Topic: Climate Emergency is already here. How much worse it gets is still up to us (?)

[RojoLeón]

The climate has changed up and down many times before we arrived. It will change up and down many times after we have been well gone.

Er. Our sun has no chance of going supernova. None whatsoever.

So - humans are fragile. The climate has changed many times without any human intervention. For billions of years, in fact.

Is a recurring theme. But what are you on about?

[RojoLeón]

Is it too simplistic of me to butt in here and say i think its scaremongering on a mass scale.

It's not simplistic at all: Climate Change Denial is scaremongering. It is only the scale of the scaremongering that is still being debated. The media actually present it like there is a balanced debate, whereas the only people denying human causation are fossil fuel industries (and their paid shills) and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones and James Dellingpole.

That isn't to say they they are not scaremongering, but that they are not doing so on a massive scale at all. They are very much in the minority.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Is a recurring theme. But what are you on about?

The fact that 'Climate Change' is nothing 'new'. It's been going for billions of years. It's been cooler than it is now. It's been warmer than it is now. When we're gone we know that it'll be cooler than it is now. We know it'll be warmer than it is now.

Trying to pretend that 'Change' is happening has always been ludicrous because the temperate, current climate for the last 10,000 years isn't anything "Special" or "Normal". It's just that the climate has been "About what it is" "Now".

For "Change" to be unusual, it would have had to have been stable forever. It's never been stable. Not ever. It's always gone warmer. It's always gone cooler. Way, way, way before mankind appeared. Catastrophic events have changed the climate and it's always bottomed out. Should a catastrophic event occur today then history shows us that it'll bottom out.

Maybe human activity is changing the CURRENT climate RIGHT NOW. But maybe it isn't. If it is then the push might be to get it back to this artificial normal that just corresponds roughly to human experience of climate - but perhaps that's not possible. It's moved around so much in 4 billion years that 'normal' is just whatever it is right now.

I'm not being negative when I say that developing countries want to develop and developed countries want to keep what they have. It's obvious to anyone.

Regardless of any 'change' in the 'climate' there have been many stupid decision undertaken - people living in places just above sea level. People building houses on flood plains. People building on bog land, peat marshes and areas that absorb water. Then people say "LOOK!! GLOBAL WARMING!! IT'S FLOODING MY HOUSE!!! THAT I, ER, Um. Built.. on a flood plain." The clue is in the name. As humanity spreads over more of the globe, it's obvious that they'll have to go to areas that aren't exactly prime land. If there are few people - you can pick and choose. But as the world gets fuller then that choice is restricted. There is no magic fairy that guarantees that food, water, resources are available to everyone and it's clear that as the population continues to exponentially expand then demand follows. It's clear that at some stage - whether "Climate" stays "Normal and like it is now" or not - that eventually the balance will tip. This is not negative. This is reality. There will come a point where the population cannot be supported. That's happened many times in the past as well - to many different species. And again will happen in the future when we're dead and gone.

There is no "Normal climate" there is just "Climate". We just choose to see the "Climate" that's been around for the last 10,000 years as "Normal" and "Right." Good job it has changed otherwise we almost certainly wouldn't have had our chance.

[RojoLeón]

Snip

With all due respect, Andy, you are waffling. Say what you mean - you don't believe in the findings of a consensus of climate scientists. You think this is just how things roll.

Fair enough. You have been saying the same thing for years on rawk. There are several climate change threads with a recurring theme of you denying human causation. What you believe, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary, is your business.
 

[Roady]

You can put all the graphs all the charts and all the evidence in the world from the last 30 years or so to try and prove a point that humans are contributing to climate change.30 years is a very very short life span though and in all honesty it proves very little. The only thing it does prove is "current" climate conditions.Climate changes and will always change it never remains the same.All these graphs charts and predictions are just that...Predictions. We havent even got a model that can precisely determine the weather within the next ten days without massive elements of doubt in it. Weve always had floods, droughts, melting of ice caps.Its a cycle thing and our weather has always changed due to many varying issues.Mankind may well be contributing to this change but it wont destroy us.We have come back froma dversity before and will do it again.But to soley lay the blame of change in our climate on "us" is rather shortminded.

[Bioluminescence]

Bio: Don't you know they are all leftist, pinko-liberal conspiracy theorists?

Aye, I thought this argument would be raised, particularly in response to the World Bank, a body well known for its left-leaning policies. You just can't win in this debate.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

With all due respect, Andy, you are waffling. Say what you mean - you don't believe in the findings of a consensus of climate scientists. You think this is just how things roll.

Fair enough. You have been saying the same thing for years on rawk. There are several climate change threads with a recurring theme of you denying human causation. What you believe, in the face of all scientific evidence to the contrary, is your business.
 

You honestly can't be that thick to have got that from what I said.

If you want to see what I'm saying, try reading.

[Devon Red]

I don't remember ever reading a post on here denying that naturally occuring climate change has always taken place, and will always take place. Normal natural creeping gradual change can be adapated to relatively easily by humans and the wider ecosystem, it wouldn't be noticeable over single generations, it's change on the millennial level.

The current situation is different because we know, with a degree of certainty that is so close to absolute that it makes little difference, that the current levels of climate change are accelerated way beyond natural trends. What we then need to do is explain why. The most likely hypothesis, again by a magnitude so large to be close to certainty, is that the greenhouse effect caused by human actions is to blame.

The other straw man argument here is that advocates of sustainable development want to see the third world in poverty and want to reduce everyones living standards. This couldn't be further for the truth. There is more than one path to development, and just because we in the West achieved ours through environmental destruction, human rights violations and the burning of fossil fuels doesn't necessarily mean that this is the only and inevitable path.

[Bioluminescence]

You can put all the graphs all the chats and all the evidence in the world from the last 30 years or so to try and prove a point that humans are contributing to climate change.30 years is a very very short life span though and in all honesty it proves very little. The only thing it does prove is "current" climate conditions.Climate changes and will always change it never remains the same.All these graphs charts and predictions are just that...Predictions. We havent even got a model that can precisely determine the weather within the next ten days without massive elements of doubt in it. Weve always had floods, droughts, melting of ice caps.Its a cycle thing and our weather has always changed due to many varying issues.Mankind may well be contributing to this change but it wont destroy us.We have come back froma dversity before and will do it again.But to soley lay the blame of change in our climate on "us" is rather shortminded.

I'd say what is short-minded is rejecting all the scientific evidence in favour of a vague notion that because things can change naturally, therefore humans can't possibly be responsible for the observed change. A good analogy is saying that wildfires can't be caused by humans because wildfires have always happened, even before humans were around.

The evidence is not limited to the past 30 years. The role of greenhouse gases is well understood in past climate change and changes in such gases did not only amplify past climate change, they also sometimes caused it. Humans have now increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, with CO2 rising by about 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Natural factors cannot explain recent warming - this statement is based on observations and data analyses relating to the sun, volcanic eruptions, the Milankovitch cycles and internal natural variability. The reason climate scientists are pretty certain humans are the main cause behind recent warming is down to what the physical evidence tells us. And no one has managed to provide evidence showing that these findings are fundamentally flawed.

Models have actually done a good job of predicting what could be expected from an enhanced greenhouse effect. Models predicted polar amplification, that the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic, the magnitude and duration of cooling following a volcanic eruption, the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere, the expansion of the Hadley cells, the rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude, that winter temperatures would rise more quickly than summer temperatures, the poleward movement of storm tracks, etc. Now there's plenty of room for improvement, but there's also enough evidence to tell us models are doing a decent job.

Climate change may not destroy humans but it will cause substantial problems. In recent years we've seen record-breaking or near-record-breaking weather events worldwide. Climate change in all likelihood played a part in those because there is now more energy and water vapour in the system, which means that when the conditions are right for extreme events to develop, the impacts are greater than they would have been in the absence of climate change. In Europe, heatwaves have become more frequent and last longer, precipitation patterns are changing, with the south become drier and the north wetter, and southern Europe seems to be seeing more frequent and severe river flow droughts. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a greater rate than expected and sea levels are rising faster than expected. The US has seen a record-breaking drought and a superstorm that arrived late in the season, made landfall abnormally far to the north, with considerable low pressure and a record-breaking storm surge. In 2010, Russia experienced an record-breaking heatwave and in 2010-2011, Australia was hit by a series of floods that led to three quarters of Queensland being declared a disaster zone. Dr Jeff Masters has a good blog on the topic of the 2010-2011 extremes. Although we can't say that extreme events are caused by global warming, we know that we are loading the dice and making such events more likely. Considering the huge costs and havoc that come with such events, we'd be better off trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change, no?

[Roady]

I have no issues saying we may have an impact but this bit gets me

"In recent years we've seen record-breaking or near-record-breaking weather events worldwide. Climate change in all likelihood played a part in those because there is now more energy and water vapour in the system, which means that when the conditions are right for extreme events to develop, the impacts are greater than they would have been in the absence of climate change. In Europe, heatwaves have become more frequent and last longer, precipitation patterns are changing, with the south become drier and the north wetter, and southern Europe seems to be seeing more frequent and severe river flow droughts. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a greater rate than expected and sea levels are rising faster than expected.

...since records began.What how many years? These storms droughts etc have always occured.You cannot honestly say that they havent happened before.They are records since records began which is a very very minute amount of time.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I don't remember ever reading a post on here denying that naturally occuring climate change has always taken place, and will always take place. Normal natural creeping gradual change can be adapated to relatively easily by humans and the wider ecosystem, it wouldn't be noticeable over single generations, it's change on the millennial level.

The current situation is different because we know, with a degree of certainty that is so close to absolute that it makes little difference, that the current levels of climate change are accelerated way beyond natural trends. What we then need to do is explain why. The most likely hypothesis, again by a magnitude so large to be close to certainty, is that the greenhouse effect caused by human actions is to blame.

The other straw man argument here is that advocates of sustainable development want to see the third world in poverty and want to reduce everyones living standards. This couldn't be further for the truth. There is more than one path to development, and just because we in the West achieved ours through environmental destruction, human rights violations and the burning of fossil fuels doesn't necessarily mean that this is the only and inevitable path.

Way beyond natural trends? Are you being serious? You don't think anything natural has dramatically affected Climate in the millennia before we turned up?

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I'd say what is short-minded is rejecting all the scientific evidence in favour of a vague notion that because things can change naturally, therefore humans can't possibly be responsible for the observed change. A good analogy is saying that wildfires can't be caused by humans because wildfires have always happened, even before humans were around.

The evidence is not limited to the past 30 years. The role of greenhouse gases is well understood in past climate change and changes in such gases did not only amplify past climate change, they also sometimes caused it. Humans have now increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, with CO2 rising by about 40% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Natural factors cannot explain recent warming - this statement is based on observations and data analyses relating to the sun, volcanic eruptions, the Milankovitch cycles and internal natural variability. The reason climate scientists are pretty certain humans are the main cause behind recent warming is down to what the physical evidence tells us. And no one has managed to provide evidence showing that these findings are fundamentally flawed.

Models have actually done a good job of predicting what could be expected from an enhanced greenhouse effect. Models predicted polar amplification, that the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic, the magnitude and duration of cooling following a volcanic eruption, the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere, the expansion of the Hadley cells, the rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude, that winter temperatures would rise more quickly than summer temperatures, the poleward movement of storm tracks, etc. Now there's plenty of room for improvement, but there's also enough evidence to tell us models are doing a decent job.

Climate change may not destroy humans but it will cause substantial problems. In recent years we've seen record-breaking or near-record-breaking weather events worldwide. Climate change in all likelihood played a part in those because there is now more energy and water vapour in the system, which means that when the conditions are right for extreme events to develop, the impacts are greater than they would have been in the absence of climate change. In Europe, heatwaves have become more frequent and last longer, precipitation patterns are changing, with the south become drier and the north wetter, and southern Europe seems to be seeing more frequent and severe river flow droughts. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a greater rate than expected and sea levels are rising faster than expected. The US has seen a record-breaking drought and a superstorm that arrived late in the season, made landfall abnormally far to the north, with considerable low pressure and a record-breaking storm surge. In 2010, Russia experienced an record-breaking heatwave and in 2010-2011, Australia was hit by a series of floods that led to three quarters of Queensland being declared a disaster zone. Dr Jeff Masters has a good blog on the topic of the 2010-2011 extremes. Although we can't say that extreme events are caused by global warming, we know that we are loading the dice and making such events more likely. Considering the huge costs and havoc that come with such events, we'd be better off trying to mitigate the impacts of climate change, no?

"Record-breaking" But when did records begin? If they began 4 billion years ago then fair play.

[Bioluminescence]

"Record-breaking" But when did records begin? If they began 4 billion years ago then fair play.

What is relevant is what we are used to because it tells us what we need to do minimise the cost, damage and loss of lives associated with an extreme event. What happened centuries or millennia ago doesn't matter because it doesn't affect us now.

[Bioluminescence]

I have no issues saying we may have an impact but this bit gets me

"In recent years we've seen record-breaking or near-record-breaking weather events worldwide. Climate change in all likelihood played a part in those because there is now more energy and water vapour in the system, which means that when the conditions are right for extreme events to develop, the impacts are greater than they would have been in the absence of climate change. In Europe, heatwaves have become more frequent and last longer, precipitation patterns are changing, with the south become drier and the north wetter, and southern Europe seems to be seeing more frequent and severe river flow droughts. Arctic sea ice is disappearing at a greater rate than expected and sea levels are rising faster than expected.

...since records began.What how many years? These storms droughts etc have always occured.You cannot honestly say that they havent happened before.They are records since records began which is a very very minute amount of time.

This is a strawman. I'm not saying these things never happened in the past, I'm saying that we are increasing the likelihood that they will occur by loading the dice. It doesn't matter that the records don't extend to the distant past, it's what's happening now and what we can do to minimise the negative impacts of extreme events that matter. Take the 2003 European heatwave - contingency plans were in place but the unusually severe heatwave meant that many lives were lost. This means we need better contingency plans because we are probably making rare events more frequent. Surely if we can reduce the impacts of climate change to avoid the worst, we should do so?

[Roady]

This is a strawman. I'm not saying these things never happened in the past, I'm saying that we are increasing the likelihood that they will occur by loading the dice. It doesn't matter that the records don't extend to the distant past, it's what's happening now and what we can do to minimise the negative impacts of extreme events that matter. Take the 2003 European heatwave - contingency plans were in place but the unusually severe heatwave meant that many lives were lost. This means we need better contingency plans because we are probably making rare events more frequent. Surely if we can reduce the impacts of climate change to avoid the worst, we should do so?

what was unusually severe about the heatwave in 2003?

[Bioluminescence]

what was unusually severe about the heatwave in 2003?

It was probably the warmest European summer since the 16th century. The Met Office's got a page on the event if you're interested. They also have an interesting article on the 2010 Russia heatwave.

[Bioluminescence]

Very well worded.

On another note:
Keep up the great thread guys! Very interesting reading you guys and galls are providing for the rest of us 

Thank you

I always assume it's only us core obsessives who read this thread so good to see others are enjoying it

[Roady]

It was probably the warmest European summer since the 16th century. The Met Office's got a page on the event if you're interested. They also have an interesting article on the 2010 Russia heatwave.

i stopped reading that link when it said "thought to be the warmest in 500 years" so again a very short period of time and "thought"

[SP]

If the "stuff" we're moving through is 'warmer' even by a little bit then that would be one possibility why unrelated planets in disperse orbits could be affected by a temperature change. We know we're in a galaxy. We know that it's moving. We know that we're moving. We know that everything else is moving. We know there have been and will be supernovas and black hole ejections and other sorts of exotic shit going on. Doesn't really take much imagination to think that some or all of these events could generate unkown levels of heat through our solar system. We haven't got a wall around us after all.

The density of the stuff we are moving through is not very dense at all. A few hydrogen atoms per cubic metre. If you consider the density of the earth. For significant warming to occur there would have to more than a little temperature difference.  There would have to be a temperature difference so huge that it is unlikely that they would still be hydrogen atoms. It would certainly be exotic enough that scientists would notice. 

[MHLC]

what was unusually severe about the heatwave in 2003?

The tens of thousands who died as a result?

Andy / Roady - essentially your argument is the earth is several billion years old and, due to man not existing for much of that, the current science must be disregarded as the sample period is too small? Isn't that a touch simplistic? How many more millions or billions of years do we have to wait?

Roady - have you taken any time to try and understand how groups such as this are united in their belief that a) climate change is rapidly occurring; b) greenhouse gases emitted by man is the primary driver . I don't mean learning the actual science itself, just the methods and huge variety being used all across the planet and from space.

[Devon Red]

Way beyond natural trends? Are you being serious? You don't think anything natural has dramatically affected Climate in the millennia before we turned up?

That's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. The climate has of course gone through dramatic variations, but most of these have occured over a much longer timeframe than the warming we are experiencing now. On a graph the current warming is a clear spike in what would normally be a series of gradual inclines and declines.

That's not to say that sudden change hasn't happened in the past, and in those cases the important thing is to look at the causes. For example some historic sudden change has been attributed to impact events or massive volcanic eruptions. These historical events were such a long time ago that of course it's very difficult to establish causes with high degrees of certainty, but they must have had causes, they didn't just happen spontaneously, they were anomalies in a normally gentle cycle of climate change.

The point is that right now we are living in a period of sudden change, so the question isn't 'has this happened before?' the question is 'why is this happening now and what can we do about it?'

[Bioluminescence]

i stopped reading that link when it said "thought to be the warmest in 500 years" so again a very short period of time and "thought"

What's wrong with that? They are only admitting there is some uncertainty, which is what all scientists do. They stated it was a record-breaking heatwave and probably the warmest summer in the past 500 years. And again, it's about changes we are seeing now and which we have to adapt to, so it doesn't matter that we don't know what happened in the distant past. I really don't get your mindset. You are building strawmen instead of focusing on the points being made.

[MHLC]

No, that's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. The climate has of course gone through dramatic climate variations, but most of these have occured over a much longer timeframe than the warming we are experiencing now. On a graph the current warming it is a clear spike in what would normally be a series of gradual inclines and declines.

Really astonishes me that some cannot differentiate between events that occur over thousands of years and what is currently being empirically measured as occurring in tandem with the industrialisation of society and an explosion in human population.

[Roady]

The tens of thousands who died as a result?

Andy / Roady - essentially your argument is the earth is several billion years old and, due to man not existing for much of that, the current science must be disregarded as the sample period is too small? Isn't that a touch simplistic? How many more millions or billions of years do we have to wait?

Roady - have you taken any time to try and understand how groups such as this are united in their belief that a) climate change is rapidly occurring; b) greenhouse gases emitted by man is the primary driver . I don't mean learning the actual science itself, just the methods and huge variety being used all across the planet and from space.

mate it was instilled into me.used to go out with someone who was obsessed with this stuff.Maybe that might be why i try and dismiss it so much.Im not saying we dont have an impact.I do however question the degree to what that is.Id also question the scientific research being over such a short period of time and also due to the fact "models suggest this, models suggest that" ...We still cant figure out what next weeks weather will be like with any degree of certainty.

[MHLC]

Id also question the scientific research being over such a short period of time and also due to the fact "models suggest this, models suggest that" ...We still cant figure out what next weeks weather will be like with any degree of certainty.

This is a common misconception, i.e. that we only have evidence based on recent records (200 years). Historical temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years are being retrieved indirectly, i.e. from ice sheets, trees and corals.

As has already been mentioned - predicting tomorrows weather is not climate science. Here's an explanation from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

That's pretty much the opposite of what I was saying. The climate has of course gone through dramatic variations, but most of these have occured over a much longer timeframe than the warming we are experiencing now. On a graph the current warming is a clear spike in what would normally be a series of gradual inclines and declines.

That's not to say that sudden change hasn't happened in the past, and in those cases the important thing is to look at the causes. For example some historic sudden change has been attributed to impact events or massive volcanic eruptions. These historical events were such a long time ago that of course it's very difficult to establish causes with high degrees of certainty, but they must have had causes, they didn't just happen spontaneously, they were anomalies in a normally gentle cycle of climate change.

The point is that right now we are living in a period of sudden change, so the question isn't 'has this happened before?' the question is 'why is this happening now and what can we do about it?'

"Hope we dont' get hit by a meteorite and hope a super Volcano doesn't go off and hope that we don't end up with a massive war over land, water and resources" would seem to be the three major things 'we' can do about it.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Really astonishes me that some cannot differentiate between events that occur over thousands of years and what is currently being empirically measured as occurring in tandem with the industrialisation of society and an explosion in human population.

You've probably got millions of events over time that dramatically affected the climate. It's temperate at present. With or without mankind that temperate climate will eventually change.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

mate it was instilled into me.used to go out with someone who was obsessed with this stuff.Maybe that might be why i try and dismiss it so much.Im not saying we dont have an impact.I do however question the degree to what that is.Id also question the scientific research being over such a short period of time and also due to the fact "models suggest this, models suggest that" ...We still cant figure out what next weeks weather will be like with any degree of certainty.

Is a fair point. If every input was known and every model contained every input then fine. Fair play. Done. Dusted.

But not every input is known. Each model is a cut down version of reality and a lot of extrapolation (Read guessing) goes on to determine the end results. There are just too many variables and the samples size across the length of time is too small and too specific to guarantee anything.

And let's say it wasn't. Let's say it's 100% accurate and 100% predicts where we are, what we've done and where we're going.

How would you fix that anyway? Being realistic. You couldn't.

[MHLC]

You've probably got millions of events over time that dramatically affected the climate. It's temperate at present. With or without mankind that temperate climate will eventually change.

Nobody is disputing that as a fact Andy. It's the validity of it in your argument that is questionable. How does pointing to the planets entire history disprove current science and observations? Yes what you are saying is true, but its a weak rebuttal of all the peer-reviewed science out there that clearly states man in contributing to the rapid changes in climate.

You place a lot of importance in scientific evidence in other debates, so why are you trying to explain away its relevance here?

[ghost1359]

The fact that 'Climate Change' is nothing 'new'. It's been going for billions of years. It's been cooler than it is now. It's been warmer than it is now.

This always crops up and you're right, it's not new but that's never been debated by the science community. The message has always been very loud and very clear, the climate has never changed this dramatically, this quickly. The fear isn't that temperatures and weather patterns will change, it's that we've pumped so much shit into the atmosphere that we've made the change more sudden and more dramatic.

[Bioluminescence]

Is a fair point. If every input was known and every model contained every input then fine. Fair play. Done. Dusted.

But not every input is known. Each model is a cut down version of reality and a lot of extrapolation (Read guessing) goes on to determine the end results. There are just too many variables and the samples size across the length of time is too small and too specific to guarantee anything.

And let's say it wasn't. Let's say it's 100% accurate and 100% predicts where we are, what we've done and where we're going.

How would you fix that anyway? Being realistic. You couldn't.

It might be a fair point if models were all we had and they had systematically failed to predict anything. But we don't. We have data from past climate change as well as from recent volcanic eruptions that corroborate model outputs when it comes to climate sensitivity for example. And models have made plenty of correct predictions. So really there's no valid reason to dismiss models out of hand.

And we could easily avoid the worst of our problems by reducing our CO2 emissions and taking adaptive measures.

[Roady]

It might be a fair point if models were all we had and they had systematically failed to predict anything. But we don't. We have data from past climate change as well as from recent volcanic eruptions that corroborate model outputs when it comes to climate sensitivity for example. And models have made plenty of correct predictions. So really there's no valid reason to dismiss models out of hand.

And we could easily avoid the worst of our problems by reducing our CO2 emissions and taking adaptive measures.

i agree reducing our Co2 emission would be a good thing.

Models have made plenty of correct predictions,but you fail to mention theyve also made a huge amount of errors.Its not an exact science really,and never will be. The problem lies in the fact its all based on permutations.This needs to hapen that needs to happen, this is the current trend so this is wahts going to happen.Noone knows.Thats the truth.Noone knows whats going to happen with our weather this coming weekend.We can make a current observation of how we thing it will be  using "models" we currently use in forecasting.But it takes one slight change to that model for it all to go completely tits up.Last week for example as late as sunday the BBC forecast weather in Liverpool today to reach no higher than a daytime high of 2 degrees C today.Its currently 7degrees C. We can use all the models in the world but itllnever be precise.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

It might be a fair point if models were all we had and they had systematically failed to predict anything. But we don't. We have data from past climate change as well as from recent volcanic eruptions that corroborate model outputs when it comes to climate sensitivity for example. And models have made plenty of correct predictions. So really there's no valid reason to dismiss models out of hand.

And we could easily avoid the worst of our problems by reducing our CO2 emissions and taking adaptive measures.

Which 'we' know won't happen. Developed countries want what they have. Undeveloped countries want what developed countries have.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

This means we need better contingency plans because we are probably making rare events more frequent. Surely if we can reduce the impacts of climate change to avoid the worst, we should do so?

If we are definitely making rare events more frequent and you can definitely reverse that trend by "reducing the impact of climate change" then you would have a case to say to the guy in the third world: -"Look I know it's in your best interests not to buy a scooter instead of walking 5 miles to work to feed your family" and he might be persuaded by the decision.

But that's the point - you can't.

The modelling systems we have can't predict the outcome of our match against Udinese let alone the weather this time next next week let alone changes to the climate 40 years from now.

At the moment you can say to him "According to the data we think human activity is causing climate change but we don't know how much of a contribution it has. We think if you don't buy that scooter it might make a difference but we don't know how much and over how long." Do you think he would think twice before heading off to the Honda dealership?

"Different paths to economic growth", "reducing the impacts of climate change" and using alternative routes of economic development are all weasel words. If fighting climate change meant relatively low impact measures like separating out rubbish so it can be recycled easier then everyone can pretty much get on board - as they do - if only to shut the Eco-mentalists up for half an hour.

But when you are talking about restricting growth in developing countries you are going to need a higher standard of proof. Economic growth, more than democracy, education and even the rule of law is the best bet for most of these people to improve their lot and those of their families and your shrill assertions that the argument is settled and glib comments about changing their economies is not hitting home in the real world. And rightly so.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Nobody is disputing that as a fact Andy. It's the validity of it in your argument that is questionable. How does pointing to the planets entire history disprove current science and observations? Yes what you are saying is true, but its a weak rebuttal of all the peer-reviewed science out there that clearly states man in contributing to the rapid changes in climate.

You place a lot of importance in scientific evidence in other debates, so why are you trying to explain away its relevance here?

I'm happy to accept that mankind has an input.

But equally there are many things we don't understand about current and past climate. There are many things we're guessing about and there are many predictions that won't be right - equally there will be many that will be spot on.

My point is that there are more than just mankinds actions going on with all this. There has always been changes. Some dramatic and explosive, some quietly and slowly. To read some people (Not Bio) they think that it's nailed on and everything happening every day has just one cause and one cause alone. That's never been the case in the past and it's not the case now.

But pollution should be curbed, recycling promoted, green actions picked up, waste should be curtailed and people should look after their environment ANYWAY - not because there's a big stick being waved about.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

This is a common misconception, i.e. that we only have evidence based on recent records (200 years). Historical temperatures going back hundreds of thousands of years are being retrieved indirectly, i.e. from ice sheets, trees and corals.

As has already been mentioned - predicting tomorrows weather is not climate science. Here's an explanation from the National Centre for Atmospheric Research.

And has already been mentioned no-one is claiming they're the same thing - but what they have in common with financial markets or turbulence or earthquakes is that they can't be modelled with sufficient accuracy to predict the future in the short term let alone the medium to long term.

The fact you guys can't admit this simple truth impacts pretty much negates most of what you have written so far in this thread.

Luckily, those people to whom it matters, ie the people who have families to feed, have a better grasp of reality than hipsters who have chosen environmental care as their personal hobby horses.

[SP]

If we are definitely making rare events more frequent and you can definitely reverse that trend by "reducing the impact of climate change" then you would have a case to say to the guy in the third world: -"Look I know it's in your best interests not to buy a scooter instead of walking 5 miles to work to feed your family" and he might be persuaded by the decision.

But that's the point - you can't.

The modelling systems we have can't predict the outcome of our match against Udinese let alone the weather this time next next week let alone changes to the climate 40 years from now.

At the moment you can say to him "According to the data we think human activity is causing climate change but we don't know how much of a contribution it has. We think if you don't buy that scooter it might make a difference but we don't know how much and over how long." Do you think he would think twice before heading off to the Honda dealership?

"Different paths to economic growth", "reducing the impacts of climate change" and using alternative routes of economic development are all weasel words. If fighting climate change meant relatively low impact measures like separating out rubbish so it can be recycled easier then everyone can pretty much get on board - as they do - if only to shut the Eco-mentalists up for half an hour.

But when you are talking about restricting growth in developing countries you are going to need a higher standard of proof. Economic growth, more than democracy, education and even the rule of law is the best bet for most of these people to improve their lot and those of their families and your shrill assertions that the argument is settled and glib comments about changing their economies is not hitting home in the real world. And rightly so.

You don't understand statistics. Within a chaotic complex system it is impossible to predict an exact outcome. It is not a deterministic system, but it is perfectly possible to model the system and ascertain that there will be a vastly increased probability of extreme weather. The position of rejecting all modelling because the weather is not deterministic is frankly so bizarre that it fatally undermines your credibility on the whole issue.

[Bioluminescence]

i agree reducing our Co2 emission would be a good thing.

Models have made plenty of correct predictions,but you fail to mention theyve also made a huge amount of errors.Its not an exact science really,and never will be. The problem lies in the fact its all based on permutations.This needs to hapen that needs to happen, this is the current trend so this is wahts going to happen.Noone knows.Thats the truth.Noone knows whats going to happen with our weather this coming weekend.We can make a current observation of how we thing it will be  using "models" we currently use in forecasting.But it takes one slight change to that model for it all to go completely tits up.Last week for example as late as sunday the BBC forecast weather in Liverpool today to reach no higher than a daytime high of 2 degrees C today.Its currently 7degrees C. We can use all the models in the world but itllnever be precise.

What huge errors have climate models made? They have needed fine tuning, and will carry on needing fine tuning, but I'm not aware of any global climate model making huge errors. Also projections are made using multiple model runs, not single models, with models making different assumptions. This reduces uncertainty.

As I said, we have more than models to determine what is most likely to occur. Past climate change shows us what happens once change is initiated - feedbacks kick in and amplify the warming or cooling that has been set in motion. Some of these feedbacks are already being observed - there has been an increase in water vapour levels and ice is melting worldwide. On longer timescales, changes in vegetation cover add to the overall feedback. Without these feedbacks, the scale of past climate change would have been considerably smaller.

No one knows for certain what will happen, but scientists know with a degree of certainty what is most likely. There is very little evidence to suggest warming will be kept to a minimum. Also climate models and weather models are very different. It's like tossing a coin - you can't predict with certainty if a coin will land heads or tails, but you can predict the statistical results of a large number of coin tosses. So even if you can't predict the exact track of a storm, you have a good idea of average precipitation and temperature over a region. It's also worth pointing out that uncertainty works both ways - conditions could equally end up being considerably worse than predicted, even if this is equally as unlikely as low climate sensitivity.

When models and empirical evidence tell the same story, it's fooling to reject it all on the basis that we can't be 100% certain.

[SP]

And has already been mentioned no-one is claiming they're the same thing - but what they have in common with financial markets or turbulence or earthquakes is that they can't be modelled with sufficient accuracy to predict the future in the short term let alone the medium to long term.

The fact you guys can't admit this simple truth impacts pretty much negates most of what you have written so far in this thread.

Luckily, those people to whom it matters, ie the people who have families to feed, have a better grasp of reality than hipsters who have chosen environmental care as their personal hobby horses.

You fundamentally misunderstand the purposes of modelling and are making yourself look like an arse. That is negating all of what you have written in this topic.

[MHLC]

The fact you guys can't admit this simple truth impacts pretty much negates most of what you have written so far in this thread.

Excuse me? Where I have I even mentioned anything about model accuracy in the last couple of pages. In fact, here's what I had to say at the beginning of the topic:

As for man made climate change I was convinced 5 or 6 years ago that if it was genuine then, slowly but surely, the diverse data driven evidence collected around the world would prove it far more convincingly than climate modelling could. This author of the article in the OP touches on that:

Luckily, those people to whom it matters, ie the people who have families to feed, have a better grasp of reality than hipsters who have chosen environmental care as their personal hobby horses.

And here we go again with the lazy assumptions. My interest in the subject is part professional. I support the ground station segments of numerous earth observation satellites, such as Cryosat-2, MSG-3, GOCE, MetOp and until recently, Envisat. All projects adding the body of scientific knowledge about our planet.

Perhaps you should stick to arguing peoples opinions rather than being a smart arse?