Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
There's some interesting stuff over at GWPF (not for the first or last time either!):
Prof Christopher Essex said:
Unlike the stable virtual ‘climates’ seen in computer simulations, corresponding real-world conditions aren’t stable at all. There are perpetual, natural, internal changes in play that take longer than human lifetimes to play out.
There is an ultraslow, mysterious, unseen world out there, under our very noses, that we cannot perceive. It’s beyond our measurement capabilities, and beyond the capabilities of our best computers using our very best physical theories.
Climate models divorced from messy chaotic reality, whoda thunkit.There is an ultraslow, mysterious, unseen world out there, under our very noses, that we cannot perceive. It’s beyond our measurement capabilities, and beyond the capabilities of our best computers using our very best physical theories.
skwdenyer said:
voyds9 said:
So the worst case scenario is extinction at 2.5x the present CO2 levels.
I'm quaking as we speak
Effects of CO2 poisoning start to become apparent at 50% higher than present. All the time.I'm quaking as we speak
By many reasonable projections, we get there in 32 years. I hope still to be alive by then. I have a son.
Population growth may start to be curtailed by suicide.
Step away from the kool-aid.
turbobloke said:
Must dash but not before sharing a couple of linked headlines.
48,000 Brits Dead After Worst Winter In 42 Years
Cost Of Green Subsidies Rises To £11.3 Billion
The UK sits on trillions of tons of coal, it's bizarre that we should experience such a death toll.48,000 Brits Dead After Worst Winter In 42 Years
Cost Of Green Subsidies Rises To £11.3 Billion
Edit: perhaps criminal rather than bizarre.
turbobloke said:
Planet Earth was full of life and enjoying a lush environment when the carbon dioxide level was 4000 ppmv (10 x current level) so why doesn't the precautionary principle tell is to go back to 4000 ppmv? That precaution might help to stave off the next glaciation which would be far more harmful to life. Hang on, Planet Earth then entered an ice age with 4000 ppmv carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. So, in fact, carbon dioxide levels are bugger all use when used in this particular type of utter nonscience.
FFS what scale of gullibility is needed to measure the human capacity to fall for this tax gas total ecoclaptrap?
Although energy can't be renewed, coal can be considered as a very green energy source over the long term. Burn coal, increase CO2 levels, the resulting lush environment creates more coal. A legacy to be proud of.FFS what scale of gullibility is needed to measure the human capacity to fall for this tax gas total ecoclaptrap?
Cold said:
Buy Damart and candles 
This took me back to Wednesday 24th October 2007 as you would expect
when I briefly discussed Gulf Stream hysteria in a PH thread on the topic of Gore vs Monckton.What goes around comes around, including the THC
Cold said:
Hang on a minute! I'm sure I was told a few years back, that by now, I could plant palm trees, cacti and other such exotic fauna in my garden, thanks to Is the North Yorkshire Cabernet Sauvignon still on the cards?
I wish they'd make their bloody minds up
Thank you for all of your replies
I fear I may have stumbled into an obvious cleft stick of unrecognised tiredness and late-night posting (and perhaps a drink) leading to more than a touch of the Eric Laithwaites.
I went to the trouble of reading some papers about the effects of higher CO2 concentrations before posting any of the foregoing.
Not climate science papers, but supposedly serious science created for a very different audience and context in a different time.
I've now looked up and read the data on submariners (thank you for the tip). Which is interesting, and wildly contradictory to the earlier papers I read.
Like Laithwaite, I allowed myself to fall into the trap of believing that my critical faculties were attuned to the problem domain that I don't work in. My background is in engineering, not biological sciences. My "instincts" (another word for the cumulative effect of experience over time on background processing ability), whilst usually spot on in areas in which I have expertise and experience, are probably just as flawed as dear Eric's were. I take no comfort in the considerable irony that I frequently reference Laithwaite's infamous gyroscope lecture as an example of this very effect.
So my rather chastened conclusion? I need to read more about the effects of CO2 levels on humans. Which I will do, because (lest it have been lost) I actually care about the answer, not the dogma.
TB, you're right, of course; there is a mass of conflicting data out there, much of which is published with a specific prejudicial slant. I've always tried to remember the lessons of A level history, to question sources and the motivations of their authors, but it is clearly a minefield. I tried to go back a couple of decades in search of sources less likely to be biased but - as I say above - it is also possible that I simply ran into some good old fashioned bad science reported as good.
I've tried hard to avoid the Global Warming / Climate Change arena precisely because I'm struggling to see where the science (as opposed to conjecture) is. I'm comfortable with things for which we can produce useful data (CO2 levels, for instance, and I take on board the concerns about the blending of data from different sources), and I'm comfortable with established science (the effects of CO2 on plant life, evapotranspiration, shell formation in crustaceans, and so on, all of which seem to have been pretty well researched).
But I lack sufficient context (clearly) to "instinctively" know whether data related to the effects upon humans of varying CO2 levels is. As is proved by the availability of such wildly varying data.
TB: you cautioned me (and others) to be careful in what we read. You were right (as I'm sure you already know).
My central prejudice (let's call it that, because it is probably what it really is) remains, however; that in the absence of information to the definite contrary, there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset. I doubt I'll change that view, purely because (as the corny gag goes) "there is no plan(et) B." I remain firm in my belief that finding alternative solutions to energy production and storage needs no CC/AGW/etc. as justification to be (in my view) a thoroughly good thing. But I'm open to debate as to why that should not be so.
But I'll step away from the specifics of the CO2 debate until I've had time to read a lot more papers than the handful I have so far.
For those of you kind enough to suggest I was talking some sense at some times, I'm sorry that I proved quite so publicly fallible.
I fear I may have stumbled into an obvious cleft stick of unrecognised tiredness and late-night posting (and perhaps a drink) leading to more than a touch of the Eric Laithwaites.
I went to the trouble of reading some papers about the effects of higher CO2 concentrations before posting any of the foregoing.
Not climate science papers, but supposedly serious science created for a very different audience and context in a different time.
I've now looked up and read the data on submariners (thank you for the tip). Which is interesting, and wildly contradictory to the earlier papers I read.
Like Laithwaite, I allowed myself to fall into the trap of believing that my critical faculties were attuned to the problem domain that I don't work in. My background is in engineering, not biological sciences. My "instincts" (another word for the cumulative effect of experience over time on background processing ability), whilst usually spot on in areas in which I have expertise and experience, are probably just as flawed as dear Eric's were. I take no comfort in the considerable irony that I frequently reference Laithwaite's infamous gyroscope lecture as an example of this very effect.
So my rather chastened conclusion? I need to read more about the effects of CO2 levels on humans. Which I will do, because (lest it have been lost) I actually care about the answer, not the dogma.
TB, you're right, of course; there is a mass of conflicting data out there, much of which is published with a specific prejudicial slant. I've always tried to remember the lessons of A level history, to question sources and the motivations of their authors, but it is clearly a minefield. I tried to go back a couple of decades in search of sources less likely to be biased but - as I say above - it is also possible that I simply ran into some good old fashioned bad science reported as good.
I've tried hard to avoid the Global Warming / Climate Change arena precisely because I'm struggling to see where the science (as opposed to conjecture) is. I'm comfortable with things for which we can produce useful data (CO2 levels, for instance, and I take on board the concerns about the blending of data from different sources), and I'm comfortable with established science (the effects of CO2 on plant life, evapotranspiration, shell formation in crustaceans, and so on, all of which seem to have been pretty well researched).
But I lack sufficient context (clearly) to "instinctively" know whether data related to the effects upon humans of varying CO2 levels is. As is proved by the availability of such wildly varying data.
TB: you cautioned me (and others) to be careful in what we read. You were right (as I'm sure you already know).
My central prejudice (let's call it that, because it is probably what it really is) remains, however; that in the absence of information to the definite contrary, there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset. I doubt I'll change that view, purely because (as the corny gag goes) "there is no plan(et) B." I remain firm in my belief that finding alternative solutions to energy production and storage needs no CC/AGW/etc. as justification to be (in my view) a thoroughly good thing. But I'm open to debate as to why that should not be so.
But I'll step away from the specifics of the CO2 debate until I've had time to read a lot more papers than the handful I have so far.
For those of you kind enough to suggest I was talking some sense at some times, I'm sorry that I proved quite so publicly fallible.
OK. Can't argue with (most of) that! One point for now if I may.
"there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset"
Possibly one more element where reading selectivity has led to misunderstandings?
There is no stability, no status quo to refer to or maintain, everything changes all the time...always has, always will. The atmosphere is unstable, climate is chaotic. Cherry picking start and end points for a carefully selected timescale is problematic and will lead to a false perspective.
We are a natural part of the biosphere not invaders and what we do to stay alive and thrive using our natural intelligence is natural. We're part of natural change and any selected status need not refer to us.
Finally, any selection of any such so-called status quo is arbitrary. I suggested previously that as the planet was blooming at 4000ppmv carbon dioxide, this would be a reasonably good 'status quo' to aim for. It didn't stop the planet from entering an ice age but hey ho times change.
We're here and for some reason some people feel guilty about that. This well-intentioned concern leads to them being played. Referral to empirical data and sound science as opposed to politicised junkscience is a good antidote to ecolie.
"there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset"
Possibly one more element where reading selectivity has led to misunderstandings?
There is no stability, no status quo to refer to or maintain, everything changes all the time...always has, always will. The atmosphere is unstable, climate is chaotic. Cherry picking start and end points for a carefully selected timescale is problematic and will lead to a false perspective.
We are a natural part of the biosphere not invaders and what we do to stay alive and thrive using our natural intelligence is natural. We're part of natural change and any selected status need not refer to us.
Finally, any selection of any such so-called status quo is arbitrary. I suggested previously that as the planet was blooming at 4000ppmv carbon dioxide, this would be a reasonably good 'status quo' to aim for. It didn't stop the planet from entering an ice age but hey ho times change.
We're here and for some reason some people feel guilty about that. This well-intentioned concern leads to them being played. Referral to empirical data and sound science as opposed to politicised junkscience is a good antidote to ecolie.
Climate change dials down Atlantic Ocean heating system
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4371...
A significant shift in the system of ocean currents that helps keep parts of Europe warm could send temperatures in the UK lower, scientists have found.
They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years - and has changed significantly in the past 150.
The study, in the journal Nature, says it may be a response to increased melting ice and is likely to continue.
Researchers say that could have an impact on Atlantic ecosystems.
Scientists involved in the Atlas project - the largest study of deep Atlantic ecosystems ever undertaken - say the impact will not be of the order played out in the 2004 Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow.
But they say changes to the conveyor-belt-like system - also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) - could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.
That could also affect temperature-sensitive species like coral, and even Atlantic cod.....continues
The usual selection of 'maybe' words there then!!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-4371...
A significant shift in the system of ocean currents that helps keep parts of Europe warm could send temperatures in the UK lower, scientists have found.
They say the Atlantic Ocean circulation system is weaker now than it has been for more than 1,000 years - and has changed significantly in the past 150.
The study, in the journal Nature, says it may be a response to increased melting ice and is likely to continue.
Researchers say that could have an impact on Atlantic ecosystems.
Scientists involved in the Atlas project - the largest study of deep Atlantic ecosystems ever undertaken - say the impact will not be of the order played out in the 2004 Hollywood blockbuster The Day After Tomorrow.
But they say changes to the conveyor-belt-like system - also known as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (Amoc) - could cool the North Atlantic and north-west Europe and transform some deep-ocean ecosystems.
That could also affect temperature-sensitive species like coral, and even Atlantic cod.....continues
The usual selection of 'maybe' words there then!!
Yes indeed, Cold has also posted a Guardian link.
These snips are from an item published in the journal Nature back in 2004:
These snips are from an item published in the journal Nature back in 2004:
Snips from Nature said:
European readers should be reassured that the Gulf Stream's existence is a consequence of the large-scale wind system over the North Atlantic Ocean, and of the nature of fluid motion on a rotating planet. The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth's rotation, or both.
The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.
The occurrence of a climate state without the Gulf Stream anytime soon - within tens of millions of years - has a probability of little more than zero.
skwdenyer said:
Thank you for all of your replies
My central prejudice (let's call it that, because it is probably what it really is) remains, however; that in the absence of information to the definite contrary, there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset. I doubt I'll change that view, purely because (as the corny gag goes) "there is no plan(et) B." I remain firm in my belief that finding alternative solutions to energy production and storage needs no CC/AGW/etc. as justification to be (in my view) a thoroughly good thing. But I'm open to debate as to why that should not be so.
But I'll step away from the specifics of the CO2 debate until I've had time to read a lot more papers than the handful I have so far.
For those of you kind enough to suggest I was talking some sense at some times, I'm sorry that I proved quite so publicly fallible.
i would suggest this post just backs up my previous complement elsewhere. being an engineer i am sure you will know that the man that hasn't made a mistake usually hasn't made anything. acknowledging you made an error in a claim rarely happens on this thread. usually those making them just avoid the thread for a few months then come back to try and bait turbobloke again. they never acknowledge prejudice , always claim the science is on their side, then when shown it actually isn't the flounce occurs .My central prejudice (let's call it that, because it is probably what it really is) remains, however; that in the absence of information to the definite contrary, there seems no benefit and considerable risk in upsetting the status quo when it need not be upset. I doubt I'll change that view, purely because (as the corny gag goes) "there is no plan(et) B." I remain firm in my belief that finding alternative solutions to energy production and storage needs no CC/AGW/etc. as justification to be (in my view) a thoroughly good thing. But I'm open to debate as to why that should not be so.
But I'll step away from the specifics of the CO2 debate until I've had time to read a lot more papers than the handful I have so far.
For those of you kind enough to suggest I was talking some sense at some times, I'm sorry that I proved quite so publicly fallible.
big props to you for coming back with something decent and not going on the attack.
V8 Fettler said:
The UK sits on trillions of tons of coal, it's bizarre that we should experience such a death toll.
Edit: perhaps criminal rather than bizarre.
Edit: perhaps criminal rather than bizarre.
V8 Fettler said:
Although energy can't be renewed, coal can be considered as a very green energy source over the long term. Burn coal, increase CO2 levels, the resulting lush environment creates more coal. A legacy to be proud of.
There's a thought or two, but both posts represent heresy against doctrine so I'll see you on the number ten bus to whatever hell Gaia has to offer Meanwhile vulnerable brits are dying and others in third world countries still lack clean drinking water while a $trillion up is spunked on climate fairytales
yet this makes sense to rather a lot of today's politicians. 
t I forgot that!V8 Fettler said:
Although energy can't be renewed, coal can be considered as a very green energy source over the long term. Burn coal, increase CO2 levels, the resulting lush environment creates more coal. A legacy to be proud of.
I have made just such an observation in the past.The use of coal and oil are surely the ultimate form of recycling. All of the carbon locked up in coal and oil (as well as things like Chalk and Limestone) ultimately came from the atmosphere. Why is returning it whence it came considered 'bad'.
Those climate changing, atmosphere modifying scumbag plants have a lot to answer for
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff