Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Mr GrimNasty]

Have you noticed that until last year CAGW started in 1950, now as per Durbster's dribble, the CAGW crowd claims 150 years of CAGW - if losing, make the lie bigger!

How did increasing CO2 cause about 0.6C of global cooling from 1940 to 1980?

(Yes that cooling no longer 'exists' but it did happen, we know why it doesn't 'exist' - 'hide the decline' 'why the blip' conspiracy to fake the data confirmed in leaked emails.)

[LongQ]

dub16v said:

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.

This is the Politics thread. Ancient reports that the funding will, surely by now, have led to the knowledge they suggested being superseded, may not be terribly useful discussion points for either politics - which has long since moved on without caring much for the reading, or the Science thread, although there they may be slightly more appropriately located.

Meanwhile I stumbled across an interesting piece about forests on Orkney a few days back. Sadly I seem not to have bookmarked it so finding is a again is a little trickier than I hoped. However this link is a similar sort of summary of events since the end of the last serious ice age.

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/earlyrefs.htm

There are other interesting pages linked on the site and similar information available around the internet.

Readers will have to reach their own conclusions about the potential for the variations described being related to natural variation or human causes and thus whether the paper reaches logical conclusions in observation.

An admission. I suspect this is neither Science or Politics. As such it seemed like an interesting buffer point.

[Kawasicki]

Interesting...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hi...

[LongQ]

Some interesting observations about where in the world greenhouse gas output is likely rising over recent time.

http://euanmearns.com/attributing-the-blame-for-gl...


This of course suggests a number of different underlying reasons should one want to burrow into some sort of analysis of causation.

For now I'll kick it into play just as presented.

[robinessex]

The Beebs best non-story CC yet. Just look who wrote it !!

Trump's 'control-alt-delete' on climate change policy

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3874...

"Are the recent actions taken by the Trump team on the issues of climate and energy the opening shots in a war on knowledge?
Or are they simply what you'd expect from a new administration of a different political hue? Let's examine what we know."
Continues, lots of guessing and conjecture

Do I hear a war cry?

[Jazzy Jag]

Kawasicki said:

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?

Clue.
It's huge, orangy yellow colour, sometimes it has black spots and can be see in the sky on a clear day.

[Silver Smudger]

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.

None of this seems disastrous or dramatic to me though, all examples of flora and fauna adapting or moving about as they have always done, no?
As mentioned on this page, it was warm enough in Roman times to grow decent vineyards far further north in the UK, but not so now - is returning to this climate that bad?

[dub16v]

Silver Smudger 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.

None of this seems disastrous or dramatic to me though, all examples of flora and fauna adapting or moving about as they have always done, no?
As mentioned on this page, it was warm enough in Roman times to grow decent vineyards far further north in the UK, but not so now - is returning to this climate that bad?

No. It's the speed of change that is the issue. Read the reports.

[dub16v]

LongQ said:

dub16v said:

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.

This is the Politics thread. Ancient reports that the funding will, surely by now, have led to the knowledge they suggested being superseded, may not be terribly useful discussion points for either politics - which has long since moved on without caring much for the reading, or the Science thread, although there they may be slightly more appropriately located.

Meanwhile I stumbled across an interesting piece about forests on Orkney a few days back. Sadly I seem not to have bookmarked it so finding is a again is a little trickier than I hoped. However this link is a similar sort of summary of events since the end of the last serious ice age.

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/earlyrefs.htm

There are other interesting pages linked on the site and similar information available around the internet.

Readers will have to reach their own conclusions about the potential for the variations described being related to natural variation or human causes and thus whether the paper reaches logical conclusions in observation.

An admission. I suspect this is neither Science or Politics. As such it seemed like an interesting buffer point.

This is linked to politics in so much as our Government have produced policies, some offering support through fiscal mechanisms, to help protect the environment and make it more resilient to change. These texts contribute to the scientific argument that informs the Government who produce policy in response. It's very relevant.

The Nature paper cited is not outdated nor superseded. It's a defining text and still cited to this day. I'd suggest that you read it.

[turbobloke]

dub16v said:

No. It's the speed of change that is the issue. Read the reports.

In which case the observations can't be wholly related to the recent and current unremarkable and pedestrian rate of climate change (even when measured using tortued data) which is frequently exaggerated and wrongly described as unprecedented.

A match to 'climate change predictions' can still occur where the climate change involved is not of human origin. Causality has not been established.

[dub16v]

turbobloke said:

In which case the observations can't be wholly related to the recent and current unremarkable and pedestrian rate of climate change (even when measured using tortued data) which is frequently exaggerated and wrongly described as unprecedented.

A match to 'climate change predictions' can still occur where the climate change involved is not of human origin. Causality has not been established.

Prove it.

I'm expecting a copy/paste from ~137 papers, none of which you've read.

Remember, you're the expert here.

Edited by dub16v on Thursday 26th January 14:45

[durbster]

Jazzy Jag said:

Kawasicki said:

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?

Clue.
It's huge, orangy yellow colour, sometimes it has black spots and can be see in the sky on a clear day.

But studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

[bodhi]

Did anyone else have a wry smile on their face when they heard about the gagging order on EPA Scientists? Not that I think suppression of scientific opnions is in any way a reasonable way to go, but after 15+ years of those not convinced by Climate Change being silenced, I am seeing quite a lot of irony there.

[durbster]

turbobloke said:

Attrition loop alert!
...
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.

Yes, you have given the same answers countless times but it's a special kind of arrogance to assume that because the mighty turbobloke has spoken, the matter has been settled.

The problem is, your answers are not very good.

They do not stand up to basic scrutiny, they are wildly inconsistent, they are hypocritical, they are rarely backed up with evidence and on the occasions when evidence is presented, it often turns out to be misrepresented.

While your faithful congregation may be satisfied with you supplying them exactly what they want to hear, you'll have to excuse me for not being as impressed as they seem to be.

[robinessex]

durbster said:

turbobloke said:

Attrition loop alert!
...
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.

Yes, you have given the same answers countless times but it's a special kind of arrogance to assume that because the mighty turbobloke has spoken, the matter has been settled.

The problem is, your answers are not very good.

They do not stand up to basic scrutiny, they are wildly inconsistent, they are hypocritical, they are rarely backed up with evidence and on the occasions when evidence is presented, it often turns out to be misrepresented.

While your faithful congregation may be satisfied with you supplying them exactly what they want to hear, you'll have to excuse me for not being as impressed as they seem to be.

Considering you/can't won't answer some pretty basic, commonsense question about CC which show it to be complete bks, that takes the biscuit. And don't ask me what they, I'm fed up with repeating them now.

[durbster]

robinessex said:

Considering you/can't won't answer some pretty basic, commonsense question about CC which show it to be complete bks, that takes the biscuit. And don't ask me what they, I'm fed up with repeating them now.

You could Google the answers.

[Jazzy Jag]

durbster said:

Jazzy Jag said:

Kawasicki said:

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?

Clue.
It's huge, orangy yellow colour, sometimes it has black spots and can be see in the sky on a clear day.

But studies into how the sun affects our temperature have not been able to account for the amount of global warming observed in the last century.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

What other sources of heat did you have in mind?

[robinessex]

durbster said:

robinessex said:

Considering you/can't won't answer some pretty basic, commonsense question about CC which show it to be complete bks, that takes the biscuit. And don't ask me what they, I'm fed up with repeating them now.

You could Google the answers.

I don't need Google. I know already. You were asked. You never answered. Speaks for itself really !!

[LongQ]

dub16v said:

LongQ said:

dub16v said:

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.

This is the Politics thread. Ancient reports that the funding will, surely by now, have led to the knowledge they suggested being superseded, may not be terribly useful discussion points for either politics - which has long since moved on without caring much for the reading, or the Science thread, although there they may be slightly more appropriately located.

Meanwhile I stumbled across an interesting piece about forests on Orkney a few days back. Sadly I seem not to have bookmarked it so finding is a again is a little trickier than I hoped. However this link is a similar sort of summary of events since the end of the last serious ice age.

http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/earlyrefs.htm

There are other interesting pages linked on the site and similar information available around the internet.

Readers will have to reach their own conclusions about the potential for the variations described being related to natural variation or human causes and thus whether the paper reaches logical conclusions in observation.

An admission. I suspect this is neither Science or Politics. As such it seemed like an interesting buffer point.

This is linked to politics in so much as our Government have produced policies, some offering support through fiscal mechanisms, to help protect the environment and make it more resilient to change. These texts contribute to the scientific argument that informs the Government who produce policy in response. It's very relevant.

The Nature paper cited is not outdated nor superseded. It's a defining text and still cited to this day. I'd suggest that you read it.

A tenuous link to politics rather than science - even had you presented it from that angle in the first place.

Still, it is perhaps good to see that some of the science is settled enough that governments no longer need to keep funding the research having established their policies.

I wonder if they got it right?

[turbobloke]

Some PHers might like to do some easy digging on dramatic species shifts in the Little Ice Age, which was presumably man-made due to some as-yet unknown industrial process sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere...that's silly, and so is attribution of current shifts without established causality in the supposed explanation.

The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850

Click