UK climate expert warns of 3-5 degree warmer world by 2100 The current goals for limiting climate change to a two-degree rise in global temperatures will not be met, and the planet should prepare for twice that rise in temperature and maybe more according to Sir Robert Watson, former head of the IPCC and former Chief Scientific Adviser for the UK's Department for Environment, Food and …
"I find it very hard to believe that we'd have an efficient low-carbon system without carbon-capture storage and/or nuclear power," he said.
Is carbon-capture storage actually possible on any real scale?
Bring on the nooclar! But here is the other elephant: nooclar has had some, shall we say, bad press.
Why shouldn't carbon capture be possible? A lot of the carbon comes from large fixed sources like power plants, where the carbon leaves via the smoke stack. You can't capture the carbon from the tailpipes of all the cars, but electric cars are certainly feasible and even if their electricity comes from a coal burning plant its carbon can be captured far more easily than from the tailpipes of a half billion cars.
The problem is that no one ON EITHER SIDE really wants to do it because it is a middle of the road solution which pleases no one. The oil/coal/electrical industry thinks it goes too far and is too expensive, with some believing regulation already went too far with the Clean Air Act 45 years ago. The greens think it doesn't go far enough as it doesn't force greater use of renewable energy, and some of them wouldn't be satisfied until everyone is using a bicycle for transportation and taking cold showers.
IANAScientist but this carbon capture thing just doesn't make sense to me. The carbon leaving the coal power station via the smokestack is not just lumps of solid carbon: it's chemically bound up in CO2 gas. The thing about gas is that it takes up a lot of room: too much to be able to hide it under the carpet. This means we'd need to chemically change it somehow into some other form eg a solid, and that would mean un-oxidising the carbon: this is going to take a lot of energy... my guess is that it would take approximately the same amount of energy as we got out when we oxidised the coal in the first place, plus extra to cover inefficiencies in the system... doh! See? It just doesn't add up (to me at least). I'll be very happy if someone cleverer than me (I've set the bar pretty low there) comes along and explains a way that carbon capture can work for real.
I think you're being slightly harsh on yourself. It is basically a problem of scale. There's nothing fundamentally complicated about cleaning the gas in smokestacks to get pure-ish CO2 and then compressing it and doing "something" with it. The same process - and similar processes for other waste gases - is already done. It's a solved problem. But the scale required to make an impression on global power generation is altogether bigger. It's an engineering and financing problem rather than a scientific problem.
The only place you've stumbled is in your guesstimate about the energy cost of doing it. It obviously will increase the cost per unit of energy production. But even the very worst estimates don't get anywhere near a negative output. But then ... nobody has actually attempted this at the scales required so the estimates are just estimates.
You mean the one LP highlighted? Pretty much any study LP mentions is deeply flawed or plain vested interest lies unless Lewis just takes a single phrase out of context out of the study. If he quotes the whole study it won't take very much time at all to find the study has already been shredded by peer review.
Carbon-capture is extremely feasible. The plant you need to accomplish it is called, er, a plant. Every year the atmospheric CO2 concentration cycles by about 15ppm (average concentration is now 380ppm). This is because the mass of deciduous vegetation in the Northern hemisphere is greater than that in the Southern hemisphere. This tells you that if we could prevent all decay of fallen leaves, we would probably remove all CO2 from the atmosphere in less than 20 years! (Not, of course, a good idea to go this far).
So: genetically engineer or breed a common crop plant to grow more root than it needs, and to surround parts of its roots with something that will protect the root from decay for a long time after the plant dies (ie, is harvested). Interestingly, Wheat naturally does this to some extent. Its roots excrete tiny silica nodules, and the root inside the nodule does not decay for millennia. Some varieties of wheat do it much more than others. To start with, grow only those varieties. Selective breeding may well further increase the effect 10, even 100-fold. (Think of how we've shrunk a wolf into a Yorkshire terrier). GM might do a lot better still.
Or we could coppice lots of forest, and instead of burning the biomass for power, process it into a form of cellulose that's highly resistant to microbial attack and dump it into a deep ocean trench (from where nature will subduct it into the Earth's core). Such a form (nanocrystalline cellulose) does exist, and in fact has a lot of promise as a replacement for oil-based plastics.
@ Martin Budden
Carbon capture isn't theory: It's practiced in Industry and has been for some time. Not on the scale needed at a power plant, but it works.
The principle is to capture the CO2 in the flume, before it is allowed to expand/escape into the atmosphere. This is currently the most efficient way to capture and filter CO2 available. There are alternatives, such as filtering the air (inefficient) or by removing CO2 before combustion (Take out the carbon leaving hydrogen which is then burned, forming H2O (another greenhouse gas, but one that scientists aren't worried about)).
What to do with it when it's captured is another matter. CO2 has uses, but inevitably it is released into the atmosphere. What is being discussed is how to store it long term, or how to turn it into something useful that doesn't escape into the atmosphere.
Google it: There's quite a bit out there on it.
"Bring on the nooclar! But here is the other elephant: nooclar has had some, shall we say, bad press."
Not so much nuclear in general with the bad press, rather just nuclear fission. Nuclear fusion on the other hand, should it ever function economically at a commercial scale, will get fantastic press coverage by all except for the most ardent of wind farm greenies.
No energy generation is carbon neutral. You expend energy mining, manufacturing and transporting solar cells before they produce any energy. Same for every energy source.
Therefore the answer is not reducing energy use or so called "green energy" but carbon negative ventures offsetting the carbon being put out. Nuclear, solar and wind will reduce the amount going out but it's still going out.
Actually there are forms of energy generation that are carbon neutral. For example: Grow a tree, break off some twigs, let them dry out, rub them together really fast while blowing on them, and hey presto you have a fire which you can use to make a cup of tea. Later on when you fancy another cuppa: grow another tree... OK I never said it was practical.
Seriously though, burning waste biomass for electricity generation instead of just letting it rot is actually a carbon negative way of generating electricity. This is already being done with waste biomass from growing cane sugar. The lifetime energy output exceeds the up-front energy investment needed to build the furnace & generator, hence carbon negative.
Please can we use the term "Resource", rather than "Waste". Yet, so much of this resource goes to waste, so there you are. Nearly all the by-products resulting from biological or material consumption processes can be seen as a resource, as bio-mass or in material recycling. Whilst we all need to be thinking broadly about our energy provision and consumption, I advocate greater efforts to capture this resource. I'm not really looking forward to carefully separating out 100% of my unused food for collection and bio-digestion, but I will bloody well do it if I am guaranteed it will generate some more carbon-neutral energy and perhaps reduce the appalling amounts of chemical fertilizer that we tip onto the land etc. Same goes for all the paper, glass and metal that I already diligently recycle. I'm not convinced this resource is being re-used to the max. This goes hand in hand with minimizing unused food of course.
How do you harvest and get the waste do you get the biomass to the generating station ?
Using the internal combustion engine !
When will bearded, flip flop wearing lefties get it into their heads that the planet is 10x overpopulated to sustain our current resource use. No matter how many mud huts and bio toilets we use there are just too many of us.
"How do you harvest and get the waste do you get the biomass to the generating station ?"
Whats the generating station made of? Recycled timber? No concrete and steel.
Ok growing a tree and burning could be neutral but only if we're living in said tree and didn't have to transport said wood so unless we're going back to living in trees it's not viable.
I'm sick to death of the city dwelling lefties who stick a solar cell on the roof and recycle their rubblish and then think they've saved the world and this entitles them to tell everyone how to live their lives.
News Flash! You've made SFA difference. Your solar cells used more energy mining, manufacturing and transporting them from China than they will ever return. When they don't work you switch back to coal/oil/gas/nuclear. Your recycled rubbish mostly gets dumped because it's cheaper to make stuff from new. Your protest protecting native forest has stopped selecting logging and has led to massive forestry monocultures of foreign species such as pine which poisons the soil so very little can grow to compete against it. You protest against wind farm blighting the scenery and dam blocking the waterways. You sit in McDonalds, drinking a "Fair Trade" latte and watching KONY 2012 on your iPad and think if everyone was like you, the world's problems would be solved.
China has no targets as a developing country inside Kyoto. The USA has no intention to ratify it. Canada left the Kyoto protocol.
Yet the UK wants to try and heal the world of all its ills. We're a tiny island of little consequence in terms of CO2. Queue the news this week of the 'struggling' UK economy sending £2bn abroad to help fund questionable 'green' projects during a major recession.
Our government appears to have lost the ability of self preservation and is obsessed with wasting our finite resources on vanity projects with no benefits. That £2bn could have been spent on research within the UK.
All these predictions have one fatal flaw: they make predictions based on the current state of the world and fail to recognise that people and technologies change all the time.
By 2050 Chinese will have all the aspirations of living in a clean world etc that westerners have now.
If the CO2/climate problems still stack up, the Chinese will be self moderating and will be putting huge effort into R&D.
It is absurd to think that the Chinese economy & industry will continue to grow at current rates forever. There are already signs of slowdown and signs that Chinese people want to have better environmental quality etc.
Agreed, and the Chinese government is already making statements about climate change and has even started implementing a few policies, so your prediction about China becoming self-regulating is already becoming true. I get the feeling a lot of westerners don't realise how quickly China is advancing in many areas and assume China is still in the grips of the Cultural Revolution: it's not.
I somewhat agree, China is changing gradually. However I think these positive changes will only continue if their economy continues to grow. If they were to suffer from stagnation or unsatisfactory growth (which is considered to be less than 6% in China) then I would expect them to do whatever they feel is in their best interests to encourage growth.
"All these predictions have one fatal flaw: they make predictions based on the current state of the world and fail to recognise that people and technologies change all the time."
And yet CO2 emissions globally have continued to rise for the last 150 years.
"It is absurd to think that the Chinese economy & industry will continue to grow at current rates forever."
Even if they don't that doesn't imply global emissions will stabilize or fall. You could have made the same argument 20 years ago about Europe and the US. Sure they stabilized, but China and India emerged to take up the slack. So globally CO2 emissions continued to rise. Now when China and India stabilize how sure are you that some other countries won't take up the slack? There's a lot of potential for emission growth in South America and Africa.
Also stabilizing global CO2 emissions is not enough. CO2 keeps rising even if CO2 emissions stabilize, just as stabilizing the flow rate of the tap keeps the water level in the bath rising.
The fact that China is considered a developing nation and has no targets is exactly the problem. Self regulation won't help either - even if China (and India - look at their curve starting to go exponential...) stabilizes at per-capita CO2 levels similar to Europe, there are so many of them that they will dwarf the US and EU combined.
"By 2050 Chinese will have all the aspirations of living in a clean world etc that westerners have now."
And by then the Chinese will but their cheap shit from Africa or such despodic cellpool where you can pollute as much as you want and exploit the workers.
You've move the pollution. Problem not solved
The human being is capable of adapting to an extraordinary range of environments. There coukd possibly be some flooding and raising/lowering of the seas etc but knowing mankind we will simply become a little more creative and continue to survive as we have always done.
Will there be some losses, changes, destruction, of course there will but that just means we will have to get our fingers out and find new solutions......it's never stopped in the past...
Nature has a been evolving for quite a few years already and mankind evolving along with it. We are actually quite well versed in the rules of this game.
Its the usual syndrome of "PANIC, FEAR and DOOM". Capitilistic society can't allow for changes to be made, the few that have it all would risk losing some of their unusuable fortunes.......
Most of the worlds population lives near the sea, moving would be rather inconvenient, to say the least.
Also: We may be able to adapt to the physical changes, but if the food chain gets knackered by those changes, we're adapted, but starving which isn't much consolation.
> Capitilistic society can't allow for changes to be made, the few that have it all would risk losing some of their unusuable fortunes.......
You have it ass backwards.
Capitalist society is the only one for which changes can be made. Whether some are rich is irrelevant.
Highly structured Oligarchist or Socialist societes, however, demand the status quo or change by central command. See how many people had to be offed in the Soviet Union or how much knowledge and life was lost during the so-called "Cultural Revolution", I would say only Greens of the more rabid sort would be into that.
OK, so you take a look at the global temperature graph http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif and feel free to cherry pick any dates you want and show me any time where we've had a rate of 3 degrees rise/century. Please let us sceptics know how many more decades of data we have to collect before we can all agree that these alarmist predictions (from models) just don't match up with real data (from thermometers).
I said a rate of 3 degrees per century. Is that a concept too complicated for you? When you're driving a car I guess you have absolutely no idea what speed you're going until you have driven for an hour? Please re-read my post but substitute 0.3 degrees per decade in instead. Sigh....
Well no, the uncertainty range in warming rate from 1970 overlaps with that from 1998, so it cannot be claimed the warming since 1998 is slower than since 1970. There's no cherrypicking here. It's quite robust to any start/endpoint. To give some more examples:
1970 to 1998 is 0.155 +- 0.059C /decade
1980 to 2000 is 0.165 +- 0.098C /decade
2003 to present is -0.057 +- 0.225C/decade
All these uncertainty ranges in trend (which are 95%) overlap.
Recent warming over past decades has been about 0.16C/decade as the above figures show. 0.2C/decade is not what has been, it's the future if GHGs keep increasing. If the period 2000-2030 comes out at 0.2C/decade, 2030-2060 0.26C/decade, 2060-2090 0.34C/decade, etc then this would result in about 0.3C over 100 years. Entirely plausible at the rate GHGs are increasing.
@NomNomNom: I'm sorry but you're wrong about what the confidence intervals represent.
If X is the "warming rate" in 2012 and Y is the "warming rate" in 1970 then what you are trying to say is that since we believe that P(a<X<b)=P(c<Y<d)=0.95, with c<b, we can reasonably conclude that P(X<Y)<0.05. This is not true; you'd need to do a different statistical test to conclude anything about the relationship between X and Y (you haven't even told us what P(X>c) or P(Y<b) are, for example). That analysis is complicated by the fact that (i) we shouldn't necessarily expect X and Y to have normal distributions and (ii) X and Y cannot be considered independent.
The data you've presented simply doesn't allow us to conclude anything about the relationship between warming rates historically and now - whether they have fallen, risen or stayed the same on any level of confidence.
> No I am saying we *can't* reasonably assume P(X < Y) > 0.95
What the hell are you on about??? Nobody is talking about the *probability* of the rate of temperature change now being less than at another date. Do you even understand what you are saying? Stop talking shite and just *look* at the temperature graph:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
If you thought that temperatures were going to increase (at an ever increasing rate) that graph is looking shockingly bad for you.
"Nobody is talking about the *probability* of the rate of temperature change now being less than at another date"
Earlier you claimed there is a statistically significant slowdown. That's a claim that P(X < Y) > 0.95.
"Stop talking shite and just *look* at the temperature graph:"
Eyeballing a graph will lead you astray.
"If you thought that temperatures were going to increase (at an ever increasing rate)"
I didn't.
> Earlier you claimed there is a statistically significant slowdown.
No, I said that there is no evidence that the rate of change of temperature will be +0.3C per decade (as was the whole gist of the article we are commenting on), it's barely ever got up to +0.2 per decade, and just for short periods, and lately rather than increasing the rate appears to be approximately 0.0C per decade.
> Eyeballing a graph will lead you astray.
Errrr... what is the point of drawing a graph in the first place if you're not supposed to look at it? That's gotta be your best comment so far. Made me laugh!
> > If you thought that temperatures were going to increase (at an ever increasing rate)
> I didn't.
You said earlier: "The models show about 0.2 degrees per decade, on average. Higher rates of warming are only predicted if GHGs keep rising."
So you did.
"> Eyeballing a graph will lead you astray.
Errrr... what is the point of drawing a graph in the first place if you're not supposed to look at it? That's gotta be your best comment so far. Made me laugh!"
That made *me* laugh! Are you being deliberately obtuse? Are you suggesting that modern statistics be done away with in favour of drawing graphs?
> > Earlier you claimed there is a statistically significant slowdown.
>No, I said that there is no evidence that the rate of change of temperature will be +0.3C per decade"
Earlier I pointed out "There's no statistically significant slowdown there." to which you replied:
"Ummmm.... there is."
It's NomNomNom. After reading his threads on previous posts I 've concluded he doesn't know anything except talking shit, is impervious to actual logic, and is thoroughly unschooled in basic scientific principles. But he is a FIRM believer in AGW. Best be careful or he'll send the inquisitors to wring the truth out of you.
What is the precision of your average thermometer used to measure the temperature?
Do humans read these thermometers or is it automated?
If automated, since when.
A zillion other questions, but these are a start.
Personally I am disinclined to lend to much support to global predictions +/- thousandths of a degree average, unless they are satellite readings with highly calibrated instruments and essentially global coverage.
Where can I see the latest satellite graph (since 1970 or so, whenever we got the satellites for this)?
Is the troposphere warming yet?
One of the reasons for uncertainty in short time frame measurements of ground-based observations is the large number of airfield-located stations in the historical measurements.
Here's a small clue - those were originally installed for the use of the airport - not for climate measurement - temperature IS important when calculating lift generated on aircraft, but it is not critical down to even tenths of a degree. From personal experience in working in airports over many years, the older sets were actually only calibrated to +/- 2 degrees. There was no need for greater accuracy considering the use.
> Are you suggesting that modern statistics be done away with in favour of drawing graphs?
I'm suggesting you can use any statistics you want (or just take a cursory glance at the graph). Either way, it isn't looking like temperatures are going up anywhere near the rate that climate doomsters have predicted from their models.
> ...it is in fact likely that we will start seeing an uptick before too long. I'm curious to know what argument you will fall back on if that happens.
I don't need to fall back on any argument because this CAGW thing is not my theory. If temperatures had continued to increase in line with that theory then that would just mean that CAGW hasn't been disproved yet. As the actual data coming in is not matching the theory the theory is looking increasingly wrong. I know Warmistas hate this methodology but that's just the way *real* science works.
Look at the IPCC temperature projections
http://profmandia.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/ipcc_scenario_prediction.gif?w=700
Only one of these (A2 emission scenario) has the temperatures increasing at an ever increasing rate. The others all show slow down at some point.
"If temperatures had continued to increase in line with that theory then that would just mean that CAGW hasn't been disproved yet."
Which is the current situation.
"As the actual data coming in is not matching the theory"
To make the case the data doesn't match the theory you need to define a) what the theory is (for example, it isn't an ever increasing rate of temperature rise) and b) statistically prove the data doesn't match the theory.
Thanks for that graph. Looks to me like *actual* data since 2000 when those models begin (as measured by thermometers and satellites) so far is tracking below even the "constant CO2" model. And it's even slipped below the error margins of *all* the "increasing CO2" models. What's that known as? Epic fail I think is the term.
but again you are eyeballing a graph.
what is the uncertainty range in temperature in the "constant CO2" model since 2000?
what is the uncertainty range in observed temperatures since 2000?
Do they overlap?
The models can only be claimed to be tracking below observations if the uncertainty in both doesn't overlap significantly (as in statistical significance).
The irony of course is that skeptics play up the uncertainty in the temperature records, which surely makes it harder to ever conclude the models are wrong....
> but again you are eyeballing a graph.
Yeah, yeah, I know I'm committing that climate denier crime of "looking at a graph". Shame on me, eh?
They've drawn error margins on that temperature model graph you posted. The actual temperatures (as recorded by satellites and thermometers) are falling *below* all the error margins of the "increasing CO2" models and each year by a bigger margin, so yes that is statistically significant. Even Phil Jones is worried! Face it, you've lost this argument.
Eyeballing doesn't mean just looking at a graph. It means trying to divine statistical conclusions from a graph. Eyeballing graphs is well known to produce incorrect conclusions because the human eye-mind is not a calculator.
The UAH global satellite temperature record shows a temperature trend of 0.109C +- 0.273C per decade since 2000. That means in the 12 years since 2000 there could have seen up to 0.458C warming according to the satellite data. A substantial part of the uncertainty range covers > 0.2C/decade warming. This makes it impossible to claim with any certainty that the warming is too slow. Which means the conclusion: "the actual temperatures (as recorded by satellites and thermometers) are falling *below* all the error margins" is wrong and certainty cannot be claimed to be "statistically significant".
The models and observation uncertainty is large on shot timescales. We can't expect to "prove" anything with just 12 years of data, the uncertainty is just too large.
For any period there are three possibilities:
1) Warming is statistically significant (statistically warming is proven to exist)
2) Warming is statistically insignificant (warming could exist, but uncertainty is too large to prove it)
3) No warming is statistically significant (statistically there is proven no warming)
Phil Jones was talking about the boundary between #1 and #2. #3 isn't even on the radar. #2 happens even during strong warming if the period chosen is so short the uncertainty is big.
You just don't get the concept of a bell curve do you? Adding and subtracting the +/- number to the result doesn't give you all the possible actual values in equal probability. There's a chance it could be +0.458C/dec as you say, it's just a very very low chance. Way more likely it's around +0.109C/dec. Just cos some of the bell curve overlaps the value you are crossing your fingers for (it always will. It's a bell curve, duh) doesn't mean I can't say that those models are looking increasingly rubbish. I'll say it for the dozenth time: there is no indication from any *actual* data that it looks like we are headed for a +0.3C/dec rise in temperature. Only models say that, and as the actual data keeps coming in each year they're looking increasingly wrong.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"I'm suggesting you can use any statistics you want (or just take a cursory glance at the graph). Either way, it isn't looking like temperatures are going up anywhere near the rate that climate doomsters have predicted from their models."
Historically, there have been short term variations in the temperature around a general trend. Those variations tend to be bigger than the trend. That's just the way it is and is the essence of why you can't look at a short period. You need enough data to be able to discern the signal from the noise. Where statistics comes in is being able to quantify what you can actually say based on the data that you have.
Another way you can look at it is physically and try to understand why the temperatures vary the way the do over short periods. For example, we know that there was a super El Nino in in 1997-98 which caused a temporary peak in temperatures. We also know that one of the strongest La Nina's recorded occurred in 2010-2011 and that that has a dampening effect on temperatures. We also know about the effect of volcanic activity. Attempts have been made to analyse temperature data by removing these known effects. These yield a consistent rate of warming. I know this won't convince you as it relies on statistical analysis but, even if you don't accept the details of the analysis, the ENSO effects effects over the last 15 years or so are indisputable. Do you not therefore accept that there is at least a plausible reason for the observed temperatures that is not inconsistent with an underlying increasing trend?
" You need enough data to be able to discern the signal from the noise. Where statistics comes in is being able to quantify what you can actually say based on the data that you have."
Apparently, it is a lot easier to fiddle with the data and/or change the input parameters (and/or other detail aspects) of the feedback model to "fit" the historical record..
"I don't need to fall back on any argument because this CAGW thing is not my theory. If temperatures had continued to increase in line with that theory then that would just mean that CAGW hasn't been disproved yet."
I'm wondering in that case what is your rationale for rejecting the theory, since the crux of your argument so far is that surface temperatures are not in line with predictions. You have pretty much said there that, if they had been, you would still reject it. So what is the basis for that? What is your alternative theory that has the same explanatory power?
> You have pretty much said there that, if they had been, you would still reject it.
Wow, you just don't get how science works do you! I'll try and explain it:
You come up with a theory. Then you look at real world data (not models!) and see if that fits your theory. If the data fits it does *not* prove your theory is correct. It just means that it hasn't disproved it. If the data does not fit then it shows that your theory is flawed.
I have not rejected the CAGW theory, I am arguing that the data is making it look incredibly flaky. Even if the data had supported the theory (as it seemed to do in the 80s and 90s but doesn't appear to since) it wouldn't have proved it - i.e. the science was *never* settled.
I do not need to come up with an alternative theory. Why would you even suggest that?
> Wow, you just don't get how science works do you!
Yes I do actually. From the following it isn't clear that you do:
> You come up with a theory. Then you look at real world data (not models!) and see
> if that fits your theory. If the data fits it does *not* prove your theory is correct. It just
> means that it hasn't disproved it. If the data does not fit then it shows that your theory
> is flawed.
You seem to be a bit confused. No one is comparing models to theory. Models are part of the theory. Obviously real world data has to be measured and obviously nothing is provable in science. No one would argue with you about that, least of all me.
What it is possible to say is that if a scientific theory has predictive power, and can explain and pull together multiple lines of evidence then it is something to start taking seriously. Current understanding of climate and the role of CO2 has reached that level of acceptance in the scientific community.
The point that you are arguing is that the data does not fit predictions and that therefore disproves the theory. That is too simplistic. As has been attempted to explain to you, the temperature data from the last few years is not sufficient to disprove the predictions made. Once again: this is because of the natural variations in temperature that are superimposed on the warming trend. If you want to go purely with the measured data then you need to allow a sufficiently long period to average out the natural variations and see the underlying trend. As I explained in my earlier post, it is not even as if the natural variations are completely random - we do have a pretty good handle on some of the major causes and can explain what has been going on in the last few years.
> I have not rejected the CAGW theory, I am arguing that the data is making it look
> incredibly flaky. Even if the data had supported the theory (as it seemed to do in
> the 80s and 90s but doesn't appear to since) it wouldn't have proved it - i.e. the
> science was *never* settled.
The only data you have mentioned is atmospheric temperature data. As explained, we cannot draw conclusions from that yet. However, most heat is going into the ocean. It is the total energy balance that is important and that is in line with predictions. Melting arctic ice is in line with predictions (in fact predictions were conservative). Melting antarctic ice is in line with predictions.
> I do not need to come up with an alternative theory. Why would you even suggest that?
Multiple lines of evidence support the current theory. Contrary to popular belief the supporting evidence is not just models, though they are a part of it. If you are saying that it is wrong, the onus is on you to explain why and to provide a better explanation that fits the evidence. Pending that, scientists will stick with the current theory. That's how science works.
Look, you can take *all* of the temperature data we have so far, or you can cherry pick *any* dates you feel you want to, but you will never see anything like the 0.3 - 0.5 C per decade that this article talks about, or the 0.2 - 0.6 C per decade that we've been told by the IPCC. It just isn't there. If you take *all* of the data you see about 0.1/dec and if you cherry pick with a vengeance you can squeeze out nearly 0.2/dec.
It's all very well saying, "but the rate is going to start increasing any time real soon now if we keep pumping out all this CO2!" but we've been told that for decades and it just hasn't happened. Don't you realise just how stupid you look when you keep promising that and then the rate goes and takes a 16 year nosedive? You can keep on bleating that it's not enough time yet to be significant and the rate is definitely going to start increasing any time real soon now, but as the actual temperature data has dropped below all of the models' lower error margins you're looking beyond stupid.
And saying that the temperature hasn't risen because all that naughty heat is hiding out there somewhere just stinks of pure desperation.
This post has been deleted by its author
"There's no statistically significant *warming* there."
That's not entirely surprising given it's only a 14 year period. Shorter periods have more uncertainty and so the lower end can cut below 0. This is precisely why scientists say use 30 year periods for climate so that the uncertainty range is small enough.
This post has been deleted by its author
> That's not entirely surprising given it's only a 14 year period.
Look at the graph from the UEA at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif You've only got 20 years of significant warming (1980-2000). How come 20 years of warming is magically enough to prove CAGW and yet 14 years of *not* warming isn't enough to disprove it? (and don't try and count in the similar 3 decade temperature rise that started in 1910 as there was negligible human produced CO2 then - and yet there was a temperature rise, funny that eh?)
"You've only got 20 years of significant warming (1980-2000)."
No, there's also 20 years of significant warming (1992-2012)
"How come 20 years of warming is magically enough to prove CAGW and yet 14 years of *not* warming isn't enough to disprove it?"
Statistics. The 20 years of warming is statistically significant, which rules out cooling or no-warming. Your 14 year period is statistically insignificant on all counts.
And that's the way Climate Science works!
20 year warming trend = definitely, definitely statistically significant
14 year no warming trend = absolutely no way statistically significant. In fact "statistically insignificant on all counts"
Ha ha, yeah, sigh....
As was posted earlier:
‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ Dr Phil Jones - Director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
One more year to go then! I got a big bag of popcorn.
"And that's the way Climate Science works!
20 year warming trend = definitely, definitely statistically significant
14 year no warming trend = absolutely no way statistically significant. In fact "statistically insignificant on all counts""
That's also the way statistics works.
If the temperature trend over a period is 0.14 +- 0.03 (95%) then warming is statistically significant because all parts of the 95% uncertainty range cover warming.
If the temperature trend over a period is 0.04 +- 0.2 (95%) then no warming is NOT statistically significant because a large part of the 95% uncertainty range covers warming.
Whether a period has a statistically significant trend or not isn't based on opinion...
> Whether a period has a statistically significant trend or not isn't based on opinion...
No, you're confusing statistical significance with significant warming.
From your example: 0.04 +- 0.2 (95%)
+/- 0.2 means that the data fits our invented trend line pretty well (i.e. it is statistical significance)
0.04C/decade means that there is virtually no warming (i.e. no significant warming)
This isn't rocket science.
"From your example: 0.04 +- 0.2 (95%)"
It means we have 95% confidence that the temperature trend over the period is somewhere between -0.16C/decade cooling and 0.24C/decade warming.
Bottom line is you can't claim from that there has been no warming, or that there's been no "significant warming". There could have been as much as 0.24C/decade warming over that period according to the data.
Perhaps you should research who mad the famous 30 year claim, and then address the questions.
a) Is he/she credible?
b) Why was the statement made?
c) Is there any relationship whatsoever between the 30 years and with any/all the known physical cycles which predictably and reliably affect climate?
Then apply some critical thinking.
@Nom: am I reading your figures wrong?
1970 is between 0.132 to 0.196
1998 is between -0.103 to 0.183
That is of warming. So that is saying that from 1998 to now it may have cooled due to the margin of error while it should have warmed regardless from 1970. But dont you claim co2 is constantly rising because we are all bad people (spank me)?
So based on your historical (been there and actually measured it) data we have a margin of error that claims we could be warming, or we could be cooling from 1998. It does explain why predictions are always well off the mark and reduce the armageddon predictions to probable fiction.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Yawn.... - skepticalscience ? Nasty little band of juvenile contriving dishonest shrill shouty alarmists"
Well, El Reg's pals at the GWPF have used the same temperature data to reassure us that there has been no warming in 16 years, so how would you characterise them? I'd go for cherry picking AGW deniers.
> I'd go for cherry picking AGW deniers.
Or maybe they just used their eyes to go take a look at the graph on the UEA's own website:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Can you not see the flat bit on the end? Starting to look a bit embarrassing when we've been promised ever increasing rates of temperature rise.
"Can you not see the flat bit on the end? Starting to look a bit embarrassing when we've been promised ever increasing rates of temperature rise."
Can you not see that there was a bit of a steeper drop before that that has flattened out and looks like it might go up again?
Which is no more ridiculous than what you are saying. The point is that there is not enough data to say that the 'flat bit' is significant yet.
Given what we know about ENSO activity in the period we are talking about, it is in fact likely that we will start seeing an uptick before too long. I'm curious to know what argument you will fall back on if that happens.
The relevant relationship , of course , is not time versus temperature , but CO2 concentration against temperature . But that makes the case for CO2 caused warming virtually indefensible if the concentration has gone up by 9% while the temperature has been flat .
BTW , that totally arbitrary division between blue and red across http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif masks the fact that the temperature has apparently risen in two periods , from about 1910 to 1940 , and then 1975 to 2000 , with plateaus otherwise . Certainly not simply monotonic with CO2 .
"Yawn.... - skepticalscience ? Nasty little band of juvenile contriving dishonest shrill shouty alarmists"
Well, the GWPF have used exactly the same temperature data to reassure us that there has been no warming for 16 years, so how would you characterise them?
I'd go for cherry pickers in pursuit of a neoliberal agenda.
Any link to skepticalscience and I know the poster is a dupe incapable of rational analysis .
To get 2 to 4 degrees warming by 2100 requires a 2 to 4 times change in slope between CO2 concentration and temperature . But , with a 9% reported change in CO2 concentration over the last decade and a half , there has been no change in temperature .
This nonscience claiming the building block of the biosphere will destroy it has about run its profoundly stupid course .
"But , with a 9% reported change in CO2 concentration over the last decade and a half , there has been no change in temperature ."
That's wrong, the change in temperature over that period (since 1997) is 0.085C/decade +-0.132.
Since 1970 the trend is 0.16C/decade +- 0.032
To get 2C warming over the period 2000-2100 only requires a 25% increase in the rate of warming over the period 2000-2100.
This post has been deleted by its author
why and HOW do we go back to pre-Industrial CO2 levels?
some climate change arguments are so specious.
do we wipe out humanity, decimate population levels or destroy all shipping, planes, cars, railways, factories and power plants (fossil based) and go back to eating berries and cr*p**ng in hedgerows?
or do we just hold our breaths and "store our own CO2" for a few seconds?
should we stock up now, on sheepskins, leather sandals, woolly socks, viking helmets, spears and run round in the fields to keep warm, light fires at stonehenge etc?
climate scientists do need to get out and about a bit - get a real life - go to the pub - see real peoples predicament before they "intellectualise" us all to armageddon!
Climate change summits are always full of (money, sorry subsidy grabbing green scroungers and intellectuals who don't want to do real work) HOT AIR AND CO2!
Reminds me of "Land Clearances" of past generations - we don't want any dirty peasants on our "green unsullied landscape, no factories, houses, cars, chimneys etc etc.
Invest in wool now. Long live the pre-shrunk, rain sodden, mountain reared, long haired woolly sheep!
climate scientists do need to get out and about a bit - get a real life - go to the pub - see real peoples predicament before they "intellectualise" us all to armageddon!
So what you're saying is that they should just ignore their own data, and stick their head in the sand? And I think you'll find that "Peoples predicaments" are foremost on their minds.
Maybe it's you who see their point of view - afterall the only way to guarantee your "armageddon" is to pretend none of this shit is happening.
I suspect that you'll find that what he's saying is that people should be doing a cost benefit analysis of all of the climate change stuff vs the cost of fixing it, and realise that we, as nations, can't afford to go backwards 600 years in carbon footprint. What we've got to ensure is that when we succeed in halting man induced climate change, it isn't a phyrric victory.
This post has been deleted by its author
@Julian: Probably when there is some supported, scientific, believable proof to support things are changing and that the invisible friend (co2) is doing it. Until that point it could be natural or it could be something completely different.
Just remember that the advocates of the MMCC co2 theory are having to go back and find out why their predictions havnt happened again.
I see thumbs down but nobody seems to have countered it. Nobody has explained how somehow the back peddling and many failed (and some hilariously bogus) predictions isnt true. If I am to believe the theory then surely I expect it to give the right answers and to be reliable enough to be trusted. Otherwise it isnt science.
I dont rule out the possibility we contribute to changing the climate but how can I trust its exclusively us and our CO2 output causing the problem or even a valid solution?
Go ahead people. Continue to down vote a call for measurable, scientific facts. But at least recognise that is what you are down voting.
This post has been deleted by its author
"...(and some hilariously bogus) predictions"
Apparently some think (have thought) that climate change is possibly leading to an increase in heroin addiction, making days shorter, making days longer, making sheep smaller.
So the possibility of miniature, heroin fuelled lambs populating a world that experiences both shorter and longer days simultaneously may beckon. Climate change, ain't it great what you can extrapolate from real science!
Oh, fercryinout...
Look: you don't get to say "I remember all the times various unspecified people were wrong, so now I demand citations to prove that the people I don't believe in are right".
When you can properly cite the "back peddling [sic] and many failed (and some hilariously bogus) predictions" that haven't come true, then maybe someone will take the time to refute your examples. Until then, you can eat your downvotes like a good little anonymous coward.
veti: Finally a cultist with balls or without a clue, either way I appreciate you actually having a comment instead of just hiding behind a down vote.
Himalayas ice will have melted by 2035? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/04/16/himalayan_karakoram_glaciers_gaining_ice/
The climate refusing to change at the predicted rate? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/29/wmo_global_temp_figures_2012_doha_ninth_hottest/
These are the funnier ones (for me) but I invite other followers of science (that doesnt make us deniers) to add to the list.
>Look: you don't get to say "I remember all the times various unspecified people were wrong, so now I demand citations to prove that the people I don't believe in are right".
I think you will find I do get to say that. If you are happy to follow any old cult because they say so then thats up to you, but science requires something called proof. You remember climategate dont you when a 'ahem' scientific group was acting unscientifically by not showing the proof to their conclusions. And when someone claims to know the truth you demand proof to believe them. And when they get it wrong, then wrong, then again wrong, but they are still certain. Then yeah I get to ask why this time I should believe a word they say.
But if your happy with faith it wont bother me. Until you claim to actually be right to which I will then ask for proof.
Okay, one of those links mentions a genuine (and long acknowledged) goof by the IPCC. The other - points to a general-purpose propaganda hash by Lewis Page that, as usual, completely fails to cite any specific examples of anything.
I should, perhaps, moderate my earlier statement. Of course you can say whatever you like. What got to me was your challenging of your own downvotes, basically criticising others for failing to refute an argument that you haven't even made.
Wow. So you accept one of them as genuine but not the other (ok) yet havnt refuted it. So you accept that dodgy claims are made under the guise of science while being total rubbish? And so I have legitimate grounds to demand proof before I believe any old rubbish.
I challenged downvotes because there are many instances of such stupidity because of the political involvement in what should be science. How many times have the figures been adjusted? Only a couple of months back NASA had said they were sorry they had previously published misleading results but this time they are right (article on the reg). On that I commented that if the trusted institution could publish wrong data then surely they must show that these are more reliable. A few yr ago they randomly adjusted their data to such a stupid incline even the IPCC didnt agree with them.
Backpeddling is a constant in this climate debate, and I dont blame actual scientists for that. Climate is in the realm of politics. technology like windfarms which dont actually solve any problems (not even the theoretical ones) cost vast sums, while actual scientists dont know what it causing any change or what will happen if there actually was the change being claimed.
It is possible climate is warming badly and its possible we are contributing. But its also possible that one of the many religions is actually right, but that doesnt mean I sign up to every cult just because they may be right. There has yet to be conclusive proof that destructive change is happening or that we are contributing enough (or any) of anything to affect change.
So I will challenge those who downvote my comments against blindly following a cult. Either a cult of the we are doomed or the cult of absolutely nothing is happening. I want proof and facts, not various people telling us we have x days to save the earth, then saying it again with a different number once their deadline passes
Elephants are fairly docile but bears are pretty dangerous, even the cuddly panda's could rip your face off with a gentle slap.
Will China change in time?
Will people go after the low of other green house gases?
Could anaerobic digestion supply 50% of the UK's gas needs in a carbon neutral manner?
Or could the software development clusterf**k that was the CRU "modelling" effort (described in the harryreadme file) finally be sorted out and some real predictions be made?
It's a speech. No new field research or analysis, so no thumbs up from me.
"harryreadme wasn't about modelling"
It was about the way you reconcile, adjust, normalize, re-scale and otherwise mash up the raw data into datasets that act as input for those models.
And weather you can recover the precise processing chain used to turn raw data into your dataset.
And I'd say the answer is you can't. But stuff the dataset through a model and you do get an alarming result.
So the cleverness of the model you're driving does not matter. GIGO applies.
That's not really good enough when you're looking at billions being asked for to fix this problem.
Ermmm that doesn't make any sense. The oceans release CO2 as they warm and sequest CO2 as they cool - another beer law and probably the most important one ;o)
You are suggesting increasing atmospheric CO2 "faster than the buffer"? Do you know what a buffered solution is and how it maintains it's ph? To "beat the buffer" you need to saturate the solution - not poor a little carbonic acid in quickly (if there's not enough free H ions it don't matter how quickly you add them) .
Of course given the hydrological cycle removes energy from the surface of the earth to the upper troposphere in quantities CO2 couldn't hope to stop I suspect that they've been looking at the wrong molecule all along.........
The oceans are absorbing CO2 despite warming because the jump in atmospheric CO2 has increased the partial pressure. CO2 levels are now higher than they've been for millions of years. The jump is rapid. pH has already started dropping in response.
The buffer in this case is absorption by the deeper oceans. If the CO2 pulse into the surface ocean is faster than this then the surface ocean pH drop is very quick.
From what to what - base to slightly less base? Is this a measured response (I really doubt this given the concentrations involved - or are you suggesting a lower concentration can flow to a higher concentration without work)? More fear mongering without proper research or probably (as is frequently the case these days) more conclusions without testing.
The majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere is from natural sources (well it all is from a certain point of view) and given that out gassing from the oceans far exceeds any forced back by your abuse of Henry's Law (so still a net decrease of CO2 in the oceans), in this way CO2 response to temperature changes far exceeds temperture response to CO2.
the oceans are absorbing more CO2 than they emit
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/modules/mid95/Image/VLObject-2637-031218011217.jpg
If they weren't CO2 level in the atmosphere would be even higher. It's rising sharply upwards as it is.
http://blogs.reuters.com/environment/files/2009/03/stuart2.png
Surface ocean pH is dropping accordingly.
Those pictures are not showing any measured CO2 ocean absorbtion (I'm not even sure why you posted them - aside from an oooh look a kitten distraction) . If the oceans are sequesting more CO2 than they are emitting then that only means one thing. The oceans are cooling. As such then I predict a long period of cold is on the way (possibly an ice age but I hope not) . I think maybe investing in some thermal underware may be prudent if what you are saying is correct.
"Then they're not sequestering CO2."
Look at the arrows going between the ocean and atmosphere. There are various carbon cycle diagrams that have been made over the recent warming period, they all show the oceans absorbing more CO2 than they emit.
http://www.visionlearning.com/library/modules/mid95/Image/VLObject-2637-031218011217.jpg
Enough with the picture. The great thing about science is that it is testable. Take two bottles of your favourite fizzy drink. Put one in the fridge until it has reached the ambient temperature within your fridge. Leave the other on your kitchen table. When the first one is cool take it out of the fridge and poor into a glass - have someone else poor the room temperature bottle of fizzy into another glass. Watch the rate of the CO2 bubbles drop out of solution in the two glasses. The warmer glass of fizzy will have a much faster rate of bubble production.
In the same way the amount of CO2 in the oceans is determined by the temperature of the ocean and not the concentation of CO2 in the air (magnitudes of difference) - no pretty picture will change that.
"In the same way the amount of CO2 in the oceans is determined by the temperature of the ocean and not the concentation of CO2 in the air (magnitudes of difference)"
No, it's determined by both. So is your fizzy drink.
The pretty pictures are based on observation.
"The flux of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean is a function of surface mixing (related to wind speed) and the **difference the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air and water** The concentration in the ocean depends on the atmosphere and ocean carbon dioxide partial pressure which, in turn, is a function of temperature, alkalinity (which is closely related to salinity), photosynthesis, and respiration."
http://science.nasa.gov/earth-science/oceanography/ocean-earth-system/ocean-carbon-cycle/
Again we are talking magnitudes of difference - there might be a slight variance dependent on surface mixing/concentration in the air (simple probabilities)/photosynthesis and respiration (I assume of ocean fauna and flora) - but these will be insignificant compared to temperature (including partial pressure which is a function of temperature) .
In fact all of these other factors are not large enough to be measureable in oceanic terms. Temperature is the driver, truck, payload and wheels of this mechaism the others are barely a parking ticket.
http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/database.php
AFAICT, corals survive better but grow a little slower (unless you really ramp up the CO2 in which case some corals show tremendous growth).
From perusing that database earlier, my impression is that the vast majority of organisms greatly _benefit_ from an increase in CO2. A result which indeed fits nicely with the fact that CO2 levels used to be much higher in prehistoric times.
But no, since James Hansen is worried his beach side property will sink into the sea, we will all have to stop exhaling this instance! (I strongly urge any warmistas to do so immediately)
I see the "coral killing" meme just another desperate attempt to demonize the building block of the biosphere .
Life exploded when photosynthesis evolved in an atmosphere where all the oxygen was locked up in CO2 which was second only to N2 in concentration . Now green life has been so successful it has driven CO2 below argon in concentration , just a couple of times the couple of molecules per 10,000 required for life to exist .
Even the earliest stromatolite fossils laid down when the atmosphere was more CO2 than O2 are largely carbonate .
This is just another example of these anti-life willful idiots trying to ignore the most basic fact that
CO2 + H2O ( + sunlight ) = LIFE
If they wanted the CLIMATE to COOL then they should stop SPRAYING, and hitting the sky with electromagnetic energy and making it HOT. (you'll also note I haven't denied climate change you nazi fucking eugenics psychopaths)
They are all a bunch of LIARS, up and down, through and through, trying to get their world government, world police and world bank in place. I got chemtrails right over my house, these pieces of shit who are doing it are FUCKING TERRORISTS!
Go ahead pay your fucking carbon tax to the banksters, fucking doomed idiots. It's your OWN Government doing it and then BLAMING IT ON CARBON. You are the fucking DENIERS, put your fucking heads out side and LOOK UP
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org
http://sincedutch.wordpress.com/2012/04/24/want-to-know-about-weather-modification-haarp-vlf-hf-and-chemtrails-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/
http://www.coalitionagainstgeoengineering.org/pages/688
http://globalskywatch.com/
Trying to counter one argument with dubious evidence (anthropogenic climate change) with even more dubious theories (chemtrails and, presumably, HAARP, since you mention "hitting the sky with electromagnetic energy"), is rarely going to help.
Its worrying that most of the media - who have minimal science skills - seem to just accept such nonsense because the source has a title - chief scientist - also amazing how someone, who is obviously an idiot, managed to get such a grand title.
Extrapolation is an infantile mistake that the media fall for time and time again.
Most of co2 warming effect is already done - even a further doubling co2 ( which is impossible) would not cause a 3 degrees increase which is huge.
No one can predict the future - not even professors with lots of certificates or fortune tellers (investment bankers) certainly not weather forecasters - they struggle badly for 8 days ahead let alone 80 years ahead - its comical they even try - with there ridiculously simplistic computer models - anyone who's done a cash flow model for a few years ahead (much less variables than weather) will know that - long time plus lots of variables = complete nonsense because just the slightest change in any assumption used = dramatic change in result.
Sun obviously ( to me anyway) has a more important role than what .039% of our atmosphere is - which by the way is only responsible for 15 % of any greenhouse affect- water vapour 80% approx.
Sun and earth orbit and tilt do seems to have some regular patterns which seem much more regular than variables used by these so called climate charlatans ( scientists) - these patterns suggest cooling more likely for rest of this century - so a little extra greenhouse blanket seems to me to be a good thing not evil.
Any way if it warms so what ! we have shit weather in UK i would prefer a bit warmer - i don't care about the Maldives - Male is a disgusting hell hole they would be better off moving anyway and I'm sure the brave adventurous touristic can find somewhere else for their thrills.
Fact is global warming stopped in 1998 - climate academia are getting more and more desperate thus issuing more and more ridiculous statements of doom to try and preserve their gravy - whilst us poor tax payers have to pay for these pointless idiots and even worse pay huge hidden taxes (in energy bills and damage to economy) for all of the silly hugely expensive alternative energy generators (well some of the time).
Im hoping media such as this will help us turn against the tide of lies from mainstream such as bbc so that we can wake up from this mass delusion as quickly as possible.
ok i exaggerated a bit i believe one can predict to some extent based on empirical evidence and if qualified with probabilities - however predicting outcomes influenced by many variables and over a long period of time such as weather in 80 years or company results when you retire is a pointless foolish exercise .
weather depends more on other factors such as the sun than co2 - greenhouse effect of co2 is measurable using physics like experiments - my understanding is that most of the greenhouse effect possible at any realistic concentration is included in current concentration - think saturation law of diminishing returns - so further concentration is mainly plant fertiliser not poison as bbc keeps lying about.
of course co2 could double in 80 years but i believe probability is very low and even if it did would not be a disaster - millions of years of evolution have hard-wired us to panic at the slightest prompt - this used to be a good strategy not so in fields like this even the so called scientists don't seem to understand randomness probability and logic going for emotional hype instead
Well, in brief my opinion is that if we liberate additional CO2 then we are of course adding to any non-anthropogenic warming. I do however remain wholly unconvinced in respect of CAGW.
On a different tack, I'd be interested to know why the down voters seem to disagree with my initial response. Is it because they are simplistic in their outlook and think that global warming means that everywhere gets warmer with immediate effect or is it that they take exception to models that predict colder winters for the UK for a while as a direct result of a global warming trend?
"Any way if it warms so what ! we have shit weather in UK i would prefer a bit warmer"
Gary, global warming does not actually mean that everywhere on the planet will get warmer with immediate effect and then for all 12 calendar months of each year. (Although that appears to be a very popular misconception).
It's generally held that global warming will, for a time, actually make the UK's (average) winter temperature lower.
I quote:
"We think we've got a 50/50 shot at best of a three degree world, and we think it's not at all unlikely that we'll reach a five degree world. It cannot be ruled out," he warned.
In that scenario the amount of carbon that the oceans would have to absorb would acidify them to such an extent that coral reefs would start to dissolve he said. Marine life, and particularly shellfish, would be hard-hit, and the overall effect of climate change on biodiversity would be massive, with 50 per cent of current species going to the wall with a five degree temperature rise.
Then look at the graph underneath it. The blatant error here is that the graph is not in degrees, its in CO2 with the assumed but proven wrong direct relation to temperature rise. So species will die out based on temperature, but here is a graph about co2 instead.
This is not to say we have no effect but there isnt a direct link between the temperature changes and co2. It may be a contributing factor (how much is debatable) but it is not the determining force as proven by climate models generally overestimating the doomsday effects. This is because a lot of the actual needed information to accurately predict these changes is UNKNOWN.
So based on what looks to be a completely wrong assumption he then furthers this by assuming the damages to crops and species. But wait. GM crops changed the world by providing a better food resource and the point is that technology and capability advance and so we survive. This assumption of technological numptyism is made even though he acknowledges the following advancement-
"The situation could have been worse, but for an easing in global population levels. By 2100 there are predicted to be 9-10 billion people on the planet, compared to the 15-17 billion forecast 20 years ago. Efforts to educate girls, empower women and make sure "culturally available forms of contraception are available to all," are the best tools to cut this further he said."
So we look at the next section talking about china. A place that does what it wants for its own ends to look after their own interests. And as you look at the graph you see their output shooting up, but remember that large portions of china are still underdeveloped. The cities and well built areas only account for a section of china. So if china decides to upgrade the whole country you have a situation whereby that line shoots up higher. Can you imagine them trying to power any of that using turbines? What a joke. So a clean air china is a nuclear china but this is a time of recession and limited funds. But plenty cheap fossil fuel. So assuming a thinking country (as they are) with any intelligence at all (they do) they would not follow the US into an unsustainable future. They would likely take all the businesses and forward thinkers who get priced out of their own countries.
Then finally I see his comments of geo engineering. Sidestepping the flawed statement he makes that "We screwed up the planet by not understanding it" which is a statement from his perspective instead of factual, we are already talking about geo engineering. The natural change in climate happens, and deviation from that has actually yet to be proved (the extent that we are changing the climate is unknown). So this could be entirely natural and we are talking of geo engineering by blotting the land with wind turbines while reducing our co2 output. Unless of course he doesnt believe that reducing co2 output changes anything because then we wouldnt be geo engineering, and all this was a con.
Actually, I'm pretty certain that the planet is doing just fine thanks. It would be fine if we put all the carbons we have out there! It would equally be quite happy if we set off all the nukes we have. Sure, it would be catastrophic for us but the planet will be perfectly happy.
The sun warms our planet. Very astute of you, however it's the level to which the sun's warmth is retained that is key, not whether or not the sun shines.
Carbon emissions have been proved, repeatedly, to affect the climate. The exact extent of the effect is the problem that is very hard to model and with such long term ecosystems of enormous complexity, the only 100% accurate method is to sample everything for 100 years and then look back on the results. By then it's too late to do anything to prevent any unwanted changes during these 100 years of course. To make it harder, because the planetary ecosystem is so vast and diverse, even this would be unlikely to provide an accurate prediction of the next 100 years because new processes and feedback loops and cycles could come into play or existing ones could change relative importance due to interactions with other factors. So basically, it's an utter bastard to model and predict 100 years into the future, but what is known and proved is that there is something wrong, and this is likely to be disastrous for a lot of the life on the planet, including ourselves. The extent to which our reckless pollution of the planet is causing these changes directly and to what extent these changes are part of the planet's natural cycles is what is up for debate. We've already fucked the planet's nitrogen cycle through dumping excess nitrogen into the cycle, we're getting close to fucking up the carbon cycle as well through the same. The exact short and long term effects of knackering these important cycles is still unknown but it's unlikely to be good.
Carbon trading is a scam... now this is utterly correct. It's a banker / politicians "solution" while not solving anything whatsoever.
We are about 9 or 10 degrees ( 3% ) warmer than the 279 kelvin of a gray ball in our orbit . Our absolute temperature is apparently not known more accurately than that . Objects in our orbit have a temperature of about 1/21 whatever the sun decides to depending on their particular spectrum .
It is generally agreed we have warmed by perhaps 0.8 degrees ( 0.3% ) since we started using fossil fuels .
Perhaps our best data is our most recent , which shows that over the last decade and a half or so , CO2 has increased close to 9% , but our temperature not at all .
the alarmist views from Climate Change people forces the governments (especially ours) to increase Climate Change taxes and spend money on various programmes...
For example,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/9722767/2bn-of-UK-aid-to-help-Third-World-go-green.html
Each household will contribute £70 to schemes to tackle climate change in developing countries before March 2015, under plans championed by Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat Energy Secretary.
The issue is the world as it stands is a very resilient planet and has been subject to multiple ice ages and global warming (when most of the planet was arid and dry) - that is based on fact from the geology (especially core drilling in Antarctica).
Climate Change is nothing more than a ruse to gain funding (for scientists - maybe a good thing...) and taxes for governments - which then get spent on programmes with little accountability. That £2bn will probably end up funding some impressive home renovations in other countries...
We need clean (and there is technology on this) to build better nuclear power stations to cope with population demand, better public transport to reduce number of individual vehicles, better investment in industry so people don't have to commute so far to work, cheaper transport costs for food (to avoid food inflation), less taxes to increase personal spend, easier visa and movement for professionals to move around the world to apply expertise (especially UK->US visa) ...etc...
The problem is amplified by the media, and the fight for funding.
Only catastrophic projections make headlines, which makes the "visible" climate change science biased toward catastrophe NEXT WEEK OMG!!!!111!! Of course the impending catastrophe does not happen, so the whole field is called into question.
Headlines attract funding (well, it's more that headline makers attract funding) so the circle continues.
There has been a lot of Bad Science on climate change, and a lot of very underhand and suspicious activity (witness University of East Anglia, for instance). That does not help with any serious science being given the page space to be read and understood.
I sort of see the point of the £70 each to help the third world, becuase if we in the UK shut up shop and stopped producing any pollutants then we'd make absolutely no difference to the CO2 at all, so encouraging others to clean up their act is a sound move. The bigger problem is, we can't afford it (hell we can barely afford anything) and I have no idea as to the viability of the potentially sponsored projects.
Surely £2bn towards, say, nuclear fusion research may have been better spent? As I understand it the physics is well understood, the majority of the difficulties lie with engineering. Oh, and the word "nuclear".
We are all doomed. Repent and confess your sins to your one True God. My God is a glass of Rochefort 8, yumYUM! Is anyone else having a party on the 22nd Dec to celebrate that the Mayan Calendar doom-merchants were wrong? One of these days we may even get to have a "kick the environmentalists" party. <LOL>
There should be no more spending to reduce emissions from the developed Western nations until China, India and others meet already existing Western emission standards.
When a graph shows an 80 degree increasing slope like the one for China, no amount of change in the entire western world will effect the kind of CO2 & particulate reduction that will occur if minimal "easy" emission cleanup is done in China.
China needs good combustion controls & better burners, emission monitoring equipment, electrostatic precipitators & baghouses for their coal fired generating plants, catalytic convertors on auto exhausts, better quality low sulphur gasoline and fuel oil with low paraffin (wax) content. Convert to natural gas wherever possible. Keep public transit much cheaper than private automobiles and don't allow so much urban sprawl.
The only way any of this will happen is if their leadership either recognizes it must be done or the rest of the world agrees to place emission tarrifs on all goods from non-complying nations.
Don't know whether troll or just plain dumb.
> the rest of the world agrees to place emission tarrifs on all goods from non-complying nations.
The "rest of the world". Um. US+UK... anyone else? Hello. Oh yeah, Yurope can join too.
Yeah, it's good we have catalytic converters and particulate filters on all of our military hardware. One might suddenly fear we are not environmentally conscious. 1.2 million barrels of oil per month for years and years.... Yes we can.
There seems to be a number of people who apparently think global warming is akin to turning up the thermostat on their central heating system.
It is not.
Global warming means, among other things, that there is (not "will be", note) increasingly more energy in the global weather system. This means that global weather is increasingly more... well, energetic, I guess. Meaning more extreme weather events: more rain here, more drought there, less ice elsewhere, etc. Think "major climate change", over time. It should be obvious that this is not good, to say the least.
And BTW, "we survived this long" is a poor argument to make when discussing future prospects of humanity as a whole, let alone our civilization. For one thing "this long" is not, in fact, that long at all: a few million years out of even the 550 million since the Cambrian Explosion is nothing, really. For another thing, look up the word "change" in a dictionary...
Yet for all the claims that we will suffer worse weather, we dont seem to be getting any worse weather. It seems those who claim it has got worse are basing their statements on the models instead of actual observational and measurable events. As a result there seems to then follow claims of no change based on observations but by this point another claim of worse weather has been made, and again from the models.
Bob Watson has been spouting this stuff for years.
When asked in 1997 at Kyoto, as the new IPCC Chairman, about the growing number of climate scientists who challenged the conclusions of the UN that man-induced global warming was real and promised cataclysmic consequences, he responded by denigrating all dissenting scientists as pawns of the fossil fuel industry. "The science is settled" he said, and "we're not going to reopen it here."
He worked for Al Gore in the Clinton White House as "Director of Mission to Planet Earth" and Gore calls him his "hero of the planet". He became Defra Chief Scientific Advisor and Director of Strategy at the propagandist Tyndall Centre in July 2007, not long after Al Gore was announced as an Advisor on Climate Change to Gordon Brown and he had been in the UK presenting his "Inconvenient Truth" film.
Within months of his new roles, he was already pushing the "4 degrees to disaster" story which he resurrects at regular intervals, as here: "The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government's chief scientific advisers." Guardian, Aug 7th, 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/aug/06/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange
There is still a thriving colony of fairy penguins within 5 km of the heart of Australia's second biggest city. A few km down the coast the beaches I grew up on are more beautiful, cleaner and full of life than when I was a child 50 years ago and the air where I now live is consistently like wine. Subjective perhaps. The screechings of the climate-change alarmists become more ominous and the solutions proffered more bizarre and hideously expensive. The tricks and turns of these propagandists would make any 20th century wartime minister for information green with envy. The latest is " co-ordination" ( why does that word make me shudder ) of all emergency services under a politically appointed supremo - to deal with fire, flood, epidemic or whatever other climate-change induced disaster ( and here it all is ! ) the government of the day wants it to deal with. The platforms of our train system are patrolled by armed "Safety Officers " but you can't buy a ticket or use the toilets as there are no railway staff any more, or anywhere else for that matter, just goons with guns. The public infrastructure is being turned away from the public, given into the control of the cheapest tender to operate a license to print money. Has organised crime taken over ? - The mask keeps slipping...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
