Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
Ali G said:
Presumably the 'carbon footprint' of a CE is somewhat smaller than that of a three-legged hedgie? (One leg already chewed off by a TB Bovine Tuberculosis ridden badger!)
Further dispassionate reporting of all matters will no doubt ensue.
I somehow, and from somewhere, feel that there is something which may be misinterpreted in the above....Further dispassionate reporting of all matters will no doubt ensue.
Not quite sure why, but having amended, this may be an improvement,
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Whod've thunk it? The Hadley Centre's very own computer model says that the cooling will be dwarfed by the warming!I'm shocked.
Shocked that the model didn't suggest that the cooling sun would in fact warm the earth some more.
Several future Bond movies in the making here, given they've done Skyfall already - The Sun Is Not Enough, Quantum of Cooling, Tomorrow Never Warms, Cool Another Day, For Your Models Only, A View To A Grant.
The Guardian got there first in 2013 however with some even more impressive research aka modelling gigo which found that a Grand Solar Minimum would offset 0.3 deg C of non-existent manmade warming. Negative feedback, negative temperature inflation, now we get only 0.1 deg C. Believer desperation increases x3 in advance of a climate beanfeast, so cooling decreases x3. It all makes perfect sense. The article was authored by none other than Dana Nuccitelli, he of SkepticalScience infamy, so we can take it as gospel, including the erroneous statements about solar activity and the non-consensus 97% myth above the title (of course).
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-...
Looking at what the warm people at NASA say about temperature changes during the actual Maunder Minimum and LIA, the Exeter modelling result of only 0.1 deg C cooling for an imminent repeat of this isn't consistent with the global cooling associated with such a Grand Minimum.
Clearly there are significant temperature drops of approx an order of magnitude greater than 0.1 deg C and given that global warming zealots claim the planet is now 1 deg C warmer than the LIA there's every reason to suspect that another similar event will take us back to the same place i.e. 10x more cooling than the Indy reported Exeter modelling.
Note also the unprecedented nature of recent claimed warming, which hasn't yet warmed up to MWP levels.
From the Indy...you have to love this bit:
The paragraph above may be the opposite of reality; ~19 years and counting. That's climatewang.
The Guardian got there first in 2013 however with some even more impressive research aka modelling gigo which found that a Grand Solar Minimum would offset 0.3 deg C of non-existent manmade warming. Negative feedback, negative temperature inflation, now we get only 0.1 deg C. Believer desperation increases x3 in advance of a climate beanfeast, so cooling decreases x3. It all makes perfect sense. The article was authored by none other than Dana Nuccitelli, he of SkepticalScience infamy, so we can take it as gospel, including the erroneous statements about solar activity and the non-consensus 97% myth above the title (of course).
www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-...
Looking at what the warm people at NASA say about temperature changes during the actual Maunder Minimum and LIA, the Exeter modelling result of only 0.1 deg C cooling for an imminent repeat of this isn't consistent with the global cooling associated with such a Grand Minimum.
Clearly there are significant temperature drops of approx an order of magnitude greater than 0.1 deg C and given that global warming zealots claim the planet is now 1 deg C warmer than the LIA there's every reason to suspect that another similar event will take us back to the same place i.e. 10x more cooling than the Indy reported Exeter modelling.
Note also the unprecedented nature of recent claimed warming, which hasn't yet warmed up to MWP levels.
From the Indy...you have to love this bit:
Article said:
A study carried out on computer models at the Met Office Hadley Centre in Exeter calculated that a forthcoming grand solar minimum would cause global average temperatures to fall by about 0.1C. This compares to an expected increase of several degrees due to global warming if industrial emissions of greenhouse gases continue to rise at the present rate.
That'll do nicely, computer climate models - they never fail, because they take into account most fulsomely the effects of changes in solar eruptivity as well as irradiance, and there's no pre-programmed carbon dioxide effect. That'll be the carbon dioxide effect that remains invisible in the data but mysteriously now has 95% IPCC confidence in its predominance. The paragraph above may be the opposite of reality; ~19 years and counting. That's climatewang.
Guam said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Well would have seen this comingOh wait we did on here thanks to TB lol
It won't stop the raging man made Global warming over the long run though
The only man made aspect of the model projections is the data itself lol
How can a mind cope with that kind of thinking? Is this the same thing that stops people from leaving their abusers? Faith in the CO2 meme is hurting you - let it go.....
Jinx said:
We have pumped more CO2 into the atmosphere in the last few years than in all the years preceding them and a slight dip in solar activity has flattened global temperatures.
Quite so, and that's based on the near-surface temperature database we're presented with after being tortured into confession.There's no way anybody can say precisely, possibly more will be known when the GWPF investigation into data manipulation is complete, so in the manner available to us until that time my view is that the standstill is longer and may indeed be a decline already, once the homogenisation and substitution (plus omission) of data already corrupted by LULC UHIE GDP is taken into account. After all, somebody somewhere had to hide the decline a while ago, and we know that unmolested data from e.g. USA, NZ and Aus is flat for 100 years up to around the turn of the century.
Buy Damart and candles.
mybrainhurts said:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2015/6/23/i...
More side splitting mirth and comedy gold from the BBC...
Well that will have the greenies conflicted. On the one hand, must stop climageddon. On the other they'd also like it if a lot people just up and died early to reduce the strain on mother earth. Their heads will be melting!More side splitting mirth and comedy gold from the BBC...
In case it goes missing transcript said:
Source: BBC Radio Five Live
Date: 23/06/2015
Event: Hugh Montgomery on the climate change health threat: "it's been largely ignored"
Credit: BBC Radio Five Live
People: •Adrian Goldberg: BBC Radio 5 Live radio presenter
•Dr. Hugh Montgomery: Professor of Health, University College London
Adrian Goldberg: Now, the risk to human health posed by climate change is being seriously underestimated, according to a major new report compiled by European and Chinese scientists and published in the Lancet today. They're warning that the threat to human health is so great that it could undermine the last 50 years of gains in developments in global health. Professor Hugh Montgomery is the co-chair of the report. I asked him, a little earlier, to explain the link between climate change and the threat to our health.
Hugh Montgomery: It's a big threat, and it's been largely ignored, as you know - for many, many years all we've heard about is melting ice and tree frogs and polar bears. The effects on health, for us and round the world, come in two groups - there's the direct ones, which are essentially the direct effects of energy gain in our atmosphere, which cause extreme weather, so: floods, storms, severe droughts and high temperatures. And then there's a whole raft of indirect effects, which come from things like changes in disease vectors that carry parasitic diseases, erm, algal blooms in oceans, but also in effects on crop production, starvation, loss of habitation, migration and conflict, all of which play in as well. So it's direct and indirect.
Adrian Goldberg: And you say the threat to human health from climate change is so great that it could undermine the last 50 years of gains in developments in global health. Putting that bluntly, you're suggesting that more people will die younger.
Hugh Montgomery: Absolutely, and we're not talking about small numbers, either. If one's looking at the estimates that have been produced in this piece of research, we're looking at billions of events, so billions of individual people being exposed to - let's just say extreme heat-wave events, on their own, over the next decades. And of course this plays out, whilst we emphasise the climate effects, it's playing out on a pretty stressed world system, as well, with reductions in water supplies and in topsoil, and so forth. And these things are coming together in a, in a - excusing the bad, sort of, pun or analogy - a perfect storm, really.
Adrian Goldberg: What can we do about it?
Hugh Montgomery: Well, that's the good news on this. So the Lancet Commission really took a view to say "Well, what's the nature of the threat?" and it's quite clear the threat is immediate - that's us and our children - and very grave. And the next step forward is "Is there a way of fixing it?" and actually I have to say a little bit to my surprise, when we talked to all the technologists and so forth, they say "Yeah, it's not a problem, we can fix this right now, the technologies are available right now." And then the finance people took a look and we said "Well, can you move the money?" and they said "Yeah, there's no shortage of money - easy to fix that". And actually, therefore, it comes down to just political will. Um -
Adrian Goldberg: So what are - what are the political steps, then, that need to be taken, to avert this apparent catastrophe that you're predicting?
Hugh Montgomery: I think that's a difficult one, because if the political steps were straightforward, people would have made them by now. And I guess the difficulty with international agreements is you're asking upwards of 193 countries, each with a very different agenda and different constraints, all to reach one agreement. The bits we point out in this report are that there are some quick wins they could agree on. The first is: we've got to phase out the use of coal, quickly. And that's partly because coal-burning, in its own right, um, very severely damages human health, just from the particulate pollution it creates. So there's an immediate health win by making that move, as well as a reduction in greenhouse gases. And then what we also need is a straightforward carbon levy, um, in the countries that release the greenhouse gases, and we're suggesting that they keep that money - it's a levy that goes on the emissions, they get to keep that money and redistribute it. So actually that nation doesn't become poorer - they can spend that money on reducing taxes, for instance, or increasing jobs or - in our country we might, for instance, reduce VAT. Or you could put that money into increasingly low-carbon production of energy. So countries don't get poorer by doing that, and we think that we should definitely have that sort of carbon levy, internationally.
Adrian Goldberg: And you seem to be accepting man-made climate change as a fact, but you will know that there are climate sceptics out there, people who say that we've been through periods of immense climate change in our history, eons before we burned fossil fuels.
Hugh Montgomery: Yeah, well of course that's true, the climate has changed through eons, and we understand the nature of that. And essentially, those changes are down to changes in the Earth's orbit, whether it's more circular or elliptical round the sun, changes in the tilt of the Earth, change in the rotation of that axis, something called "axis precession", and then changes on short-term forcings like sunspots. And it's those big, long-term geological sort of time-scale cycles that caused 100,000-year oscillations between, sort of, ice ages and warmer periods. But this is quite different. We know that greenhouse gases do warm the planet, that's straightforward physics. And indeed, if we didn't have those greenhouse gases, there wouldn't be life on Earth - the temperature of the globe would be at least 30 degrees colder. But we've been adding to those greenhouse gases at a enormous rate since the mid-1800s, and increasingly so, since. And it's a simple fact of physics that that will cause retained energy in our atmospheric system. And actually, whilst there's much talk about there being a debate about this, in the scientific community there just isn't. There are no, kind of, of all the scientists whom I know, that any will believe at all that climate change is not, in this circumstance, due to humans producing greenhouse gases. The debate now is what we do about it. And the good news is it appears we can do something about it quite readily.
Adrian Goldberg: Is this a clever way to change the narrative on climate change? Historically, there have been appeals to protect the environment, which however worthy, is rather a vague appeal. This is an appeal to listeners to save their own lives and save the lives of their children, to see this not as an environmental issue but as a public health issue.
Hugh Montgomery: Essentially, as a doctor and as a parent, those are entirely my drivers. I'm very fond of the idea of the natural world - I like the idea that it's there. But the thing that really would motivate me is the health of the people I care for, and those might be patients but they also are the ones I love, like my own children. So this isn't really a question of some devious way of changing a story for some political end, it's just saying we've focussed for too long on pictures of melting icebergs, without actually realising what this sort of magnitude in rate of change, in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, means to us, as human beings. And that is a grave threat.
It is avoidable - that's the good news. And indeed we go into some evidence in this report, which is helpful, I think, because it just so happens that a lot of the things we can do to reduce climate change also happen to be very healthy in their own right. So if we manage to cut down a bit on red meat consumption and animal consumption, that's fewer cows belching methane out of their ruminant's stomachs, that's less greenhouse gases but also means less bowel cancer for us blokes, it means less coronary disease and strokes and so forth. And more active transport means less greenhouse gases belched out of cars, it also means less coronary disease, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and so forth. And those health economic gains, even if there were no such thing as climate change, turn out to be worth many tens of billions in savings in our health service, and that's a good thing. We have a struggling health service - I'm at the sharp end of it, most days. This is a quick way for producing some very rapid economic gains, as well as health gains.
Adrian Goldberg: And that's Professor Hugh Montgomery. I'm Adrian Goldberg, I'll be back again tomorrow night at 10:30.
Not if the climate goblins get you before dawn.....Date: 23/06/2015
Event: Hugh Montgomery on the climate change health threat: "it's been largely ignored"
Credit: BBC Radio Five Live
People: •Adrian Goldberg: BBC Radio 5 Live radio presenter
•Dr. Hugh Montgomery: Professor of Health, University College London
Adrian Goldberg: Now, the risk to human health posed by climate change is being seriously underestimated, according to a major new report compiled by European and Chinese scientists and published in the Lancet today. They're warning that the threat to human health is so great that it could undermine the last 50 years of gains in developments in global health. Professor Hugh Montgomery is the co-chair of the report. I asked him, a little earlier, to explain the link between climate change and the threat to our health.
Hugh Montgomery: It's a big threat, and it's been largely ignored, as you know - for many, many years all we've heard about is melting ice and tree frogs and polar bears. The effects on health, for us and round the world, come in two groups - there's the direct ones, which are essentially the direct effects of energy gain in our atmosphere, which cause extreme weather, so: floods, storms, severe droughts and high temperatures. And then there's a whole raft of indirect effects, which come from things like changes in disease vectors that carry parasitic diseases, erm, algal blooms in oceans, but also in effects on crop production, starvation, loss of habitation, migration and conflict, all of which play in as well. So it's direct and indirect.
Adrian Goldberg: And you say the threat to human health from climate change is so great that it could undermine the last 50 years of gains in developments in global health. Putting that bluntly, you're suggesting that more people will die younger.
Hugh Montgomery: Absolutely, and we're not talking about small numbers, either. If one's looking at the estimates that have been produced in this piece of research, we're looking at billions of events, so billions of individual people being exposed to - let's just say extreme heat-wave events, on their own, over the next decades. And of course this plays out, whilst we emphasise the climate effects, it's playing out on a pretty stressed world system, as well, with reductions in water supplies and in topsoil, and so forth. And these things are coming together in a, in a - excusing the bad, sort of, pun or analogy - a perfect storm, really.
Adrian Goldberg: What can we do about it?
Hugh Montgomery: Well, that's the good news on this. So the Lancet Commission really took a view to say "Well, what's the nature of the threat?" and it's quite clear the threat is immediate - that's us and our children - and very grave. And the next step forward is "Is there a way of fixing it?" and actually I have to say a little bit to my surprise, when we talked to all the technologists and so forth, they say "Yeah, it's not a problem, we can fix this right now, the technologies are available right now." And then the finance people took a look and we said "Well, can you move the money?" and they said "Yeah, there's no shortage of money - easy to fix that". And actually, therefore, it comes down to just political will. Um -
Adrian Goldberg: So what are - what are the political steps, then, that need to be taken, to avert this apparent catastrophe that you're predicting?
Hugh Montgomery: I think that's a difficult one, because if the political steps were straightforward, people would have made them by now. And I guess the difficulty with international agreements is you're asking upwards of 193 countries, each with a very different agenda and different constraints, all to reach one agreement. The bits we point out in this report are that there are some quick wins they could agree on. The first is: we've got to phase out the use of coal, quickly. And that's partly because coal-burning, in its own right, um, very severely damages human health, just from the particulate pollution it creates. So there's an immediate health win by making that move, as well as a reduction in greenhouse gases. And then what we also need is a straightforward carbon levy, um, in the countries that release the greenhouse gases, and we're suggesting that they keep that money - it's a levy that goes on the emissions, they get to keep that money and redistribute it. So actually that nation doesn't become poorer - they can spend that money on reducing taxes, for instance, or increasing jobs or - in our country we might, for instance, reduce VAT. Or you could put that money into increasingly low-carbon production of energy. So countries don't get poorer by doing that, and we think that we should definitely have that sort of carbon levy, internationally.
Adrian Goldberg: And you seem to be accepting man-made climate change as a fact, but you will know that there are climate sceptics out there, people who say that we've been through periods of immense climate change in our history, eons before we burned fossil fuels.
Hugh Montgomery: Yeah, well of course that's true, the climate has changed through eons, and we understand the nature of that. And essentially, those changes are down to changes in the Earth's orbit, whether it's more circular or elliptical round the sun, changes in the tilt of the Earth, change in the rotation of that axis, something called "axis precession", and then changes on short-term forcings like sunspots. And it's those big, long-term geological sort of time-scale cycles that caused 100,000-year oscillations between, sort of, ice ages and warmer periods. But this is quite different. We know that greenhouse gases do warm the planet, that's straightforward physics. And indeed, if we didn't have those greenhouse gases, there wouldn't be life on Earth - the temperature of the globe would be at least 30 degrees colder. But we've been adding to those greenhouse gases at a enormous rate since the mid-1800s, and increasingly so, since. And it's a simple fact of physics that that will cause retained energy in our atmospheric system. And actually, whilst there's much talk about there being a debate about this, in the scientific community there just isn't. There are no, kind of, of all the scientists whom I know, that any will believe at all that climate change is not, in this circumstance, due to humans producing greenhouse gases. The debate now is what we do about it. And the good news is it appears we can do something about it quite readily.
Adrian Goldberg: Is this a clever way to change the narrative on climate change? Historically, there have been appeals to protect the environment, which however worthy, is rather a vague appeal. This is an appeal to listeners to save their own lives and save the lives of their children, to see this not as an environmental issue but as a public health issue.
Hugh Montgomery: Essentially, as a doctor and as a parent, those are entirely my drivers. I'm very fond of the idea of the natural world - I like the idea that it's there. But the thing that really would motivate me is the health of the people I care for, and those might be patients but they also are the ones I love, like my own children. So this isn't really a question of some devious way of changing a story for some political end, it's just saying we've focussed for too long on pictures of melting icebergs, without actually realising what this sort of magnitude in rate of change, in atmospheric and oceanic temperatures, means to us, as human beings. And that is a grave threat.
It is avoidable - that's the good news. And indeed we go into some evidence in this report, which is helpful, I think, because it just so happens that a lot of the things we can do to reduce climate change also happen to be very healthy in their own right. So if we manage to cut down a bit on red meat consumption and animal consumption, that's fewer cows belching methane out of their ruminant's stomachs, that's less greenhouse gases but also means less bowel cancer for us blokes, it means less coronary disease and strokes and so forth. And more active transport means less greenhouse gases belched out of cars, it also means less coronary disease, obesity, diabetes, osteoporosis, and so forth. And those health economic gains, even if there were no such thing as climate change, turn out to be worth many tens of billions in savings in our health service, and that's a good thing. We have a struggling health service - I'm at the sharp end of it, most days. This is a quick way for producing some very rapid economic gains, as well as health gains.
Adrian Goldberg: And that's Professor Hugh Montgomery. I'm Adrian Goldberg, I'll be back again tomorrow night at 10:30.
I got mail. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury, not wishing to be out-encyclicaled by the Pope, has declared it a sin to question the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I must confess 
in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will he be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.
in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will he be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.Guam said:
turbobloke said:
I got mail. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury, not wishing to be out-encyclicaled by the Pope, has declared it a sin to question the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I must confess in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will be be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.
There is that Irony thing again in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will be be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.
They were so fond of comparing us anti lot as being akin to creationists and yet here we have the ultimate in creationists getting on to their bandwagon.
Too funny for words!
Galileo GalileoHilarious! The last time organised religion stuck its ignorant but faithful oar in this deep, with somebody under house arrest for heresy against doctrine, it didn't end well. Look out, Bishop of Chester
Some of them just don't learn.
turbobloke said:
Guam said:
turbobloke said:
I got mail. Apparently the Archbishop of Canterbury, not wishing to be out-encyclicaled by the Pope, has declared it a sin to question the hypothesis of man-made climate change. I must confess in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will be be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.
There is that Irony thing again in all the excitement of runaway dangerous manmade warming, I missed that. Then again you have to wonder where that leaves the Bishop of Chester, the Rt Revd Dr Peter Forster...as a Trustee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (and a qualified scientist, fwiw) will be be peer-pressured into defrocking himself? Unlikely.They were so fond of comparing us anti lot as being akin to creationists and yet here we have the ultimate in creationists getting on to their bandwagon.
Too funny for words!
Galileo GalileoHilarious! The last time organised religion stuck its ignorant but faithful oar in this deep, with somebody under house arrest for heresy against doctrine, it didn't end well. Look out, Bishop of Chester
Some of them just don't learn.
Blib said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Whod've thunk it? The Hadley Centre's very own computer model says that the cooling will be dwarfed by the warming!I'm shocked.
Shocked that the model didn't suggest that the cooling sun would in fact warm the earth some more.
However, on the same page alongside the article in one of the side bars was this headline:
"JK Rowling has revealed why the Dursleys hated Harry Potter so much"
Now that's seriously important stuff that millions of people will find either enlightening or disturbing according to their Potter Point of View.
Between that and Rowling's "admission" that one of the other characters is "gay" along with other enlightening insights about other "characters", there is clear evidence wizardry is real and is directly influencing future generations.
A major worry is that the number of unlicenced fliers causing havoc in the lower atmosphere will increase exponentially as more and more books are read and films are made and watched. Such a situation would be unprecedented and conversationalists around the world are busy discussing and modelling what might happen if the upwards trend is not controlled by removing the source of the pollution.
Presumably it was pure chance that placed two such important stories beside each other? But one would prefer to think that the Independent had planned things that way given their worldwide level of importance.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
article said:
There is about a one-in-five chance of the Sun entering the same kind of cooling phase that allowed “frost fairs” to be held on the frozen River Thames 300 years ago ...
Is there anywhere an estimate of how much colder the Earth was believed to have been at that time? The article quotes expected falls globally of 0.1C this time.Silver Smudger said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
article said:
There is about a one-in-five chance of the Sun entering the same kind of cooling phase that allowed “frost fairs” to be held on the frozen River Thames 300 years ago ...
Is there anywhere an estimate of how much colder the Earth was believed to have been at that time? The article quotes expected falls globally of 0.1C this time.Political comment from the BBC re Brazil. Seemingly enthusing about the use of taxes and subsidies to encourage deployment of Ethanol as a vehicle fuel.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33114119
No mention at all of its rather dubious economics and other somewhat negative aspects - but I guess if it stops the produces growing sugar for the food market to be used to make humans in the Northern Hemisphere fat that must be OK, right? Obviously it's all good for the planet of course ...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33114119
No mention at all of its rather dubious economics and other somewhat negative aspects - but I guess if it stops the produces growing sugar for the food market to be used to make humans in the Northern Hemisphere fat that must be OK, right? Obviously it's all good for the planet of course ...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff