Smoke and mirrors
Nothing to worry about then, the exponential increase doesn't occur for another 37 years.
New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades. “ …
So does this mean that the Government will drop its green energy plan that no other country appears to be bothered about, except Germany, and help to reduce our fuel costs and lower taxes?
No, the great European Sting is climate change as it gives them an excuse to fleece the population with higher taxes, which incidentally are not spent on reducing CO2.
"Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come. The effects continue for hundreds of years at least. Let's get to work, NOW, to reduce GHG pollution"
Please come and "pollute" my plants - they need this kind of pollution.
With a user name like ReduceGHGs, I assume you get paid to write this drivel.
Yea, we learned what plants need in the 6th grade but thanks anyway. News Flash... Too much of anything can be harmful?
And do you mean to say that there's money to be made informing people about climate change? Really? There's certainly a lot of money blowing around to confuse people. The fossil fuel industry has been funding the disinformation about it for years!
Personally, I'd rather we reduce our emissions of actual poisons into the environment.
Things like mercury, heavy metals, arsenic etc. The compounds that actually kill people, animals and plants.
Oddly, a lot of that stuff is in the majority of "green" (ie low-carbon) items but not in the near-equivalent high-carbon item.
The biggest sources of mercury pollution are from burning coal, dental discharge and gold mining.
Arsenic and heavy metals are pretty much everywhere, digging up coal also releases them into the environment and groundwater etc.
Same for oil and gas - they have to be purified. Nuclear makes a shitload of waste.
Solar and wind farms just sit there, quietly making electricity... no wind spills, solar leaks nor breeze fallout to worry about.
What "green" low-carbon items are you thinking of that have "a lot of that stuff" in them?
Sure, just forget about the pollution caused in the mining of the rare earths and metal required for those 'green' technologies, and the environmental impacts of deploying them. Both solar and wind farms have huge geographical footprints. Wind farms kill birds. Solar farms destroys habitats. And if you want reliable 24x7 energy, you must use a lot of storage batteries. Take your pick, lead or lithium. Besides the destruction done in the mining of them, they are both dangerous to our environment should they be scattered by storms, tornadoes, earthquakes, terrorism, etc.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Continuing to add more and more GHG pollution will only make habitability worse for those generations to come".
Firstly CO2 is not pollution, without it habitability of the planet would be zero.
Secondly how do you know habitability will be worse? What is the ideal global temperature for habitability?
"no other country appears to be bothered about, except Germany"
The two might not be directly related, but Germany actually DOES have a working economy while the UK's is tanking. Methinks UK's problems with fuel costs and rising taxes have a lot more to do with productivity and handouts than with 'green' energy policy
This post has been deleted by its author
"The sun goes supernova"
No. The sun may at some point go nova. It's not big enough to go supernova. You've fallen for the media hype. Nothing ever goes "nova" these days. It always has to be "supernova" because it's bigger, has "super" in the name and therefore has a super big scarification factor.
Very poor and overtly deceptive journalism. You left out what he really said:
"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project's findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought. Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."
"They had to put something in to mollify the IPCC arch-diocese or be labelled crackpots/heretics."
Well if you know them to be liars why do you trust their paper at all?
It's the same thing I ask of creationists who do the same thing. Eg:
"Oh yeah I didn't mention the part where they say the result backs the theory of evolution because...in that part they clearly weren't serious and were just mollifying their atheist arch-diocese or be labelled heretics"
NomNomNom -- you are obviously not from Norway, nor have you lived here.
Norwegian scientists are more often than not on one crusade or another. Political biases run rampant.
This report will not receive any attention in Norway, and if that fails they will make sure that they quote the one bit that does not rely on any scientific evidence.
Norway is one freaky nation as we talk the loudest concerning "climate change", yet do not reduce our oil production by a single barrel. Instead we are still searching out new fields.
Which makes complete sense for those of us that think the myths concerning CO2 are mostly designed to scare us into paying even more taxes.
The notion that a vital component for all green life on Earth is somehow poisonous should require a substantial amount of proof. Sadly, the green activists have long ago decided that proof is not necessary. (the anti-H2O petition amply demonstrates this)
You quoted the bit where the paper forgot that it was a science paper and switched to making policy recommendations.
Fact is, that there are a lot of papers popping up that indicate that the climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.6-2c and this is good news if true.
Perhaps then we can concentrate a little more on lifting the majority of the worlds population out of poverty, making sure they don't die of stuff we can already cure or from drinking dodgy water. We can save millions every year *now*...
But should we safe millions? The earth is grossly overpopulated and population MUST be reduced. Several reasons: We are Methane / CO2 factories (but we only account for so little, its practically meaningless), but we are also having issues with food: Soon we can't produce more food than we consume and we will start to have less and less food, unless there are less people to feed. Then we destroy many eco-systems, that would wouldn't have to destroy for greed and other puny reasons...
"The earth is grossly overpopulated and population MUST be reduced"
That's a serious question, and deserves a lot more serious answer than can be debated in a few words on a forum. Fundamentally, given a maximum limit on energy that it is possible to generate sustainably over the long term post fossil-fuel bonanza, humanity will need to decide whether it's better off with X billion living in comfort or 10X billion living in misery. But that discussion can never be seriously made while 80% of the human population live in conditions MUCH worse than that of the other 20%.
And out of curiosity, when you say population MUST be reduced, you're not including yourself, right? Because most of the people I hear making that argument seem to be directing it at Asia and Africa, even though when considering (population X resource consumption per capita) rather than simply population, it's the developed nations that are causing resource strain not 'overpopulation'
Well, there's certainly no need to include the US or European nations as their birthrate is already below replacement level. China is working their way down too with their 1 child policy, but given their penchant for aborting girls, it's unclear what will happen when their overly male population actually gets restless. Now maybe they'll just expend themselves attacking the also "overly populated" Indian peninsula, but do you really want to bet your LIFE on that?
"Well, there's certainly no need to include the US or European nations as their birthrate is already below replacement level"
OK, the "you're not including yourself, right? " was throwaway sarcasm that some people seem to have misunderstood. My main point was that "overpopulation" is a red herring, the real problem is too much resource requirement, of which population is only partly a factor. 100 million people in US or Europe consume as much resources as 1 billion in Africa or Asia.
Long-term, as Asians and Africans are increasing their prosperity they also need to stabilise their population. On the developed nations side, where populations are already quite stable, we need to translate efficiency gains into less energy usage, instead of teh current status quo where gains in efficiencyre used to be able to consume more using the same resources, rather than consuming the same using less resources.
The 18th Century called, they want their Malthusian FUD returned to them.
We don't have food production problems, we have food distribution problems. Get rid of the green despots posing as saviors of the children and we can get things fixed up fairly quickly.
If you believe the twiddle you wrote, then you are advocating that some of the world's population should either die or be forbidden to reproduce. Unless you include yourself and your family in that, then all you are advocating is that others should die or not be born so that you and yours can have all that you want. That would be so breathtakingly selfish, that I'm sure it's not what you intend. So who in your family and your potential descendants are you willing to sacrifice for the good of all?
"Never let the facts get in the way of a pointless (i didn't even bother to read it, don't need to, i already know what it says) skeptic rant."
Anyone who reads your comments on this site will agree that you didn't need to read the article. Because you're not actually capable of making intelligent comments, are you?
Our sun's activity drives our climate. From the 1920s to 1998, the sun was at one of its highest active states in the last 10,000 years and the Earth warmed. Since 1998, the sun has cycled into its 180 year cycle of inactivity, and the warming has stopped. NASA predicts a very inactive sun cycle 25 and the world will get colder approaching the Dalton Minimum. The earth has been covered with ice sheets when CO2 has been much higher than today's minimally plant feeding levels, cut CO2 in half and plant life starts dying. The world better get ready for massive crop failures due to the coming little ice age or worse, The Holocene age is overdue to drop into a full ice age with mile thick sheets of ice over the Great Lakes in the US.
>> So past models were showing large possible temp increases, this new model is showing less of an increase... that still does not address the underlying fact that models are themselves just projections based on inputs fed into them, and therefore, not to be taken as gospel truth. (although of course if, as models get more refined, their projected temperature increase continues to drop, this need sto be taken account of)
>> 1.9 degrees up to 2050 isn't THAT reassuring if BAD THINGS are going to happen at 2 degrees more. (Note that I very much inzend to still be alive in 2050 and will be wanting to enjoy my retirement). So of course, besides questioning the rate of projected temperature increase, we can also have our improved modelling look at the consequences of such increase.
>> @Mr Page - just to confirm, does this mean that you DO acknowledge that human activity is causing the planet to warm, even if you're not that concerned about it because you believe that it will cost us less to deal with it than to try and stop it?
>> @Mr Page - just to confirm, does this mean that you DO acknowledge that human activity is causing the planet to warm, even if you're not that concerned about it because you believe that it will cost us less to deal with it than to try and stop it?
Also, @Mr Page: does this mean models are OK now? Coz I thought doing science by models was rubbish and proved you were a commie...?
Yup, maybe the earth will warm up too much, maybe it won't. But for certain pouring ridiculous amounts of pollutants into the atmosphere and water system is not doing anyone any good.
While everyone wastes time arguing over the effects of CO2 we are ignoring the very real problem of all the other byproducts of fossil fuel use.
This study points to a startling lack of ambition on the part of the entire human race. We should re-double our efforts to reduce the total landmass available, thereby artificially increasing the price of that same land. That consumers can be persuaded to pay for increased production of greenhouse gasses will increase overall profits even more.
Now, I just have to make sure that my house is not too close to the sea...
The agenda has been set by the guilt ridden tree huggers consuming idevices and prius' like they are going out of fashion.
Far too many vested interests troughing at the CO2 payments made by the mere mortals who want to drive a car or heat a home for any realistic change to be made in the lemming like charge to fund pointless windmills and other feelgood stuff that wont make the blindest bit of difference.
We need to address the use of hydrocarbons which are not limitless and are polluting but the only way with current technology to do that and to maintain our rampant need for energy is to go nuclear.
Of course as the researchers are from an oil producing country they will immediately be discredited by the bonkers warmists as being in the pocket of the oil industry etc etc. ad infinitum
It doesnt matter how much good science comes out showing the doom and gloom of the corrupt and vested interests from the green warmist groups is bollocks as they will continue to maintain the gravy train that is hurtling out of control.
It'll be interesting to see the detailed reviews of this research, especially the validity of the modelling which the researchers admit is relatively simple. Any review might take some time as they have used a heavily statistical approach using Bayesian probabilities, the values of which are always open to argument - but hey this is computer modelling - what's new?
I think this is their key paper:
Maths fans will love it.
> Bayesian probabilities
There are no such things. There are probabilities. And then there are Bayesians and Frequentists.
But good link.
I agree, but that took hundreds of years, had it not been for the dark ages, we would have been well and truely flying amongst the stars, as it is now, we have very few statistics from a relatively short timeframe.
Nothing can be proven beyond doubt about our climate or why its changing...
You know this how ? The Dark Ages were another solar minimum causing massive migration. Why else do you think populations moved south in Europe and SW in Central Asia. Later less Roman-centric studies showed the post Roman world to be quite innovative. Just lost super rich parasites and their politics.
As for climate and weather trends, lets just do research and stop the vitriolic personal attacks. I and many others are tired of true believers of any kind. John Ralston Sauls' Doubters Dictionary is mostly very good as to why doubt and uncertainty is a "good thing". Certainty is deadly.
I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
~ Leo Tolstoy
> that no-one seems to be able to agree on almost anything to do with the evolution of man just proves how flaky the "science" behind it is
For all the twisted models behind each side of the warming debate, at least some of them are aiming to do something useful, to benefit society however wrong or right they are.
What future progress in science or in the welfare of man or the natural world is brought about by the science of the evolution of man?
There's lots of agreement on ACC and global warming. This article is a good example with its "shocking" statement that one of their models shows the effect of doubling CO2 to be 2-3 degrees instead of the 2-4.5 degrees predicted by some other models. You percieve that the science is flaky because certain yellow journalists will seize upon a paper like this (which simply presents an alternative but evolutionary perspective), lard it up with inflammatory language ("alarmists", "imminent doom scenario", "dishonest machinations") and a "News of the World" headline ("Climate Shocker!"), half bake it with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory and toss in some random psuedoscience to make it look that way.
I can assure you that anthropogenic climate change was as accepted as evolution and a round earth in my climate classes back in '90. The fact that many people still believe that two out of three are "unproven" has nothing to do with the science and everything to do with the golden rule of journalism.
Almost all scientists (including it seems the authors of the report mentioned in the article) agree that global warming/climate change is going to be bad, the only scientific discussion is on the details of how bad it will be.
Page has written a series of articles highlighting parts of this discussion in order, it seems to me, to cast doubt in the whole science of climate change. Similarly creationists will often highlight differences of opinion between evolutionary scientists in order to attack evolution in general . We should pay each just as much attention.
"Page has written a series of articles highlighting parts of this discussion in order, it seems to me, to cast doubt in the whole science of climate change. Similarly creationists will often highlight differences of opinion between evolutionary scientists in order to attack evolution in general . We should pay each just as much attention"
Not another one who has to drag Creationism into the argument? Really? Related to Nom' perchance?
On a slightly different tack (and not necessarily aimed at 'labourer'), one thing that Mr Page's articles highlight is, that some hereabouts, may well extol the virtues of free speech and an open and fair society one day and then call for Mr Page to be silenced on another.
Hypocrisy, I reply. Hypocrisy!
There's a world of difference between free speech on the one hand and peddling distorted and biased journalism on the other. Journalists have a responsibility to get to the bottom of issues, not just trot out their pet theories.
It is totally clear to any casual observer that Page has a very specific axe to grind and he does so to the exclusion of balance. This is the definition of poor journalism.
I will readily withdraw this criticism of him on the day that he presents one piece of the mountain of evidence that is on the other side of the argument.
"There's a world of difference between free speech on the one hand and peddling distorted and biased journalism on the other"
Er, it's not like he's denying the Holocaust now is it? So, all I can really say is... Rubbish!
Journalists should work without fear or favour. Whether right, wrong, biased or distorted, he has every right to his platform.
If you or I find his articles intellectually offensive, so what? Put simply, that's your/my problem. Everyone else has the right to decide that for themselves what to read and whether to believe it
It's trivial to write a killfile'esque plugin to selectively filter forum posts (for most decent user agents anyway). I'd rather see those whining about Lewis Page put their effort into writing themselves one, rather than have to see them bleating about his articles all the time.
About the latest discovery of enormous amounts of OIL in Australia, as in more or less "More Oil:" that sort of everywhere else put together, and how it was being touted as the greatest boon for all mankind....
I thought about the poison air in the cities, the pollution that blows away as it's created and lands in the oceans, and how they are becoming terribly acidic, and how 2/3rd of the worlds population gets it's protein from the fish of the sea, and those are almost extinct, and the very find animals that they all feed off, are dissolving in the acidic waters....
And I thought, "As the soon to be very starving large populations of people start to emigrate from areas of non food to areas of food... there will be real issues of space, food and everything else."
As the food chains of the world collapse - and extinction goes into supercharge mode, how can the discovery and tapping of enormous amounts of oil, be called "A great boon"?
And then you went away to read about bases, avids and relative ph levels and realised you were fantasizing a great steaming pile of bunk.
The oceans are basic. They have shown a very slight shift towards neutral, but there is a greater difference in ph between the arctic and equator. They are not acidifying in the slightest.
And yet they're still both negative. This isn't a semantic argument, it's the scientific meaning of the words. Acids are acids, bases are bases. If you are reducing your basic content you aren't "acidifying", you are debasing or neutralising. You only acidify something when you pass neutral.
besides it's all moot anyway. If the oceans warm they can't hold as much CO2 even with a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere. This "acidification" of the oceans and global warming are mutually exclusive events.
"Ocean acidification refers to the process of lowering the oceans’ pH (that is, increasing the concentration of hydrogen ions) by dissolving additional carbon dioxide in seawater from the atmosphere, or by other chemical additions either caused by natural processes or human activity. The word “acidification” refers to lowering pH from any starting point to any end point on the pH scale. This term is used in many other scientific areas (including medicine and food science) to refer to the addition of an acid to a solution, regardless of the solution's pH value. For example, even though seawater's pH is greater than 7.0 (and therefore considered “basic” in terms of the pH scale), increasing atmospheric CO2 levels are still raising the ocean's acidity and lowering its pH. In comparison, this language is similar to the words we use when we talk about temperature. If the air temperature moves from -20°C to -0°C (-4°F to 32°F), it is still cold, but we call it “warming.” — J. Orr, C.L. Sabine, R. Key"
"As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans,"
"Accounting for effects of de-oxygenation and ocean acidification, however, some regions may see a 20-35 per cent reduction in maximum catch potential by 2050 (relative to 2005) -- depending on the individual species' sensitivity to ocean acidification."
Oh4FS; overall I concur with all your points. I have some concern with your statement that "fish of the sea, and those are almost extinct". I do not disagree with the tendency and I do believe that we may reach a tipping point to where there may be a "crash" in fish, krill and other ocean animals population that will have a catastrophic impact on human populations. I guess my concern is with the word "almost" and I am unsure as to how close we are. However I do not think there is any doubt that a number of fish types around the world are very overfished.
America is the only major country which has substantially reduced emissions - the shale gas revolution has reduced coal use. Overall American energy use has risen, but coal emits far more CO2 for a given amount of energy than gas, so the switch to gas has led to an overall reduction.
"Green" Europe on the other hand has failed to reign in emissions. Through a combination of perverse incentives, irrational opposition to shale gas, and post Fukishima panic, Europe has substantially increased emissions of CO2.
Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies, it is doubtful we will be using carbon intensive energy in 20 years, let alone 50 years (at least not on the same scale as today).
But there's a catch - only rich societies can afford to experiment, to try new things. Any environmental legislation which harms economic growth is likely to cause emissions to rise, just as they have risen in restrictive, legislation happy Europe.
Nothing against your post. But shale gas (not available all over Europe) has nothing to do with Free Markets.
And how do you fit it into China and India. What I agree with is "Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies". But "close", as you know, is an adjective, and does not really say anything about the number of years needed to breakeven.
Still I think it would be foolish not to continue research, and the use, of nuclear fusion, not forgetting any of the alternatives. Burning oil is silly because oil can be used in more intelligent ways.
Correct me if I´m wrong, but I thought >90% of crude oil were used to drive ships, planes and cars around... and there could not possibly be other options for that.
An intelligent use I would consider the manufacture of plastics (with all their problems) and similar, constructive uses - certainly not simply torching the stuff.
"Given how close scientists are to breakeven nuclear fusion, Thorium fission, and other breakthrough technologies, it is doubtful we will be using carbon intensive energy in 20 years"
That's what they claimed 20 years ago. And 20 years before that.
In 20 years time someone like you will be claiming it again.
And by then I bet the US increases it's coal use again (because the gas will turn out not to be enough)
Thorium is old old hat. 4 Gen fission reactors are yet to be built. None of these are hard, just require extention of what is already known. Fusion probably another 40 years away if ever, but fission technologies are usable now, except for superstition encouraged by credulus and ignorant animist believers.
Thorium is plentiful, a Thorium LFTR reactor is low pressure, which means it can be built without containment buildings and 80-150 times pressure piping. It can power the world for hundreds of thousands of years. It would burn the unused fission waste piling up around the world, produce no CO2, is 99% efficient and has very short life waste.
This post has been deleted by its author
Free markets reduce emmisions????
Companies are remarkably adverse to spending money on basic research, and preticularly on reactors.
I believe that there is one start-up doing work on Fusion, but other than that, it is all publicly funded (government) research that have produced breakthroughs in energy production. Even in the last century The US Navy spent the money to develop advanced refining techniques, platforming to raise the octane rating of gasoline, and the Fisher Trope for Process to make gasoline from coal before the Second World War. (Standard Oil gave the the tech to the Germans).
Companies do not have the will and the revenue to sustain this kind of endeavor. They would much prefer to patent the spinoffs as they have done with the silicon chip.
Free Markets seek profit, and where barriers to entry are very large, monopoly control of existing resources is the easiest way to extract rent. Luckily the wind and sun can be harvested at low cost are distributed.
Increased use of (cheap) shale gas is due to free markets, but that's just due to the availability of shale gas. The decrease in emmissions is just incidental.
If the US had found a huge new oil reserve, then oil would be cheaper and emmissions would be worse - that's teh free market for you. The only way that free markets will bring down emmissions is if carbon emmissions are priced into the fuel costs.
Is that so when you factor in consumption of Chinese imports? And it stands against a very high per capita carbon dioxide footprint, Is that down to European levels yet? Europe's switch to gas was much earlier. The devil is in the timing of the statistics and the baseline set. The USA has a long way to go before it can lecture Europe.
Fusion is still off the practicability horizon , Thorium fission is laden with very serious and unresolved engineering challenges. It is taking a decade or more to build current generation nuclear plants, we are nowhere near being able to simply replace carbon intensive energy without seriously addressing consumption rates.
By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Climate shocker: Carry on as we are until 2050, planet will be FINE
Greenland ice SIMPLY WOULD NOT MELT in baking +8°C era 120k years ago
Climate watch: 2012 figures confirm global warming still stalled
Global warming still stalled since 1998, WMO Doha figures show
New science upsets calculations on sea level rise, climate change
Climate NON-change: No increase in droughts since 1950, say boffins
Steady Antarctic ice growth 'limits confidence in climate predictions'
Swedish boffins: An ICE AGE is coming, only CO2 can save us
Ice sheets may stabilise for centuries, regardless of warming
New science: SEAS WILL RISE due to CO2 ... but not for centuries
Salt marshes will suck CO2 from air faster and faster as seas rise
Axe to grind, much?
Probably not from Lewis, who likes to highlight results that don't easily fit the AGW litany. But if you look for science articles from Brid-Aine Parnell and Richard Chirgwin, you will find a greater diversity of approach.
Lewis isn't a journalist anymore (as evidenced by the fact he obviously doesn't read the papers he cites), he is an editor now and it is his job to have content that generates clicks.
It is too bad really, I used to enjoy his style of writing, but he's lost that too with his whole anti-anything not nuclear bent.
Lets not get distracted. Humans are warming the planet and the consequences are NOT GOOD. Sure, we don't have all the answers: ice sheet melt rates, how much warming will occur, how much more acidic will the oceans become, how low will diminished fresh water supplies get, etc. Keep your eye on the goal... We need to move to sustainable cultures. The rate at which we are deteriorating our only habitat is NOT sustainable in the long run and it endangers our future generations. We need to change course or we will suffer the consequences.
1. We probably need to halve our CO2 emissions by 2050.
2. In order to bring the 3rd world out of poverty, they need to increase energy consumption 5-fold.
3. 1% here and 1% there adds up to 1% on the total... unplugging your phone charger at night isn't good enough!
=> 10-fold improvement in Energy generation efficacy needed.
The only realistic solution is nuclear power, NOW.
Amazing how many 'articles' Page manages to produce..
Almost as if he had no other job to go to;-).
Wonder if he's met Andrew Bolt, another rabid teaparty nit.
Wonder if he IS Andrw Bolt! Someone has to be psying the bills after all.
All I need to know is we csn no longer build along some low lying shores here,
Queensland is underwater with once in 100 year floods (again)
And Victoria has *another* once in 100 year heatwave... Keep burnin that coal buddy..
It is odd that many of the people who comment on this debate are convinced that it is a conspiracy by badly paid scientists to unlock the keys to research funding and personal wealth when you have people like the Koch brothers spending hundreds of millions of dollars to persuade us that nothing is happening and it is business as usual - Or, that something might be happening; but that we should all wait until more research is done - Or, that something is happening and it will to be to expensive to fix - Or, that something is happening; and it is too late to fix it....
I live in Western Australia and only need to go outside to see how the climate has changed in the last 20 years across an area about 3X the size of the UK (For Americans, that's bigger than Texas, the whole state is about 1.5x bigger than Alaska).
I chose the icon because we get a lot of bush fires. Now let the flaming begin...
So the Independents story is:
The Koch brothers control The Knowledge and Progress Fund
The Knowledge and Progress Fund gave money to The Donors Trust
The Donors Trust gave money to the American Enterprise Institute.
And the headline on the American Enterprise Institute climate change page is......
"Weather Change: Temperatures are Increasing and Humans are Playing a Role"
(shamelessly stolen from Bishop Hill)
We can expect the usual 'common purpose' CAGW alarmist trolls to completely ignore reports such as the one Lewis highlights. This kind of data doesn't compute for them; it doesn't fit their erratic and wholly discredited climate models and certainly doesn't suit their agreed agenda (21) - which is to keep right on hyping up so-called 'man-made climate change' (still no proof, at all, anywhere, from anyone), and predicting the coming cataclysm as fast as their begging bowls can be handed around a self-congratulatory UN circle circle-jerk.
As long as a cowardly, politically aligned msm keep playing the warmists' tune (and, boy, do they) I'm very much afraid we'll remain trapped in this surreal moment - where an absence of any proof at all for the fevered, bullying claims of the warmists made on behalf of CAGW somehow come to mean a 'scientific consensus' I thought everyone knew science is never done by 'consensus'?
So you start off by saying:
"We can expect the usual 'common purpose' CAGW alarmist trolls to completely ignore reports such as the one Lewis highlights."
Note that this report fully accepts AGW and is clear that something needs to be done about it. All it is saying is that according to its analysis climate sensitivity is at the lower end of the range of most likely values (which are derived from a number of inputs such as this one, so there is no inconsistency here). If true, this means we have a bit more of a breathing space than we thought we might have.
But then you say:
"so-called 'man-made climate change' (still no proof, at all, anywhere, from anyone)"
Which surely means that you think hat this report is complete rubbish like all of the other 'alarmist' research?
So why do you give it more credence?
'Fail' for complete and utter logic failure.
I thought El Reg didn't like computer models of climate? Unless they produce results they actually like....
Anyway, I think the biggest issue with the paper is that they have inadequate data for the ocean heat component. A large amount of heat is going into the oceans, but we can't quantify that very well, so I think it's premature to make any great claims based on this paper, since there's obviously a large heat component that's simply missing from their analysis. It's likely that their estimate for sensitivity is an underestimate.
This post has been deleted by its author
It's interesting that after a few years when temperatures haven't risen so much we have started to see models which predict less warming in future.
Of course, much of the science that goes into climate models is still quite uncertain. So it's unsurprising that science alone doesn't well-constrain the models (imagine creating a model locked in a room containing science books but unable to observe the world outside). So the actual past behavior of the climate is a major factor in defining what the models predict and, in fact, in clarifying the science in the process.
Or to put it another way, without a firm theoretical basis, the models are inevitably going to be a simple extrapolation of past events (and recent events in particular, since we have so much more data there). And that, of course, is exactly what we're seeing with the recent Met Office prediction and now this one.
It's also worth keeping in mind that low-confidence forecasts are likely to change. If you are 70% certain about a prediction (and that's the ball-park we're in for many aspects of climate), then there's a 30% chance you're wrong. That means that your next forecast, some years down the line, stands a reasonable chance of being different.
I think when tempted to be dogmatic about climate issues, it's worth keeping that in mind. Just because this prediction differs from an earlier one doesn't necessarily mean either was flawed. It just means we don't really know what's going to happen. In fact, you can reach that conclusion just by looking at a temperature graph.
"Satellite data reveal how the new record low Arctic sea ice extent, from Sept. 16, 2012, compares to the average minimum extent over the past 30 years (in yellow)".
I thought my 4x4 was single-handedly responsible for the death of all kittens and puppies due to its exhaust melting the polar ice caps, reducing house prices and allowing soaring immigration in towns and villages near you.
Does this mean I can keep driving it? Especially if we're going to get lots of snow because of global warming. It works well in snow.
I'd recommend reading the Skeptical Science piece on this research for a bit of balance to LP's breathless 'reporting':
One thing to note is that this research has not yet been peer reviewed or published or even accepted by a journal yet and the results should be treated as preliminary (this is not mentioned in Page's article, surprise surprise). Also the SS article rightly flags the fact that the model returns completely different climate sensitivities depending on the years you include in the analysis (3.7 degrees for the period from to 1750 to 2000 and 1.9 degrees when looking to 2010) which sounds odd to say the least.
Those that say human-caused climate change is not occurring are either in denial (an illness), are uninformed, are misinformed, or they lie. The fact is that EVERY respected scientific institution around the world that considered the issue came away with the same basic conclusion... HUMANS are warming the planet. This is a fact. The vested fossil fuel interests spread propaganda to the contrary in an attempt to sway public opinion and thereby policy trends. Our future generations deserve some critical thinking because without a healthy habitat they will suffer. Join the fight to protect the biosphere's habitability. Consider it a matter of self-preservation. It is.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020