Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 3

[robinessex]

Er, political thread ?

[Phud]

dub16v said:

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.

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.

Man has no ability to say what nature can deal with, most of claims about nature not coping have been proven to be wrong and the only known destroyer is man, the greedy animal who thinks they should be able to claim the world will work in their favour.

INNS are more than these you quote and again, such as those underwater, green lipped mussels, thrive, as with other INNS, man does nothing and fails to understand the eco systems they have destroyed. All through mans influence not climate change.

The use of words about human influence is again the subtle drip drip change, it was warming, now man made climate change and now drifting to mans influence, all are very different and I will disagree with you about the majority of those with or without qualification agree with man made global warming. The majority of those who want funding are shouting to the political groups, yes, not the majority. However as you write with a good use of open english, not being that specific enough to tie down, man is killing the planet but maybe not in the way which if stated will bring research funding if spoken about.

[XM5ER]

dub16v said:

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]
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/...

xm5er said:

The links are still dead for me (that is not a philosophical position BTW).

Question, are not the papers you cite also examples of weather, not climate?

No. The papers cited concern changes due to climate, not weather i.e. long-term changes over multiple decades. Weather refers to short-term changes in conditions, not long-term trends.

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.

Thanks for your patience and for reposting. I did click through and take a look (admittedly there is a heck of a lot to take in) however my first observation is that the majority of the papers are if x then y type papers. What I mean by that is , they base their conclusions of y effect on x input (assumed warming in this case). Consequently the whole edifice is balanced on the output of a handful of models that project warming outcomes that so far have under-performed (i.e. didn't predict "the pause"). This is worrying as there are no projections for cooling or stasis, consequently no planning contingencies are in place for these outcomes.

I will look further when I have a minute but do you understand what I mean?

Edited by XM5ER on Friday 2nd December 20:37

[Kawasicki]

I just can't look past the adjusted/falsified data used by the scientists.

It usually just makes me burst out laughing.

[Otispunkmeyer]

really interesting to see two sides of the congress tweet story

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/02/climate-adv...

http://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2016/12/us-house-...


Ars calls it misinformation. Commenters are saying, yeah its winter 'course its colder. Strange because when El Nino was in full flight and we had some hot summer days, it wasn't just summer. It was global warming.

Anyway they've picked up on drop being not that low or out of the ordinary. Its not, the graph even shows its not, its been colder before. But they missed seemingly that Dellingpole was more about discussing the rate of the drop.

Either way...this is surely just El Nino/La Nina doing what its always done and people are just seeing what they want to see in it.

[mondeoman]

dub16v said:

wc98 said:

stuff...

it appears to be a field for those that don't quite make the grade in their respected discipline.

Not wanting to wade into this brick wall of a debate but it appears to be quite the contrary...climate scientists have to be physicists, chemists, biologists, mathematicians and computer programmers. To understand the complexities of our climate system, and its interaction with a wide range of other systems (e.g. ocean, terrestrial systems etc.), and to attempt to model these interactions sufficiently over long timescales is not a task to be underestimated. It's a very diverse field requiring a wide range of skills.

/$0.02.

Which basically means that no-one can be an expert. An example, if you will. I work in automotive, new product development, so I get to deal with experts in their fields, and they are experts. But to create a car, none of those experts could do the whole job, nor would we expect them to: the transmission specialist doesn't know enough about chassis components, the chassis expert can't do the cooling pack etc...

Now, I know enough about each of the systems to describe an approximation of each of the systems, in general terms, but in the detail of, say, piston bowl design to prioritise flame front propagation over soot creation and nox generation and injector spray pattern requirements and nozzle size and injection timing and duration and fuel rail pressure and piston oil cooling requirements to match the flame front. Well, let's just say no. And that's just one small area of the engine, let alone the overall power train or indeed the car.

So, whilst I can say I'm an 'expert" in automotive, I am not an expert in any of prerequisite fields, just like the climate scientists aren't. Jack of all trades, master of none.

[paulrockliffe]

Kawasicki said:

I just can't look past the adjusted/falsified data used by the scientists.

It usually just makes me burst out laughing.

I love that graph that shows the correlation between the adjustments and CO2 levels!

[Silver Smudger]

dub16v said:

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.

unequivocal - adjective
1.not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation:
2.absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions:

dub16v said:

Re unequivocal, you know what I meant.

Not sure that I do

[LongQ]

robinessex said:

Er, political thread ?

It's supposed to be but it seems that the endless whirlpool of labcoats is determined to make it otherwise.

Why is it that every new SIF that makes an appearance here insists on focusing on their "special subject" rather than presenting their interpretation of political activity that occurs on the back of the AGW meme? Something we might be able to discuss from different viewpoints rather than simply going round and round in meaningless circles akin to trying to assess the once rather important science related to opinions about how many fairies could sit on the head of a pin.

Are they feeling some concern that the politics has now moved so far from needing science in any form that they are out on a limb and so desperately need some sort of platform - effectively they are now showing science to be riding on the back of politics all the way to the trough and the funding it provides.

Either that or they finding understanding thread titles too difficult. Personally I think this may be the reality. Fact.

I am minded to pop over to the Science thread to make some political observations.

[Jinx]

dub16v said:

-Interesting article. Remind me of his professional training again?

PhD. from Duke University, 1982
General area: theoretical and mathematical condensed matter physics. Ph.D. dissertation: ``The position space Green's function and its application to a non--muffin--tin band theory'' available from Duke University Library.

dub16v said:

Read This. I'll stick with the guy with a PhD in statistics and the peer-reviewed literature (Tabaldi and Knutti, 2007, provide a great overview) for now.

In wmbiggs explanation there is the assumption the models are independent (and have been derived independently). They are not - hence the ensemble is still meaningless.

But if you are going to stick with the guy why have you ignored this?

wmbiggs said:

I also dispute the notion that we have to act before we are able to verify the models. That’s nuts.

dub16v said:

-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.

The IPCC AR5 had a nice section on the negative impacts over the next 100 years most of which were "low confidence". The science behind the catastrophic global warming is very weak (life on this planet can cope with diurnal and seasonal warming/cooling magnitudes greater than a slow 0.1 degree or even 0.2 degrees a decade). The rate of change in temps is similar to the rate in the earlier part of the 20th century (not attributed to man) and yet after 1950 we are supposed to believe the rate is now a problem? The flora and fauna can easily cope with the rates of change from warming - unlikely to cope with a shift to an ice age. And yet what are we wasting our money preparing for?
There are too many holes in the science (hence why you have to "believe" rather than assess the evidence) and it is only because of the false emergency that the science isn't being done properly (lots of wasted effort on "communicating the science" and "surveys").

[robinessex]

Beeb CC puff story:-

Earth warming to climate tipping point, warns study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3814...

Read the story though, and it's all guess work or supposition. Pays someones salary though.

[motco]

robinessex said:

Beeb CC puff story:-

Earth warming to climate tipping point, warns study

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3814...

Read the story though, and it's all guess work or supposition. Pays someones salary though.

Independent says much the same. To paraphrase Minnie Bannister (or was it Henry Crun?) "We'll all be murdered in our beds!"

[London424]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-c...

Interesting piece.

[mybrainhurts]

London424 said:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/my-unhappy-life-as-a-c...

Interesting piece.

How do you read that without a subscription?

[Moonhawk]

mybrainhurts said:

I knew it had to be men's fault somehow

[mybrainhurts]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/good-grief-...

Aaaand...another one jumps on the bandwagon

"Good Grief"...Support group for depressed climate activists

Oh, my aching ribs...

[dickymint]

mybrainhurts said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/good-grief-...

Aaaand...another one jumps on the bandwagon

"Good Grief"...Support group for depressed climate activists

Oh, my aching ribs...

"A new program, reflecting lessons from Alcoholics Anonymous, aims to help people work through their grief about climate change. The first step: Admit we have a problem."

'Hello my name is Dickymint and I am a denier'

[LongQ]

dickymint said:

mybrainhurts said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/12/03/good-grief-...

Aaaand...another one jumps on the bandwagon

"Good Grief"...Support group for depressed climate activists

Oh, my aching ribs...

"A new program, reflecting lessons from Alcoholics Anonymous, aims to help people work through their grief about climate change. The first step: Admit we have a problem."

'Hello my name is Dickymint and I am a denier'

Maybe this is the alternative approach to achieve the "solution"?

If one could persuade enough people, through some form of mass hysteria, that they should act like lemmings and metaphorically jump off a cliff the impossible discussion about population control would become an under-the-covers fait accompli.

The way the world seems to be heading at the moment such a movement could take root. I'm thinking of IS at one extreme and "the Wests" introspection about things like "Historic" sex related activities and an inability to consider that there might be any requirement to control current criminal activity (to take just a couple of examples of the many that could have been chosen). Somewhere along the line along comes a Putin and influences the way matters develop.

We live in strange and self destructive times.

[Mr GrimNasty]

BBC has just produced a report on the 'incredible warmth' in the Arctic today, but they truncated their temperature graph 2 weeks ago. Here's why - the temperature has gone off a cliff edge - and the extreme cold in Russia/Asia is still there too!

2 weeks ago on left averaging -5C, current on the right averaging blow -20C, dark blue=-35C, yellowy-green=0C - ice extent will rapidly expand as there is loads of sea surface already at/below 0. Extent/volume is already same as last year more or less according to DMI, although the political/Greenpeace pals at NSIDC with their wonky satellite 'adjusted' to fit with the last sensor have it suspiciously lower.

It's just a slightly unusual weather event, temperature is now back in a perfectly normal range, albeit on the warm side of average and still dropping!



Up to a day or 2 either aside, it was as warm in the Arctic as today in 1959, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967............

[LongQ]

Mr GrimNasty said:

BBC has just produced a report on the 'incredible warmth' in the Arctic today, but they truncated their temperature graph 2 weeks ago. Here's why - the temperature has gone off a cliff edge - and the extreme cold in Russia/Asia is still there too!

2 weeks ago on left averaging -5C, current on the right averaging blow -20C, dark blue=-35C, yellowy-green=0C - ice extent will rapidly expand as there is loads of sea surface already at/below 0. Extent/volume is already same as last year more or less according to DMI, although the political/Greenpeace pals at NSIDC with their wonky satellite 'adjusted' to fit with the last sensor have it suspiciously lower.

It's just a slightly unusual weather event, temperature is now back in a perfectly normal range, albeit on the warm side of average and still dropping!



Up to a day or 2 either aside, it was as warm in the Arctic as today in 1959, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967............

Hmm.

1962