Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

Stone me they are letting more of them out.

 

Postcards from la la land: David Archibald and the four horsemen of the cooling apocalypse

http://hot-topic.co.nz/postcards-from-la-la-land-david-archibald-and-the-four-horsemen-of-the-cooling-apocalypse/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

[knocker]

This is no time for do-gooders; this is time for evidence based action (>99%), and evidence based planning (>95%) An example of pure politik (for the sake of pure politik) is since the late 1960s the Green movement has opposed nuclear power[1] even though the evidence to support CO₂ caused warming started to gather pace as early as the 1950s [2]. If an ardent arch-enemy of nuclear power and rabid environmentalist, Monbiot, can change his mind according to the evidence, so can just about anyone else. [3][4] The shock, no that's too polite - the scandal -  of course, is that the Green powerful parliamentary lobby across the western world is now directly responsible for, perhaps, 30 years of escalating CO₂ emmissions on the basis that 'they just don't like nuclear' offering no evidence to support such a position and ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

 

Yes, the chickens, as it were, are coming home to roost - they might be roosting a few degrees higher (or lower) in latitude.

 

Perhaps the Greens were just exercising the precautionary principle?

 

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science#Increasing_concern.2C_1950s_-_1960s

[3] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/apr/05/anti-nuclear-lobby-misled-world?guni=Article:in%20body%20link

[4] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/28/arrested-myself-supporting-nuclear-power-george-monbiot

 

I think you greatly overestimate the power of the Green lobby across the western world. For example the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 greatly swayed public opinion in the States ( and elsewhere) and was the direct cause of a change of policy thereafter. Greatly exploited by the fossil fuel lobby of course.

 

The lack of a coherent energy policy in the UK is not just down to the Green lobby either. The accident at Windscale may have had an effect, and waste was always an issue, but essentially it's down to sheer incompetence by government. Once the dash for gas was in place any nuclear policy went on the back burner.

 

I speak as someone who has been advocating a nuclear policy for many years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

[knocker]

The end of April has arrived, and with it, the record for the first month in human history with an average carbon dioxide level in Earth’s atmosphere above 400 parts per million has been set.

 

p

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/april-becomes-first-month-with-co2-levels-above-400-ppm-17367

Edited April 29, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes, the precautionary principle. However, one must not forget that we currently live at the pinnacle of human achievement. Science has made an awful great deal of us very comfortable indeed, thank you very much, and, as such, we have ever increasing life expectancy, woman's deaths during childbrith is virtually never heard of, disease is on the retreat. There never has been, in terms of human welfare, a better time to live. Of course, this is in the (very) rich west, and it's not at all the case for the poorer regions of the planet.

 

What you have to remember is that this is paid for by capitalism: the simple premise that by abstracting bartering into currency (so instead of exchanging eggs and goats, we exchange pounds sterling) and the existence of a free market. A lot of the poorer regions of the world still do not allow free trade and thus remove themselves from the larger markets. One counter example is, of course, China. By opening up their markets, and, in turn, opening up the West's they're now beginning to make real grounds (ie excess capital) where they can now concentrate on reform with such things as human rights. The point being, you need excess capital in order to be able to achieve this: otherwise you are going to spend all of your time growing food, dying early, and, frankly, not much else.

 

This is what the evidence tells us. It tells us the flow of capital isn't from the poor to the rich, it is the other way around. Again China is the perfect example: most of the dollar is now owned by China because of the cost of debt America has taken on from the Chinese. Take the recent horror stories of children working in sweat-shops in the far-East for Apple. Yes, well, they are true. But the facts  - ie the context - is that those kids are now earning enough money to have a surplus, a surplus can buy them an education, and life expectancy is on the up in those areas. Do you think that kids in England working on zero-hour contracts is much different? The sympatheic West reading their Guardian newspaper over tea and toast on a pleasant Sunday morning in leafy Surrey would rather they went back to foraging on rotting global rubbish dumps for any scrap of food they can find, and, after all, who cares if they make it to their 18th birthday? As long as it's not on Newsnight, and we don't have to hear about it.

 

So, since capital can flow from the rich countries to the poor countries, should they choose to open up their markets, they will pull themselves (without our intervention) out of poverty. But we would 'charge' them for our excesses. We would create a carbon market where their energy costs should be the same as the West. We should limit, or impose tariffs on free trade, where countries use coal power. Of course, we do it in the name of Climate Change, and, indeed, we - those who know what's best for them - will make them do it - as, in 100 years time - it will be clear to all that it was the 'right' thing to do. That we took the right precautions at the right time.

 

Make no bones about this, GW. This is a human story. I do realise that some wish that human beings never evolved (and some that wish God never created us?!) I do not have the answers, I do not pretend to have the answers: but I do know one things: the precautionary principle should be held to protect the poor, not the rich, who sit around forever using expensive technology, no doubt created on a bowl of rice a day, to argue whether this or that is right or wrong.

 

I knew we were on the same hymn sheet Sparks! but the reality of 'the now' doesn't answer the problems we have laid down for us all, rich and poor, over the coming years? yes the rich can insulate themselves for a while but food/water/energy shortages are just that, shortages.

[knocker]

Eli musing on tornados

 

http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/compare-and-contrast.html

[VillagePlank]

I think you greatly overestimate the power of the Green lobby across the western world. For example the accident at Three Mile Island in 1979 greatly swayed public opinion in the States ( and elsewhere) and was the direct cause of a change of policy thereafter. Greatly exploited by the fossil fuel lobby of course.

 

The lack of a coherent energy policy in the UK is not just down to the Green lobby either. The accident at Windscale may have had an effect, and waste was always an issue, but essentially it's down to sheer incompetence by government. Once the dash for gas was in place any nuclear policy went on the back burner.

 

I speak as someone who has been advocating a nuclear policy for many years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windscale_fire

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident

 

I'm not so sure [1], but, I guess, I concede that because I am interested in the issues, my own bias might blow the influence that the green lobby might actually have out of proportion.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2010/0310/The-EU-green-complex-How-the-EU-funds-green-lobby-groups

[knocker]

I'm not so sure [1], but, I guess, I concede that because I am interested in the issues, my own bias might blow the influence that the green lobby might actually have out of proportion.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2010/0310/The-EU-green-complex-How-the-EU-funds-green-lobby-groups

 

Apart from the nuclear power fiasco, which has now led to new stations being financed by France and China at the cost to the tax payer of a fixed price for electricity, another thing that get's right up my nose is the complete lack of investment in tidal power in this country.

 

A guaranteed source that is readily available but zilch investment. The Severn Barrage is a prime example. Three or four detailed plans over the years that would have produced huge amounts of electricity but all turned down for one reason or another. Yes of course there would be environmental impacts but very few schemes can be implemented without breaking a few eggs. And there are also many other areas where tidal power would be very suitable.

[knocker]

Great graphics.

 

The One Page I Will Read – IPCC Working Group II

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=294

[knocker]

Considering this subject arose quite recently this is quite interesting.

 

Faking it

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/04/faking-it/

Edited April 30, 2014 by knocker

[Supercell 89]

 

Is 'override' appropriate?

 

A study by Kosaka and Xie recently published in Nature confirms that the slowing rise in global temperatures during recent years has been a result of prevalent La Niña periods in the tropical Pacific.  The authors write in the abstract:

 

Our results show that the current hiatus is part of natural climate variability tied specifically to a La Niña like decadal cooling. 

 

They show this with an elegant experiment, in which they “force†their global climate model to follow the observed history of sea surface temperatures in the eastern tropical Pacific. With this trick the model is made to replay the actual sequence of El Niño and La Niña events found in the real world, rather than producing its own events by chance.  The result is that the model then also reproduces the observed global average temperature history with great accuracy.

 

There are then at least three independent lines of evidence that confirm we are not dealing with a slowdown in the global warming trend, but rather with progressive global warming with superimposed natural variability:

 

1.  Our correlation analysis between global temperature and the El Niño Index.

2.  The measurements of oceanic heat uptake.

3.  The new model calculation of Kosaka and Xie.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

 

And perhaps of interest.

 

On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability and the AMO

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL059233/abstract

 

 

Very Interesting read, probably the best scientific article i've read about climate change. I had wondered if the negative PDO/ La Nina had helped peg the global temperature back. If this is the case  its very likely it would have helped nudge the global temperature upwards in its positive PDO/El Nino phase, along with additional manmade factors. 

[knocker]

What load of ********* they are.

 

VIDEO: Heartland Institute's Joe Bast Reluctantly Stands by Denial of Cigarette Smoking Risks

 

This is a guest post by Lee Fang and Nick Surgey, originally published on Republic Report.

Before the Heartland Institute became famous for its leading role in climate change denial, the group spent many years working to defend the tobacco industry. Just as the group is now known for its over the top attacks on climate scientists, Heartland once played a large role in criticizing public health experts and others calling attention to the dangers of cigarette smoking.

 

http://desmogblog.com/2014/04/30/video-heartland-institute-s-joe-bast-reluctantly-stands-denial-cigarette-smoking-risks

Edited May 1, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

HotWhopper brightens up a rather dull day. And the illiterati are in excellent form.

 

 

Do plankton (etc) act like clouds in the ocean, keeping the sun’s energy near the surface where it is easily re-radiated to space ?

 

Bob Tisdale, the one-trick pony, rides again at WUWT

Edited May 1, 2014 by knocker

[Styx]

I'm not so sure [1], but, I guess, I concede that because I am interested in the issues, my own bias might blow the influence that the green lobby might actually have out of proportion.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Adam-Smith-Institute-Blog/2010/0310/The-EU-green-complex-How-the-EU-funds-green-lobby-groups

 

 

According to a report published today by International Policy Network, the Directorate-General for the Environment – the European Commission unit that deals with environment affairs - has handed out over €66 million in core funding to green NGOs.

 

That's peanuts. Give them some more, simply to level an uneven playing field. How much has been given away ( land and subsidies ) thanks to the successful lobbying of entrenched industrialists over the years. And who has picked up the tab for their disregard for the health of our environment.

 

Besides, lobbyists of all persausions simply advocate policy change on behalf of their membership, they do not realistically expect their full agenda to ever be met, but pressure for incremental change. The pull of lobbyists across the spectrum is a fundamental part of democracy anyway, is it not?

Edited May 1, 2014 by Styx

[knocker]

I have posted about this in the north American weather thread where it attracted little interest, A bit surprising as it's an astonishing rainfall event. I've put this here because it's again the question of, not whether climate change was the cause, but did it make it more likely?

 

The Calamitous Climate Responsible for Florida’s Record Rainfall

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/30/record_rains_and_extreme_weather_florida_s_floods_are_linked_to_climate.html

Edited May 1, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

2014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #18A

[knocker]

Gavin Schmidt, supermodeller: the emergent patterns of climate change

 

In this new TED talk, Gavin Schmidt, NASA climate modeller and juggler extraordinaire, talks about the climate system, how we use models, how they’re put together, and how the great swirls of earth’s atmosphere emerge from a million lines of Fortran code. It’s a great exposition, and the graphics he calls up in support are magnificent.

 

 

http://hot-topic.co.nz/gavin-schmidt-supermodeller-the-emergent-patterns-of-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+co%2FRbRF+%28Hot+Topic%29

[knocker]

Well worth a listen

 

Fascinating video of Roger Revelle discussing the 'carbon dioxide problem' in 1980 using chalk instead of powerpoint! http://climatescience.tv/2012/05/roger-revelle-in-1980/ â€¦

[knocker]

April 2014 - joint third warmest in UK series behind only 2007 and 2011.

 

[knocker]

As always an interesting article by Dr Ricky Rood.

 

It seemed a little apocalyptic: Climate Case Study

 

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=295

[knocker]

CO2eq Has Jumped to 479 ppm

 

CDIAC -- which sounds like a disease, but is just NOAA's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center -- just put up numbers for 2013 radiative forcings from all the greenhouse gases.Total GHG radiative forcing -- absent water vapor, of course -- changed by 0.044 W/m2, the largest jump since 1998.The "equivalent" level of CO2 -- that is, the level of CO2 that would give the raditive forcing of all the manmade GHGs up there -- is now 479 ppmv -- as opposed to its 2013 average of whatever value gives a radiative forcing of 1.884 W/m2 -- about 399 W/m2.The CFC brothers, 11 and 12, continue to decrease, while methane and laughing gas continue apace.Compared to 1990, raditive forcing is now 1.34 times larger.Its annual increase was also the largest since 1998. Clearly that El Nino put a lot of extra CO2 into the air, as if someone left the ocean out like an open can of Coke to go flat. I suppose this year's will too.

 

http://davidappell.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/cdiac-2013s-co2eq-jumped-to-479-ppm.html?spref=tw

Edited May 3, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

What pushed Judith Curry over the edge?

 

Serious question. Look, we've all known that Judith has been getting more and more ratty as time goes on. Just when we think she can't sink any lower she surprises us again.  But this time she's really gone over the edge. I mean really and truly.

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/what-pushed-judith-curry-over-edge.html

[knocker]

Fossil fuel subsidies preventing transition to low-carbon economy

 

The massive subsidies given to the production and consumption of fossil fuels must be curbed if the world is to complete a transition to a low-carbon economy, UN experts have warned.

Speaking at an event co-organised by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in Nairobi on Wednesday, experts claimed that the support given to oil, gas and coal was contributing to fiscal instability and undermining efforts to prevent climate change. 

 

The subsidies given to renewable energy have proved controversial in recent months, when so-called “green levies†were blamed for rising winter energy bills in the UK and subsequently cut by the government.

 

Earlier this week, the UK government also announced plans to review the subsidies given to the solar industry, provoking fear over losses of jobs and investment.

 

However, the subsidies given to clean energy pale in comparison to those given to fossil fuels.

 

http://blueandgreentomorrow.com/2014/05/01/fossil-fuel-subsidies-preventing-transition-to-low-carbon-economy/

[knocker]

Climate change is clear and present danger, says landmark US report

 

National Climate Assessment, to be launched at White House on Tuesday, says effects of climate change are now being felt

 

 

Climate change has moved from distant threat to present-day danger and no American will be left unscathed, according to a landmark report due to be unveiled on Tuesday.

 

The National Climate Assessment, a 1,300-page report compiled by 300 leading scientists and experts, is meant to be the definitive account of the effects of climate change on the US. It will be formally released at a White House event and is expected to drive the remaining two years of Barack Obama's environmental agenda.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/may/04/climate-change-present-us-national-assessment?CMP=twt_gu

Edited May 4, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Oh god the potty peer has been let out for the bank holiday weekend.

 

Difficulties in denial at WUWT: Oceans are getting warmer, no they aren't, yes they are...

 

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/difficulties-in-denial-at-wuwt-oceans.html

Edited May 5, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Good grief the inmates are positively hysterical today.

 

Pleading insanity? Denier weirdness at WUWT - your host: Tim Ball.

Tim Ball the conspiracy theorist was let loose at WUWT today (archived here). No, I don't mean he let loose. I mean what I wrote, he was let loose. He's been let out, unsupervised.  (Perhaps he's angling for the insanity defense in his current court cases.)

 

Tim starts off talking about "agents of the IPCC".  You know, the infamous secret spy ring "the IPCC". It's members infiltrated the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which spread its tentacles far and wide and inserted sleeper agents into NASA and Penn State University and the University of Chicago and the Norwegian Meteorological Institute and the British Antarctic Expedition and various other nefarious organisations.  These evil spies communicate by secret coded emails that they hide from innocent parties like Stephen McIntyre and the American Tradition Institute, who have offices of analysts standing by to decode the secret messages in the email headers to find the missing core tops in the bristlecones to determine whether the ice age will start this year or next.