News2 mins ago
An Inconvenient Rant?
95 Answers
http://
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Do we really need climate change advice from the septics?
Answers
There would be no hypocrisy as far as I am concerned, Jim,. Let other nations do as they wish (which is pretty much what those outside the EU – and even some within - do anyway and we’ll do likewise. I don’t know who first put forward the bathtub explanation. I was (and indeed still am) struggling to understand how small variations in the 4% of global...
18:04 Wed 23rd Sep 2015
I have a theory. Somehow the activity of mankind is causing the fluctuation of spots on the sun. If NJ and TTT would care to form a committee and organise a pressure group we could qualify for a nice fat Euro grant. I would be head honcho o course. Why this time next year Rodney we would all................
To quote a great cockney, Ian Drury, There Aint Half Been Some Clever ***.
To quote a great cockney, Ian Drury, There Aint Half Been Some Clever ***.
Of course we could all pop out and buy a diesel Volkswagen.
Whilst there is no excuse for the outrageous manipulation of the emissions tests, the root of the great diesel car scam lies with the EcoManiacs. Everybody knows that diesel engines are filthy. They spew out huge quantities of Nitrogen Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and, most alarmingly of all, particulates. But they emit less, but only very slightly less CO2 than their petrol cousins. Following the ludicrous Kyoto summit in 1997 governments signed up to a Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions considerably. As part of the measures aimed at meeting this target the UK government introduced Vehicle Excise charging by CO2 emissions and introduced further tax incentives to make it far cheaper for companies to buy diesel cars.
The government was fully aware of the dangerous emissions that diesel engines produced but so enthralled and bullied were they by the climate lobby that they opted to incentivise the growth of diesel cars to help them meet the stupid targets that were agreed at Kyoto.
That’s what I mean when I suggest that governments have no idea what they are doing when it comes to “managing” the climate. In some respects I would not trust governments to run a whelk stall. To suggest that they can manage the climate would be a good music hall joke were it not so costly. Worse than this, the Great (but Gullible) British Public are hoodwinked into believing absolute rubbish whenever this topic is raised. Children believe we are all going to suffocate; adults believe all the polar bears will starve or drown and that the Maldives will disappear under the Indian Ocean next week. The great diesel car fiasco demonstrates this perfectly.
Whilst there is no excuse for the outrageous manipulation of the emissions tests, the root of the great diesel car scam lies with the EcoManiacs. Everybody knows that diesel engines are filthy. They spew out huge quantities of Nitrogen Oxide, Nitrogen Dioxide and, most alarmingly of all, particulates. But they emit less, but only very slightly less CO2 than their petrol cousins. Following the ludicrous Kyoto summit in 1997 governments signed up to a Protocol to reduce CO2 emissions considerably. As part of the measures aimed at meeting this target the UK government introduced Vehicle Excise charging by CO2 emissions and introduced further tax incentives to make it far cheaper for companies to buy diesel cars.
The government was fully aware of the dangerous emissions that diesel engines produced but so enthralled and bullied were they by the climate lobby that they opted to incentivise the growth of diesel cars to help them meet the stupid targets that were agreed at Kyoto.
That’s what I mean when I suggest that governments have no idea what they are doing when it comes to “managing” the climate. In some respects I would not trust governments to run a whelk stall. To suggest that they can manage the climate would be a good music hall joke were it not so costly. Worse than this, the Great (but Gullible) British Public are hoodwinked into believing absolute rubbish whenever this topic is raised. Children believe we are all going to suffocate; adults believe all the polar bears will starve or drown and that the Maldives will disappear under the Indian Ocean next week. The great diesel car fiasco demonstrates this perfectly.
wind turbines! the saviour of the UK's energy gap! and green too!
.....well actually, the jury's out on that
http://
.....well actually, the jury's out on that
http://
The Maldives are certainly one of the first places that will be under threat should sea levels rise; polar bears are certainly one of the first species that will lose a habitat should the Arctic sea ice melt. Neither of these is going to happen "next week", but the idea that these aren't things to be concerned about is pretty risible -- especially if you are a polar bear or live on the Maldives.
Last figures I can see suggest that the polar bear population is fairly stable, if not growing -- but, perhaps, they're moving to different places from before and aren't so visible as far south as they used to roam. The current sea level rise in the Maldives appears to be such that it will finally go under by some time in 3100, rather than 2100, although current rates are again deceptive if, as feared by some, there exists a "tipping point" in climate patterns when human activity starts to drive far more monstrous natural climate change sources.
If some adults and some children exaggerate massively the dangers, that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be concerned about on a more realistic level. For many here, they'll probably have passed on long before we find out one way or another.
Last figures I can see suggest that the polar bear population is fairly stable, if not growing -- but, perhaps, they're moving to different places from before and aren't so visible as far south as they used to roam. The current sea level rise in the Maldives appears to be such that it will finally go under by some time in 3100, rather than 2100, although current rates are again deceptive if, as feared by some, there exists a "tipping point" in climate patterns when human activity starts to drive far more monstrous natural climate change sources.
If some adults and some children exaggerate massively the dangers, that doesn't mean that there isn't something to be concerned about on a more realistic level. For many here, they'll probably have passed on long before we find out one way or another.
jim360
You are clearly a well intentioned individual who is concerned about the environment. I am too. Greatly as at happens. Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] concerns me as does Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW]. By the way, these two hypothetical events are not the same thing as I'm sure you can appreciate.
When "global warming" changed to "climate change" [ACC and CACC] I was deeply concerned. The climate has always changed. Clearly it has since we emerged from an Ice Age around 12,000 years ago and more recently, the "Little Ice Age" ended in around 1850.
This briefest or brief histories leads us to your comment that, "... polar bears are certainly one of the first species that will lose a habitat should the Arctic sea ice melt. Neither of these is going to happen "next week", but the idea that these aren't things to be concerned about is pretty risible..."
The only thing "risible" is your assumption. I assume that you are aware of recent periods in Earth's history called the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and The Holocene Climatic Optimum? All of these periods were warmer than today and by a considerable amount (and in the latter example lasted a couple of thousand years) and yet the Polar Bears are still with us today. They didn't die out. They didn't become extinct. They survived.
You further state, "... The current sea level rise in the Maldives appears to be such that it will finally go under by some time in 3100, rather than 2100, although current rates are again deceptive if, as feared by some, there exists a "tipping point" in climate patterns when human activity starts to drive far more monstrous natural climate change sources..."
Sea level rise is rising at about 2mm a year on average. This is not unusual nor it is catastrophic nor is it dangerous. The Maldives are not being inundated. Nor is anywhere else. The sea level rise we can measure is simply a result of us emerging from the aforementioned Ice Age 12,000 years ago. Your claim that a "tipping point" may be reached in the near future is simply not true.
Every empirical measurement that we can and do take says that the sea levels are NOT rising precipitously, that global temperatures are NOT increasing (RSS satellite data shows that there has been no global warming for approximately 18 years), the oceans are NOT turning acidic (which is a risible claim) and that species are NOT becoming extinct because of AGW, CAGW, ACC or CACC.
I like the acronym CACC. It has a ring to it somehow.
You are clearly a well intentioned individual who is concerned about the environment. I am too. Greatly as at happens. Anthropogenic Global Warming [AGW] concerns me as does Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW]. By the way, these two hypothetical events are not the same thing as I'm sure you can appreciate.
When "global warming" changed to "climate change" [ACC and CACC] I was deeply concerned. The climate has always changed. Clearly it has since we emerged from an Ice Age around 12,000 years ago and more recently, the "Little Ice Age" ended in around 1850.
This briefest or brief histories leads us to your comment that, "... polar bears are certainly one of the first species that will lose a habitat should the Arctic sea ice melt. Neither of these is going to happen "next week", but the idea that these aren't things to be concerned about is pretty risible..."
The only thing "risible" is your assumption. I assume that you are aware of recent periods in Earth's history called the Medieval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period and The Holocene Climatic Optimum? All of these periods were warmer than today and by a considerable amount (and in the latter example lasted a couple of thousand years) and yet the Polar Bears are still with us today. They didn't die out. They didn't become extinct. They survived.
You further state, "... The current sea level rise in the Maldives appears to be such that it will finally go under by some time in 3100, rather than 2100, although current rates are again deceptive if, as feared by some, there exists a "tipping point" in climate patterns when human activity starts to drive far more monstrous natural climate change sources..."
Sea level rise is rising at about 2mm a year on average. This is not unusual nor it is catastrophic nor is it dangerous. The Maldives are not being inundated. Nor is anywhere else. The sea level rise we can measure is simply a result of us emerging from the aforementioned Ice Age 12,000 years ago. Your claim that a "tipping point" may be reached in the near future is simply not true.
Every empirical measurement that we can and do take says that the sea levels are NOT rising precipitously, that global temperatures are NOT increasing (RSS satellite data shows that there has been no global warming for approximately 18 years), the oceans are NOT turning acidic (which is a risible claim) and that species are NOT becoming extinct because of AGW, CAGW, ACC or CACC.
I like the acronym CACC. It has a ring to it somehow.
@vetuste_ennemi
Your Search engine results may vary..
http://
Your Search engine results may vary..
http://
"Your claim that a "tipping point" may be reached in the near future is simply not true. "
Almost by definition, since it's going to happen in the future, you can't know that it's not true. It's possible, I'm not really sure how likely it is though. My expectation is that it's a worst-case scenario and so not all that likely.
The last 18 years have also included several of the warmest on record, so that the world hasn't warmed up all that much during that time is quoting only half of the data, and potentially rather misleading. At this point I think Climate Scientists far more experienced than I am will admit puzzlement. At a guess -- and it is only a guess -- the pause in warming is probably related to competition between the expected warming human activity would have induced, and other cycles that would have served to reduce the temperature without that signal. You might be sensible to take that with a pinch of salt but it doesn't seem too unreasonable as an explanation.
With respect to the polar bears, I pointed out in my own post that their numbers were currently stable or rising, so I'm not unaware of the fact that as yet no species are under imminent threat of extinction from GW, anthropogenic or otherwise. It is simply that if the world were to continue to heat up then it follows naturally that animals whose natural habitat is colder would be the first to be threatened; similarly, if sea-level rise ever started to dramatically increase, then the Maldives would be the first to go, being only a handful of metres above current sea level. So far as I can see, neither of these is particularly likely to happen for some time to come, but if we were both wrong about that then they'd be the first victims.
Humans, anyway, have other techniques besides global warming for eradicating species from the planet...
Almost by definition, since it's going to happen in the future, you can't know that it's not true. It's possible, I'm not really sure how likely it is though. My expectation is that it's a worst-case scenario and so not all that likely.
The last 18 years have also included several of the warmest on record, so that the world hasn't warmed up all that much during that time is quoting only half of the data, and potentially rather misleading. At this point I think Climate Scientists far more experienced than I am will admit puzzlement. At a guess -- and it is only a guess -- the pause in warming is probably related to competition between the expected warming human activity would have induced, and other cycles that would have served to reduce the temperature without that signal. You might be sensible to take that with a pinch of salt but it doesn't seem too unreasonable as an explanation.
With respect to the polar bears, I pointed out in my own post that their numbers were currently stable or rising, so I'm not unaware of the fact that as yet no species are under imminent threat of extinction from GW, anthropogenic or otherwise. It is simply that if the world were to continue to heat up then it follows naturally that animals whose natural habitat is colder would be the first to be threatened; similarly, if sea-level rise ever started to dramatically increase, then the Maldives would be the first to go, being only a handful of metres above current sea level. So far as I can see, neither of these is particularly likely to happen for some time to come, but if we were both wrong about that then they'd be the first victims.
Humans, anyway, have other techniques besides global warming for eradicating species from the planet...
Micronesia had a rough year a while back but see opening couple of paragraphs here:
http://
a La Niña year with higher sea temperatures expanding the ocean, plus moon at closest approach of the year plus earth at closest approach to the sun (of an 18 year cycle) plus trade winds adding 'heaping' effect plus wave heights on top.
BBC showed footage of saltwater ruining their farmland and/or bubbling up in their back yard but mentioned none of the above unusual combination of factors, span it as "sea level rise" as if it was going to be an annual event. No follow-up stories, of course and they can rely on our short memories, even when we do share environmental concerns with them, to sweep that mistake under the carpet.
http://
a La Niña year with higher sea temperatures expanding the ocean, plus moon at closest approach of the year plus earth at closest approach to the sun (of an 18 year cycle) plus trade winds adding 'heaping' effect plus wave heights on top.
BBC showed footage of saltwater ruining their farmland and/or bubbling up in their back yard but mentioned none of the above unusual combination of factors, span it as "sea level rise" as if it was going to be an annual event. No follow-up stories, of course and they can rely on our short memories, even when we do share environmental concerns with them, to sweep that mistake under the carpet.
So far, only James E Hansen seems to think that we have already passed the tipping point, in April 2008 at 385ppm.
This page was last edited three years ago and doesn't mention the exceeding of 400ppm which was this year.
https:/
Has anyone mentioned methane clathrate yet? Anyone mentioned melting permafrost yeilding methane?
Funny word, 'permafrost'. You'd be forgiven for thinking it meant permanent.
Patronisation aside, the fact that it is usually frozen *peat bog* at high latitude is, serpently, evidence of the very warm periods (Eocene?) of the prehistoric past.
The trouble there is that all that fossil carbon was safely tucked underground at the time; had been for about 300 million years, in some cases. (For a laugh, try getting cap rock age data from an oil company).
Small tap or not, this carbon is ancient and the next upswing of the "natural cycle" is going to be a real scorcher. The habitable latitude range is going to be narrow, however far north it may shift.
See also "Earth Story" with Aubrey Manning. Specifically the bit with the wing cases of a mediterranean species of beetle in excavation in northern England.
This page was last edited three years ago and doesn't mention the exceeding of 400ppm which was this year.
https:/
Has anyone mentioned methane clathrate yet? Anyone mentioned melting permafrost yeilding methane?
Funny word, 'permafrost'. You'd be forgiven for thinking it meant permanent.
Patronisation aside, the fact that it is usually frozen *peat bog* at high latitude is, serpently, evidence of the very warm periods (Eocene?) of the prehistoric past.
The trouble there is that all that fossil carbon was safely tucked underground at the time; had been for about 300 million years, in some cases. (For a laugh, try getting cap rock age data from an oil company).
Small tap or not, this carbon is ancient and the next upswing of the "natural cycle" is going to be a real scorcher. The habitable latitude range is going to be narrow, however far north it may shift.
See also "Earth Story" with Aubrey Manning. Specifically the bit with the wing cases of a mediterranean species of beetle in excavation in northern England.
-- answer removed --
@divebuddy
You can write to your MP about that. Don't look to us if you want change at the string-pulling level.
Just remember that "requests for funding" means that you are approaching the authorities with a begging bowl in your hands. Beggars, famously, cannot be choosers.
If you fund it yourself, you can research anything you want. It would annoy me immensely if things got labelled "fringe" merely due to not being funded by "the orthodoxy". When I say fringe I exclusively mean "way out there" science - stuff that fails peer review.
Oil companies have oodles of money. I am puzzled by the way we are not overflowing with "no warming" research papers, which are passing peer review. Instead, IPCC keeps saying 96% or 98% (of? I forget if it was signatories or the global pool of climate researchers) agree it is real.
You can write to your MP about that. Don't look to us if you want change at the string-pulling level.
Just remember that "requests for funding" means that you are approaching the authorities with a begging bowl in your hands. Beggars, famously, cannot be choosers.
If you fund it yourself, you can research anything you want. It would annoy me immensely if things got labelled "fringe" merely due to not being funded by "the orthodoxy". When I say fringe I exclusively mean "way out there" science - stuff that fails peer review.
Oil companies have oodles of money. I am puzzled by the way we are not overflowing with "no warming" research papers, which are passing peer review. Instead, IPCC keeps saying 96% or 98% (of? I forget if it was signatories or the global pool of climate researchers) agree it is real.
In all seriousness, research funding can be a tricky thing. There is undoubtedly some bias built into the system. The bias is usually, but not always, driven by what's known to be a promising line of research. And the science of Climate Change is a promising line of research currently, as a) it's very widely accepted, and b) even if it turns out to be hooey after all, developing better computer models and developing greener sources of energy is still a worthwhile exercise.
And the fact is that human-induced global warming, as a recent effect on global temperatures, is almost universally accepted as correct and robust science, passing the tests applied to other, less controversial, scientific orthodoxies. Because of its potential major impact on national and international policies and economies, for sure the theory shouldn't be accepted blindly, and the scrutiny is as ever important -- and boy do I wish people would stop making impending apocalypse predictions -- but the main point, that human activity is unsustainable and is having an impact, is at this point no longer a point of real debate. The chief question remaining is what we should do about it, and when. Sadly, there is no agreement on that, and won't be for some time to come.
And the fact is that human-induced global warming, as a recent effect on global temperatures, is almost universally accepted as correct and robust science, passing the tests applied to other, less controversial, scientific orthodoxies. Because of its potential major impact on national and international policies and economies, for sure the theory shouldn't be accepted blindly, and the scrutiny is as ever important -- and boy do I wish people would stop making impending apocalypse predictions -- but the main point, that human activity is unsustainable and is having an impact, is at this point no longer a point of real debate. The chief question remaining is what we should do about it, and when. Sadly, there is no agreement on that, and won't be for some time to come.
-- answer removed --
All the oil and coal was also still underground during the medieval warm period. I cannot recall what the trigger for that was and will need to read up on that too.
Most recent Little Ice Age is associated with (careful choice of words: not claiming cause and effect) the Maunder Minimum (q.v.) - a prolonged dearth of sunspots. Shades of other-Corbyn there. Ooh-errr!
Saharan cave paintings suggestive of a lost civilisation depicting people swimming in lakes, cattle and farming activity are another hint at past climate changes. I suspect that desertification set in when the atmospheric convection patterns shifted into a new stable state that persists to the present day: -
https:/
I cannot even theorise whether warming or cooling is required to make it snap back into that previous condition and turn the desert green.
I also don't know if this culture was contemporaneous with the last time the UK had a mediterranean-type climate. If the hot blast which currently dries the Sahara moves north, over the Med or the Alps, say, then maybe the Sahara region cooled to a temperature more commensurate with its latitude (sun angle, more cloud cover etc.)
But the cave paintings could have been merely the daydreams of a drought-afflicted dying population. Ground penetrating radar has shown old river deltas now buried under sand but, apart from that, corroborative evidence is thin on the ground.
Most recent Little Ice Age is associated with (careful choice of words: not claiming cause and effect) the Maunder Minimum (q.v.) - a prolonged dearth of sunspots. Shades of other-Corbyn there. Ooh-errr!
Saharan cave paintings suggestive of a lost civilisation depicting people swimming in lakes, cattle and farming activity are another hint at past climate changes. I suspect that desertification set in when the atmospheric convection patterns shifted into a new stable state that persists to the present day: -
https:/
I cannot even theorise whether warming or cooling is required to make it snap back into that previous condition and turn the desert green.
I also don't know if this culture was contemporaneous with the last time the UK had a mediterranean-type climate. If the hot blast which currently dries the Sahara moves north, over the Med or the Alps, say, then maybe the Sahara region cooled to a temperature more commensurate with its latitude (sun angle, more cloud cover etc.)
But the cave paintings could have been merely the daydreams of a drought-afflicted dying population. Ground penetrating radar has shown old river deltas now buried under sand but, apart from that, corroborative evidence is thin on the ground.
