Manmade Climate Change Discussion

[Gray-Wolf]

Yes, that's right. The rate of increase is reducing.

 

And can you also offer guarantees that the GHG's, already aloft, have done their worse and we can just focus on the yearly increase or should we expect continued change from the increases we have driven?

 

It seems a small consolation if our increases in GHG's reduce whilst the impacts from those already committed to the atmosphere help increase the additions from natural sources? it appears little consolation if that already committed to the atmosphere are just the 'leftovers' with the bulk choking the 'natural sinks' compromising their abilities to absorb any future rises in 'natural emmisions'?

 

As with the Arctic sea ice this year we must cheer any move in the right direction but I believe it would be foolish to be so comforted by the change as to forget the scale of the problems we still face?

Yes, would be faster of course without the increase in the east. A fine balance with the decrease in the west.

 

Did we not see issues with the Chinese reporting of emissions recently? hadn't they 'lost' a significant portion of their reported output?

[knocker]

The outsourcing is quite interesting given Australia's huge exporting of coal policy.

 

Why the U.N. climate talks keep breaking down, in five simple charts

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/20/why-the-u-n-climate-talks-keep-breaking-down-in-charts/?b

[VillagePlank]

Ooops.<snip>

Edited November 21, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

I

Next we'll be hearing how unreliable the accounts of the warming spurt in the 30's and 40's was.......

 

Well, at least, it used to be unreliable, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/HadCRUT4_accepted.pdf (p.7 is what you're looking for) and also check out Kennedy et al. Besides, you seem to be the most excited by (supposed) problems with temperatures series showing a trend that isn't, ahem, up to expectations in recent years.

 

I am still waiting on an explanation of the correlation between temperature series and satellite records and how that can be the case in light of recent findings that all the warmth is hiding in the Arctic. Despite my rather good Googling skills, such an explanation seems ruefully absent.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

And can you also offer guarantees that the GHG's, already aloft, have done their worse and we can just focus on the yearly increase or should we expect continued change from the increases we have driven?

 

 

Can you offer the inverse guarantee?

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/11/01/global-carbon-emissions-grew-more-slowly-in-2012-will-they-ever-decline/

 

Here's a nice look at the 'drop' in speed of increase in our GHG outputs. As I thought it's not a straight forward as the plain figures suggest? I'd posted earlier about the upturn in logging in parts of the Amazon but such emmisions are omitted from this report ( which doesn't even look at Methane outputs??) and the massive increase in hydro in China over the period of the report cannot be continually repeated as their demand for energy grows so we might see Fossil fuel use again on the rise to meet any shortfall there?

 

Again it is a positive but does not even dent the reductions that our 2c pledges would demand before 2020 ( followed by continued reductions there after)? 

 

EDIT: On sat.s sparks, I was of the understanding that their coverage was also incomplete? If the polar regions are the ones showing most recent change in rate of change then surely we should not seek to exclude them in our records?

Edited November 21, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[knocker]

Climate denier group liken climate negotiations to Holocaust concentration camps

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/21/cfact-makes-holocaust-reference-about-un-climate-process-poland

[Gray-Wolf]

Climate denier group liken climate negotiations to Holocaust concentration camps

 

http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/21/cfact-makes-holocaust-reference-about-un-climate-process-poland

 

That is just plain nasty knocks! ( the email not your drawing our attention to it!). That said, when you look at the warnings the IPCC give about future impacts, should we fail to act on climate change, then the number of deaths we ought to expect, and the timescale of such events , does bring 'sobering parallels'? With developed world Military already drawing plans to deal with such eventualities it is hard to dismiss as 'fanciful'? 

 

J' always used to become quite agitated when 'mega death' was mentioned but it is an unavoidable consequence should we see the planet lurching from one climate disaster to another. Sadly humanity itself will probably account for a fair percentage of this mortality rate as wars/border conflicts increase in areas where impacts are worst. On that point I'm sure J' would agree? it's the twisted politics and human greed that will drive the show after the first regional disasters occur?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Gray-Wolf

[Gray-Wolf]

Just when you think your internal sceptic might withering away, along comes Sssssh, You Know Who: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/10/31/prince-charles-blames-syria-civil-war-on-global-warming/

 

Just spotted this in 'the other place'. I'm sure there is a lot said here that none of us could choose to disagree with esp. concerning our stewardship of the planet. As I'd just mentioned above the 'human' response to 'shortages' ( water /food) can be some of the worst adverts for 'humanity'......

[Methuselah]

I was being facetious, Ian...Why do so many folks pay so much attention to the opinions of celebrities, whilst disparaging the scientists?

[Gray-Wolf]

I was being facetious, Ian...Why do so many folks pay so much attention to the opinions of celebrities, whilst disparaging the scientists?

 

Reading the link had me assured that this was the only way you would have posted it Pete! Sadly we've only seen one 'positive' comment ( so far) on the content of his speech?

 

As with 'individual storms' it's hard to pin unrest to climate change but it does highlight the pressures that come to the fore when regional climate is impacted? We see a number of areas , Globally, where drought has now been ongoing for over 5 years and how this impacts all peoples from both developed and developing world. I have to always keep in mind that 'world aid' is a finite thing and the more of the planet that calls out for help the less able we will be to intervene? This will leave large numbers of people literally fighting for their personal survival. With so many guns in the developing world ( and in the developed world if you look at one nation!) the chance of it turning into something nasty must always be there?

[Gray-Wolf]

And another article presenting the Philipines cyclone as a direct result of CO2/warming.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/16/climate-change-pledges-rich-nations

No need to let facts stand in the way.

 

Again I'm struggling to 'see' where folk are saying AGW was the only cause for the typhoon. If anything if makes depressing reading purely because it reports the 'truth'? Should we continue on this path then surely we ought to expect changes that will bring more and more 'costs' to both rich and poor nations? It is not as though, on reaching a point where reality proves this escalation of impacts, we can just say " we were wrong, lets do a U Turn" and the climate impacts would just stop???

 

We commit ourselves to a world that will continue to suffer for decades as we try and claw back our GHG forcing to a level that allows climate to again settle back to what is 'less costly'. Personally i think we will be well beyond being able to do anything to alter the direction we're committing to because Mother N. will have taken over the reigns?

 

I'll say again. The misleaders have done the job that they were given by their paymasters. They have stopped the fossil fuel industries profit margins from being eroded by global attempts to reduce dependence upon it (and reduce GHG emissions ). Sadly it looks like we will all pay the price of this 'victory'.

[Methuselah]

Me too, Ian...Merely suggesting that typhoons might be made more severe by climate change, is hardly the same as attributing Typhoon Haiyan directly to CO₂ molecules...Straw man?

[knocker]

Just 90 companies caused two-thirds of man-made global warming emissions

Chevron, Exxon and BP among companies most responsible for climate change since dawn of industrial age, figures show

• Interactive - which fossil fuel companies are most responsible?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/nov/20/90-companies-man-made-global-warming-emissions-climate-change

[Gray-Wolf]

Me too, Ian...Merely suggesting that typhoons might be made more severe by climate change, is hardly the same as attributing Typhoon Haiyan directly to CO₂ molecules...Straw man?

 

I just cannot see why some folk have suddenly begun to claim that every extreme climate/weather event is being linked to AGW as a direct proof of the impacts of a changing climate? For one, when I read such reports, you always seem to have the Scientist say 'it is not currently possible to say that (so and so event) was caused by climate change......' even if we also get qualifiers such as ' such events are expect to become more common/more extreme as the impacts of AGW increase' ?

 

As far as I 'understand' what we are being told the impacts of a warming planet 'load the dice' toward a certain outcome occurring more frequently?

 

Is it that extreme weather/climate events are becoming so frequent that such conservative statements by the Scientists are no longer proving enough for the general public who remember they were warned to expect such events to become ever more common and extreme under global warming? 

 

From where I stand I understand that there will come a point where not only will we be able to 'link' extremes to the warming planet but also that those extremes will continue to increase in number? What will be left for the misleaders to do at that point? 

[Devonian]

Me too, Ian...Merely suggesting that typhoons might be made more severe by climate change, is hardly the same as attributing Typhoon Haiyan directly to CO₂ molecules...Straw man?

 

It really is bizarre to read someone say what an article says but find, upon actually reading the article, what that someone says it says simply isn't supported by a single word in...the article.

[knocker]

Unfortunately Dev this is the modus operandi in skeptic circles.

 

 

  What will be left for the misleaders to do at that point? 

 

Fudge?

[Methuselah]

Unfortunately Dev this is the modus operandi in skeptic circles.

 

Don't fall into their trap, Malcolm...they're not sceptics, they're deniers...Skeptics do not need to fudge.

[Devonian]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843251

 

And again...

 

Nowhere in the linked article (or either of the links) does it say (or say anything like) "... scientists have advise Australian government that the recent  weather events have nothing to do with increasing CO2 .". So, where do they say that?

[Methuselah]

http://forum.netweather.tv/topic/76448-scepticism-of-man-made-climate-change/page-40#entry2843251

 

And again...

 

Nowhere in the linked article (or either of the links) does it say (or say anything like) "... scientists have advise Australian government that the recent  weather events have nothing to do with increasing CO2 .". So, where do they say that?

It doesn't!

[knocker]

Sea Level Experts Concerned About ‘High-End’ Scenarios

 

A survey of nearly 100 experts on sea level rise reveals that scientists think there is a good chance the global average sea level rise can be limited to less than 3.3 feet by 2100 if stringent reductions in planet-warming greenhouse gases are rapidly instituted. However, the survey, which is the largest such study of the views of the most active sea level researchers ever conducted, found that if manmade global warming were to be on the high end of the scale — 8°F by 2100 — the global average sea level is likely to jump by between 2.3 and 3.9 feet by the end of this century.

 

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/sea-level-rise-experts-concerned-about-high-end-scenarios-16767

[Tamara]

Again I'm struggling to 'see' where folk are saying AGW was the only cause for the typhoon. If anything if makes depressing reading purely because it reports the 'truth'? Should we continue on this path then surely we ought to expect changes that will bring more and more 'costs' to both rich and poor nations? It is not as though, on reaching a point where reality proves this escalation of impacts, we can just say " we were wrong, lets do a U Turn" and the climate impacts would just stop???

 

We commit ourselves to a world that will continue to suffer for decades as we try and claw back our GHG forcing to a level that allows climate to again settle back to what is 'less costly'. Personally i think we will be well beyond being able to do anything to alter the direction we're committing to because Mother N. will have taken over the reigns?

 

I'll say again. The misleaders have done the job that they were given by their paymasters. They have stopped the fossil fuel industries profit margins from being eroded by global attempts to reduce dependence upon it (and reduce GHG emissions ). Sadly it looks like we will all pay the price of this 'victory'.

I think you should start considering that many 'misleaders' as you carry on charmingly calling them do support the cutting back of GHG forcings ...it is simply that they have yet to be persuaded, either all or in part, by the principles behind man made induced climate variation, and so their support is based on recognition of other pressing environmental needs aside from (or least ahead of) climate change.

 

The type of nutcases that you refer to are just extremist fringes which actually inhabit both sides of the spectrum...

[Devonian]

Unfortunately Dev this is the modus operandi in skeptic circles.

 

Its odd.

 

I was at a public meeting recently about a local road that is collapsing, needs immediate (expensive) repair and will have to be closed (for 13 blimmin weeks) to do that. The road was damaged by the floods of 2010 (well, more to do with movement due to saturated ground apparently). Driving it you can SEE it's cracked  and nacked, another wet spell and it might go completely - and then, since the repairs wont be scheduled but emergency it might be closed for 15, 20, 25 weeks, who knows? And the council owes us a duty of care, so they care and they try to get the road fixed quickly in January - and for their trouble and care what do they get? Outrage! The outrage vented at the unfortunate Council engineer present by normally calm people was a sight to truly to behold. There where perhaps 200 people in the meeting, not one, not one spoke out in support of the proposed works. I didn't back him (well, what was the point against unanimity?) - to my shame  

 

Now, this road closure is going to cause utter chaos, and I'll be one suffering that. A busy rural 'B' road will be closed and local lanes filled with the cars that use said road. Lanes will get blocked, people will (shock horror) have to learn to reverse, time will be lost, school transport severely effected.  But, there is, rationally, no alternative - it's got to be mended, to mend it, to get the right machinery in it will have to be closed. 'Right', I'd say, 'get on with it'. 'No, do something else' say 199 others - 'keep it open' ('But, it's collapsing Doh!....'). But, and here I get back OT..., what it did show was that when people are faced with a problem that needs addressing but that there will be a cost to them of that they can be really angry, apparently irrational and well, run away from it, deny it even. What it also showed was that 200 odd people will get active but that maybe 10,000 in the area didn't.  So, are the 200 representative or the 10,000? Are sceptics 'the 200'? What do the 10,000 think?

 

All in all an enlightening event...

[Devonian]

I think you should start considering that many 'misleaders' as you carry on charmingly calling them do support the cutting back of GHG forcings ...it is simply that they have yet to be persuaded, either all or in part, by the principles behind man made induced climate variation, and so their support is based on recognition of other pressing environmental needs aside from (or least ahead of) climate change.

 

The type of nutcases that you refer to are just extremist fringes which actually inhabit both sides of the spectrum...

 

I think that might well be the case. I do think, see my post above, people differ in how easy/difficult they are to persuade.

[VillagePlank]

The type of nutcases that you refer to are just extremist fringes which actually inhabit both sides of the spectrum...

 

Yes, a classic straw-man, libellous, and bigoted affair. This is what you need to do in simple steps:

 

(i) Categorise the person

(ii) Find the extremeties in that category

(iii) Attribute (ii) to the person.

 

See virtually all GW's posts for examples therein. It's easily demonstrated in that he continues to refuse to answer a simple question (according to him) about temperature series' and the heat being hidden in the arctic - and in case you are wondering this is called being *specific* a legitimate line of scientific enquiry.

 

I note that the moderate AGWs concur that this is valid line of questioning, and, alas, noone from 'the other side' have yet to comment.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Sparkicle