Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[robinessex]

Is it better for the planets temperature to go up or down, as sure as hell, it isn’t going to stand still. Opps sorry guys, I’ve asked that question before. I wonder why I’ve never got and answer? Beats me !!!!! Oh well, back to arguing about the cure for a problem we don’t know exists. Actually, I KNOW it doesn’t exist. But that’s just me.

[dub16v]

robinessex said:

Is it better for the planets temperature to go up or down, as sure as hell, it isn’t going to stand still. Opps sorry guys, I’ve asked that question before. I wonder why I’ve never got and answer? Beats me !!!!! Oh well, back to arguing about the cure for a problem we don’t know exists. Actually, I KNOW it doesn’t exist. But that’s just me.

There are positives and negatives in both cases. The speed of change and magnitude are what is important in either case.

Why do you ask?

Regarding the bold, you seem to be having a bit of an argument with yourself there!

[robinessex]

Bloody obvious really. If the average temperature of the planet is going up a bit, so what. From what I’ve found out, the benefits of that far outweigh it getting colder. And C02 is at an all time low in the planets life. Not that C02 and temperature are related.

[PRTVR]

dub16v said:

robinessex said:

Is it better for the planets temperature to go up or down, as sure as hell, it isn’t going to stand still. Opps sorry guys, I’ve asked that question before. I wonder why I’ve never got and answer? Beats me !!!!! Oh well, back to arguing about the cure for a problem we don’t know exists. Actually, I KNOW it doesn’t exist. But that’s just me.

There are positives and negatives in both cases. The speed of change and magnitude are what is important in either case.

Why do you ask?

Regarding the bold, you seem to be having a bit of an argument with yourself there!

And where is this rapid change manifesting in something that can be distinguished from the normal variables ? Are we planting tropical plants in the UK ? Have both poles lost all their ice, where are the signs ?

[don4l]

robinessex said:

Bloody obvious really. If the average temperature of the planet is going up a bit, so what. From what I’ve found out, the benefits of that far outweigh it getting colder. And C02 is at an all time low in the planets life. Not that C02 and temperature are related.

How much life exists per square metre at the Equator? How much exists at the poles?

Surely, if temperatures did rise by 3 degrees, then the Earth could sustain much more life.

[turbobloke]

dub16v said:

The speed of change and magnitude are what is important in either case.

That's fine, recent natural climate given whatever the unmolested and non-exaggerated change is, is definitely not unprecedented in either extent or rate, despite lies to the contrary. It's mundane, pedestrian, barely worth a remark, because the exaggerated version is exactly that so the real thing can't be worse.

[dub16v]

PRTVR said:

And where is this rapid change manifesting in something that can be distinguished from the normal variables ? Are we planting tropical plants in the UK ? Have both poles lost all their ice, where are the signs ?

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.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

[dub16v]

turbobloke said:

That's fine, recent natural climate given whatever the unmolested and non-exaggerated change is, is definitely not unprecedented in either extent or rate, despite lies to the contrary. It's mundane, pedestrian, barely worth a remark, because the exaggerated version is exactly that so the real thing can't be worse.

This will be good. Go on then...

[powerstroke]

I"m hoping we will go back to the warmer temps of the recent past like when the Romans were here,
but despite what the climate cretins and doommongers are predicting , on past performances I am preparing for disappointment ...

[Jinx]

dub16v said:

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.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

No one has denied the earth has warmed since the little ice age - creatures move to areas better suited to them - it is what they do. None of the above is linked to human produced CO2 - human produced habitat change yes, climate change not so much......
Also they do not have the data, there is no mass extinction except in their heads and the rest is based on the "worse case" scenarios from the climate models that even the best case scenario is too extreme for reality......
Did you read that paper produced recently that estimated peak CO2 from fossil sources over the 21st century? It peaks at around the 600 ppm level which if you convert using the IPCC ECS figures means a grand total of 0.75 degrees of global warming? That is the worse case. 0.75. you can call the catastrophe off now and go back to worrying about important things again.....

[dub16v]

Jinx said:

No one has denied the earth has warmed since the little ice age - creatures move to areas better suited to them - it is what they do. None of the above is linked to human produced CO2 - human produced habitat change yes, climate change not so much......
Also they do not have the data, there is no mass extinction except in their heads and the rest is based on the "worse case" scenarios form the climate models that even the best case scenario is too extreme for reality......
Did you read that paper produced recently that estimated peak CO2 from fossil sources over the 21st century? It peaks at around the 600 ppm level which if you convert using the IPCC ECS figures means a grand total of 0.75 degrees of global warming? That is the worse case. 0.75. you can call the catastrophe off now and go back to worrying about important things again.....

You have clearly not read the above reports; the above movements are linked to climate change. For another, read Parmesan and Yohe (2003) (Nature, 421, 37-42, doi:10.1038/nature01286).

You are clearly better qualified to comment than these researchers; probably worth writing a research letter in response? Science is about progression after all. The field would certainly benefit from your insights.

[PRTVR]

dub16v said:

PRTVR said:

And where is this rapid change manifesting in something that can be distinguished from the normal variables ? Are we planting tropical plants in the UK ? Have both poles lost all their ice, where are the signs ?

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.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

The point I was making was how can you distinguish any change as being abnormal? Taking the point that we are still coming out of an ice age and detailed fauna and plants have only been studied in any detail for perhaps 200 years or less if you look at it globally , attributing any change to a minute change in temperature that isn't continuous is just fanciful the UK has not become a med type climate.
I will have a read of the links when I get back in but I do not hold much hope for them, UK climate change risk assessment no agenda there.....

[dub16v]

PRTVR said:

The point I was making was how can you distinguish any change as being abnormal? Taking the point that we are still coming out of an ice age and detailed fauna and plants have only been studied in any detail for perhaps 200 years or less if you look at it globally, attributing any change to a minute change in temperature that isn't continuous is just fanciful the UK has not become a med type climate.
I will have a read of the links when I get back in but I do not hold much hope for them, UK climate change risk assessment no agenda there.....

I don't know what you're expecting in truth - that we'll suddenly wake up one morning to palm trees and 3m sea level rise and be shocked by it? We are seeing changes now - this is now our 'normal'. We also have documented evidence of species responding to climate change for records much longer than 200 years (read the papers cited above).

Speaking with farmers (some of the most skeptical people on the subject I can assure you) they have been seeing significant changes for the last 20-30 years, changes not seen at any other time in their family histories (many farms are passed down through the generations). A lot of farmers actually document these changes, through their own farm diaries (i.e. changes in the start of spring, first leaf fall etc.). These people know the environment, and it's changing. I guess it's all natural though. Or is it? Models (not reliable of course) have been shown to replicate past climate (back/hindcasting) and predict future climate successfully with and without natural and antropogenic forcings (see Stott et al. 2003; Tett et al. 2000 etc.). They are fudged though to fit the data though aren't they?

Also relevant, an increase in CO2 has a greater warming effect than changes attributed to changes in solar activity or changes in the Earth's orbit. There's a very well regarded paper on this (see Feulner and Rahmstorf, 2010 - it's available via Google).

Re the bold text, it's an independently produced study no matter your conspiracy theories or other agendas. Again, available to read.

[Jinx]

dub16v said:

You have clearly not read the above reports; the above movements are linked to climate change. For another, read Parmesan and Yohe (2003) (Nature, 421, 37-42, doi:10.1038/nature01286).

You are clearly better qualified to comment than these researchers; probably worth writing a research letter in response? Science is about progression after all. The field would certainly benefit from your insights.

Huh? Only if you confuse the warming since the little ice age with "climate change (tm)" Post hoc correlation is not science though any link to "climate change (tm)" is the means to funding so perfectly understandable in these twisted times.
So of course they linked it to climate change (tm) - data collection is expensive - If I had to do my job via grants rather than paid employment I'd link it to climate change (tm)

climate change (tm) is a registered trademark of the IPCC and means anything we want it to mean irrespective of data, science or atmosphere. It should not be confused with actual climates (as previously defined into 5 climate zones) or with natural climate change - except when we want to.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

dub16v said:

PRTVR said:

And where is this rapid change manifesting in something that can be distinguished from the normal variables ? Are we planting tropical plants in the UK ? Have both poles lost all their ice, where are the signs ?

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.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

The point I was making was how can you distinguish any change as being abnormal?

That's the real point, exactly that.

Changes happen naturally and species adapt - or they don't.

Those papers may describe certain biogeographical changes as a result of modest short-term climate variation but that's normal and it offers no causality to humans in the modest climate change (rate and extent).

This concept of causality is really simple but certain apparently intelligent people on the believer side find it extremely challenging when discussing the hot topic of climate change. This may be due to the fact that it wipes out agw hype in one clean sweep.

PRTVR said:

Taking the point that we are still coming out of an ice age and detailed fauna and plants have only been studied in any detail for perhaps 200 years or less if you look at it globally , attributing any change to a minute change in temperature that isn't continuous is just fanciful the UK has not become a med type climate.
I will have a read of the links when I get back in but I do not hold much hope for them, UK climate change risk assessment no agenda there.....

That's another good point that belief can't cope with very well: any recent modest natural warming that's actually real rather than a result of corrupted data began following the minimum of the LIA which was before industrialisation. How inconvenient etc.

[turbobloke]

PRTVR said:

dub16v said:

PRTVR said:

And where is this rapid change manifesting in something that can be distinguished from the normal variables ? Are we planting tropical plants in the UK ? Have both poles lost all their ice, where are the signs ?

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.

I don't expect that you'll read any of that.

The point I was making was how can you distinguish any change as being abnormal?

That's the real point, exactly that.

Changes happen naturally and species adapt - or they don't.

Those papers may describe certain biogeographical changes as a result of modest short-term climate variation but that's normal and it offers no causality to humans in the modest climate change (rate and extent).

This concept of causality is really simple but certain apparently intelligent people on the believer side find it extremely challenging when discussing the hot topic of climate change. This may be due to the fact that it wipes out agw hype in one clean sweep.

PRTVR said:

Taking the point that we are still coming out of an ice age and detailed fauna and plants have only been studied in any detail for perhaps 200 years or less if you look at it globally , attributing any change to a minute change in temperature that isn't continuous is just fanciful the UK has not become a med type climate.
I will have a read of the links when I get back in but I do not hold much hope for them, UK climate change risk assessment no agenda there.....

That's another good point that belief can't cope with very well: any recent modest natural warming that's actually real rather than a result of corrupted data began following the minimum of the LIA which was before industrialisation. How inconvenient etc.

[durbster]

Jinx said:

Huh? Only if you confuse the warming since the little ice age with "climate change (tm)"

So what is the natural mechanism that explains warming since the little ice age, particularly in the last 150 years?

[turbobloke]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

Huh? Only if you confuse the warming since the little ice age with "climate change (tm)"

So what is the natural mechanism that explains warming since the little ice age, particularly in the last 150 years?

Attrition loop alert!

The answer is obvious - it's down to the climate forcings that the IPCC and sundry believers omit from their considerations for no good reason. Only the bad reason which is to leave room for a non-existent carbon dioxide effect to be put in place by the hand of man (at a keyboard).

AMPLIFIED solar irradiance forcing is in the peer reviewed literature (Shaviv)
Solar eruptivity forcings are in the peer reviewed literature (Bucha, Svensmark)
Carbon dioxide forcing from human emissions is invisible in the data but plastered over the pal-reviewed literature.

Hang on a minute though, the CERN 'scientist' chappy said there was to be no discussion of the implicaions of the CLOUD experiment which confirmed the Svensmark CR-LLC-Albedo eruptivity forcing mechanism...well tough titty on that one! Also the Bucha Auroral Oval mechanism is based on existing data and not subject to unscientific diktats that the science won't be discussed.

Surreal. A scientist saying that a scientific result's implications will not be discussed. Unscientific to a point as far away from science as it gets, and so close to politics that you can smell it from here.

At the next loop, durbster or other faithful types can cut and paste the above into the next iteration of that pointless question which pretends not to remember that it's been answered n times.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 26th January 10:39

[Kawasicki]

durbster said:

Jinx said:

Huh? Only if you confuse the warming since the little ice age with "climate change (tm)"

So what is the natural mechanism that explains warming since the little ice age, particularly in the last 150 years?

What natural mechanism caused the little ice age?

[turbobloke]