Climate Change

faye, thank you for the Kogi story. I think I have heard of these people before but a long time ago.

faye and jess, with regard to the precautionary principle, I have doubts as to its usefulness in a world full of needy people already. Insurance is a luxury I'm not sure we can afford, though I do see why people favour it. At present it is just so costly and not very effective, whereas similar billions spent where they actually and obviously are needed right now rather than in some uncertain future would seem more sensible to me.

However, it is not my choice. I really don't mean to preach so sorry if it seems like that, it's just that it feels to me as if I'm being preached to all the time (I not talking about any individuals here). Anthropogenic Global Warming is like a religion with its dogma and lack of tolerance towards people who ask questions and argue rationally. I used to be as pro AGWer as anyone could want, but reading books and articles around the subject — because I cared so much — on both sides of the argument, for several years now, and finding out about some of the misinformation and how it is used to mislead people has made me sceptical. Of course, any scientist worth their salt is naturally sceptical and never stops questioning the status quo, as you know, jess, and that is healthy.

Recent experience with my local council on a schools issue has also made me very dubious about what I'm told from "on high" — another case of statistics being used to mislead and other horrors — with a lot of schools and communities threatened because of it. We fought the misinformation and there is anow a government-led commission into rural education in Scotland as a result.

Recent polls say that over 50% of Brits are at least partially sceptical of AGW now so I'm not alone, however much it seems like it. The vast majority of GNers say nothing.

Thank you for letting me have my say.

Of course climate has changed of the millions of years. However man-made climate change is happening much faster than (changes) ever before. The industrial revolution masked this initially because "ordinary" pollution i.e. particulates has a cooling effect (reflecting the suns rays back).

The last few years we have been having La Nina (the opposite of El Nino) which has a cooling effect. So the planet does not warm at a regular rate: it is the overall average over a number of years that shows a warming.

Now accuse me of lecturing...I don't care, tackling climate change is more important than my feelings!

Baggy agrees that climate is changing. She must also acknowledge that CO2 causes a Greenhouse effect: that is science. So, whatever the cause, we have to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. Or are we supposed to just let it happen???? I really do not understand the thinking behind denying? Baggy, do you actually believe there is a global conspiracy - and all the governments are taking part in this conspiracy?

New info from the dark side :

... new paper by Richard P. Allan of the University of Reading discovers via a combination of satellite observations and models that the cooling effect of clouds far outweighs the long-wave or “greenhouse” warming effect. While Dessler and Trenberth (among others) claim clouds have an overall positive feedback warming effect upon climate due to the long-wave back-radiation, this new paper shows that clouds have a large net cooling effect by blocking incoming solar radiation and increasing radiative cooling outside the tropics. This is key, because since clouds offer a negative feedback as shown by this paper and Spencer and Braswell plus Lindzen and Choi, it throws a huge monkey wrench in climate model machinery that predict catastrophic levels of positive feedback enhanced global warming due to increased CO2.

Cheers,
Baggy (still listening to everyone, not just one side of the debate ; still open to conviction either way, depending on evidence).

PS jess, re the floods in Pakistan — they couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that large parts of the country (the flooded parts) are on a huge flood plain of a huge river system, that the floods happen during the monsoon season, and that people have been logging in the mountains upstream, could they? This doesn't detract from my sympathy for the sufferers nor my acceptance of our collective responsibility to help them. I just think there are more immediate and more logical explanations than the catch-all 'climate change'. That's rational thinking, which is what science is supposed to encourage. I know maths does.

headline on BBC site today "monsoon blamed for floods"

It seems to me baggy that one can adopt a number of positions:

1. Head in sand not interested. Carry on as before.
2. Conclude that majority of climate scientists probably right. So on balance of probabilities carbon consumption bad for planet and grandkids. Try to amend behaviour on this basis.
3. Conclude that the majority may be wrong and that it may be some kind of plot / collusion and therefore keep questioning this and looking for contradictory evidence. Carry on as before.

If 1 and 3 then the risk is that consequences will be even worse, sooner.
If one decides 2 then you may mitigate consequences or delay.
Either path incur costs, but they are different costs.
... ANYWAY i am just about to expend a ludicrous amount of carbon being transported around the world to visit inconvenient offspring and grandkids. A year's not using the tumble drier is not even going to touch it. So better get on and pack...

I have just caught up with this thread, and have thoroughly enjoyed reading everyone's comments, particularly those between Baggy and JessM.

I've also become more informed, so thank you!

I err on the side of you Baggy, in my views.

I also have children and grandchildren + siblings worldwide. I'm afraid my carbon footprint is huge! :-)

So the BBC agrees with what I said, jess. It's the heavy rain of the monsoon, plus the fact that Pakistan and Bangladesh are major parts of the drainage plains from the Himalayas that cause the flooding, not something weird and wonderful and badly understood called climate change. What's the problem?

Only you and some others on here have mentioned plots, not me.

Only you and some others have suggested that I don't think it's a good idea to become more efficient in our use of energy (all types), not me.

The majority have been wrong before, many times, on scientific matters. Worth bearing in mind I think.

However, if you enjoy indulging in your guilt fest (climate change is the New Devil), carry on. Don't let me spoil the fun.

I hope you have fun down under on your hols.

Hi, butternut!

Hello, Baggy. I'm just getting used to Gransnet. Very welcoming to have a 'hi'.
Thanks.

Baggy, I wonder if you heard Radio 4 this lunchtime:
"Costing the Earth" 1.30pm

I think you may find it interesting listening; you can hear it on iplayer

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/programmes/schedules/fm

They do talk about clouds, we already knew that clouds (depending on altitude) reflect sunlight and have a cooling effect. This is what geo-engineering is about - they are proposing to make extra clouds....listen to above.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change represents a unique partnership between the scientific community and the world's governments, thousands of scientists and experts are involved.

The IPCC assesses the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change then prepares reports on this, on potential impacts of climate change and options for mitigation and adaptation.

The next report, the 5th Assessment, is due to be completed in Oct. 2014.
That such a body exists and conducted 'an expert meeting on the detection and attribution related to anthropogenic climate change' (Geneva Sept 2009), is enough for me!

Furthermore, in 2007, the IPCC shared the Nobel Peace Prize for ' efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations and measures that are needed to counteract such change'.

The rules governing both their assessment and reporting are stringent.
I make no excuse for quoting so much from their website, I have been reading it into the wee small hours. It makes fascinating reading and points out the damage for which we, as a human race, must take responsibility.

P.S. I hope that is not seen as a lecture.... rather another source of infomation that is worth reading.

A lecture? Heaven forbid!

Good stuff Old GM

Here's an example of climate change. I live in South East Queensland, which is supposed to be the sub tropics. It is the middle of spring, and usually stinking hot. For example, in 1987 we bought a house and had a solid fuel fire installed early August. We had to light it once to test it, but it was torture, it was so stinking hot. By October the hot and humid weather was always here.

Not any more. Look at these pictures from yesterday, Oct 13th.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/gallery-e6frer96-1226166102098?page=1

Sorry, should have done convert links

www.couriermail.com.au/news/gallery-e6frer96-1226166102098?page=1

'nuff said Joan!

I just wanted to agree with those who think we should be less wasteful of the earth's natural resources whether or not we believe that climate change is a real threat.

I think that greed is the real problem. People expect to have more and more living space and more and more "things".

When I was a child growing up in central London I didn't know anyone who had a house. We all lived in flats even the girl whose father was a doctor and the one whose father drove a gold Jaguar.

Now I know single people with three-bedroomed houses. The extra fuel needed to keep one person warm, let alone the energy expended in providing all the other "necessities" could certainly be used in a more cost-effective way.

End of lecture

This is from today's Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/20/global-warming-study-climate-sceptics

It is interesting because it defines the difference between sceptics and deniers.

Carboncareful this has been widely reported. What is of most significance is that the research was partly funded 2 wealthy acknowledged sceptics, and that the figures produced by UK researchers ( and rubbished by the sceptics) have been proved to be accurate after all. I would say 'Happy days' but for the fact that there is no real cause to celebrate the confirmation that our world is warming!

.... sorry, funded by.....
Must try to get hold of a copy as I couldn't use your link.

Just to add a lighter note ...well maybe ...to this intellectual tennis

I think I read somewhere/heard that most of the increase in carbon emission has little to do with industry ...but more to do with the number of cattle in the world ...who ...well I suppose I'd better put this politely ...continuously 'break wind'!!

So perhaps everyone should think about that over their next foray into their milk/beef meal!!

What do you think of this report I saw today? Temperature going up, or is it going down? Are they now as confused as the rest of us?

www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-agai

Here's a very interesting article showing the dirty tricks the climate change deniers in the USA use to discredit a well-known climate change scientist.

www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/mar/03/michael-mann-climate-change-deniers

Bump

There's a very interesting book by Donna Laframboise ("The Delinquent Teenager") showing the dirty tricks used by the IPCC to scare people into believing that climate change is a problem and needs to have billions and billions of dollars spent on it.

I don't condone death threats to anyone, but M Mann is not the innocent he makes out. If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he (or his university, Penn State) publish his data in full so others can check it out?

Does anyone know anyone who denies that climate changes? Calling people who question the causes of climate change 'climate change deniers' is a dirty trick.

I am not a scientist, and have little education in this sphere.

Having read the article Annobel posted, what concerned me was the emotive use of language......

persecuted
distorted
kill-off
crime against......
bring down
barrage of intimidation
innuendo
deniers

Words like these do NOT give me hope.

I believe climate changes, and on the whole view the changes as a natural organic process. Sensible and responsible use of resources of course is needed, but I seriously doubt that 'man' can bring about a significant change. Future generations will evolve along with their world.

Frankly, trying to control how the climate changes is little more than big business, and all that goes along with that. There's money to be made, and reputations to be upheld, but I don't think the earth worries about that.