The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Gray-Wolf]

PS - Thanks for the support, Penguin - I think you're the first to see it the way I do!

I'm not dismissing the 'no regrets' policy as I DO feel it will be the 'way forward' that the planet adopts (something IS better than nothing) but I do think it's a bit of a 'chocolate firegaurd' (in my reality at least), thats all!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I'm not dismissing the 'no regrets' policy as I DO feel it will be the 'way forward' that the planet adopts (something IS better than nothing) but I do think it's a bit of a 'chocolate firegaurd' (in my reality at least), thats all!

Well, you are dismissing it because you don't think it'll work - if it's not going to work then what's the point? That's pretty dismissive! I think it would work, if it were properly formed. I've read some run-downs of the policy which are worded appallingly and would certainly be of no benefit - but just because someone hasn't laid out a sensible version of the idea doesn't mean it's just rubbish. The way I have laid it out makes some kind of sense to me (but I won't try to apply figures or percentages to the policy!).

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Well, you are dismissing it because you don't think it'll work - if it's not going to work then what's the point? That's pretty dismissive! I think it would work, if it were properly formed. I've read some run-downs of the policy which are worded appallingly and would certainly be of no benefit - but just because someone hasn't laid out a sensible version of the idea doesn't mean it's just rubbish. The way I have laid it out makes some kind of sense to me (but I won't try to apply figures or percentages to the policy!).

CB

C-Bob, I'm not picking a fight here but it seems you are talking in 'if's' and 'woulds' and I'm being more realistic (in my opinion) on how things 'will' pan out.

As I have said it's (no regrets policy) the most acceptable to the majority of the world (I would imagine) but it will not be implemented in the way you outline.

I don't wish to hear 'if's' and 'buts' but more predictive 'what wills' . In life it seems to be common place for a problem to be solved on paper but never to be implemented in any shape or form resembling the proposal. We are humans and we can all witness, day in day out, the way we humans 'put off' actions (even in our lowly ,daily living).

Again, I DO see the sense in the proposal but have little faith in the powers that be taking any meaningful lead to implementing it in any way resembling 'useful' ( and not just a 'salve' for the conscience of the masses)

[Admiral_Bobski]

C-Bob, I'm not picking a fight here but it seems you are talking in 'if's' and 'woulds' and I'm being more realistic (in my opinion) on how things 'will' pan out.

As I have said it's (no regrets policy) the most acceptable to the majority of the world (I would imagine) but it will not be implemented in the way you outline.

I don't wish to hear 'if's' and 'buts' but more predictive 'what wills' . In life it seems to be common place for a problem to be solved on paper but never to be implemented in any shape or form resembling the proposal. We are humans and we can all witness, day in day out, the way we humans 'put off' actions (even in our lowly ,daily living).

Again, I DO see the sense in the proposal but have little faith in the powers that be taking any meaningful lead to implementing it in any way resembling 'useful' ( and not just a 'salve' for the conscience of the masses)

Sorry if my last post seemed overly confrontational The reason I am talking in "ifs" and "woulds" is because I appreciate the fact that NR is unlikely to ever actually be implemented (however, if it were then it would do what I have outlined previously). Unfortunately, without wishing to get too cynical or political, I fear that the main reason NR would not be proposed is because it doesn't stand to rake in as much money for the government as the current swathe of carbon cuts and taxation. I firmly believe that very few businesses would be taxed or fined dramatically, simply because the benefits of adhering to NR would far outweigh the desire to be fined or taxed.

On the flip side (and still, I'm afraid, being far too cynical and political ) the current governmental proposals and actions are potentially huge money-spinners - most people on the streets won't change their ways, they'll just grumble at the ever-growing expense of living in this country. In fact, while I believe businesses (such as the oil companies) have an incentive to look further ahead at long-term investments, it is governments who are narrow-minded, short-sighted and think only in the short-term (generally thinking only up to the next election). How else can you explain the drive to eradicate smoking? Are they really doing it for our health? I doubt it, since the costs of treating so-called "smoking-related" illnesses on the NHS are dwarfed by the amount of money in taxes that smokers pay to the government each year. The taxation is a money-spinner, the concessions (such as yesterdays reduction of VAT on Nicotine patches to 5%) are a way of justifying the increased taxes - but have they really thought about the consequences of their actions? Have they any idea how they might, in the future, fill the multi-billion pound hole in their budget that results from the lack of smokers in this country? They rely on the fact that smokers will continue to smoke - if they genuinely cared that much about our health then they would just ban cigarettes and offer clinics for people to beat their addiction, but that would cost them money (because of the clinics) and lose them money (from the loss of taxes).

But just because NR will, in all likelihood, never be accepted by politicians, it is still (I believe) a sensible proposal, and therefore should be considered as an altenative to the very black-and-white "Accept the taxation and save the world, or Do Nothing and destroy the world" arguments.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

I cannot take issue with any of your thinking outlined in the post above C-Bob, sorry for the mis-understanding!

[Admiral_Bobski]

I cannot take issue with any of your thinking outlined in the post above C-Bob, sorry for the mis-understanding!

No problem, GW! We wouldn't have these misunderstandings if I wrote my thoughts more thoroughly or accurately - that'll teach me to post too early in the morning!

CB

EDIT - Yes, 9.30 is way too early in the morning for me! (Busy days and, at present, sleepless nights... Kids, who'd have 'em, eh...?! )

Edited March 22, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[parmenides3]

Morning. 'No regrets' has come up before. One problem we have is that the term (and the policy) is strongly associated in the USA with one particular political stance to Kyoto and CO2 emissions strategy. As such, it has been discussed more over there than here.

Without returning to the previous discussions, in response to the comment by C-Bob earlier about reasons not to accept 'No regrets', I suppose this would count: http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/a...cf1470746bfec39

The actual article is a 6MB pdf, but is worth the read.

To pre-empt what might arise from this article, the problem with it is that it presumes (though the uncertainties are well defined) that models can produce meaningful output (it does not presume, though, that the model is 'right'). It also works on the basis that climate sensitivity is ~3C or less. So, the paper deals with the very issues that we have been going over here.

The broad conclusion of the paper is that inadequate response to the call for CO2 emissions cuts in the next ten-fifteen years is likely to result in regionally dangerous climate changes down-the-line. The paper deals with three main regional cases; the Arctic, The ice sheets and Tropical storms.

In this sense, I suppose that it is arguing that a 'no regrets' policy is not acceptable.

Oh, and please, if you are going to challenge the paper, read it first.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Are you sure your not a 'Catastrophist' P3 or is science just edging in that direction (should the BAU scenario continue for another decade or more)?

How do you see things panning out over the next 10-15yrs? Not what we should, or might be doing but what you feel we ,as a planet, will be doing?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Morning. 'No regrets' has come up before. One problem we have is that the term (and the policy) is strongly associated in the USA with one particular political stance to Kyoto and CO2 emissions strategy. As such, it has been discussed more over there than here.

The broad conclusion of the paper is that inadequate response to the call for CO2 emissions cuts in the next ten-fifteen years is likely to result in regionally dangerous climate changes down-the-line. The paper deals with three main regional cases; the Arctic, The ice sheets and Tropical storms.

In this sense, I suppose that it is arguing that a 'no regrets' policy is not acceptable.

Oh, and please, if you are going to challenge the paper, read it first.

:)P

I shan't challenge the paper until I have read it, but I'll just say this (it's worth reading all through this before dismissing it, because I'm going to start with a contentious statement!):

All of our Emissions Reductions plans aren't going to be worth a damn if China (and other nations) continue their development at their current rate. There is, whether you like it or not, an argument for "What's the Point?" (to some extent, at least, since there's the obvious rebuttal of countering the issue of the problem being compounded by China's and our joint emissions). And we do seem like pretty small fry when compared with China and its growing "dirty" industry. Add to this the fact that China will never sign up to an emissions reduction program such as is currently proposed, and it doesn't make much difference how much of the rest of the world makes cuts, because of China's resistance to the idea.

However...

No Regrets means the development of new technologies in a shorter time-frame than would "naturally" occur. The development of fossil-fuel-free energy production would require a technological breakthrough, and history has shown us that once that breakthrough has been made by one person, everyone else quickly follows suit. (Look at nuclear weapons and nuclear power stations - one country invents them and, in no time at all, everybody else has them too.)

This leaves us with two likely scenarios:

1) China continues to make new power stations every fifteen and a half seconds, but then a breakthrough is made overseas. Now that the technology has been created and is made available (or the plans for the construction of said technology is made available), China starts building the new kind of power station. Soon there is no need for the old-fashioned power stations, and they are phased out. (Nuclear power has not had this impact in China because of the cost of setting up and running that many fission reactors - the fissile material is pretty darned expensive to buy, store, use and dispose of. If fusion power were developed, though, the costs would be much less, in theory anyway, as the raw ingredient for fusion is, basically, water - and the energy production from a fusion power station would be phenomenal.)

2) China, seeking to be a world leader in all things (as they are already trying to be), may even accept and implement a No Regrets policy, if they believe they could be the ones to make that technological breakthrough first. The potential combination of money and power obtained from being the first to develop these things could be incentive enough for China to accept what is perceived as being an "environmental" policy (even though NR is only partly environmental, and largely plain practical and pragmatic).

Considering how unlikely it is that Carbon Taxes, Carbon Credits and Carbon Trading will have a significant effect in the short-term anyway, I fail to see how a sensible No Regrets-based policy can be dismissed on those grounds. No Regrets means using the present to safeguard the future, whereas the current policies mean restricting the present with the hope of safeguarding the future.

CB

EDIT - Just read the abstract for the paper and want to quickly ask about this:

We suggest that Arctic climate change has been driven as much by pollutants (O₃, its precursor CH₄, and soot) as by CO₂

O₃? Why are they classing Ozone as a pollutant? Perhaps it is explained in the paper, but I thought I'd ask up front anyway...

Edited March 22, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

Here's another 'natural forcing' paper that seems (to me ) to raise as many questions as it seeks to answer!

http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/publications/Bryson_2006_Volc.pdf

[Admiral_Bobski]

Here's another 'natural forcing' paper that seems (to me ) to raise as many questions as it seeks to answer!

http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/publications/Bryson_2006_Volc.pdf

Interesting paper, GW - what questions do you feel it raises? I thought that it seemed pretty self-consistent (although somewhat brief and sketchy).

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Well C-Bob don't you find some of the responses (volcanic indices) very regular in their spacing? The D-O events (which I though were solar forcing) for instance. I don't know of any Euro/Med vulcanisity that is ;

A/ of the time period/spacing

B/ of a size to cause the level of 'dimming' suggested

I have been watching an earthquake 'swarm'? around Thera the past few months since I spotted the pattern in the +3 mag quakes ringing the area (with a couple of central 'at depth' quakes) and wonder whether the destruction of the island arc/production of the Thera complex could be the culprit?

Just a few for starters!

EDIT: Recent studies of the last major eruption of Thera put the event as half as big again as previously thought so it is in the 'zone' for the output to force such events.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Are you sure your not a 'Catastrophist' P3 or is science just edging in that direction (should the BAU scenario continue for another decade or more)?

How do you see things panning out over the next 10-15yrs? Not what we should, or might be doing but what you feel we ,as a planet, will be doing?

No, I'm definitely not a 'catastrophist' in the sense that it is normally understood. One problem lies with defining what counts as 'dangerous' climate change - a problem brought in the Hadley report (COP10?) a couple of years ago. The media want 'dangerous' to mean the same as 'disastrous', or 'catastrophic, e.g., causing a big, picturesque and pitiable human disaster on a grand scale, like the 2004 tsunami. Politicians seem to want to play on our common misunderstanding of the idea of 'dangerous' to play on our fears, thus justifying the changes they are bringing in now. But for climate scientists, 'dangerous' can mean something different to either of these.

With the state of our understanding of climate as it is, with some things well understood but others still not well-modelled, not well explained, and responding to unknown causal agencies, there is a genuine concern that, at some given point in the future (which 'point' could be a decade or two long), the climate will have been committed to warming by the increase of CO2, to such an extent that the feedback effects become both increasingly unclear and increasingly risky, as well as being unstoppable. This is why there is research in the ice sheets, the arctic, the ocean circulation and heat content, etc.

First, it is clear that these areas need to be better understood and better modelled in the climate simulations under certain forcings, so as to reduce the uncertainty involved. Second, it is clear that, if the assumption that CO2 is the dominant forcing at the moment is correct, the longer it takes to actively reduce the increases in emissions, the more likely it is that we wiil reach a point beyond which the climate is 'committed' to some more permanent changes, for example, increased drought in some regions, the loss of the Amazon rain forest, the loss of Summer Arctic sea ice cover, the unstoppable decline of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a collapse of the WAIS...

As to whether such changes, most of which are likely to have impacts decades or further away, are 'dangerous'; that depends on what counts as 'danger'. If you live in a marginal society in subsistence conditions, any change which reduces the already perilous state of agriculture and water supply is likely to be rapid and fatal. If you live in marginal coastal areas where flood risk already exists, that risk increases persistently, until a point is reached when it is no longer sensible to preserve the hard-won property you own. If you live in the UK, 'danger' is more like to come from secondary effects rather than primary ones, for example, economic recession or hyper-inflation.

The assumption also exists that, where resources and climate are unstable, so political and lawful structures become vulnerable; the greater the hardship, the greater the change of destabilisation.

How do I see things panning out over the next decade? The USA will do nothing until Bush is replaced. Depending on the make-up of the two houses in Washington, it will take at least two years beyond that time before a policy becomes likely, and a further ten years beyond that for the effects of the policy to kick in (allowing businesses to adapt, where needed, to the changes). So, active US emissions reductions are unlikely before 2012 at the earliest, and meaningful reductions, probably not before 2018-20.

China will continue to expand its engergy producing capability, based on coal, for the next ten years, whilst paying lip-service to changes, and making some high-profile but ultimately ineffectual 'compromises' to its emissions. India will do likewise, but seems more likely to respond to the challenge of sustainable energy, for a variety of reasons.

Because the balance of world trade and power still resides in oil (and to a lesser extent, gas) production, distribution and consumption, and the power of the various leaders is more or less dependent on this, it seems likely that oil will continue to be extracted, processsed and used until it becomes no longer viable, which will be in 40 years at the least. Therefore, whilst some CO2 output may well be slowed, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2050 is very likely to equal or exceed 550ppm. How much it goes up beyond that in the following 50 years is harder to tell.

Biofuels will continue to be developed, but it is clear that, as they stand, they will never be able to replace fossil fuels; there isn't anough land available in the world to grow enough biofuel crops and enough food for 6-9 billion people. For biofuels to become a viable major energy source, there will need to be a breakthrough in this field. Of course, the assumption that biofuels are necessary at all is based on the idea that, in the absence of fossil fuels, we will need something like fossil fuels to replace them (an assumption based on far to many other assumptions to be considered correct).

Nuclear power would seem to be a possible longer-term solution to energy needs, but as Iran shows, there is enough difficulty in working out who controls the worlds nuclear output to make this solution politically challenging. I suspect there may be some ground made in this area in the next decade, but there is still too much politicial self-interest involved in the process to be comfortable with the notion that this will be easy. Once you move away from a mutual dependence on oil-trade to autonomy based on nuclear capability, the entire balance of power between states changes. This is not a comfortable state of affairs for those who currently hold that balance of power.

There is a good chance that there will be a breakthrough in hydrogen-based vehicle fuel technology. Whilst this will reduce demand, eventually, for petrol, it will not prevent the burning of fossil fuels, as these resources will be diverted to other uses.

That's probably enough of my opinion for the time being.

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

Well C-Bob don't you find some of the responses (volcanic indices) very regular in their spacing? The D-O events (which I though were solar forcing) for instance. I don't know of any Euro/Med vulcanisity that is ;

A/ of the time period/spacing

B/ of a size to cause the level of 'dimming' suggested

I see what you mean, but as I say the paper is quite brief and sketchy - might be worth looking at the original reference material, as it might go into greater detail.

Yes, the VIs are quite regular in their spacings, which is obviously perceived to be (at least slightly) unexpected as Bryson himself says "Looking at the Volcanicity Index (VI) record, one is immediately struck with the apparent regularity of the variations...There are very significant periodicities in the record." But, if that is truly what the record shows then that's what the record shows.

D-O Events (and Heinrich Events) are not necessarily to do with solar forcing (or not just solar forcing). The Events themselves are Climatic events on Earth - the mechanisms which cause them may be solar in origin, or volcanic, or a mixture of both (or something entirely different!).

I don't know about the European/Mediterranean vulcanicity and how it tallies with the graphs, but again it might be worth looking at the source material for this paper and seeing what that has to say on the subject.

CB

[Devonian]

No, I'm definitely not a 'catastrophist' in the sense that it is normally understood. ...

...

...

...

:)P

An analysis I'd agree with P3, looks like 500/550ppm is quite on the cards to me as well. I hope climate is less not more responsive to CO2 changes than thought atm.

Edited March 22, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

An analysis I'd agree with P3, looks like 500/550ppm is quite on the cards to me as well. I hope climate is less not more responsive to CO2 changes than thought atm.

So maybe not 'Catastrophists' but with more of a 'feeling' that many of the 'poorly developed models' will eventually bring forward more cause for concern than less cause for concern, i.e. because of the percieved climate of sceptisism folk will err on the side of caution (until irrefutable evidence can be brought to the table).

The more we understand the less we feel we really know?

[Mondy]

[The Eagle]

Those who are pro the AGW argument have no explantation for the rise in temperatue aheard of Carbon emmisissions. This abolishes their arguments completely. End of story.

[Gray-Wolf]

Those who are pro the AGW argument have no explanations for the rise in temperate ahead of Carbon emissions. This abolishes their arguments completely. End of story.

Keep up ,keep up! in this rapidly changing world posting before checking the state of the 'observed world/paleo world can lead to you looking as foolish as the 'scientists who mooted Mondy's 1975 post above.

Paleo climatology is a difficult subject to 'zone in' on small periods of time (a year or so) in a contiguous way globally. We seem to be getting there slowly but surely and the latest interpretations of ice core/mud core/dendro dates would suggest that Co2 slightly precedes, or runs parallel with, warming.

Now doesn't your post look dated and ineffectual?

[Mondy]

as foolish as the 'scientists who mooted Mondy's 1975 post above.

Pot, kettle, black with today's scaremongering scientists, eh?!

Ps, that article was put up tongue in cheek. It really just reinforces my thoughts about todays hysteria over (a)Global Warming. Kinda makes it look foolish for my part; all these believers shoving their now seemingly religious material down our throats. God, i despair. :lol: Go set up a forum (all you believers) and pander to each other there. Makes me sick.

Remind me to return to this thread when global temps have risen to an incredible 1c over x-amount of years :lol:

Edited March 25, 2007 by Mondy

[Gray-Wolf]

Pot, kettle, black with today's scaremongering scientists, eh?!

Come on Mondy, how big was your P.C. in 1975? Science ,time and tide waits for no man!!! how many Sat.s were up there in 75? I sure couldn't be watching Antarctic piccies that were hours old from the comfort of my own home then could I? We couldn't measure the rise and fall of 2km of ice as streams dammed and lakes formed under the Ice sheets could we. You always go on the best info for the time but that 'info' has a logical 'limit' and so the further down the line the clearer the picture of things. Think of what we knew of the Jovian satellites back then compared to how we know them today. We were wrong when we were guessing but seeing is all (I mean active volcanoes driven by gravitational tidal flows? stuff and nonsense eh?).

You wouldn't compare Copernicus's knowledge to NASA's would you?

[Mondy]

I think you're missing the irony of it all, GW

[stormchaser1]

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

March 19, 2007

Long-term climate records are a key to understanding how Earth's climate changed in the past and how it may change in the future. Direct measurements of light energy emitted by the sun, taken by satellites and other modern scientific techniques, suggest variations in the sun's activity influence Earth's long-term climate. However, there were no measured climate records of this type until the relatively recent scientific past.

Scientists have traditionally relied upon indirect data gathering methods to study climate in the Earth's past, such as drilling ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica. Such samples of accumulated snow and ice drilled from deep within ice sheets or glaciers contain trapped air bubbles whose composition can provide a picture of past climate conditions. Now, however, a group of NASA and university scientists has found a convincing link between long-term solar and climate variability in a unique and unexpected source: directly measured ancient water level records of the Nile, Earth's longest river.

Alexander Ruzmaikin and Joan Feynman of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., together with Dr. Yuk Yung of the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, Calif., have analyzed Egyptian records of annual Nile water levels collected between 622 and 1470 A.D. at Rawdah Island in Cairo. These records were then compared to another well-documented human record from the same time period: observations of the number of auroras reported per decade in the Northern Hemisphere. Auroras are bright glows in the night sky that happen when mass is rapidly ejected from the sun's corona, or following solar flares. They are an excellent means of tracking variations in the sun's activity.

Feynman said that while ancient Nile and auroral records are generally "spotty," that was not the case for the particular 850-year period they studied.

"Since the time of the pharaohs, the water levels of the Nile were accurately measured, since they were critically important for agriculture and the preservation of temples in Egypt," she said. "These records are highly accurate and were obtained directly, making them a rare and unique resource for climatologists to peer back in time."

A similarly accurate record exists for auroral activity during the same time period in northern Europe and the Far East. People there routinely and carefully observed and recorded auroral activity, because auroras were believed to portend future disasters, such as droughts and the deaths of kings.

"A great deal of modern scientific effort has gone into collecting these ancient auroral records, inter-comparing them and evaluating their accuracy," Ruzmaikin said. "They have been successfully used by aurora experts around the world to study longer time scale variations."

The researchers found some clear links between the sun's activity and climate variations. The Nile water levels and aurora records had two somewhat regularly occurring variations in common - one with a period of about 88 years and the second with a period of about 200 years.

The researchers said the findings have climate implications that extend far beyond the Nile River basin.

"Our results characterize not just a small region of the upper Nile, but a much more extended part of Africa," said Ruzmaikin. "The Nile River provides drainage for approximately 10 percent of the African continent. Its two main sources - Lake Tana in Ethiopia and Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Uganda and Kenya - are in equatorial Africa. Since Africa's climate is interrelated to climate variability in the Indian and Atlantic Oceans, these findings help us better understand climate change on a global basis."

So what causes these cyclical links between solar variability and the Nile? The authors suggest that variations in the sun's ultraviolet energy cause adjustments in a climate pattern called the Northern Annular Mode, which affects climate in the atmosphere of the Northern Hemisphere during the winter. At sea level, this mode becomes the North Atlantic Oscillation, a large-scale seesaw in atmospheric mass that affects how air circulates over the Atlantic Ocean. During periods of high solar activity, the North Atlantic Oscillation's influence extends to the Indian Ocean. These adjustments may affect the distribution of air temperatures, which subsequently influence air circulation and rainfall at the Nile River's sources in eastern equatorial Africa. When solar activity is high, conditions are drier, and when it is low, conditions are wetter.

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

ttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

nigel

[Gray-Wolf]

Certainly makes you wonder at the impacts of messing which such a large cyclical feature (in terms of climate experienced on the ground) I keep mooting that AGW proponants and 'natural forcings' folk should have a pow wow to suss the impacts of both sets of forcings together (and not the all or nothing approach I see today). Ah well, you can dream......

[noggin]

NASA Finds Sun-Climate Connection in Old Nile Records

March 19, 2007....

Study findings were recently published in the Journal of Geophysical Research.

ttp://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1319

nigel

Very interesting read. My own vho is that it is the Sun that causes climatic variation. It is such a powerful thing that I cannot imagine anything else being capable of varying the climate.