The Penguin

The problem is that Britain, as an example, operates in a world economy and relies on success in that arena for the comfort to which we have all become accustomed. Also, the British people and the British Government believe, or would like to believe, that Britain is a major power in global affairs. I think it’s pretty well understood that getting serious about restrictive legislation to reduce our contribution to anthropogenic global warming (if it really is responsible) would, if done in isolation, lead to a recessive economy and a drop down the world economic league. In that context it is not so hard to understand why taking our foot off the power pedal is not currently a vote winner, or even a manifesto objective. Last year, led by SF, there was a fairly lengthy and detailed discussion about the individual’s responsibility to the common good. Similarly, until there is no other way out, this applies to national politics too. Having said that, nobody can have missed the fervour with which the media is focusing on climate change issues at the moment. Maybe with that, or an increased level of attention this issue could become people driven rather than government driven.

P3, TWS, TM, I don’t think you’ll have to wait (and wait, and wait,) for a North Atlantic shut down to achieve the effect you desire. As the USA is currently one of the biggest blockers in relation to climate sensitive planning, all you would need would be four or five years of Gulf Coast flattening or flooding, or two or three years of Washington DC being covered in ten feet of snow, and I bet you would see a step-change in world environmental activity.

I completely agree, TM, with your thoughts regarding government leadership, or lack of. Politics in democratic countries is a five-year game, played to disturb the lives of the people as little as possible. I think most of the population in the informed countries of the world acknowledge Climate Change as a phenomenon, but not one that seriously disadvantages them, at least at the moment, while the concept of Global Warming (anthropological or otherwise) is mostly seen as either another from of media hype or a confusing mish-mash of scientific blow-off. Worse still, in totalitarian countries there is no need what so ever for the government to listen to peoples’ concerns. However, I’m not sure that anyone has to be overly pessimistic as yet. After all nobody knows for sure where in the cycle we are right now and there is no sign of immediate catastrophe. This gives us time to monitor and learn more over the next couple of decades, whilst further confirming climate trends at the same time. In the meantime, who knows, maybe environmental nurturing will become fashionable. Then the politicians will jump on the windmill.

Parmenides3, I couldn’t get your posted site to open, however I did trawl about a bit and was interested to see that consensus in terms of location, severity, criticality, and timescale is still some way off. This kind of reinforced my original thought, which was as we are still in a monitoring and learning phase how can we be certain of outcomes. Going back to the original question though, I subscribe to the view that Climate Change is a given fact, because we know that historically the planet’s climate has changed, whereas Global Warming is only the current phase of Climate Change as acknowledged by most people in most countries of the world,

Okay, but who’s estimates (guesses) and based on what, currently? I only ask because even though a certain argument can certainly lose credence from over repetition or, possibly, poorly structured language (not to be confused with poorly constructed analysis,) it doesn’t mean that the core hypothesis might not contain a strand or two of truth. Although I freely admit whether this falls into the categories of probable or possible is obviously a valid topic of debate.

Yes I will. Again.

Sorry, the above is wrong. The graph only relates to December - February CET’s and therefore the scale is actual temperature in deg.C.

As far as I can tell, it is degrees C (edit: as a variation). But it kind of illustrates the point – why for instance is the Zero line where it is?

Oh, Peter. Peter, Peter, Peter, Peter. It’s just a graph. An interesting expression of an idea, but still only a visual representation of statistics. The content, duration, frequency, amplitude, scale and notation, (or lack of,) are chosen to prove a point – right or wrong doesn’t matter, as it’ll never truly be either. What matters is that it’s pretty. Just enjoy it and absolve yourself from the responsibility of critical analysis. And the headache will go away. For instance, below is an extended version that includes the same data, which might suggest a different interpretation.

Your last comment may be interpreted as sacralege.

Precisely, JC. The great thing about Ikea furniture is that it’s simple and fashionable. Of course, the problem with Ikea furniture is also that it’s simple and fashionable. The same can be said for the ‘I Know Everything Always’ type of argument, as it tends to pick up on the simple (purportedly incontrovertible) elements of a fashionable point of view and present them as absolute facts. Some climate change proponents’ offerings are very often reminiscent of that ultimately unsatisfying product.

I’m wearing my sceptical hat and am wondering whether the use of David Attenborough gives this, admittedly very interesting, series more gravitas than it deserves. Mr. A. is after all well known for his global travels and longstanding association with educational programmes relating to the planet, its environment and wildlife, and human influence on both. I’m sorry to have missed the end of last nights episode and therefore don’t know whether he only presented the piece or was involved in the writing, direction or production. I’d be interested to know though, as it would colour my opinion. Taking off the hat, I was impressed by a couple of figures he quoted; the variation in temperature figures up and down from the recent historical norm which in turn brought about either extended ice age conditions or replaced these with inter ice age periods. If I remember correctly he stated that the last ice age was predicated on global temperatures only two degrees centigrade lower than ‘normal’ while the opposite condition is fed on global temps around four degrees higher than ‘normal’. I suppose the worry is, as we don’t really know how wide the margin is within which the planet can self regulate, that there could at some point be a compendium of events that takes us beyond remediation capacity. My other slightly more cynical worry is that a programme like this can only re-tell what we think we already know, and is probably edited to an extent that much is lost – whether with bias or not. By definition, we are unlikely to be presented with a similar programme telling us what we don’t know and what other dynamics may be ongoing to influence climate change. Sure, there are pieces of the jigsaw on the table but I am one of those who doesn’t pretend to know what fraction of the total picture is there, and I am therefore not quite cocky enough to guess what the picture is yet.

Interestingly, the U.S. Met have warned of another very active hurricane season on the way, with possibly half a dozen of these expected to be significant storms. I’m not any kind of expert on this but I would assume that a warmer western Atlantic would provide suitable conditions for energising storm activity.

Hey, all I need is a 200 feet rise in sea level and I'll be living at the sea-side, with a lovely view over Glasgow Bay!

Geeeeeee-Zeus! Biggest thunder and lightning storm in Glasgow that I can ever remember. North, south, east and west of here, and directly overhead, huge glaringly bright flashes of both fork and sheet lightning and thunder that rattled the windows – from up to fifteen miles away, I guess. Astounding!

I suppose it depends where you are. Hereabouts, a long-term water shortage is defined as getting to the shops and back without getting soaked. I also suppose that if an extended dry spell occurred in the southeast, to the extent that drinking water became in short supply, then that would be in the long term. I don’t know whether that would take months or years of relative dry weather but I further suppose it would be quicker resolved by people dispersing from London than have them wait for local or national politicians do anything about providing adequate water supplies.

I suspect that the current lack of rain in some parts of the UK is due to temporary synoptical rather than permanent global irregularities, and therefore will not lead to long-term problems. On the other hand, it happens that the most populated area of the UK is also one of the driest, and it may be that population increase, rather than precipitation decrease, could well lead to substantial water shortages until infrastructure strategy catches up.

I’m sorry to digress but this reminds me of a ‘wildlife diary’ that a past captain at my golf club initiated a few years ago. It started well with rabbits, squirrels, foxes, deer, herons, woodpeckers etc being diligently entered. However, then a potbellied pig, a panther, herds of wildebeest, and . . .em. . . a penguin found their way onto the hallowed pages. The diary was withdrawn.

Hoorah! On the subject of temperature records, it's worth keeping in mind that although what we take to be accurate records are multi-sourced, the published figures are manipulated to iron out anomalies. Without prejudice, this introduces personal views of what constitutes an anomaly. And as we're only talking about a fraction of One Degree Cee this could be a material concern.

Are we though? That seems to be the single most disputed proposition throughout these discussions – in fact this entire forum, ‘Environment change’, is kept going almost purely around that debate. (Excluding obviously the lobbyists who either believe “yesterday was chilly so global warming is balderdash” or “last winter was remarkably mild so we’re all going to hell”.) Most people recognise that weather in the recent past has been different from previously, I grant you, but how and why and (possibly, just possibly,) by whom this was initiated is still open to debate. Or at least I hope it is.

I worked on a farm for a year after leaving school and, as SF points out, I have to tell you that diary cows actually produce milk 2x24/7, whether they want to or not, poor dears. This is what makes being a dairy farmer such a pain in the udders. They do come off production when they've got a calf, and I can only be sure about cows in our latitudes, but in general they're milked twice a day, every day.

Nice graph. Interestingly, (apologies if this has been noted before and explained, but I must have missed it,) at the same time as a pretty consistent correlation is illustrated between temperature and CO2 levels there is also a similarly consistent regime of time lag from temperature change to apparent adjustment in CO2. For most of the period described CO2 content is affected by temperature change rather than the other way round.

Absolutely correct. Beginning to end. Totally agree TWS. People should also think about the efffect on marginal, subsistence style populations if the more technologically advanced community regresses. Nice link, Scribbler.

Not here yet. Some trees have the beginnings of buds and some early bulbs have flowered, but apart from that - zilch.

On the other hand, the last time this happened it created a very picturesque geographical feature called the Gulf of Mexico. You know, where the Stream comes from. And if it were to make another Stream . . . . . . . . . . Oh God, I’m at it now. I’m sorry. Really sorry.