Climate Change & Global Warming

[hoosn]

and thats about the measure of it , cook the books, no matter what it is , they tell us any old s**te

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ Yeah, hoosn, cook the books. And the Arctic, and the ice caps, and Australia (not too much though, you might burn it..... oops), ditto California. and then there's the bark beetles currently devastating forests throughout North America because the winters are no longer cold enough to kill them off, Permafrost melting and releasing so much methane that you get lakes exploding when you break the ice and light what comes out. Sea levels rose by nearly twice as much in this decade as they did in the last, 80% faster than even the worst predictions of the last IPCC report. Sub-Saharan Africa is experiencing the worst drought in living memory, low lying island nations are disappearing under the sea.

 

How bad does it have to get before we do something?

 

Oh, and Crofter, here's your data, 90% of which was already in the public domain.

[mainlander]

My own feeling is that, if climate change is indeed being driven by human behaviour (and I have yet to be convinced that it is), it will not be possible to stop it as people will not change their behaviour soon enough.

 

I would sooner see the billions being spent on trying to stop the change, (which, if it turned out to be part of the natural global cycle, would be of no help at all) being spent on helping the human race cope with and adapt to the changes that may/will occur.

 

For example, in the UK, instead of spending huge amounts of money cleaning up and rebuilding areas which flood time and time again, and building flood defences which often prove ineffectual in extreme weather, perhaps the money saved from trying to stop possible climate change could be added to the money which would have been used on clean-ups etc to purchase affected properties, allowing the residents to move to housing in safer areas. More money could be spent on providing housing in areas less likely to be flooded.

 

That may be a poor example, but my point is that I would rather have the money spent on trying to minimise the effects of any problem rather than spent on measures which we have no way of knowing whether they would stop the problem.

[Medziotojas]

How long before the new museum needs 'bailed out'

[Carlos]

Probably not the best way to deal with it, but probably where we are heading if effects become noticeable enough....

http://intellectualventureslab.com/?page_id=258

[hoosn]

one of the bottom lines is that the world cannot sustain all the people thats in it and being overpopulated then all these extra people are using up mineral resources at an ever increasing speed which one would imagine will lead to "meltdown" of one kind or another, them that hasnt wrecked their backs trying to hawk a living may bend as far as they can n try to kiss it , too late , batter on

[crofter]

 

Oh, and Crofter, here's your data, 90% of which was already in the public domain.

 

Read the comments on that page AT. Here is the first one:

 

The problem is more than just access to raw data. It is knowing which data has been used in which papers. It is knowing how the data has been manipulated and the justification of that manipulation. This is particularly true in a field that requires as much statistical analysis as paleoclimatology.

 

Replication of results is key to the scientific method. Data and data analysis should be released with all published papers. It should be released when requested for academic study. And it should definitely be released when demanded under the FOIA.

 

Here is another:

 

Reasonable requests for data (the actual data used, plus the code used to process it) have been fobbed off for years, with Real Climate fully supporting and justifying the refusals to release data (usually with a very arrogant tone). Now all of a sudden you’re very interested in appearing to be as open and user-friendly as possible (while still not releasing or encouraging others to release the actual datasets used to support their papers).

 

If you really want to limit the damage to your credibility in the eyes of the public (and many in the scientific community), you’ll have to do better than this. Pretending all the data has been available all along won’t cut it.

[ArabiaTerra]

one of the bottom lines is that the world cannot sustain all the people thats in it and being overpopulated then all these extra people are using up mineral resources at an ever increasing speed which one would imagine will lead to "meltdown" of one kind or another, them that hasnt wrecked their backs trying to hawk a living may bend as far as they can n try to kiss it , too late , batter on

And this is a reason to do nothing about this problem, because.... ?

 

So who do we kill then, hoosn?. The 80% of people who live in the 3rd and developing world who have had nothing to do with causing this crisis, or the 20% in the developed world (you and me) who have produced 90% of the historical emissions. Remember, CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries so it's the accumulated emissions from the last 150 or so years that are causing the problem, not the emissions of China (for instance) over the last ten years.

 

Overpopulation is not the cause of the problem, it is the burning of fossil fuels which is the cause.

 

I'm not saying that overpopulation and resource depletion will not become major problems in the coming years. But this is simply another reason (as if we needed one) to reduce our dependence on finite fossil fuels, not an excuse to do nothing.

 

@crofter: So you cherry pick two comments from over 200, well done you've now passed "cherry picking 101, an introductory course for deniers". (sorry, I couldn't resist that )

 

Seriously though, one of the main reasons the CRU did not release all the data upon receipt of FOI requests is because they did not have the copyright on the data and so had no right to release it. The data was provided by other meteorological organisations around the world who retained the IP rights to the data and in many cases were prevented from releasing the data because of security concerns. In many countries the weather forecasting centres which collect climate data are under the control of their equivalent of the MOD and the data is considered sensitive. (This might even be the case in the UK, I'm sure the Met office is part of the MOD)

 

Also, the first comment you quoted called for the scientific papers to be released as well as the data, I support this. I would love to be able to get free access to all of the science without having to pay subscription fees to the academic journals, but that's not possible as these journals require subscription to exist, just like any other publication.

 

But none of this challenges the science. And none of this changes the fact that the ice is melting, Australia's burning, yadda, yadda, yadda....

[ArabiaTerra]

My own feeling is that, if climate change is indeed being driven by human behaviour (and I have yet to be convinced that it is), it will not be possible to stop it as people will not change their behaviour soon enough.

You say this as if the only alternative on offer was to go back to a pre-industrial agrarian society. It's not.

 

If we generate our electricity using renewables and nuclear, then we can still go on using electricity. If we change our cars to electric or hydrogen fuel cells, then we can still drive (provided the electricity comes from non-fossil fuel sources). True, there may be some limitations on how much we can fly, but it's only in the last couple of decades that flying around the world became available to the masses and we did fine before that, and a decent high speed electric rail network can easily replace most of the short and medium haul flying we do.

 

Sure, we will have to change some of the ways we do things like increasing recycling, reducing waste etc. But are any of these things going to fundamentally change the way we live? I don't think so.

 

Take the windfarm for instance. Build that and at a stroke you have eliminated Shetland, Orkney's and a large part of rural northern Scotland's electrical carbon footprint. Switch our cars over to electricity and voila, job done.

 

Of course, it's not that simple, it will require a Europe wide "smart" grid and large investment in tidal, wave and nuclear, continent wide to actually complete the job, but consider this: Most of our coal and nuclear power stations are nearing the end of their useful lives and will have to be replaced soon anyway, so why not replace them with clean power sources?

 

It can be done, and the science says it must be done, so why not just do it?

[crofter]

Remember, CO2 hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries

 

Really? Got any peer reviewed studies to support that statement? The "residence time" in the atmosphere is usually estimated at something between 5-10 years.

 

 

@crofter: So you cherry pick two comments from over 200, well done you've now passed "cherry picking 101, an introductory course for deniers".

 

There are plenty more. (Anyway, what has happened to RC these days that they have begun allowing these pesky deniers to post comments at all?) The two that I copied here make a reasonable point don't you think?

 

 

 

Seriously though, one of the main reasons the CRU did not release all the data upon receipt of FOI requests is because they did not have the copyright on the data and so had no right to release it. The data was provided by other meteorological organisations around the world who retained the IP rights to the data and in many cases were prevented from releasing the data because of security concerns.

 

What about the "lost" data? What about the discussions suggesting the data being requested under the FOIA requests should be deleted?

 

Also, the first comment you quoted called for the scientific papers to be released as well as the data, I support this. I would love to be able to get free access to all of the science without having to pay subscription fees to the academic journals, but that's not possible as these journals require subscription to exist, just like any other publication.

 

I read this as a suggestion that when a paper is published, the data should be made available (to subscribers) as an appendix to the paper,

 

But none of this challenges the science.

 

[mainlander]

My own feeling is that, if climate change is indeed being driven by human behaviour (and I have yet to be convinced that it is), it will not be possible to stop it as people will not change their behaviour soon enough.

You say this as if the only alternative on offer was to go back to a pre-industrial agrarian society. It's not.

 

No, I really don't. I say it in the belief that the majority of people are not interested in making the changes you mention, meaning that it would not happen quickly enough to have the effects you hope for.

 

I have made changes to my own circumstances in order to cope with the short term changes in climate (e.g. I used to live in a house on a reclaimed flood plain, now I live up a hill!) and I expect my descendants will have to make other changes to their lifestyles too if climate change becomes more dramatic (and there is no way of knowing yet how dramatic it might be, or how long it might take). And yes, in the long-term and if the worst-case scenarios are true, the descendants of my descendants(??) might not be able to survive. But all civilisations come to an end eventually, and it might just be our turn to die out.

 

And, if any climate change should prove to be a natural phenomenon rather than man-made, all those changes you mention will have had no effect at all, and humanity will be decades behind in any attempt to adapt - and have a lot less money to do it with!

 

I do agree that a shift towards nuclear power is necessary as (even without climate change) the supply of our energy has been allowed to become deplorably insecure. (I'm collecting wind-up lamps as we speak... Pessimist? Me?) But I have a lingering concern about wind power in that I have a horrible picture in my head of all these giant windfarms being built, and then the said possible climate change meaning that the wind stops blowing reliably in these areas!

[hoosn]

we are due an ice age of sorts in a while anyway in the big cycle of things, but meantime, the moronic "flaring off" the oil reserves by the filthy rich to get filthier n richer needs addressing as its foolish, pollution of the air and sea is very irresponsible even on a low level of it ruining ordinary folks enjoyment of thier surroundings never mind the harm its doing, and recycling is a thing i was brought up wi, as with organic green produce. Way things are goin its a financial crunch n unsustainability thats going to bring things round whether folk like it or not, more of my humble opinions

[north]

I am glad to see the real deniers are busy continuing to post the official line and all the graphs and other bumph they get delivered to them by e-mail every day.

 

It is pretty comical to watch, as they now attempt to defend the actions of their revered peers who spent their efforts manipulating data to match their political and personal viewpoints - and have now been caught in the act.

 

I can't wait for the next chapter to unfold.

 

Meantime, keep up the good work reposting all this stuff that you don't have the faintest idea about.

[PJ of Hildisvik]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6684281/BBC-weatherman-was-sent--climate-change-emails.html

 

Ahh, the Met Office!!!!

[crofter]

Oh and BTW, the warming we are experiencing now is already far in excess of that seen in the Medieval Warm Period.

 

According to the latest graphs, that is correct. However, going back to the IPCC report from 1990, the MWP is acknowledged, and is shown on the graph as being warmer than the present. Read the leaked emails to find out how they got rid of the MWP. (clue: politics, not science)

 

Also:

 

The middle ages were the time of high culture for the Vikings. In this period they expanded into present day Russia and settled Iceland, Greenland as well as parts of Canada and Newfoundland. In Greenland at this time cereal crops could be grown. With the end of the Medieval warm period came also the end of the Viking Bloodtime (heydey). The settlements in Greenland were abandoned and even in the homeland Norway, many of the more northern or higher altitude settlements were left. The history of the Vikings is also in good agreement with the reconstructed temperature record derived from Ice cores. Accordingly, it was at least a degree warmer in Greenland during the time of the Vikings than it is during the modern warming period.

 

If temperatures are really higher at the present time than they were in the MWP, why are the viking farms in Greenland still frozen?