General Climate Change Discussion.......

[Devonian]

NASA has measured a 6% drop in solar irradiance at the UV wavelength since 1995, which they say isn't enough to see global cooling yet. Which is interesting.

I guess what I'm saying is, if we suddenly cut emissions without actually proving it was them pushing the temperature up and the sun decides to stay quiet, we might end up regretting not having that nice insulation.

Hence why I asked if there was any categorical proof, that it was GHG causing the largest proportion any past or predicted warming.

There is no categoric proof, we don't have that about the future.

The Beech trees natural range is from Southern Sweden to Northern Portugal and Central Spain... so yes, they do.

Oh, OK, do beeches grow in France (yup, I can wiki as well - :lol: ). But, my point is plants and animals have climate and spatial ranges - they don't all live/grow everywhere. So, if their habitat changes it impacts them. The more the habitat changes the greater the impact. Surely that's just common sense?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

There is no categoric proof, we don't have that about the future.

Oh, OK, do beeches grow in France (yup, I can wiki as well - ). But, my point is plants and animals have climate and spatial ranges - they don't all live/grow everywhere. So, if their habitat changes it impacts them. The more the habitat changes the greater the impact. Surely that's just common sense?

:lol: Sometimes it has its uses.

I understand what you are saying, but generally regardless of habitat, climate or weather things live everywhere, not the same things, but change is good right? Animals can adapt reasonably quickly, plants to, but trees might take longer to become established... but we aren't talking about flicking a switch, are we?

[VillagePlank]

NASA has measured a 6% drop in solar irradiance at the UV wavelength since 1995, which they say isn't enough to see global cooling yet. Which is interesting.

About time you perused the LI thread, Matt. It does not take GhG's to replicate modern warming. In fact, the LI assumes the GhG is constant (ie not involved) for over a 0.91 correlation, whilst the CO2 hypothesis is still stuck at a lowly 0.71 correlation.

That's maths, that's science. It's unfortunate that some people don't care for such things

[Devonian]

:lol: Sometimes it has its uses.

I understand what you are saying, but generally regardless of habitat, climate or weather things live everywhere, not the same things, but change is good right? Animals can adapt reasonably quickly, plants to, but trees might take longer to become established... but we aren't talking about flicking a switch, are we?

Actually, in geological terms, even in lifetime of a beech we might be in the future. But, again, that my opinion based on the science as I see it.

About time you perused the LI thread, Matt. It does not take GhG's to replicate modern warming. In fact, the LI assumes the GhG is constant (ie not involved) for over a 0.91 correlation, whilst the CO2 hypothesis is still stuck at a lowly 0.71 correlation.

That's maths, that's science. It's unfortunate that some people don't care for such things

Don't understand more like....

But, why doesn't the science I like, IPCC science, CRU science, NOAA science explain or replicate modern warming IYO?

[VillagePlank]

Don't understand more like....

But, why doesn't the science I like, IPCC science, CRU science, NOAA science explain or replicate modern warming IYO?

It's not a matter of like or dislike, unfortunately, and it's irrelevant whether or not the lay-reader understands it.

For sure, the onus is on me to present it in a digestible format, which is, actually, what I am working on right now. Hopefully, for publication. Still got the standard error tests to complete, but so far, the technique looks good to surpass the 95% certainty level, in scientific terms. Once I've checked, rechecked, rewritten, rechecked, rewritten, rechecked, rechecked, rewritten etc etc, I will present the paper for publication - hopefully around the turn on the year.

EDIT: Of course, if it fails even one test, then I will duly notify on these boards. It's certainly a possibility - that's why these tests are important, to eliminate any bias I might have. For interest, the tests rely on generating at least 20 random data sets and trying to incorporate those sets using the same technique as the thread to see what correlation comes out. I am using 4 data sets so 20 sets combined in every combination of 4 sets is what is required. A lot of random data!

Edited December 2, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Actually, in geological terms, even in lifetime of a beech we might be in the future. But, again, that my opinion based on the science as I see it.

Don't understand more like....

But, why doesn't the science I like, IPCC science, CRU science, NOAA science explain or replicate modern warming IYO?

Doesn't the idea of a switch being flicked just means that we dump billions of gallons of ice cold water into the north Atlantic, the Gulf Stream stops and we enter a new ice age, which admittedly wouldn't be great for the Beech trees here either, but they would do alright down south.

I don't subscribe to that idea either, much as I'd like to be able to use a snow mobile to get to work. Gradual in either direction would be just fine. I happen to believe that it might be down rather than up in the coming decades, but we shall see.

VP - I did have a 'peruse' of the LI thread, and agree with the theory... just taking a calculus course to get my head around it... :lol: Intend to sit down and go through it properly!

[Devonian]

It's not a matter of like or dislike, unfortunately, and it's irrelevant whether or not the lay-reader understands it.

For sure, the onus is on me to present it in a digestible format, which is, actually, what I am working on right now. Hopefully, for publication. Still got the standard error tests to complete, but so far, the technique looks good to surpass the 95% certainty level, in scientific terms. Once I've checked, rechecked, rewritten, rechecked, rewritten, rechecked, rechecked, rewritten etc etc, I will present the paper for publication - hopefully around the turn on the year.

You'll still have to answer questions like mine :lol: .

[VillagePlank]

You'll still have to answer questions like mine :lol: .

Absolutely - I agree 100%. Need to go through the tests as described above first, get it peer-reviewed and published, and then, like all science make the whole lot publicly available, and be prepared to answer ALL questions.

As I am sure you understand, some key concepts are not included in the thread for obvious reasons - such as parameter derivation. I hope you don't think the numbers that drive the model were plucked out of thin air ... and, indeed, that is the crux of the matter - how do you derive the parameters?

Edited December 2, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

Firstly apologies if I seem to be picking up on just your posts, it's not intentional and certainly not personal, it's just you keep raising questions in my own mind.

Is there actually any evidence for your statement above? It's something which is repeated all the time (from many sources) but I've never seen anything concrete to back it up. Is it just one of those assumptions made on instinct or actual scientific fact?

Seems to me that if you just take the weather over one year, temperatures in this country can vary between (can't remember the exact records) -22c to 30c and we don't experience mass extinctions.

There is a difference between short-term change and long-term change. The UK can just about cope with a repeat of February 2009 but could it cope with a repeat of 1962/63 to the same extent? Or take the August 2003 heatwave- could we cope with a few summers on the trot of 30-35 degree heat?

And what about rising sea levels inundating coastal areas?

:lol: Sometimes it has its uses.

I understand what you are saying, but generally regardless of habitat, climate or weather things live everywhere, not the same things, but change is good right? Animals can adapt reasonably quickly, plants to, but trees might take longer to become established... but we aren't talking about flicking a switch, are we?

That's a common fallacy I'm afraid. For example the BBC Weather and Facebook have, in the past, made changes and when people have agreed they've said "good" and when people have disagreed it's been "oh, you're just resistant to change. Change is always good!". No, change is good if (and only if) it results in an outcome that is superior, or at least of comparable quality, to what we have now.

Did the dinosaurs react well to the changes that caused their extinction (whatever they were)? Thought not...

[VillagePlank]

VP - I did have a 'peruse' of the LI thread, and agree with the theory... just taking a calculus course to get my head around it... :lol: Intend to sit down and go through it properly!

It uses pretty basic calculus that is required to model dynamical systems. PM me if you want to with questions - that goes for anyone that is (genuinely) interested. I do have an in-house team helping with ideas, and, in time, they might be able to help field questions, too. But not right, now - that would be unfair.

That's a common fallacy I'm afraid. For example the BBC Weather and Facebook have, in the past, made changes and when people have agreed they've said "good" and when people have disagreed it's been "oh, you're just resistant to change. Change is always good!". No, change is good if (and only if) it results in an outcome that is superior, or at least of comparable quality, to what we have now.

I my experience, rolling out new (and better) software to companies, change is always bad, and is almost universally dismissed as a step backwards. Unfortunate? Yes, but that's the human condition.

Edited December 2, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Devonian]

Absolutely - I agree 100%. Need to go through the tests as described above first, get it peer-reviewed and published, and then, like all science make the whole lot publicly available, and be prepared to answer ALL questions.

As I am sure you understand, some key concepts are not included in the thread for obvious reasons - such as parameter derivation. I hope you don't think the numbers that drive the model were plucked out of thin air ... and, indeed, that is the crux of the matter - how do you derive the parameters?

Nope, I see no reason to think you've not been thorough. I still think you're wrong though because I think 'consensus' science explains things.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Devonian

[VillagePlank]

Nope, I see no reason to think you've not been thorough. I still think you're wrong though because I think 'consensus' science explains things.

Fair enough, and even more of a swing in your direction is that most of my work is theoretical, whilst most of the consensus is physical. I know I am well up against the tide, which is why no stone must be left unturned - ie the theory succeeds and fails on it's merits, and not on some procedural thing I've failed to adhere to.

[The PIT]

Slowly but surely the 'every severe weather event in Britain is caused by man-made climate change' argument is getting drilled into the minds of the british public. It's no wonder really, when the general public are not as educated as say, people in the U.S, whom are far more educated concerning the effects of extreme weather and what to do when warnings are issued - they actually take note of warnings from their NWS when they are given out.

Apparently the recent heavy rainfall over Cumbria was so 'unexpected' according to Gordon Brown. Did he or the people who live in these regions not see the 'severe' weather warnings issued by the Met Office several days in advance?

I think this goes back too many warnings being over the top and just not happening. End result people stop listening. After the floods in Sheffield in 2007 we had several more warnings for large amounts of rain but luckily they were all wrong. yet the one that caused the floodings was right. Anyone remember the storm that never was when the met office went against there own fax charts and carried on giving new warnings into early hours even though nothing was happening.

A collegue at work said this the other day. Ever since the 87 storm the warnings have been over the top and nothing ever happens. The met office are afraid off getting caught out.

Over all a difficult task perhaps the system needs the ability too update much quicker. Should BBC forecasters have live radar so they can see when they're saying it's sunny in the south west it's actually chucking it down. I know I've seen morning forecasts but I've been on netweather radar just before and I'm wondering what they're on about. Even then that wouldn't catch sudden heavy showers brewing up creating small local conditions.

[The PIT]

Slowly but surely the 'every severe weather event in Britain is caused by man-made climate change' argument is getting drilled into the minds of the british public. It's no wonder really, when the general public are not as educated as say, people in the U.S, whom are far more educated concerning the effects of extreme weather and what to do when warnings are issued - they actually take note of warnings from their NWS when they are given out.

Apparently the recent heavy rainfall over Cumbria was so 'unexpected' according to Gordon Brown. Did he or the people who live in these regions not see the 'severe' weather warnings issued by the Met Office several days in advance?

I think this goes back too many warnings being over the top and just not happening. End result people stop listening. After the floods in Sheffield in 2007 we had several more warnings for large amounts of rain but luckily they were all wrong. yet the one that caused the floodings was right. Anyone remember the storm that never was when the met office went against there own fax charts and carried on giving new warnings into early hours even though nothing was happening.

A collegue at work said this the other day. Ever since the 87 storm the warnings have been over the top and nothing ever happens. The met office are afraid off getting caught out.

Over all a difficult task perhaps the system needs the ability too update much quicker. Should BBC forecasters have live radar so they can see when they're saying it's sunny in the south west it's actually chucking it down. I know I've seen morning forecasts but I've been on netweather radar just before and I'm wondering what they're on about. Even then that wouldn't catch sudden heavy showers brewing up creating small local conditions.

There is a difference between short-term change and long-term change. The UK can just about cope with a repeat of February 2009 but could it cope with a repeat of 1962/63 to the same extent? Or take the August 2003 heatwave- could we cope with a few summers on the trot of 30-35 degree heat?

Perhaps the Dinosaurs died of swine flu.

Anyway I doubt if the UK could cope with another 62/63 as the infrastructure just isn't up too it. We can't deal with a dusting of snow these days. As for heat I think we would cope.

[PersianPaladin]

I guess the world is so full of deception, agendas, and money-driven interests that no wonder people are apathetic and just dont give a sh*t anymore.

Edited December 2, 2009 by PersianPaladin

[VillagePlank]

... an opinion also known as cynicism which is intellectually idle and lazy

[osmposm]

I guess the world is so full of deception, agendas, and money-driven interests that no wonder people are apathetic and just dont give a sh*t anymore.

...and also still so full of truth, altruism, and motive-less goodness & bravery that people needn't be and should.

'Twas ever thus, and I'm far from sure that at heart the proportions have changed that much (though the bad 'uns tend to get more publicity). Rejoice in the two guys who immediately drove their JCB into a river to try and rescue two girls in a crashed car...or the guy who stood getting soaked in the pouring rain a few days ago trying to write out his details for me with a dud pen, after witnessing my car hit by someone reversing without looking...or even the punk teenager, heavy metal earphones blaring (oh, the prejudices I have), who jumped to his feet on the tube yesterday to help a pregnant woman with an ungainly pushchair. And believe it or not, government and industry are full of them, too....just basically good people quietly getting on with it: let's encourage them by appreciating them occasionally.

[osmposm]

Anyway I doubt if the UK could cope with another 62/63 as the infrastructure just isn't up too it. We can't deal with a dusting of snow these days. As for heat I think we would cope.

Although I agree that at first there would be chaos, I think you'd be surprised at how quickly people and the authorities would adapt. In last winter's snow, my local post delivery office manager pulled the posties off the street for three days for 'elf'n'safety (doubtless encouraged by a belligerent CWU). I have no doubt that after a week they would find a way to cope - I sent her an illustration of ice-grip shoe covers (see here http://www.blacktoe.co.uk/ice%20Grips/ice%20grips.htm ) to try and kick-start some lateral thinking!

[The PIT]

Although I agree that at first there would be chaos, I think you'd be surprised at how quickly people and the authorities would adapt. In last winter's snow, my local post delivery office manager pulled the posties off the street for three days for 'elf'n'safety (doubtless encouraged by a belligerent CWU). I have no doubt that after a week they would find a way to cope - I sent her an illustration of ice-grip shoe covers (see here http://www.blacktoe.co.uk/ice%20Grips/ice%20grips.htm ) to try and kick-start some lateral thinking!

I don't know. We're now very depandant on technology which is why something like a Yellowstone eurption would be a bigger problem now than it would have been in the middle ages. A couple of years ago in one part of the country they had to call in french engineers as we didn't have enough engineers in the country to the power back on. Make the problem more country wide and ouch.

Anyway I come across this pdf http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf interesting read what do you lot think.

[SleepyJean]

It's back to what are reasonable comparisons.

Is it reasonable to go back 450 million years to make a comparison with now? I think not. For example if water can circulate around the equator without meeting land it can heat more and then move more heat north and south = a warmer planet. But now water can't do that (Isthmus of Panama - only been there for a few million years ). We also have a continent at the south pole and a mostly landlocked ocean at the north - pre disposing us to cold. We should be in a relatively cold time.

No, you have to compare now with similar times. That means it gets difficult to make valid comparisons much more than a few million years back.

Or, to adopt an absurd position, we could go further back and compare not with just after the big bang? Why not? Because it would be a comparison that makes no sense - which is my point.

So why is AGW a problem? Because it will (if right) cause temperature changes at a global rate that haven't been seen except at times of major global change. Do we want to inflict that on the planet? Why would we want to do that? Or risk that? Species can adapt to slow change but not to some of the rates of change that seem possible.

We're simply, imo, taking a unnecessary risk. Clearly others think otherwise. That's why we debate...

Look at the graphs, though. OK, 450millon years ago the world was very different. But it was just as cold then as it is now! In the last 450 thousand years the temp's been up and down like a yoyo (well, not quite, perhaps), and has been much higher than it is now. It looks as if it tends to go up really quickly and then peaks and go down in slower steps. I don't think the continents have changed a huge amount in that time, have they? (Sorry, I was at school during the time when geography didn't involved looking at maps and learning where different countries actually are in the world).

Humanity has lived through ice-ages and warm periods before and undoubtedly will do again. I think it is central heating, cars and computers that will be the major casualties. Specific plant and animal species may suffer too, but new ones will replace them, in time, or niche communities will survive and repopulate at a more conducive time.

Anyhoo, don't rush to respond, I will be off now. Life is a bit busy at the mo....

[Gray-Wolf]

Humanity has lived through ice-ages and warm periods before and undoubtedly will do again. I think it is central heating, cars and computers that will be the major casualties. Specific plant and animal species may suffer too, but new ones will replace them, in time, or niche communities will survive and repopulate at a more conducive time.

Anyhoo, don't rush to respond, I will be off now. Life is a bit busy at the mo....

Bye!

Though we've only been around about 160,000yrs in our present form we have encountered change in the past (check the gene pool 'pinching' from the east African eruption 70,000yrs ago to see how close to extinction we have also come!) but over the past 10,000yrs many civilisations have fallen due to minor climate wobbles (be it a run of bad Nino's for Meso-America or warming for the Mediterranean 'proto-civilisations')

Is it enough to survive or do we wish to remain in the comforts we are accustomed? Peak oil will do for our comforts on it's own unless we act now to guarantee a smooth changeover to non-fossil fuels.

[WS Evolution]

40min in: "Climate change is is real or a con!"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00p36pz/Richard_Bacon_02_12_2009/

[Dartmoor_Matt]

No room for debate? Need I go on. The guy is just laughable.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Dartmoor_Matt

[SleepyJean]

Is it enough to survive or do we wish to remain in the comforts we are accustomed? Peak oil will do for our comforts on it's own unless we act now to guarantee a smooth changeover to non-fossil fuels.

Oh I agree, personally I would hate to live without central heating, although I suppose I have managed without a car in the past and could do again. As for the PC....please don't let us lose our electricity Never mind global warming, something must be done to find replacements for fossil fuels because they are a finite resource. From that point of view alone I can find it in myself to agree with some of the measures suggested. But when politicians start going on about "50 days to save the world" - who does he think he is, Flash Gordon? - I simply get angry at their attempts to frighten people into doing what they are told.

I do have a question about proxies, though. Some of the graphs that use proxies seem to show a general trend towards warming over time. The instrumental record then takes over and sky-rockets, or so it would appear. Is it possible that the proxies need a correction factor applied? Are they looking at proxies now to compare those with instrumental reading and past proxy readings? And could there be a reason why the proxies appear cooler the further back they go, like some kind of loss of information from them (isotopes degrading or something?)?

Again, if this question has been answered before, feel free to refer me those past conversations....

Cheers,

SJ

[Thundery wintry showers]

Is it enough to survive or do we wish to remain in the comforts we are accustomed? Peak oil will do for our comforts on it's own unless we act now to guarantee a smooth changeover to non-fossil fuels.

That's the main thing that concerns me about this issue- more so than AGW itself.

Take what has happened to the UK regarding the recent recession for example. Instead of accepting a relatively modest recession in the 1990s or early 2000s, trying to make a reasonably smooth transition through it, we tried to buy our way out of the recession and are currently faced with a very bad recession.

If we just keep things as they are and "let the free market decide" as seems to be a very popular view (basically laissez-faire economics), the markets are likely to do the same- buy us out of recession and keep economies in good order using fossil fuels until the peak oil issues catch up with them. They will only move en-masse towards developing cleaner alternatives when it serves their profits better in the short term than continuing with fossil fuels- and that could well herald an extremely painful period of economic depression. Also the markets tend to ignore social factors as profit is the main motive for everything, which is another potential issue.

And that's before we consider the implications of letting AGW go on, largely unaddressed, until the free market decides it is in its own short-term financial self-interest to do so.

Before anyone jumps on me for slating free market capitalism, I don't advocate the other extreme- centralised ownership etc, as centralised owners also tend to be guilty of short-termism and profiteering at the expense of everyone else. What we need to recognise is that this is a big issue that requires a set of solution- not just one solution, as this one solution is likely to be simple, neat and wrong, be it heavy taxation, public flogging of all motorists who drive over 15,000 miles in a year, socialism, or free market capitalism.