Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Methuselah]

 

As for sections of the debate 'hiding behind science' What does that mean even? If we wish to be informed in the subject then surely we will keep up with current scientific understanding? If we find answers to questions in scientific discoveries then surely we will use those findings to help explain our position or highlight where the oppositions view is faulty. On that point if a person you debate with brings to your attention scientific findings that do compromise your opinions do you not take on board the new findings and alter your opinion?

 

 

Indeed Ian. how can one possibly hide behind something that is so readily available to whomever genuinely wants to understand? On the other hand, it's much easier to simply argue from incredulity...

[Gray-Wolf]

It may be my cynical self speaking but I suspect if strong scientific evidence appeared to support the position of the folk, currently questioning science, that they would be the first to grab hold of the study and parade it widely?

 

I do hope that I am wrong in this assumption as I very much doubt the situation would ever arise in reality (that's meant as a LOL by the way and not a for real)

[Devonian]

I cannot believe that we are seeing some members of the debate now resorting to binning science??? Just because the knowledge science is bringing to us doesn't support your stance is no reason to attempt to declare it redundant? 

 

...

 

Agree with your post but, we've both been around long enough to know it's not that 'sceptics' bin science they bin what they think is bad science or bad data.

 

There have been endless argument about UHI's, this or that bit of bark/tree, airports, air craft engine exhausts,  tarmac, the honesty of X Yor Z. All of this, for some undermines data and observations.

 

It's matter not a jot if WE think (well, know) the evidence and data is sound. Some people think it isn't and a decade or more of arguing with them is no nearer convincing them than it was at the start.

 

Otoh, what would convince these 'sceptics'? A decade tells me it's going to be beyond difficult...

Edited November 5, 2013 by Devonian

[Devonian]

Sparticle posted http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2827208

 

Two quick points.

 

1, I don't remember when the letters CAGW first appeared but I do know it's used far, far, far, far more often by sceptics than 'AGW accepters'. My view would be of the 'accepters' the vast majority of us think AGW is potentially serious but, 2-4C wouldn't necessarily be catastrophic. I also think the word catastrophic is alarming. Odd that...

 

2, the graph. I've seen another interpretation of model data. I've spent some time trying to find it but I can't - doh! However I think the argument was that the start point wasn't being place correctly because, for example, if the start data was predicted to be above average but was not then it makes no sense to place them in the same point for comparison and thus the whole graph is skewed. But, it would be easier to explain with the link - will try to find it.... I'd like to see what the graph looks like with different start dates. 

[VillagePlank]

1, I don't remember when the letters CAGW first appeared but I do know it's used far, far, far, far more often by sceptics than 'AGW accepters'. My view would be of the 'accepters' the vast majority of us think AGW is potentially serious but, 2-4C wouldn't necessarily be catastrophic. I also think the word catastrophic is alarming. Odd that...

 

Well, I think you'll find the vast majority are in total agreement with you there Dev. 2-4C is tipping the risk, but not necessarily catastrophic. Whilst the word 'catastrophic' rarely appears in the literature, in certainly does in the MSM, and other sections of the press, including the green lobby. It's referenced in a number of ways, for instance catastrophic climate collapse which is, arguably, worse.

 

Certainly interested in seeing the comments on that graph. Thanks for that.

 

EDIT: Here's what's unusual (I missed this) : In all, 73 climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project are plotted against observations so that their respective 1979-2012 trend lines all intersect in 1979, which we believe is the most meaningful way to simultaneously plot the models’ results for comparison to the observations.

 

Certainly non-standard!! I don't really understand why someone would do this as surely we can simply plot observations against model prediction. Leave it with me, I'll try and figure out the where's, why's and how's.

 

Thanks again!

 

Edited November 5, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

Hmmm. Starting to think Dr Spencer has rather hoodwinked me.

 

http://arthur.shumwaysmith.com/life/content/mathematical_analysis_of_roy_spencers_climate_model

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sparticle posted http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2827208

 

Two quick points.

 

1, I don't remember when the letters CAGW first appeared but I do know it's used far, far, far, far more often by sceptics than 'AGW accepters'. My view would be of the 'accepters' the vast majority of us think AGW is potentially serious but, 2-4C wouldn't necessarily be catastrophic. I also think the word catastrophic is alarming. Odd that...

 

2, the graph. I've seen another interpretation of model data. I've spent some time trying to find it but I can't - doh! However I think the argument was that the start point wasn't being place correctly because, for example, if the start data was predicted to be above average but was not then it makes no sense to place them in the same point for comparison and thus the whole graph is skewed. But, it would be easier to explain with the link - will try to find it.... I'd like to see what the graph looks like with different start dates. 

 

Are you thinking of these, Dev?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.html

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/

 

I don't think the one posted by Sparkicle from Spencer's blog is the graph your thinking of though.

[Gray-Wolf]

I'm glad that Sparks has tracked down a full walk-through of Dr Spencer's work from his book. I certainly could not have attempted to work through the calcs (struggling with my coursework as it is...) but have found other folks discussions on the subject sufficient enough (for me) to cast doubt on his methods/findings.

[Devonian]

Are you thinking of these, Dev?http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-model-gw-projections-done-better-than-you-think.htmlhttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/fake-skeptic-draws-fake-picture-of-global-temperature/I don't think the one posted by Sparkicle from Spencer's blog is the graph your thinking of though.

Probably the skepSci one but I'm not sure. I thought it was on OM but I couldn't find it. These model/observations comparison depend upon how you place the start points. I'll put some more time to finding it...Edit: this OM post was the rational I liked http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/10/05/bob-tisdale-jaffa cakeses-on-leg-claims-its-raining/ Edited November 5, 2013 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/antarctica_trends.pdf

 

This either means a lot or it means nothing??? What has the pre-industrial age got to say about what things are like now? Was non-natural CO₂ ever pumped into the atmosphere in prehistoric times? Or...do natural and manmade CO₂ have different physical/chemical properties?

 

According to the 'Snowball Earth' hypothesis, it was the build-up of CO2, from volcanic outgassing, that brought the planet out of hibernation??

[knocker]

Jason Box tweets.

 

A rebuttal of a shameless mockery of science by Hot Topic

 

Heartland’s Big Book Of Lies About Climate Change cuts no ice, thanks to Don Easterbrook

 

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/heartlands-big-book-of-lies-about-climate-change-cuts-no-ice-thanks-to-don-easterbrook/

[Methuselah]

Jason Box tweets.

 

A rebuttal of a shameless mockery of science by Hot Topic

 

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/heartlands-big-book-of-lies-about-climate-change-cuts-no-ice-thanks-to-don-easterbrook/

Oh dear, Malcolm. Does that mean we need rewrite the laws of physics again?

[knocker]

Looks like it Pete. If I remember correctly BFTV posted on the subject as well.

[knocker]

The whopping climate change footprint of two Australian coalmining projects

 

Two Queensland mines would emit triple the greenhouse gas emissions of the Keystone XL pipeline, or six times the UK's annual footprint

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/07/climate-change-keystone-galilee-queensland-coal-mining

Edited November 7, 2013 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

Fossil fuel subsidies 'reckless use of public funds

 

The world is spending half a trillion dollars on fossil fuel subsidies every year, according to a new report.

 

The Overseas Development Institute (ODI) says rich countries are spending seven times more supporting coal, oil and gas than they are on helping poorer nations fight climate change.

 

Some countries including Egypt, Morocco and Pakistan, have subsidies bigger than the national fiscal deficit...

 

...The research adds to data from the International Energy Agency that says global subsidies for fossil fuels are six times higher than those for renewable energy. The OECD has stated that coal is subject to the lowest levels of taxation.

 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833153

Edited November 7, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[loafer]

 

The whopping climate change footprint of two Australian coalmining projects

 

Two Queensland mines would emit triple the greenhouse gas emissions of the Keystone XL pipeline, or six times the UK's annual footprint

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/07/climate-change-keystone-galilee-queensland-coal-mining

 

 

 

I was listening to Radio 4 this morning and they were talking about how China will hit it's CO2 targets. I wonder if these projects which are essentially offshored Chinese suppliers, are taken into account in those calculations.

Edited November 7, 2013 by loafer

[4wd]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24833153

The world is spending half a trillion dollars on fossil fuel subsidies every year

 

But what is the tax take on the end product?

 

[BornFromTheVoid]

But what is the tax take on the end product? 

 

Will check the full report to see if they mention it.

Isn't the argument often used that if renewables could stand on their own two feet then they wouldn't need subsidies?

[Fergus Brown]

Will check the full report to see if they mention it.

Isn't the argument often used that if renewables could stand on their own two feet then they wouldn't need subsidies?

Yes, that argument is often used. The reality is that Renewables compete on an unfair playing field, where fossil fuels  - specifically Coal - are more heavily subsidised. But Coal is the cheapest way to generate large amounts of energy, if you don't take into account the environmental cost. Since it is hard to put a price on this, the end effect is that utilities are under no pressure to change their energy mix. 

The real issue with renewables in the UK is that the most efficient and cost effective - onshore wind - is the most politically and personally divisive. On a fair comparison, it compares with Gas in cost terms, and is cheaper than nuclear or solar by a long way. But it's about six times more expensive than coal. Of course, if new tech like 'clean coal' is used, the cost of energy goes up. If there was a more realistic levy on coal burning which reflected the social, pollution and climate damage it was doing, then there might be more motivation to change the mix.

The main driver for energy policy in this country seems to be 1; the need to keep foreign investment on board, since none of the big six is UK owned/controlled, and 2: the preservation of investors' dividends. 

[Methuselah]

But what is the tax take on the end product? 

So, what's worse, 4 - taxing energy, at the end of the line, and calling it 'green tax', or throwing £billions hand-over-fist in the form of subsidies so as to warp market-reality by making coal, oil and gas appear cheaper than they really are? 

 

When I was in Wales, a couple of years' back, I took mental notes of what my uncle's photovoltaics produced; anywhere between 10 and 25 kWhr of juice per day (April). Even 10kWhr is enough to heat a whole tank of water. So, why go through the palaver of sending it all into the grid, when heating water directly is far more efficient? Or is it simply that the government's subsidies are really intended to put even more taxpayers' money into the coffers of their chums?

 

Forty years' back, I worked with a guy who saved himself a fortune by installing black-painted radiators on his roof!

[Fergus Brown]

If it hadn't been for the ridiculous inflation of the PV market due to original Feed in Tariff, people in the UK might have gone for solar thermal, which IMO is a much better technology for this country, since it supports cheaper heating, rather than relatively inefficient energy generation. That guy had it worked out!

[knocker]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2828807

 

Over the past 50 years, temperatures across Alaska increased by an average of 3.4°F. Winter warming was even greater, rising by an average of 6.3°F.^[2]The rate of warming in Alaska was twice the national average over that same period of time. Average annual temperatures in Alaska are projected to increase an additional 3.5 to 7°F by the middle of this century.^[2]

 

 

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/alaska.html

[Gray-Wolf]

It's sad that people have been jumping all over Alaska in recent years because of the Subdued Pacific coast temps there. We always knew that PDO forcings can bring cold water to the coasts there and that ocean temps will impact land temps adjacent....... of course North slope, where ice loss from the Arctic Ocean impacts temps, has seen nothing but rises in temp through that period.....a fact 'overlooked' by the book cookers. North slope has less settlements but more permafrost than the Pacific coast so it's continued warming should surely have been of great concern to us all?

 

The possibility that PDO-ve is now on the wane raises the prospects of more warm years, along that coastal margin, as the 'cold horse shoe' is replaced by average or warm sst's.

 

On PDO phases. The last paper I read made the assertion that post 1980 PDO 'phase' was being impacted by AGW. This means to me more 'average' , less cold and increased max high sst's. As such the 'cold coast' conditions are likely to be less and less common as we move forward and average/warm coast conditions will increase in their frequency. 

Edited November 8, 2013 by Paul
More name calling, give it a rest please Ian...

[Devonian]

Classic SOMMCC post this: http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-37#entry2828807

 

It starts with a graph from 'Steven Goddard's' blog. Goddard is the man who said today "Jeff Masters’ claim of 195 MPH – worst hurricane ever at landfall – was complete bullonions***, but exactly what he wanted. He got his big lie out all over the Internet". Imo anyone who so insult Dr Masters is ('lets be polite Peter') not the nicest of people. Frankly I wouldn't trust Mr Goddard, at all, ever -  period.

 

Then Keith quotes the National Geographic (presumably to show how right SG was???). Lets see what it says. It talks about how warm Alaska is (well, that can't be can it...). But, it backs it up with other evidence (science likes other independent lines of evidence), melting glaciers (heck, nothing to do with temperature that), bird colonies starving because fish are further north (on average people, on average) so food is harder to get.

 

But, no. It's 'Goddard' and his copy of Excel, his spewed insults, his 'just having fun' blog, a blog where he said (yes, he said) 'most of my posts are sarcasm' we should trust? Oh dear, what is AGW scepticism coming to....

 

***his profanity edited by the software here it seems.

Edited November 8, 2013 by Devonian

[knocker]

Streuth, just come across Lord Monktons Rap Sheet. Must be on the FBIs ten most dangerous.

 

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/lord-moncktons-rap-sheet/

Edited November 8, 2013 by knocker