Climate Change & Global Warming

[Greenfingers]

Any of you catch that shameless piece of propaganda which was featured on the BBC news yesterday trying to convince us that the Big Freeze which the country is going through just now fits in with Global warming.

 

OK then. Fairs fair. There are bits of the BBC that don't shy away from the difficult questions.

 

How about this gem from the Daily Politics show on BBC2

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm

[ArabiaTerra]

Repeat one hundred times, Greenfingers:

 

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is n......."

 

Has it penetrated yet?

[oddtablet]

[quote

 

OK then. Fairs fair. There are bits of the BBC that don't shy away from the difficult questions.

 

How about this gem from the Daily Politics show on BBC2

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics/8443687.stm

 

Thanks for the link, Andrew Neil at his best !!

 

and yawn ....

 

ArabiaTerra repeat continually ....preferably in your head :-

 

"Arrogance is not a virtue and everyone is entitled to their opinion."

[ArabiaTerra]

ArabiaTerra repeat continually ....preferably in your head :-

 

"Arrogance is not a virtue and everyone is entitled to their opinion."

If this was a political debate, you might have a point, but it isn't, it's a scientific debate.

 

And I don't have an opinion on AGW, I have a conclusion, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence. A conclusion which is subject to change should any new evidence be discovered which contradicts it.

[oddtablet]

ArabiaTerra repeat continually ....preferably in your head :-

 

"Arrogance is not a virtue and everyone is entitled to their opinion."

If this was a political debate, you might have a point, but it isn't, it's a scientific debate.

 

And I don't have an opinion on AGW, I have a conclusion, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence. A conclusion which is subject to change should any new evidence be discovered which contradicts it.

 

I have a life.... unlike some

[Greenfingers]

Repeat one hundred times, Greenfingers:

 

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is not the same as climate."

"Weather is n......."

 

Has it penetrated yet?

 

Wikipedia defines climate as follows.

 

"Climate encompasses the statistics of temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind, rainfall, atmospheric particle count and numerous other meteorological elements in a given region over long periods of time. Climate can be contrasted to weather, which is the present condition of these same elements over periods up to two weeks."

 

Seems pretty much the same to me. Only the timescales are different.

[oddtablet]

ArabiaTerra repeat continually ....preferably in your head :-

 

"Arrogance is not a virtue and everyone is entitled to their opinion."

If this was a political debate, you might have a point, but it isn't, it's a scientific debate.

 

And I don't have an opinion on AGW, I have a conclusion, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence. A conclusion which is subject to change should any new evidence be discovered which contradicts it.

 

I am proud of my ability to take in information, digest and make an informed decision about many things in life. Unfortunately your attitude and arrogance means I cannot and will not accept any of your views. You score zero for respect for others

[khitajrah]

ArabiaTerra repeat continually ....preferably in your head :-

 

"Arrogance is not a virtue and everyone is entitled to their opinion."

If this was a political debate, you might have a point, but it isn't, it's a scientific debate.

 

And I don't have an opinion on AGW, I have a conclusion, based on an honest evaluation of the evidence. A conclusion which is subject to change should any new evidence be discovered which contradicts it.

 

I have a life.... unlike some

 

Oddtablet, what's that supposed to mean?

 

AT - I agree! I had initially replied to oddtablet's comment, but promptly deleted it because I was scared of being ripped to shreds by Shetlinkers again. I'm leaving my posts fairly plain from now on because of that reason, but Oddtablet, I don't think that was a very nice response on your part.

 

AT - keep up the good work! ~waves little flag of support~

[khitajrah]

Only the timescales are different.

 

That's the important bit.

[Pleepsie]

Climate change experts clash over sea-rise ‘apocalypse’

Critics say an influential prediction of a 6ft rise in sea levels is flawed

 

Climate science faces a new controversy after the Met Office denounced research from the Copenhagen summit which suggested that global warming could raise sea levels by 6ft by 2100.

 

The research, published by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, created headline news during the United Nations summit on climate change in Denmark last month.

 

It predicted an apocalyptic century in which rising seas could threaten coastal communities from England to Bangladesh and was the latest in a series of studies from Potsdam that has gained wide acceptance among governments and environmental campaigners.

 

Jason Lowe, a leading Met Office climate researcher, said: "These predictions of a rise in sea level potentially exceeding 6ft have got a huge amount of attention, but we think such a big rise by 2100 is actually incredibly unlikely. The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory."

The new controversy, which has no connection with Climategate, dates back to January 2007, when Science magazine published a research paper by Rahmstorf linking the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001 with a 0.7C rise in global temperature over the same period.

 

Most scientists accept those data and agree that sea levels will continue to rise. However, Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

 

Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.

 

They say it is unsafe to use the relatively small increases in sea levels seen in the 19th and 20th centuries to predict such extreme changes in future.

 

Another critic is Simon Holgate, a sea-level expert at the Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory, Merseyside. He has written to Science magazine, attacking Rahmstorf's work as "simplistic".

 

"Rahmstorf is very good at publishing extreme papers just before big conferences like Copenhagen when they are guaranteed attention," said Holgate. "The problem is that his methods are biased to generate large numbers for sea-level rise which cannot be justified but which attract headlines."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece

 

"The mathematical approach used to calculate the rise is simplistic and unsatisfactory"

 

How many more 'myths' will be 'debunked' in the coming weeks and months.

[Carlos]

The sea rise figures I have seen in detail do not give a single simple answer "the sea will rise x feet", it's a band of probabilities, 95% likely the rise will be at least a, 50% likely the rise will be at least b, 5% likely....." etc etc.

Then you have to consider which CO2 emissions projections you are working on, so there is another layer of unknowns on top of that.

 

At some low % of possibility then of course 6 feet is possible, but what confidence limits were placed on that figure and what CO2 levels were used?

The last official ones I have seen were more like 500mm by 2100 for the 50% probability and medium Co2 emmisions scenario.

Although data coming out a month or so later suggested that might be an under estimate, it still only moved it up to 900mm.

 

I understand that from reading the press it can be very confusing, because they are not usually very good at mentioning any of the details, just the "feet", but the same "single" prediction will say 200mm to 800mm rise depending which scenarios you choose.

Again, there are lots of unknowns, the science outlines those, and then it becomes a political decision on how to balance the risks.

[Pleepsie]

^^

 

'Besides underpinning the Copenhagen talks, the research is also likely to be included in the next report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This would elevate it to the level of global policy-making. '

 

This is also from the same newspaper article, hardly the press making it up - or trying to 'confuse' us.

 

Perhaps you could give a link to the sea rise figures you mention in your post?

[Carlos]

Apologies, the sea level rise predictions are only for up to 2080, not 2100 as I said.

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=87&Itemid=300

 

I see the SIC flooding report has a look at some local effects based on that too. http://www.shetland.gov.uk/developmentplans/documents/4thBiennialFloodReport.pdf

 

You'll note in the Times article it is other climate scientists who are questioning Stefan Rahmstorf's methodology? Also http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2009/mar/09/lomborg-climate-change.

His predictions seems to be a direct extrapolation of sea level changes measured to date (likely equivalent to the IPPC high emissions scenario?) which might be the method to support if you feel computer modelling of climate changes is too prone to errors?

[Carlos]

This is also from the same newspaper article, hardly the press making it up - or trying to 'confuse' us.

Confuse was maybe not the right word, but as is fairly common, the article is light on details and strong on a headline number.

 

What was predicted? "6 feet".

Well, 6 feet based on what assumptions and with what degree of certainty?

 

If you say "a 50% confidence of a 4 to 6 feet rise by 2100, assuming the highest CO2 emission scenario" then you are saying something different than if you say "a 95% confidence of a sea level rise of at least 6 feet, regardless of feasible reductions in CO2 emissions", but both could well be reported as "6 feet".

[Skunnered]

This is the problem when science gets mixed with politics, and when scientists start writing reports designed to grab headlines.