IPCC climate report 2013

[UV-RAY]

Sounds like some Governments are becoming more realistic about the high cost and supposed benefits of clean energy.

 

Interviewed ahead of the Tory party conference, George Osborne told the Times: "I want to provide for the country the cheapest energy possible, consistent with having it reliable, in other words as a steady supply, and consistent with us playing our part in an international effort to tackle climate change.

"But I don't want us to be the only people out there in front of the rest of the world. I certainly think we shouldn't be further ahead of our partners in Europe."

The chancellor also attacked Labour's plans to eliminate carbon from the power sector by 2030. He argued that for an aluminium smelter to leave the UK and go to another country would not make much difference to climate change. But it would make a "huge difference" to those who lost their jobs as a result, he said.

A common sense approach is the only way forward as continuing on the green path as we have been doing will bring untold misery for millions of householders, invest in new technology yes but not at the expense of crippling the working man.

[Devonian]

A common sense approach is the only way forward as continuing on the green path as we have been doing will bring untold misery for millions of householders, invest in new technology yes but not at the expense of crippling the working man.

'untold misery', 'crippling the working man' - sounds alarming to me. Should I be alarmed by or sceptical of your words?

[Methuselah]

'untold misery', 'crippling the working man' - sounds alarming to me. Should I be alarmed by or sceptical of your words?

Agreed, Dev. Tis nowt more than alarmist pseudo-sceptical propaganda. Since when did the likes of George bloody Osborne care two-hoots for the plight of the ordinary working man!

[UV-RAY]

Well if you can afford the ever increasing energy bills, fuel and green taxes then this won't effect you, if on the other hand your struggling with the everyday costs of things then a common sense approach will be more than welcomed.

[Methuselah]

Well if you can afford the ever increasing energy bills, fuel and green taxes then this won't effect you, if on the other hand your struggling with the everyday costs of things then a common sense approach will be more than welcomed.

Sorry SI, but we must agree to disagree. Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that the likes of George Osborne have ever cared about the plight of the common man? They're only in it for the unearned income!

 

Spreading climate misinformation is simply another machination in their never-ending dash for cash?

[Kiwi]

Agreed, Dev. Tis nowt more than alarmist pseudo-sceptical propaganda. Since when did the likes of George bloody Osborne care two-hoots for the plight of the ordinary working man!

Or is Osborne really an astute policymaker about to take a more realistic and balanced approach to the issue of dealing with climate change?

 

The costs currently being incurred to mitigate climate change are horrendous, and in reality they achieve nothing or are likely to reduce the increase in temperatures by only a miniscule amount.

 

What is needed is loads of investment and research into financially viable energy alternatives. But carbon taxes, hamstringing industrial development and "crippling the working man" are counter-productive and a waste of time. Once all the funding put into research and investment cracks it and comes up with a  clean energy that is cheaper than fossil fuels  the problem will be solved. In the meantime frack away ....and use all that extra revenue to fund the research into financially viable green energy rather than todays half-baked alternatives.

Instead of continuing their focus on carbon taxes and subsidies for renewables, Lomborg calls political decision-makers to pursue a new approach to tackle climate change: “What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale. If we can make solar and other green technologies cheaper than fossil fuels, we will have addressed global warming,†he concludes.

Edited September 28, 2013 by Kiwi

[UV-RAY]

Sorry SI, but we must agree to disagree. Do you really believe, in your heart of hearts, that the likes of George Osborne have ever cared about the plight of the common man? They're only in it for the unearned income!Spreading climate misinformation is simply another machination in their never-ending dash for cash?

Osbourne wasn't the one who signed us up for the ridiculous emissions policy and green taxes, so to to lay the blame on him is a bit naive. Edited September 28, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[Methuselah]

Or is Osborne really an astute policymaker about to take a more realistic and balanced approach to the issue of dealing with climate change?

 

Well, based on his work-experience (the Tories are forever telling us how important that is) no! Folding towels does not, in my opinion, qualify anyone to 'run' a economy...

[Gray-Wolf]

To me the worrisome part is that a 'Natural' pause in 'natural' warming ( highlighting the AGW component?) has effectively given the misleaders a golden opportunity to offset the best and last )?) chance to mitigate the future consequences of our climate experiment.

 

We are here discussing a paper that , due to it's very nature, is outdated before it goes into print as though it were Gospel.

 

I fear we are before the time that the misleaders pull up every little flaw in the document as 'proof' of it's inadequacies and deep in the time they favour the lowest possible outcome that we should expect as the only interpretation.  

 

I suspect that the misleaders know full well that the 'Golden opportunity' of climate forcing's acting as a positive to there cause is at an end and we shall see a fall back onto dissection of this report as a distraction to what the climate is doing in the mean time. 

 

I fear that the Hiatus is approaching it's end and the resumption in warming is nigh. The upcoming El Nino ( yeah! , like we should not expect one?) will be used as the 98' one was as a benchmark for temps ( and not as a dot to dot from the 98' one to show the warming) to show how slow temps are rising. 

 

I will be here to remind folk of their stance, and here their excuses, throughout the next 'natural' phase knowing full well that the 'extra' is a sure sign of man's polluting.....

[UV-RAY]

To me the worrisome part is that a 'Natural' pause in 'natural' warming ( highlighting the AGW component?) has effectively given the misleaders a golden opportunity to offset the best and last )?) chance to mitigate the future consequences of our climate experiment.

 

We are here discussing a paper that , due to it's very nature, is outdated before it goes into print as though it were Gospel.

 

I fear we are before the time that the misleaders pull up every little flaw in the document as 'proof' of it's inadequacies and deep in the time they favour the lowest possible outcome that we should expect as the only interpretation.  

 

I suspect that the misleaders know full well that the 'Golden opportunity' of climate forcing's acting as a positive to there cause is at an end and we shall see a fall back onto dissection of this report as a distraction to what the climate is doing in the mean time. 

 

I fear that the Hiatus is approaching it's end and the resumption in warming is nigh. The upcoming El Nino ( yeah! , like we should not expect one?) will be used as the 98' one was as a benchmark for temps ( and not as a dot to dot from the 98' one to show the warming) to show how slow temps are rising. 

 

I will be here to remind folk of their stance, and here their excuses, throughout the next 'natural' phase knowing full well that the 'extra' is a sure sign of man's polluting.....

Who are these misleaders that you so eloquently put?

[VillagePlank]

They are a mythical group of people who have decided that GhGs can't possibly exist, oil will last forever and that a large metropolis is no more damaging than a beaver's dam. GW seems to have missed the swing in the debate in that climate sensitivity and subsequent parameter attribution is really the only argument on the table. GW's argument is sophisticated - and it takes quite some work to trawl through - given writing style and and penchant for long words.  It's keeping to the party line, but, ultimately, this position, as fed on fuel by the Green lobby, is a strawman. For sure there must be fervent deniers in the same way there must be fervent doom-mongers, by reason of the Gaussian distribution, but, really, you won't find either sort hanging around for too long on here.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Sounds like some Governments are becoming more realistic about the high cost and supposed benefits of clean energy.

 

Interviewed ahead of the Tory party conference, George Osborne told the Times: "I want to provide for the country the cheapest energy possible, consistent with having it reliable, in other words as a steady supply, and consistent with us playing our part in an international effort to tackle climate change.

"But I don't want us to be the only people out there in front of the rest of the world. I certainly think we shouldn't be further ahead of our partners in Europe."

The chancellor also attacked Labour's plans to eliminate carbon from the power sector by 2030. He argued that for an aluminium smelter to leave the UK and go to another country would not make much difference to climate change. But it would make a "huge difference" to those who lost their jobs as a result, he said.

 

Yep, trust the government members to think ahead. Short term political gains takes precedence over scientific and economic evidence as always, with nothing more than a made up story as its basis.

 

Perhaps if the money spent on invading foreign countries for their oil and mineral deposits was spent on renewables we'd already be over the cost of transition to a green economy. The more CO2 we emit (taking into account that we don't consider the climate cost or the pollution from our fossil fuel extraction and use when pricing fossil fuels) the more costly it will be for society in general. It will be the ordinary person on the street paying for the adaptation and health costs. But at least their electricity bill will be a few pounds cheaper.

[Methuselah]

Who are these misleaders that you so eloquently put?

Possibly the likes of Monckton & Co, who travel (all-'expenses' paid) all around the world, spouting their particular brand of pernicious codswallop to anyone foolish enough to listen?

[UV-RAY]

Possibly the likes of Monckton & Co, who travel (all-'expenses' paid) all around the world, spouting their particular brand of pernicious codswallop to anyone foolish enough to listen?

And on the flip side of the coin we have certain high profile scientists doing something similar and then getting involved with political activist, step forward Dr James Hansen please.

[BornFromTheVoid]

And on the flip side of the coin we have certain high profile scientists doing something similar and then getting involved with political activist, step forward Dr James Hansen please.

 

He's qualified and his research mattered enough to him that he tries to do something about it.

 

Very, very different to Monkton

Edited September 29, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[Methuselah]

And on the flip side of the coin we have certain high profile scientists doing something similar and then getting involved with political activist, step forward Dr James Hansen please.

So, producing a scientific peer-reviewed papers (that have subsequently come in for criticism) is the same thing as passing anti-scientific nonsense off, as if it were the real thing, eh? 

 

IMO, the likes of Hansen, Mann et al, may or may not be discredited by the Scientific Method; but, never by profit-seekers' self-interest...

[VillagePlank]

Yes, Pete. The time for playing the man is long gone. Did it ever exist? Science is full of strong argument: if Mann and Hansen really had done something untoward, I am certain there is a long line of ambitious PhD's who would be delighted to make their Nobel Prize, and the front cover of Time magazine, not least an issue of Nature devoted entirely to them.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[UV-RAY]

So, producing a scientific peer-reviewed papers (that have subsequently come in for criticism) is the same thing as passing anti-scientific nonsense off, as if it were the real thing, eh?  IMO, the likes of Hansen, Mann et al, may or may not be discredited by the Scientific Method; but, never by profit-seekers' self-interest...

I would say none of them have done to badly out of the science though Pete and I was referring to the criminal activity of one of them. The disputes over Yamal tree rings will continue but all of that is irrelevant now as the science is in disarray IMO over the alleged 95% consensus at a time were taking a few steps back would have been the best way forward.

[VillagePlank]

He's qualified and his research mattered enough to him that he tries to do something about it.

 

Well, that's the crux of the matter: do we believe in technocracy (scientists deciding policy) or democracy (scientists advising politicians who decide policy) ?

 

We seem to have both at the minute, and that's where the real problem lies; the real problem is the distinction between facts and values. Science cannot inform us of our values. It might well be the case that humankind believes that it is morally right to consume every nature resource on the planet - I doubt we'd find one NetWeather member who subscribes to that - but in any case it is not for science to tell us whether it is right or wrong: that is beyond the scientific method. We, of course, see this all the time in the climate debate: we must do something because the consequences are simply to great to be ignored. The consequences of, say, 2C of global warming, are pretty much well quantified, and, more or less, everyone pretty much agrees with it. Whether this is a bad thing? Science can't help us with that: that's the job of social politics - science can tell us whether we are likely to get to 2C warming, of course (and that's pretty much the only scientific debate wrt climate left)

 

You can have all the facts imaginable and miss the truth, just as you can have facts missing or some wrong, and reach the larger truth.

 

A very good article, here, discusses it. And, of course, that's why there is friction in the climate debate: it's all about unquantifiable politics.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[stewfox]

Going back to the high level IPCC summary report on page 5

 

--------------------------------------

It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during

2003–2010 than during 1993–2002 (see Figure SPM.3). Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000

m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009. {3.2,

Box 9.2}

---------------------------------

 

Therefore where does this extra heat go ?? What is it saying??, temperature increases in the top 700m of ocean water are levelling off like surface temperature ??

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2013 by stewfox

[VillagePlank]

Going back to the high level IPCC summary report on page 5

 

--------------------------------------

It is about as likely as not that ocean heat content from 0–700 m increased more slowly during

2003–2010 than during 1993–2002 (see Figure SPM.3). Ocean heat uptake from 700–2000

m, where interannual variability is smaller, likely continued unabated from 1993 to 2009. {3.2,

Box 9.2}

---------------------------------

 

Therefore where does this extra heat go ?? What is it saying??, temperature increases in the top 700m of ocean water are levelling off like surface temperature ??

 

This confuses me - what does it mean 'likely continued'? Did we not sink a few thousand thermometers and actually measure it? If we didn't I assume we sunk a few and then extrapolated regional conditions to a global result. Which, as we are often told in a cold UK winter, is something we shouldn't be doing.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle

[Methuselah]

I would say none of them have done to badly out of the science though Pete and I was referring to the criminal activity of one of them. The disputes over Yamal tree rings will continue but all of that is irrelevant now as the science is in disarray IMO over the alleged 95% consensus at a time were taking a few steps back would have been the best way forward.

'[T]he science is in disarray'? Since when? I can imaging legions of highly confused mega-rich landowners running around in circles, wondering whether to continue raking-in subsidies for Green Energy or to let the frackers in instead...But, how does that put any science in disarray?

 

What, do you mean a scientist has done something illegal? Surely not!  Is 'political activism' now a criminal offence, too?

[UV-RAY]

Pete you seem a little confused with regards to my post. I was implying how Dr James Hansen was convicted  of criminal damage a fews ago, that's illegal in the civilised world. and I was trying to add some balance to your comments, besides none of this is really relevant as it matters not one jot whether your a multi millionaire with too much time on your hand or a scientist with an axe to grind, the science remains the same though the outcome could be vastly different. Also your constant  reference to the rich is a little tiresome and my comment is actually about the pause in the warming and why this was a time to take a step back and examine the details more thoroughly rather than dismiss them as irrelevant. Yesterdays irrelevance is tomorrows new headline story.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sceptical Inquirer

[BornFromTheVoid]

SI, I'm guessing by "convicted" you mean acquitted, yeh? Simple mistake...

But I'm sure that matters more than the deaths, illnesses,environmental destruction, costly wars, etc, resulting from fossil fuel use...

 

 

 

 

Well, that's the crux of the matter: do we believe in technocracy (scientists deciding policy) or democracy (scientists advising politicians who decide policy) ?

 

We seem to have both at the minute, and that's where the real problem lies; the real problem is the distinction between facts and values. Science cannot inform us of our values. It might well be the case that humankind believes that it is morally right to consume every nature resource on the planet - I doubt we'd find one NetWeather member who subscribes to that - but in any case it is not for science to tell us whether it is right or wrong: that is beyond the scientific method. We, of course, see this all the time in the climate debate: we must do something because the consequences are simply to great to be ignored. The consequences of, say, 2C of global warming, are pretty much well quantified, and, more or less, everyone pretty much agrees with it. Whether this is a bad thing? Science can't help us with that: that's the job of social politics - science can tell us whether we are likely to get to 2C warming, of course (and that's pretty much the only scientific debate wrt climate left)

 

You can have all the facts imaginable and miss the truth, just as you can have facts missing or some wrong, and reach the larger truth.

 

A very good article, here, discusses it. And, of course, that's why there is friction in the climate debate: it's all about unquantifiable politics.

 

 

Scientists are not deciding policy, only providing information in order to inform policy, so I don't agree with it being a case of one or the other.

Science doesn't claim what's right and wrong. In predictions, it lays out the evidence and methodology and predicts what may happen. It then will state, based on the evidence once more, what needs to be done to avert certain scenarios. It's the people that make their judgements after that.

What is right and wrong, what's is or isn't of benefit to humanity, what's worth acting on and what's not worth acting on, is all going to be interpreted differently, based on the persons inherent values, level of knowledge and ability for critical analysis. That's where I see the problem at least.

 

Climate science, to me, provides additional data to help make better decisions for our future, as any good science should. Nowadays we have organisations and individuals paid to espouse an anti-scientific/pseudo-scientific viewpoint in order to maintain the status quo, and thus the wealth and power of certain industries. This has resulted in certain scientists having to speak out and engage in the public in order to both defend themselves and to try and clear up some of the disinformation that now continually rains down.

I don't think that necessarily impacts on the scientific evidence regarding climate change. These scientists and the odd scientist/campaigner, when conducting research, still have to go through the same conditions, the same standards, the same peer review as anyone else. While not perfect, this helps to largely filter out the bias of the individual.

It's the result of the research that is the scientific contribution to policy makers, not individual opinions.

Edited September 29, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[VillagePlank]

Climate science, to me, provides additional data to help make better decisions for our future

 

"Better" is a matter of opinion. It is not quantifiable, nor subject to the scientific method, and is subject to socio-political views that are particularly a function of the time in which such views are espoused.

 

Is this where we pretend that there used to be some Eden where everything was in equilibrium, sunsets were brighter, trees were greener, oceans were a shade of deeper blue, and "The Good Life" is the better ideal?

Edited September 29, 2013 by Sparkicle