Boffins disagreeing with each other?
Who'd a thought it....
Slide-rules at Dawn then chaps?
A top British scientist has come out with new research flatly contradicting the idea that extremely cold winters in North America – like the one just past – will become more frequent due to global warming. This new analysis disagrees completely with the assessment of President Obama's personal science advisor. Dr James Screen …
This reaffirms what I've thought all along. The science is never "settled" as such, since we're always learning something new. Even something as settled as evolution of species by natural selection has had differing hypothesis on its specifics.
In fact, it further reinforces my position that most of the actual debate over AGW is really a debate over political power and easy government money. But I guess that would make me a "denier".
The only real question left is whether AGW is really EGW (extraterrestrial GW)...naturally, aliens...
i'm a lowland hillbilly who married my cousin... but I understand well chemistry enough to understand it's sulfur dioxide in coal plant emissions that wrecks havoc with the environment , not CO2... can't the Obamites come up with a plausible "Tax & Spend" scheme... bty I'm all for scrubbing heavy metals & sulfur dioxide from coal plant emissions... love to fish for brook trout ... acid rain & mercury are doing them in... :(
I'd sure agree with the idea that coal-fired plants do generate a lot of sulphur and other serious pollutants - AND that nuclear power is a FAR cleaner and safer technology for energy production. The problem with it is down to ill-informed and non-thinking slices of society raising groundless objections, in the similar way to their extremely loud backing of 'wind farms' and solar panels... whilst the provable, measureable truth shows the opposite, which they naturally choose not to believe. To wit:
 - The oft-shouted issue of nuclear waste is not an issue at all, if one looks at various sites around the seas one finds a good deal of deep chalk/salt rock which can safely accomodate the waste from nuclear plants way into the future;
 - Wind turbine 'farms' are far too inefficient and brought into a falsely 'good' light by over-the-top subsidies at the cost of the normal energy consumer. Individual turbine generators can be shown to be something in the order of 12% efficient from input to output, and on top of this one has to add the high maintenance costs and capacity smoothing to cater for wind variation;
 - Whilst the efficiency of conversion in solar panels has increased in the last decades it remains problematic in the distribution area, and for small / family installations the initial install requires a decade or more to fund. In larger cases the variation in 'visible' solar radiation impacting the panels means, again, the need for capacity smoothing;
 - So many calls for a 'cleaner environment' are based upon the reduction of CO2, the truth is that the levels of carbon dioxide we observe have been fluctuating widely for centuries and we can measure such variation thousansd of years further back, due to natural cycles of various origins. Never forget the relationship between foliage and CO2: take all the CO2 away and the forests will disappear. Likewise, cut the forests and the CO2 will increase. There's a lesson there before listening to the 'climate change' believers.
"you are an evil denier and are to be lumped in with flat-earthers and inbred hillbillies."
Actually clearly, he is one dumb denier, who started out by citing literally the most basic non-debated part of the issue as something in question...
...classic case of a clueless mouthpiece trying to sound off 'reasonably' but ends up flat on his face.
" most of the actual debate over AGW "
There hasn't been any real scientific debate over AGW itself for over a decade now. We know from overwhelming observable evidence that it's happening and that it's primarily man made. The real questions are how bad will it get, and in what timescale?
There hasn't been any real scientific debate over AGW itself for over a decade now. We know from overwhelming observable evidence that it's happening and that it's primarily man made.
Since "AGW" is the acronym for "anthropogenic global warming", meaning "man-made global warming", you don't even need any observable evidence to know that it's man-made.
If you were perhaps thinking instead about what part of GW is AGW, you're not in much luck either. The only evidence for that so far depends on the climate models being complete, but they've already shown themselves unable to predict the recent "hiatus" in rising temps, not to mention clouds and other important features of the climate system. The current argument for GW being mostly AGW is "we can't think of any way to model it without AGW," which ironically was just about what the Intelligent Design folks used as their argument.
"Since "AGW" is the acronym for "anthropogenic global warming", meaning "man-made global warming", you don't even need any observable evidence to know that it's man-made.
You might think so, but there are still a surprising amount of ignorant people out there that are not aware of, or outright deny the existence of AGW!
Believe it or not scientists generally don't just spout off their opinions. Climate scientists use computer models to predict the affect of different variables. Modeling something as complex as Earth's climate is extremely complex and current models require supercomputers to work through. Different research groups use different models and sometimes come to different conclusions. The British scientist may think that their climate model is superior to the ones used by others and they are welcome to argue this point. Arguing about things like this is what science is all about. Someone arguing that climate change is bogus because their religion tells them that God is in control not man is not a scientist. Someone who challenges climate science because they fear that carbon regulations will adversely affect their profits also is not a scientist. When you combine science with religion or economics it is no longer science; it becomes pseudoscience.
> There is NO carbon climate forcing, NO 'sustainable' energy and NO 'peak' oil.
I've read a lot of ignorant stuff on this site but the above statement takes the cake.
Carbon dioxide forcing. CO2 passes visible light and absorbs (and re-radiates) IR. The ground absorbs visible light and IR and radiates IR. If you consider a column of atmosphere, each element radiates equally in both directions (up and down). The net effect is the sun heating the surface adn that heat flowing from the surface to space as if through an insulating blanket. This is the main reason that the earth does not drop to -120C every night. If you are capable of solving an integral, you can determine how much heating you get for a certain density and type of greenhouse gas. Unbelievable as it may sound to readers of this site, the numbers work.The AGW angle is that increasing "strong" greenhouse gases increases surface temperature.
Sustainable energy. I think it is a safe bet that the giant fusion reactor in the sky will continue to provide abundant energy for quite a while.
Peak oil. The Hubbert Curve is used by the oil companies to determine when individual reserves are past their "peak" (that is, when the cost to extract oil at the same rate increases). Since total number of reserves does not appear to be increasing at a significant rate and the quantity of oil in those reserves is (emprically) declining, it follows that in addition to a "peak" for each reserve, there is a "peak" for all reserves taken together.
None of this is rocket science. This is all "round earth" stuff that can be easily verified by the average person with a modicum of intellectual curiosity.
As for Mr. Corbyn, his terms of service bar quoting his forecasts without his explicit permission so the only real comparison we can draw between him and Punxsutawney Phil is that he has better lawyers.
This post has been deleted by its author
Absolutely right, a mathematician can know nothing detailed about climate change and can only be an amateur. After all, it's not like he's had a paper published in Nature Climate Change or other reputable climate change journal is it? Ohhh, hang on...
Climate Science, otherwise known as "popular science" is the stuff of the tabloid press. It is about time real scientists got involved. Had they included good solid mathematical principles to the original and no defunct models they might not have been so utterly wrong. I am sure they would still have been wrong but possible not as completely wrong as they were.
Frankly I believe it is arrogance and hubris to think that we have the first clue about how this world really works. To be able to unpick and analyse billions of years of change and changing patterns in just a few years is at best unrealistic and at worst pathetic.
I am sure stuff the himan race is doing it having an impact. I just don't believe that anyone thus far really has a clue what that is and how it will manifest itself in changes.
This post has been deleted by its author
Climate Science, otherwise known as "popular science" is the stuff of the tabloid press. It is about time real scientists got involved.
There is too much money (read: huge government grants) in "Climate Science" for people to risk getting real scientists involved.
All the science appears to be stats and computer models looking at past data and trying to come up with something which matches the figures in the past and therefore (it is assumed) will match in the future too. This would be obviously in the domain of a mathematician.
That's also why they keep getting the predictions wrong. No one understands how it works. There is no way to experiment, which you'd think would be rather critical for "real" science.
Follow the dutch model, build some larger dams. If you're going to build on a flood plain, at least sort out the engineering to take account of it, with some stilts or something.
The big climate models model process, they aren't statistical pattern matching efforts. And the idea that if you can't do an experiment means it isn't science is a rather tired trope - there's an awful lot of science where experiments can't be done - or are you invalidating astrophysics, most planetary science including geology, etc?
I don't entirely disagree that we are probably going to have to engineer ourselves out of the mess we are getting in to, but unless you are writing me a blank cheque (please do) I imagine you want to know how much larger the dam needs to be, how tall are the stilts? So maybe you' want me to build a model of wave height to justify my bill? I wonder how I'll do that - maybe I need a prediction of future climate?
"I believe it is arrogance and hubris to think that we have the first clue about how this world really works"
Don't talk about "real scientists" then follow it up with "I believe", it looks a bit silly.
Not for nothing but it isn't arrogant - it's pretty clear to most people the planet is broken and the data correlates. The discussion is the final effect.
I'm confused. Which one is meant to be the "actual climate scientist"? One is Holdren, who's thesis was titled-
COLLISIONLESS STABILITY OF AN INHOMOGENEOUS, CONFINED, PLANAR PLASMA
who drifted from physics to poltics with the odd collision along the way. Notably the infamous Simon-Erlich wager which Holdren advised Erlich about. And lost. Holdren also co-authored a book with Erlich which contained some radical ideas about overpopulation. The other is Dr Screen, who..
"...leads a three-year project entitled “Arctic Climate Change and its Mid-latitude Impacts”, in collaboration with the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research."
One's a specialist, the other's a politician and bureaucrat. But given climate science is largely about the numerical analysis of weather and climate data, who would you think more likely to produce credible results, the mathmatician or the politician?
IMO Mathematicians are real scientists, just often a tad disconnected from the real world.
However, if Holdren's thesis was based on computational modelling there is a reasonable cross-over into other numerical modelling disciplines.
But IMO (and with a background in CFD!) computational modelling is just part of the process of "real science" - it is a useful tool to narrow down the options and help researchers identify what should be measured in order to confirm or invalidate a theory, but until a model has been validated with real-world data and its predictions have been verified to be accurate it remains a really complicated guess.
Just for the edification of mathematicians: Both climate and weather are chaotic systems and are non-linear. (google "Lorenz", "strange attractors", "chaos theory" to read more.) So there are three basic problems with this "scientists's" scrteed:
1) The guy is a mathematician. Mathematics is currently the most serious impediment to truly understanding AGW. Mathematicians are in the same position versus chaos theory that they were in the 1600's and 1700's when they knew that there was a branch of maths called "calculus" but had no idea how to actually do the calculations. Today, we know that many systems are chaotic, meaning that they obey patterns that we cannot predict, but simply lack the maths to do the calculations. As a result modelers are forced to obey the mathematicians and use linear deterministic models even though they know that those models will always fall short of actual events. Any mathematician worth his salt knows this.
2) Sea ice is not a good direct measure of anything. Sea ice is freshwater ice that forms on top of below-freezing salt water. With AGW, the warmer air over the polar areas can actually hold more moisture (basic physics.) This results in more precipitation over the sub-freezing polar oceans and more sea ice in some areas. The fact remains that the Northwest Passage, for which British and other explorers searched in vain for centuries, now exists. Maybe mathematicians are deficient in basic physics education.
3) Dr. Screen is a brand new PhD in Mathematics. While he appears to be applying his efforts in post-doctoral research to Arctic ice and climate, his c.v. lacks the necessary background to support his work. It appears that Dr. Screen is simply trying to make a name for himself as a new PhD in a very barren funding environment. Kinda like renting out his degree for euros.
It is hard to see who would be the real scientist and who is not. Or maybe they are both real but approaching the problem from different perspectives leading to different opinions/results. Or maybe one or both is somewhat corrupt/vested interests.
I dont see how automatically ruling someone out because they are a mathematician makes sense unless you believe science is a field that requires restricting to only those we would consider qualified/real, which would kinda defeat the point of science and turn it into a cult.
Instead of assuming a battle between good and evil where we must choose our champion, it surely makes more sense (only scientifically though) that if both have a respectable scientific view that they both continue to figure out if either of them is right. Eliminating the people who dont share your specific and predetermined conclusion is what caused a lot of people who do not assume a particular theory (people often but mistakenly called denier by the very people who deny the process of science).
There is a tale (true) that for something like a century the progress of thermodynamics was halted by the theory of "caloric" (heat particles), and it took someone outside the scientific bubble to make the next breakthrough.
This was an engineer in a royal cannon factory who observed that drilling the bore of a cannon would cause it to heat up, thus caloric was being created "from nowhere". This guy then asked the logical next question "so where did the heat come from" and thus formulated the law of conservation of energy.
You are referring to Benjamin Thompson (the later count Rumford), who became a Fellow of the Royal Society at the age of 27. His cannon drilling experiments entailed beautiful quantitative science (that indeed discredited the theory of the caloric). So, to say that Rumford was "outside the scientific bubble" is a bit odd, as is the statement that the concept of a caloric substance halted the development of thermodynamics. When Carnot published the second law of thermodynamics (about 30 years after Rumford's work) he still believed in caloric as a substance and was inspired by the analogy of caloric flowing from hot to cold with water flowing from high to low.
Climate science is not a fundamental/pure science. It relies on using the tools from other disciplines. Clearly those tools nneed to be applied correctly or they are misleading.
If they were using physics (which they never seem to), then it would be reasonable for physicists to call them out when they forget friction or gravity or latent heat.
There is no opportunity to do any scientific experiments, so the "real scientists" are making mathematical models instead. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for a mathematician to call them out when they apply the maths wrongly. This is particularly true for statistics which is one of the least understood and least intuitive areas of mathematics.
Yawn. 2 people have different views of the possible impact, but both agree that Global Warming is happening. How is this even news?
This is of rather more significance imo - if correct: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-will-cost-world-far-more-than-estimated-9539147.html
It is of course largely just another informed opinion. We know the ongoing impact of global warming is going to be bad. We just don't really know exactly how bad......
What do you expect? The prediction was made by Nick Stern, one of the biggest snouts in the climate change trough.
The same Lord Stern who got his numbers wrong, double counted the costs and didn't count the benefits.
"What do you expect?"
I am of the opinion that AGW is likely to get pretty bad and pretty fast - so - I tend to agree that probably our current models are too conservative. I expect significant impact by 2050 and a global catastrophe by 2100 if nothing changes. And even if we did reduce CO2 emissions, etc. I suspect that it might already be too late to do anything but delay the above. But even delay is vastly preferable to doing nothing.
The Vogon said "I am of the opinion that AGW is likely to get pretty bad and pretty fast - so - I tend to agree that probably our current models are too conservative".
Wow. Oh wow...someone here has an opinion. AN OPINION ! Ring the bells. Dance in the streets. Call the Queen for a press conference. WE HAVE SOMEONE HERE WITH (WAIT FOR IT)...AN OPINION.
It amazes me how many AC's and other people comment on Climate Change without a single clue. Not one of then can probably interpret a climate model, much less understand the mathmatics involved. When I hear the word "opinion", I see a guy open his mouth, and BS comes streaming out. If you don't understand the science, SHUT UP ! And take your "opinion" with you to the pub, where it is always welcome.
Basically the same story for where I live, but heat. We had a "record" high in summer this year... The media went crazy saying it was climate change. Reality is the measurement site changed about 15 years ago, and the new site records temps roughly 2 degrees above the old site. Needless to say, the new record was 2 degrees above the old.
I'm all for renewable energy and reduction on pollutants, but this obsession over CO2 is insane.
Do date there has been no truly independent research done into climate change, rapid or otherwise. As already commented, everyone involved as an agenda. Professors need grants, White House science advisors are serving up voting fodder, climate change organisations are concerned about their funding pipelines and so on.
Until there is a decent swathe of double-blind research done every piece of information has been produced against someone's agenda.
Equally, give the rate at which any given scientist changes his/her mind about what it causing which perceived effects I don't think anyone has the first damn clue about it. To date we have been majestically incorrect in every instance.
"Do date there has been no truly independent research done into climate change, rapid or otherwise"
You provide no proof of your claim. Regardless of if it is true or not, there is plenty of verifiable and observable evidence that global warming is happening, that it is mostly anthropomorphic in nature, and that the impact is accelerating.
You are quite correct, I didn't provide evidence of this. I am not in the business of laboriously inserting thousands of links into a wallet sized snippet of text. However feel free to go find a piece of research done where the researcher didn't know who paid for it and the payer didn't know or choose who was doing it.
As to plenty of observable evidence - yes I grant you that things do seem to be changing. SHOCKER! I suppose you are concerned about the "Balance of Nature" having been disrupted. Nature is never in balance. Balance implies a status quo which begets no change. Since the world is ever evolving and changing it suggests that irrespective of the cause, change in some way is all but inevitable. However although we can see things are different to last year and to 10 and 50 years ago we still have not irrefutably proved that this is connected to greenhouse gases any more than it is connected to the colour of my shoes. That is the clever sciency bit that your observational commentary is missing.
"I suppose you are concerned about the "Balance of Nature" having been disrupted."
Nope. I am concerned that man has in a few decades raised CO2 levels to the highest that they have been in likely at least the last 20 million years - and that even conservative predictions of what that means for the climate don't look too good. The Earth no doubt will right itself in a few ten of thousands of years. The concern is that will man and much of the biosphere survive to see it....
Yes like the RSS temperature record that shows no significant warming for the last seventeen and a half years..... or the increase in global sea ice..... or the comparable temperature increase profile with the warming in the 30s and 40s.... Those sorts of "verifiable and observable evidence" yes?
Oh and that word "accelerating" I don't think it means what you think it means.
> Yes like the RSS temperature record that shows no significant warming for the last seventeen and a half years.....
17.5 years? That's a rather peculiar amount of time to take your sample from. Why would one choose such a strange value, rather than, say, a nice round 20 years?
Could it be because the global temperature measurement taken 17.5 years ago was during a record warm year?
Actually no. It goes back to 1996 two years before the 1998 el Niño. Merely starting from today and working backwards. The RSS as a satellite record (therefore isn't prone to the errors in the surface record) only goes back to 1979 so for half the satellite record there has been no warming (and definitely not accelerating unless accelerating downwards is what the poster was implying).
"there has been no warming"
and Glenn Tamblyn's response to Roy W. Spencer's tantrum (the basis of your position):
"So how come the ten warmest years on record are all since 1998?"
Just wanted to point out you seem to be conflating 2 separate measurements. Your reply is to a lack of significant warming over 17 yrs (warming as in temperatures travelling upwards) while your response is about the warmest points on record over 10 years (absolute temperatures).
Basically it sounds like both statements could be true and coexist. If the rise has slowed and on the top of the curve (increase is slowing) then 10 data points out of 15 (assuming it includes 2013) could easily be the highest even if the temperature was to fall (not saying that will happen).
However the data seems to only be 1998-2010 put in ascending order of temperature which is highly misleading. What happened between 1998 and 2013 which seems to imply a sharp drop in temperature (on the extremely small scale they are using) excluding 2005 and 2010 which look to be blips against the data?
Its claim of the warmest in the past 16 yrs being the 1998-2010 range says nothing of the 3 years after that point which must be significant as the selection of time is tiny.
"Regardless of if it is true or not, there is plenty of verifiable and observable evidence"
Yes, real proof is needed.
The warmers are proposing "solutions" which cost them little but have immense impact on others.
The warmers are asking people to disrupt the progress of the last 200 years that has lifted people from pretty much global poverty into global comfort. Pushing the stop button will have the worst effect on the third world poor who are in making the most progress.
If you're making demands that the third world give up their progress then you better have some damn good reasons to do so.
Proof. The real stuff. Verified. Double verified.
The true measure of your commitment is to ask whether you - personally- are prepared to go back to pre-industrial life. Are you prepared to take the place of a third worlder whom you are denying progress to?
But no, the green solutions have very little impact on those demanding it: city dwellers in rich countries for the most part. They might get their conciounce eased by paying a few $ more tax or by buying an eCar (taxpayer subsidised of course).
>Pushing the stop button will have the worst effect on the third world poor who are in making the most progress.
And not pushing the stop button - at least on the stupid unnecessary shit that terraforms the planet to make it less suitable for human life - will cause what biologists call 'Logistic overshoot.'
If you've never heard of it, look it up.
What kind of fool believes a limited ecosystem has infinite carrying capacity, because magic unicorns?
If you don't like it, go argue with natural selection. Because if your species isn't smart enough to understand the niche it's in and make the right calls about maintaing that niche, it will die.
If you have a problem with that reality, maybe you can post here about it. I'm sure that will help.
"Until there is a decent swathe of double-blind research done every piece of information has been produced against someone's agenda.:"
That's where we get a whole bunch of planets, and on some of 'em we release CO2 while on others it's harmless N2 and we see what happens? (While not letting the planet or the reasearcher know which is which).
[Sigh] Whoever initially used the phrase Global Warming and prominent public figures who repeat this do a lot of damage to the environmental cause.
The considered term is Climate Change. This is where humans are proven to be polluting the environment and through this there is proven disruption to environmental processes, both local and wider. The exact impact of the disruption to these environmental processes is the main contentious issue: some of these are relatively trivial or have a narrow impact, some while having been disrupted are replaced by other process and some of them are more immediately obvious when disrupted such as the hole in the ozone layer. The difficulty is that there are a huge number of of environmental processes, many of which are interlinked somehow, many are hidden or obscured by others and this makes it incredibly difficult to make predictions of what may happen when one or more fails or is disrupted. Therefore the considered acknowledgement is that while we are proven to be damaging the environment, we don't know exactly what will happen but there will be changes and if we don't stop damaging the environment then the predictability and potential severity of these is statistically likely to be more serious.
It is not impossible that the processes could be disrupted in a manner that could lead to Global Cooling, not Hollywood action-movie style, but it could be as disruptive as Global Warming because it would affect precipitation which would have a catastrophic effect on food crops and the distribution of fresh water.
"That sir is faith. Not science"
Same is said about evolution through natural selection. We can't predict exactly what evolution will produce -- there are far too many variables -- but we know environmental pressures will shape an organism's DNA.
Just because you don't understand the nuances of a given theory, doesn't make it wrong. AGW _is_ falsifiable. Much like attempts to falsify evolution by natural selection, so far _every_ attempt to falsify AGW (as should be done -- every hypothesis and theory must be vigorously and continuously tested as new data arises) have only served to validate the theory.
There are many articles out there that claim to have falsified evolution by natural selection, but every single one of them have failed -- even if the original authors refuse to admit defeat. (Often the original authors do admit defeat, but ID zealots keep regurgitating the old, inaccurate, information.) This _exact_ same thing holds true with AWG.
Let's see, now. Back in the 1960s, the papers and magazines (journals included) were trumpeting the oncoming catastrophe of Global Cooling. Then things started warming up, and we got trumpets of Global Warming. Then things *stopped* warming up. The intelligentsia then began trumpeting Climate Change -- that way, they couldn't be proven wrong.
I have gleaned two conclusions from living through all this:
1) The predictions have never been even *close* to accurate.
2) The solution is always the same: pay more in taxes and energy expenses. Stay home, and stop using energy. Don't buy Stuff. LISTEN TO ME! DO WHAT I SAY!
Sorry, fellas -- you lost me when "Climate Change" became the mantra. Climate has always changed.
You again ... so you think climate science has not improved since the 1960's ? We do have super computers now.
We call it climate change as some parts of the globe are warming, while others will be cooling. Boffins across the globe claim it is changing faster than ever before. I do not know if it is man-made since climate scientists do not agree.
However, what I do know is that we are producing gigatons of waste all over the planet when we have alternatives that are environmentally friendly and not necessarily more expensive. We can blend in with nature and will have to, because it is our only hope, eventually. We cannot go on wasting energy (which means waste money, too) at current levels because it does not scale well - an additional 2 billion (China, India) humans will pretty soon wanna live just like we do.
We need to find and use clean energy sources, the sun and moon provide quite "a bit" of energy to this planet and it is free fuel, once we have the systems in place. In the long-term it is waaaaay cheaper. I am convinced that we will be able to produce much more energy for far less in a distributed system, which will mean that you will be able to leave the PC on overnight, if you so wish,
but you should not as long as it is produced using fossil fuel or heavy metals.
Graphene is overhyped, but this stuff will improve batteries and energy transportation.
As to buying stuff ... are you not tired of filling waste dumps ? You needa watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GorqroigqM
As Henry Ford once said, “Those who say it cannot be done should get out of the way of those who are doing it.”
You do know they invented the Internet? It lets you look up stuff that in the past was hard to find - like 'did we really predict cooling in the 1960s?' - answer yes, but on much longer timescales and with the caveat that increased CO2 might disrupt things!
I'll just jump of this cliff - you say II'll fall? - nonsense you lost me when 'falling' became the mantra - gravity has always existed
I recall well that during the '70s these self same experts of climate were warning of another ice age. Using the same data. You know what the definition of 'expert' is don't you? Someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything there is to know about absolutely nothing at all. I'll take the mathematician ... You might recall it was a mathematician that predicted the utter failure of Jurassic Park.
Since there's nothing that anybody can actually do about the weather, just wait until next year to see who's right. None of the nations will stop their CO2 emissions until there's nothing to fuel the factories and power plants. After that, the lights will go out, and it'll be the dark ages (literally!) for all of us.
None of the nations will stop their CO2 emissions until there's nothing to fuel the factories and power plants. After that, the lights will go out, and it'll be the dark ages (literally!) for all of us.
Hopefully we'll have gotten to the point by that time that renewables (not necessarily the current crop of renewables mind you) and/or fusion can provide us the power we need. We do, after all, have plenty of time. Here in the US we have something like a 250 year supply of easily obtainable coal, and maybe another 300 years worth that's hard enough to get at to not (yet) be profitable. I believe the UK has similarly size reserves of natural gas.
It's really only the oil that's running out, not all fossil fuels. The biggest oil burning segment of the market is automobiles, and we're seeing more and more hybrids and electric cars on the road, which means less oil burned and less CO2 in the atmosphere.
Even the oil isn't running out. Back in the mid 70s we "only had 70 years of oil at current consumption rates." Last time I checked current consumption rates have increased every year, even in countries where the rate of increase was falling. And we still have 70 years worth of oil left. So maybe "70 years of oil" is one of those magic economic numbers: given current money it is all we bother to calculate. Sort of like when I was in college and the price of a pizza was always a dollar a slice when we ordered because none of us had quarters to make change. Sometimes this was a felicitous happenstance for the delivery person, but not usually.
I've heard it said that we're already past peak oil, but the source was not exactly the most reliable (I suspect the experts in that documentary were about as legit as the ones in the Ancient Aliens show on History Channel). Still, oil is definately getting more expensive at a much quicker rate than inflation. Regardless of the reasons for that it makes sense to look for alternatives at the point.
It always makes sense to look for cheaper alternatives, that's part of how you drive productivity. What doesn't make sense is mandating changes when it is still be best option available at the current price point and you cannot foresee any workable alternatives.
Or, in other words, severe cold spells like the ones Americans and Canadians have just suffered through are not increasing in frequency...
Based on my own observation that the last couple winters in my part of the US have been MUCH colder than any for the previous decade I would have to say that this statement is wrong. It may be anecdotal, but I'll take the evidence of my own eyes over the research of someone thousands of miles from the area in question.
> The original post contained both data and an indication of the confidence level of the data, your post didn't.
The original post contained the assertion that the accuracy of a scientific hypothesis can be judged by the geographical distance of the scientist from the phenomenon they're measuring, and that even mere anecdote beats science when the anecdote comes from someone who lives in the area and the science is from thousands of miles away. News to me that, on a forum inhabited by tech people, I need to indulge such claims with a detailed evidence-backed rebuttal -- and, even if I do, I frankly don't have time to type out a detailed account of the history of natural philosophy. But hey, back to your entrails.
> Your eyes measure temperature?
We can measure temperature with sennsors, but temperature is only a secondary result of heating. Unfortunately we really have no way to easily measure heat.
Heating means adding heat. When we heat something up then the temperature might change or the heat might be absorbed by a phase change (ie latent heat).
Since much of the water in the world is in the form of either ice or water vapour, and phase changes happen all the time, the correlation between "temperature" and "heat" gets blurred.
Climate models that just model temperature are disconnected from reality and should be taken with a grain of salt.
> Your eyes measure temperature? Are you a cyborg?
Shit, what do you use to read a thermometer then, care to share ?
Anecdotal, maybe, summer 2003 in France, very hot (hottest ever registered), Dec 1999 storms in France, Dec, Jan, Feb 2014 "massive" flooding ... whole cities with 1 to 2m water for a period of 2 months ... yes, 2m of water in house and garden for 2 MONTHS. Arguably, the latter might not be climate change, it might simply be due to the sand we drag out of seabeds for construction ... go check how much sand we use a year for construction, where it comes from and the effect it has on French and south Florida beaches (the other side of the pond), for example.
When you have anecdotal evidence all around the planet it sort stops being "anecdotal" I guess ... ;-)
> Shit, what do you use to read a thermometer then, care to share ?
Thermometers provide data that can be copied and gathered and analysed anywhere. Since sisk was being quite specifically dismissive of that whole process and contrasting the evidence of their eyes against data gathered and analysed elsewhere, I reasonably concluded that said evidence had nothing to do with thermometers and was probably more along the lines of looking out the window and seeing a load of snow.
Your eyes measure temperature? Are you a cyborg?
Good grief. And Brits accuse us Americans of being overly literal. Fine then, the evidence of my own experience.
I reasonably concluded that said evidence had nothing to do with thermometers and was probably more along the lines of looking out the window and seeing a load of snow.
That is not at all reasonable and quite wrong. I typically check the thermometer at least 3 times a day. It's a habit I picked up long ago.
The winters here are colder and longer than they were 10 years ago. That's directly observable. On the other hand you've got this guy across the sea studying conditions in the arctic saying that we should have fewer cold days. Now imagine for a second you lived here. Which would you believe? Personally I'm inclined to think the guy telling us that our winters are shorter and warmer, contrary to the reality I can experience for myself, got something wrong somewhere.
Added to which, as they are incapable of producing a weather forecast for today, which is accurate, what hope of a 10 year or more prediction being correct. Better chance of winning the lottery. Nearly a century ago it was known that short term weather was cyclic, with a number of years being involved per cycle. eg, 100, 37, 23, 15 etc. I blame poor education for the loss of knowledge!
It's CYCLICAL, not progressive you idiots!!!!! Stop promoting the big CO2 lie and open your eyes.
I have lived in the path of the WEATHER (not climate) in Buffalo NY area for 58 years and it was cold just like this back in and throughout the seventies (Time magazine promoted the impending Ice Age). The summer was late too! Look it up!
Anybody remember the Blizzard of '77? I do because I was stranded overnight from it and met my first wife. It was cold but not an ice age, it was because of the alignment of prevailing winds over an unfrozen Lake Erie.
If there is one thing about this area that begs observation it is the weather, you can't avoid it.
So this guy... who is working on a project to "improve our understanding of how the dramatic retreat of Arctic sea ice will impact weather" (citation: http://emps.exeter.ac.uk/mathematics/staff/js546 )
... you're supporting his view on the subject, even though you don't agree that Arctic ice is retreating?
Cherry picking level up!
Not going to trawl all Lewis's articles to check this, but I don't recall that he's claimed Arctic ice is not retreating. I believe he's just made the point that Antarctic ice is expanding by a similar amount, and the decrease gets all the press while the increase is ignored.
" I believe he's just made the point that Antarctic ice is expanding by a similar amount"
Just to note that that's actually the expected impact of the melting of the Antarctic glaciers and pack ice - increasing volumes of fresh water will raise the freezing point of water....
Over the years I've developed a set of general policy guidelines that I use to identify, from a distance, situations that are hopelessly doomed and exist solely, I believe, to serve as resource drains on the world at large. This article happens to include two of the things that qualify as hopeless, therefore can be ignored.
The first is that political appointees are absolutely meaningless for the duration of their service. They are reaping the returns on favors from the past and that's fine, but nothing they say is going to be coming directly from them. That's not the job.
The second is that anyone from the UK having anything to say about the natural world is so incredibly suspect that it's a bad to even acknowledge their existence. Losing an empire because you cut down all your trees, and still supporting those kinds of ideas, is not the stuff of rational planning. The UK with environmental issues is like a seven year old child with a huge bag of candy. They'll both go nuts, get sick, crap all over everything then cry about it when the sofa stains are permanent. Better to just stay away from both.
Like I say, these are just guidelines, but they are generally valid.
> Losing an empire because you cut down all your trees, and still supporting those kinds of ideas, is not the stuff of rational planning.
Yes, we do still support those kinds of ideas. They're quite absurdly popular here. Sometimes it seems to me that hardly a day goes by without yet another Sun editorial calling for us to lose an empire by cutting down more trees.
And yet our fuckwit lords & masters just refuse to acknowledge popular sentiment on this issue, sitting in their ivory towers, presiding over an undemocratic system in which our forestry keeps expanding. Bastards.
Really? The scientific position taken by climatologists used to be that "extreme" (and there's an anthropomorphic term for you) weather events were caused by the temperature difference between the equator and the poles, and that Global Warming would therefore decrease their frequency. The "science" appears to have abandoned this theory because it's not headliney enough.
Even Kim Jong Un is smart enough to know not to trust weathermen. C'mon ... they can supposedly predict temp changes of .1C over hundreds of years ... and can't get the weather right 3 days running. The guys with convertibles at work don't check the weather to see if they can leave the top down. They check to see if the old guy in security is limping today. Now there's a weatherman with some accuracy.
Actually, "climate" == "weather" (how could it be otherwise, after all?), although "climate" is usually at a lower level of detail. It is thus one of life's little drolleries that climate predictions are typically specified with greater precision than weather predictions.
On the subject of climate models, the most worrying aspect for me is that scarcely a month goes by without the reported discovery of some allegedly-significant factor, which when incorporated into the climate models, nonetheless produces no political consequences whatsoever. Of course, computer models often tell you more about the modeller than the problem being modelled, but that's not news either.
Have a look at the graph shown at 0:26 in the Holdren youtube clip. If you pause it and hold a straight edge to the zero line you'll see that the graph is canted upwards. This has the effect of making the warming trend line appear steeper than it is.
Must have been a mistake, Shirly? Obama's boffin definitely wouldn't wouldn't do policy based evidence making or anything like that. And he certainly wouldn't have picked the start point of the time series to make that line scarier.
But- oooh look - you can see the start of the non-existant "pause" over the last decade of data. Who'd have thought it?
"“I believe the odds are that we can expect as a result of global warming to see more of this pattern of extreme cold." What sort of a scientist would say, "I believe . . .". AGW a cult, not science. Incidentally, the planet quit warming in 1997 and the record shows no increase in extreme weather events for the past 100 years.
Any scientist who knows that they are only working with (competing) theories and not proofs would use the words "I believe" as a shorthand of saying "Based on the evidence I have observed, the analysis and reports of experiments that other scientists have reported and that I have read, my judgement on the quality of those scientists, experiments and analysis, and my own mental ability the conclusions I personally have tentatively reached as to the implications and meaning of that works is the following.."
Science is made up of beliefs, good science is when scientists will change their beliefs when new data arrives. Bad science is when scientists through pride, funding concerns, vested interests, snobbery or group think refuse to change their beliefs in the face of new evidence.
"AGW a cult, not science"
Did you just get out of a Delorian? AGW is proven beyond reasonable scientific doubt by overwhelming observable evidence. And has been for years. What we don't really know for sure is the resulting impacts and timescale.
"Incidentally, the planet quit warming in 1997"
Again your information is out of date. See for instance http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jun/13/pause-global-warming-data-sea-level-rises
"the record shows no increase in extreme weather events for the past 100 years."
Out of date again. Last year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report states that the number, frequency and intensity of hot days and heatwaves was increasing, along with an increase in the intensity and number of heavy rainfall events.
Mr Anonymous Coward quotes the highly reliable Grauniad and says it's worse than we thought, it's warming I tell you !
Whereas the dodgey data on the CRU Temperature Data page shows some pretty pausey looking graphs - Central England Temperature, CRUTEM4, HadCRUT4 & HadSST3. Have a look and see. I guess they'll have to update that lousy data.
Call me a Denialist, but I can't be arsed to deal with the other two points.
Just look at the jetstream maps. They're geo engineering the climate. Any one can look for themselves.,. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the jetstream going in circles over the Pacific Ocean for three years now. Many say it's because of Fukushima and the triple core meltdown mitigation... But that's just one theory. All I can say for sure is that there's nothing natural with the jetstream right now. Oh... Almost forgot.. It was snowing in the Midwest last year in early October and it was 45f outside.. No kidding... Lol,,,
Would all these wonderful climate boffins please predict for me the "climate" say "next year". If all the models are SO accurate, please predict what is going to happen. Then next year we can guage how accurate your models are.
So, yes, Mr. Gore, I'm not worried about the flooding in Florida right now.
But it certainly used to be most people voted for who their parents voted for. Which single fact makes their opinions worthless. Couple that with the human propensity for burying their heads in the sand and denying there's a problem until (if we're lucky) the eleventh hour. Then, how, on either side of an argument people overwhelmingly seize on 'facts' that support their pre-existing position, and discard all others, surely this particular debate comes down to how on one side you have the scientist with a 'vested interest', and on the other a mathematician who, like all mathematicians, doesn't need to eat? So I think I'll go for King Prawns with Spring Onion and Ginger. With Fried Rice on the side. And a bottle of White. Pinot Grigio, probably. And if you don't like it, arse'oles to you.
Thousands of years of humanity and we still cannot agree on how to operate a society. The argument went on for so long that it is reduced to a whimper. 134 years of earth surface temperature data and we demand that people agree on what is right and wrong regarding climate trends.
Pinch me when the sun enters the Gleisberg cycle and let me know how that one panned out. I will pass a note down to my great-great-great-grandchildren to see if the Suess cycle had any impact as well. Until then, I will continue to do my part and not muck up your part of the air unless I pay the government enough money, all whilst I read the occasionally entertaining banter about which climate model is right or wrong, and why one that was right turned wrong because some idiot (country, whatever) polluted enough to change the game.
'Your eyes measure temperature? Are you a cyborg?'
You don't have to be a cyborg it just needs to be cold.
In Calgary we do get the winters where your eyelashes freeze, and tears freeze as well.
In fact when it gets low enough (about -35C) because we are quite high (3,500ft) your eyeballs start to feel very dry and uncomfortable; which is normally a good time to head back in.
As for have the winters been colder in North America, well this year we didn't break the coldest I have experienced (-56C). But it has been a long winter and has really dragged on.
As for the climate debate, lets be honest none of us are really important enough to be able to do more then experience the debate and certainly not influence it.
He's fresh out of the lab, having published his first notable paper in 2010, but let's not let actual facts quash your hyperbole.
The trouble with your criminally inaccurate reports, Mr Page, is that you often get a bit overenthusiastic, possibly from playing with your toy tanks past bedtime.
No reason to read any farther.
Credibility and integrity = 0.
P.S. Credibility is obviously 0, but I'm being charitable on the integrity part. If he actually believes what he writes, then his ignorance might be even more unbelievable than his columns. In other words, I'm guessing he can't possibly be as stupid as he writes, but has been paid off.
"in other words, severe cold spells like the ones Americans and Canadians have just suffered through are not increasing in frequency and shouldn't be expected to", theRegister
"This study shows, however, that subseasonal cold-season temperature variability has significantly decreased over the mid- to high-latitude Northern Hemisphere in recent decades. This is partly because northerly winds and associated cold days are warming more rapidly than southerly winds and warm days, and so Arctic amplification acts to reduce subseasonal temperature variance", the article
My first exposure to Holdren was in the run-up on the June 1976 California proposition on nuclear energy in the state. Holdren then claimed that coal would be safer than nuclear and with the proper technology the largest numbers of deaths from using coal would be people killed by coal trains at grade crossings. Why he assumed that after spending money to make the coal power plants safe, he didn't think that any money would be spent on improving grade crossing safety…
Seems to me that he is more of an activist pretending to be a scientist than a scientist turned activist.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Dear Register, can you stop using sciencey terms like boffin, as most of the readers of The Register are not fucking retards. It demeans and makes science sound impenetrable, disposable, and dismissable - the realm of the Daily Mail, Daily Express, Sun,. Mirror, Fox News and CBS Interactive sites worldwide
There was once a man that predicted climate change. He too was ridiculed as he prepared for the great event. Then one day it happened and his unprepared neighbors who hadn't built an Ark wanted to ride in his Ark, but Noah refused. But, according to the parable in the Bible, Noah was told by God that a great flood was coming because God needed to destroy parts of the Earth. Then, there is the breakup and plate drift of a giant continent. Wind is created by rotational and orbital speeds of the Earth, temperature differences laterally and horizontally(tornadoes and hurricanes). Volcanoes, prairie fires, forest fires, peat bogs, swamps and even some trees have been putting "greenhouse gases" in the air ever since Earth came into being. In the photochemistry of Sun and Earth, there is a critical gas that allows for Volatile Organic Compounds and Ozone to be transformed into more benign substances. That gas is CO2. Without CO2 there is no Carbon or Nitrogen cycle(nitrogen formation creates ozone, Co2 is created by absorption of Ozones extra Oxygen molecule). No C or N=No Earth. Be this argument about taxes, control or whatever, one thing it is not, is a scientific discussion about the environment and man's effect. And, since no one has claimed they talk to God, then it isn't prophecy either.
I thought that the earth was currently coming out of an ice age and that it was completely normal and expected that the earth would warm, the ice sheets would melt etc. Just as has happened at the end of all previous ice ages.
Why is the end of this ice age blamed on human production of carbon dioxide when none of the other ice ages could have been ended this way?
It was dreamed up by politicians for their gain and nothing else. Then the fascicapitlsts got hold of it and decided that they could make a few extra bucks and thing haven't been the same since.
Let's try to think calmly about this, shall we? Didn't the UK have a similar cold spell recently? I seem to recall an aerial photograph that showed Blighty as white as a corpse for like a week. This year just happened to be our turn. Weathe varies all the time. There is no overall warming.
When the models can accurately predict climate change, and can quantify the bad and good results of climate change so that we can decide the amount of economic suffering which would prevent harmful change and allow everyone to decide just how much they want to degrade their standard of living in order to stop change, then we can make an intelligent decision on the subject.
Until we can make an intelligent decision I suggest that the climatologists all show us that they are not just working for bigger grants and professional stature granted by egomaniac politicians who want to think they can control the weather. Let them return their grants, resign their university posts and eat their young to fight climate change. It would be a start.
This post has been deleted by a moderator
Even MORE REAL is the DGW. The dinosauric global warming of the jurassic. Dinosaurs got the CO2 up to 1950ppm! Those Dinos sure showed us what we need to do now. The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere 130% modern levels. CO2 is 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. Temperature a WHOLE 3 DEGREES C over modern times - Oh noes! The Jurassic DGW, Dinsaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs, with their Airplanes, and Cars, and stuff, you know, thoseDinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET with their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that! And who wants more CO2 @1950, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we don’t want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don’t want more plants and animals and trees, no.
Seems in the US, one must first take into account what message your boss wants you to convey before any real facts/statistics can be cited.
If any reports come from a sponsored scientist, you must question the truth of their report. (Presidents single Adviser, UN, etc)
The character of many of these "Paid" advisers, is not what it used to be IMO. More self-serving messages than independent facts IMO.
It was only cold enough to put on a jacket for a week or so around Christmas. It wasn't any colder than usual, and I've lived in Central Florida nearly 50 years, so I have a bit of experience with the climate around here.
It sure as hell wasn't a "deep freeze"
On the other hand, I appreciate the YouTube video finally being simply embedded, instead of some whacked skin overlay thing trying to get in the way.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020