Political Involvement With Agw / Gw / Climate Change

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

That doesn't mean that they are all wrong; merely that they've yet to be perfected.

Governments are using them as if they have been perfected.

It's only irrelevent so long as it doesn't further oxidize within the atmosphere to become CO2??

I don't think CO2 is a pollutant. What were your thoughts on what I wrote here?

We are made out of carbon. We eat plants who "eat" carbon. Carbon in gas form with Oxygen is vital to life on Earth.

Farming businesses in this country today are using giant greenhouses into which they are pumping in CO2 in far higher concentrations than it exists in the environment. Why? Because CO2 makes plants grow larger and faster.

The "greening" of the Sahal region of sub-Saharan Africa, which I remember being taught in A-Level geography had a problem with desertification, has been attributed to enhanced levels of atmospheric CO2.

If we took 100 PPM CO2 out of the atmosphere, how many millions of tonnes of global cereal production would be affected? If we had 100 PPM more, how many more mouths would be fed? Every year 15 million children die of hunger alone - this is not an insignificant amount of lives.

And, I'm glad they do too. But, I also accept that markets are an essential part of a balanced economy. I think we've all learned from the USSR's penchant for 'redistributing' that which no-one is allowed to generate in the first place? Marxist 'economics' I do not like!

It seems we are all agreed then on what a good economy should look like. Healthy market with some government intervention.

Edited July 10, 2009 by AtlanticFlamethrower

[Methuselah]

If we were to add 100ppm (about 25% of current levels?) of CO2 into the atmosphere, what would ensue? An interesting thought experiment.

TWS probably has a better handle on this, but I'll try:

Global temperatures will rise; the tropics will expand; temperate belts will move northwards and polar ice-sheets will retreat. And, huge amounts of methane will be released from both ocean-floors and tundra?

And things in glasshouses will grow faster?

[AtlanticFlamethrower]

Global temperatures will rise; the tropics will expand; temperate belts will move northwards and polar ice-sheets will retreat. And, huge amounts of methane will be released from both ocean-floors and tundra?

Yet they haven't. And so the models were wrong and the theory is contradicted. That's not to say CO2 has no affect on temperature, but from what we know, we know it's not going to be dramatic.

On the other hand, the ability of CO2 to feed the world's poor is proven.

Are you prepared to kill tens of millions of people in Africa and elsewhere in the world for an unproven fear? What does the precautionary principle say about the deaths caused by human over-reaction to a threat?

[Devonian]

Yet they haven't. And so the models were wrong and the theory is contradicted.

Hang on! it's 2009, no models are predicting dramatic warming by 2009 - you must know that. So, please, don't start trying to call model projections wrong when we're barely started on them. As I've said, that's like calling a daily forecast for showers wrong because it's sunny at 9am...

Besides, we're seeing the beginnings of all those things PT mentions.

That's not to say CO2 has no affect on temperature, but from what we know, we know it's not going to be dramatic.

No we do not. You simply can't say that. Climate has internal variability, there is nothing in the data to say the models are wrong.

What i don't get with sceptics like you is your desperation to rubbish the models. If they're wrong we'll know in good time, if not likewise - as it is the evidence simply isn't there to call the but so far they're doing well (if one understand how such projections work).

On the other hand, the ability of CO2 to feed the world's poor is proven.

Are you prepared to kill tens of millions of people in Africa and elsewhere in the world for an unproven fear? What does the precautionary principle say about the deaths caused by human over-reaction to a threat?

Hello, it's the 'You lot warmers want to kill millions' line is it? Shame on you for the very suggestion. Indeed, how bloody dare you suggest anyone here (and I wouldn't suggest it of you for a second!!) want to kill millions

[Gray-Wolf]

Yet they haven't. And so the models were wrong and the theory is contradicted. .know, .

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/...ys-a-new-study/

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/20...r-tropics_x.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/200.../06/2617756.htm

Seems that they are actually :lol: and at an 'alarming rate'.

I knew I'd not been following all the papers about the expansion of the tropics only to find all those papers dead wrong.

I think the northward shift of the oceanic 10c isotherm ,the northerly shift of the polar jet, the northerly tracking storms are all tied in with this expansion at the equator In fact we need a new set of 'tropical markers' the old ones don't fit any more.

EDIT: Of course the worry isn't just the change in conditions and the impact on agriculture but the poleward movement of tropical diseases and the impacts on society that this will have.

Edited July 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Methuselah]

Yet they haven't. And so the models were wrong and the theory is contradicted. That's not to say CO2 has no affect on temperature, but from what we know, we know it's not going to be dramatic.

On the other hand, the ability of CO2 to feed the world's poor is proven.

Are you prepared to kill tens of millions of people in Africa and elsewhere in the world for an unproven fear? What does the precautionary principle say about the deaths caused by human over-reaction to a threat?

My apologies AF, you actually asked, what would happen if we subtacted, not added, 100 ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere?

I'll try again: Global temps would fall, the tropics would contract, polar climates would extend equatorwards and temperate zones would shift south and north? Whether or not the increased available sunshine would offset the reduction in CO2, I don't know...

PS: I can hardly be bothered to respond to your last paragraph!

Edited July 10, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[jethro]

Here's an interesting article by John Christy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GB003327.shtml

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/200...3514.htm?topic=

I have worries about Human induced climate shift. Some of our poster baulk against this notion in favour of natural cycles being the driver of our current climate shift.

I have worries about feedback systems in the high Arctic.

The recent increases in Methane across the polar region (over the past 2 years) is of concern to me.

The fact that we have recently had to up the estimates of the amount of carbon stored there (within the permafrosts of the northern hemisphere) was a worry in it's self but then I considered the reserves of carbon we now estimate they hold and why it is unchanges since it's initial 'freeze'.

In some areas permafrost that was, until recently, 20cm below the surface is now 'several metres' below the surface.

The decay of this mass of peat is now ongoing, CO2 and methane are the result.

If this were long cycle 'natural variation' then surely these upper horizons of the permafrosts would have already been exposed to many cycles of thawing and bacterial activity as these Natural 'cyclical warmings' took place and so would no longer be holding the high reserves of carbon that it does (having already been processed over the previous thawing).

For those who see the arctic ice melt as 'cyclical' I would ask for an answer to that particular conundrum the next time they harp on about the many time the NW Passage has been navigated or Junks circumnavigating the pole

Edited July 10, 2009 by Gray-Wolf

[Solar Cycles]

Here's an interesting article by John Christy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

An interesting read Jethro, one which will sadly fall on too many deaf ears, within the IPCC!!

[Methuselah]

Here's an interesting article by John Christy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

Some very good points made by Mr Christy, Jethro...He is a skeptic after my own heart. The only thing I would take issue with however, is his mention of diurnal temperature ranges: with respect to Climate Change, daily temperature changes are entirely irrelevant, a red herring that does Mr Christy himself no favours, IMO??

Otherwise, a very interesting read!

[Thundery wintry showers]

My main problem with his conclusions is that he considers only the AGW side of continued fossil fuel combustion and not the issue that what remains of our fossil fuels may become increasingly hard to extract with time. That has to be added to the human and economic price of inaction.

However, I do think he's right to say that we should consider the economic and human price of whatever action we take to address GHG emissions. One of the aims of tackling AGW, as the climate science community often preaches, is "to create a better, sustainable way of living for future generations". If we bring in very draconian restrictions on GHGs, and develop inadequate alternatives, such that most of the world ends up in poverty, we certainly won't achieve that!

As for his points about uncertainty over the reliabililty of climate models- I can safely say he's a sceptic after my own heart in that area!

[Solar Cycles]

My main problem with his conclusions is that he considers only the AGW side of continued fossil fuel combustion and not the issue that what remains of our fossil fuels may become increasingly hard to extract with time. That has to be added to the human and economic price of inaction.

However, I do think he's right to say that we should consider the economic and human price of whatever action we take to address GHG emissions. One of the aims of tackling AGW, as the climate science community often preaches, is "to create a better, sustainable way of living for future generations". If we bring in very draconian restrictions on GHGs, and develop inadequate alternatives, such that most of the world ends up in poverty, we certainly won't achieve that!

As for his points about uncertainty over the reliabililty of climate models- I can safely say he's a sceptic after my own heart in that area!

Exactly TWS, and a good point regarding fossil fuels. This needs urgent attention regardless of one's views on AGW!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Some very good points made by Mr Christy, Jethro...He is a skeptic after my own heart. The only thing I would take issue with however, is his mention of diurnal temperature ranges: with respect to Climate Change, daily temperature changes are entirely irrelevant, a red herring that does Mr Christy himself no favours, IMO??

Otherwise, a very interesting read!

Hi Pete

I think perhaps the part you take issue with is written slightly ambiguously (which, I will grant you, is Mr Christy's fault!). He says:

"Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day."

I took this as meaning that global average temperatures vary more than that from day to day. Obviously the temperature in a given location can easily change by anything up to, over and above 10C over the course of 24 hours, but I think he was meaning to say that averaged globally, the temperature of the planet as a whole fluctuates by more than 0.05F from day to day.

Just thought I'd throw that in there

CB

Edited July 10, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[Methuselah]

Hi Pete

I think perhaps the part you take issue with is written slightly ambiguously (which, I will grant you, is Mr Christy's fault!). He says:

"Even if you applied this law to the entire world, the net effect would reduce projected warming by about 0.05 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100, an amount so minuscule as to be undetectable. Global temperatures vary more than that from day to day."

I took this as meaning that global average temperatures vary more than that from day to day. Obviously the temperature in a given location can easily change by anything up to, over and above 10C over the course of 24 hours, but I think he was meaning to say that averaged globally, the temperature of the planet as a whole fluctuates by more than 0.05F from day to day.

Just thought I'd throw that in there

CB

Thank you CB. I stand corrected!

PS: Sorry for using the 'T' word again, Mondy!

Edited July 10, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank you CB. I stand corrected!

PS: Sorry for using the 'T' word again, Mondy!

You're welcome, mate

(As I say, Mr Christy could have worded his thoughts better! )

[Iceberg]

I agree that Christy made some interesting points.

For the record he is 1 of the 619 Scientists that contributed to WG1 of IPCC's AR4.

After reading it though I am not sure what he's saying.

Is it that AGW is a problem but the measures to tackle it ill aimed or wrong ?.

Is it that AGW isn't a problem and so doesn't need to be tackled (i.e any warming is livable with)

Or is is that we just don't know because climate is so complicated. ?

I think he chose his examples very carefully. I am not sure anybody is saying that we should cause global economic failure to reduce GHG's but if we kept GHG to the level they are now, rather than kept increasing at the current rate then there would be more of a reduction in Global temps then that shown by Christy.

It's a bit like the arguement, why switch to energy light bulbs if it only effects global temps by 0.0000000001C.

FWIW I am glad that Christy still contributes to the IPCC, more skeptics should do, it should be the case that they present there arguements and their evidence and if it's compelling enough it will change the conclusions of the IPCC and there are plenty of places where this has happened.

Overall I think there are a lot of deliberately used phrases and examples and that a good amount of spin is put on things (such as quoting the 2.5F even though he knows this is below the IPCC's own realistic minimum estimates.), but at least it's a valid opinion to hold IMO.

[Gowon]

Here's an interesting article by John Christy: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

Thanks Jethro, I think its very diplomatic.

[noggin]

Well well, well.......look what Peter Sissons has to say about the Beeb and it's global warming reportage "policy"..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11...-scared-it.html

As it is a fairly long general article, I will type out the relevant bit......

...........(Mr Sissons) also claims it is now effectively BBC policy to stifle critics of the consensus view on GW. He says " I believe I am one of a tiny number of BBC interviewers who have so much as raised the possibility that there is another side to the debate on climate change. The Corporation's most famous interrogators invariably begin by accepting that "the science is settled", when there are countless reputable scientists and climatologists producing work that says it isn't.

But it is effectively BBC policy that those views should not be heard."

I have long held suspicions that the Beeb is totally biased in it's reporting of climate issues (especially that Schuckmann chap ?SP?) and it is good to see an "insider" being brave enough to speak out.

I wonder if Peter Sissons is amongst us?

[Methuselah]

I don't know, nog. But, when I tried to access Mr Sissons's statement in full, it had disappeared??

Edited July 12, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am always sceptical about things like this, especially when reported in a newspaper. That said, I have a hunch that there is probably some truth behind what he is saying, but that it may be exaggerated.

I do detect a pro-AGW bias from the BBC, though I don't think it's as strong as it was one or two years ago. The main problem is the tendency to cover one side of the debate excessively and give little or no coverage to the other side- which is what I primarily think has relaxed over the last year, though it's still there.

[noggin]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/57...t-use-them.html

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

As a cheap way of meeting the government's Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, energy companies have sent out 200,000,000 low energy lightbulbs to their customers. I must admit that I wondered why I kept getting them. If you include previous initiatives the total is a mind boggling 360,000,000. I have 8, which I will be using in due course. I will have to replace some of my lampshades, though. Another cost to be borne, and I expect VAT will be payable on said shades.

Anyway, dear reader, the article goes on to talk about the vast numbers that will end up on landfill sites, causing mercury pollution problems. Does this stupid government actually bother to get any sensible research done or to get things thought through properly? I really don't think it does. It's just another ill-thought out knee-jerk reaction and don't even get me started on the b....y economy.

[Methuselah]

I agree, noggin. Absolutely nuts!

But, then that is what always happens when private enterprise gets on a bandwaggon...Leaving these 'initiatives' up to the markets was always going to be a mistake; to them, it's just an opportunity to offload their redundant stock onto a befuddled public. The government needs to be more hands-on with this, I think?

[laserguy]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/57...t-use-them.html

Anyway, dear reader, the article goes on to talk about the vast numbers that will end up on landfill sites, causing mercury pollution problems. Does this stupid government actually bother to get any sensible research done or to get things thought through properly? I really don't think it does. It's just another ill-thought out knee-jerk reaction and don't even get me started on the b....y economy.

Simple answer: no. The looming energy catastrophe and their complete lack of having a clue as to what to do about it is resulting in this sort of madness. And as far as their use being a tool to 'tackle climate change',tell me when to stop laughing. FWIW,every bulb in chez LG apart from the ones in oven,fridge and microwave is one of those 11W curly things. Keeps my leccy bill to what it was not too long ago when using proper bulbs,I suppose. Oh and as far as the economy goes,today I'll find out if I'm one of the unfortunates at our place who's gonna get laid-off due to plummeting orders as manufacturing goes down the plughole. Ah well,it'll keep those 'carbon' emissions down if nowt else.

[Devonian]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/57...t-use-them.html

Nuts, absolutely nuts.

As a cheap way of meeting the government's Carbon Emissions Reduction Target, energy companies have sent out 200,000,000 low energy lightbulbs to their customers. I must admit that I wondered why I kept getting them. If you include previous initiatives the total is a mind boggling 360,000,000. I have 8, which I will be using in due course. I will have to replace some of my lampshades, though. Another cost to be borne, and I expect VAT will be payable on said shades.

Anyway, dear reader, the article goes on to talk about the vast numbers that will end up on landfill sites, causing mercury pollution problems. Does this stupid government actually bother to get any sensible research done or to get things thought through properly? I really don't think it does. It's just another ill-thought out knee-jerk reaction and don't even get me started on the b....y economy.

Like you I'm concerned about unnecessary pollution - mercury is a dangerous poison. But, I think the problem here is not with the scheme, or the politicians but with private companies seeing sending out light bulb as a neat way of getting around obligations to save energy - blame them not politicians. Besides, the amounts of mercury involved are small.

But, I'm also concerned that adding vast quantities of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere might (if we continue on regardless) seriously change the world's climates - indeed I think it will unless an awful lot of science that a lot of very smart people l think right are not only wrong but ridiculously wrong.

I'll go further, I hope sceptics are right because if they're not we ARE in trouble long term. Now, it's careless to shove mercury into landfill, but it's got to be more careless to damage the climate. I get you concerns about mercury, I really, really, wish you'd get 'warmista' concerns about our climate.

But what happens when people like me show concern? We're 'scaremongers', we're part of a 'swindle' or a 'scam' worse we get accused of various forms of dishonesty.

If only we could be respected for our concern like I/we respect those concerned about mercury poisoning.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problems I can see are two-fold:

• the desire to be seen to be "doing something" even if that "something" might create more trouble than it's solving,
  
• tendency to look at things from only one or two angles and miss the bigger picture ("X is more important than Y, so Y shouldn't come into it", or "I'm alright Jack" etc)
  

It is worth noting that neither of those are exclusive trademarks of politicians or markets- any trawl through internet discussions will reveal that most of Joe Public have those traits as well. But the public can't do 'owt about being spoon-fed in an inefficient way.

I am all in favour of energy saving light bulbs but it's not enough to say "anything to promote them is a good thing" and come out with something that is, to quote a phrase from my signature, "simple neat and wrong". We need to look for good ways of promoting them.