Climate Change

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Which have been questioned.

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.

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!

I think all new houses must have meters. Otherwise, you can have one on request. In my old - larger - house, I had one and was quids in except when sons arrived with GFs to stay till they got jobs! Because water rates are still based on the rateable value of the property and I have a small house, the water company advised me that it wouldn't be worth my while to have a meter.

I'm with Dr. Shaviv on this one, and also agree with Danny Bloom about being aware of the language used during these on-going debates on climate change.
Thanks for the link B

Here (France) all households are on a meter for the water they use. If there's a leak, then from the meter to your taps you pay, from the meter to outside your boundary, the water company pays. This makes you check every litre used, to make sure there are no hidden leaks. It also concentrates the mind wonderfully about how much water is used, and for what. Hence our large and ugly water butts.
I'm out of touch with the UK policies - is water metered in some areas and others not??

Danny Bloom is a journalist. Giora Shaviv is Professor Emeritus, the Swartzmann-Medvedi chair in Space Sciences at The Technion in Haifa. Here is an article written by Bloom about their respective positions on global warming. Bloom believes the CO2 model. Shaviv says the sun is responsible for climate change and we cannot control the sun.

Not on a spring-line are they Jess? Same used to happen 'up our road' not a million miles from a pond that is fed by a spring. The builders put in drainage pipes along the back of our gardens where, aparently in wet weather, there was some sort of 'run-off' down the hill. Older residents also remember another pond in the ares where they fished for tadpoles.
A tale of developers/builders building where water is an issue!

Yes, Jess, your input was needed. Just to digress from the actual subject of this thread, when I tried to find the Hosepipe Ban thread via Search, it came up OK but truncated. I've found this when looking up other old threads - some seem to have been cut off at a certain point, while others are kept in their entirety. It's always the ones where there has been an altercation of some kind. Interesting.

Oh hi. Were you missing me. I hate to admit it , but water privatisation worked well in the Uk - my evidence being Northern Ireland which never was privatised . They have far more leaks over there. In the big freeze Dec 2010 they were in a terrible mess, while relatively few people on mainland were without water due to burst mains etc.
True that the government have no direct control but there is a regulator and leakage control is one of the things they regulate:
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulating/prs_web201110perf_summ
It appears that the regulator is satisfied with most of the companies efforts to control leakage. If you crank up leakage control above a certain level it is a law of diminishing returns and bills will go up to pay for it.
Sometimes leaks are really hard to find. Or they are not actually mains water. There is a leak in a garden round here that runs onto the pavement and road. I am pretty sure it is not mains water as it gets worse after lots of rain! But sometimes the water company keeps on trying to locate it.

Would agree about the leaks carbon ...they've dug the same hole four times in the town ...water board ...they seem to be digging holes everywhere ...then going off and leaving the disruption to traffic

Annobel Privatising water reminds me of the people of Cochabamba, Bolivia whose water was privatised. People had their water cut off because they couldn't afford to pay. The people rioted and Bechtel, the US owned water company was forced out.

Oh and good to see your comments again carbon. Baggy had asked where you were on a couple of threads, no one was debating with her about the environment.

Faye - that was Thatcher 'selling off the family silver', in the words of the late Harold McMillan.

You would wonder why any governments would let private companies run our most precious commodity.

Increasingly larger populations would have to mean a lowering of the water table!

www.bigcampaign.org/veolia/

Veolia collects our refuse too. I have been part of a campaign to raise awareness about this aspect of Veolia's work. Not to do with climate change.

It's a pity JessM isn't around at the moment - she'd put you straight about Water Companies and leaks, carbon! I can't remember exactly what she said, and the thread has gone now, but she's very knowledgeable on the subject and put me right on that one!