Climate Chaos ? Don't believe it

[Essan]

One of the problems with AGW Theory is - like all scientific theories - it's falsifiable. Predictions are made. If they come true the theory strengthens. If they don't come true, we look at why and adjust the theory accordingly or even reject it altogether.

Back in 1990 the Climate Research Unit at the UEA in Norwich predicted that, if CO2 emissions continued at their then current rate, by 2030 CO2 levels would be around 520ppm, global temps would have risen by 3c and sea levels would have risen by around 2 feet.

Doesn't look like any of their predictions will come true....

Obviously, since then models have been vastly improved and we know much more about atmospheric science and the various feedback processes involved. But does that mean we yet know enough to make accurate predictions?

Notwithstanding which, even if you don't believe the predictions, is that any reason to continuing wasting money? All the things we should be doing to circumvent global warming are things any sentient species would be doing anyway.

Incidently, it's true: the true sceptics and cynics do tend to be older. I guess in part because we've seen it all before ..... And for the record, I think true love is complete fantasy

[Devonian]

Yes, that's true. I've summarised some interesting numbers from the site (from the Excel download further down the page) on my edit of my previous post.

I've had a quick look.

Aren't we looking a subivided risk though? None of the risks of specific temperature rises (looking at Yeovilton, nearest to me) are much about 10% but for a bigger spread they're higher? Interesting to see they think we might see 4C rise in annual temperature, gulp, though that's A2 and I can't remember without checking which scenario is higher CO2 growth.

...

Back in 1990 the Climate Research Unit at the UEA in Norwich predicted that, if CO2 emissions continued at their then current rate, by 2030 CO2 levels would be around 520ppm, global temps would have risen by 3c and sea levels would have risen by around 2 feet.

...

Did they, Andy? Source?

Edited November 8, 2006 by Devonian

[jethro]

At the risk of sounding like a complete loon, way out beyond the boundaries of fringe....

Historically the global climate has had it's ups and downs, temperature wise but they have been steady increases/decreases; it's only in fairly recent years that there has been a sharp increase. It's also only in fairly recent years/same time span of the change that the world has had nuclear capability. To date there have been approx 2000 nuclear detonations of varying size (wikipedia). Is there any way the two could be connected? We know large volcano eruptions have an impact upon weather.

Is that the men in white coats I see out the corner of my eye.....

[VillagePlank]

At the risk of sounding like a complete loon, way out beyond the boundaries of fringe....

Historically the global climate has had it's ups and downs, temperature wise but they have been steady increases/decreases; it's only in fairly recent years that there has been a sharp increase. It's also only in fairly recent years/same time span of the change that the world has had nuclear capability. To date there have been approx 2000 nuclear detonations of varying size (wikipedia). Is there any way the two could be connected? We know large volcano eruptions have an impact upon weather.

Is that the men in white coats I see out the corner of my eye.....

There is a casual (not causal) correlation, as you say, but I think that it's best to put nuclear activities down as a symtpom of the underlying theme which is, of course, industrialisation. Edited November 8, 2006 by Wilson

[Guest Mike W]

Thought the following link may be of interest: http://www.iceagenow.com/Sea_levels_are_falling.htm

The article is by a Nils-Axel Mörner, Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics,

Stockholm University, Sweden, with the study carried out himeself the following collegues: Michael Tooley, Geography and Archaelogy,

University of Durham, Durham, UK, Göran Possnert, The Angstrom Laboratory, Uppsala University, Sweden. For exttra detail was published in From "New perspectives for the future of the Maldives"

Nils-Axel Mörner, Michael Tooley, and Göran Possnert, Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 40, Issues 1-2, Jan 2004, pp 177-182. My view is that the least that could be happening is that some levels may fall slightly and some a rising slightly, but more are rising perhaps, some of the pacific rising does seem to be at least down to volcanic/tectonic activity, and other plcaes are more down to warming. I'm suprised if anywhere has falling sea levels IMO.

Edited November 8, 2006 by Mike W

[Essan]

Did they, Andy? Source?

I knew you'd ask that

It's from a book I was reading last night, published about 1991, about climate change - and I can't remember the title But published by Guinness (as in 'book of records') and I've no reason to doubt it.

Of course, being 1990 research there's nowt on the internet .....

[Devonian]

I knew you'd ask that

It's from a book I was reading last night, published about 1991, about climate change - and I can't remember the title :blush: But published by Guinness (as in 'book of records') and I've no reason to doubt it.

Of course, being 1990 research there's nowt on the internet .....

Well, a FoE report I have from '89 say's "SCOPE 29* suggest a doubling of the pre-industrial [CO2] level could occur by about the year 2080 following the high emission scenario...When the contribution of other greenhouse gasses is added...the effect is dramatic. The doubling time is brought forward by up to 50 years...- it may happen as early as 2030" (these projections didn't allow for the Montreal Protocol).

A Greenpeace (pah!) book I have from '90 has a graph I've scanned. If anything they underestimated the rise in CO2 conc so far, but doubling of 'effective' CO2 was at about 2030...

So, I think I can be said that the were claims that 'effective' CO2 could be doubled by 2030.

*Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (ICAU/WMO/UNEP sponsored).

[coldfingers]

For those lucky enough to have gardens then composting clears a lot of the waste that attracts flies. Tins, glass and paper are recycled so what waste is left? To meet with our European commitments we opted for the 'cheapest' form of recycling which ,sadly, leaves the onus on the householder to be a good citizen and break down/recycle their own waste. Germany and Holland just give out different coloured bins and the L.A. does the deed leaving the householder just to separate their waste. If you think back to Grandmas time ashes were the main waste product as little packaging was used and much waste was burned on the home fire (bin wagons were also known as 'ash carts').

If none of us are willing to shoulder our responsibilities (I'm sure our ancestors would if they had been aware) then we may as well give up now, learn the violin and fiddle whilst our world burns(or heats up dramatically at least!).

In my grandmothers time everything didn't come packaged in masses of plastic and the 'pig man' came weekly to empty all the kitchen waste. I compost as much as possible but then I am very lucky to have a big garden but there is still much kitchen waste that cannot be composted. Try giving the friendly red worm in the compost heap leftover chilli :blush: , gives them bellyache I believe. Actually wouldn't be too good for the pigs either I reckon. In Spain household waste is collected daily, not fortnightly or even weekly and they are horrified that we have weekly collection never mind fortnightly. They also have rubbish bins at the end of every road and also have the recycling bins there too. Yes, waste was burnt on the home fire including vegetable peelings, my father even burning old shoes when we were really poor, however that option would today contribute considerably to GW. The message really needs to get through to the major manufacturers and supermarkets that it is no longer acceptable to package items in masses of extra packaging just to make them appear bigger.

Will get down of my soapbox now, but it does annoy me every time I put loads of non-recyclable packaging in the bin.

[Essan]

Exactly. About 90% of my weekly refuse is non-recyclable plastics from packaging.

[parmenides3]

A back of the envelope calculation; current CO2 = 380 ppm. Current rate of increase = +2.1% p/annum. Year when CO2 will equal 450 ppm (argued to be enough to produce a total warming of 2C by 2100); 2015. Year when CO2 = 550 ppm (doubled from pre-industrial & almost certain to produce +2C by 2100); 2035. Chance of preventing a rise of 2C in global temperatures this century?:

Marks will be awarded for calculations shown.

:)P

[coldfingers]

A back of the envelope calculation; current CO2 = 380 ppm. Current rate of increase = +2.1% p/annum. Year when CO2 will equal 450 ppm (argued to be enough to produce a total warming of 2C by 2100); 2015. Year when CO2 = 550 ppm (doubled from pre-industrial & almost certain to produce +2C by 2100); 2035. Chance of preventing a rise of 2C in global temperatures this century?:

Marks will be awarded for calculations shown.

P

errrr? :lol:

[Essan]

It's from a book I was reading last night, published about 1991, about climate change - and I can't remember the title But published by Guinness (as in 'book of records') and I've no reason to doubt it.

The book is called The Changing World of Weather by Clive Carpenter and, as already mentioned, published by Guinness Publishing in 1991. I didn't quite remember the fact correctly though.

Referring to a address to the Britsish Association in 1990 by Dr Richard Warwick of the CRU it states:-

Dr Warwick predicted that a rise of 1c in average global temperatures is unavoidable, given the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere. The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen from 315 parts per million in 1960- to 351 parts per million in 1990. It has been estimated that the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was 280 parts per million. Computer models forecast levels of 560 parts per million by 2015.

The Unit envisages an increase in average global temperatures of 4.5c by the year 2030 unless the emission of carbon dioxide, methane, CFCs and nitrogen oxides are drastically curbed.

Elsewhere it mentions that:-

The Atmospheric Research Group, based at the University of Birmingham, envisages Mediterranean crops being grown in southern Britain during the first half of the 21st century. Farmers would be obliged to respond to climatic changes and by 2030 maize and sunflowers could be common crops in most of England

I mention this simply because it's useful to see what predictions were made in the past, and thus understand why some people reject predictions being made today.

btw the book, being written in 1991, makes much mention of the very mild winter of 88/89, the storms of early 1990 and the hot summer that followed.

[Devonian]

The book is called The Changing World of Weather by Clive Carpenter and, as already mentioned, published by Guinness Publishing in 1991. I didn't quite remember the fact correctly though.

Referring to a address to the Britsish Association in 1990 by Dr Richard Warwick of the CRU it states:-

Elsewhere it mentions that:-

I mention this simply because it's useful to see what predictions were made in the past, and thus understand why some people reject predictions being made today.

btw the book, being written in 1991, makes much mention of the very mild winter of 88/89, the storms of early 1990 and the hot summer that followed.

Err, well, (I'm sure you know this ), but Mediterranean crops are being grown in southern England. The was a fine looking field of sunflowers near Exeter this year, Maize is also widely grown...

Edited November 9, 2006 by Devonian

[Essan]

Err, well, (I'm sure you know this ), but Mediterranean crops are being grown in southern England. The was a fine looking field of sunflowers near Exeter this year, Maize is also widely grown...

More down to farming diversity that necessity due to climate change though?

Edited November 9, 2006 by Essan

[VillagePlank]

Err, well, (I'm sure you know this ), but Mediterranean crops are being grown in southern England. The was a fine looking field of sunflowers near Exeter this year, Maize is also widely grown...

I saw a report about a year ago which detailed land purchasing from the French in order to support vineyards . . ..

[Devonian]

More down to farming diversity that necessity due to climate change though?

These days it's more often warm enough for farming practices to start to change in such a way.

C'mon you quoted a prediction, that prediction has come to pass - it couldn't have happened just due to changes in farming practices.

I think sunflowers grown in the summers of decades past would look sorry (bar during the odd hot, dry summers). The point is there is a better chance these day of summers being good enough that exotic crops are worth a punt, and that chance is (probably) going to increase.

Edited November 9, 2006 by Devonian

[Essan]

C'mon you quoted a prediction, that prediction has come to pass - it couldn't have happened just due to changes in farming practices.

I would dispute that sunflowers and maize are common crops across Southern England, although they would be preferable to the ubiquitous rape ..... I've not noticed any increase in maize (which has been grown in England for a long while anyway) and I've never seen a field of sunflowers.

But as it's not yet 2030 it hardly matters

[jethro]

I live near Wells in Somerset, this year I saw at least a dozen or more fields of Sunflowers. Hardly large scale change but something new around here. Definately preferable to field after field of Rape.

[Devonian]

I would dispute that sunflowers and maize are common crops across Southern England, although they would be preferable to the ubiquitous rape ..... I've not noticed any increase in maize (which has been grown in England for a long while anyway) and I've never seen a field of sunflowers.

But as it's not yet 2030 it hardly matters

Oh, indeed. Certainly sunflowers aren't commonly seen. By 2030? We'll see.

[Extreme Alde]

Realclimate have reviewed the Monckton article and a strangely similar (in places) Milloy one.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...cuckoo-science/

[snowsure]

I would dispute that sunflowers and maize are common crops across Southern England, although they would be preferable to the ubiquitous rape ..... I've not noticed any increase in maize (which has been grown in England for a long while anyway) and I've never seen a field of sunflowers.

But as it's not yet 2030 it hardly matters

In Yorkshire we have Maize mazes as well as several fields of sunflowers. GW is warming up event the frozen wastes of Yorkshire!

[The PIT]

Maize is grown even quite high up as well.

Going back to GW and the Government. Perhaps they should be fining places like our University who waste energy hand over foot. Nearly every day this month we've had the office doors wide open to let the access heat out from nine O'clock onwards. The temp rises regardless hitting 76F by the afternoon. A few big fines hitting the Chancellors pocket would soon have this sorted out.

[coldfingers]

I don't know about maize being a warm weather crop but certainly I have seen sunflowers grown since I was a kid, my father, a Czech, grew them every year to eat the seeds. I am now 57 so that was at least 50 years ago, so I would definitely dispute that fields of sunflowers are a sign of global warming. More to do with the greater call for sunflower oil I would have thought.

Maize is grown even quite high up as well.

Going back to GW and the Government. Perhaps they should be fining places like our University who waste energy hand over foot. Nearly every day this month we've had the office doors wide open to let the access heat out from nine O'clock onwards. The temp rises regardless hitting 76F by the afternoon. A few big fines hitting the Chancellors pocket would soon have this sorted out.

Couldn't you suggest they fit thermostats , I have only just put on the heating a few days ago, now that is one aspect of possible global warming that I am quite happy to keep. Especially in view of energy prices.

Why, oh why, does the government not insist that all new houses are built with solar panel on the roof, the cost would be small compared to the cost of fitting it later.

[Devonian]

I don't know about maize being a warm weather crop but certainly I have seen sunflowers grown since I was a kid, my father, a Czech, grew them every year to eat the seeds. I am now 57 so that was at least 50 years ago, so I would definitely dispute that fields of sunflowers are a sign of global warming. More to do with the greater call for sunflower oil I would have thought.

I think we're talking about growing on an agricultural scale. I also think it's about how good, big, ripened, mould free, 'standing' the crop will be. You can grow many warm weather crops in the UK, but, normally, they'll not ripen fullly, or simply grow poorly or be mouldly or flattened by rain or wind. I agree, in a sheltered garden you can grow sunflowers, but the fact is they're really grown in scale further south than us - up until now...

[BrickFielder]

One of the most important things about climate change is that climate scientist must have credibility. When the press over emphasize a certain area of climate investigation or quote out of context or just plain misunderstand the research we get into the dangerous position where the general population start to loose faith in what the climate scientists are actually saying. The problem is that as climate science progresses then certain aspects become more or less important and that new research tends to contradict the findings of previous research. The general population then sees the previous claims as wildly outrageous and loose faith in any new predictions.

Lets just take a look at the case of CFC's and HCFC's which are being phased out and banned because of the serious impact on climate.Some research now raises doubt about what sort of impact with suggestions that the net effect of CFC's may be to reduce surface temperatures. Next week new research may suggest it is the most important component of global warming.Whether or not it contributes to global warming I consider that it was right to ban CFC's because of a multitude of other smaller effects like increasing UV rays. For those who are interested then you may want to investigate the greenhouse affects of HFC's the replacement to CFC's (stronger affect) or how CO2 could be used instead of HFC's.

The affects of CFC's

Next we need to understand a little about climate modelling and about how it has changed over the last few years. One of the most important changes to the models is that they are starting to model the behaviour in not only the troposphere but the stratosphere and mesosphere with some significant changes in results( ionosphere to be modelled as well soon). The next important development is the inclusion of a chemical coupled model which looks at the chemical interactions and their affect on climate. These advances have lead to increased confidence in the model outputs and the tentative claims of climate scientists that global warming is definately taking place. The trouble is that there is very little information from these new models and people tend to quote details from the older inaccurate models.

Two particular models seem to be leading the pack , firstly the NASA GISS model and the european MA-ECHAM models.State of the art modelling only a few years ago was still able to throw up some surprising results. Take the following reports which show CO2 causes a warming in the stratosphere (which means the surface cools).

MA-echam4 stratospheric warming

This is an important point because many climate models suggest that most of the warming due to CO2 would be at the troposphere lower stratosphere boundary which does not necessarily imply surface warming (actually it suggests cooler surface temperatures).

Stratospheric Cooling

For those of you reading this and perhaps thinking I am going against the conventional thinking then you would be wrong. The latest model result from MA-ECHAM5 and the HAMMONIA system does suggest that CO2 will cause a surface warming.

HAMMONIA

The problem is that these are models and there is research out there which suggests the models may need changing and that the effects of one forcing may not be as strong as another.

Aerosol Forcing

New evidence comes to light like the fact that the mixing of increased CO2 is limited to the troposphere and lower levels of the stratosphere (might current models give the same result as the MA-ECHAM4 under this scenario).

CO2 Mixing

The most important point I think is too look at this realistically and say a combination of our actions is causing climate change. We should be looking at all forcings and start thinking about all emissions.Finally climate scientists recently came to the opinion that AGW (Anthropological Global Warming) is probably taking place.Is that probably 51% certainty, I think not, probably closer to 70-80% although if you asked them a different more specific question like 'Do CFC's definately cause climate warming' then you may get a different result. There is plenty to worry about and a lot of things need changing from emissions to land usage, but I worry when people become fixated about a single aspect of climate change that they may become disallusioned at some further date.Lets have the facts without the sensationalism and be open to new research and ideas.