but in the last century, the change has been very different to anything that has happened in the past. Humans are affecting the global climate, and unless we change our characteristic short-sightedness, the future is something to be pretty damn worried about.

That is exactly what my opinion is!!

 

[GregBurch]

I'm curious whether those who are completely sold on the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have seen the recent (i.e. last 2 years or so) discussion of the original "Manning Hockey Stick" statistical analysis. From what I've read (and I freely confess that the statistical mathematics is far over my head), it seems to me that the original hockey stick projection has pretty well been debunked -- and in a way that shows that the analysis had to have been intentionally skewed to begin with.

 

[bujin]

Iain Stewart brings up the Hockey Stick thing in the documentary, and interviews several sceptics who all say that it is a fraud.

I'm trying to recall what was discussed in the documentary as it's been over a week since I saw it, and I've slept since then! But if I remember correctly, one of the main criticisms is that the weather stations which record the temperature have increasingly been surrounded by large, built-up areas, where the temperature is higher than the surrounding areas, so that accounts for the change.

However, there have been several other studies which, while perhaps not quite as dramatic as the original one, do still show the same trend. The "city" criticism also doesn't seem to apply to weather stations which are not in cities, which show a similar trend.

But I'm certainly no expert on this subject, so if there is another reason it has been debunked, please elaborate... (or provide links so I can go see!)

EDIT: Incidentally, I just noticed New Scientist recently wrote an article on the "myth" that the Hockey Stick had been (successfully) proven wrong.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

 

[GregBurch]

Iain Stewart brings up the Hockey Stick thing in the documentary, and interviews several sceptics who all say that it is a fraud.

I'm trying to recall what was discussed in the documentary as it's been over a week since I saw it, and I've slept since then! But if I remember correctly, one of the main criticisms is that the weather stations which record the temperature have increasingly been surrounded by large, built-up areas, where the temperature is higher than the surrounding areas, so that accounts for the change.

However, there have been several other studies which, while perhaps not quite as dramatic as the original one, do still show the same trend. The "city" criticism also doesn't seem to apply to weather stations which are not in cities, which show a similar trend.

But I'm certainly no expert on this subject, so if there is another reason it has been debunked, please elaborate... (or provide links so I can go see!)

EDIT: Incidentally, I just noticed New Scientist recently wrote an article on the "myth" that the Hockey Stick had been (successfully) proven wrong.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

OK, brace yourself. As I've said, the subject is NOT simple, and even material written for laymen gets pretty thick. On the other hand, I don't think you can have an opinion about the subject of AGW without working through it. Here are some examples:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/monckton_what_hockey_stick.pdf

As you'll see in that piece, much of the work critical of the "Mann hockey stick" (BTW, I incorrectly wrote "Manning" above) can be found here:

http://www.climateaudit.org/

Delving deeply into that site is an exercise in humility for the mathematically retarded, like me.

Now, let me say that I am deeply skeptical of anything about climate change or AGW that appeared in New Scientist. To me, it seems that they are the MOST politicized science mag on the market, and have been since its founding (thus the "New")

With all that said, I can't help but be influenced in the way I think about this by my profession as a trial lawyer. The "hockey stick" was the centerpiece of the IPCC effort for years, and it was the bedrock of the Goracle's apotheosis to the role of Savior of Humanity. If the AGW issue were a trial, the debunking of Mann's work would be the end of the case, because it would cast every other piece of evidence offered by the proponents of AGW into a harshly negative light. Let's just say that if I was the lawyer for the other side, Big Al would be TOAST at that point.

But it's not a trial. It's a scientific question. Unfortunatunately, it's also a political question, and the dynamics of politics is a lot more like the dynamics of a trial than the dynamics of the scientific method. So the whole thing is now deeply, deeply flawed in "social epistemological" terms -- i.e. how we know things as a society.

 

[ar81]

The documentary "Are we changing planet Earth" shows some interesting elements about climate change and the contribution of humans... You might like to watch it. It refers to the arguments in favor and against climate change.

 

[GregBurch]

The documentary "Are we changing planet Earth" shows some interesting elements about climate change and the contribution of humans... You might like to watch it. It refers to the arguments in favor and against climate change.

I will. But I'll also make this observation: Even if the documentary were eight hours long, I really don't think it could do the subject justice.

 

[ar81]

I will. But I'll also make this observation: Even if the documentary were eight hours long, I really don't think it could do the subject justice.

Ditto.

Nicholas Brown made 2 documentaries with the material he filmed. One is the one I named here.
The original idea was to make a biography of David Attenborough, and he did not believe in climate change caused by humans, but what he found changed his mind.

He was here and presented his documentary in EU film festival.
He is a great human being!

 

[Urwumpe]

Greg Burch: The problem with the hockey stick is not that it is wrong. Science can be wrong. The problem is, what do better plots show? And how are they produced?

The hockey stick plot is not evidence, it is interpretation. The evidence is a large collection of measurements from different places in the world, which would be pretty difficult to use directly (unless you have an audience which expects all three parts of LOTR in one night). So, we have the evidence, but the interpretation of the attorney seems to be wrong. But how wrong is it?

 

[GregBurch]

Greg Burch: The problem with the hockey stick is not that it is wrong. Science can be wrong. The problem is, what do better plots show? And how are they produced?

Take a look at the sources linked above. At this point, I feel pretty strongly that the public discussion of the issues has become so thoroughly politicized that the only thing that a person who really wants to understand the issues can do is dig, dig, dig on their own. Relying on high-level summaries at this point just won't work, because basically all such documents are shot through with political issues.

FWIW, my own very tentative view is that the case for AGW is not nearly as strong as many of its political proponents make it out to be. I say this based primarily on the wealth of information that seems -- to me at least -- to show very significant climate change in the past that cannot be linked to anthropogenic CO2. Once that matter is established, then the foundational priniple upon which the proponents of AGW rely seems to me to be rebutted.

 

[Urwumpe]

Take a look at the sources linked above. At this point, I feel pretty strongly that the public discussion of the issues has become so thoroughly politicized that the only thing that a person who really wants to understand the issues can do is dig, dig, dig on their own. Relying on high-level summaries at this point just won't work, because basically all such documents are shot through with political issues.

Sure. Always when you have more than three people working together, you have politics in all decisions. You can't avoid it, but you should be aware of it.

That the IPCC reports are the best summaries on the subject, we currently have, is not automatically making the IPCC reports better. It only makes the alternative climate science worse. Where is the rational voice in the wilderness?

FWIW, my own very tentative view is that the case for AGW is not nearly as strong as many of its political proponents make it out to be. I say this based primarily on the wealth of information that seems -- to me at least -- to show very significant climate change in the past that cannot be linked to anthropogenic CO2. Once that matter is established, then the foundational priniple upon which the proponents of AGW rely seems to me to be rebutted.

It does not have to be strong. It has to be there. The question is more, how strong can it get, before it makes the control loops of our climate instable - and our climate is nothing else but a large control loop.

So, this is where research has to be... how much influence can humans have, before they are forced to regulate climate themselves? And could we do this? No influence is impossible - even if we just breathe and sweat, we influence our climate.

That CO2 has a relation to the climate rise and that the CO2 increased with the burning of fossile fuels is currently fact.

 

[simonpro]

In the scientific world there is absolutely no confusion over what is happening. Every single climate scientist I have ever met is certain that global warming is occuring. Every physicist I have met is equally certain, as are the one or two meteorologists I know.
What is less certain is how much of an effect we are having. Again there is no argument that we are having an effect, the argument is over how much of an effect and whether the cost of reducing our emissions is less than the cost of global warming.
Even Svensmark and co (who are the only ones to ever put forward a legitimate scientific theory for another cause of global warming, and with whom I work weekly) don't deny that humans are having an effect, they just say that the effect is smaller than that of other factors (such as the solar cycle).


-----Posted Added-----


The IPCC report is a load of codswallop (to use a new Brit word I've just discovered) however. Some of the data they base their findings on is laughable.

To name but one example: They model the african savanah as identical to asian savanah (whatever it's called) and south american savanah. This is obviously not a good assumption, the flora and fauna, soil types and climate are markedly different, yet we don't have a model that treats each separately.

 

[GregBurch]

In the scientific world there is absolutely no confusion over what is happening. Every single climate scientist I have ever met is certain that global warming is occuring. Every physicist I have met is equally certain, as are the one or two meteorologists I know.
What is less certain is how much of an effect we are having. Again there is no argument that we are having an effect, the argument is over how much of an effect and whether the cost of reducing our emissions is less than the cost of global warming.
Even Svensmark and co (who are the only ones to ever put forward a legitimate scientific theory for another cause of global warming, and with whom I work weekly) don't deny that humans are having an effect, they just say that the effect is smaller than that of other factors (such as the solar cycle).

The IPCC report is a load of codswallop (to use a new Brit word I've just discovered) however. Some of the data they base their findings on is laughable.

To name but one example: They model the african savanah as identical to asian savanah (whatever it's called) and south american savanah. This is obviously not a good assumption, the flora and fauna, soil types and climate are markedly different, yet we don't have a model that treats each separately.

I basically agree with everything you've written here. The great irony for me is that I am a rabid proponent of moving us off the fossil fuel tit as quickly as possible, but for reasons that have nothing to do with climate change.

 

[simonpro]

Indeed. To be honest I have some doubts regarding just how much of an effect we're having on the environment.
However, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry (even at a high economic cost). I'd much rather endure some hardships in my life to stave off a possible climatological disaster than just ignore the possibility because I want to drive a gas guzzler in comfort to the shops.
We can't afford not to act. If we do then we may never know if we prevented a catastrophe, but at the very least we'll be living in a more fuel efficient society that's better set up for long term success.

 

[GregBurch]

Indeed. To be honest I have some doubts regarding just how much of an effect we're having on the environment.
However, I believe it's better to be safe than sorry (even at a high economic cost). I'd much rather endure some hardships in my life to stave off a possible climatological disaster than just ignore the possibility because I want to drive a gas guzzler in comfort to the shops.
We can't afford not to act. If we do then we may never know if we prevented a catastrophe, but at the very least we'll be living in a more fuel efficient society that's better set up for long term success.

About this, we disagree -- but I have to run off to work-work. Hopefully I'll be able to write more later.

 

[simonpro]

Well I'm off to watch my football team take on the Russians. I'll look forward to your thoughts tomorrow

 

[ar81]

The documentary I pointed out address many of the issues in this thread, and some others that have not been stated here.