Fergus Brown

Useful live blog: http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Weather_4 The main news site also has some footage. One report says gusts to 360 kph!

If it hadn't been for the ridiculous inflation of the PV market due to original Feed in Tariff, people in the UK might have gone for solar thermal, which IMO is a much better technology for this country, since it supports cheaper heating, rather than relatively inefficient energy generation. That guy had it worked out!

Yes, that argument is often used. The reality is that Renewables compete on an unfair playing field, where fossil fuels - specifically Coal - are more heavily subsidised. But Coal is the cheapest way to generate large amounts of energy, if you don't take into account the environmental cost. Since it is hard to put a price on this, the end effect is that utilities are under no pressure to change their energy mix. The real issue with renewables in the UK is that the most efficient and cost effective - onshore wind - is the most politically and personally divisive. On a fair comparison, it compares with Gas in cost terms, and is cheaper than nuclear or solar by a long way. But it's about six times more expensive than coal. Of course, if new tech like 'clean coal' is used, the cost of energy goes up. If there was a more realistic levy on coal burning which reflected the social, pollution and climate damage it was doing, then there might be more motivation to change the mix. The main driver for energy policy in this country seems to be 1; the need to keep foreign investment on board, since none of the big six is UK owned/controlled, and 2: the preservation of investors' dividends.

Changing the subject (but still more or less on theme); I'd appreciate feedback/opinion/derision on a new(ish) idea I am developing at the moment about the communication of environment issues: http://whogoeswithfergus.blogspot.co.uk/ All (literally, all) and any thoughts very much welcomed...

It is also a strange notion - that science is no more than 'ideas which are dressed up as facts'. Yes, science requires hypothesis, but this is only a part of what science does. The really important bits include measurement, observation and analysis, which are facts, aren't they? It is healthy to be cautious about placing too much trust in speculative science - this is real skepticism. But generally speaking, most of the speculation comes from the media mis-reporting of science, rather than the work itself. It is risky for a scientist to indulge in unfounded speculation so this tends to be avoided, or parsed in very cautious terms, to avoid misunderstanding. OTOH, what part of physics as represented in climate science is speculation rather than observed, tested and verified fact? (serious question)

This is not strictly about the topic of this thread - it's about the bigger picture (e.g, the sort of thing Tamara and I agree matters). It's not very long and it is not about AGW: http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/10/science-says-revolt

Keith's baseline concept - that there is more CO2 in the global system budget than we put there, is a fact. The conclusions from this fact are, however, open to challenge. What is relevant is not how much there is, but how much more there is - in other words, the systemic imbalance of the atmospheric CO2 budget. Which is what accounts for recent temperature changes. Side note; the article estimates that a certain type of subsea volcanic activity, which might produce around 2.5 -5.5 million tonnes of CO2 a year, is not otherwise accounted for in the global budget of subsea volcanic activity (not atmospheric CO2). This compares to the estimated 29,000 million tonnes of atmospheric anthropogenic CO2 to date. What is the relation between the first and the second?

This is interesting: http://www.glaciology.net/Home/Miscellaneous-Debris/comparisonofsealevelprojections

GW, Had a look into the most recent work on this. There are two different scenarios to consider: first, the steady, increasing, semi-permanent and persistent increase of CH4 in the atmosphere. Under this scenario, there would be an increasing contribution to warming on certain timescales, but the amount is still relatively lower than the contribution of CO2. The other scenario, which is also considered in the AR5, is the 'methane burst' situation. The suggestion is that, under some circumstances, it might be possible that an exceptionally large amount of methane is emitted into the atmosphere over a short period (decadal scale). In this event, the whole system would see a sudden increase in temperatures at an almost unimaginable speed. And then there would be the longer term feedbacks resulting from this. Scenario one is identifiably and measurably in progress and has been for some time now. There's no reason to believe it will slow down - on the contrary, it is most likely to continue increasing for centuries yet. Scenario two is harder to evaluate, since it would represent a 'chaotic' (ie, non-standard) event. Current assessments swing from 'it's not determinable' to 'it's not likely'. Can't see anything which says 'it's not possible'. Potential prime candidate for a causal agent of a methane burst is most likely either Fracking in the Gulf of Mexico, or subsea-sub-bottom exploration/activity in parts of the Arctic. I don't think it's appropriate to consider an evaluation of this potential risk as 'alarmist'. It's just common sense to try to understand it and place it in context. If you stand in the middle of an empty road, there is a risk that a truck will run you down. The longer you stand there, the more the cumulative risk increases. Getting out of the road at some point isn't 'alarmist', it's common sense.

It sounds very much like what matters here then is the Equlibrium Climate Sensitivity (the net balance of all know positive and negative forcings, and their uncertainties, in the event of a doubling of CO2). You are right to point out that this is one of the key 'open topics' in the assessment of the impacts of AGW. There are a number of studies, and a broad range of agreement, but the resulting estimates (and they must, to date, be estimates) do vary quite widely. What I can not find is a credible study which estimates ECS as nothing, or negative. But this is a really important thing to get to grips with. Personally, I find the attribution chapter of the AR5 helpful in letting me get to grips with the issues and uncertainties, based on the work of people who are specialists and know what they are doing.

I agree with you that there are powerful reasons to act on certain things, like deforestation, which are definitively negative. The double benefit of this kind of action is that it produces a positive outcome irrespective of the AGW debate, but also, in the event that AGW turns out to be true, also acts to mitigate on this, so it's a global win-win. It's a bit trickier with ocean acidification. This looks pretty much sure to be the consequence of CO2 emissions. Given enough time, the oceans would probably rebalance, but that would be over hundreds of years or more. As things stand, we have to deal with the current reality and consider whether we want to reduce the amount of future acidification. Which would require emissions controls. I promise you I am not automatically accepting the science theory of the time. I've spent eight years reading, researching and communicating on the subject. When I wanted third party verification, I asked 1800+ scientists what they thought of the AR4, and their answer collectively was pretty unequivocal. That helped to sway my view. I wouldn't describe my attitude to the Attribution chapter as 'attunement' - I can see gaps, uncertainties and questions which still remain to be answered. But I do accept the processes and procedures which go towards providing a balanced (if somewhat conservative) assessment of what most research, most of the time, is telling us about our relationship with climate. Which all goes to show that there are other reasons, besides AGW, for us to do important things which, regardless of AGW, are good things to do. The BIG question is whether these things could be enough, in the event that, for whatever reason, the planet did actually end up warming by 2c by the end of the century. Don't know...

Its not a personalised post Devonian. It is a general overview in terms of appraising ALL the forcings that could contribute to climate variation. There is research into both yes, but the gist of what i said is that much more equanimity and open mindedness is required in bringing balance of opinion Hi Tamara, IMO, the chapter of the AR5 which deals with Attribution shows a considered, balanced approach to all the potential forcings. I'd like to claim that the conclusions are all unequivocal but this would be untrue - within the assessment there are considerable variables which matter. What is unequivocal, however, is that there is no alternative way of accounting for much the change in climate since 1850 than 'anthropogenic' contributions. The interesting questions should be about - given that we are changing our planet in ways which result, collectively, in a warming climate - are there changes we can make, collectively, to the way we deal with forests, water resources, energy generation, which could help reduce the potential future impacts? What should we spend our present wealth on for future benefit? What responsibility should we be taking now, for effects that we will never see? Are we, irrespective of all good intentions, basically damned? These are interesting issues, and the best answers depend on the view we take on things like the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity of the Global System, the relative regional and global impact of different mitigation strategies, but, for me, most importantly, whether we, in this generation and this life, are willing to take responsibility for the decisions we make (or fail to make) now.

Hi all. The IPCC report is a SYNTHESIS . The lead scientists and principal scientists on each section are highly-respected, experienced and competent specialists whose reputations are founded on a track record of sound, meaningful science. These people review THOUSANDS of papers from thousands of other scientists and present their findings to nearly 200 political representatives of governments, who then argue the toss about the wording or detail of pretty much every line, until everyone is satisfied with all of it. The scientists who make contributions to the various chapters are generally paid faculty members of Universities or Instituitions. Like all of us, they make a living doing a job which is paid for by their students (directly or indirectly). The work they do for the IPCC reports is unpaid and voluntary. It is potentially reputation-enhancing, but the burden is huge and disproportionate to any 'reward' . Pretty much ALL of the 'natural' and 'anthropogenic' forcings of climate are researched, evaluated and considered in the WG1 section of the AR5. The conclusions about the relative impacts of these are carefully presented. Then, as with all good science, further research is conducted to improve understanding of each and all of these elements of 'climate'. This is not 'fudging'; it is the process of science. The last ten years have been the warmest ten on record. The previous decade was the next warmest, the previous decade the next warmest. etcetera.

Is it really not possible to actually have a conversation about this subject with someone who has a different opinion without it declining into farce? This is an important issue, and understanding it (or at least, wanting/trying to) is worthwhile and fairly normal. Is there anyone who reads these threads who actually believes they don't know for certain what to think, or is everyone talking into a void of other people's certainty? Grrrr

I'm guessing that Scotland is not geologically suited to cost-effective fracking. It's easy for politicians to decide not to do something that probably won't be done anyway. Could be wrong, haven't checked.

Hi JP, not being aggressive here, honest, but it looks (from a broad sample of your posts) like you are basically just link dumping. I am, honestly, much more interested in what you, personally, think. It's always nicer to feel like one is actually in conversation with another, genuine, person. For example, Do you, personally, think that there is evidence that the global climate is warming in the christmas pudding?

Planting more trees is excellent! Deforestation is a really important issue and there is no question that, as part of a mitigation strategy, it has numerous merits. The role of forestry and vegetation is often understated in all the arguments about coal etc, and it is a serious problem which deserves being championed for a whole number of good reasons, not least that lots more forest is better for reducing the ever-growing export of CO2 into the atmosphere. Sadly, it is unrealistic to hope that burning wood on an industrial scale would help with the energy mix; the unbelievably vast quantity of wood that would be required to satisfy our energy consumption means that we'd soon be denuding the planet in response to demand. Check out the quantity of wood required to service even a modest power plant like Drax. Biomass burning has a role and a value, but can't work on the scale we need.

J, I'm genuinely disappointed, though not surprised - there's never enough time. OTOH, even a first glance at the first bit might help - since there is no obligation or cost involved, why not sign up anyway and decide later whether you have the time or desire to actually do it...

Good spot, Kiwi. Could be fun...

Hi MIA, I am sure that you know really that the average of a series can be expressed in decimals larger than those expressed in the individual data. Alternative context: amount of heat/energy being absorbed into the ocean = about 4 Hiroshima bombs a day. Can I modestly suggest that the material you appear to be reading is not necessarily 'balanced' without being accused of something? Are you going to do the free course on climate change?

Stew, honestly! There is no year of recovery; If there was such a thing it would make no difference; A new normal... 2013 is part of a new normal, yes? So remind me, absent CO2, why this is happening? One plausible alternative explanation? Note: the paper points out that small perturbations in the Arctic produce large self-amplifying feedbacks. Where do they say there is no relation between GW and the observed changes?

Read and shudder: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/article/66/10/10.1063/PT.3.2147 What, exactly, is there an argument about?

Some will already be aware of this, but I think it merits a separate thread. The University of Chicago is running an 8 week MOOC (Massive Online Open Course) for non-scientists about climate change. The direct link to the course is here: https://www.coursera.org/course/globalwarming This is a fabulous opportunity for absolutely anyone who has an interest in the subject, or doubts about the science, to learn the basics and understand how it all works. It is FREE. You don't have to buy anything. You can drop out if you want. You don't need any qualifications (though they suggest basic maths). It's a few hours effort a week. If, like me, you are a non-scientist who has personal opinions and ideas about AGW, or whatever, there is absolutely no reason for you not to sign up and learn. If you complete the course you get a certificate of achievement and a new-found confidence in all your discussions about the pros and cons of this important subject. I've already signed up. Who else?

Sorry, SI, you have me confused. Are you saying that the many pieces of research based on the ARGO data have failed to notice that it isn't working? Or that the people running the program have missed this? Seems rather counter-intuitive to me. You keep mentioning 'missing heat', but now you have been shown where the heat is in the system, you seem to be suggesting that the tools which have measured this are somehow unreliable. Measuring the ocean's temperature at all levels shows us what that temperature is, which allows us to run a time series and compare measurements over an extended period of time. The upper layer is most relevant because it responds most rapidly to atmospheric changes, and because it is where that temperature (or a proportion of it, is released back into the atmosphere. These measurement over time show clearly that there is more heat in the ocean now than there was before - ie, it is warming. Not by coincidence, when you add the amount of the increase in Ocean Heat Content to the amount of the Atmospheric Heat you end up with a result which matches the Global heat imbalance very closely. Hence my statement ; 'there is no 'missing' heat'.

Northern Hemisphere. Not Global. Apparently there are some flaws in the paper, but this does not mean it should be dismissed unless you have a reason (ie, an analysis of the paper) which offers a serious contradiction. Note: elsewhere there is material on the recent slowdown of the AMOC and changes to the NAO. NAO fits broadly into natural variation, most likely - AMOC it's hard to say yet - not enough data/ analysis yet. If these are persistent, then regional scale cooling should be expected. Just in case anyone thought otherwise, the paper does not say at any stage that there is a pause in GW. Because the authors know there isn't.