Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3
Discussion
I've just been listening to a great podcast on the way to the office this morning. James Dellingpole with Tony Heller (Steve Goddard), very interesting listening, if you have a minute download it to your phone or listen here http://realclimatescience.com/2016/12/podcast-with...
Edited by XM5ER on Friday 2nd December 11:19
dub16v said:
The quote that you've attributed to me is not mine, I'd appreciate if you would edit your post.
It was not a quote but a summary of your quote (i.e. you linked UKCP09) - seemed fairly obvious.dub16v said:
Taking your points in turn:
-UKCP09 does not present changes in global temperatures, merely those for the UK. That aside, for the 2080s time slice mean summer temperatures are projected to rise by 4.2C (range: 2.2C to 6.8C) in southern England. Mean daily max temps rise by 2.8C (range: 1C to 5C). Drier summers and wetter winters are likely, as you note.
You need to read through it again - the multi-model ensemble is certainly in there. (page 29)-UKCP09 does not present changes in global temperatures, merely those for the UK. That aside, for the 2080s time slice mean summer temperatures are projected to rise by 4.2C (range: 2.2C to 6.8C) in southern England. Mean daily max temps rise by 2.8C (range: 1C to 5C). Drier summers and wetter winters are likely, as you note.
dub16v said:
-Changes in solar activity and volcanic eruptions are difficult to predict so are omitted from the models used (this is clearly noted in the associated reports). Moreover, the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth has changed very little in the last half century and remained relatively constant, so its unlikely recent changes are the cause. Both of these variants are noted as contributing to model uncertainty in the reports. Unless you can propose an alternative source for incorporating these factors into models (you'd probably get a decent research grant to do so) this is the best available science. It's acceptable to the vast majority who work in the field.
-Might be worth you reading the UKCP09 report on how the projections were developed, that will answer your point quite coherently re 'cool' scenarios (see here: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media...
-Clouds, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, are very difficult to capture in models. This is due to a number of reasons, not least because we're also not able (at present) to model changes in wind with great accuracy (i.e. sub-regional scales). Wind is such a large driver of cloud formation and movement that it's nigh on impossible to replicate changes in clouds without unacceptably large uncertainty. Hence their omission.
And hence the nonsense of their projections. A slight variation in cloud cover will eliminate any variation due to CO2 even at ridiculous values of sensitivity.-Might be worth you reading the UKCP09 report on how the projections were developed, that will answer your point quite coherently re 'cool' scenarios (see here: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media...
-Clouds, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, are very difficult to capture in models. This is due to a number of reasons, not least because we're also not able (at present) to model changes in wind with great accuracy (i.e. sub-regional scales). Wind is such a large driver of cloud formation and movement that it's nigh on impossible to replicate changes in clouds without unacceptably large uncertainty. Hence their omission.
Jinx said:
dub16v said:
The quote that you've attributed to me is not mine, I'd appreciate if you would edit your post.
It was not a quote but a summary of your quote (i.e. you linked UKCP09) - seemed fairly obvious.dub16v said:
Taking your points in turn:
-UKCP09 does not present changes in global temperatures, merely those for the UK. That aside, for the 2080s time slice mean summer temperatures are projected to rise by 4.2C (range: 2.2C to 6.8C) in southern England. Mean daily max temps rise by 2.8C (range: 1C to 5C). Drier summers and wetter winters are likely, as you note.
You need to read through it again - the multi-model ensemble is certainly in there. (page 29)-UKCP09 does not present changes in global temperatures, merely those for the UK. That aside, for the 2080s time slice mean summer temperatures are projected to rise by 4.2C (range: 2.2C to 6.8C) in southern England. Mean daily max temps rise by 2.8C (range: 1C to 5C). Drier summers and wetter winters are likely, as you note.
dub16v said:
-Changes in solar activity and volcanic eruptions are difficult to predict so are omitted from the models used (this is clearly noted in the associated reports). Moreover, the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth has changed very little in the last half century and remained relatively constant, so its unlikely recent changes are the cause. Both of these variants are noted as contributing to model uncertainty in the reports. Unless you can propose an alternative source for incorporating these factors into models (you'd probably get a decent research grant to do so) this is the best available science. It's acceptable to the vast majority who work in the field.
-Might be worth you reading the UKCP09 report on how the projections were developed, that will answer your point quite coherently re 'cool' scenarios (see here: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media...
-Clouds, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, are very difficult to capture in models. This is due to a number of reasons, not least because we're also not able (at present) to model changes in wind with great accuracy (i.e. sub-regional scales). Wind is such a large driver of cloud formation and movement that it's nigh on impossible to replicate changes in clouds without unacceptably large uncertainty. Hence their omission.
And hence the nonsense of their projections. A slight variation in cloud cover will eliminate any variation due to CO2 even at ridiculous values of sensitivity.-Might be worth you reading the UKCP09 report on how the projections were developed, that will answer your point quite coherently re 'cool' scenarios (see here: http://ukclimateprojections.metoffice.gov.uk/media...
-Clouds, as I'm sure you'll appreciate, are very difficult to capture in models. This is due to a number of reasons, not least because we're also not able (at present) to model changes in wind with great accuracy (i.e. sub-regional scales). Wind is such a large driver of cloud formation and movement that it's nigh on impossible to replicate changes in clouds without unacceptably large uncertainty. Hence their omission.
-This doesn't detract away from the fact that you are wrong. Read the report. Have you published any research to contribute to the work in this field? It doesn't need to be a Science or Nature paper but something that challenges the debate (which sits very firmly with the view that climate change/human-induced climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming/take your pick is a reality). Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse here but this thread is full of people that believe that they know better than the people who have studied the topic for years, who have contributed to the science, often for decades (to be clear before you or someone else twists this, I'm not saying you're one of these folk). If you have such good ideas, please take some time to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a respectable impact factor.
-Ok, the models have flaws, there are uncertainties, in describing any such complex systems there are compromises. The science, and our understanding of it, is developing very rapidly but most of the conclusions are almost identical (see example+ below - are all the contributing models/research wrong? Why?). What is the alternative? What should we provide to decision-makers that need to make decisions now? Should we wait until we can accurately, with absolute certainty, all processes and interdependencies?
+Projections since the IPCC’s first assessment report have remained broadly similar, for example:
• In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3˚C per decade (~3˚C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1˚C to 3.5˚C by 2100 (~2˚C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4˚C to 5.8˚C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1˚C to 6.4˚C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3˚C to 4.8˚C by 2100.
I'm guessing the above example will be thrown out/ignored/deemed unreliable due to it coming from the IPCC, the head of the global conspiracy on climate change.
dub16v said:
+Projections since the IPCC’s first assessment report have remained broadly similar, for example:
• In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
25 years of research and they still haven't narrowed down climate sensitivity range of CO2 • In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
Jinx said:
25 years of research and they still haven't narrowed down climate sensitivity range of CO2
Ranges are provided, that have narrowed over the years (read Knutti and Hegerl, 2008 for a good summary - contributing authors to the IPCC so there's no credibility). Climate sensitivity is not specific to CO2 (but I guess that you know this) and we have a good handle on other sensitivities our climate is not significantly more sensitive to other radiative forcings besides GHGs. So, if you are of the opinion that the Earth has a low climate sensitivity to CO2 you are also arguing for a low climate sensitivity to other factors e.g. changes in the sun's orbit (which we know show strong causation to changes in climate) or solar irradiance (the same being true). Also, you appear to have forgotten to provide a response to some/all of the other questions in my post. I'd be genuinely interested to hear you point of view.
dub16v said:
Thanks for the explanation.
I think it's worth noting (the consensus argument aside) that for many researchers, including those involved in the CRU email incident, many years were spent working within small research communities and groups until, during the '90s, the evidence (and our understanding about the climate system more generally, including its interactions with other systems) and weight of research got to a point where politicians and governments started to recognise the importance of the information emerging from the field (that had actually been quietly plodding on for some time). Other things aside, many were therefore simply not suitably equipped to expand their research teams (both in terms of depth and breadth) quick enough. In this regard, and bearing in mind my point above regarding the small, disparate, research communities that drove this field to where it is, many of their existing systems were archaic and inherently vulnerable (so applying conventions that are normal in other industries is probably not relevant - although identifying this vulnerability of course should have been a priority upon growth). I guess my point is, it's not the fault of the scientists that governments and politicians started to pick up on their research (or indeed fund more of it) and notice its relevance/importance (remember also that the 'climate change' agenda didn't emerge on its own, recognising the benefits of global sustainable development also augmented it). The funding process is extremely transparent (look up NERC's funding terms and conditions for example), particularly in the UK.
Regarding your last point (low quality results), I've worked with climate scientists both in the UK and abroad and my impression has been quite the opposite. Some of these people have been some of the brightest and most dedicated individuals that I've worked with. I guess, given the disparate nature of the impacts of climate change (or whatever you want to call it - the impacts being the important bit as we're seeing these now, not just in the UK), the field necessitates that the individuals working on its problems have a wide range of experience (they're geographers). Conversely, most will have doctorates meaning that they are specialists in their chosen field which, in my view, carries a lot of weight (and the majority with doctoral training do agree on the weight of evidence). I certainly know where I'd put my money!
Hopefully the above adds something to the discussion that hasn't been noted elsewhere (although after three volumes perhaps not).
i have no doubt there are some excellent individuals in the various fields , those making the most noise seem to be the most inept . the recent gergis et al paper being a point in case. i don't really care what qualifications she has (appeals to authority do not work with me whether it is intellectual or physical authority) she is a grade a moron if she thinks that paper is anything other than tripe.if it was government funded the tax payers that funded it should be asking for a refund.I think it's worth noting (the consensus argument aside) that for many researchers, including those involved in the CRU email incident, many years were spent working within small research communities and groups until, during the '90s, the evidence (and our understanding about the climate system more generally, including its interactions with other systems) and weight of research got to a point where politicians and governments started to recognise the importance of the information emerging from the field (that had actually been quietly plodding on for some time). Other things aside, many were therefore simply not suitably equipped to expand their research teams (both in terms of depth and breadth) quick enough. In this regard, and bearing in mind my point above regarding the small, disparate, research communities that drove this field to where it is, many of their existing systems were archaic and inherently vulnerable (so applying conventions that are normal in other industries is probably not relevant - although identifying this vulnerability of course should have been a priority upon growth). I guess my point is, it's not the fault of the scientists that governments and politicians started to pick up on their research (or indeed fund more of it) and notice its relevance/importance (remember also that the 'climate change' agenda didn't emerge on its own, recognising the benefits of global sustainable development also augmented it). The funding process is extremely transparent (look up NERC's funding terms and conditions for example), particularly in the UK.
Regarding your last point (low quality results), I've worked with climate scientists both in the UK and abroad and my impression has been quite the opposite. Some of these people have been some of the brightest and most dedicated individuals that I've worked with. I guess, given the disparate nature of the impacts of climate change (or whatever you want to call it - the impacts being the important bit as we're seeing these now, not just in the UK), the field necessitates that the individuals working on its problems have a wide range of experience (they're geographers). Conversely, most will have doctorates meaning that they are specialists in their chosen field which, in my view, carries a lot of weight (and the majority with doctoral training do agree on the weight of evidence). I certainly know where I'd put my money!
Hopefully the above adds something to the discussion that hasn't been noted elsewhere (although after three volumes perhaps not).
what are these climate change impacts we are seeing in the uk ? the amo index is now past the peak and heading down.i believe we will see a return to the traditional seasons as opposed to cold and wet and warm and wet as we had during the climb to the peak . the temperature of the north east atlantic is the main influence on uk weather.
dub16v said:
Hopefully the above is useful and/or goes in some way in provoking thought the other way. By way of another example, I've recently been working on a project to identify suitable locations for solar-powered water pumps for rural populations in Africa. Alongside identifying where the sun is likely to shine most (and the energy received at different locations) and how close the water table is to the surface, using projections of how different climate variables (temperature, precipitation etc.) might change in these locations in the future has been pivotal in making sure (to the best of our knowledge) that we're making these systems to last as long as possible, and be as resilient as possible to future change. That's not to say that they will still be pumping in 50/100 years but, using and applying the latest science, should go some way in making sure that they do...unless local militia (ISIS actually) monopolise/vandalise/steal the equipment that is (strangely, this has been an actual problem!).
Again, hopefully the above provides some more insight and is interesting/useful to some.
what effect on future climate to the models project as a result of pumping out ground water that will then end up evaporating at some point ? Again, hopefully the above provides some more insight and is interesting/useful to some.
do you know of any studies into the atmospheric effects of removing large amounts of energy from moving air masses by wind turbines or the effects of removing energy from ocean tidal currents that some of the projects that are on the go just now plan on doing. these are things that have the potential for far greater impact than c02 imo, yet very little appears in the literature about possible negative effects. a bit like palm oil and chopping down forests for wood pellets to burn in bio mass plants . not to mention the fossil fuels used to get the biomass to the plants in the first place.
wc98 said:
i have no doubt there are some excellent individuals in the various fields , those making the most noise seem to be the most inept . the recent gergis et al paper being a point in case. i don't really care what qualifications she has (appeals to authority do not work with me whether it is intellectual or physical authority) she is a grade a moron if she thinks that paper is anything other than tripe.if it was government funded the tax payers that funded it should be asking for a refund.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, this is one piece of research (that I have not read) but you're welcome to it. Why not pen a response and get it published as a research letter? Maybe others might agree?wc98 said:
what are these climate change impacts we are seeing in the uk ? the amo index is now past the peak and heading down.i believe we will see a return to the traditional seasons as opposed to cold and wet and warm and wet as we had during the climb to the peak . the temperature of the north east atlantic is the main influence on uk weather.
The fact that you have to ask this question (re impacts) and you confuse 'weather' with 'climate' is a little telling re both your points. Here are a few examples of impacts that we're seeing already (it is by no means an exhaustive list - see links below for some useful summaries). Note also, that there are other drivers of changes to species and plant communities (e.g. land use change being an important one, particularly for birds) but in each of the cases below it is possible to disaggregate the causes.Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... and the latest UK CC risk assessment (here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
edit: dead link corrected.
Edited by dub16v on Friday 2nd December 13:12
Edited by dub16v on Friday 2nd December 13:13
dub16v said:
-Re quote - thanks for clearing that up. I'll make it a little easier: there is now a 'quote' above (by you) sat under my username that I did not write. Nor is it a summary of what I wrote. It's misleading and not my point of view yet it is presented as such.
-This doesn't detract away from the fact that you are wrong. Read the report. Have you published any research to contribute to the work in this field? It doesn't need to be a Science or Nature paper but something that challenges the debate (which sits very firmly with the view that climate change/human-induced climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming/take your pick is a reality). Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse here but this thread is full of people that believe that they know better than the people who have studied the topic for years, who have contributed to the science, often for decades (to be clear before you or someone else twists this, I'm not saying you're one of these folk). If you have such good ideas, please take some time to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a respectable impact factor.
-Ok, the models have flaws, there are uncertainties, in describing any such complex systems there are compromises. The science, and our understanding of it, is developing very rapidly but most of the conclusions are almost identical (see example+ below - are all the contributing models/research wrong? Why?). What is the alternative? What should we provide to decision-makers that need to make decisions now? Should we wait until we can accurately, with absolute certainty, all processes and interdependencies?
Read This-This doesn't detract away from the fact that you are wrong. Read the report. Have you published any research to contribute to the work in this field? It doesn't need to be a Science or Nature paper but something that challenges the debate (which sits very firmly with the view that climate change/human-induced climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming/take your pick is a reality). Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse here but this thread is full of people that believe that they know better than the people who have studied the topic for years, who have contributed to the science, often for decades (to be clear before you or someone else twists this, I'm not saying you're one of these folk). If you have such good ideas, please take some time to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a respectable impact factor.
-Ok, the models have flaws, there are uncertainties, in describing any such complex systems there are compromises. The science, and our understanding of it, is developing very rapidly but most of the conclusions are almost identical (see example+ below - are all the contributing models/research wrong? Why?). What is the alternative? What should we provide to decision-makers that need to make decisions now? Should we wait until we can accurately, with absolute certainty, all processes and interdependencies?
As to what is the alternative.
No decision is the best decision. Life on earth will benefit at 2 degrees of warming and as of yet there has been little to show that life on earth would not thrive above this "economic" derived figure.
dub16v said:
+Projections since the IPCC’s first assessment report have remained broadly similar, for example:
• In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
I'm guessing the above example will be thrown out/ignored/deemed unreliable due to it coming from the IPCC, the head of the global conspiracy on climate change.
The theoretical increase from a doubling of CO2 is 1 degree. The assumed feedbacks provide the scary scenarios (well if you are scared of warming that is) - no such feedbacks have been observed and the un-adjusted record show little to no warming beyond the 1 degree. The ranges have changed as the observations are dropping out of the 95 percentile from the meaningless ensemble. • In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
I'm guessing the above example will be thrown out/ignored/deemed unreliable due to it coming from the IPCC, the head of the global conspiracy on climate change.
Keep an eye on how the dip after the 2016 El Nino is handled and tell me again how much more knowledgeable these people are.
dub16v said:
wc98 said:
i have no doubt there are some excellent individuals in the various fields , those making the most noise seem to be the most inept . the recent gergis et al paper being a point in case. i don't really care what qualifications she has (appeals to authority do not work with me whether it is intellectual or physical authority) she is a grade a moron if she thinks that paper is anything other than tripe.if it was government funded the tax payers that funded it should be asking for a refund.
You are of course entitled to your opinion, this is one piece of research (that I have not read) but you're welcome to it. Why not pen a response and get it published as a research letter? Maybe others might agree?wc98 said:
what are these climate change impacts we are seeing in the uk ? the amo index is now past the peak and heading down.i believe we will see a return to the traditional seasons as opposed to cold and wet and warm and wet as we had during the climb to the peak . the temperature of the north east atlantic is the main influence on uk weather.
The fact that you have to ask this question (re impacts) and you confuse 'weather' with 'climate' is a little telling re both your points. Here are a few examples of impacts that we're seeing already (it is by no means an exhaustive list - see links below for some useful summaries). Note also, that there are other drivers of changes to species and plant communities (e.g. land use change being an important one, particularly for birds) but in each of the cases below it is possible to disaggregate the causes.Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... and the latest UK CC risk assessment (here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
edit: dead link corrected.
Edited by dub16v on Friday 2nd December 13:12
Edited by dub16v on Friday 2nd December 13:13
dub16v said:
Snip
Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
Are you saying this is caused by the world climate changing or forced by mans impact in forcing the climate to change?Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
Edited by dub16v on Friday 2nd December 13:13
dub16v said:
The fact that you have to ask this question (re impacts) and you confuse 'weather' with 'climate' is a little telling re both your points. Here are a few examples of impacts that we're seeing already (it is by no means an exhaustive list - see links below for some useful summaries). Note also, that there are other drivers of changes to species and plant communities (e.g. land use change being an important one, particularly for birds) but in each of the cases below it is possible to disaggregate the causes.
Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... and the latest UK CC risk assessment (here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
The links are still dead for me (that is not a philosophical position BTW).Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) (http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... and the latest UK CC risk assessment (here: https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
Question, are not the papers you cite also examples of weather, not climate?
Jinx said:
dub16v said:
-Re quote - thanks for clearing that up. I'll make it a little easier: there is now a 'quote' above (by you) sat under my username that I did not write. Nor is it a summary of what I wrote. It's misleading and not my point of view yet it is presented as such.
-This doesn't detract away from the fact that you are wrong. Read the report. Have you published any research to contribute to the work in this field? It doesn't need to be a Science or Nature paper but something that challenges the debate (which sits very firmly with the view that climate change/human-induced climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming/take your pick is a reality). Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse here but this thread is full of people that believe that they know better than the people who have studied the topic for years, who have contributed to the science, often for decades (to be clear before you or someone else twists this, I'm not saying you're one of these folk). If you have such good ideas, please take some time to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a respectable impact factor.
-Ok, the models have flaws, there are uncertainties, in describing any such complex systems there are compromises. The science, and our understanding of it, is developing very rapidly but most of the conclusions are almost identical (see example+ below - are all the contributing models/research wrong? Why?). What is the alternative? What should we provide to decision-makers that need to make decisions now? Should we wait until we can accurately, with absolute certainty, all processes and interdependencies?
Read This-This doesn't detract away from the fact that you are wrong. Read the report. Have you published any research to contribute to the work in this field? It doesn't need to be a Science or Nature paper but something that challenges the debate (which sits very firmly with the view that climate change/human-induced climate change/global warming/anthropogenic global warming/take your pick is a reality). Again, I'm not trying to be obtuse here but this thread is full of people that believe that they know better than the people who have studied the topic for years, who have contributed to the science, often for decades (to be clear before you or someone else twists this, I'm not saying you're one of these folk). If you have such good ideas, please take some time to publish a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal with a respectable impact factor.
-Ok, the models have flaws, there are uncertainties, in describing any such complex systems there are compromises. The science, and our understanding of it, is developing very rapidly but most of the conclusions are almost identical (see example+ below - are all the contributing models/research wrong? Why?). What is the alternative? What should we provide to decision-makers that need to make decisions now? Should we wait until we can accurately, with absolute certainty, all processes and interdependencies?
As to what is the alternative.
No decision is the best decision. Life on earth will benefit at 2 degrees of warming and as of yet there has been little to show that life on earth would not thrive above this "economic" derived figure.
dub16v said:
+Projections since the IPCC’s first assessment report have remained broadly similar, for example:
• In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
I'm guessing the above example will be thrown out/ignored/deemed unreliable due to it coming from the IPCC, the head of the global conspiracy on climate change.
The theoretical increase from a doubling of CO2 is 1 degree. The assumed feedbacks provide the scary scenarios (well if you are scared of warming that is) - no such feedbacks have been observed and the un-adjusted record show little to no warming beyond the 1 degree. The ranges have changed as the observations are dropping out of the 95 percentile from the meaningless ensemble. • In the first (1990) report, mean global surface temps were predicted to rise by ~0.3?C per decade (~3?C by 2100)
• In the second (1995) report, projections suggested rises of between 1?C to 3.5?C by 2100 (~2?C rise by 2100 under a medium emissions scenario)
• In the third (2001) TAR report, predictions were for greater increases than those seen in the second report. Rises between 1.4?C to 5.8?C by 2100 were predicted.
• In the fourth (2007) AR4 report, the predictions increased to between 1.1?C to 6.4?C by 2100
• In the fifth (2013) AR5 report, the report suggested that the Earth’s surface temp had warmed more in each of the past 30 years (prior to 2013) than in any other 10-year span since 1850. Rises predicted of between 0.3?C to 4.8?C by 2100.
I'm guessing the above example will be thrown out/ignored/deemed unreliable due to it coming from the IPCC, the head of the global conspiracy on climate change.
Keep an eye on how the dip after the 2016 El Nino is handled and tell me again how much more knowledgeable these people are.
-Some life on Earth will benefit from two degrees of warming, some won't. The point, which you are missing (or intentionally ignoring), is that a two-degree warming in such a short space of time will more than likely not provide sufficient time for our ecosystems and their associated flora/fauna time to adapt. This, coupled with other important drivers of change (e.g. population growth), mean that the outcome might not be one we're best placed to make 'no decision' about. I know which option I'd rather pick (even if you don't 'believe' the science or choose to ignore it).
-In addition, and relating to my point above, there is plenty of evidence that details the impacts of a two degree temperature rise (and other scenarios); some good, mostly bad (note timescale point above). See Schleussner et al. (2016) for a recent commentary.
Phud said:
Are you saying this is caused by the world climate changing or forced by mans impact in forcing the climate to change?
I had to read this a few times! Too many 'forcings' forcing my forcings! I jest.In my professional opinion, it's very likely, although we cannot be absolutely certain, that humans are influencing the climate due to emissions of GHGs, primarily since the industrial revolution. The science is unequivocal on this.
We are also seeing impacts now, many of which (like the examples I provided above) may be causally linked to changes in climate (e.g. species moving to the edge of their ranges as they track changes in climate - many of which are now at the edge of their habitual range as temperatures have/are changed/changing too quickly).
dub16v said:
I had to read this a few times! Too many 'forcings' forcing my forcings! I jest.
In my professional opinion, it's very likely, although we cannot be absolutely certain, that humans are influencing the climate due to emissions of GHGs, primarily since the industrial revolution. The science is unequivocal on this.
We are also seeing impacts now, many of which (like the examples I provided above) may be causally linked to changes in climate (e.g. species moving to the edge of their ranges as they track changes in climate - many of which are now at the edge of their habitual range as temperatures have/are changed/changing too quickly).
We have seen over many years species react to a change of environment, moths on bricks and scorpions, some of which have coped with a climate change in weeks not years, see invasive species.In my professional opinion, it's very likely, although we cannot be absolutely certain, that humans are influencing the climate due to emissions of GHGs, primarily since the industrial revolution. The science is unequivocal on this.
We are also seeing impacts now, many of which (like the examples I provided above) may be causally linked to changes in climate (e.g. species moving to the edge of their ranges as they track changes in climate - many of which are now at the edge of their habitual range as temperatures have/are changed/changing too quickly).
Re your unequivocal comment, so you are saying nobody in the scientific world doubts human influence in man made climate change?
Which GHG are you trying to call out?
XM5ER said:
dub16v said:
The fact that you have to ask this question (re impacts) and you confuse 'weather' with 'climate' is a little telling re both your points. Here are a few examples of impacts that we're seeing already (it is by no means an exhaustive list - see links below for some useful summaries). Note also, that there are other drivers of changes to species and plant communities (e.g. land use change being an important one, particularly for birds) but in each of the cases below it is possible to disaggregate the causes.
Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... [/url]) and the latest UK CC risk assessment ([url] https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... " Target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145 [/url]), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - [url] http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... [/url]) and the latest UK CC risk assessment ([url] https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... ) to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
[quote]Example impacts:
-Many species are now found further north in the UK, including some which have colonised large parts of the UK from continental Europe (see Morecroft and Speakman, 2015). These are mainly 'warm-loving' species such as damselflies, dragonflies, butterflies etc. Hickling et al (2006) provide an analysis of changes due to climate for over 300 species. Tl:dr: >200 shifted northward with changes in temperature (some also moved to lower altitudes where it is cooler).
-Also, there have been changes in the composition of some plant, microbial and animal communities, consistent with different responses to rising temperatures (ibid). Some plant species are increasing in their range e.g. bee orchid.
-Increasing river temperatures over the last three decades have led to changes in fish communities and riverine vegetation (that are important for providing shade, soil stability and filtration) (see JNCC, 2010)
-Long-term monitoring of mountain vegetation has shown a general decline in the cover and frequency of some specialist arctic-alpine lichen and plant species in mountain-top environments (e.g. dwarf willow, stiff sedge).
-Many bird populations are also moving northwards which has been proven to correspond with a periodic shift in temperature (see Thomas and Lennon, 1999).
^Those are just a few examples that spring to mind. There are various synthesis papers about that you can read e.g. JNCC (2010) ( http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... [/url]) and the latest UK CC risk assessment ([url] https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... " Target="_blank" rel="nofollow"> http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145 [/url]), NERC impact cards (Morecroft and Speakman, 2015 - [url] http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l... [/url]) and the latest UK CC risk assessment ([url] https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/... ) to name a few.
Hope this is of interest/useful.
Let me try those links again (in turn), I don't know how to embed them:
http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/page-5145
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/partnerships/ride/l...
https://www.theccc.org.uk/tackling-climate-change/...
For those that care changes in climate are typically compared to a climatological baseline period, usually 1961-1990 (this is the Standard). Of course, ideally the 'ideal' baseline period would be in the early 19th century when anthropogenic effects were negligible. Most studies, however, aim to determine the effects of climate change with respect to the present, and therefore recent baseline periods such as 1961 to 1990 are usually preferred. Moreover, a benefit of using 1961 to 1990 is that observational climate data coverage and availability are generally better for this period compared to earlier ones so it's typically adopted.
dub16v said:
I had to read this a few times! Too many 'forcings' forcing my forcings! I jest.
In my professional opinion, it's very likely, although we cannot be absolutely certain, that humans are influencing the climate due to emissions of GHGs, primarily since the industrial revolution. The science is unequivocal on this.
We are also seeing impacts now, many of which (like the examples I provided above) may be causally linked to changes in climate (e.g. species moving to the edge of their ranges as they track changes in climate - many of which are now at the edge of their habitual range as temperatures have/are changed/changing too quickly).
The models are unequivocal, not sure about the science. The models appear to lack skill. Even the IPCC admit that the human GHG warming signature is not visible over the natural variability. (there may be a Russian climate model that gets close though, but it makes very different assumptions to the bulk of other models) In my professional opinion, it's very likely, although we cannot be absolutely certain, that humans are influencing the climate due to emissions of GHGs, primarily since the industrial revolution. The science is unequivocal on this.
We are also seeing impacts now, many of which (like the examples I provided above) may be causally linked to changes in climate (e.g. species moving to the edge of their ranges as they track changes in climate - many of which are now at the edge of their habitual range as temperatures have/are changed/changing too quickly).
Phud said:
We have seen over many years species react to a change of environment, moths on bricks and scorpions, some of which have coped with a climate change in weeks not years, see invasive species.
Re your unequivocal comment, so you are saying nobody in the scientific world doubts human influence in man made climate change?
Which GHG are you trying to call out?
Indeed we have, species are pretty damn good at adapting to changes in climate but we're less concerned (any ecologists will want to shoot me here!) with those that are able to adapt quickly, we're more concerned with those that are unable to. And we've/we're seen/seeing that already. The impacts may be minor in some cases (e.g. species move northwards, we start to see more pretty butterflies in northern areas of the UK) but in many areas (e.g. where species are strongly dependent upon microclimates and/or micro refugia) the impacts upon the ecosystems are likely to be dramatic. Again, note the timescale issue mentioned above. Re your unequivocal comment, so you are saying nobody in the scientific world doubts human influence in man made climate change?
Which GHG are you trying to call out?
Invasives non-native species (INNS is the technical term) are another matter. Generally speaking, INNS in the UK cause no harm and survive alongside native species without any need for intervention (see Manchester and Bullock, 2001 for an explanation). However, a small number have become widespread (e.g. American signal crayfish, giant hogweed and Japanese knotweed) as well as becoming sufficiently abundant to interfere with either natural (e.g. causing riverine shading) or managed systems (e.g. water companies spending money on removal at WWTWs). The impacts of INNS are pretty broad but can include consumption through predation or herbivory, resource competition, introduction of diseases, interbreeding and disturbance of the environment (see White and Harris, 2002 for some more impacts of INNS). These impacts can in turn lead to loss of biodiversity alongside other impacts including to economic, agricultural and health systems (good report by Defra, 2014 on this).
Re unequivocal, you know what I meant. There are, of course, people in the academic community who disagree. Quite a few do, including engineers, physicists and indeed many climate scientists too - many with professional training, many without. However, the majority do believe that humans influence is driving changes in our climate.
Again, I hope the stuff above (and links) are useful. I'm trying to provide some informed, reasoned (and appropriately referenced - in most cases the links I provide are authoritative pieces on their respective topics), debate here.
s2art said:
The models are unequivocal, not sure about the science. The models appear to lack skill. Even the IPCC admit that the human GHG warming signature is not visible over the natural variability. (there may be a Russian climate model that gets close though, but it makes very different assumptions to the bulk of other models)
I didn't say all of the science was unequivocal, I said 'the science' in regards to the words that preceded it. There are indeed many areas where improvements in our understanding are needed (one of which you mention). Might you have something to offer to improve the skill of these models? I'm not trying to be disingenuous here. Seriously, if you believe this (and that you can offer something) then put some time into providing input to these models, help to progress the field. After all, this is how science works...we have an hypothesis, we collect data to test it, we develop some findings and the field moves on. In this regard, write a research letter and get it published in the literature, you may find many other people agree with you. I'd be happy to recommend some journals.
And, of course, we do not all need to change careers here and put time into something just because we believe in it. My point is that the opinion of those learned individuals with professional training and the weight of the science is frequently ignored by many people with regards to climate change. That's not to say there are not faults; I believe that climate scientists have a real problem in communicating their research (this is also true of a lot of other fields) effectively, that the media have played a role in poor communication of information, that the general public do not 'DYOR' in these matters and that, too often, people are too quick to be dismissive of other peoples' opinions without some informed debate. It's an emotive subject of course but one that we all should have an interest in either way (and that's probably why I studied geography as it's such an interesting subject).
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff