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

[Bioluminescence]

Bio, in your professional opinion, and forgive me for being blunt, but what now? What happens next? Or perhaps more important, what should we do?

I think I should point out that I'm just a bioscience graduate who occasionally writes articles on climate change. So my opinion is just my opinion really, but I hope it's based on the best available evidence

I think there's no point in trying to limit CO2 emissions, or rather to carrying arguing that we need a reduction in CO2 emissions. There's a toxic mix of vested interests, ideology and a lack of understanding of what constitutes science. Coupled with the Web, it means that misinformation keeps on spreading and has delayed any action we could have taken. The 400 ppm story is being widely covered but I'm not sure how much of an impact it will have. Overall I don't think there's any point in arguing anymore because the will's not there but the myths are. You only need to look at this thread to see the level of denial and the unwillingness to get informed and accept scientific findings. It's a shame because it's probably not too late to avoid dangerous climate change. At the moment though, I just don't see that happening because the changes needed are just too big. so climate change and ocean acidification are here to stay.

So we need to focus on adaptation measures, but that's no easy task. Where do you start really? If you look at recent droughts, heat waves and floods, you get an idea of the extent of the problems facing us. We need public health campaigns to inform people on what to do in the case of heatwaves - in the heatwave of 2003 in Europe, some people died because they simply didn't know they needed to drink more water, while in Russia's 2010 heatwave many people drowned because they were drunk. We need adequate contingency plans to deal with new extremes. We need new cultivars that can withstand extreme heat and other changing conditions. But you only need to look at what's happened in the UK in the past 18 months to see the difficulty in planning for changes: we started 2012 with a drought but that was followed by 9 months of what felt like continuous rain that resulted in poor wheat harvests. This was then followed by a late cold snap in the spring of 2013, with heavy snowfall killing thousands of animals. I'm no expert on agriculture but I doubt there's a way to cope with this.

It's all a bit of a mess, to put it mildly. We can only hope that scientists have got it very wrong and that the weird worldwide weather of recent years is just a blip. Or we can hope that human ingenuity will find a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere in a realistic and affordable way. What we need really are leaders brave enough to make hard and unpopular decisions.

I'm not overly optimistic in other words What do you think?

[Raunaquilani]

Truth is, that the winters are getting colder. The summers are getting hotter. We are fucked.

[RojoLeón]

Truth is, that the winters are getting colder. The summers are getting hotter. We are fucked.

Why are we fucked?

[Roady]

Truth is, that the winters are getting colder. The summers are getting hotter. We are fucked.

that isn't true.

[RojoLeón]

that isn't true.

Saying it isn't doesn't mean you're right.

Why - explain what what you mean.

[Paul JH]

Saying it isn't doesn't mean you're right.

Why - explain what what you mean.

He probably means a blanket statement like 'summer is getting hotter and winter is getting colder' isn't correct, when for the last few years, especially in Liverpool, Winter has been mild, summer hasn't even got anywhere near 27 degress which it regularly used to do.

[Roady]

He probably means a blanket statement like 'summer is getting hotter and winter is getting colder' isn't correct, when for the last few years, especially in Liverpool, Winter has been mild, summer hasn't even got anywhere near 27 degress which it regularly used to do.

well that, but also stating were fucked.

[RojoLeón]

well that, but also stating were fucked.

but why?

[MassDriver]

but why?

I don't know why you bother with this thread Rory. Its a lost cause. People are just too thick to understand. 450 ppm , 2 degrees, BAU scenario, its all gibberish to that type.

People who cannot type out a grammatically correct sentence are never going to be convinced about the reality of climate change and the long term implications.   

[Roady]

Saying it isn't doesn't mean you're right.

Why - explain what what you mean.

in fairness neither does saying were fucked and then leaving.

[Roady]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22527273

good article.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

I don't know why you bother with this thread Rory. Its a lost cause. People are just too thick to understand. 450 ppm , 2 degrees, BAU scenario, its all gibberish to that type.

People who cannot type out a grammatically correct sentence are never going to be convinced about the reality of climate change and the long term implications.   

The reality of climate is that it has always changed and always will.

[RojoLeón]

The reality of climate is that it has always changed and always will.

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss

[Andy @ Allerton!]

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - Discuss

Climate change has always been here.

I'd be more shocked if someone said Climate Stable!!!!

Not going to happen like.

[Bioluminescence]

Climate change has always been here.

So have wildfires. And diseases. And floods and droughts. I really don't see the point of your argument.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

So have wildfires. And diseases. And floods and droughts. I really don't see the point of your argument.

So there's no real need for us to act all surprised about it and for some people to pretend that there is such a thing as a 'normal' or 'stable' climate.

Just chill, have a pint and a curry. That's my advice to all these climatologists.

[Anywhichwayicant]

Haven't the temperatures of our neighbouring planets not increased also?

[ericthered10]

So there's no real need for us to act all surprised about it and for some people to pretend that there is such a thing as a 'normal' or 'stable' climate.

Just chill, have a pint and a curry. That's my advice to all these climatologists.

Well, we're surprised at the rate of climate change that we're seeing lately, interested in knowing about how it will effect our planet, and how we can work to minimize effects to allow for adaptation. Inaction and sticking your head in the sand is nice and safe, yes. Doesn't really add to the thread we have here.

[RojoLeón]

Haven't the temperatures of our neighbouring planets not increased also?

Have you been there measuring the temps? How are they relevant to this present discussion?

[Anywhichwayicant]

How are they relevant to this present discussion?

I was talking along the lines of man made climate change. If it's happening elsewhere, it could suggest it's just a natural cycle, rather than an earth only phenomenom.

[RojoLeón]

I was talking along the lines of man made climate change. If it's happening elsewhere, it could suggest it's just a natural cycle, rather than an earth only phenomenom.

Is it happening elsewhere?

[Anywhichwayicant]

Is it happening elsewhere?

That's what I was asking 

Google tells me it is happening elsewhere, most notably Mars, but not sure who/what site is reliable. None of them are Fox or Huff Post, so that's something.

[Bioluminescence]

So there's no real need for us to act all surprised about it and for some people to pretend that there is such a thing as a 'normal' or 'stable' climate.

Just chill, have a pint and a curry. That's my advice to all these climatologists.

No one is acting surprised - warming was predicted over a century ago as a result of rising CO2 levels.

It needn't be happening is the point, but it is and has the potential to be dangerous. We can do something to keep change in check and prepare for it.

[Bioluminescence]

That's what I was asking 

Google tells me it is happening elsewhere, most notably Mars, but not sure who/what site is reliable. None of them are Fox or Huff Post, so that's something.

The only thing that all planets have in common is the sun, and this has shown no trend. The climate on Mars, for example, is dominated by dust storms and albedo. The little evidence of warming there comes from two photos, one taken in 1977 and the other in 1999, and the warming doesn't appear to be global.

On the other hand, warming on Earth is clear and global. Natural factors alone would probably have caused cooling. Not only do we understand the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, both satellites and surface stations show an enhanced greenhouse effect. Other observations, like the pattern of ocean warming and stratospheric cooling, are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect. No other factor can explain all these observations - there is a clear human fingerprint on what we are seeing.

Hope this helps

[Roady]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22527273

good article.

the issue i have with it, and Bio im really not having a pop,its not really my thing so to speak.But its when i see articles such as this one above that make me think a lot of climatologists (is that we call them?) dont agree. Theres wild wild variations and its all guess work.Seas may rise by anything from inder two inches to to over two feet in the same article.I dont know like i said im kind of inbetween on this and can see both sides. I agree with a lot of what andy has said in this thread, cycles these things happen and that is true int cant be denied.Im not saying we dont contribute to it, but the earth is phenomenal and readjusting it just takes time.Everything has a cycle ,Im just not sure how much we do actually contribute to this  and that is difficult to measure.

[Weescotty]

I don't know why you bother with this thread Rory. Its a lost cause. People are just too thick to understand. 450 ppm , 2 degrees, BAU scenario, its all gibberish to that type.

People who cannot type out a grammatically correct sentence are never going to be convinced about the reality of climate change and the long term implications.   

Nice way to advance your position.
Learnt it from Hansen or Trenberth by any chance?

[RojoLeón]

Nice way to advance your position.
Learnt it from Hansen or Trenberth by any chance?

'Ahh dannae think much oh this manmade CO2 - puttin ahr climatts defense undar pressure'   

What do you think, by the way? Please discuss with your thoughts on the matter.

[Bioluminescence]

the issue i have with it, and Bio im really not having a pop,its not really my thing so to speak.But its when i see articles such as this one above that make me think a lot of climatologists (is that we call them?) dont agree. Theres wild wild variations and its all guess work.Seas may rise by anything from inder two inches to to over two feet in the same article.I dont know like i said im kind of inbetween on this and can see both sides. I agree with a lot of what andy has said in this thread, cycles these things happen and that is true int cant be denied.Im not saying we dont contribute to it, but the earth is phenomenal and readjusting it just takes time.Everything has a cycle ,Im just not sure how much we do actually contribute to this  and that is difficult to measure.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say everything has a cycle. When it comes to climate change, you know that something is causing the change. It could be changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, the Earth's orbit, the position of land masses, the composition of the atmosphere, etc. So you have to look at all of these to see whether they can explain what we're observing. In the case of ongoing warming, only a rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases can explain not only the rising temperatures, but also other observations. There's currently an energy imbalance - the heat that should be escaping to space is being retained by greenhouse gases. Satellites show this, as do surface stations which are measuring more heat, in the form of longwave radiation, returning to the Earth's surface. In other words, we have direct observational evidence of the effects higher levels of greenhouse gases are having. It's important to understand that this is accepted by more than 97% of climate scientists because the evidence is overwhelming. We're talking about a huge body of converging evidence, with no other factor being able to explain observations.

There is ongoing discussion on certain things because we find ourselves in uncharted territory and we don't understand all the processes involved in things such as ice sheet melt, for example. That is not the same as saying we don't know anything though. We know more than enough to take steps to prevent dangerous climate change.

[Anywhichwayicant]

The only thing that all planets have in common is the sun, and this has shown no trend. The climate on Mars, for example, is dominated by dust storms and albedo. The little evidence of warming there comes from two photos, one taken in 1977 and the other in 1999, and the warming doesn't appear to be global.

On the other hand, warming on Earth is clear and global. Natural factors alone would probably have caused cooling. Not only do we understand the properties of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, both satellites and surface stations show an enhanced greenhouse effect. Other observations, like the pattern of ocean warming and stratospheric cooling, are consistent with an enhanced greenhouse effect. No other factor can explain all these observations - there is a clear human fingerprint on what we are seeing.

Hope this helps

Very much so, cheers mate.

[Devon Red]

Maybe a title change would be helpful?

man made climate change

Hopefully this will stop the thread going round in circles with the 'climate has always changed' red herring.

[Roady]

I'm not sure what you mean when you say everything has a cycle. When it comes to climate change, you know that something is causing the change. It could be changes in solar activity, volcanic activity, the Earth's orbit, the position of land masses, the composition of the atmosphere, etc. So you have to look at all of these to see whether they can explain what we're observing. In the case of ongoing warming, only a rise in CO2 and other greenhouse gases can explain not only the rising temperatures, but also other observations. There's currently an energy imbalance - the heat that should be escaping to space is being retained by greenhouse gases. Satellites show this, as do surface stations which are measuring more heat, in the form of longwave radiation, returning to the Earth's surface. In other words, we have direct observational evidence of the effects higher levels of greenhouse gases are having. It's important to understand that this is accepted by more than 97% of climate scientists because the evidence is overwhelming. We're talking about a huge body of converging evidence, with no other factor being able to explain observations.

There is ongoing discussion on certain things because we find ourselves in uncharted territory and we don't understand all the processes involved in things such as ice sheet melt, for example. That is not the same as saying we don't know anything though. We know more than enough to take steps to prevent dangerous climate change.

cheers Bio, i may come across as a bit of anti climate change kinda guy on here but im not, im fairly balanced on both sides if im honest. Theres no doubt we contribute i dont doubt that.And yes perhaps we can do something to reduce emissions etc.You clearly know your stuff ,theres no doubt about that.Thanks for your reply

[Bioluminescence]

cheers Bio, i may come across as a bit of anti climate change kinda guy on here but im not, im fairly balanced on both sides if im honest. Theres no doubt we contribute i dont doubt that.And yes perhaps we can do something to reduce emissions etc.You clearly know your stuff ,theres no doubt about that.Thanks for your reply

You're welcome - just hope I make sense. I think the problem is that there's a lot of misinformation out there and it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm a science graduate and that helps in working out which claims are valid and which aren't. The thing really is that there aren't two sides to the debate. It's a bit like the theory of evolution versus intelligent design - one side has got all the evidence, and the other don't even have a testable hypothesis. A recent paper, which wickedbark links to on this page, shows how one-sided the debate on climate change is. This article by one of the authors might explain things better than I could

If I may recommend a book, try reading Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway - it shows how vested interests have worked very hard to create doubt when the science has been clear. It looks at how the tobacco industry started it all, and how the same people and tactics have been involved in spreading misinformation when vested interests have been threatened by possible policies to reduce pollution. It's all documented so you can check the sources for yourself. I think it helps in understanding what's currently going on.

[Roady]

You're welcome - just hope I make sense. I think the problem is that there's a lot of misinformation out there and it's difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff. I'm a science graduate and that helps in working out which claims are valid and which aren't. The thing really is that there aren't two sides to the debate. It's a bit like the theory of evolution versus intelligent design - one side has got all the evidence, and the other don't even have a testable hypothesis. A recent paper, which wickedbark links to on this page, shows how one-sided the debate on climate change is. This article by one of the authors might explain things better than I could

If I may recommend a book, try reading Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway - it shows how vested interests have worked very hard to create doubt when the science has been clear. It looks at how the tobacco industry started it all, and how the same people and tactics have been involved in spreading misinformation when vested interests have been threatened by possible policies to reduce pollution. It's all documented so you can check the sources for yourself. I think it helps in understanding what's currently going on.

cheers for that, ill give it a blast.I know i come across as apain at times to all on here who know more on it than i do, a lot more, thanks for the info,ill give that book a read sounds an interesting read.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

No one is acting surprised - warming was predicted over a century ago as a result of rising CO2 levels.

It needn't be happening is the point, but it is and has the potential to be dangerous. We can do something to keep change in check and prepare for it.

No. We can't. The developing countries won't be told to fuck off by the wealthy West. That's a fact. It is not going to happen. Any effects that the human race have are here to stay. China, India and the rest want their place in prosperity same as everyone else. If it's happening. It's happening.

So. Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride

[Bioluminescence]

No. We can't. The developing countries won't be told to fuck off by the wealthy West. That's a fact. It is not going to happen. Any effects that the human race have are here to stay. China, India and the rest want their place in prosperity same as everyone else. If it's happening. It's happening.

So. Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride

We can do something because any CO2 we don't emit won't cause further problems. Doing nothing is the worst possible course of action.

No, sorry, I won't just chill. You might as well say there's no point in doing anything since we all die anyway. You have argued in the past that we should recycle, etc., and this is no different.

[Bioluminescence]

cheers for that, ill give it a blast.I know i come across as apain at times to all on here who know more on it than i do, a lot more, thanks for the info,ill give that book a read sounds an interesting read.

No worries As I said, it's difficult when there's so much misinformation out there, and the reporting of scientific issues is so poor. It's a matter of knowing where to get reliable information, which is a valuable exercise for all sorts of issues. At least you have an open mind, which is very rare. Let me know if you get to read the book

[RojoLeón]

No. We can't. The developing countries won't be told to fuck off by the wealthy West. That's a fact. It is not going to happen. Any effects that the human race have are here to stay. China, India and the rest want their place in prosperity same as everyone else. If it's happening. It's happening.

So. Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride

Enough's enough, Andy. As with your continued ignorance towards our measured, decisive contribution towards (likely and increasingly so) widely harmful climactic conditions for all life on earth, your insistence that we just

'So. Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride '

is tantamount to trolling. We get it - why don't you leave the thread alone (for good - unless you have actual insights).

Somewhere on the forum there is a cocky manc stating that rafa gave the most embarrassing press conference in the history of such things - go troll him instead   

[lfcderek]

Enough's enough, Andy. As with your continued ignorance towards our measured, decisive contribution towards (likely and increasingly so) widely harmful climactic conditions for all life on earth, your insistence that we just

'So. Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride '

is tantamount to trolling. We get it - why don't you leave the thread alone (for good - unless you have actual insights).

Somewhere on the forum there is a cocky manc stating that rafa gave the most embarrassing press conference in the history of such things - go troll him instead   

Arrogant, patronizing, dismissive and oh so 'holier than thou' in one little post Rojo. You seem to be in fine form.

Andy appears to be making a 'real world' comment on what countries like India, China, Brazil etc. etc. will do regarding their use of fossil fuels to achieve cheap energy and hence economic growth. It's a prediction of what will actually happen in the real world. I know you would prefer to stay at the bottom of the garden and talk with the fairies – others prefer to face the world as it is and not as our utopian dreams would have it.

China will increase it's CO2 output this year by more than the whole of our output.

Will do so again next year.

And the year after. …......
 
If this 'real world' opinion is accurate then it makes no sense for us to busily dismantle our economy and reduce our standard of living for no practical benefit. Not a strong case therefore for him to

why don't you leave the thread alone (for good - unless you have actual insights).

Maybe you really should just

Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride.

[Bioluminescence]

Arrogant, patronizing, dismissive and oh so 'holier than thou' in one little post Rojo. You seem to be in fine form.

Andy appears to be making a 'real world' comment on what countries like India, China, Brazil etc. etc. will do regarding their use of fossil fuels to achieve cheap energy and hence economic growth. It's a prediction of what will actually happen in the real world. I know you would prefer to stay at the bottom of the garden and talk with the fairies – others prefer to face the world as it is and not as our utopian dreams would have it.

China will increase it's CO2 output this year by more than the whole of our output.

Will do so again next year.

And the year after. …......
 
If this 'real world' opinion is accurate then it makes no sense for us to busily dismantle our economy and reduce our standard of living for no practical benefit. Not a strong case therefore for him to
Maybe you really should just

Chill. Have a beer and a curry and enjoy the ride.

Except that Andy is wrong because the impacts of climate change depend on how much CO2 is emitted. If we cut emissions, the impacts won't be as bad so it's not for nothing.

Your claim about 'dismantling the economy' is just wrong - cuts in CO2 emissions can be achieved without having any effect on the economy. Funny how we are called alarmist when contrarians are very good at making wild statements about what will happen to the economy if we cut CO2 emissions.

[lfcderek]

I've really been too busy to bat figures and opinion back and forth but since I've been tempted (and I can resist everything except temptation) I'll just point out what the average global temps have been doing of late. I told myself to wait a year until they'd been flat for 17 years – but hey ho I'll put up some Data (or Facts as a certain gentlemen of our acquaintance would have said)

So – Actual temperatures – a quick visit to 'Wood for Trees' gave me



Data (remember that stuff now?) is from the 4 major temperatures series and shows NO rise in the last 16.5 years.

Let me remind you what NOAA and NCDC said in 2008

“Near-zero and even negative trends are com­mon for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
^{Peterson, T. C., and M. O. Baringer, Eds., 2009: State of the Climate in 2008. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,}

So after a 15 year hiatus we can be 95% sure that the 'Global Warming Hysteria' you peddle is wrong. 2 Sigma difference has been achieved and, for the last 18 months,  we've been heading ever  deeper into 3 Sigma territory.

I'm sure that Bio will respond shortly and tell us that 'Skepitcal Science' (a misnomer if there ever was one!) 'says' that Trenberth 'says' that all this missing heat has mysteriously gone into the deep ocean. Quite why this should happen in the last 16 years and not during the period 1970-1997 when air temps did rise is not really made clear.

So – Actual Ocean Temperatures – a quick download of the Argo buoy data







Data (you must remember that stuff now!) is from the 3500 odd Argo buoys scattered across the world's oceans.

Now even this data should be taken with a decent pinch of (sea) salt. The buoys can take a reading with an error of 0.1C. With 3500 readings it's argued that the error bar should be that divided by the square root of the number of readings. i.e. error bars of about 2 thousands of a degree. Like most people I'm sceptical (    ) about that degree of accuracy across the huge size of our oceans.

Regardless, the Argo data is by far and away the most accurate we've ever had and data prior to it's full implementation in 2003 is,  quite frankly, pretty useless.

So, what does the data show

000 – 0700 metres – Temps rising by 0.0051 C per year
 
700 – 2000 metres – Temps rising by 0.0012 C per year

000 – 2000 metres – Temps rising by 0.0022 C per year

I've not made any mistake with a decimal point there by the way. The ocean temp really is going up 2.2 thousandths of a degree C per year. Not the sort of figure that would prompt the woman in the Fast Show to scream Scorchio.

Meanwhile CO2 has been rising at it's normal rate throughout.



To me this shows a clear disconnect between CAGW and it's insistence that CO2 is the prime driver of global temperatures.

One more graph.



So not only is the ocean not absorbing the heat that should have been found in the atmosphere (flat for 16.5 years) , it's not warming as the models predicted it would in the first place!

When asked Paul Voosen’s article on this hiatus Provoked scientists try to explain lag in global warming includes quotes from a handful of well-known climate scientists—each of them gave different reasons.

It suggests to me that if  the climate science community doesn’t understand why global temperatures have stalled, then they don't understand why it warmed in the first place.

I'll perhaps do a refresh at the end of the year when the hiatus has reached 17 years. I think that this back and forth will probably continue until 2015/16 (when I predict temps begin to fall) since both sides in the argument seem not to listen to the other (I'm as guilty as any in this probably).

Opinion and argument aside, DATA (not computer models) will decide the issue and is (in my opinion !!)  well advanced in seeing the death of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropic Global Warming).

Perhaps we should rename the thread

'Global Warming Hysteria is here – and worse than we thought – Discuss'