Climate Change

How about refuting the statements, carbon, rather than just sneering all the time at things you don't like? At least I give my sources.

And here is something via the the blogoshere (more sneering no doubt), but which originates at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (can't get more kosher than that!) which shows how warmists just change the goalposts when real world observations don't fit in with their "cause":

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Source: www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/#more-72446

Who exactly is supposed to be orchestrating this conspiracy Bags ?? Who would gain from spreading a rumour about climate change? Why would so many scientist go to so much trouble? And politicians and jounalists........what have they all got to gain?

my son - who is responible for a large coastal area of the UK and it's flood defence is definately working with the assumption that climate change is here to stay. The point is that even if there is doubt we should surely work as if it is a reality as the consequences of ignoring it will be catastrophic and treating it seriously does nothing detrimental to the environment and might even improve it

Of course climate change is here to stay. It has always been here, and always will be. Adapting to climate change, as we have in the past, seems to me to make far more sense than trying to stop climate change, which we can't do anyway.

I don't think I've mentioned a conspiracy, carbon. You and a few others have though.

I am not arguing as to whether Climate Change is, or is not as a result of man's destruction of the planet/greenhouse gasses/whatever.

What I do know though is the successive governments have used this argument as a way to rip us all off in a big way.

Anything with "green" on the bottle is more expensive, anything with lower emissions is more expensive, anything with organic on the label is more expensive , the list is endless. Add together the pathetic excuse of keeping fuel expensive so we will use less and it makes me angry.

Of course those with money will always be warm. they will always be-able to jet around the world with no worry as to their carbon footprint.

Sorry for the rant......

No apology necessary, gillybob. I suspect that a lot of people feel the same.

Read a recent report about how the newest supercomputer for analysing climate data runs off power from a coal power station (and this supercomputer uses mind-bogglingly large amounts of power; amounts that most of us would find hard to imagine) and that the new computer was deliberately sited in the place it's now in because coal generated power is cheaper than the 'green' power generated in the state that is was in.

They probably argue that the end justifies the means but that, to me, is immoral. It's the kind of argument extremists use.

Hi Bags the sad thing is they probably can't see (or choose not to see)the hypocrisy of it all.

Personally I have no time to listen to the likes of Prince Charles and many like him that preach about the state of the planet and what we should all do to cut our carbon footprint, when the same person is jetting around the world on an almost daily basis and running several homes all requiring masses of power.

If the truth were known I would suspect that the ordinary man or woman in the street is doing more to help the environment than most of these people who bleat on about it so much.

That has been my feeling for some time now, gillybob. Al Gore is another who has done very comfortably indeed out of being a scaremonger.

Yes Bags you just need to look at his various mansions to know he is doing very well thank you very much !

A new paper "The extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperature in the last two millennia: reconstructions of low-frequency variability,” by B Christiansen of the Danish Meteorological Institute and F C Ljungqvist of Stockholm University, confirms the climate was warmer 1000 years ago.

"In conclusion this impressive piece of research makes a significant contribution to a growing body of evidence that both the global extent of the MWP, and the temperature was similar, or even greater than the Current Warm Period, even though the atmospheric CO2 concentrations today are some 40% greater than they were during the MWP.

Some argue that without anthropogenic greenhouse gasses the world would have cooled in the past few decades. That might be the case, but the statement that it is warmer now than it has been for thousands of years is untrue. The rate of warming seen recently is also not unprecedented.

In the context of climate sensitivity – the real world climatic reaction to increasing greenhouse gasses – and climate model uncertainty, it is an interesting question to ask: if Nature alone in the past can produce temperatures like those we see today, why can’t she do so again?"

Another new paper by Jiansong Zhou and Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington, Seattle is titled “Deducing Multi-decadal Anthropogenic Global Warming Trends Using Multiple Regression Analysis” cuts recent anthropogenic warming trend in half according to Marcel Crok.

Just curious, CarbonCareful, do you post on any other thread? It is just that the only threads I ever see your name on are ones on climate change. I am sure there is more to your life than just that subject. It would nice to hear your views on other topics.

Ooh, look! Article in Nature advocating adaptation rather than prevention! Is this progress?

The failure of climate change mitigation through emissions reductions and trading. At present, governments' attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are probably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming. Instead, there are increasingly persuasive arguments that government and institutional focus should be on developing adaption policies that address and help mitigate against the negative outcomes of global warming, rather than carbon trading and cataloguing greenhouse-gas emissions. There are a number of reasons why we take this viewpoint. (1) Earth-system feedbacks are an important component of climate forcing, and therefore addressing greenhouse-gas emissions alone is an insufficient strategy for managing global warming. (2) Different national and disciplinary (that is, from the perspective of soils, forests, oceans and so on) schemes for calculating carbon budgets use different methodologies and assumptions, and have a different mix of natural and disturbed ecosystems and fossil-fuel resources. This means that carbon management schemes are based on poorly constrained data and on budgetary sleights-of-hand that may have little relationship to the real world. (3) The future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability and the sediment fluxes associated with soil erosion, river downcutting and coastal erosion are relevant to sustainability, biodiversity and food security. Monitoring and modelling soil erosion loss, for example, are also means by which to examine problems of carbon and nutrient fluxes, lake eutrophication, pollutant and coliform dispersal, river siltation and other issues. An Earth-systems approach can actively inform on these cognate areas of environmental policy and planning. (4) Earth surface systems' sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood. Measuring this geomorphological sensitivity will identify those systems and environments that are most vulnerable to climatic disturbance, and will enable policymakers and managers to prioritize action in these areas. This is particularly the case in coastal environments, where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns.

Entire article here: www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1660.html

If there is anyone who feels they would like to suppor this RSPB petition here is a link.

www.rspb.org.uk/climate/what_can_I_do/greenisworking.aspx

No thanks!

Me, neither. I am quite happy to work with climate change, man-made or natural. Whatever the cause there is no point in making the situation worse, but I have deep reservations about the way money is being thrown indiscriminately at any solution that describes itself as green.

One of the main wind turbine operators has just built a small power generating facility near me so that it can provide the National Grid with the power it is contracted to supply when the wind doesnt blow. This facility consists of a bank of small diesel power generators, about the most polluting way of producing power known. They are installed right next to a huge conventional power station that can produce that same extra power for a fraction of the cost and without anything like as much pollution.

I am waiting to see a fully developed plan showing exactly how the UK can have reliable 24/7/365 supply of electricity using only renewables, without nuclear and without some conventional power to bridge the peaks and troughs. I have yet to see it.

Meanwhile I will continue to improve the energy efficiency of my own home, and where possible reduce my reliance on my car.

If you are really interested in climate change you need to watch this :-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgUE04Y-Xg

I've supported that nanadogsbody and carboncareful that's very interesting. I really worry about what sort of world my grandchildren will inherit.

Looked at youtube, but what does it prove beyond the fact that carbon dioxide rates in the atmosphere are rising? There have been major climate change periods in the last 1,000 or so years when we have had exceptionally hot periods and mini ice ages, yet carbon dioxide rates have not risen/fallen at the same time.

Do not get me wrong I am not a climate change denier. I am aware that there are changes in climate world wide and the world weather seems to be getting more extreme, although, like volcanos, that could just be because more extreme events get worldwide publicity. But chucking odd statistics or pretty graphs around but with out any corroborative detail and support does your cause no good at all.

And what do you think of wind power companies using diesel generators to provide back up power when there is no wind. There is no more inefficient and polluting way of producing power, except possibly lignite.

I really do despair....do you really think the people who design and build hybrid power systems are that stupid???????

A hybred system is what it says: a combination of two sorts of energy creation and storage.

HYBRID COMBINATION

I'm just not going to try to explain.

Also its rubbish to say extreme weather is due to publicity. Records are meticulously kept and have been for many years.

I really want to cry.....................

Also FlikeityB I can post on whichever threads I want to. To be criticised for which threads I post on it just not on (I think there's thread that deals with this sort of intimidation)

Carbon, sorry I have upset you, but you have misunderstood almost everything I said.
1) I did not criticise which threads you post to but I merely commented that I only ever see your postings on climate change threads and I would be interested in seeing your views on other subjects. Most Gransnetters post on a variety of subjects even when they clearly have subjects that are dear to their hearts. It paints a picture of a rounded personality and helps a reader to evaluate their contributions on the subjects that are close to them.

2) A wind power company that owns wind turbines and then has diesel generators elsewhere to enable it to produce power to meet its power supply contract with National Grid is not running a hybrid system. A hybrid system is one where the same equipment uses different fuels, coal and biomass for example or, in a different industry a Toyota Prius.

As I understand it the 3000MW plus power station beside these diesel generators is tightly controlled, its emissions of SOX and NOX are monitored continually as are its emissions of particulates and it has to keep these down to very low levels. However the diesel generators because of their size and utilisation pattern are not so closely monitored and their production of SOX etc are not controlled and they produce far more pollution kw for kw than the power station next door. Now, nationally and globally the amount of pollution these diesel genererators produce is very small, but the people living round the site are having to live with very high levels of health-damaging emissions when they are operating and what is the justification for considering an energy source is green when it has to produce highly polluting power as well as green power to meet customer demand?

3) I did not say measurement of extreme weather conditions was due to publicity, but the statistics the YouTube clip were using were a very long series of figures going back 1,000s of years, but, even in the recent past, say 150 to 200 years ago I very much doubt if all extreme weather events in areas such as Central Asia, Central Africa, South America etc are all or any anywhere in the public record. In a recent 'Environmental' thread on the effect of volcanoes on climate forecasts (this is what I mean about the advantages of taking part in other threads) 'Volcanos taken into account in climate forecasts' I referred to a volcano site at: www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06 where this very point is considered when discussing the variability of volcanic activity and its conclusions apply to measuring extreme weather events as well..

Carbon, as I said I am not a climate change denier but both sides of this argument have been marred by poor, partial and politicised science and you do not help your own arguments when you do the same.

carbob you've echoed my feelings exactly. I too despair AND it makes me want to weep too. I actually think its too late and things are going to spiral out of control

Jodi, Why? Recent statistics suggest that temperatures have been stable for the last 16 years. And humanity through out the eons has adapted to changed conditions as they arise. Malthus in the 19th century saw mass starvation and disease imminent, but since then agricultural production and population has soared and despite the damage to world crops this year, the planet is still capable of providing more than enough food to feed its population.

I am not saying that everything is well in the world, it isnt, population is soaring and it would be better if we had fewer rather than more people, reserves of fossil fuel will, eventually, run out but the reason that from the first few homo sapiens we now have 6 billion, or is it 7, is because of homo sapiens infinite ability to adapt to new circumstances, from hunter gatherer to farmer, to inhabit everywhere from deserts to the frozen north.

We do have many serious problems facing us now, but we are already making enormous efforts to deal with them. Renewable energy sources, research to reduce energy consumption in our homes, industry, transport. I was born during a world war, lived through the cold war, which could have had just a drastic effect on the planet as over-heating. What will life be like for our grandchildren? I have no idea. My Grandmother could not forsee all the dangers of the Cold War when I was born, my parents couldnt forsee the problems of climate change when my children were born. You cannot forcast the future on the basis of what is happening now, it may be the old enemy epidemic disease that kills off millions or billions or it may be something that we havent even thought of. For all we know current climate change could be a precursor to a drop into a new ice age, one is theoretically overdue and all that we are doing to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make things worse rather than better. We just do not know. Live in hope, homo sapiens is going to be around for a long while yet.

Thank you flicketyB for trying tp be positive and reassuring. But I think the earth is heading for a tipping point. In some parts of the world — the high Himalayas of Nepal, in the desperately poor and hungry parts of sub-Saharan Africa, in the hot and dry patches of the American southwest — a tipping point may have already been reached and passed. The scary thing about a tipping point is that you only know for sure that it exists once you've reached it — and after that, it's too late to go back.

Jodi, There will always be change in individual areas - and we should do all we can to help the people there adapt or move to better areas. History and archaeology is littered with examples of civilisations that have flourished and then died when climatic conditions changed. Most of the areas you mention have always been on the edge of viability. In the last 100 years war and genocide has killed far more people than climatic events.