Climate Change

They were put in along my road last year ...all are off properties ...under the public footpath ...much prefer to pay for what I use, rather than help out neighbours!

Bags thanks for the link.
Having read the item, these are my thoughts:

Many 'sceptics' belittle those of us who consider global warming to be worth our concern.
I really do object to being told to calm down. I am not hysterical and do not consider the end to be nigh (see article)
I am merely concerned that global warming is occurring (for a myriad of reasons including the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere) and whilst this may not affect my generation, to any great extent, the lives of future generations are bound to be affected.
I base my views on those of the IPCC and the scientists whose findings are published by that organisation.

Which have been questioned.

Three articles about the usefulness or otherwise of computer modelling of climate:

"There has been some discussion about a paper in Nature Climate Change by Gleckler et al that says they detect “a positive identification (at the 1% level) of an anthropogenic fingerprint in the observed upper-ocean temperature changes, thereby substantially strengthening existing detection and attribution evidence.” What they’ve done is collect datasets on volume-averaged temperatures for the upper 700 metres of the ocean.

But Yeager and Large, writing in the Journal of Climate, looking at the same layer of ocean, come to a different view. They conclude that it is natural variability, rather than long-term climate change that dominates the sea surface temperature and heat flux changes over the 23 years period (1984 – 2006). They say the increase in sea surface temperatures is not driven by radiative forcing. It’s a good example of how two groups of scientists can look at the same data and come to differing conclusions. Guess which paper the media picked up?"
the article continues here

Also today, Ross McKitrick writes:
"Computer models utterly fail to predict climate changes in regions

A few years ago a biologist I know looked at how climate change might affect the spread of a particular invasive insect species. He obtained climate-model projections for North America under standard greenhouse-gas scenarios from two modelling labs, and then tried to characterize how the insect habitat might change. To his surprise, he found very different results depending on which model was used. Even though both models were using the same input data, they made opposite predictions about regional climate patterns in North America."
Rest of article here

And Anthony Watts discovers that climate models are outperformed by random walks:
 "A random walk is a mathematical formalisation of a trajectory that consists of taking successive random steps. For example, the path traced by a molecule as it travels in a liquid or a gas, the search path of a foraging animal, the price of a fluctuating stock and the financial status of a gambler can all be modeled as random walks."
Carries on here

Anagram questions may be raised about BOTH sides! Bags chooses one to believe, I choose the other.
If you are referring to Donna Laframboise's questioning, I suggest you 'google' her and read 'An Open Letter to Donna LaFramboise' Sorry I haven't worked out how to add a link.
Bags will read the above this evening, there seems to be a lot there!

No, I am not referring to Donna Laframboise's questioning specifically, there are many who question the accuracy of the IPCC's findings. And of course I know questions may be raised about both sides, which is as it should be.

The latest criticism of the predictions of temperature rise made in 1988 by James Hansen and co say that they are wrong by 150%. That's quite a lot to be wrong by and still be believed.

Percentages of what?
Also - 1988 - do you not think that climatology was in its infancy then?
There is inevitably going to be academic disagreement about details of how fast temperatures will rise and what effects it will have on climate (let alone local weather conditions) The earth's weather is an astoundingly complex system and trying to reduce it to a series of mathematical equations is a monumental task. Because that is what modelling is. First the maths, then the computer programme. Tiny differences in complex calculations can have a huge effect on what the models predict. Tiny differences in assumptions too, like the effect of melting sea ice or the release of methane from melting permafrost, would inevitably have a massive effect on the models. A crude average temperature rise prediction graphs may be the headline output at then end of all this - but it sits on top of a mountain of numbers. Cover trafalgar square with paper that is densely covered in data and calculations - that's the sort of thing that people are talking about when they talk about a climate model.
So there is bound to be academic debate about the accuracy of these models. That is what academics do. How fast? and To what effect? are the main topics of serious academic debate.
Those who question climate change (shall we say) then pick up these debates and they can quickly get turned into criticism of the whole idea that C02 released from burning fossil fuels is inevitably going to raise the temperature of the planet.
But the fact remains, and it is a fact, that as we release more and more carbon that has been locked in fossil fuels the temperature of the planet will inevitably rise and stay risen for millions of years. This is relatively simple science. Anyone who denies this fact is viewed by the scientific community (not just climatologists but geologists, biologists, palaeontologists and lots of other ologists. Even the politicians are convinced. Even the oil companies!) as part of the nutty fringe that includes those who deny evolution, deny that vaccination saves lives or deny the fact that HIV causes AIDS.
I know you are not in that camp bags but some of those who pick up bits and pieces of the academic debate and bandy them about are.

As I understand the article, jess, 150% of what has actually happened since the predictioin was made. So Hansen predicted a far higher temperature rise than has actually occurred in the timescale given. I think it's useful to bear this (and other failed predictions) in mind when hearing about further future scenarios. Many scientists, while fully acknowledging that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (thank goodness), think that it is not as significant a climate forcer as some are claiming, and they give their scientifically sound reasons for thinking like this. The mainstream media is not so good at reporting this science as it is at reporting (and distorting) alarmist predictions.

The graph shows an actual temperature rise of about .5 of a degree since 1960 which is pretty scary. The prediction on this more than 30 year old model was 1.5. Is that what you are referring to? Makes no more sense to talk about 150% than it would to say 300%. Percentages are often misused and misapplied and I think this is an example. Does not inspire confidence in this article.
As I say, climate change modelling will have moved on somewhat in the last 34 years.

Have you seen that James Lovelock is saying we should embrace fracking? He used to be a scaremonger (and has admitted as much). It is the change of views of people like him (there are lots) who first stopped me from being scared of all the bleating about global warming devastation. Why do you think it is not called global warming any more but climate change? Of course climate keeps changing; global climate is far too complex a thing to remain static. There are far too many variables in the system. CO2 is one of them, but only one of many. Putting all climate change down to CO2 levels is scientifically simplistic.

I do not find a 0.5°C increase in global temperature scary, especially as global temperature has not risen since 1998 and some scientists are saying we may be heading for a cooling period because of the natural cycles of the very complex planetary climate system. The small greenhouse effect of CO2 may even help alleviate the problems extra cold would cause.

OMG - he is mad as a fish. Fracking! How can that ever be a good idea. It is so wrong in so many ways.
There is a great big fact out there - millions of years ago the carbon was floating around in the air. The planet was hot. Dinosaurs chomped on tree ferns at the south pole.
Then the carbon got turned into oil, gas and coal. The planet cooled down - this was cause and effect. Now we are putting all that carbon back into circulation and it is going to take another few millions for the natural world to turn it back into coal etc. So we WILL warm up. How fast is the only question.
Glad you are not scared bags so why not just let the subject rest then? The lady doth, perhaps, protest too much?
My questions are rhetorical. I need to go away from this thread. Not good for my BP.

People keep telling me to shut-up. Politely . I guess they just don't want to know that people are asking why it was warmer during the Medieval Warm Period but CO2 levels were much lower than now. What caused that warming, I wonder?

But some people have said they are grateful for the links I put up so I'll carry on. As with all threads on gransnet, nobody need read or respond to them unless they actually want to.

Those dinosaurs were eating in Antarctica but Antarctica wasn't at the South Pole then. Makes a bit of difference you know. Scotland used to be in the southern hemisphere.

There were also times when CO2 was far far higher than it is now but there was no runaway global warming.

We are actually still in an ice age, only an interglacial. Generally it has been warmer than it is now and life on the planet did perfectly well. We evolved during warmer periods than we are in now.

Why is there so much dissenting science written by, yes real, scientists that is questioning the over-simplification of CO2 increases lead to warming scenario?

Why do some papers say that CO2 increases follow temperature rises by 800 years?

Why hasn't average global temperature risen since 1998 when we not only haven't reduced the amount of CO2 that we're pumping into the atmosphere but have added more?

To end, the reason I rabbit on about this is essentially because we are being asked to pay out trillions of dollars to apply ineffective pseudo-solutions to something we cannot control anyway. That money would be better spent dealing with actual problems (e.g. malaria, millions of people without clean water, and so on) that we can do something about.

PS Warmists used to honour Lovelock for his Gaia Hypothesis. Funny how they're changing their tune now that he, along with other sceptical environmentalists, has had the integrity to acknowledge that the models do not fit reality.

Psst. Bags! Go and read that other thread. Something about the plain truth.

It's science-y - I think.

It isn't sciencey at all.

No, it's brainwashy.

Good post, Bags - although that's only my opinion, of course, which may not count in some quarters! [sink]

I meant of course, although......

bags couldn't agree with you more! It's a type of hysteria!

It's not hysteria jeni.

Anyone who cares at all about our grandchildren's futures would see the need to protect the planet. Apparently there are as many 'nay' sayers as 'yay' sayers in the scientific world, on this subject. So it makes sense to be on the safe side. And to teach the young generation to do the same.

It's not difficult.

I don't understand why anyone would want to spend a huge amount of time trying to prove the point, one way or the other.

What actual behaviour do you advocate Bags?

Protecting the planet is not the same thing as global warming!

totally now

w e h a v e t o p r o t e c t t h e p l a n e t a g a i n s t g l o b al w a r m i n g.

just in case

sorry jens

shoot me now