General Climate Change Discussion.......

[jethro]

Do you know what's even more refreshing Iceberg? You haven't gone down the route of rubbishing all Spencer's work based on this mistake, as some would have been tempted to do.

Well done you for giving credit where credit's due.

[jethro]

Here's an interesting article explaining what we realistically need to do to replace fossil fuel consumption. It's written by David J.C. MacKay, he's a professor of physics at the University of Cambridge and author of ‘‘Sustainable Energy -- Without The Hot Air’’.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/29/business/energy-environment/29iht-sustain.html?_r=2&ref=energy-environment&pagewanted=all

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Spencers final comment "Oh…and don’t believe everything you read on the internet" is supported by me more than anything else he has ever said.

Not sure that comment is entirely complimentary tbh and it puts into context, imo, the reality of the 'sincerity' of you giving Spencer 'credit' for his backtrack.

Yes, I would agree that taken on its own it is of course a creditworthy thing to put one's hand up when you have made an error of judgement but perhaps that should be applicable to both sides of the climate debate? Within the mainstream science and the belief in AGW hypothesis, I also think there is a lot of room for a rather more concilliatory attitude from some of the rather more progressive AGW proponents.

[Thundery wintry showers]

A very interesting article indeed, which also, to my mind, makes the use of nuclear power as a temporary/stopgap type measure look rather more favourable, as it will take much less time to get the nuclear facilities in place than the vast amount of renewable facilities required. I like the article's focus on sustainability and mention of AGW as a possible by-product of non-sustainability rather than as the over-riding issue.

One renewable source that the article doesn't mention is geothermal energy- which will be easier to extract in some areas of the world than others. I imagine that if we could find a suitable way to extract it, it would require less additional development of the landscape than the other forms of renewables- but how do we extract it is the question.

[noggin]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/06/global-warming-natural-disasters-conference

Courtesy of global warming/climate change, we will be having more avalanches, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis and so on and so forth.

"Life gets tedious, don't it?"

PS http://www.justsomelyrics.com/1440031/Walter-Brennan-Life-Gets-Tedious-Don't-It-Lyrics

Edited September 8, 2009 by noggin

[Methuselah]

Ridiculouser and ridiculouser??

Why can't they just say that AGW will make the Earth explode?

Then again, maybe that's a Daily Mail excloosive...

[Devonian]

Ridiculouser and ridiculouser??

Why can't they just say that AGW will make the Earth explode?

Then again, maybe that's a Daily Mail excloosive...

It's actually worth reading and it doesn't say the Earth will explode...

[Thundery wintry showers]

As discussed in the other thread- it's just yet another example of a worst-case scenario being dressed up as something that "will" happen. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but I sense the article has fallen for the trap of trying to sensationalise to win viewers.

[Iceberg]

Fully agree TWS, but if the skeptic argument is biased on bashing the extreme rubbish journo's then enough said really.

[Devonian]

As discussed in the other thread- it's just yet another example of a worst-case scenario being dressed up as something that "will" happen. It's not beyond the realms of possibility but I sense the article has fallen for the trap of trying to sensationalise to win viewers.

Well, since nothing is certain then, yes, the use of the word 'will' is, I agree, inappropriate. However, given the changes we've seen to the cryosphere after less than a degree of warming I think warming of several degrees over then next century or so could reasonably be thought to have the long term effects described?

[Nick.F]

Interesting set of articles around at the moment, nicely summarised here

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/09/climate_change_not_warmer/

which are part of a gathering snowball of evidence that Global Warming may not be what we are lead to believe it is, particularly in short to medium term. Some regard the coming "Climate Change Catastrophe" as little more than a self inflating conspiracy of misdirection, insubstantial and out of context statistics and media hype (and I don't mean the Daily Mail kind of stuff either).

Hope some find it interesting!

[weather eater]

This is a reply to SC from the do we need the Met office thread both posts were rightly removed as being off topic, but as I had it saved I'll pop it in here as being more appropriate.

You dont need to dig around, I've have now read quite a few books on climate change and paleoclimatology, Outrageous Waves Global Warming and Coastal change in Britain through 2000 years, The Great Ice Age, A change in the weather, The two mile time machine, The long summer, and several others all would agree that Natural forcings are the primary drivers behind climate change, but none dismiss the idea that man is having an impact on world climate, its not a case of either or, its about the interconection of all factors. I also doubt you will find anybody on the climate change threads who does not believe that natural forcings are the dominant factor in our climate, the question is, how much and if any, mans actions are contributing to the climate change we have all witnessed.

Edited September 9, 2009 by weather eater

[Thundery wintry showers]

I suggest having some element of scepticism about the Register articles considering this blatant misquote of the Met Office's article:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/02/cox_and_jeffery_geoengineering_call/

The Met Office in fact point out that geoengineering could damage ecosystems and share my view that it should not be one of our first resorts.

As for the article Nick.F linked to, I don't know where this 0.2C of cooling since 2001, or lack of statistically significant warming since 1995 if you remove 1998, comes from. Global temperatures have been consistent since 2001 and have shown an upward trend of about 0.1C since 1995 if you remove the peak in 1998.

A cooling in the next 20 years is quite possible as has been mooted in quite a few recent papers by eminent researchers. But there is quite a lot of anti-AGW spin on it, which is no better than articles that have a load of pro-AGW spin, it can be hard to differentiate the facts from the opinions in such cases.

[Methuselah]

That Ian, IMO, is because peeps without sufficient scientific training also have opinions...But, it doesn't matter which side of whichever fence they are sitting - they perceive bias in everyone but themselves. (It's probable that we all do, when on unfamiliar ground?)

Unfortunately, journalists/hacks tend to have no scientific training...

Afterall, we are ALL human!

[weather eater]

Afterall, we are ALL human! :lol:

You speak for yourself, I'm one of them lizard things David Ike believes in.

[parmenides3]

so, still the same discussions, then.

It's almost like i've never been away.

hi all

:blink:

[Admiral_Bobski]

so, still the same discussions, then.

It's almost like i've never been away.

hi all

:blink:

By crikey! Good to see you back, P3!

How are you?

CB

[parmenides3]

By crikey! Good to see you back, P3!

How are you?

:blink:

CB

hi c-bob. well, the heart attack was a bit of a surprise, me being only 104 and all, but I got over that, more or less. The career change has been fun; not a teacher any more. I'm doing a master's degree in environmental ethics (in my spare time), and I haven't been keeping the blog up to date.

How have you been?

Is there a thread yet on COP 15 ?

[Admiral_Bobski]

hi c-bob. well, the heart attack was a bit of a surprise, me being only 104 and all, but I got over that, more or less. The career change has been fun; not a teacher any more. I'm doing a master's degree in environmental ethics (in my spare time), and I haven't been keeping the blog up to date.

How have you been?

Is there a thread yet on COP 15 ?

104? Yet you don't look a day over 7. Oh, sorry - that's a picture of your dog, isn't it? :unsure:

I've been doing fine, thanks for asking - less time for this netweather stuff these days (though by some freak coincidence I was actually posting on the boards yesterday!). Glad to hear you're doing better now

No thread yet on COP 15, but while you're here I would heartily recommend a look at the leaky integrator thread that's pinned at the top of the main page (regulars on here are probably rolling their eyes in dismay at me mentioning it yet again!). I would be very interested to hear your views on it, and any input you might have.

Anyway, I shall stop there before this post enters the realm of "should really be a Private Message"!

Great to have you back.

CB

Edited September 10, 2009 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

hi c-bob. well, the heart attack was a bit of a surprise, me being only 104 and all, but I got over that, more or less. The career change has been fun; not a teacher any more. I'm doing a master's degree in environmental ethics (in my spare time), and I haven't been keeping the blog up to date.

How have you been?

Is there a thread yet on COP 15 ?

Morning P3, long time, no hear!

Sorry to hear about the heart attack, hope you're looking after yourself; I know it's a shock to the system but being swiftly reminded of your mortality does you the world of good, it certainly gave me the kick up the butt I needed.

Environmental ethics eh? Blimey, bet that's a minefield, any plans on what follows afterwards?

[parmenides3]

104? Yet you don't look a day over 7. Oh, sorry - that's a picture of your dog, isn't it?

I've been doing fine, thanks for asking - less time for this netweather stuff these days (though by some freak coincidence I was actually posting on the boards yesterday!). Glad to hear you're doing better now

No thread yet on COP 15, but while you're here I would heartily recommend a look at the leaky integrator thread that's pinned at the top of the main page (regulars on here are probably rolling their eyes in dismay at me mentioning it yet again!). I would be very interested to hear your views on it, and any input you might have.

Anyway, I shall stop there before this post enters the realm of "should really be a Private Message"!

Great to have you back.

Cheers, CB. I'll have a look at the thread shortly.

Morning P3, long time, no hear!

Sorry to hear about the heart attack, hope you're looking after yourself; I know it's a shock to the system but being swiftly reminded of your mortality does you the world of good, it certainly gave me the kick up the butt I needed.

Environmental ethics eh? Blimey, bet that's a minefield, any plans on what follows afterwards?

Hi Jethro, thanks for the thoughts. As for the Masters, it's a part-time diversion from my job; I work for an engineering company on wind energy projects of various sizes. There is, of course, a direct link, but this was a fortunate coincidence rather than a plan. So, what I am doing now is trying to contribute to a low-carbon world through direct action, whilst avoiding making a nasty mess - ie, environmentally sound, low impact wind farms, etc.

Do you think we should start a thread on COP 15 ?

anyway, good to be back.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Glad that you have recovered from your heart problem P3

Lots of fresh oily fish, vegetables, lean white meat, plenty of garlic etc will do you the world of good. Oh and a few glasses of wine of course too!

Welcome back to the snake pit!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Ditto P3, glad u r doing better..........I believe lycopenes are great for heart, so plenty of tomatos [tinned r best for levels]!!

regards

BFTP

Edited September 10, 2009 by BLAST FROM THE PAST

[parmenides3]

I've been told that chips in chocolate and cream sauce with deep fried battered pork balls and a lettuce leaf if a good balanced diet. If consumed with beer.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Welcome back- I mentioned a couple of times recently that I missed your contributions to the climate area. Hope the heart attack didn't do any long term damage.