Several problems with this study?
A recent study has shown that over the past 100 years the average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic have been toastier than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years, and perhaps for as long as 120,000 years. "This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural …
The study does seem to make some fairly remarkable assumptions in extrapolating from samples taken at a couple of sites to the whole Arctic. There's another paper published (Ice core O18 based) that suggests that there have been several periods (pre industrialisation) where there were large shifts in Arctic climate, all from natural causes. So we still have a lot to learn....
This is covered at Judith Curry's site: http://judithcurry.com/2013/10/25/unprecedented-arctic-warming/
What distinguishes scientific knowledge from other forms of knowledge is its predictive value. While there is historical data supporting a claim that the sun will rise tomorrow, it is inductive, not deductive, reasoning. It is only valid until a contrary event occurs. It is like the proposition that all swans are white. Then black swans were discovered in Australia, making the proposition false. So, yes, there are problems with such a paper without an appropriate qualification.
Have you read the paper yourself, or are you merely "retweeting" the unconscionably biased (and,you must admit, logically challenged) "Watt's Up"? I don't recall exactly, but I do believe that if you look up "tool" in the revered Encyclopedia Britannica, there's an engraving of Anthony Watts accompanying the scholarly entry.
I've read the paper. Genrally, Miller has turned out some pretty good research, but this one is very sloppy. He even refers to Baffin Island as being east of Greenland (it's to the west). Temps could have been warmer in the past but not for a period long enough to sufficiently melt the glacier to expose the moss. At the very least he should have included a minimum time period of warmth (if the past were warmer it was for a time period less than that required to melt ice 70 meters thick). He over ran his headlights on this one. Maybe he isn't monitoring the work of his grad students enough.
While I think there is some substance to global warming, every day we get information, mis-information and down right poorly researched information to the point where the majority of people really don't care anymore.
Everyone and his aunt come up with a theory and if any of it really does have some truth in it, it has already disappeared into a mire of information that is impossible to make head or tail out of.
Lars is right. What the story on this article doesn't report is that local climate varies widely throughout the Arctic because of all the water/land interactions (lots of islands, changing currents, floating ice packs, and so forth). Thus, data from a single location (on Baffin Island in this case) doesn't mean much for a spot 100 or 1000 miles away in the Arctic that has a different local climate. Even the authors' assumption that the climate at their dig sites on Baffin Island and at their ice core sites on Greenland 500-1000 miles away is comparable enough to "line them up" is quite questionable.
It's the equivalent of looking at the outside thermometer in Chicago in order to determine if you need to turn on your air conditioning at home in Washington, D.C.
You're using the local weather and they're comparing the climate. Yes. Chicago and Washington have different local weather and average temperatures but do you have any reason to believe that the relationship in average temperatures between the two places has changed over the centuries. 44,000 years ago Chicago wasn't tropical while Washington was ice-bound. It's highly probable that both were equally colder/warmer.
If the two places are at the same latitudes and similar sites eg both large islands it increases the validity of comparing climates. So, you compare sites on Baffin Island and Greenland now and use that difference when comparing data from the past.
You're correct and you highlight a problem with the way science is now funded (by popular opinion).
There's a very real risk in the general public having access to actual scientific research in a world with instantaneous global communication. The vast majority of people aren't remotely qualified to pontificate on (or even read) any scientific research and those that are qualified quickly lose their grasp on things when they get too far outside their field. The link in the first post is exactly what's wrong. Real science isn't done by picking apart a paper. You can refute someone's findings in a paper of your own, but that isn't what's been done there.
But the democratization of communications makes everyone 'an expert' who believes that shouting from a tall enough tower will somehow affect reality. As others have noted, El Reg has a bad habit of this. The end result is exactly what you have noted, there is information overload and no way to discriminate. People are mistaken that more eyes on an issue is always better. Sometimes things are better left to eyes that know what they're looking at.
What is the field of expertise of the author of this paper, is it paleontology, geology, glaciers, or climate? The problem with climate is that it requires an understanding of many fields of science, denying anyone from being a true 'expert'. A climatologist could spend an entire career going down one path - say the physics of gases - believing his field best explained climate changes, while the true driver of climate was intergalactic cosmic rays, a subject completely foreign to him. The probability is, that in this fiield, everybody is right about something, but no one is right about enough things for climate to be understood. Climate quite possibly the sum of everything possible - from cosmic rays to volcanoes to ocean cycles, with the final result depending on the relative strengths of many, many variables at any given time.
On one side we have over-whelmingconsenus between climatologists that climate change is taking place, on the other side we have pet journalists of companies that have a vested interest in selling us hydocarbons.
Throw in a few side-shows (cost of wind power, taxes, one correction required in a 1,000+ page document, emails who's authors have been exonerated by 5 inquiries) and the demand for 'balance' in reporting - why now? And why give equal voice to those who are acknowledged experts in their field and those that have no knowledge of the subject?
The best explanation of the situation was written by a guest writer in the Albuquerque Journal 3 years ago entitled 'The Real Climate Controversy'. Sadly its not on their website but has been reproduced elsewehere,e.g.http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/HumSocNewMex/conversations/topics/2058
Since I'm an engineer, I like to point out that from an engineering perspective, there's a major point about climate change that the press doesn't like to discuss and politicians twist into unrecognizable shapes and plots. How do we cope with it?
In the vast majority of engineered solutions you
don't can't concern yourself with the root causes of things, that's an Adams-SEP. Your job is to find solutions that modify the certainties of unmanageable/uncontrollable things so that their impacts are either neutralized or harnessed to further another end. You only concern yourself with the things that you can affect.
If we assume that the general scientific consensus is correct, and that the planet is in fact warming, it's a rather pointless endeavor to focus State level resources on changing that. It's like trying to alter gravity with policy; misguided, pointless, and frankly, stupid. There's no harm in doing simply good things, like not being wasteful and not living like an entitled jackass, but none of those things are going to alter global climate shift, no matter what the cause.
Everyday things like building materials, cooling and water management systems and even surface treatments (paints) need to be reassessed and standards updated to deal with a different climate or the real, physical effects on Human civilization at our current scale will be drastic. If we waste all our time bickering about the cause(s) of the shift, we're all going to be in a world of shit when the bricks and cement our structures are built with start to degrade at a pace we can't outrun.
One of our larger long term projects that has already been underway for over two years and involving four other research facilities, is the study of corrosion inhibitors (paint) for exposed infrastructure components that cope better with increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Without much fanfare, the major providers of corrosion inhibitors for structures like bridges, water towers and wind turbines downgraded the life expectancies of their products; five years ago.
Most industries know there is a burning problem, but the hot potato that climate change has become prevents anyone from wanting to talk about it in public because there's a very real risk of backlash from an uneducated and scientifically ignorant public. If the levels of rhetoric and bullshit were scaled back (Lewis...) then actual, manageable problems could be addressed. Until the bullshit level reaches a background level no one can actually do much of anything.
I was just thinking the same thing.
Let's forget arguing over whether its real or not, let's forget stupid trivialities like emissions trading schemes and 5p plastic bag charges and let's forget duplicitous environmental taxes. Instead let's take some sensible precautions and power-saving measures but realise that we've outsourced manufacturing to China so its unlikely that anything we do will make an enormous difference.
Then let's think about how we deal with rising seas. Do we need to plan to shift London inland a bit? Where are the flood plains? What happens to food sources, water, electrics and communications infrastructure if seas rise.
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm getting bored with people running around shouting that the sky is falling. Of course climatologists and researchers are going to say its a disaster - they would be unimportant (and unfunded) if it wasn't and of course the energy companies are going to say "buy more of our stuff" because that is what they do. If the scientific consensus is AGW is true, I'm not sure if publishing yet another paper about it is really what we need or just self-serving. What we need is some planning, which is really what we employ government for.
@Don Jefe - "Without much fanfare, the major providers of corrosion inhibitors for structures like bridges, water towers and wind turbines downgraded the life expectancies of their products; five years ago."
That reminds me of Bill Bryson's A Short History of Nearly Everything where he tells that while the rest of the world were arguing about whether plate tectonics was reality or fantasy, oil geologists had been busy using using those assumptions to successfully locate drilling sites for a decade or so.
"If we assume that the general scientific consensus is correct, and that the planet is in fact warming,"
Are you sure you're an Engineer? One who actually designs things?
As an Engineer who does I'm not taking anyones word that "it'll all work OK", I want to convince myself this is the case, I want to see the raw data. In the case of CAGW...
...it convinces me we have nothing to worry about.
As a rather successful engineer, I recognize the fact that attempting to do scientific research from by bedroom is not effective. If you are an engineer then the vast majority of your work is based 100% on the word of others.
Do you reanalyze formulas or materials data to prove that underlying knowledge and material you're using to construct a pressurized vessel are valid? Fuck no. You accept the findings of others and you base your work off of that. If you're trying to refute every piece of information you are given you are not an effective engineer. You must trust other people word at some point.
"If you are an engineer then the vast majority of your work is based 100% on the word of others."
I only have to 'believe' a few basic principles, much of our lab work at university was showing these hold true. Everything else can be derived and tested.
"You accept the findings of others and you base your work off of that"
Only if they seem sensible and the results make sense.
The same amount of warming between 1910 - 1940 as 1970 - 2000 with much less CO2 in the air.
No warming since 2000 with 8% more (than 2000) CO2 in the air.
Climate 'models' continue to show an increased rate of warming.
Can you point to a peer reviewed climate model? Can you indicate the quality standards the climate models are developed to?
"Google what Burt Rutan had to say. His 40 page presentation cuts through the bullshit like few others"
Burt Rutan is a good example of why engineers don't necessarily make good scientists.
On page 27 he displays a graph of temperature and solar activity which is presented as "temperature correlates with the sun not hydrocarbon use".
Several problems, but here are the two major ones:
1. the graph shows Arctic temperature, not global temperature. Why? If the subject is global warming surely you compare global temperature with solar activity. Interesting fact: global temperature doesn't correlate well with the solar activity trend. Was that why arctic was used instead?
2. The graph only goes up to 2002. It omits the sharp downturn in solar activity since 2002 at the same time as a sharp increase in arctic temperature that completely smashes the solar/temperature correlation. A convenient omission.
You tell me the explanation for why Burt Rutan used this graph. Perhaps engineers don't have as high standards when it comes to analyzing theories?
Here's a more accurate graph:
Why didn't he use that?
I've been trying to point this out to friends for years, but I just get shouted down as a "Denier".
Kind of like a guy with a bad leg infection, the Doctor puts all his energy into attempting to save the limb, and none into researching what prosthetics and changes to his lifestyle might be needed in the even of amputation.
Why give equal voice to those who are acknowledged experts in their field and those that have no knowledge of the subject? Because although they might have no knowledge of paleoclimatology, they might actually know something about statistics.
And no, I don't work for Shell or BP or Exxon or...
Statistics huh. Well, statistically, the further outside ones area of specialization one goes, the more personal biases and opinion come into play. Just like being too close to something warps your perceptions of it, so does being too far away from it.
Besides, scientists that don't have tremendously comprehensive maths and statistics educations are almost exclusively a product of a few European countries and North America. Here in the States and in the UK there has been a serious decline over the last fourty years in the amount of education a 'scientist' receives. In South America and Japan, students entering any given scientific field of study know more advanced math, chemistry, physics, meterology, geology and biology that many post-docs from the US or UK. They learn the core components of all science before they move into a specialization. It improves their research, and it helps prevent them from being 'fooled' by shoddy research.
The move away from a traditional scientific education is a real problem, as scientific marketing is used to fill the knowledge gaps and marketing is still marketing, even if it comes from people in lab coats. The US and the UK already lost their leads in research leadership and their leads in quantity of output are only maintained by the massive amount of marketing dollars thrown at the industry. It's actually quite sad.
"The US and the UK already lost their leads in research leadership and their leads in quantity of output are only maintained by the massive amount of marketing dollars thrown at the industry. It's actually quite sad."
Woooo! A non-Brit critisising something to do with Britain! The horror! :-) [ just a joke in reference to a oost I made a few days ago]
Seriously though, you are unfortunately totally right - we. don't develop much here in the UK anymore - and on the rare occasions we do, the people involved generally seem to emigrate to America to continue that development.
I can't commenfdirectly about America, but I'm sure it's far worse in the UK - after all, you have MIT, Silicon Valley, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, apple etc.
Last I heard, even Tim berners-Lee made the USA his home
--- Why give equal voice to those who are acknowledged experts in their field and those that have no knowledge of the subject?
Science and the Scientific Method is such that disinterested parties, or even parties which strongly disagree, should be able to come up with the same results after following the same procedures. This is how The Truth is determined in the Modern World.
If the raw data, processes, and procedures are not made available for disinterested parties - then it is not science. The conclusions expressed without raw data and procedures are little more than dogma. People tire of this religion, pushed by politicians, trying to scare common people into paying tax indulgences.
These new "Salem Witch Trials" go to burn people "at the stake" who dare to disagree with the new "High Priests" publishing their "concensus" papers citing unpublished/non-existent raw data massaged with proprietary algorithms funded by public moneies... those monies could melt-away, like an ice cap in our modern day, if there was no alarm bell struck, in order to call for more taxes & funding for the next rounds of studies.
We clearly see why people are so unfortunately sceptical about Anthropogenic Global Warming. Get rid of the religion and let's get down to the hard-science. All the data, models, and procedures should be public. There is nothing more poisonous than secret raw data, secret procedures, and concensus of individuals who will lose their funding (or possible future funding) if the fatwa they declare does not their next welfare payment by "The State".
A generally good post, but this line is a major nit.
The Modern World generally has no use for The Truth let alone a working definition of it. Between Heisenberg, Darwin, Hegel, and Popper The Truth went the way of the Dodo. To the extent it exists today The Truth is what the AWG proclaim to their fellow cultists. What Science does pursue these days are Facts. Facts which can be independently verified, tested, and repeated. These Facts are generally analyzed with proven statistical methodologies. Substitute "Facts" for "The Truth" in your post and I'd be in complete concurrence.
So A desktop publisher (glorified Data Entry), who types in Science articals, who has a friend in maths, intends to lecture the rest of world in peer review, Yet dismisses out of hand the opposing argument, as nonsense, or is that what your friend told you to say ? maybe you waiting on voices in your head to confirm it or did you read it your bible, because I find hard to listen to someone who goes on about truth & facts, and quotes bible fairy stories, in later posts here ...
I don't give a rap who supports what. The fact that Mussolini dictated that trains run on schedule does not diminish the value of trains running on time.
The data over th last seventeen years show that all the CO2 we've dumped into the air has not resulted in warmer temperatures. The climate changes - it always has - and we really have no clue as to why or how.
You do understand how peer review works, right? I'm not entirely sure you do. It isn't any failing on your part, it is a common misunderstanding. I will attempt to summarize below:
When a paper is sent to a jury for review, they assess your methodologies and make sure that they could result in the findings you are reporting. They don't replicate the experiments or validate your data. They don't agree or disagree with your findings, that's the job of other scientists who may refute your findings with their own study.
After a study is published things do get rather more complex and intensive where the 'value' of your findings are determined by factors like how often it is cited, whether the journal is open or subscription based (open is not a positive thing in that regard) and how recent it is. All those factors, and more, are tallied into score called the 'impact factor' and that is what determines if the general scientific community will accept your findings, beyond a subset of minority parties. Most agency and academic research and grant applications have a minimum impact factor requirement which limits the inclusion of cited works to those with a fairly high impact factor.
Private and industry research generally doesn't have impact factor minimums and it limits the acceptance of their
lobbying findings in high quality research circles. That's why you rarely see industry research cited in academic papers, private parties have no real controls on what they can cite: They can dig up some loonies research from 1913 and throw it at the public (who it is aimed at anyway) and act like it is valid because it was peer reviewed.
All that to say, that peer review is the first public step in the quality control protections built into the scientific process. You can clear the peer review hurdle with some pretty ridiculous findings if your methodologies are solid, but there are other, far more rigorous, tests that the research must pass before it is accepted as a general consensus.
Never in 150+ years has peer review itself been a measure of validity and it isn't supposed to be. The general misunderstanding of peer review by the public is another great example of how college level education is being squandered by failing to teach in broad, core principals and processes in exchange for ever increasing specialization and 'business' classes.
Don, I assume in you 160+ years, you exclude the past decade or so where the pro-AGW crowd have pretty much educated Joe Public to believe that "peer reviewed" = "absolute scientific truth"?
From Hansen down the chain, the "peer reviewed" card has been very heavily played, and it is proven that a cadre of pro AGW "scientists" has managed to hijack the process to limit the publication of offending papers.
We need lots more research where the exercise is not to "prove" AGW, but to falsify it (though AGW is so nebulous that falsification in a strict sense is not logically possible, which I guess is the point ...). There is way too much confirmation bias in way to much reasearch that is funded to "look for a signal" in the noise that points to the magic CO2 tap that, when turned off, will mystically stave of the impending eco-doom.
That's only how they want you to THINK peer review works. The truth is something entirely different.
I worked as the DTP for a respected (in its field) scientific journal (closed at the time because open wasn't around then, not sure what it is today but I expect still closed since that was the second largest source of how the NPO behind it got its money, the first being its standards book used by an entire industry). Standard practice was for the author(s) of a paper to recommend at least three people to review the submitted paper. They were the people who typically reviewed the paper for technical accuracy. We had very few papers that weren't published after the author was able to respond to or incorporate criticism from the review. After the paper was peer reviewed it underwent an "English" review. Usually this was fine and it was the equivalent of a literary technical review. I do however recall one paper where the last "English" reviewer rewrote the whole paper with the author. The editor only realized what happened 30 days before the publication date. It was temporarily held, got a cursory secondary technical review and was published.
I have a friend with a Masters in Mathematics who has written papers. He frequently remarks that the fields are so narrow that you always know who the relevant people in your area are. And there is no way to hide who the actual reviewers are when you receive their reviews even though the names are removed. So you can't either freely criticize or freely defend your study, you always have to consider the political implications of what you write/say.
In short whether the system works as an honest quality control or a Politburo censorship board depends entirely on what the intentions of the reviewers are. And that fundamentally is the problem with the politicization of AGW/Climate Change is. Because the money holders and the leading researchers are working hand-in-hand while engaging in the name calling of Denialists for skeptics reviewing their work they are most likely working like a Politburo, not an honest review committee.
"Everyone and his aunt come up with a theory and if any of it really does have some truth in it, it has already disappeared into a mire of information that is impossible to make head or tail out of."
Well, if you owned a petroleum company, you'd be investing in misinformation by the supertanker load as well to protect your business and profit.
"While I think there is some substance to global warming, every day we get information, mis-information and down right poorly researched information to the point where the majority of people really don't care anymore."
Mission Accomplished! For the extremely well-financed oil and coal salesmen.
The article that this link goes to is written by someone who lacks even a basic knowledge of science. Carbon-14 breakdown generally has nothing to do with temperature, exposure, or type of plant. Carbon breakdown is the radiological conversion of an isotope carbon-14 into a stable carbon-12.
The article inferred that all of those affected the measurements and so implied the results could not be trusted. This straw man argument simply show the dire lack of intelligence, an excess of gullibility, and an inherent laziness to not even being willing to look up carbon-14 dating.
If everything else has been examined, the assumption holds water until an alternative is found.
Its called 'The Scientific Process' and the word 'proof' only applies to mathematics.
I.e. with the current level of knowledge the only explanation for this phenomenon is man is causing it.
If we discover that there is a race of mole men creating CO2 to destroy the surface of the planet for us, then obviously the assumption would have to be revised. If you have any eveidence of that, or any other possible cause(s) for this that have already been considered and ruled out, speak out. I'm sure the coal & petro-chemical industries would be happy to provide you with the billions they've been paying to PR companies to attempts rubbish reputation (as they can't rubbish the science) -don't forget, these are the same companies that still tell us that smoking is fine, as is passive smoking. Money beats morals.
"I.e. with the current level of knowledge the only explanation for this phenomenon is man is causing it."
There are other explanations. It could very well be part of the natural cycle. IMO you first have to prove the current observations are outside the natural cycle before you even start looking at the alternatives.
Sadly, with only 30-odd years of satellite data, and (at most) two centuries of manual data collection of various quality -- how can you draw any conclusions at all concerning a 1 degree warming over the timespan of a century?
As for this report -- that island is geographically limited. This report deals with local clima variations, clearly not global ones. (isn't that what is often said when someone points out that Greenland recently used to be ...green?)
Nonsense. A hypothesis with no supporting evidence is not accepted even if no other alternative is proposed. In this specific case, no one can explain why, if the assumption of CO2 warming is valid, temps have failed to go up over the last 16 years. We can discard the climate models because they have been proven to be wrong, despite having no alternative models.
And the money spent promoting AGW dwarfs anything spent questioning it. The evil-oil company meme has grown tiresome. They are energy companies and will be selling us energy in whatever form produces the most profit. The money that started East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a main proponent of AGW, came from Shell and other energy companies.
"They are energy companies and will be selling us energy in whatever form produces the most profit."
Nothing to do with their existing field of expertise and its continued relevance, or otherwise, then?
So that means that Microsoft and Apple used to be the companies making typewriters for typing pools and what we witnessed in recent decades was their smooth transition into computer companies?
"If everything else has been examined, the assumption holds water until an alternative is found."
I'm sorry that is balearics.
You can show a theory is false without having to provide an alternative.
"I.e. with the current level of knowledge the only explanation for this phenomenon is man is causing it."
What phenomenon? That CO2 was rising during the warming of 1970 - 2000 so it must have been causing it, despite the fact there was the same amoung of warming between 1910 - 1940 with much less CO2, and CO2 has been rising since 2000 with no warming?
Does it really matter at this point who started it ? It is happening, it looks like it will continue, and we ARE feeding it ....
If the "Greenies" are right, we get a cleaner, cheaper electricity world, and life becomes sustainable, but if Rich Business Owners & Political Sicophants/Lackies get their way, we end up dead (They moved to inflatable space hotels) .....
Douglas Adams may have had a point, after shrinking the gene pool enough, maybe a virulent disease contracted from dirty Telephones will get them ...
we get a dirty more expensive electricity world with Greens.
Anti-intellectual Luddites to a man.
Whatever the truth about climate change there are no solutions coming from the greens, just (our) money thrown at politically correct gestures that simply do not work.
Must be the fact I have used solar last 15 years for a $700(AUD) investment, A lot of Australia Households Have either solar power or solar hot water or both, but only ones whinging about it are Electricity companies or shareholders. The fact remains that most households Electrics/ PC / LCD TVs could & can be run on 12V, these days, easy to provide with wind or solar .....
12v air con like from cars, boats, etc, yeah need a wind turbine to spin the compressor, depends on size of your shed..
But seriously, We should build underground more its the answer to Heating/cooling, bushfire Protection, Most storm damage, that would solve a few issues ...
"And what's so special about 12 volts in your house that it cant turn a little compressor, or even be converted to a voltage that you feel is more suited to the job?"
Because it's not the voltage but the power (VxI) that's important. You can produce 240V from your 12V source but you'll only get 1/20th the current out (assuming 100% efficiency).
And your solar panels don't make much sense in the short dark winter days here in the UK.
The only reason why green power is more expensive than it should be was FIT were set in the hope that someone would build a nuclear power station and feed a huge amount of money into big business. It didn't work and now FIT's have fallen the price of wind and solar is dropping. I've just got a quote for 4kw of solar and its 3/4 that of my bro's 3kw earlier this year.
Green power was only expensive because of the feed in tariffs.
> No, green power is expensive because of something called "physics".
No, green power "is expensive" because of skewed economics: fossil power is relatively cheaper to buy because it
a) is extracted in a way that doesn't reflect it's non-renewable nature (ie. we don't treat it as a very finite resource), and
b) ignores the cost of dumping its waste products (CO2 etc.) in the environment. Just because that's extremely hard to quantify doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I work in a field close to fossil fuels and what I see makes me very worried indeed but not as worried as dumb people who expect the universe to bend to their whim because, by god, they are entitled to cheap energy and will downvote you if you suggest reality doesn't have a warm & comfy niche just for them.
And what exactly isn't green about nuclear power? It's carbon-neutral, and is also the safest practical form of power generation (no, wind isn't practical because it only works part of the time, we're too far north for solar, and hydro and tidal power wreck ecosystems). Forget the environmental impact of fossil fuels, they should be banned simply on the grounds that they kill millions every year from air pollution. BUT OH NOES, WITH NUCLEAR WE END UP WITH ALL THIS RADIOACTIVE WASTE!!!! The uranium was already in the ground being radioactive and contributing to the general background radiation level, all nuclear power does it put it away somewhere we can keep a much closer eye on it.
Not arguing against nuclear power, but saying that because something was already in the ground somehow makes it less dangerous is extraordinarily silly. Saying that concentrating said thing is even less dangerous is doubly silly.
It is the fact that radioactive materials are not highly concentrated in nature that renders them basically harmless in their natural state. It is only when we remove them from the ground and concentrate them that they become dangerous. If we didn't go fucking with them they'd be perfectly safe.
I do think nuclear power is the only way forward right now, but wacko statements like 'it's organic' aren't furthering anyone's goals...
Come now Thoguht; do you expect humans to react intelligently to such an emotional subject! Especially now that Earth worship is a religion? Of course not! HA!
I seem to remember a kid inventing a way to use radioactive waste to generate even more power, and the waste product was practically lead, if I remember correctly.
You are wrong on wind power, though; waste wind power can be use for so many other products like pumping CNG into storage tanks, or generating hydrogen, for practically free (after all it is waste energy see?) - and I saw where a young college student, a girl of Indian descent, invented a super capacitor, that will change the world in cheap high energy storage. This will make batteries on cars and waste energy a thing of the past. This is only one or two of the developments that have only recently come out.
"a young college student, a girl of Indian descent, invented a super capacitor, that will change the world in cheap high energy storage. "
The greenies will crucify her. Anything that creates or contributes to cheap abundant energy is BAD! They want to send us back to the stone ages, energy=bad for the true greenie.
If you don't believe this, listen to the crap that spews from the collective mouths of the green movement's spokesmen
'Re: greenies are wrong about almost everything
"Green power was only expensive because of the feed in tariffs"
No, green power is expensive because of something called "physics".
Look it up.'
And nuclear power is only 'cheap' because the escalating cost of safely storing / processing spent fuel is always (to date) swept into the future and omitted from calculations, to be picked up, eventually, by tax-payers rather than nuclear companies. In the UK we've recently seen how 'cheap' it is when Cameron trumpeted the deal he'd done whereby China will build the next UK nuclear reactor (and, likely, others to follow) and will be guaranteed a payment per unit generated close to double what existing companies are paid. And guess who picks up that bill? The same plebs who pay the taxes.
"The only reason why green power is more expensive than it should be was FIT were set in the hope that someone would build a nuclear power station and feed a huge amount of money into big business."
I can't follow this reasoning at all, can you explain what you're talking about?
"Green power was only expensive because of the feed in tariffs."
Yes, exactly, we are paying vastly over the odds for 'Green' power via massively inflated FITs.
WTF has the price of electricity got to do with it?
As a biker I spend UKP 400 on a crash helmet - not because I like to spend 400 quid, but because I recognise it is more likely to keep me alive than a 20 pound second-hand one.
The price of electricty is a red herring when we are killing this planet for our kids and grand-kids. Let em suffer if I can get 10% off my bills. How short-sighted &fucking selfish.
The price of electricty is a red herring when we are killing this planet for our kids and grand-kids. Let em suffer if I can get 10% off my bills. How short-sighted &fucking selfish.
Unfortunately, economics is the only heuristic you have. And your kids & grand-kids will suffer anyway (UK debt = 90% of GDP, probably optimistic; enjoy paying it down. No, it will NOT be paid down by "the rich".).
You should feel free to give your money to green energy initiatives (government-mandated or not) of your choice, but don't diss "cheap". Paying "more" now might well make the difference between "energy" and "energy and a bike" later.
> Unfortunately, economics is the only heuristic you have
And that would be fine with me if it wasn't skewed - did you miss my post pointing this out? And other people's posts about subsidies to non-green energy? Broken heuristic is broken.
> Paying "more" now might well make the difference between ...
... having energy Now, and having energy Now and Later. Perhaps. Maybe. Who cares, eh?
> And what exactly isn't green about nuclear power?
Depends. I'd be happy with nuclear except I don't believe humans have the capacity for long-term thought and risk evaluation (see my post above about ignoring externalities) that's needed to manage such hugely concentrated and somewhat dangerous energy source.
> all nuclear power does it put it away somewhere we can keep a much closer eye on it.
Either you don't know some facts or do know them and choose to ignore them. Either way you & DAM make my head-in-sand point perfectly.
Extract from my prior post at <http://forums.theregister.co.uk/user/23101/6> replying to DAM (which DAM didn't reply to for some puzzling reason):
NII asserts that fire and explosion pose no threat to the HLW tanks. However, reprocessing plants around the world have suffered large and small explosions. A HLW tank exploded in the USSR in 1957. A particular concern at Sellafield is the potential for organic material to be inadvertently transferred from THORP or B205 to B215 via a HLW pipeline. Experience and analysis indicate that this material could enter into an explosive reaction, with an energy yield equivalent to that from 1 tonne of TNT. Such an explosion in an evaporator or tank at B215 could lead to a release from the HLW tanks.
Building B30, colloquially known as dirty thirty, is a pond which was used to store spent fuel from MAGNOX power stations [...] It is impossible to determine exactly how much radioactive waste is stored in B30 [...] There are expected to be about 1.3 tons of plutonium, 400 kg of which are in mud sediments [...] Radiation around the pool can get so high that a person is not allowed to stay more than 2 minutes, seriously affecting decommissioning. The pool is not watertight, time and weather have created cracks in the concrete, letting contaminated water leak.
Read the rest at the link.
If only the people who could be injured and killed from stupidity were the ones responsible.
I'm an engineer as well and what annoys me about the current debate isn't about who is right about the causes, but the fact that governments have already made up their mind and expect us all to wear a hair shirt, rather than strict calls for hard evidence that we are to blame. From what I can see, the issue is far from decided and even the most recent IPCC report has started to hint at doubts, though you would never know it, reading the media.
I think part of this is the easliy tapped into collective guilt of humanity about mankind's raping of the planet's natural resources (of which there is no doubt) and people are easliy led into thjinking "it's all out fault, we all deserve to die", when the truth may be quite different. You really have to read all the arguments and evidence, deniers and supporters, to get the big picture...
> rather than strict calls for hard evidence that we are to blame
OK, as an engineer what kind of hard evidence do you want? Bear in mind that we have no multiple earths to experiment on, where does your desired evidence come from?
(small question: do you ever use computer modelling in your work? Just wondering)
> when the truth may be quite different
Indeed it might. Or not.
> You really have to read all the arguments and evidence, deniers and supporters, to get the big picture...
and have a dozen degrees and a ton of scientists to help sift the data. That's what the IPCC is, to save you all that aggro.
BTW New Scientist has an article this very week about the Gaia hypothesis; apparently it doesn't stand up too well <http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029400.400-my-verdict-on-gaia-hypothesis-beautiful-but-flawed.html>.
There's so much virulent controversy over this issue, even after decades of research, from those on both sides of the argument. It suggests that the issue is far from resolved in scientific terms. After the initial hysteria and knee jerk response from governments, the pendulum at last seems to be swinging back to a more reasoned response and not before time. I'm all for renewable energy and even started a project for a small heat and power plant (chp) over 15 years ago, but the tco and general economics didn't make sense then and doubt that they would now. Same goes for solar and wind, which could never be reliable enough to provide base load for the grid. Now, i'm just skeptical about the whole issue. It's been done to death, headless chickens, at vast expense, with still no conclusive evidence that: we are on the edge of some kind of environmental disaster.
All the stiudies and controversy seem to suggest that even if there is warming, the signal is so far down in the noise that in engineering terms, it's unrecoverable and the statistical methods used to recover it can be tweaked to show anything you like. ie: not enough data and thus not real science, imho....
Some years ago I was drinking with an Oxford astrophyisist. AGW came up at one point. His comment was, "I looked into this, and asked the relevant people "show me the math", and what they showed me was pretty funny in a sad way" and so on. His basic opinion was that unti the climate brigade learn some physics and quite a bit more maths, anything they say is a waste of space - this from a man who ponders matematically the physics of the first second of creation.
I'l take his word for it that climate science physica and maths is bollocks.
> there's so much virulent controversy ...It suggests that the issue is far from resolved in scientific terms.
It may, it may also suggest there are a lot of people not willing to face things head-on, for example, by answering questions. For example, my question in my previous post, as an engineer, what kind of hard evidence do you want. I notice this has gone unanswered.
Ditto Destroy All Monsters hasn't replied. Odd.
> I'm all for renewable energy and even started a project for a small heat and power plant (chp) over 15 years ago, but the tco and general economics didn't make sense then and doubt that they would now.
Indeed. Now as I said, if you included all externalities, what with the TCO be?
> with still no conclusive evidence that: we are on the edge of some kind of environmental disaster
FFS, what's wrong with you? Seriously, you *want* conclusive evidence that you are on the edge of some kind of environmental disaster *before* you do anything? What kind of thing do you engineer, I'm only curious for my own safety, you know.
> All the stiudies and controversy seem to suggest that even if there is warming, the signal is so far down in the noise that in engineering terms, it's unrecoverable
funny, but I thought that wasn't the case at all. For example on the IPCC's website they have "Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis" -- Summary for Policymakers. Apparently this is "A total of 209 Lead Authors and 50 Review Editors from 39 countries and more than 600 Contributing Authors from 32 countries contributed to the preparation of Working Group I AR5."
And this bunch say quite a bit in the PDF linked on same page. Since you are unlikely to read the report (despite expecting other people to immerse themselves) let me quote in bullet points:
Page three: "warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia the atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amount of snow and ice had diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentration of greenhouse gases has increased (see figures...)"
Page 4: "ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010 (high confidence). It is virtually certain that the upper ocean (0-700) warmed from 1971 to 2010 (see figure...), and it is likely warmed between the 1870s and 1971."
Page 5: "over the last two decades, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet had been losing mass, glaciers have continued to shrink almost worldwide, and Arctic sea ice and Northern Hemisphere spring snow cover have continued to decrease in extent (high confidence)..."
Page 6: "the rate of sealevel rise since the mid 19th century has been larger than the mean rate during the previous two millennia (high confidence). Over the period 1901-2010, the global mean sealevel rose by 0.19 [0.1720.21] meters"
Page 7: "the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased to levels unprecedented in the last 800,000 years. CO2 concentrations have increased by 40% since preindustrial times, primarily from fossil fuel emissions and secondarily from net land use change emissions. The ocean has absorbed about 30% of the emitted antigenic carbon dioxide, causing ocean acidification..."
Page 8: "total radiative forcing is positive, and has led to an uptake of energy by the climate system the largest contribution to total radiative forcing is caused by the increase in atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since 1750..."
Page 10: "human influence on the climate system is clear. This is evident from the increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, positive radiative forcing, observed warming, and understanding of the climate system."
Et bloody cetera. What will you accept as adequately strong evidence that *something* needs to be taken seriously, or is it just "scientists" with their "agendas" as usual.
> I wouldn't take New Scientist too seriously either,
I might agree with you on this. I used to subscribe, let it lapse and don't wish to start again. Nonetheless it's not all degenerate crap and I was suggesting you read the article (browse it in Smiths) and make up your own mind, not subscribe. It was an FYI.
> Science is about questioning everything, especially the things you respect and trust the most
at some point you've got to accept things and work upon them. Questioning everything forever gets you nowhere.
BTW the bit about "especially the things you respect and trust the most" sounds like someone trying to undermine the basis of science. Science is not about distrusting everything, just keeping an open mind.
> Sorry, but the costs of decomissioning and cleanup *have* been included in the costs for the new nuclear station, recently announced
okay, please provide a reference because I am unaware of this.
"For example, my question in my previous post, as an engineer, what kind of hard evidence do you want. I notice this has gone unanswered."
Evidence that is well documented, repeatable, reviewable and which hopefully includes some real world experiments. With all the money going into AGW research why has nobody tried to experimentally show the AGW effect in a physical model that emulates real world conditions?
_All_ the 'evidence' that CO2 was the driving force for the small amount of warming between 1970 and 2000 is based on changing parameters in models that are based on the way they think they climate system works. Changing parameters and finding the results match the way the model is constructed is a self fulfilling 'prophecy'.
It is said that 'the models are based on simple physics', if it's that simple why are they all wrong?
> Evidence that is well documented, repeatable, reviewable and which hopefully includes some real world experiments
if you can find me a large number of Earths, all exactly in the same state, that we can tweak individual variables upon and allow them to diverge to see what the outcome is, I'm more than happy. As I pointed out above, we don't have this luxury. Same way that you only have one life so one tends not to go round swallowing random substances to find out what happens.
So, I may be wrong then maybe there's another way -- is there some other way to perform experiments relevant to the earth's entire surface without having a spare earth or nine?
> why has nobody tried to experimentally show the AGW effect in a physical model that emulates real world
I could facetiously say that you haven't noticed the earth is quite large but perhaps you're getting a something else. What kind of physical model would be able to replicate in any meaningful sense half a billion square kilometres of surface, 360 million square kilometres of that being ocean, and having an atmosphere that stretches several score miles upwards? (Figures from wiki <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth>)
> All_ the 'evidence' that CO2 was the driving force for the small amount of warming between 1970 and 2000 is based on changing parameters in models that are based on the way they think they climate system works
how the bloody hell else do you think models are tuned to match reality? By sacrificing a score of virgin hamsters? Seriously wtf do you think these 'parameter' thingies are for?... the only question is whether these climate models are good enough to be useful, not how they are derived. The IPCC suggests they're good enough to be concerned about the real world. Call me a heretic but I'm getting a strong impression that they know more than you.
> It is said that 'the models are based on simple physics'... (your quotes)
well, I've never heard of that quote before, so lets Google it:<https://www.google.co.uk/search?q="the+models+are+based+on+simple+physics"&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8>.
Well! Exactly 1 hit! <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-hoax_b_3072401.html> by a certain Senator Bernie Sanders. Permit me to quote a paragraph or two:
It [Senate confirmation hearing] was about global warming. It was about whether or not we are going to listen to the leading scientists of this country who tell us we're facing a planetary crisis.
So that is the issue. Do we agree with Senator Inhofe that global warming is a "hoax" and that we do not want the EPA, the Department of Energy or any other agency of the federal government to address that issue? Or do we agree with the overwhelming majority of scientists who tell us that that we must act boldly and aggressively to protect the future of this planet?
Ronald Prinn, director of MIT's Center for Global Change Science, concluded that what we have heard recently from scientists is that their earlier projections regarding global warming were wrong. That in fact they underestimated the problem and that the conditions that they were worried about will likely be worse than what they had originally thought. "There is significantly more risk than we previously estimated ... [which] increases the urgency for significant policy action."
Global warming is real. It is not a hoax. It is a planetary crisis but one that we have the knowledge and technology to address.
and just for your interest, the exact phrase you quote appears in the comments section below that article by a guy called j l mcdonald and says (extract):
The models are based on simple physics and merely elaborate the details of something you can calculate on a napkin. .../... And, despite your naysaying, the models are rather accurate...
you haven't a clue
"if you can find me a large number of Earths, all exactly in the same state, that we can tweak individual variables upon and allow them to diverge to see what the outcome is, I'm more than happy. As I pointed out above, we don't have this luxury."
Aye but it's odd how in other disiplines things can be modeled and tested with representative models. They don't need to knock a whole bridge down to show how strong it is or knock a building down to show it will withstand (or not) an earthquake.
It's as if they're afraid to do the experiments in case the whole house of cards is shown to be a sham.
"how the bloody hell else do you think models are tuned to match reality?"
No, they're tuned to match the _past_. This doesn't mean they have _any_ predictive worth (as demonstrated by the inability to predict the halt in warming over the last 15 years).
"The IPCC suggests they're good enough to be concerned about the real world"
OK. Say you're a climate scientist and you _honestly_ believe the world is at the point of disaster if things don't change _soon_. If you had the 'evidence' that this is the case would you not release your workings so that they could be reviewed and debated? You'd want as many competent people to look at what you have to back you up that the world is indeed in trouble.
Point me to a single climate model that's been released for general review?
"you haven't a clue"
I am perfectly happy to wait to see which of us is the one with the clue.
> Aye but it's odd how in other disiplines things can be modeled and tested with representative models.
And the second time, what kind of 'representative' model do you suggest we use for the entire earth? I need to point this out again because you seem to have missed it -- the earth is biggish and we only have one of them.
> They don't need to knock a whole bridge down to show how strong it is or knock a building down to show it will withstand (or not) an earthquake.
Really? That's odd, I thought they do exactly that. Knocking down a house (this took one Google to find) <http://gizmodo.com/giant-shake-table-helps-design-quake-proof-california-h-1139617755>
"Because there is no roof over the shake table, we will be able to use tall cranes and heavy equipment to construct and test full-scale buildings and structures, something that has not been possible before"
and for a bridge, which also took exactly 1 Google to find <http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4212806>:
"Researchers at the University of Nevada, Reno will be conducting tests that simulate a magnitude 8.0 earthquake on a 110-ft. suspension bridge today. Resting on three giant shake tables and hydraulic platforms, the four-span bridge is the largest in the world to be tested at such seismic intensity."
of course, you might argue the bridge is not full-sized (unlike the house), in which case this may give you a small clue to why we do not have a representative model of the earth to test on: it's big. I think I mentioned that before. Twice.
> No, they're tuned to match the _past_
Correct. They are tuned by modifying the parameters, something I don't think you understood. And yes, they are tuned to match the past because (drum roll) we can't tuned in to match the future because it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you can suggest a way around this?
> This doesn't mean they have _any_ predictive worth (as demonstrated by the inability to predict the halt in warming over the last 15 years).
Another unverified assertion pulled out of your capacious and ever-productive arse. Please do provide a link to this claim.
> If you had the 'evidence' that this is the case would you not release your workings so that they could be reviewed and debated?
Haven't they? Here's a handy link where they discuss the distribution of their raw simulation data <http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/ipcc-archive/>. Extract: "All of this output [of simulations] is publicly available in the PCMDI IPCC AR4 archive".
That took a couple of minutes of googling, tough isn't it.
> Point me to a single climate model that's been released for general review?
Well here you go: <http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/getting-the-source-code-for-climate-models/>. This mentions several and points out the 3 easiest to obtain.
So there's a bunch of rebuttals for you. I guess you're going to ignore them and raise some other objections instead, right?
Not facing unpleasant possibilities is what is going to cause them to happen, you don't like this so the shutters come down hard.
I really have no time for being trolled by creationist level prats incapable of using a search engine so I will finish this thread here. Enjoy your future; you've earned it.
I was trying to explain that complex systems can be better understood by breaking them down into sub-components and looking at the interactions between them. Do you not understand this? You don't _in general_ have to knock a house or bridge down to know it's going to be strong enough. Providing examples where test structures have been tested to destuction doesn't negate this point.
You shouldn't need a physical model the size of the earth to physically show CO2 causes warming in an atmospheric experimental model. There is still no empirical data to show CO2 causes warming. WHY IS NOBODY TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THIS?
"Correct. They are tuned by modifying the parameters, something I don't think you understood."
I understand completely, and what they're trying to model, which is why I think they're a joke.
" And yes, they are tuned to match the past because (drum roll) we can't tuned in to match the future because it hasn't happened yet. Perhaps you can suggest a way around this?"
Understand the physical processes driving the changes and base your model on that obviously. Not tweaking parameters to get a 'best fit' (which is what they're doing).
http://www.informath.org/AR5stat.pdf Top of page 12
"So,what statistical model does§10.2.2 choose? None. That is, §10.2.2effectively acknowledges that we do not understand the data well enough to choose a statistical model. The conclusion is thus clear:it is currently not possible to draw statistical inferences from the series of global temperatures"
I can't see that from here (work security), I'll try to look tonight although we have a Halloween party.
"So there's a bunch of rebuttals for you. I guess you're going to ignore them and raise some other objections instead, right?"
The only point you might have addressed is the availability of _some_ of the models, and I note the date on that is 2009. The reason I keep bring other point up is there are so many holes in the AGW 'conjecture' it's hard not to keep pointing another one out.
"Not facing unpleasant possibilities is what is going to cause them to happen, you don't like this so the shutters come down hard."
It's funny how warmist Believers seem to think they understand the motivation of us Realists. My reluctance to accept the 'faith' is because nobody's actually shown that CO2 is the primary cause of the recent warming, the billions of dollars spent annually on 'climate change' research could be much more productively spent elsewhere.
As I've posted before....
There was as much warming between 1910 - 1940 as between 1970 - 2000 with much less CO2 in the atmosphere.
There has been no warming since 2000 and we now have 8% more CO2 than the 2000 levels.
How do you square that in your head?
"I really have no time for being trolled by creationist level prats incapable of using a search engine so I will finish this thread here.
What is it they say when people resort to insults?
"Enjoy your future; you've earned it."
You too, although you can stop worrying that the world is about to end. I'll be telling my kids they have a rosy future they should be excited about, the sky isn't going to fall in. Boomshanka.
"You shouldn't need a physical model the size of the earth to physically show CO2 causes warming in an atmospheric experimental model. There is still no empirical data to show CO2 causes warming. WHY IS NOBODY TRYING TO DEMONSTRATE THIS?"
It's already been done. Scientists have measured CO2 absorbing infrared in both the lab and the atmosphere. That energy is converted into heating the surrounding air. Rising CO2 absorbs more infrared, which increases the warming effect. It's called the Greenhouse Effect.
"There has been no warming since 2000 and we now have 8% more CO2 than the 2000 levels."
The trend in the University of Alabama satellite record since 2000 is warming of 0.1C per decade.
Aye, but water vapour's a much stronger greenhouse gas and there's 40 times as much of it.
Hence my request to "show CO2 causes warming in an atmospheric experimental model"
Ie demonstrate CO2 has any real effect.
"The trend in the University of Alabama satellite record since 2000 is warming of 0.1C per decade."
Is it broken? All the other records show warming has halted.
The CLOUD experiment was a physics experiment. They were able to show a number of interesting things, and there is most likely more to come from the team.
Perhaps you could read about it, and understand why serious physics doesn't need an earth size test environment to extract meainingful, measurable science
But how can the results of the CLOUD experiment then be applied to the entire atmosphere without modelling?
The problem is the climate contains too many interacting processes, many at too great a scale, to be able to build a small physical scale model that represents it. At some point it is necessary to use computer models to test the interaction of many processes.
Most of your postings have been utter bollox that I don't have time to bother with. But this little piece caught my attention:
And yes, they are tuned to match the past because (drum roll) we can't tuned in to match the future.
If it can only accurately predict the past, not the future it isn't Science. Science as we know it replaced Astrology, reading tea leaves, and throwing the bones precisely because it accurately predicts future events. Newton doesn't say "My model accurately predicts how objects have fallen for the past 30 years but can't tell you how they will fall tomorrow." It says they will fall at a rate of V0 + g*s*s and will always fall at that rate near the surface of the earth. So go read your tea leaves or throw your bones, but leave science to people who understand what it is about.
Full quote is
> And yes, they are tuned to match the past because (drum roll) we can't tuned in to match the future *because it hasn't happened yet*.
Please don't selectively quote sentence parts. I was making the point that we can't tune it using known future parameters because we don't have them, and if we did it would be redundant because (drumroll) the future wouldn't be the future any more!
> If it can only accurately predict the past, not the future it isn't Science.
Agreed, however if you feed a model past information and watch it evolve in a way that matches observed history then you can feel more confident that it has a useful degree of accuracy, and thus you can feed it current results and reasonably expect it to predict the future.That's called science.
I guess modelling isn't your strong point either.
> but leave science to people who understand what it is about
Ok, you're a scientist?
"We are all Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
It's just that when that sermon was given He was at least a merciful and forgiving God. The current enviro-whackos have replaced him with a Gaia goddess who makes the Puritans look positively libertine."
13 ? age or year you born ? It is easy to know all answers if you "relie" on "facts" from a book written in parts, translated over last 2000 years....
Did they build Thames Barrier just to stop the river flooding the North Sea ?
Grow up, take some responsibility for actions, inside of hiding behind contrived crap, thats hides the message, "Respect, Conserve, have emphathy", which does not fit in with "Consume, Be Silent, Die"
JamesTQuirk, the Thames Barrier was built to combat storm & tidal surges, likely to worsen as the SE of England continues to dip/NW of Scotland rises. CAGW was not a concern when the barrier was first considered as far back as the 1920s.
The Thames Barrier was not built in response to CAGW: construction began in the 70s, when cooling was all the rage.
So because they notice storm tidal waters rising , and did something about it "as far back as the 1920s.", means we don't ?
The rising oceans have been happening for a while, we NOW call it climate change, but it part of earth processes, get over it, Stop whinging about about YOUR "creature comforts" for a sec, and stop shitting in the nest ....
I wouldn't take New Scientist too seriously either, unless you like pop science articles with gross errors of fact It used to be a good read and we (family) subscribed to it for years, but it just became too sloppy to take seriously. Ymmv, of course :-). As for the IPCC, yet another self justifying organisation with an agenda and desparate to retain their budgets.
Science is about questioning everything, especially the things you respect and trust the most, but i'm sure you know this already :-)...
We are all Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
It's just that when that sermon was given He was at least a merciful and forgiving God. The current enviro-whackos have replaced him with a Gaia goddess who makes the Puritans look positively libertine.
there's no way the oil companies could hold them back. The problem is that not only do the Greens not produce cleaner, cheaper electricity than the oil companies, they can't even produce as much of it at 10 times the cost and pollution.
Don't ask silly questions like that. Study shows conditions in the Arctic are similar to what they were when the moss grew, but warming is still unprecedented.
There are a few oddities with the paper-
"Miller and his team used radiocarbon dating to date 145 clumps of dead moss"
But Table_S1 in the SI only lists 135. And the 14C Age range is from 225-4285yrs. There's also 1,000m altitude difference between the highest (1438m) and lowest sample (471m), but that's a fairly minor detail. More amusing is the claim in the press release-
"Located just east of Greenland, the 196,000-square-mile Baffin Island is the fifth largest island in the world."
New shock study finds cAGW cause islands to relocate. Baffin Island's west of Greenland. So much for peer review.
Yep! it goes like this:
Earth worshiper: Global warming will doom us all!
Bill Gates: Wait - what is coal and fossil fuels made of?
Earth worshiper: ancient plant matter!
Bill Gates: So - that means all that carbon was in the air at that time, and the Earth was fine right?
Earth worshiper: You should be burned at the steak for your insolence Bill Gates!
Bill Gates: Wouldn't that add more carbon to your atmospheric model?
Earth worthipper: ARRRGGG! HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY BUNG HOLE!!! Want to see my tee pee?
It's tragically hilarious when the silly arses in the lifeboat spend all their energy bashing each other with the oars, rather than rowing together because they can't agree which direction to go! Somebody please remember to leave a journal in a safe place, so the future space travellers who stumble across this abandoned rock will have a clue as to what happened to the former inhabitants.
You remind me of what the last of Easter Island earlier inhabitants, the water rises, you chop all the trees down, build idols to your gods, and believe in faith completely ...
Some deserve extinction, pity they will try to take the rest of us with them, because they are to fat & stupid or rich to walk to shops ...
Well, to be fair, there's as much contention about the realities of the Easter Island inhabitants as there is about climate change. The fact is we'll never know what really happened. The early explorers destroyed all the inhabitants written records because they might have encouraged worship of 'the wrong god'.
Well I don't think it it is hard, but there was a map on net, which outlines Sea-Levels before Last Ice AGE Melt, and up to the level, "we" recognise as "SEA-Level", about 10,500 years ago, there are only last 15years finding human structures & cities, of the coasts, of all continents, so maybe we will have time to check them out, before the water rises AGAIN, from lots of melting ice ..
Ok, but that still doesn't show or prove that mankind is responsible for it, the elephant in the room point conveniently ignored by the alarmist groups. They must be consumed by guilt and would have us all join them wearing hair shirts in a joyless universe.
I still have a nagging attraction to J. Lovelock's gaia theories which basically says that the earth is a self regulating system. If it get's warmer in one area, then it gets colder somewhere else to manitain the balance. As an example, many harp on about the arctic ice, but why has the antarctic ice been increasing for many years ?. Also, why has there been almost nil increase in average global temperatures over the last decade or more ?. Even the IPCC seem to have stubbed a toe on that one, if you read between the lines of their latest report.
Of course, I may be just as mad in my opinions as anyone else. As an engineer, not a climate scientist, but what is really needed is joined up scientific method applied to the problem and less hypothesis reeled out as fact...
I didn't claim easter Island was, but they didn't have carbon trading back then .....
I like Lovelocks theorys as a image of the complex chemical reaction that is life, combined with a understanding of geological & Physical processes of the our little "carbon cycle", I think its a good start, needs work, more DATA, like all things, the day you stop learning is the day you die ...
I just think we should be prepared, in case, build real infrastructure to cope & for our kids ...
But you're enthusiastic about the 'truth' coming from the other side? That's simply stupid.
There is very little truth in the messages from either side of this debate. The truth is in the research, but as all good research has a habit of doing, it raises more questions than it answers. The public simply can't cope with the extremely finite answers that good research papers provide. Hell, they don't even know how to read a proper research paper. They can't distinguish between the conclusions and discussion sections even when a scientist labeled them for you.
Anyone taking a 'side' in the AGW debate is a fool. That isn't how science is done and nobody but the scientists seem able to realize that.
You only experience tax increases if you are poor. The Republicans are guaranteed to come along and cut taxes for the wealthy, and offset them with increased burdens on the poor. The Democrats are guaranteed to come along and raise taxes for everyone, further burdening the poor.
The effective tax rate is historically nearly constant, but no matter what, the poor get hit again and again.
Of course . . . the wealthy are fleeing the country, as did the wealthy in every country which has tread the Marxist path. When the wealthy flee, the only people available to tax are the poor. Which sets up the vicious cycle, politicians must find a witch to burn, or a holy war to engage in order to distract attention from the fact that too much generosity with productive people's money leads to poverty for all.
Overdone but basically correct.
Non-rich people are not mobile and they don't have mobile money. They are also the majority. Its the majority who pay tax because, well, people are taxed in general.
I'd be far more concerned about the disastrous amounts of debt the government is running up on our behalf. That has a great deal more certainty and is a lot closer than global climate disaster.
>the wealthy are fleeing the country, as did the wealthy in every country which has tread the Marxist path.
I love the current idea that the US is following 'Marxism' or becoming a 'Socialist State', always announced by someone who has absolutely no idea what either of those terms mean, living in a country whose most 'radical' pinko liberals hold a political viewpoint somewhat further to the right than Attila the Hun.
True, however its the how you go that holds meaning ...
I see its all about Water levels & electricity here, but climate change has other "benifets" ...
If world warms, not only does ice melt, water heats & expands, all gases/liquids do ....
If worlds warms, and Great Ice Sheets do melt, then it will release weight from crust at those points, allowing it to move & "re-adjust" increasing Volcanic effects...
If world warms bugs & Virus's that can't survive in wild, do ....
So don't worry it's a multible choice senario, and I only point at a few, but yes, you may be right ....
@ElectricRook - "Tony is also running the only stable economy on the planet"
But may not be for long.
Tony is a right-wing pollie and fully invested in the pillars of modern conservatism, the most relevant being climate-scepticism and implementation of austerity measures (including selling/privatising public holdings - they are even talking about privatising HECs, which is a CRAZY move).
It is nowhere near as simple as this, but one big reason Australia avoided the worst of the GFC was that Labor (Rudd, Gillard and Swan) put money INTO the economy, rather than take it out, as happened in Europe. I am no fan of those three and much of what they did was wasteful and could have been handled much better. Still, they judged that it was better to act quickly than perfectly and so far as I know, most economists agree that they acted correctly.
Of course, their ability to do that was in part due to the strength of the economy as inherited from the Howard/Costello government, which was in part due good fortune in the Mining/China boom.
Like I said, it's simplified but Howard & Costello strengthened the economy during good times, then Rudd, Swan and Gillard helped keep it stable during the bad. Both governments, overall, did the 'right thing' by the economy, which is why Tony has inherited it in such a good condition, considering the circumstances.
Time will tell how Tony goes but it seems that he is leaning towards the increasingly disproved 'austerity' methods. I hope that is not the case. Yes we have debt, but it is perfectly serviceable and debt is NOT, of itself, an economic problem.
Okay, so that got away from me a bit but we see Tony's true colours laid bare when we look at his plans to dismantle the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (CEFC). This is just part of his crusade to remove anything addressing climate change but is notable in that the CEFC is actually EARNING money for Australia, with average 7% returns.
This is a body set up not to directly tackle climate change or espouse an ideological view, but to invest money in what is a growing industry - clean energy. And it has been more successful than anyone anticipated, attracting a great deal of private investment - 3:1 on every tax dollar.
However you view "anthropomorphic*" climate change, pollution is most definitely a result of human behaviour and has a genuine impact on the quality of life. 'Clean' energy is a must for this planet and does not need any belief in climate change to justify it - just a desire to breathe clean air and live a decent quality of life.
But Tony, well, he sees the CEFC as a "green slush fund" and so needing to be closed, despite the fact that it is doing all of the following:
Close away Tony - thanks for looking out for us all.
* - See Maurice Newman’s comments regarding climate change. I think he means 'anthropogenic' but what do I know?
I like to think they have a running wager for who generates the most traffic and comments. That being said I have far more respect for Rik's articles as he rarely (if ever?) censors the comments or hides the discussion in some dark corner of the forums.
When it is shown that parts of Europe were warmer 1000 years ago than they are now, it is derided as being meaningless because that is just a small region, not the whole earth. Now suddenly a small region is important after all? I guess that's true only when it supports your theory, not when it works against it.
When you suspect your girlfriend is cheating on you, everything that happens and everything she does appears to confirm that she has someone on the side. The evidence is there and you can see it.
See any similarities?
This is all about confirmation bias and the very simple "follow the money" notion.
While the earth is gradually warming (and has been on average for a very long time), the idea that we are experiencing some sort of global disaster caused by CO2, and that turning off the human created component of the global CO2 output f the earth is at best a broken idea, hit upon for political and financial expediency.
"Our results indicate that anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases have led to unprecedented regional warmth,"
How does their research provide any indication of the cause of recent regional warming they think they have discovered?
With such blatant bias in reporting of the results how can the possibility of a similar bias in creating them be ignored?
""This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," the study's lead, geological sciences professor Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado Boulder, said in a press release."
Typical sloppy thinking of scientists motivated by - and educated by - politically biased professors, teachers, and those politicians who respond to the lure of money.
It MAY be true that "the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known variability", but only because what we actually know - about nature and other things - is very little, and mostly wrong, while the length of any time - variability - of which out "learned ones" can speak knowledgeably is miniscule in the overall scheme of things.
It is DEFINITELY false to assume that a rise in temps "has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere". Especially given that we have other records which show that any such rise would take hundreds and thousands of years to have an effect.
Yet what else have we come to expect form the children crying out that they need more money to save us?
It seems that the "scientists" have had access to records from ice cores and tree rings it seems, this and other data gives them "records" going back a while ...
The "little ice age", Europeans experience during middle ages, was tied APPARENTLY to a ICE DAM melting in North America, flooding the north antlantic with fresh water, slowing the "gulf stream" thermostat, because it works via convection, they estimated the flip in temp took only 15 years, I believe...
Greenland has been releasing more fresh water than before, it seems to be increasing, its flooding North Atlantic again, so why will effects be so different ?
We understand wheather patterns better these days, so we can see/feel things changing, Who cares who fault it is ? Lets make sure ALL children survive whatever happens, not just the rich kids, there is NO planning for future generations anymore, it all about what you can have now ....
@ at a few others ....
Sorry that the "uneducated" reader, seeing, feeling hearing about the effects and commenting, but have to point out most things are discovered by accident, not in a lab, if it is, it is usely after a guy in a shed makes it happens once ...
I have read newscientist since 1968, great mag, but I had to laugh at a cover the other week, " Space has 3 dimensions" or close in big letters, someone got a grant for it, and I can't believe these dudes has never fallen of a bike before ....
A specific problem with the thrust of this paper comes from the core statistic that temperatures have risen 3.9 degrees in 22 years. This may well be true, but since it is acknowledged that the temperature of the earth as a whole has not changed in 15 years, it is much more likely that there are local warming effects. But there is no analysis of what they may be. There is no real analysis of any alternative cause for the rise in temperature other than made-made causes.
The report states: “This study really says the warming we are seeing is outside any kind of known natural variability, and it has to be due to increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
No, they are not known. So the author and colleagues should get off their collective butts and go find them. This is supposed to be science. In scientific research the challenge is to disprove a hypothesis not find a favorite excuse and go blame it. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are the most accurate theories we have know and yet these are under constant review. However the basic tenet of the green movement get precious little truly critical review. Why is this?
The change in temperature, if true, it large and over a vast area. The energy required to do this is enormous. So where is this energy coming from? If its from the sun, are the concentrations of greenhouse gases like CO2, CH4 and H20 higher in the artic?
The green movement suffers massively from the delusion that if they point to something and claim their favorite excuse everyone will believe. Then there's the massive sulk and tantrum when people don't agree. People are stupid - just not that stupid.
...A recent study has shown that over the past 100 years the average summer temperatures in the Eastern Canadian Arctic have been toastier than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years, and perhaps for as long as 120,000 years....
Er, not exactly.
The study looked at 139 sites. At 135 of them, the age of the moss exposed was around 1000 years, showing that it had been warmer than this 1000 years ago.
At 4 of them, the the age of the moss exposed was around 44,000 years, close to the limit of the age-measuring process.
It seems surprising that just a few sites should show a very great age of ice, when all around them, in some cases only a few hundred yards away, there is clear evidence of greater warmth in the last 1000 years. More work is obviously needed. I would consider those 4 sites closely, re-examine them, and check for error and contamination. With this data, I certainly wouldn't announce that the average summer temperatures in the whole Eastern Canadian Arctic are now 'toastier' than at any time for at least the past 44,000 years.
Unless I hadn't read the fine detail of the study, of course. I wonder if Rik Myslewski has...?
The only time the self appointed experts. media and governments will finally believe there is a problem is when a major western city disappears under water or the air we breath is so polluted milllions in the so called developed world are dying.
This is the reverse of the mobile phone radiation scare or MMR vaccine debacle in the UK.
Issues with mobile phone radiation were ridiculed as it would inconvenience people's lifestyles. It is only now that the long-term effects of electromagnetic radiation are stating to be understood and it is not necessarily good news.
MMR was a classic. A single paper linking MMR to Autism was seized upon by the media and milliions of parents stopped imunising their children. That paper has subsequenly been discredited however the fallout is that German Measles as becoming a major issue as the vaccination rates are too low to be effective.
German Measles is not a minor illness to be shrugged off like a cold and can have life changing consequences, particularly for females.
I bet u are, but not as much as your parents .....
WHY is everyone thinking a green future is low tech, green is high tech ....
Business can flood the planet with Mobile Phones/ Tablets etc, anything that comes with a bill, but a solar panel, a wind turbine something that don't get ongoing royalitys from is impossible, dreams, and for knuckle dragging cave dwellers ...
You are the lacky of energy companies who want you to keep them money .....
"WHY is everyone thinking a green future is low tech, green is high tech"..
That's debatable, as neither solar or wind are particularly high tech. The conversion efficiencies are dismally low and they both very high upfront capital investment. The only one that is high tech is nuclear, but we have had that working safely in the uk since the 1950's, in case anyone has forgotten.
Perhaps if we got really serious and spent a lot more money on fusion research, we would have a workable solution that really would tick all the boxes.
Ok, so what do you see as high tech in relation to green ?...
Well while not unopposed to teaching somebody something, Maybe you could use some of the tech in front of you, and look at ...
Are 2 places I check out regularly, but GOOGLE is a choice.....
What is high tech about solar panels, wind turbines, Low Power Associated electrical control, lights/appliances, most coming from developments in Space Industry ?, Systems used in Hydroponics, ( cause we be growing food indoors, soon ), Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) Cheap Relocatable housing, may be a boom industry, as people may need to move to avoid issues, but they always do...
Not to mention that most of this has only been around last 30 years, and a industry thats has roots in space missions, not be a high tech ? .....
Well while not unopposed to teaching somebody something, Maybe you could use some of the tech in front of you, and look at ...
Are 2 places I check out regularly, but GOOGLE is a choice.....
That's very patronisingly good of you to suggest, but having done electronic design for a wortking life, software engineering since the late 1970's and mechanics / physics out of interest, I really ought to have some sort of clue. All I can say is that if the above two links above are the sort of places you go for scientific info, then i.m afraid you will end up misinformed. Most web sources are pretty lightweight in terns of fact, no depth etc and you have to go to specialist journals and websites to get the real picture. Still, all is surfaces and 2 minute attention spans on the web / social media, isn't it ?.
"What is high tech about solar panels, wind turbines, Low Power Associated electrical control, lights/appliances, most coming from developments in Space Industry ?, Systems used in Hydroponics, ( cause we be growing food indoors, soon ), Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) Cheap Relocatable housing, may be a boom industry, as people may need to move to avoid issues, but they always do."
Absolute tripe. Sorry, 90% is just run of the mill electronics and engineering. While stuff like wind turbine blade design may have benefitted from aerospace practice, there's little else afaics. Space engineering ?, hilarious, you msut be kidding. :-)...
You sound like a Tripe salesman, you would know .....
Yeah, 2 sites where the basics, I am NOT google for idiots ....
Water conservation & recycling, nothing to do with space industry ?
Hydroponics, developed so they could grow plants in space ?
Solar Panels ?
Does the local servo give you cheap gas, to do "tripe" deliverys, or do you still work as engineer in tyre dept ?
As a child, I regularly used to watch my grandfather up north eating tripe every Saturday, with raw onions and malt, not wine venegar, but I never liked either the texture, or the taste, though it is supposed to be very good for you :-). And, we were discussing energy, not all the peripheral green stuff, but even that isn't space technology, though there may have been a few spinoffs.
As for batteries, there is a lot of research and progress, but again no free lunch. You have to take into account the cost / energy use of extraction of raw materials, processing, manufacturing, limited lifetime and disposal, much of which is bad for the environment.
Anyway, rather than comment something rational, you throw toys out of the cot, diss and have a sulky ?. How can I take that seriously ?...
Cost to whom .... arseholes who think they own it, or the planet/ecosystem that made them ???
When are the people who live on this world, allowed to own a share of the planet....
As for Batteries 1000 years they only got Erik Von Daniken WET, 100 years ago Tesla ruled, edison Electrocuted dogs to prove, it was better to give him money or more dogs would die(if u use AC by Tesla), 60 years ago Hiroshima learn't that conversation of energy, and sudden release can be a bad thing, 25 Years ago Sega made GAMEGEAR and batteries made sense to you, NOW days batteries do all sorts of things, power's chris's & Tridacs girlfriends, or boyfriends, Drills, Saws, CARS, SPACE SHUTTLES, SPAIN(solar/thermal) ? Not Enough I know, but we try, but trust me batteries are improving ....
Batteries that are enviromentally friendly ? No worries, try the Atlantic Ocean, or the Pacific Ocean, if easy to do thermal heat pump into deep ocean, might even suck out excess heat, but no, some rock/golf/tv star needs a boat the size of same island, or house the size of westfields, sure, but anything green is knuckledragging, unless it's on google play ?
Grind all cars into fillings, tip into sea, let plankton eat it, suck carbon out of atmosphere, nearly symbotic, Cars are big cause ... ( and young can't drive since GTA)...
The reason I gripe on is, 55 years ago, when I was little boy ....
The sun didn't sting your skin, like it does now ...
The sun didn't burn your Skin red after 1 hour exposure...
Suburbs in Sydney didn't flood, on high tides, like they do now ....
and many more whinges are available ......
"Suburbs in Sydney didn't flood, on high tides, like they do now ...."
I don't know what's causing the flooding or where precisely, I don't live in Sydney any more. However, the Fort Dennison tidal records which have been kept since the Fort's inception do not show any sea level increase beyond the trivial amount expected as we exit the ice age, and at a rate very consistent with proxy records.
I suspect there are other reasons for the "floods" to which you refer.
JamesTQ "cause we be growing food indoors, soon "
Err, no: with global warming, won't we simply return to farming in Greenland and northern Russia...?
"Systems for Water, (because that’s what we may be doomed to fight over ...) "
There's no shortage of water, only a shortage of infrastructure. It is reckoned that the London area population has increased by 10 in the last 20 years, while reservoir capacity has been increased by 0% in the same time...
@ Clunking Fist
With increasing severe weather patterns outdoor large scale farming needed may not survive these Changes ...
When/IF himalayas melt, and all fresh water for 4 Countries gets tipped into sea, Places like Pakinstan, India, Afganstan ETC, will have something new to fight over I think ...
All these things are just scenario's, get a grip, because I say it, doesn't make it law, you grant me more power than I need or want ...
@Tridac - "The conversion efficiencies are dismally low . . ."
First, I don't think it really is that low. The most economical ones might only run 7-10% but other technologies have reached to around 45%. Surely that means that solar energy is a very good candidate for investment to try and increase efficiency.
Coal stations started at around 20% efficiency and were improved with research and investment so that now the top stations can manage up to 45-48% efficiency.
One of the important points, however, is that a low efficiency solar panel is not really the same as a low efficiency coal-fired power plant. With the coal, the better the efficiency, the more power you get for each unit of finite fuel (coal) AND the less pollution per unit of power. That means that the difference between a coal plant running at 40% and one at 20% is that the latter effectively doubles the pollution per unit of energy generated and doubles the rate at which you deplete the finite resource of coal.
On the other hand, a solar panel running at 10% efficiency is not producing double the pollution (per unit of energy generated), nor is it using up more of the fuel per unit of power. (Not in any meaningful sense, anyway; a low-efficiency solar panel won't mean we run out of sunshine sooner, in contrast to low-efficiency coal plants.)
Obviously, what it does mean is that you need to spend more, either on additional land and infrastructure to place more cells or on better cells but the more that solar power is used, the more research and investment there will be into improvements and new technologies and the better the efficiency will get.
I know you weren't comparing solar power to coal but I used it as a parallel to illustrate how, firstly, the efficiency isn't really that low and secondly, how increased investment and utilisation will lead to gains in efficiency just like it has for coal.
"Dams are better "
They sure are! ...unless you live on a small, densely populated island with little in the way of mountains/high hills.
JamesQuirk, I think we can all agree that coal has draw backs. Where we can agree to disagree is whether CO2 is a pollutant or not.
So ideally, in the UK, gas is better than coal. You would like dams, however, dams flood large areas of land, not a goer in the UK. They're okay in Australia, and you can just about get away with it in NZ. But be advised, greenies, to whom you would wish to be associated with, hate dams. But in fact they seem to hate anything that brings energy to the proles and allows them to live a life.
@ Flunkies Grist
Ok I will try to make it easier for you to understand, as you have a vendetta (maybe it;s my typos/spelling), DAM = STORAGE, containment in a tank, on a hill, to drive a turbine downhill, Pump uphill with wind/solar/Vacume/Donkey and you have Storage to release power, when wind dont blow, sun dont shine
I think it's important to look at alternatives, adapt to change, learn from errors, I understand some people will cling on to what they know, it;s easier .... just not see this and take it as sort of personel attack, but this is a forum, wisps of ideas & thoughts, by Varied people, I Like hearing other opinions, why don't YOU ?
Overall efficiency also includes the cost of manaufacturing the item, installation, maintenance and expected life time, as well as the the efficiency of generation.. Solar would be a great idea if it were cheaper, but at present, if you cover you roof with solar panels, in the uk, it will take 10 to 15 years to recoup that investment in terms of energy generated, though it may give you a nice warm green feeling. Also, panels don't have an indefinate life. 15-20 years is typical, from figures i've seen, so just at the point where you've paid for them, they need replacement. As for wind farms out at sea (nimbys don't want to see them in nice parts of the landscape where there *is* loads of wind), the initial costs are astronomical and the salt atmosphere means that they need regular, expensive (as in difficult to access) maintenace.
No free lunch i'm afraid and nuclear is the only relaistic option at present...
Nuclear Reactors, stalled bombs u get power from, seems to be current design, not much more evolved than the manhattan project ? That nuclear Power, is a evolutionary step, that westinghouse dont want people to leave, they must like cleaning & storage of left overs, or get a BIG fee ....
Thorium may be a goer, but doesn't mean it answer, Nuclear is messy horrible crap, not a battery or supply I favour, Seeing in tent, with Solar Panels, can happily have lights, Laptop, Phones, even a elec fridge, it gets comfy sometimes, and I seem to survive for weeks at a time, but maybe its not enough for some, they want AirCon in their CarPort, so I understand ....
Since the earths climate has changed to global warming... the glaciers have been retreating at an average rate of about 750 feet per year. Not yet equaled by the rate in the recent few decades, which might run as fast as 100 feet per year. The oceans have been rising an average of 6 mm per year, about double of todays predicted rate of 3 mm per year. The deeper one looks into the data, the more one suspects that todays situation is that the earths climate change is near the top of global warming and is wobbling around at the peak... to maybe, and sooner than later, start back into a cooling cycle. This change in direction probably will take hundreds of years or more. By then, we might have sequestered into permanent storage all the carbon needed by nature to maintain the natural cycle that has been continuous for over a million years. We just might make our future into a permanent ice ball !!
My personal opinion is that it a building reaction, we will enter, after peak inputs are reached, into long period of "ping-pong" effects in climate as it settles back to equilibrium, that we perceive as calm weather, how rough it gets depends on if we get a grip, and stop feeding processes & reactions, and making sure our society has technology in place to ride it out.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019