Jump to content
Holidays
Local
Radar
Snow?

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

Confusion

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...e#StartComments

Here, scientists from our own MetO have challenged the "drought" aspect of the IPCC report, saying that the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plants had not been taken into consideration.

To my mind, this is another "hole" in that report.

Perhaps we should keep track of these "holes"? Wasn't there something some time ago about the historical temperatures which had been used in the report? Wasn't it acknowledged that the "wrong" temperatures had been used, or something like that?

IPCC report.......pah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but as the sections of the report quoted in your link say.

On the one hand but on the other.

The more I read the more and more complex the whole thing is shown to be.

But to return to my soap box, what will happen IF the world overall continues to warm is that, EVENTUALLY the ice on the two main ice locked continents will then melt and large areas of the globe will flood.

Meantime, scientists, meteorologists, xx ologists and of course politicians argue about what is/will/may happen and no one prepares for the very likely scenario of the ice starting to melt on the two ice locked land areas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...e#StartComments

Here, scientists from our own MetO have challenged the "drought" aspect of the IPCC report, saying that the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plants had not been taken into consideration.

Actually, they're not challenging the "drought" aspect per se - simply suggesting that such droughts may be less devastating than originally thought because plants will be using up less water than they currently do. This doesn;t change the predicted frequency or severity of the weather conditions that cause the drought ;) Indeed, it's little different to saying that the IPCC hadn't taken into account new technology that means we use less water when flushing the toilet, therefore drought restrictions will be less severe than thought.

Of course the down side is that flood may be more severe.

IPCC report.......pah!

Exactly, seems the future may be a lot worse than the IPCC paints ....... :o

(I believe most people will agree that a drought like 2006 is slightly more preferable to flooding like 2007)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think the whole climate thing is too complicated to truly predict anything with any degree of certainty for a particular region.

We can say yes, the planet as a whole will warm by x,y or z degrees, but on a local scale, forget it. Which means that all eventualities might possibly need to be considered. Plan for possible drought conditions, but also plan for floods (either long term coastal or short term flood plain), plan for higher temperatures, but also plan for possible higher snowfall in winters etc etc. Each area will react differently to the changes globally. This is where I think the climate models struggle, they can give an overall possible view, but struggle to cope with local changes which might be the opposite and have a knock on effect across a larger area. Its all in my view, guess work.

In 50-100 years time we will know the truth, we will know how this period worked out. It just seems a lot of wasted time, effort, and cost is being put into these papers and reports and nothing is actually really being done, hot air no action. This is going to be a time of fluid changes, possibly changing from one year to the next, possible one extreme to the other from year to year as the planet finds a new equilibrium.

I am beginning to ignore the lot of it, do my bit which I know will help, waste recycling, saving water, growing own veg, planted trees and shrubs in the garden, using a diesel car which will soon be converted to bio-fuel, looking at grey water systems, 12V house lighting which are possibly solar powered etc. Ill do my bit, and shame on those who don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an interesting discussion of Regional climate models on RealClimate. No, it doesn't say they are wonderful; quite the opposite. Bottom line, everyone knows they are too full of uncertainties to be of much use on a regional scale, especially if they are used in isolation, but otoh, multiple ensemble runs which persistently repeat the same signals and trends as results at least look as if there is a chance to express a probability for a given conclusion.

I do wish people would stop presenting newspaper reports as if they contain the facts; we all know they are 'spun', so we should really be opening them up for discussion, rather than imagining that any of the content is accurate. What does the MetO report actually say?

:)P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's an interesting discussion of Regional climate models on RealClimate. No, it doesn't say they are wonderful; quite the opposite. Bottom line, everyone knows they are too full of uncertainties to be of much use on a regional scale, especially if they are used in isolation, but otoh, multiple ensemble runs which persistently repeat the same signals and trends as results at least look as if there is a chance to express a probability for a given conclusion.

I do wish people would stop presenting newspaper reports as if they contain the facts; we all know they are 'spun', so we should really be opening them up for discussion, rather than imagining that any of the content is accurate. What does the MetO report actually say?

:)P

Re: newspaper reports, fair point but often unless you are a subscriber to a scientific journal or have access via work etc, the media reports are the only point at which most people become aware of any of this, not everyone is like you P3, most of us are Jo Public. I respect your right and ability to quote an awful lot of research which counters lots of stuff I and others post on here but it's also possible to find scientific stuff which counters your arguments too, if you have the time and access to stuff. I often get the impression that because you can link to science papers, know the stuff inside out that people on the forum take your word as sacrosanct, and without meaning to cause any offence whatsoever, I get the feeling you are beginning to think that way too. As someone who believes in AGW you will always link to science which validates your view, you are not impartial. When it comes to media, I have quite a lot of working experience, both newspapers and magazines, also books; believe me, libel is an expensive business, reports may and do hype but they rarely print fundamental inaccuracies, there is more often than not a large grain of truth, there has to be. A newspaper report may not be the starting point for discussion which you would prefer, but for most of us mere mortals, it has to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: newspaper reports, fair point but often unless you are a subscriber to a scientific journal or have access via work etc, the media reports are the only point at which most people become aware of any of this, not everyone is like you P3, most of us are Jo Public. I respect your right and ability to quote an awful lot of research which counters lots of stuff I and others post on here but it's also possible to find scientific stuff which counters your arguments too, if you have the time and access to stuff. I often get the impression that because you can link to science papers, know the stuff inside out that people on the forum take your word as sacrosanct, and without meaning to cause any offence whatsoever, I get the feeling you are beginning to think that way too. As someone who believes in AGW you will always link to science which validates your view, you are not impartial. When it comes to media, I have quite a lot of working experience, both newspapers and magazines, also books; believe me, libel is an expensive business, reports may and do hype but they rarely print fundamental inaccuracies, there is more often than not a large grain of truth, there has to be. A newspaper report may not be the starting point for discussion which you would prefer, but for most of us mere mortals, it has to be.

Hang on.

First we get calls numerous threads from those with views like yours about how the media are misleading us, scaremongering, biased, then you come along and criticise those who do the obvious, get to the source, as 'not impartial' and that, (this time...) we should stick with the media view!

Btw, you're in no position to claim state P3 isn't impartial any more than I am of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re: IPCC, of course people will challenge the IPCC report, you get the most respect when you do it with science. The IPCC AR4 report is based on science that is now 1-2 years old so of course the theory will develop, We would be lambasted if we didn't except that the theory is a "living" theory.

The story though is a tinker, it's not going to make huge differences to any model predictions.

Re: newspapers, sorry they are rubbish particularly with anything weather or climate related, A single comment from a Meto spokesman(or anybody even a cleaner working for the METO) will unleash a torrent of stories about the coldest winter or the warmest summer.

There's always some bugger prepared to muddy the waters that newspapers with agenda's or looking for a news story can use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Re: newspaper reports, fair point but often unless you are a subscriber to a scientific journal or have access via work etc, the media reports are the only point at which most people become aware of any of this, not everyone is like you P3, most of us are Jo Public. I respect your right and ability to quote an awful lot of research which counters lots of stuff I and others post on here but it's also possible to find scientific stuff which counters your arguments too, if you have the time and access to stuff. I often get the impression that because you can link to science papers, know the stuff inside out that people on the forum take your word as sacrosanct, and without meaning to cause any offence whatsoever, I get the feeling you are beginning to think that way too. As someone who believes in AGW you will always link to science which validates your view, you are not impartial. When it comes to media, I have quite a lot of working experience, both newspapers and magazines, also books; believe me, libel is an expensive business, reports may and do hype but they rarely print fundamental inaccuracies, there is more often than not a large grain of truth, there has to be. A newspaper report may not be the starting point for discussion which you would prefer, but for most of us mere mortals, it has to be.

Hi, jethro.

I agree that the media are the first (and normally last) point of contact for most of us as far as information about climate change is concerned. This worries me, because there is a big difference between how you might understand CC from this source, compared to how you might understand it from looking at the scientific papers. It is also a problem science has to address; as their material is written for their own 'community' in their own 'language', with special rules, 'translating' the knowledge into 'everyday' language is very hard. it often involves simplifying difficult ideas, and 'skipping' a lot of material which matters in the science, but not to the public.

I have no privileged access to any of the papers I quote: I subscribe to no journals, and everything I link to has been found on the internet, mainly via Google. If I can do it, anyone can; perhaps the difference is that I am sad enough to want to do it, which says more about my obsessions than about other people.

You are right that it is possible to find stuff which 'counters' my arguments (I have often provided links to these, too), in the sense that they disagree, but it is very hard to find what I would consider to be 'sound science' which does this. I know, because I have looked for this, too. It simply isn't out there, in the way that all of the material I do cite is. This is part of the reason why I often claim that the body of evidence is heavily weighted towards one conclusion.

It is flattering that you describe me as 'knowing the stuff inside out', but it isn't true. I barely scratch the surface; the sheer volume of material is unbelievable. Even academic specialists struggle to keep up with the literature on their own specialisations; I'm trying to cover a whole range of disciplines.

I probably do believe that I have acquired a little more knowledge of the science and the arguments than the 'average' person, mainly because I see comments which suggest this to me every day. However, I certainly don't view my own opinion a sacrosanct, or my status as a commentator on climate science as in any way 'special' or 'privileged: I am just another member of NW who has peculiar quirks when it comes to the subject. If anyone on NW chooses to think that my voice has some authority for them, I will be pleased, but it won't be because I think I'm special.

I normally link to things which support the view that AGW is real and is a problem, because I'm normally responding to a claim that it isn't. If it looks like that claim can't be justified, I try to provide a link which offers the 'scientific' assessment.

You are right that I am not impartial; I do think that AGW is happening, and i try to offer the reasons why I think this. But this does not mean I am either biased or unfair; good science is good science, whether I like it or not. I always try to steer the 'rational' path if possible.

Looking over what I have written, actually I confess that I probably do believe that I have privileged understanding in comparison to the average person. This is reprehensible of me, but either I do know more or I don't - so long as I remember your warning about sounding like a know-all, this hopefully shouldn't matter too much.

I have no objection to using media reports as starting points for discussions; they are often extremely useful in this respect. What bugs me is the tendency to present them as if they are the final word (not everyone does this, but some do), or as if their claims of a 'startling new finding' or 'catastrophic consequences' has anything but the vaguest connection with the science. I, too, have experience both within, and analysisng, the media, and you are right that reports must contain some relation to their object, but the media are expert in manipulating the facts to conform to an agenda or even just to make a story of the material, and every report should be presented as open to a debate, not a resolution of one.

As a side note, you may be surprised to find out that the paper I have written is likely to be a bit controversial in climate science circles, mainly because it offers a challenge to the claim that the science is settled. One of my co-authors is a well-known 'anti-IPCC'-ist. I have submitted the results because that is what they show, not because I agree with them.

In summary, re the media: always question what you read/hear; never assume you have heard either the whole story or even the most accurate one. It's a simple caution, no more.

All the best,

:)P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Daniel

This is the whole problem when They are trying push a theroy based on man made global warming. At present this theroy seem to have become fact when its still a theroy. this what happens when climate and Goverment mix. We still know very little about Global climate to hold the view than man made warming is now the main control of Climate. I always hold the view that the sun is the main driver behind climate change not man. Warm and cold spells have been going on through out history and to say that natural forces no longer excists only man made effects climate is utter rubbish. Right now we just understanding that Pacific currents can have a huge impact on our weather. In the last 10 years we In the U.K have seen the warmest climate since the medival warm period. We have warmed much faster than the Global average. We enjoyed some of the warmest summers and mildest winters since the medival warm period. this inpart has been caused by warm currents in the Pacific. Now this year for the first time in 10 years we will have an much cooler summer than what we had in recent times and this was not Forcast in long range pridictions. Now If the sun goes into another major solar min we would see major cooling in the U.K and Europe in the comming years. Less heat from the sun and more cloud will have a big effect on our climate. If the Pacific and the southern oceans cool down due to less Heat from the sun This would have a major effect on our climate. The last time when the sun was quiter we had bitter winters in England with frozen rivers and deep snows on the ground for long periods. This was caused by massive blocking highs feeding in bitting east or nort winds over England. Summers were cooler as well than what we have now. Now I expect this will occure again if we get less heat from the sun. The Jet stream will move south and this will mean that highs will form to the North in Winter and that would bring bitter cold again on the same level as the 17th century. Perhaps this cool summer is the start of a major cooling trend in the U.K. After all we are due for a Solar min in 2009 and a big one after 2020. If this holds out true. Then in the comming years the U.k climate will become much colder that what we have snow. With long severe winters and snows lasting on the ground for long periods and these winters will become common feature of the winter climate in this Century. We will be colder than the last Century when we had the great winters of 1916/17 1939/40 1947 1962/63 and 1978/79. In this Century future worst winters could be as cold as 1607/08 or 1683/84 or 1694/95 when there was 6 weeks of snows in London.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For you mere mortals out there...

(from www.Nature.com/nature)

I have just had a quick glance at the paper…it appears to be saying:

1) With more CO2, plants stomata will open less and reduce transpiration (i.e. the evaporation of excess water from plants); 2) There will be more water at ground surface; 3) Double CO2 levels and this effect will increase by ~6%; 4) Future droughts may not be quite so severe, but the paper does say

‘However, reduced precipitation is not completely negated by physiological forcing, so some regions may still experience increased drought.’;

5) Rather than only radiative forcing, greenhouse gases can influence climate in other ways.

I have read no criticism of, or disagreement with, the IPCC, only a suggestion that the UNFCCC should consider point 5).

Daily Mail....pah!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we still debating a report that was 'hamstrung' by the oil/coal guzzlers (oh, and Ozzieland) before it even went to press? there is nothing but 'underestimations' allowed space, the rest has been cut. What you need is the 'unexpurgated version' of the report and then your comparisons/critique's may be relevant!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say, is if, Climate change or man made global warming is" fact "as the media would have us believe ....why is there such a great debate over it?? :lol: Sorry I cant write anymore , im gonna water the garden! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say, is if, Climate change or man made global warming is" fact "as the media would have us believe ....why is there such a great debate over it?? :lol: Sorry I cant write anymore , im gonna water the garden! :lol:

There's some debate in the media and amongst people, there isn't any real scientific debate though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say, is if, Climate change or man made global warming is" fact "as the media would have us believe ....why is there such a great debate over it??

'Cause it'd be a lot easier for everyone if it wasn't. We could just carry on ,as we are, without needing to think about our actions and their possible impact on the planet and it's continuance. So ,the short answer is many folk don't want to believe it's true as it would negatively impact upon their life expectations (IMHO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...e#StartComments

Here, scientists from our own MetO have challenged the "drought" aspect of the IPCC report, saying that the effect of increasing CO2 levels on plants had not been taken into consideration.

To my mind, this is another "hole" in that report.

Perhaps we should keep track of these "holes"? Wasn't there something some time ago about the historical temperatures which had been used in the report? Wasn't it acknowledged that the "wrong" temperatures had been used, or something like that?

IPCC report.......pah!

Aren't the MetO a little behind the times with this ? I thought we had an 'Ozone' thread (current) which highlighted the negative impacts of low level O3 on vegetation's abilities to function properly (absorb CO2 etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I personally think the whole climate thing is too complicated to truly predict anything with any degree of certainty for a particular region.

...

Yes and no. The major areas of persisent drought across the globe are determined by the macro circulation (hence we have deserts, and rain forests, that are stable because the climate they require to develop is stable), it's not that hard to project, based on generalities, what should happen to this flywheel, and therefore (typical) surface synoptics. We will never be able to forecast precisely for a point in time and space, but good generalisations are perfectly plausible.

All I can say, is if, Climate change or man made global warming is" fact "as the media would have us believe ....why is there such a great debate over it?? :D Sorry I cant write anymore , im gonna water the garden! :D

For the same reason as there's debate over, for example:

- whether or not HT electricity cables cause cancer;

- whether or not living close to Sellafield increases the chance of contracting Leukaemia;

- whether or not mobile phones cause cancer;

- whether or not driving whilst using your mobile phone is dangerous;

- whether smoking should be banned completely;

- whether unfettered immigration to the UK should be allowed;

and

- whether or not joining the Euro makes sense;

Because most people either can't be bothered to go find the facts for themselves, or else haven't got the mental capacity to understand the arguments. There's also a few who simply would prefer not to have to put up with the consequences of any of the above, and who are therefore in denial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the same reason as there's debate over, for example:

- whether or not HT electricity cables cause cancer;

- whether or not living close to Sellafield increases the chance of contracting Leukaemia;

- whether or not mobile phones cause cancer;

- whether or not driving whilst using your mobile phone is dangerous;

- whether smoking should be banned completely;

- whether unfettered immigration to the UK should be allowed;

and

- whether or not joining the Euro makes sense;

Because most people either can't be bothered to go find the facts for themselves, or else haven't got the mental capacity to understand the arguments. There's also a few who simply would prefer not to have to put up with the consequences of any of the above, and who are therefore in denial.

Hi SF

Good list of arguments there, but I think your summation is a little unfair. The real reason there's still debate over AGW and your list above is because all of these issues are actually rather more complex than they first appear. (Well, most of them are - there's a couple of no-brainers in there! :D )

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi SF

Good list of arguments there, but I think your summation is a little unfair. The real reason there's still debate over AGW and your list above is because all of these issues are actually rather more complex than they first appear. (Well, most of them are - there's a couple of no-brainers in there! ;) )

CB

and if there were no debate what would us good folk jaw over on a wet ,late summers afternoon? Women?, Religion?, Politics?.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and if there were no debate what would us good folk jaw over on a wet ,late summers afternoon? Women?, Religion?, Politics?.........

Well, quite...

;)

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what aspects of climate change are being debated. I see perfectly reasonable grounds for debate over, for instance, how much of current climate change is caused by human activities, which human activities are the biggest factors, and which 'natural' factors are most important.

What shouldn't be a topic for debate is whether or not the planet has been warming up over the last 30 years- that's like debating whether 2+2=4 or 2+2=5, the evidence is clearly there for us all to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think warming is in any doubt at all, neither do I really think that human activities play at least some part in that. The debate needs to centre around the issues of exactly how man is influences climate change through which mechanisms of which CO2 is just one. It also needs to look for fuller explanations of natural feedback systems which are not fully understood yet many are happy just to add the doubt onto CO2.

I have a fear that chasing CO2 as some kind of fix all is not going to be the panacea many think. I have said it before but I believe that some very pro AGW supporters who have now shut their ears because the debate is over are just as dangerous as those who don't believe the climate is changing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think warming is in any doubt at all, neither do I really think that human activities play at least some part in that. The debate needs to centre around the issues of exactly how man is influences climate change through which mechanisms of which CO2 is just one. It also needs to look for fuller explanations of natural feedback systems which are not fully understood yet many are happy just to add the doubt onto CO2.

I have a fear that chasing CO2 as some kind of fix all is not going to be the panacea many think. I have said it before but I believe that some very pro AGW supporters who have now shut their ears because the debate is over are just as dangerous as those who don't believe the climate is changing.

Two different but connected issues here, HP: Yes. natural feedback systems are not 'fully' understood, but enough of them are well enough understood for the experts to point the finger squarely at CO2. But no, CO2 is not the end of the story; it is more like the background to the more complex story of how we are interacting with our climate and environment in ways which might be dangerous. All of the major reports analyse up to fourteen different variables, some natural and some from us, and compare their estimated importance to the forcing from CO2; with the possible exception of aerosols, none of the others has as much effect on the climate trend as that pesky gas.

Having said this, I absolutely agree with you that fixating on CO2 (the enemy we know, as it were) is neither a 'cure' nor common sense. But ignoring CO2 is, as others have often put it, like ignoring the elephant in the room. Of all the things that need action, this matters most, because without doing something about this, none of the other actions will have enough effect to prevent 'dangerous anthropogenic interference'.

Regards,

:)P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think warming is in any doubt at all, neither do I really think that human activities play at least some part in that. The debate needs to centre around the issues of exactly how man is influences climate change through which mechanisms of which CO2 is just one. It also needs to look for fuller explanations of natural feedback systems which are not fully understood yet many are happy just to add the doubt onto CO2.

I have a fear that chasing CO2 as some kind of fix all is not going to be the panacea many think. I have said it before but I believe that some very pro AGW supporters who have now shut their ears because the debate is over are just as dangerous as those who don't believe the climate is changing.

That's true, but the situation is not dissimilar to that in A&E when an unconcious patient is presented who has fading life signs. There might be a hundred things killing the patient, some feeding one to another, but the doctors will concentrate first on the apparent, and then from what's apparent, the things known to be, and visibly most obviously likely to be, having detremental effect. One thing is for sure, doing nothing does not solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...