Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[knocker]

To be fair GW although just about everything that could go wrong at Three Mile Island did but disaster was averted. I remember having to look into this in detail but shied away from the official report which took up three warehouses. The safety record for nuclear is actually very good.

[knocker]

 

Yes, one of the biggest ironies of all, is the likes of Greenpeace (and their political lobby, the Green Party) are (very) likely to have ensured that CO₂ levels are much higher in the Western world than they would have been if we'd adopted nuclear power: a policy they're vehemently against.

 

Anyone with a brain can see that this makes sense. Even the die-hard environmentalist Monbiot eventually saw the light: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima

 

I suspect you give Greenpeace too much influence on Britain's lack of a coherent energy policy over thirty years. Having said that I left Greenpeace many years ago over the Brent Spar debacle and their attitude to GM crops reinforces my position.

[Gray-Wolf]

Given the State of the Union Address yesterday by Obama which did not mention Climate Change in any way whatsoever are we about to see a change to a more sceptic stand point by one off the key supporters of AGW. Time as ever will tell.

 

But the most important statement the President made was

 

"Climate change is a fact,"

 

Hard to miss that eh?

Edited January 31, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

But the most important statement the President said was

 

"Climate change is a fact,"

 

Hard to miss that eh?

 

Hard to miss the fact that climate changes?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I was talking about some of the more outlandish views (like the bible) that exist within the IPCC: for instance, inside the IPCC there exists scientists (by reason of the Guassian distribution and the large number of people who work within it's framework) that there's going to be an ice age soon, or soon we are all going to boil to death.

 

Luckily the IPCC reports are based off scientific research, and not the strange beliefs that a couple of contributors may or may not have.

 

But when you have the likes of Greenpeace and the WWF submitting reports that are included then we have a problem.

 

Regardless of whether or not they have contributed much to the IPCC, shouldn't the quality of the data, and not who produces it, be what matters?

[Gray-Wolf]

Context Sparks, context.

 

jon had apparently missed the whole section of the SOTU address dealing with climate change and though Obama gave very mixed messages in my opinion the fact he said 

 

 "But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. And when our children's children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did."

 

and;

 

 "we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods".

 

. With the likes of 'Fox' pushing out their misinformation across the states this strong statement was 'needed' and yet still the source jon used missed it completely???

Edited January 31, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

So which 'Debate' has been settled then? We can all play with words but the statement made does not read in the way you 'chose' to interpret it.

 

The climate change debate is settled. Worsening climate extremes are already impacting western nations. End of.

 

EDIT: More important to our readership would be where you read the text from the SOTU address ? It was a whole section of the speech which he introduced with a header? How could either you miss the whole section ( when it was titled) or your source choose to omit it?

 

 

"Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet.  Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth.  But we have to act with more urgency – because a changing climate is already harming western communities struggling with drought, and coastal cities dealing with floods.  That’s why I directed my administration to work with states, utilities, and others to set new standards on the amount of carbon pollution our power plants are allowed to dump into the air.  The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way.  But the debate is settled.  Climate change is a fact.  And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did."

Edited January 31, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[jonboy]

So the extreme weather for instance we have seen hear in the UK this winter is a result of what?

 

Is it the extra warmth of the mid tropics? I don't think so

Or is it the depth of cold that has settled further south than normal? Probably

There are many reasons why we have seen this exceptional cold pool settle where it has which has led to the large temperature gradient which has generated a very strong jet stream right over us with low pressure systems after system. Yet we were told the norhern hemisphere would be warmer in winter hasnt happen yet has it and any warming is within normal variation. So until science can properly explain the mechanics then I do not believe the debate is settled and I will keep my mind open and not closed to new explanations / theories

[Devonian]

But GW the words 'a changing climate' does not mean climate change. Climate has always changed and will always do so. The west coast communities suffering from drought at present are probably larger and more expectant on 'goverment' than the last time drought hit those regions. The same applies to coastal regions dealing with floods. again probably more populated etc etc.

No doubt at some stage Cameron will blame Climate Change on the floods in Somerset yet its a known flood plain and the communities are probably larger than the last time the flooding was so extensive.

This so called strong statement about moving subsidies from coal and oil to renewables is fine but I did read somewhere that energy companies are begining to charge householders who put up solar panels to connect to the grid making it virtually uneconomic to use solar.

Again we see 'the debate is settled' arguement being used If the debate was settled we would have predicted the slowdown pause etc but it was not and as an example the METO own predictions for the next 5 years so a significant rise again in global temps I wonder if we see a continuation of the present pause over this period what excuses will be used!!!!

 

I think the debate about how high/low the tide will be is settled. But, a tide sceptic would say it's not settled because no one can tell him when a wave will hit...

 

Thus we know that we'll see 2-4C warming this century due to our atmosphere changing activities (we know the climate tide) but that doesn't mean we wont see cold years (the climate low waves if you like) or very hot years (high waves).

 

IMO.

Edited January 31, 2014 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Have you any notion of the current temp anoms across the north jon? DMI80n are showing a whopping 12c anom and most of the sites looking at the arctic are showing real high anoms ( as warm air pushed in to replace the 'wobbly' vortex).

 

Should we be looking at what is throwing the vortex off in such a predictable way? well I look no further than the resilient HP over the north Pacific. How long have we seen that pressure sat there ( and that 'kink' in the Jet)? 

 

We all have our theories as to why we see such stubborn blocking or troughing don't we? Stuck weather patterns. We are gaining data year on year but the move to 'ice free' will show us instant weather response to this extreme change negating the need for the 30yrs of data some folk appear to expect.

 

The climate is broken and it will not fix itself.

[knocker]

Anomaly

Edited January 31, 2014 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

So the extreme weather for instance we have seen hear in the UK this winter is a result of what?

 

Is it the extra warmth of the mid tropics? I don't think so

Or is it the depth of cold that has settled further south than normal? Probably

There are many reasons why we have seen this exceptional cold pool settle where it has which has led to the large temperature gradient which has generated a very strong jet stream right over us with low pressure systems after system. Yet we were told the norhern hemisphere would be warmer in winter hasnt happen yet has it and any warming is within normal variation. So until science can properly explain the mechanics then I do not believe the debate is settled and I will keep my mind open and not closed to new explanations / theories

 

If you can accept that a strong temperature gradient intensifies the jet stream, can you accept that the global trend for a reduced temperature gradient can also alter the jet stream?

 

The northern hemisphere temperature is very much above average still, at a time when ENSO, -ve PDO, low solar activity, aerosols, etc, are all promoting a cooling effect. We should be seeing cooling, what's going on? December was the joint 4th warmest on record for the NH according to UAH.

 

The latest reanalysis data

 

What is it you want science to explain the mechanics of? Keeping your mind open is important, finding out the influence of CO2 wouldn't have been possible without it!

[Devonian]

If you can accept that a strong temperature gradient intensifies the jet stream, can you accept that the global trend for a reduced temperature gradient can also alter the jet stream?

 

The northern hemisphere temperature is very much above average still, at a time when ENSO, -ve PDO, low solar activity, aerosols, etc, are all promoting a cooling effect. We should be seeing cooling, what's going on? December was the joint 4th warmest on record for the NH according to UAH.

 

The latest reanalysis data

 

 

What is it you want science to explain the mechanics of? Keeping your mind open is important, finding out the influence of CO2 wouldn't have been possible without it!

 

Brilliant site Born, don't know how I've missed it...

 

Or was it Knocker first...

Edited January 31, 2014 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-54#entry2914075

 

Or, it's a case of special pleading by someone who ought to know better?

[BornFromTheVoid]

Actually yes BFTV and more so if they have zero credentials in climate science. I'm surprised that you of all people would say that?

 

I'd disagree with you. If the data is good and the research is sound, it shouldn't matter who produced it. Every single person in existence has their own biases. It's through utilising the scientific method that these can be largely overcome to help us understand the world. 

[Gray-Wolf]

But GW the words 'a changing climate' does not mean climate change. Climate has always changed and will always do so. The west coast communities suffering from drought at present are probably larger and more expectant on 'goverment' than the last time drought hit those regions. The same applies to coastal regions dealing with floods. again probably more populated etc etc.

No doubt at some stage Cameron will blame Climate Change on the floods in Somerset yet its a known flood plain and the communities are probably larger than the last time the flooding was so extensive.

This so called strong statement about moving subsidies from coal and oil to renewables is fine but I did read somewhere that energy companies are begining to charge householders who put up solar panels to connect to the grid making it virtually uneconomic to use solar.

Again we see 'the debate is settled' arguement being used If the debate was settled we would have predicted the slowdown pause etc but it was not and as an example the METO own predictions for the next 5 years so a significant rise again in global temps I wonder if we see a continuation of the present pause over this period what excuses will be used!!!!

 

I think you need to look at the data from the west coast USA to see whether the weather is more extreme/less extreme/expected for the region. of course population is greater but so are the number of schemes for water management that were never there in the past? 

 

The last time the somerset levels flooded we were told it was a 1 in 60 year event......that was just before Christmas 2013.......

 

Every global model I've ever seen allows for 'climate wiggles' as 'natural drivers move it both higher and lower than predicted? What you want is a 'forecast' for when such events occur. Sadly some of the parameter depend on our output ( the dimmed part) and so it's difficult to predict how dirty we will be over the coming decades esp. when folk keep promising to be cleaner.....and then reneging..... 

 

As it is I will predict that Asia will become cleaner as it is something 'visible' that is impacting their population right now. The smogs have to go! but then that's bad, very bad, esp. if they are helping take out 50% of the current warming potential.......

 

Hmmmmm, no arctic mirror and a clean atmosphere above us....... and all of that GHG blanket...... what to think, what to think.....

 

 

EDIT: Headless chicken brigade....... Good old HRH!

 

 "It is baffling, I must say, that in our modern world we have such blind trust in science and technology that we all accept what science tells us about everything – until, that is, it comes to climate science.

"All of a sudden, and with a barrage of sheer intimidation, we are told by powerful groups of deniers that the scientists are wrong and we must abandon all our faith in so much overwhelming scientific evidence.

 

"So, thank goodness for our young entrepreneurs here this evening, who have the far-sightedness and confidence in what they know is happening to ignore the headless chicken brigade and do something practical to help."

He also told the guests: "As you may possibly have noticed from time to time, I have tended to make a habit of sticking my head above the parapet and generally getting it shot off for pointing out what has always been blindingly obvious to me.

"Perhaps it has been too uncomfortable for those with vested interests to acknowledge, but we have spent the best part of the past century enthusiastically testing the world to utter destruction; not looking closely enough at the long-term impact our actions will have."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10610108/Prince-Charles-climate-change-deniers-are-headless-chickens.html

Edited January 31, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

 

 

Is it the extra warmth of the mid tropics? I don't think so

 

 

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tropics-feel-the-heat-of-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+energy-and-sustainability+%28Topic%3A+Energy+%26+Sustainability%29

 

Tropics Feel the Heat of Climate Change

[knocker]

There has been a bit of a hooha about the forecasting and subsequent actions and events in Atlanta and the Precautionary Principle. Judith Curry has written about it and HotWhopper has commented.

 

The Precautionary Principle in Atlanta, Georgia

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/the-precautionary-principle-in-atlanta.html

[BornFromTheVoid]

So we can make the scientist redundant then as there is clearly no need for them to be involved in the research, it's an odd thing to say BFTV and how do you define if the research is sound if you have a bias already. Maybe this explains so much why  the research is pretty poor then as it's clear any Tom, Dick and Harry can get by the so called "gold standard" peer review process.

 

Are you saying we should ignore anyone that doesn't have a PhD in a climate related discipline?

 

The qualified scientists have access to the best data, computing power, have been trained in the best methods and generally have the best resources available to them. They produce the vast majority of the peer reviewed research that we see, and the data that we use to produce analysis.

But anyone can perform their own analysis, use different methods and submit the research for peer review and whatnot. But the reviewers will be experts, and better able to determine the validity or soundness of the research. They can check the methods, ensure proper statistical techniques are used, check that claims are backed up by evidence, etc.

 

How have you come to the conclusion that so much research is poor, have you been cleverly concealing your credentials and expertise all this time

[knocker]

This from Tony Eggleton who wrote the recent book "A short Introduction to Climate Change".

 

I am a geologist with a particular interest in near-surface weathered rocks, and I have not published ftndings on climate science. However, I have a comprehensive understanding of the scientiftc process, how scientific results are presented and the scrutiny they undergo before they are published. Usually, a scientiftc paper is presented in four parts:

 

1) A statement of the purpose of the study and how it ftts into the body of knowledge of that scientiftc fteld

 

2) How the study was conducted: there must be enough detail for the study to be replicated by others if they so choose

 

3) What the study discovered, including all the results that have a bearing on the purpose, not just those that fit its hypothesis

 

4) What the authors think the results mean.

 

Every such manuscript submitted to a scientific journal undergoes peer review. Typically, there are at least two reviews by experts in the field who are selected by the journal editor and who are known not to be colleagues of the authors. Quite commonly a manuscript is subjected to more than two reviews, as well as the one by the editors of the journal. Reviewers tend to be particularly scrupulous about requiring appropriate and adequate descriptions of experiments, reference to relevant work by others and that conclusions are based on data presented within the manuscript.

 

Scientists tend not to report their results without a string of 'ifs' and 'buts', and this could make it appear that the research is doubtful or that the conclusions are suspect. However, it is not in the nature of science to be dogmatic and assertive, but rather to present the evidence, to weigh and consider it, point out its limitations and report conclusions on the basis of what has been learned. 

Edited January 31, 2014 by knocker

[knocker]

Are the record-low temperatures in the United States and Canada -- not to mention the extreme flooding in the UK and a record heat wave in Australia -- the result of climate change?Maybe not, but that says nothing about the validity of climate change, Climatologist Richard Alley told CNN's Hala Gorani, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour, on Tuesday."Maybe a little bit of climate change, but this is mostly weather -- big, exciting weather," he said. "We've only warmed it one degree, and this is a 20-degree cold snap. So mostly, this is weather."In other words, higher sea levels from greenhouse gases may have contributed to recent flooding in the UK, but the temperatures are mostly the result of a fluke event, the shifting south of frigid polar winds, known as the polar vortex.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5niqBpn6y3w&feature=player_detailpage

[BornFromTheVoid]

Not at all, but we should ignore those compiling data who aren't scientist  for scientific purposes, i.e. IPCC reports and empirical evidence. Also by your own standards can we accept findings by scientist arguing against climate sensitivity and the impacts  of CO2?

 

By all means, I'd encourage anyone (PhD or not) to produce research that shows climate sensitivity is low and CO2 has little impact. Anything that can enhance our understanding of the climate system should be perused and would be of benefit. Just make sure it's strong enough and up to a high enough standard to pass peer review, that's all.

[knocker]

Some interesting points in this.

 

[knocker]

Oh dear the other thread will have to be renamed.

 

Climate change sceptics are 'headless chickens', says Prince Charles

 

Charles uses green awards speech at Buckingham Palace to renew attack on 'powerful groups of deniers'

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/climate-change-sceptics-headless-chickens-prince-charles?CMP=twt_gu

Edited February 1, 2014 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Though I'm sure KL has waded through the email from B.O.M. I'll link it here for folk to read through ( and follow the links) for I'm having difficulty in finding anything amiss with their methodology or reasoning?

 

http://jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BOM_Response-to-Dr-Marohasy_MARKUP.pdf

 

if anything I'm left feeling the same old 'why so pedantic when the big picture is so clear?' feeling