The latest IPCC report

[The PIT]

Go for it! When I emailed Realcimate, Gavin Schmidt replied in person (he's a quite important climate scientist). So did Steve McIntyre (an important sceptic), and James Annan, and William Connolley, and Roger Pielke Sr., etc... : These people like to know that they are being listened to, and I'm sure he'll respond. My only suggestion would be to try to be quite precise in any questions you ask, or it might be quite a long xorrespondence.

:)P

Well I won't tonight as I'm on the Cider I'll email him tomorrow and put the above name in. I'll try and persuade him to post directly if I can which would be best.

Showing how good The Stirs reporting is there isn't any Prof Ian Woodward at the Sheffield University. The guy doesn't exist and hasn't ever been a member of Sheffield University Animal Plant Sciences. I guess he maybe a member of Sheffield Hallam University or just a made up person.

So sorry can't deliver.

Ah Found him the name was wrong. Frank Woodward good job they posted a picture sadly he's not an expert in climate change rather studies the effects of climate on plants. Still want me to proceed??

Edited February 3, 2007 by The PIT

[WindWatcher]

I have doubts that we will come up with a plan of coherent action. On the general public front, most of us don't want to give up things we take for granted. On the authorities front, there's a dodgy choice between implementing 'carrot' measures that may entail some short-term risks with the economy (politicians generally don't like taking risks via deviating from the status quo) and 'stick' measures that would be highly unpopular and risk losing election votes.

I reckon that the economics arguments will come into more prominence in the future, as the scepticism arguments are becoming more and more drowned out by the contrary evidence.

Whoaaaoooy horse!

I witness two types of sceptic;

1/' For the sake of argument 'what if...''

2/ 'It ain't happening and I'll tell you why......'

I don't feel that C.Bob is the latter!

I have experienced him as a guy who seeks for you to prove your stance as more than 'because he said it....' and only by knowing enough 'stuff' to convince an 'enlightened type' are you ever going to pass his/your 'test'.

This is good (I feel) for to not flex those 'muscles' once in a while will let them get flabby!

Thanks for the workout C.Bob!

I have quoted the above posts just as representatives and not to single out.

We are in a very delicate position, I don't mean about the interpretation of the the report or degrees of agw, I mean joe public's support!

It is a delicate subject, despite the views of GW, WIB et al. How long have the facts been available on smoking? How much does the Government still make from taxing smoking? How weak is the government stance on an undisputed curse to our society? So... I know the risks, pay extortionate prices for cigarettes etc, etc and until I finish the Alan Carr give up smoking book I am forced to endure it (yep look out world I will be a reformed smoker). Now tell me that a report saying our energy uses are going to kill us in a few hundred years and I can't have my wide screen tv, floodlight my house or drive the 4x4 I have saved since childhood for!

We really need to start looking at ways we can get the general public (who don't have access to netweather, or the scientific journals) to understand the problem.

It is a really tough problem, if we can;t convince the population to give up smoking with the undeniable effects how the hell can we convince them of global warming. If Bird Flu was transmitted by the rubber bands around post, I don't think Mondy would believe it as the north don't get post like that!

The other real threat to us as a nation doing anything is the scepticism that it is a tax free for all. Until we regulate the local authorities into a sincere and achievable message we are doomed! Richmond residents will pay £200 more to park a 4X4 outside the house regardless of mileage! That is doing nothing to promote a green life style!

Whilst it is fun to debate, our efforts are minuscule compared to the need. I just don't want the issue turned into a tax raising issue, becuase it is far too important to alienate the population.

Sort of giving up on the debate now, but I will open a thread on what I am doing positively to enhance "MY" future, as at this stage I feel that is far more important than arguing about degrees of effect.

Steve. :lol: :lol:

[The PIT]

Since my edit may have been missed.

Since the The Stars Climate expert isn't quite what they said do you still want me email him on his view points?

[Thundery wintry showers]

The report doesn't 100% convince me that a significant proportion of current climate change is caused by humans. However, it's a topic where you can never be 100% certain- I reckon the evidence is enough for around 90% certainty, which is a high enough percentage to warrant action being taken to help reduce the extent of the problem.

I read an article recently suggesting that when we have a status quo, people tend to defend the status quo by unconsciously assuming that it is perfect- and if someone comes up with suggestions to leave the status quo behind, people will highlight any flaws in the suggestions, and thus deduce "since they aren't perfect, they won't work". There's also the unconscious idea that maintaining the status quo means no action and therefore no action is better than flawed action- the problem here being that maintaining the status quo is, in fact, action in itself.

I think there's a lot of truth in the above assertions, and here, unfortunately, the status quo is not bothering to come up with a coherent policy at cutting emissions; the flaw in suggestions to cut emissions is the fact that we can't 100% "prove" anthropogenic inputs into climate change. As a society, we have to realise that sometimes, the alternative suggestions, even if potentially flawed, may be better than maintaining the status quo- and that action is often desirable on the basis of a high probability of something being true, not only on certainty.

[The PIT]

The report doesn't 100% convince me that a significant proportion of current climate change is caused by humans. However, it's a topic where you can never be 100% certain- I reckon the evidence is enough for around 90% certainty, which is a high enough percentage to warrant action being taken to help reduce the extent of the problem.

Okay Great.

Governement provides grants for people to put up wind turbines on there houses. Solar panels etc. Power Companies to pay people who put more into the national grid than they take out.

Governement takes over public transport after investigating South Yorkshires very succesfuyl public transport before Maggie destroyed it.

Governement provides full relocation fees for companies and workers who are doing the same jobs. IE working for Leeds University but driving froim Sheffield too Leeds when someone is driving from Leeds to Sheffield University. Basically a job swap. Should be a min fee involved.

Heavy goods to be put on rail. New rail networks along side motorways first of all to remove heavy goods then regular communting.

Governement to help people to buy Hybrid Vehicles.

Governement to fine all companies who use overpackaging on there products.

Junk mailing to be banned.

[parmenides3]

Since my edit may have been missed.

Since the The Stars Climate expert isn't quite what they said do you still want me email him on his view points?

It's up to you, Pit; depends on what you want to ask him. What does the report say that he has said? Why does he think this? etc. It is quite possible that he will have reasons for wanting a response to climate change that are quite different to those of others and might well be convincing/ interesting.

:)P

[johnholmes]

Thanks John I wasn't go to comment until you said I misquoted. I didn't.

Yes the Stir is The Star. Called the Stir as it likes to Stir things up and get things wrong at times.

Quote.

Everyone lives near a River will be flooded. My Comment. Only if you live on a flood plain which is perfectly natural. Not everyone who lives near a river is on a flood plain.

Quote

The first Time that Humans are controlling the Weather. My Comment. Err not true true we're not controlling it maybe influcencing it but certainly not controlling it. Otherwise it would be used as a weapon.

Quote

A Few People think that it is just a reason for the Governement to raise taxes. My Comment. A lot of people I know agree that this is what the Government is actually doing. I don't think the Government is really taking it seriously otherwise it would do more like proper investment in public transport.

These are direct quotes taken from the Star I've got infront of me. Pity you didn't read it or you would have seen the quotes.

By the way I read I've the report and I'm still not 100% convinced.

However I still believe it's a good idea anyway to clean our act up anyway. It would benifit us and the World and make a much more pleasant enviroment for all of to live in. Certainly it would make a much healither world to live in. Now whether the report is correct or not the we may never know if we do clean up. If we don't who knows I won't be around to find out so then do we owe to the children to do something???

I did read the full report by the reporter in The Star and as someone who knows Sheffield quite well I am aware of its nick name. All I asked was that this thread has 'constructive' comments rather than the type you posted. That you are not 100% convinced by the major summary of the report is no problem, others on here and elsewhere will be in the same position, we can all agree to disagree I hope in a friendly and constructive manner.

John

what you have discovered Pit sums up most journalism sadly. Misquotes, are the name of the game to them. I dealt with many during my time as a forecaster at Manchester Weather Centre, some being household names and I well remember Ian Macaskill 'exploding' after he was shown his supposed interview with a well know Fleet Street journalist. They did get Ian's first name correct but not much else including his surname.

This is why I am so insistent that people do not make their own quotes of something they have read but quote the full item.

yet another excample occurred during the last winter when the Head of Forecasting at the Met Office agreed to an interview on Radio 4 in the mistaken belief that he could finally get across just exactly what the met O had printed way back in september and then again in November for the winter of 2005-06. I chatted on e mail a few days later with someone who knows him well(I knew him slightly) and he told me that he had vowed never ever again to be interviewed because what he said was constantly twisted to something else by the interviewer.

Edited February 4, 2007 by johnholmes

[Thundery wintry showers]

I do agree with many of Pit's sentiments; reliance on taxation & restriction of the general public alone is unlikely to solve the problem- and even if it does, it would be the most unpopular, draconian and negative way of doing so. Many of The Pit's suggestions strike me as reasonable attempts to coerce the public and power companies into reducing emissions.

Also good points by John above; I feel that the IPCC report will almost certainly end up twisted beyond recognition, in order to present particular agendas. It's notable how changing just the odd word here and there can completely change the meaning of what people say.

[Gray-Wolf]

I cannot say I have any great faith in most individuals or govt. adopting any useful stance on Global warming. There will be posturing, there will be debates but I feel any action will be woefully inadequate.

Market forces will take over and it will be insurance (or lack of it) that forces both the public and Govt. to take a more useful approach to things.

Sadly this will take a few 'bad' climatic events striking U.K. to instigate any change, be it from a heatwave causing losses or a Hybdrid Hurricane messing up the SW/SE or F3/4 Tornado hitting a southern town......

[Methuselah]

Apologies for jumping-in so late in the day, guys. But I do think that fiscal measures are needed in order to curb our flagrant wastage of nature's limited recsources, and the repercussions for global climate...

IMO, air travel is too inexpensive as things stand at the moment; and, as I've no-doubt said before, I also believe that, in order for so many folks to drive in the uneconomical ways they do, car fuel is also still to cheap???

So sometimes, IMO, draconian legislation must be called for. How else (education and adaptation notwithstanding) can we hope to leave our descendents an environment worth living in; one that we ourselves would wish to live in??

Anyway, guys - I trust you are all well?

[Gray-Wolf]

Anyway, guys - I trust you are all well?

Good to see yer stranger!

I agree with what you are saying but I don't forsee the changes happening.

[Stratos Ferric]

Have to agree with much of what's submitted above. I have long been of the view that it will take a run of catastrophic events close to home to shock us into action. The bottom line is that we are generally pretty selfish and careless, or at least a sufficient rump is to ensure that voluntary action will almost certainly not work. If you think I'm being harsh then come see the state of the roadside in the country around my house: McDonalds wrappers don't grow from roadside bulbs; birds don't carry Burger King boxes up here.

The problem with fiscal measures is that they penalise the poor first and tend to be regressive; rationing would be fairer, and if rations were tradeable then the poor can make their choices. This will almost certainly be the way with carbon trading, and re the latter it's increasingly looking like "when" not "if", certainly for major industrials. Closer to home it would be perfectly viable to place cut-off meters on domestic residences to control the use of power.

I'm also enough of a technocrat to believe that science will find some answers, and nuclear will provide a more acceptable fall back - even if other viable alternatives aren't found - if and when reality bites. Humanity has an amusing capability to be pragmatically turncoat when "needs must".

The big challenge in all of this is the battle between short-term interests and long-term ones. Long term never won votes, and it erodes today's profits. I am a capitalist at heart, but the presumption that this is the right system depends on a number of assumptions which, in a decade or two, may no longer be valid. IF climate change really does start to have serious repercussions (and it's a big "if" - but let's be clear, in my lifetime there was a long period when this possibility wasn't even on the periphery of the radar of possibility, nor beyond the immediate foothills at the margin, so things have come a long way in a relatively short time) then it will require a form of global communism to resolve it.

Can I see that happening? Not sure. In times of stress retrenchment is the historic norm. What is clear is that without exception, in my working life, I cannot think of an instance where early action would not have been cheaper and more effective than later reaction. The problem is that reaction carries with it certainty of need; proaction is always open to accusations from the wings of wasted investement, the "how do we know so why should I pay" lobby - one or two of whom might even be found on N-W!

[Thundery wintry showers]

I agree that some draconian legislation may be necessary, at least in the long-term. It's just that my personal philosophy is to aim for maximum emissions reductions and minimum need for negative lifestyle changes and curbing of personal liberty- and I think that relying primarily on draconian 'stick' measures may force more costs to liberty than is really necessary.

Personally, I favour primarily bringing in the 'carrot' type measures first- giving people positive incentives to make changes and reducing the amount of sacrifices necessary- and the 'sticks' will always be there to be used if the 'carrot' measures don't succeed to enough of an extent. There's many areas where some people would probably make changes and others wouldn't be bothered- in which case by all means bring in the draconianism to force everyone to be bothered. Both taxes and rationing are possible; I agree with Stratos's points re. taxation being regressive and punishing the poor btw.

In recent times I've increasingly favoured an emphasis on fuel consumption when it comes to taxing/rationing transport, together with incentivising development and use of cleaner fuels, but I'm aware that others don't agree with me.

I agree, unfortunately, that it's quite likely that the only way we'll see significant changes coming about is via catastrophic events occurring, in view of the short-termism and selfishness both by politicians and by the general population.

[West is Best]

That article does look rather sensationalist,

I apologise for a one-liner, but I have impugned TWS' character elsewhere by inferring that he thought the report was sensationalist when, in fact, 'as any fool know', he was referring to the article from The Star. Apologies! It'll teach me to wear my glasses when on NW in future.

yours,

Richard

[biffvernon]

I do think that fiscal measures are needed in order to curb our flagrant wastage of nature's limited resources, and the repercussions for global climate... IMO, air travel is too inexpensive as things stand at the moment; and, as I've no-doubt said before, I also believe that, in order for so many folks to drive in the uneconomical ways they do, car fuel is also still to cheap???

I'm all for curbing the waste of oil on flying and driving. Oil is a useful but finite resource that should not be squandered for the rich people's pleasure.

But because it is so useful and so limited in supply, any savings made by, say, increasing the cost of air travel, will be transferred to other oil uses. As we pass Peak Oil and head down the oil depletion curve the maximum rate of oil production will be supply driven not demand led. Saving oil in one sector will do nothing to mitigate climate change.

From the climate change perspective, we need to focus our attention on preventing coal from being substituted for oil and on energy conservation, efficiency and developing sustainable energy production.

Stopping flying may make he world quieter and fairer but it won't slow climate change.

[TEITS]

I haven't read the report in full yet and usually steer clear of these threads but I shall quickly put my points across.

First off I do believe humans are to blame for GW and yes GW is very real which only a fool would deny IMO.

Where im always cautious and this is why I avoid these threads is the predicted increase of temps!.

I don't believe any computer model can simulate our climate for the next 100 years. Just look at all the factors that could make a difference. First off is the El nino, some people believe that continued GW will cause a permanant El Nino event which could have repurcussions on the Amazon rainforest by causing a drought and removing the effects the rainforest has in absorbing Carbon Dioxide thus increasing GW.

Then we have the ocean's cirulations and the much documented effects that melting ice could have on the gulf stream. Speaking of ice some people suggest that GW will actually increase snowfall over the Artic regions!.

You may laugh but even cloud cover could make a difference to temps globally because could GW cause greater cloud cover over the globe and what type of cloud cover could this be because some types trap the warmth whereas some clouds actually reflect this.

What we do need to do is take action and I mean this globally because it is unfair to leave this for future generations.

[PersianPaladin]

Unfortunatley, in our society...people couldn't really give a stuff about the long-term. It's mostly the short-term that concerns majority of people, and that's about buying (or drinking, clubbing) themselves through the next week or two.

Edited February 5, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[The PIT]

I've emailed the prof and I'll let you know what he decides.

[Gray-Wolf]

Unfortunatley, in our society...people couldn't really give a stuff about the long-term. It's mostly the short-term that concerns majority of people, and that's about buying (or drinking, clubbing) themselves through the next week or two.

To true P.P. The notion of delayed gratification is wholly alien to many of our younger social members. Once upon a time you could define 'class' by how far ahead the person planned. 5year plans were for those with private (assured) income. The weekly paid didn't look much further than the next week.

Most folk are now 'white collar' monthly paid but seem to only look towards their next 'session/binge'.............the future belongs to the proles and then they'll starve.

[The PIT]

I have mentioned in other threads thats it's time for companies to reduce there packaging. Tesco's have done that but for fruit and veg for example you have to buy two cartons instead of one since you're getting less. End result you're still got the same or slightly small packaging. Sadly our local tesco's have stopped allowing you to chose lose tomotoa's so they're not really helping.

One company sent a small bolt in a huge one by foot cardboard box just amazing waste. USB sticks that come in 6 x 4 inch plastic wallets is another example. What a waste.

Just to let you know the Prof hasn't answered as yet by the way.

Edited February 5, 2007 by The PIT

[Gray-Wolf]

it would seem that the IPCC did 'do down' both temps and Sea Level rise according to recent research. Because the research only spans 1990 - 2006 it is figured to be too smasll a sample to be useable but shows that actual temp. rise is in the upper area of predictions and Sea level rise is a lot higher than advised! Back to the drawing board eh? I thought things would need revising upwards but not only after 4 days!!!

[biffvernon]

There is a lot of attention being paid to the climate contribution from burning oil by flying, driving etc, but oil is limited. Coal may be a more serious problem.

The IPCC claim in their “Summary of Policy Makers” it will take another 490 [375 to 600] Gt of carbon emissions to give us +2C and 450ppmv yet there is only 162 Gt of carbon remaining in all the available liquids fossil fuels over the coming century. The media seem to have oil in their sights as climate change public enemy number one when that just isn't the case.

The 162GtC figure comes from the Latest ASPO newsletter:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/cv_ASPO_JAN07.png

I'm not saying we don't face climate disaster - just that oil isn't half as responsible as people make out.

Edited February 6, 2007 by biffvernon

[The PIT]

Good News Prof Ian has emailed me back.

So if you got any questions post them here or pm me and I'll pass them on.

[parmenides3]

Good News Prof Ian has emailed me back.

So if you got any questions post them here or pm me and I'll pass them on.

So, Pit, is Sheffield doomed? When are the hippos due back?

:)P

[The PIT]

So any Questions anybody??