Mexico climate change conference finishes ...

[parmenides3]

Am I the only one thinking that three threads at once is a bit much?

Where can we bring all this stuff togethr?

:)P

[Essan]

I am not sure about the other misdemeanours - I assume this is a political point - but if you are saying that AGW helps divert public attention away from more pressing or more relevant real world problems, of course you have a point.

I'm mainly talking about things like defforestation. urbanisation, and other land use changes. Look at the Earth from space at night - it's a lot warmer than it used to be ....

But whilst people tell me to install better insulation to reduce the amount of energy used to heat my house (even though the heating only comes on for an hour or 2 in the morning in the height of winter, and the thermostat is set to 16c) - no-one tells the Indonesiasn to stop burning their forests. Or worries about the motorway lights that cover our land.

I agree with you, telling other people to mend their ways, telling us to buy 'better' cars and taxing us (again and again) for consuming, is almost certainly avoiding the main issue. Energy generation is the source of most of the CO2 output in the world. Making the end-user pay for the sins of the producer makes no sense, unless it is to price most of us out of our current lifestyles. But this is an argument about policy, not about AGW.

Energy reduction would be even better.

But that means chnaging our lifestyles. And I don't see any of the big celebrities who tell us to save the world moving ifrom their massive mansions into small 2 bedroom terraces I don't see any TV adverts telling us not to fly.

I have several papers I can post on whether these changes will result in more extremes of weather; this is one of the most researched topics of the past few years. Finally, of course an understanding of the past helps us to understand the present and consider the possibilities for the future, but, the last 12,000 years aside, the level of understanding of what has happened to our climate in the last 500 years is probably now very good. Again, there are plenty of sources of information on this.

I agree the data is there, I'm noptv sure sometimes if everyone involved in the climate debate has put all the pieces together in quite the same way though - hence the continuing saga of the hockey stick and the MWP/LIA And it does look like the early Holocene was globally warmer than today .....

Well, dreadful though it is another part of me thinks we're over-populated and a mass human cull is due. It's the planet's way of restoring the balance. But I don't really want to go there ...

Vastly overpopulated. And every time Mother Earth attempts to enforce a cull, we double our population .

There are twice as many people on Earth today as when I was born. That's very sobering.....

[parmenides3]

I'm mainly talking about things like defforestation. urbanisation, and other land use changes. Look at the Earth from space at night - it's a lot warmer than it used to be ....

But whilst people tell me to install better insulation to reduce the amount of energy used to heat my house (even though the heating only comes on for an hour or 2 in the morning in the height of winter, and the thermostat is set to 16c) - no-one tells the Indonesiasn to stop burning their forests. Or worries about the motorway lights that cover our land.

Energy reduction would be even better.

But that means chnaging our lifestyles. And I don't see any of the big celebrities who tell us to save the world moving ifrom their massive mansions into small 2 bedroom terraces I don't see any TV adverts telling us not to fly.

I agree the data is there, I'm noptv sure sometimes if everyone involved in the climate debate has put all the pieces together in quite the same way though - hence the continuing saga of the hockey stick and the MWP/LIA And it does look like the early Holocene was globally warmer than today .....

Vastly overpopulated. And every time Mother Earth attempts to enforce a cull, we double our population .

There are twice as many people on Earth today as when I was born. That's very sobering.....

Your first point is a good one; there is at least one eminent voice currently arguing that we are as much at risk from the sum toxic effects of environment abuse as we are from AGW, and I have to admit, it looks like he has a point. Urbanisation is a real problem that also has links to CC issues.

I recall John Brunner, in a novel in the 1970's, observing that the entire world could be adequately fed, housed and warmed by the waste and excess produced by the state of California. It's probably still true...

Putting all the pieces together; the IPCC AR4 ? I'll post a couple of examples. Hockey stick? a] proof of AGW does not depend on it, and b] there's almost no debate about it any more - it has been accepted as sound in principle; two committees in the USA this year examined & 'passed' it, for about the fifth time. Early Holocene; maybe, maybe not; why would this show that AGW was not a valid hypothesis?

Population; WHO estimate for 2050 currently 9.2 billion.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Early Holocene; maybe, maybe not; why would this show that AGW was not a valid hypothesis?

I think the point is that AGW camp promote the notion that the world has never been this warm before.

This, of course, is patently untrue, as how hot do you think the Earth was when it was coagulating at the beginning of the solar system? The AGW camp also promote the rate of increase is greater than it ever was before. I find that highly unlikely as well - for a start there's the Yucatin peninsula event. These sort of arguments, in my opinion, should best be avoided. However, there is a need for an accurate picture of historic climate purely to provide the basis of validation and verification of current and future models.

What the AGW camp should be saying is that 'We can acount for all of the historic warming, and we can produce models dervied from natural phenomena to show, and replicate such warming. We cannot account for recent warming, though, unless we include mankind's forcing' Which is, of course, the crux of the matter.

Anyone who wants to argue the non-AGW side of the argument must be able to address this issue, and the only way of doing that is to produce a model that replicates historic climate change and recent warmings whilst omitting mankind's forcing.

Those who support AGW without learning the detail that the model's use (see P3's work for a near thorough collection of current theory) should avoid getting into any argument in an effort to keep the the clarity of the debate and to prevent obfuscating what is, in fact, a very complex issue.

There is, as WiB's has been very forward in pointing out, the issue of the future of our climate. This is, in my opinion, a seperate issue needing seperate models, and seperate ideas (For instance can we recreate last year's weather using GFS? I think it's unlikely)

This is, of course, only my opinion, and is subject to change at any time hitherto, and subsquently without any warning

Edited October 5, 2006 by Wilson

[Essan]

I think the point is that AGW camp promote the notion that the world has never been this warm before.

Yes, that's my only reason for mentioning it. Atm the data available seems to suggest it has been warmer.

Although I'm never entirely sure in these papers what they mean by, for example, "2c warmer than today". Do I have to find out what day they wrote the paper, where they wrote it and what the temp that day was?

Anyone who wants to argue the non-AGW side of the argument must be able to address this issue, and the only way of doing that is to produce a model that replicates historic climate change and recent warmings whilst omitting mankind's forcing.

Exactly!

My biggest gripe with them is that they spend all their time coming up with criticisms of pro-AGW research, but can't produce a coherent alternative theory, backed by models.

Instead we just get mumblings about cosmic rays or sunspots or the NAO or whatever the theory of the week happens to be.....

[VillagePlank]

Deleted primarily for reason of idiocy

Edited October 5, 2006 by Wilson

[parmenides3]

I think the point is that AGW camp promote the notion that the world has never been this warm before.

This, of course, is patently untrue, as how hot do you think the Earth was when it was coagulating at the beginning of the solar system? The AGW camp also promote the rate of increase is greater than it ever was before. I find that highly unlikely as well - for a start there's the Yucatin peninsula event. These sort of arguments, in my opinion, should best be avoided. However, there is a need for an accurate picture of historic climate purely to provide the basis of validation and verification of current and future models.

What the AGW camp should be saying is that 'We can acount for all of the historic warming, and we can produce models dervied from natural phenomena to show, and replicate such warming. We cannot account for recent warming, though, unless we include mankind's forcing' Which is, of course, the crux of the matter.

Anyone who wants to argue the non-AGW side of the argument must be able to address this issue, and the only way of doing that is to produce a model that replicates historic climate change and recent warmings whilst omitting mankind's forcing.

Those who support AGW without learning the detail that the model's use (see P3's work for a near thorough collection of current theory) should avoid getting into any argument in an effort to keep the the clarity of the debate and obfuscating what is, in fact, a very complex issue.

This is, of course, only my opinion, and is subject to change at any time hitherto, and subsquently without any warning

Well put, Wilson. An important reminder, too, that unsubstantiated opinion on either side of the debate, whilst it is certainly of the essence in a forum discussion, is not an accurate reflection of the current state on knowledge in climate science. I think the claims arose from interpreting 'unprecedented in the modern record' as meaning 'unprecedented, ever'; clearly two different statements. However hard Palaeontology works at it, I don't know, unless they find a new method of measurement, how they are going to increase the confidence level of the accuracy of their findings; because of this, any claims about periods prior to about 1000 years ago (at the absolute outside), relative to today, whatever their source, cannot be verified accurately enough to make a true comparison with the 'modern' record work.

I think it is a bit unfair to exclude people who do not have the time to do all the reasearch - after all, there is a lot of it to do - but it would be helpful if people who make a claim to a 'fact', rather than an opinion, give some kind of substantiation.

:)P

[Dawlish]

5 years ago I didn't believe in AGW. Now I'm not entirely sure what's going on. Which means I'm a sceptic - as opoposed to believer or disbeleiver

HI Essan,

I don't blame you for being cynical about anyone connected with American politics (or most people concerned with Uk politics, for that matter!). I haven't seen Gore's docufilm and I doubt if I will.

Your sentence, that I've highlighted above, shows that you have an open mind, on the topic, if you ask me. In 5 years, I've gone from where you are now, being a real sceptic, to being very close to believing that CO2 is the cause. The overwhelming scientific consensus, from the Mexico Climate Change Conference, combined with the research I've read this year, has made my agreement with AGW grow. Only a short while ago, I was considering that CO2 being found to be the leading cause of GW, would be about 1/4. I'd now consider that 1/6. For me, that is quite a change in my beliefs.

I'd always keep an open mind to other causes, I've said before that I don't deal in certainties as far as any weather, or climate forecasts are concerned, because there aren't any, but there comes a time when the weight of evidence becomes so great, it begins to be convincing.

Keep the open mind, as I will. I am no advocate of AGW, as I am still not fully convinced by it and I too am a very cynical so-and-so, when it comes to speculation and poor science, as I'm sure you've read!

For me, the term; "GW/AGW circus", is a charade composed by people with a vested interest in denying GW, usually by deliberate confusion, with GW, which is a fact - the world is warming. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes that CO2 is the cause of GW, does not make it a circus. It simply makes it likely.

Paul

Edited October 5, 2006 by Dawlish

[West is Best]

Why do you say we're overpopulated? Do you think there is not enough space on the Earth to house 6 billion people?

That's right Wilson! We do not have the resources to cope with 6.5 billion, let alone the expected 9 billion by the midpoint of this century. The planet is vastly over-stretched and we're wreaking havoc on the entire eco-system of the globe - devastating flora and fauna, quite aside from the climate.

I think the point is that AGW camp promote the notion that the world has never been this warm before.

This, of course, is patently untrue, as how hot do you think the Earth was when it was coagulating at the beginning of the solar system?

I don't think anyone except a buffoon says this Wilson. We all know the planet was pretty warm when it spun out of the sun. Come to think of it, the universe was pretty warm at the big bang.

For as long as this planet has sustained the type of eco-sytems to support life as we currently know it CO2 has not been at this level, nor anything like it (roughly half this level). Nor has the rate of increase in Global Warming ever been quanitfiably seen.

By the way, there is no 'AGW camp'. There is the mass of the scientific community. And there is the sceptic fringe. I put them in the same league as the holocaust deniers. No seriously - I do.

I haven't seen Gore's docufilm and I doubt if I will.

You sentence above, that I've highlighted above, shows that you have an open mind, on the topic, if you ask me. ...

Keep the open mind, as I will.

It's difficult to see how these statements are mutually compatible Paul. People claim to have an open mind yet refuse to see the most important populist film on the topic (3rd grossing documentary in US history and top of the book bestsellers). At least Paul you talk sense, but your refusal to draw the dots together from GW to AGW despite all the evidence is perverse.

Go and see it all of you refuseniks! It's a bit arrogant for anyone to say they won't learn anything, to put it mildly. Pun intended.

Edited October 5, 2006 by West is Best

[parmenides3]

Time to throw a spanner in the works!

This is especially for Andy, who has expressed doubts about the relative role of CO2 in warming. In it, Roger Pielke looks at a range of different data and concludes that somewhere around 30% is a reasonable sum. Let me point out that, at this time, he is one of a small group who emphasise that just coincentrating on CO2 is as much avoiding the problem as ignoring it completely. This sounds similar to the concerns of one or two people on this thread.

This is a conservative evaluation of the role of CO2, and the way it is arrived at is not without contention. Other estimates place the role of CO2 higher; very few nowadays go as high as some of the early estimates of 80%, the range appears to be around 40-60%, with Pielke's evaluation at the low end.

However you cut it, the correlation between CO2 and temperature is formally robust. More CO2 will mean more heat. More later on how much and other variables/forcings.

:)P

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006...rations-of-co2/

Edited October 5, 2006 by parmenides3

[Dawlish]

That's right Wilson! We do not have the resources to cope with 6.5 billion, let alone the expected 9 billion by the midpoint of this century. The planet is vastly over-stretched and we're wreaking havoc on the entire eco-system of the globe - devastating flora and fauna, quite aside from the climate.

I don't think anyone except a buffoon says this Wilson. We all know the planet was pretty warm when it spun out of the sun. Come to think of it, the universe was pretty warm at the big bang.

For as long as this planet has sustained the type of eco-sytems to support life as we currently know it CO2 has not been at this level, nor anything like it (roughly half this level). Nor has the rate of increase in Global Warming ever been quanitfiably seen.

By the way, there is no 'AGW camp'. There is the mass of the scientific community. And there is the sceptic fringe. I put them in the same league as the holocaust deniers. No seriously - I do.

It's difficult to see how these statements are mutually compatible Paul. People claim to have an open mind yet refuse to see the most important populist film on the topic (3rd grossing documentary in US history and top of the book bestsellers). At least Paul you talk sense, but your refusal to draw the dots together from GW to AGW despite all the evidence is perverse.

Go and see it all of you refuseniks! It's a bit arrogant for anyone to say they won't learn anything, to put it mildly. Pun intended.

I'll say it then: I can't see that I'll learn a great deal more than I know already and I'll probably have something better to do at the time. You can have an amazingly open mind and not bother watching or reading everything that is put out by Hollywood and American politicians. I also said that I "probably won't" see it. If it's a wet Friday evening and it comes on Sky in a couple of years time, I might just find out what I missed. I'm sure Al Gore will have moved onto something that gives him an even bigger populist platform by then.

Maybe a step too far comparing AGW sceptics to holocaust deniers - in fact it is pottily, ridiculously, hopelessly and insultingly over the top. There is no evidence that the holocaust didn't exist. There are possible alternatives to CO2 being the sole, even major, cause of GW. If you don't think that is the case, than I'm afraid you aren't correct. Certainties just don't exist in this field. 1/6 means that I am very much on the side of CO2 being the major cause....but it also means that I accept that there still could be another cause. That really is sense. Perverse, it is not. It just shows I am still open to possibilities....which it certainly looks that, on this issue, you are not.

Paul

Edited October 5, 2006 by Dawlish

[The Penguin]

Time to throw a spanner in the works! . . . . . ,

I think it’s fairer to say that increased CO2 increases heat retention at a limited range of atmospheric levels, than your rather more general proposition, 3p.That notwithstanding, as far as we’re concerned here at ground level, you’re superficially correct. However, as Pielke points out, there have been various historical underestimations of elemental influences in relation to heat retention in the atmosphere and my feeling is that there is yet to be an absolute definition of the roles played by the many various inputs, retainers, and dampers involved in the process of global climate fluctuations.

[parmenides3]

I'll say it then: I can't see that I'll learn a great deal more than I know already and I'll probably have something better to do at the time. You can have an amazingly open mind and not bother watching or reading everything that is put out by Hollywood and American politicians. I also said that I "probably won't" see it. If it's a wet Friday evening and it comes on Sky in a couple of years time, I might just find out what I missed. I'm sure Al Gore will have moved onto something that gives him an even bigger populist platform by then.

Maybe a step too far comparing AGW sceptics to holocaust deniers - in fact it is pottily, ridiculously, hopelessly and insultingly over the top. There is no evidence that the holocaust didn't exist. There are possible alternatives to CO2 being the cause of GW. If you don't think that is the case, than I'm afraid you aren't correct! Certainties just don't exist in this field. 1/6 means that I am very much on the side of CO2 being the major cause....but it also means that I accept that there still could be another cause. That really is sense. Perverse, it is not. It just shows I am still open to possibilities....which it certainly looks that, on this issue, you are not.

Paul

Misreading, Paul! Danger alert: WIB (and Gore) weren't talking about holocausts- nobody knew about that till it was almost over - they were talking about the tendency some people had in the thirties to assume that the rise of the Third Reich was not their problem. I suggest you retract...

I would also point out that another aspect of the 1930's analogy can be made to fit the scenario; whilst some politicians were probably reasonably well-informed about developments in Germany, the general public depended entirely on the newspapers for their news and 'facts'. Some of the newspaper owners were not unhappy about the rise of Fascism; it suited their own interests, after all, as members of the elite.

Many people in the UK and Europe saw National Socialism as a healthy, sensible riposte to a perceived threat from Communism and the possibility, especially after the depression and the general strike, of bloody revolution. To say that they refused to see the threat is an oversimplification of the History, I believe. And remember, the war was not about the holocaust in 1939, it was about the balance of power in Europe, as was the war before it.

In the end, I don't think the analogy is especially accurate nor especially useful to the case; probably best to ditch it and go with the science. And, yes, WIB, I did read your previous post, and I understand where it's coming from, but this is exactly the problem that comes up when historical metaphors are made; we end up arguing about the blo0dy metaphor, not about the issue.

:)P

I think it’s fairer to say that increased CO2 increases heat retention at a limited range of atmospheric levels, than your rather more general proposition, 3p.That notwithstanding, as far as we’re concerned here at ground level, you’re superficially correct. However, as Pielke points out, there have been various historical underestimations of elemental influences in relation to heat retention in the atmosphere and my feeling is that there is yet to be an absolute definition of the roles played by the many various inputs, retainers, and dampers involved in the process of global climate fluctuations.

Got to broadly agree, Peng., but in their defence, it does seem that the GCMs are modelling changes with a reasonable degree of skill, now (much more so than in 1999-2000). They may be doing it by accident, as it were, and not all of them are doing it as well, but the ensemble runs for the AR4 show a pretty high degree of correlation in many of the key areas. They will improve the models constantly by adding new variables, no doubt, but it is a difficult process, fraught with pitfalls. Do we have time to wait?

:)P

[The Penguin]

Do we have time to wait?

:)P

This is a question that the more panic stricken global warmists often ask, 3p, and while I certainly do not count you in their number, I’ll repeat for your consideration a summary of my standard reply. “Are we better rushing in with an incomplete understanding of whatever solution is currently fashionable, irrespective of what downstream consequences that may have in a political, humanitarian, economical or environmental outcome, or should we wait until we understand the full ramifications of the problem and effective practical solutions?”

[parmenides3]

This is a question that the more panic stricken global warmists often ask, 3p, and while I certainly do not count you in their number, I’ll repeat for your consideration a summary of my standard reply. “Are we better rushing in with an incomplete understanding of whatever solution is currently fashionable, irrespective of what downstream consequences that may have in a political, humanitarian, economical or environmental outcome, or should we wait until we understand the full ramifications of the problem and effective practical solutions?”

If, and I am saying if, some of the current/recent statements made by a range of people is correct, the argument is that we have a relatively short 'window of opportunity' in which to act; ten years is today's fashionable number. beyond this time, remediation becomes vastly more expensive and considerably less effective. As has been pointed out, the skill of the models in getting the future scenario right has improved, but it cannot be tested mathematically, for a reason which I can't remember at the moment. This means that, as Carl Wunsch put it, we have to go with what we know, even if it isn't perfect knowledge, because we never will have 'perfect knowledge'. The thing is, a planned adaptation to change is always going to be preferable to an unplanned, chaotic last-minute panic. (I'll leave you to have an opinion on which, in the real world, we are more likely to get). It isn't necessarily that I think CO2 controls are the best way forward - I still think this is more of a political solution than a climatic one - but, yes, I will confess, after all I have read in the past month or so, which I am sure you will accept, is sound, up-to-date, decent science in the main, it has left me alarmed. Example: the post I put in the 'Drought' thread; something I found only yesterday. Alarmist? No; Alarmed? Yes. Perhaps I shouldn't be, but, on what I am reading, I am.

P

That paper:

Wang, G.L., 2005: Agricultural drought in a future climate: results from 15 GCMs participating in the IPCC AR4. Climate Dynamics, 25, 739-753, 10.1007/s00382-005-0057-9.

This study examines the impact of greenhouse gas warming on soil moisture based on predictions of fifteen global climate models by comparing the after-stabilization climate in the SRESA1b experiment with the pre-industrial control climate. The models are consistent in predicting summer dryness and winter wetness in only part of the northern middle and high latitudes. Slightly over half of the models predict year-round wetness in central Eurasia and/or year-round dryness in Siberia and mid-latitude Northeast Asia. One explanation is offered that relates such lack of seasonality to the carry-over effect of soil moisture storage from season to season. In the tropics and subtropics, a decrease of soil moisture is the dominant response. The models are especially consistent in predicting drier soil over the US Southwest, the Mediterranean, Australia, and the South Africa in all seasons, and over much of the Amazon and West Africa in the JJA season and the Asian monsoon region in the DJF season. Since the only major areas of future wetness predicted with a high level of model consistency are part of the northern middle and high latitudes during the non-growing season, it is suggested that greenhouse gas warming will cause a worldwide agricultural drought.

Edited October 5, 2006 by parmenides3

[Gray-Wolf]

Flooding and drought tend to draw salts into the soil horizon and render land sterile even when the area is still able to produce crops. The constant breakup of the soils by ploughing allow ground water (laden with salts) to travel to the surface , by capillary action, up the cracks in the soil where the water evaporates depositing the salts. Am I right in thinking that extra watering of land in the mid-west (U.S.A.) has raised the salts to within 8" of the surface?

We (well,not all of us ) are doomed I.M.O. Nothing will change until people really suffer as the will to act just doesn't exist in the first world (I believe). Nobody welcomes change, it is upsetting, unsettling and so we tend towards procrastination until we really do have to change and in this instance this will cost us our old ways.

When we debate change we should also debate the human consequences of change and not just environmental impacts like sea levels , wind patterns, ice ablation etc. For the lurkers who are out there, many of them young, need to know it's not just about the loss of snow in winter and famines overseas but that there are also terrible consequences for humanity with global climate change.

[parmenides3]

Flooding and drought tend to draw salts into the soil horizon and render land sterile even when the area is still able to produce crops. The constant breakup of the soils by ploughing allow ground water (laden with salts) to travel to the surface , by capillary action, up the cracks in the soil where the water evaporates depositing the salts. Am I right in thinking that extra watering of land in the mid-west (U.S.A.) has raised the salts to within 8" of the surface?

We (well,not all of us ) are doomed I.M.O. Nothing will change until people really suffer as the will to act just doesn't exist in the first world (I believe). Nobody welcomes change, it is upsetting, unsettling and so we tend towards procrastination until we really do have to change and in this instance this will cost us our old ways.

When we debate change we should also debate the human consequences of change and not just environmental impacts like sea levels , wind patterns, ice ablation etc. For the lurkers who are out there, many of them young, need to know it's not just about the loss of snow in winter and famines overseas but that there are also terrible consequences for humanity with global climate change.

Interesting reference there about US conditions, G-W; outside my current sphere of knowledge, I'm afraid.

I am alarmed, but I am an optimist by nature. The paper is about current growing areas and seasons; it doesn't take into account our ability to adapt to change by geographical relocation and seasonal adjustment. That doesn't mean it isn't serious, just that there are ways to adapt to survive.

Sir Nicholas Stern, Govt. economic adviser & head of Price Waterhouse, has produced a very interesting paper showing how, if we have the will, we can reduce the ultimate level of GW, reduce the impacts, and do all this at a cost in the next ten years which would be a fraction of the cost of inaction, later. Some mention has been made (I don't know if it was him), of a cost of a trillion dollars to improve the situation, if we act now. Is that a lot? Compare it with the USA's annual defence budget, or the amount of money collectively owed by people in the UK on credit cards. It really isn't.

How should it be best spent? That is a harder question.

More thoguhts later. :)P

Edit: sorry, confusing two separate things here; the Price Waterhouse report (available online) is by Hawksworth, Stern is a former World Bank Ec. Adviser... it was the Hawksworth report I was thinking of.

Edited October 5, 2006 by parmenides3

[Gray-Wolf]

In my early years of climate concern (Early 1980's) It occured to me that in some areas of Europe conditions ,via global warming, would become more suited to the kind of agriculture we see in the U.S. Mid-west (and Canadian Prairie) At the time those areas were under Soviet 'Stewardship' so I thought the region would be used as a weapon/bribe to the 1st world.

With the move away from state socialism in the latter part of the 80's I thought that Russia would start to develop these areas and Putins reluctance to sign up to controls shows that this may be occuring.

We must remember that for many years USSR had to import grain from the U.S. and Canada to offset it's shortfall and I'm sure 'conditions' were attached to these grain sales (behind the scenes) and Putin, in his 'old job' would have been privy to this 'manipulation' by the U.S. and may be looking for 'Payback'.

Anyhow I think that when the Steppes become the next 'grain basket of the world' you'd better hope that Russia is further down the road to being a true democracy and isn't still gripped by the post Soviet turmoil it faces today and Putin is gone..

[parmenides3]

In my early years of climate concern (Early 1980's) It occured to me that in some areas of Europe conditions ,via global warming, would become more suited to the kind of agriculture we see in the U.S. Mid-west (and Canadian Prairie) At the time those areas were under Soviet 'Stewardship' so I thought the region would be used as a weapon/bribe to the 1st world.

With the move away from state socialism in the latter part of the 80's I thought that Russia would start to develop these areas and Putins reluctance to sign up to controls shows that this may be occuring.

We must remember that for many years USSR had to import grain from the U.S. and Canada to offset it's shortfall and I'm sure 'conditions' were attached to these grain sales (behind the scenes) and Putin, in his 'old job' would have been privy to this 'manipulation' by the U.S. and may be looking for 'Payback'.

Anyhow I think that when the Steppes become the next 'grain basket of the world' you'd better hope that Russia is further down the road to being a true democracy and isn't still gripped by the post Soviet turmoil it faces today and Putin is gone..

I think your idea, in principle, has merit, but the details need looking at. The 'breadbasket' of Russia has always been the Ukraine; prior to oil, who controlled the Ukraine controlled the economy. In this GW scenario, the Ukraine and the Steppes (Kazakhstan?) are likely to experience drought, as rainfall in the growing season fails and soil moisture levels decline. The extensive grasslands may come to resemble Sub-Saharan 'scrubland', more than Mid-West 'prairie grassland'.

The USA is already a net importer of grain (mainly from Canada), and its dependency on imports is only likely to increase; whether the former Soviet Union will be a provider is less clear.

What America needs to face up to is the relative efficiency, in water, carbon and land-use terms, of its current agricultural system. The most inefficient use of resources, by far, to produce food, is beef farming. But it seems that the USA has a 'need' for beef in its diet which is disproportionately high. This kind of 'public' change is enormously difficult to bring about and politically potentially suicidal. I would like to think that a lot of the agricultural production could, in principle, shift Northward, but this would have to go hand in hand with decisions about crop/livestock use and dietary habits. The other problem, glancing quickly at the large scale maps of the continents, is that the traditionally rich agricultural areas are where they are for very good geophysical reasons, related mostly to river basins and alluvial flood plains. What we are looking at is the kind of shift that occurred in Europe (over 1500 years) in the Post-Roman period, when agricultural development allowed less dependency (in the Med.) on Egyptian corn, and extensive land modification resulted in regional food independence. The question is, where could such development take place?

:)P

[Essan]

Regardless on what we believe re AGW, I would hope most people would agree that it wouldn;t be a bad thing to reduce our energy consuption, reduce our carbon emissions, reduce deforestation and work towards a 'cleaner, greener' lifestyle for everyone.

And if we have to use GW scare stories, maybe it's a justifiable means to an end?

And let's face it, when it comes to getting political leaders to actively do something, nothing short of a financial incentive or a big, big scare story is gonna work .....

..... I'm just worried that Blair's response will be to keep the lights on, turn up the heating, fly off on holiday and demand the building of thousands of new windfarms to destroy what's left of my country

[Mr Sleet]

Regardless on what we believe re AGW, I would hope most people would agree that it wouldn;t be a bad thing to reduce our energy consuption, reduce our carbon emissions, reduce deforestation and work towards a 'cleaner, greener' lifestyle for everyone.

And if we have to use GW scare stories, maybe it's a justifiable means to an end?

And let's face it, when it comes to getting political leaders to actively do something, nothing short of a financial incentive or a big, big scare story is gonna work .....

..... I'm just worried that Blair's response will be to keep the lights on, turn up the heating, fly off on holiday and demand the building of thousands of new windfarms to destroy what's left of my country

But the politicians are the ones bleating on about it so much ( Milliband, for example) yet they do nothing about it. That should tell you something. Leaders like to cultivate a climate of fear, it helps control and tax raising, papers like it because it sells.

[parmenides3]

But the politicians are the ones bleating on about it so much ( Milliband, for example) yet they do nothing about it. That should tell you something. Leaders like to cultivate a climate of fear, it helps control and tax raising, papers like it because it sells.

Okay, so we're moving from the science of climate change to the politics. This is an acitivity about which my knowledge is no more or less than the average person's. My suspicion is that the politicians are getting in early, because they have an idea of what's going to be in the AR4. I can only get hold, for the large part, of abstracts, and haven't read the draught documents, but I am fairly sure that the current scare stories are only an outrider to a much bigger furore in January, when the report is officially published. My impression, from my reading, is that it will be unexpectedly negative about the prospects for the second half of the 21st century.

Luckily, it looks like the financial incentives are starting to appear, in the sense that large economic organisations are already anticipating that the cost of inaction is going to exceed the cost of mitigation within a relatively short timescale. In itself, this is not enough to kick-start sensible policies, though. Perhaps I'm a cynic, but to me the current 'strategies' proposed by our government amount to little more than raising revenue from the general taxpayer in advance to pay for future, costly action, and avoiding taking responsibility for inaction by shifting the centre of blame away from policy making, towards 'individual choice'.

There are, no doubt, politicians who see the real problems and wish to address them, but the policy makers (Cabinet, advisers, economists, lawyers) seem unable, yet, to see beyond the more superficial issues to the real, underlying problems.

:)P

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Essan ... simple question. Have you been to see An Inconvenient Truth yet?

If not, do me a favour. I'm not saying it's perfect, but go and see it. Then we can debate.

Its crap

Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Studying these determinations leads me to think that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. At the ice temperature of -15C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 metre depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 metres. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the present atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.

I could go on re the readings found in last 300 drilling years which show levels of CO2 at levels back then matching levels now and how they were discarded to follow the AGW rule with a delaying affect of 83 years ie the 'Siple effect'. This is what the IPCC uses and it is flawed.

BFTP

Edited October 9, 2006 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[parmenides3]

Its crap

Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Determinations of CO2 in polar ice cores are commonly used for estimations of the pre-industrial CO2 atmospheric levels. Studying these determinations leads me to think that glaciological studies are not able to provide a reliable reconstruction of CO2 concentrations in the ancient atmosphere. This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73C) contains liquid water. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice.

One of these processes is formation of gas hydrates or clathrates. In the highly compressed deep ice all air bubbles disappear, as under the influence of pressure the gases change into the solid clathrates, which are tiny crystals formed by interaction of gas with water molecules. At the ice temperature of -15C dissociation pressure for N2 is about 100 bars, for O2 75 bars, and for CO2 5 bars. Formation of CO2 clathrates starts in the ice sheets at about 200 metre depth, and that of O2 and N2 at 600 to 1000 metres. This leads to depletion of CO2 in the gas trapped in the ice sheets. This is why the records of CO2 concentration in the gas inclusions from deep polar ice show the values lower than in the present atmosphere, even for the epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now.

I could go on re the readings found in last 300 drilling years which show levels of CO2 at levels back then matching levels now and how they were discarded to follow the AGW rule with a delaying affect of 83 years ie the 'Siple effect'. This is what the IPCC uses and it is flawed.

BFTP

If it were the case that climate proxies could not be derived from ice core measurements, don't you think someone would have noticed by now, Blast? Added to which, the IPCC and subsequent proxies do not depend solely on, say, the Vostok ice core; they rather depend on a series of proxies which, when compared to the ice cores, provide a broad estimate of palaeological climates. Nobody is pretending it is perfect; far from it, there is constant debate about the validity and interpretation of all sorts of proxy data, but this one doesn't work. You'd have been better off bringing up the britlecone pine proxies, which were used for temperature reconstruction for a while, but are now considered to be unreliable and are not normally used. Now, who would have worked this out and brought it to the attention of the climate science community?

By the way, i'd love to know what the 'Siple effect' is - I haven't come across that one before.

Was there anything else in the film which led you to believe it was 'crap' when you watched it?

:)P

Edit: Ah; found it. This is a popular one for GW contrarians; the 'Jaworowski' gambit. There's lots on this when you google it. It looks a bit 'dodgy', Blast. I am sure it has its defenders, but below is a characteristic response:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

It's a long (and rather tedious, IMO) demolition of the original paper that your reference comes from. It looks fairly damning to me, but you read it and see what you think.

:)P

Edited October 9, 2006 by parmenides3

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Was there anything else in the film which led you to believe it was 'crap' when you watched it?

:)P

Edit: Ah; found it. This is a popular one for GW contrarians; the 'Jaworowski' gambit. There's lots on this when you google it. It looks a bit 'dodgy', Blast. I am sure it has its defenders, but below is a characteristic response:

http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7

It's a long (and rather tedious, IMO) demolition of the original paper that your reference comes from. It looks fairly damning to me, but you read it and see what you think.

:)P

A characteristic response of a characteristic response The fact that it is Al Gore was a bad start...and there was no Clint Eastwood . I can see changes afoot...that's all I'll say on it. That paper was not tedious but needed some chewing but my first sentence says it all IMO, I read it more as a character assassination but certainly some points were 'enlightening'.

regards

BFTP