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

[RojoLeón]

Wait wait wait - as more of an observer than a participant in the climate debate - I thought the technical (not the political) debate re global warming was confined to scientists differing over the levels of influence/effect mankind has on the phenomenon of global warming not on whether or not it exists?

Or have I completely misinterpreted the parameters of the current scientific discourse on this particular subject? I very well might have, I really haven't invested any serious time or effort into it, neither am I an expert or professional in this area, so forgive me if I'm miss characterizing and oversimplifying the nature of the debate here

Pretty much. However, when it is discussed in a public forum or in some media, the discussion is framed like the science isn't settled and that there are two sides, both with evidence for their part.

This clearly isn't the reality of the matter as the number of scientific publications in support of general climate science dwarf those that run counter to this overwhelming scientific consensus.

You're right in your assessment that the real debate is to how severe the implications of these findings are.

[RojoLeón]

By the way, I'm aware of snow in the spring...I'm up to  my knees in it. But a few years ago the fervent pro-AGW lobby were telling me that snow was a thing of the past, and that our springs/summers would be marked by searing heat. Interesting example here from the Independent in 2000: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

It is interesting to observe that this article (not a scientific study, you might note) is all over the skeptic blogosphere. Not that they are clutching at straws in their attempts to muddy the waters, or anything.

Climate science is not weather prediction, as has been pointed out repeatedly.

[Bioluminescence]

Oh dear, can we go back to first principles, please, ie, read what I actually wrote? I did not say "only the left" believe in global warming. Someone said that most people who style themselves as 'sceptics' happen to be on the right, and I pointed out that most who believe in it happen to be on the left.

Are you seriously arguing against that? It's left wing orthodoxy.

By the way, I'm aware of snow in the spring...I'm up to  my knees in it. But a few years ago the fervent pro-AGW lobby were telling me that snow was a thing of the past, and that our springs/summers would be marked by searing heat. Interesting example here from the Independent in 2000: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

I'm happy to accept that the current abnormally cold weather is a blip, and we can't extrapolate any wider significance from it. But if we were now experiencing an equally abnormal heatwave I can guarantee that people like the author of that article - and you - would be presenting it as definitive evidence of AGW.

An interesting quote from that Independent article is the following:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

.

So he was a few years out, but he never ruled out heavy snowfalls. Also it was about odds and probabilities, and with new evidence and a growing body of knowledge, we can refine such statements or even modify them.

I see you having a go at one side again so I'd be interested in knowing what you think of claims such as 'It's not warming', 'It's warming but it's caused by the sun', 'It's warming and caused by CO2, but the CO2 comes from volcanoes', etc. Shouldn't such claims, which are not supported by evidence, make you raise questions on the validity of contrarians' arguments?

[BUSHMILLS]

It is interesting to observe that this article (not a scientific study, you might note) is all over the skeptic blogosphere. Not that they are clutching at straws in their attempts to muddy the waters, or anything.

Interesting to observe that you're not addressing the content of the March 2000 article. (Is David Viner a scientist, by the way? Would appear so):

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said

[Bioluminescence]

Interesting to observe that you're not addressing the content of the March 2000 article. (Is David Viner a scientist, by the way? Would appear so):

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said

From your article:

Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said.

[RojoLeón]

Interesting to observe that you're not addressing the content of the March 2000 article. (Is David Viner a scientist, by the way? Would appear so):

Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said

Yes, and you can see that Bio has pointed out that the man qualifies his statements by saying that *drumroll* "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time,".

Why don't you prove that you're actually interested in exploring both sides by digging out some thirteen year old article that exposes the Anti/Skeptic side in a bad light. You know, balance out all the polarized rhetoric you have so far used to describe one side of the debate only.

[Roady]

From your article:
 

weve always been unprepared and heavy snowfall is certainly nothing out of the ordinary

[RojoLeón]

weve always been unprepared and heavy snowfall is certainly nothing out of the ordinary

Climate science is not the study of weather predictions/divination.

This whole topic about whether or not it will snow is diversionary and completely irrelevant.

[Roady]

Climate science is not the study of weather predictions/divination.

This whole topic about whether or not it will snow is diversionary and completely irrelevant.

i didnt say it was mate, just poinmting it out as it was pointed out previously both for and against.doesnt cahnge the fact that its hardly a surprise for us to get eavy snowfall.i dont know much about this subject and find it compelling on both fronts

[RojoLeón]

i didnt say it was mate, just poinmting it out as it was pointed out previously both for and against.doesnt cahnge the fact that its hardly a surprise for us to get eavy snowfall.i dont know much about this subject and find it compelling on both fronts

That's fair -  I can understand wanting to sit on the fence in some debates. The 'weather forecasting = climate science' side topic has been thoroughly discussed and debunked earlier in the thread. 

[Bioluminescence]

i didnt say it was mate, just poinmting it out as it was pointed out previously both for and against.doesnt cahnge the fact that its hardly a surprise for us to get eavy snowfall.i dont know much about this subject and find it compelling on both fronts

This whole discussion on snowfall began because BUSHMILLS carefully selected a quote from an article to support the idea that people were claiming that snow would be a thing of the past as a result of climate change. I simply pointed out that another quote from that same article makes the whole discussion a bit more nuanced.

[Weescotty]

10,257 surveys sent out by two researchers at Illinois University.....
3000 bothered to respond and 82% answered yes to 'when compared to 1800's do you think mean temps have risen.'.....
77 had peer reviewed papers.....
75 had answered 'yes'.

And that's where the 98% of ALL scientists believe in Global warming comes from i.e. 75 out of 77!


Even I would agree temps have risen, I just don't think its as much to do with us, rather mainly natural variations.
CO2 emissions have rose consistently, yet for the last 16 years global mean temps have stagnated.
The climate scientists don't know why -
Trenberth - Its a travesty we can't account for the lack of warming.
Hansen - At the 'Climategate' enquiry admitted to a lack of warming for 15 years.
Phil jones - Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.
The models can't replicate it -
NOAA - Models rule out at 95% confidence, zero OR near zero trends of 15 years or more (we are now into year 16)

Looking after the planet is a good thing, destroying your economy based on incomplete/possibly incorrect data is plain stupid.

[RojoLeón]

Hello there Wescotty. I took the liberty of providing some links to the above post

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/paper-finds-warming-since-1850-is.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climategate-beyond-inquiry-panels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

(Do you notice a trend as to the sources of arguments you put forward?)

Now what's this last part: Are you suggesting that climate science is being manipulated to destroy the economy?

[andy in warrington]

climate change nut jobs should be bracketed with those who believe man didn't go to the moon.

[Weescotty]

Hello there Wescotty. I took the liberty of providing some links to the above post

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/09/paper-finds-warming-since-1850-is.html

http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/15/a-16-year-pause-in-global-warming

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/06/cbs-finally-reports-on-climategate-dr-trenberth-interviewed/

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climategate-beyond-inquiry-panels

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/15/noaas-15-year-statement-from-2008-puts-a-kibosh-on-the-current-met-office-insignificance-claims-that-global-warming-flatlined-for-16-years/

(Do you notice a trend as to the sources of arguments you put forward?)

Now what's this last part: Are you suggesting that climate science is being manipulated to destroy the economy?

No, I am suggesting that to practically cripple/destroy an ecomony based on data that is possibly incorrect or incomplete is lunacy.
There is too much that is inconsistent with the model outputs and what some scientists claim, and the real world data.
Take Hansens much trumpeted 1980's predictions based on scenario A, B, C.
A was 'business as usual', no reductions and increasing CO2 (where we are now)
B was reducing CO2 gradually
C was immediate drastic reductions

The actual temp trend line is below scenario C!

The models need some serious overhauling before they can be considered reliable for predictions, they haven't managed up to now.

[Bioluminescence]

Weescotty, the problem with your analysis is that it only tells part of the story - it cherry picks  one aspect of climate science. The Earth has carried on accumulating heat in the past 16 years, and it has gone into the oceans. Several studies show this, and it is consistent with the observed energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere. Most of the warming in general goes into the oceans, with only a fraction warming the atmosphere. So choosing a short period of surface temperatures to claim warming has stopped is disingenuous, and if you look at graphs of surface temperatures, it's not unusual to see such periods where warming has stagnated or there's even been a period of cooling in the long-term trend.

This is because of natural variability. A single La Niña event can temporarily mask a decade's worth of warming. This decade has been dominated by La Niña events, including one of the strongest ones on record. We have also had a deep solar minimum, and if I remember correctly, aerosols have also played their part. If you remove the effects of these factors on global surface temperatures, the underlying trend is still one of warming.

Why didn't these models predict this period of slow warming? Because it is difficult to predict the ENSO cycle and solar activity. Models do show general periods where temperature stagnate though, but getting the timing of these periods is difficult because of the unpredictability of the factors involved. It's also worth pointing out that not models don't always include natural variability in the projections.

Which brings us to Hansen, whose model mainly omitted natural variability. It's also worth pointing out that future emissions of CO2 have to be estimated, and Hansen overestimated those by 15%. Similarly, he chose a climate sensitivity which was too high. If you correct for these problems, his models perform very well. Especially if you remove the influence of natural factors on global surface temperatures, which are not generally included in his models.

Models do a very good job at hindcasting, i.e. at reproducing past change when the input is actual observations of parameters, such as solar activity, and not estimates scientists have to make because that data is not yet available. This suggests that scientists have a good understanding of our climate.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

No, I am suggesting that to practically cripple/destroy an ecomony based on data that is possibly incorrect or incomplete is lunacy.
There is too much that is inconsistent with the model outputs and what some scientists claim, and the real world data.
Take Hansens much trumpeted 1980's predictions based on scenario A, B, C.
A was 'business as usual', no reductions and increasing CO2 (where we are now)
B was reducing CO2 gradually
C was immediate drastic reductions

The actual temp trend line is below scenario C!

The models need some serious overhauling before they can be considered reliable for predictions, they haven't managed up to now.

Thankyou!

Nice to see someone else on the side of common sense posting. This is what I have been saying all along.

We just don't have the modelling technology to be able to predict the effect of human activity and its modulation on global warming.

The negative effects on economic growth - the only thing that will lift people out of poverty - could be disastrous and should not be implemented on a "because I say so" argument by the enviro-Mentalists.

We have comparable levels of data and computer modelling for the financial markets but economics is not classed as a hard "science" in which we can make accurate long term predictions. The technology simply doesn't exist yet.

Just a warning Wescotty - as you will see from the thread the vegan pro-AGW brigade is split between those who think their evidence is incontrovertible and those who think that increased green legislation will actually be a growth stimulus.

In other words, not really in touch with reality.

[Bioluminescence]

Thankyou!

Nice to see someone else on the side of common sense posting. This is what I have been saying all along.

We just don't have the modelling technology to be able to predict the effect of human activity and its modulation on global warming.

The negative effects on economic growth - the only thing that will lift people out of poverty - could be disastrous and should not be implemented on a "because I say so" argument by the enviro-Mentalists.

We have comparable levels of data and computer modelling for the financial markets but economics is not classed as a hard "science" in which we can make accurate long term predictions. The technology simply doesn't exist yet.

Just a warning Wescotty - as you will see from the thread the vegan pro-AGW brigade is split between those who think their evidence is incontrovertible and those who think that increased green legislation will actually be a growth stimulus.

In other words, not really in touch with reality.

Beautiful irony there CQ, as always in your inimitable style.

But of course there's plenty of research that shows that the impact of taking action will have a minimal impact on the economy. For carbon pricing we're talking about a loss of 1% of GDP here, with a range of 0.1% to 2.15%. There's also research that shows that the cost of mitigation is much lower than the cost of adaptation. Nordhaus, a leader in climate economists, has had to correct people who have been misrepresenting his work. From this article: (recommended read, very interesting)

This leads to the second point, which is that the authors summarize my results incorrectly. My research shows that there are indeed substantial net benefits from acting now rather than waiting fifty years. A look at Table 5-1 in my study A Question of Balance (2008) shows that the cost of waiting fifty years to begin reducing CO2 emissions is $2.3 trillion in 2005 prices. If we bring that number to today’s economy and prices, the loss from waiting is $4.1 trillion. Wars have been started over smaller sums.10

My study is just one of many economic studies showing that economic efficiency would point to the need to reduce CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions right now, and not to wait for a half-century. Waiting is not only economically costly, but will also make the transition much more costly when it eventually takes place. Current economic studies also suggest that the most efficient policy is to raise the cost of CO2 emissions substantially, either through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes, to provide appropriate incentives for businesses and households to move to low-carbon activities.

[...]

The group of sixteen scientists argues that we should avoid alarm about climate change. I am equally concerned by those who allege that we will incur economic catastrophes if we take steps to slow climate change. The claim that cap-and-trade legislation or carbon taxes would be ruinous or disastrous to our societies does not stand up to serious economic analysis. We need to approach the issues with a cool head and a warm heart. And with respect for sound logic and good science.

So maybe, just maybe, we are in touch with reality, but it just happens to be a reality that you choose to ignore.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Beautiful irony there CQ, as always in your inimitable style.

But of course there's plenty of research that shows that the impact of taking action will have a minimal impact on the economy. For carbon pricing we're talking about a loss of 1% of GDP here, with a range of 0.1% to 2.15%. There's also research that shows that the cost of mitigation is much lower than the cost of adaptation. Nordhaus, a leader in climate economists, has had to correct people who have been misrepresenting his work. From this article: (recommended read, very interesting)

So maybe, just maybe, we are in touch with reality, but it just happens to be a reality that you choose to ignore.

Thanks Bio - you proved my point with some alacrity.

The cost of carbon taxes might be "only" 1% of GDP - which is by the way, a glib assertion given the current economic climate - but how much of a difference will that make to the economy a year from now? How much will the decreased growth impact on the global economy? Will it retard climate change or just delay its effects by 10 years? more importantly - what will the state of the economy be in 50 years time from now? What new technologies will we have? What forms of energy will we have?

All unknown.

You can't accurately model human behaviour in the long term which is why economics isn't a science. Coming at it from a climate science point of view and pretending that the effect of human activity on the climate can be accurately modelled is, frankly, misleading.

If there is a consensus about what we need to do and hard data to support the conclusion - ie one that will provide reliable evidence that long term outcomes can be accurately predicted, then you have the rationale to put barriers on economic growth.

At the moment, that modelling technology doesn't exist - and that's why it's unethical not to mention foolhardy and dangerous to deprive growing economies of the tools they need to lift people out of poverty.

For you it's "1% of GDP". To a worker in China it's the ability to buy a motorcycle so he can commute to a better paid job so he can buy a better education for his child.

[Bioluminescence]

Thanks Bio - you proved my point with some alacrity.

The cost of carbon taxes might be "only" 1% of GDP - which is by the way, a glib assertion given the current economic climate - but how much of a difference will that make to the economy a year from now? How much will the decreased growth impact on the global economy? Will it retard climate change or just delay its effects by 10 years? more importantly - what will the state of the economy be in 50 years time from now? What new technologies will we have? What forms of energy will we have?

All unknown.

You can't accurately model human behaviour in the long term which is why economics isn't a science. Coming at it from a climate science point of view and pretending that the effect of human activity on the climate can be accurately modelled is, frankly, misleading.

If there is a consensus about what we need to do and hard data to support the conclusion - ie one that will provide reliable evidence that long term outcomes can be accurately predicted, then you have the rationale to put barriers on economic growth.

At the moment, that modelling technology doesn't exist - and that's why it's unethical not to mention foolhardy and dangerous to deprive growing economies of the tools they need to lift people out of poverty.

For you it's "1% of GDP". To a worker in China it's the ability to buy a motorcycle so he can commute to a better paid job so he can buy a better education for his child.

1% of GDP is not "disastrous" though, is it? And that's only when talking about carbon pricing, which effectively is only about making sure the costs of externalities are included in the price of carbon.  And it ignores investments in renewable energy projects and the job creation that goes with taking action, for example.

And as economists keep on pointing out, the cost of adaptation is much higher than the cost of mitigation, i.e. it would save money to take action now. What effect do you think not doing anything will have on your hypothetical Chinese worker's child?

[Bioluminescence]

For you it's "1% of GDP". To a worker in China it's the ability to buy a motorcycle so he can commute to a better paid job so he can buy a better education for his child.

By the way, you seem to have missed the recent news that China was about to take a leading role in tackling climate change.

[BUSHMILLS]

By the way, you seem to have missed the recent news that China was about to take a leading role in tackling climate change.

And China's right hand doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012-10/07/content_26715090.htm

[Bioluminescence]

And China's right hand doesn't seem to know what its left hand is doing

http://www.china.org.cn/environment/2012-10/07/content_26715090.htm

You're not really agnostic, are you?

It couldn't be that they're about to change policy, not least because they fear civil unrest due to severe air pollution and because there's no need for further development of energy-intensive industry.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

1% of GDP is not "disastrous" though, is it?
/snip/

And as economists keep on pointing out, the cost of adaptation is much higher than the cost of mitigation, i.e. it would save money to take action now.
/snip/

But the 1% is merely the start - and what will it achieve? A delay of global warming by ten, twenty years? You could save millions of lives by providing clean water to people for the same cost.

Whether or not its cheaper now than later is moot if the money is wasted.

Making accurate  predictions about what effect 1% decrease in GDP will have in 50 years time is ludicrous. For example - how will most people's personal transport be powered in 50 years time? That will obviously play a huge part in modelling the climate and yet you don't know the answer and neither does the person whose article you quoted.

Using hindsight to validate how good our predictive accuracy is self-explanatory folly.

[Bioluminescence]

But the 1% is merely the start - and what will it achieve? A delay of global warming by ten, twenty years? You could save millions of lives by providing clean water to people for the same cost.

Whether or not its cheaper now than later is moot if the money is wasted.

Making accurate  predictions about what effect 1% decrease in GDP will have in 50 years time is ludicrous. For example - how will most people's personal transport be powered in 50 years time? That will obviously play a huge part in modelling the climate and yet you don't know the answer and neither does the person whose article you quoted.

Using hindsight to validate how good our predictive accuracy is self-explanatory folly.

You're missing the big picture by focusing on one figure - a 1% drop in GDP is not disastrous, and it could be compensated by encouraging the development of new industries such as renewable energy, which would bring in investment and create jobs. As is happening in the UK. That's the thing with economics - there's room for manoeuvre. In addition, don't you think that externalities should be included to reflect the true cost of burning fossil fuels?

The problem of lack of access to clean water is a moot point - this problem could have been solved a long time ago but there hasn't been the will. Not addressing climate change doesn't mean that money will instead be spent on providing clean water to those who need it.

It boils down to this - the greater the impacts, the higher the costs, therefore taking action is the most sensible thing to do from an economic point of view.

[Weescotty]

Bio, thanks for your replying....

RE: Heat in the oceans - Why can't they find it? They are sure it's there, but as yet haven't found it.
RE: ENSO - What your saying is the opposite of what mainstream climate scientists say, i.e. they maintain that any El Nino / La Nina event is compensated for by an opposite reaction in the Indian Ocean area. Therefore the net change is essentially zero. Skeptics have been arguing the opposite.
RE: Sun - They still maintain it's actual level of activity plays a very minor role.
RE: Models - They are only good at hind-casting AFTER they fiddle with aerosol/black soot etc variables. The levels are set to get the fit.

Which brings me back to the start, models are no where near ready or capable of forecasting future changes, and yet the developed world is being asked to take on a major haircut based on their output.

Carbon tax or whatever each country calls it - UNLESS China, India and the USA agree to implement one, everyone else is pissing into the wind. Both China and India are set to open lots of coal fired power stations over the next few years which effectively wipes out (surpasses) any reductions from other countries.

Renewables - Yet again a laudable goal, but totally impractical. They are not reliable or cost effective...
Wind turbines - Good for catching fire, falling over and slicing up birds. Electrical generating companies are actually paid (in specific circumstances) NOT to produce electricity, because the wind is blowing 'at the wrong time'.
Solar panels - Really a non starter in the UK.
Tidal - To be honest never really looked into them.

All of them ONLY survive because of the huge subsidies given to owners.
All of them create major problems in balancing the grid.
Of course you realise that no matter how much renewable energy is available, you have to have a backup source for when the wind doesn't blow, the sun isn't shining etc?
There is the rather ironic location in Germany where there is a huge wind farm, and in the background is a large coal fire power station which has to be kept going 24/7/365 (you just cant turn it off and on) to provide for when the wind isn't blowing. Its lunacy!

The one technology that is a viable alternative to coal/gas is nuclear, but that's for a different topic.

Renewable energy and jobs - Ask the US, the net change is a loss of jobs.

[Bioluminescence]

Weescotty

Recent research shows that oceans are still accumulating heat. Here are a few papers for you to check - Magdalena et al. (2013), Nuccitelli et al. (2012) and Levitus et al. (2012).

This NOAA graph also clearly shows that the oceans are accumulating heat:



I'm not sure what point you're making with regards to ENSO. We know that El Niño events have a warming effect on surface temperatures (1998 being a prime example) and that La Niña events have a cooling effect. If you could provide a link to the point you're making, I'd be very grateful.

The sun may play a minor role, but a deep solar minimum nevertheless has a cooling effect on global temperatures.

Hindcasting isn't about fiddling - it's about using measurements instead of estimates, which is what scientists have to do when making projections because the data simply doesn't exist yet.

Studies also show that renewable energy could provide baseload power in the next few decades if properly implemented. It's not about stopping the use of all fossil fuels straight away, it's about reducing CO2 emissions. There are ways to deal with the intermittent nature of some sources of renewable energy so simply stating that they're impractical doesn't wash.

Carbon pricing is only one solution, and the extra revenue can be made available in a variety of ways so that it becomes a zero-sum game. China have said that they will introduce a carbon tax in the near-future so who next? Plus the benefits of cutting emissions should not be forgotten, since as things stand externalities (air pollution, climate change, ocean acidification, etc.) are not accounted for. According to studies looking at the US, the impact on GDP would be minimal (about 1%), the deficit could be reduced and energy independence would increase.

Subsidies also apply to fossil fuels so this is not a valid point, especially when you consider that externalities are not accounted for. Combined with energy efficiency, a mixture of different renewable energy sources could meet a substantial part of our needs. Again, it's not about cutting fossil fuels out completely and immediately, it's about reducing emissions, and this can be done.

[Bioluminescence]

By the way, we were asked a wee while ago to stick to the original topic, which is climate change science. If people really want to discuss other topics, it might be a good idea to start a new thread

[RojoLeón]

In light of Bio's reminder - here are a few topics that might interest you should you wish to explore your ideas

Growth/GDP

Nuclear

General Environment/Business/(not specific to climate change)

[TepidT2O]

Weescotty

Recent research shows that oceans are still accumulating heat. Here are a few papers for you to check - Magdalena et al. (2013), Nuccitelli et al. (2012) and Levitus et al. (2012).

This NOAA graph also clearly shows that the oceans are accumulating heat:

There is additional evidence for the warming of the oceans in the lowering of the pH of seawater.

Seawater's pH becomes lower with warming, and this has been clearly identified.


I think there seems to be a bit of confusion over snowy winters in the UK

It is perfectly possible for the globe to warm and for isolated areas to be cooler at times.

This is of course due to shifting air currents such as the jet stream.  It's entirely possible that we will see a consistent pattern of cold winters in the future as a result.

What is telling is the fact that the arctic has had particularly warm winters as these air currents have moved south.

Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic in its nature of not, to do nothing is madness.  We are approaching peak population of about 9billion and there simply aren't enough fossil fuels to provide energy for this population at the rate we are consuming them.

So, we have to replace our non renewable fuel sources what ever the outcome, those saying that it's a waste of money are living in cloud cuckoo land, because even if they happen to be right over global warming, we're still fucked for fuel.

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

By the way, we were asked a wee while ago to stick to the original topic, which is climate change science. If people really want to discuss other topics, it might be a good idea to start a new thread

I have a feeling this is directed at me. 

I accept you think it's a different debate but in reality it's not.  So ill just make my point before ducking out  once again.

The reason you can't model the effects of human behaviour on climate change is the same reason why economics isn't  a science - ie you can't model human behaviour accurately. The most complex mathematical model might conclude that  a 1% decrease in GDP in the western world might decrease carbon emissions by 20% and delay global warming by 5years.

So laws are intoruduced here to reduce carbon emissions by that amount: in two years time a new regime takes over in China which has little regard for such rules. Result: business moves from the UK/USA to China where it's cheaper to produce goods. Secondary result: total carbon emissions increase.

Do the computer models predict the outcomes of human behaviour and decision making? No.

Do computer models take into account the uptake of new inventions and technologies which change the way we access energy? No.

So do we have enough justification to restrict growth based on the accuracy if our predictions? Of course not.

We don't know what the economy will be like next year let alone the state of the climate in 50 years time. There are some things we can't accurately model yet, the anthropomorphogenic effect on global warming is one of them.

[Need_a_bevvy]

Bio, you know I love you.

I am a first class honours economist, and I can tell  you that calculating the economic cost of future climate change is very very very hard -  if not impossible.

And, that is without going into the uncertainties of the climate forecasts themselves.

These things are complex. Uncertainty upon uncertainty.

Very complex.

That said I still agree with you.  Faced with uncertainty is is better to be safe than sorry.

That is why I hated Benitez's habbit of puttin only one man at the post at corners.

I want one man at both posts darnit

[Bioluminescence]

CQ, no, my comment wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. I'm just pointing out that we'd already been asked to stay on topic after a discussion on economics had started.

Models test various scenarios. There are about 40 different IPCC scenarios with regards to the rate of CO2 emissions, which all make assumptions on key factors such as the development of technologies and population growth. These scenarios ultimately relate to different rates of warming though - climate sensitivity isn't affected by this as it's based on atmospheric concentrations and not emissions. So it doesn't really matter that we can't exactly predict what the economy will do as there will in all likelihood be a scenario that shows what we can expect.

Need_a_bevvy, thank you I've no doubt that it is complicated but it has been tackled in various reports. And uncertainties work both ways of course. But since we agree, there's no need to discuss it further (I agree about about needing one player at each post too, by the way).

[Bioluminescence]

Tepid Water, that's interesting - I wasn't aware of a link between temperatures and pH. Something else for me to look up. I know the drop in pH is attributed to rising concentrations of CO2 of course. Sea-level rise might be another indicator that oceans are accumulating heat, which causes thermal expansion.

There's been a lot in the news about the jet stream recently. Some people had actually predicted in September what we're seeing now, as a result of the record-breaking loss of Arctic sea ice. It appears to have led to a destabilised jet stream more prone to cause blocking events. These have been implicated in changing the trajectory of Sandy and the Greenland ice melt of last year. It'll be interesting to see the findings of future research in this area.

I obviously agree that we need to take action, both because of climate change and the fact that fossil fuels are finite resources. I'd argue that showing that climate change is mainly man-made is necessary though, since it shows that we can do something about it.

[BUSHMILLS]

Hey, Rojo!

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Hey, Rojo!

[RojoLeón]

Hey, Rojo!

Hai BUSH - I can haz mah repliez?

[BUSHMILLS]

I've no time for fighting, Carlos.

I'm too busy worrying about how climate change is, er, expanding the Antarctic ice.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-21991487

[Carlos: Very Kickable]

Ha ha ha good find

[RojoLeón]

LULZ!