Climate change (was: Long, boring post...)

[ducasi]

I think the term "climate change" is better than "global warming", and whatever the cause, we are experiencing it.

While there may be some benefits, there's some big, big downsides. Due to climate change, there appears to be risks of rising sea levels and changing ecology patterns.

The argument about CO2 seems confused... Is there more CO2 in the environment due to increased industry 60-70 years ago, or is purely due to increased solar activity?

If our dirty industries of the past had some effect on the atmosphere, we should make sure they are clean(er) now, and discourage developing countries from using cheap, but dirty industrial systems.

At the same time, reducing our use of fossil fuels can only be a good thing.

I think the answer to many of these problems could be in nuclear energy, but that is not without its own problems...

[ducasi]

... "soundbite science" (I just made that phrase up, but it sounds cool)

You and a thousand other people before you.

[Barry Shnikov]

I think the term "climate change" is better than "global warming", and whatever the cause, we are experiencing it.

Well, not sure about that. If the climate is warming up, then we should recognise that. Climate change suggests nothing; only a fool (in the 21st century) would believe that climate is in stasis.

[Gav]

FWIW, I agree with you whole-heartedly Barry.

It is long and boring.

[Barry Shnikov]

Been off chasing down links - including realclimate.org. Thanks to those who posted.

It looks like (as I suspected) the link between cosmic rays/particles and cloud formation is unproven - to say the least. It also looks as if the solar activity cycles don't correspond with global temperature cycles - at least, not over the last two decades.

It is suggested that the reason for global cooling, 1940 to 1980, was the anthropogenic (get yer teeth around that - nearly as good as iatrogenic) release of sulfate aerosols. (Hey! Why don't we produce more, if that is so good at stopping global warming!)

I'm not convinced, however, by realclimate's explanation for the 800 year lag (substantially more than I had remembered) between global temperature rises and CO2 increases in the paleoclimate (viz. a bloody long time ago). They want to assert that 'some other mechanism' prompted global warming which - 800 years later - produced higher CO2 levels which in turn accelerated the temperature rises; but that however eventually the global temperatures fell, and 800 years later so did the CO2 levels.

My questions are: 1) so what was this 'other thing' that started off the temperature rise, and how do we know it isn't what's causing our problem today? and 2) how come - with increasingly warm climate and ever-larger proportions of CO2 - we don't have an atmosphere like Venus? Something drastic must have happened to reduce temperatures in the teeth of all that CO2 accelerated warming...

Another issue: in the program it said that emissions of CO2 from volcanoes is greater than that produced by human activity. Real climate says humans produce 150 times more CO2 than all the volcanoes put together. That's a hell of discrepancy, which suggests to me that nobody really knows...

[Barry Shnikov]

FWIW, I agree with you whole-heartedly Barry.

It is long and boring.

Cheers!

[Stuart M]

Barry,

just a polite request: could you make your thread titles relate even vaguely to your topic? You've posted some excellent threads in the past, which have disappeared quite quickly (and some drivel as well, of course, but then haven't we all). I suspect a contributory factor has been that the thread title has been "Ooo, blob (followed by the inevitable ellipsis...)" when the subject has been, say, 16th century suffrage movements.

Some examples:
In the name of the....?
Probably...
...and a thread I particularly liked:
more time wasting... which was about guitar licks. May I suggest "Guitar licks" would have been fine as a thread title.

Rant over.

[ducasi]

Well, not sure about that. If the climate is warming up, then we should recognise that. Climate change suggests nothing; only a fool (in the 21st century) would believe that climate is in stasis.

I prefer "climate change" as it stops people saying things like "how can we have global warming when we are having such a cold winter?"

Climate change/Global warming could be responsible for changes in the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic Drift, which could make the UK colder than it was in the recent past.

Further reading.

[LMC]

It looks like (as I suspected) the link between cosmic rays/particles and cloud formation is unproven - to say the least. It also looks as if the solar activity cycles don't correspond with global temperature cycles - at least, not over the last two decades.

@cosmic rays. Sorry

There are a lot of factors: sun's output, vulcanism, Earth's radiation (molten core, etc), albedo (areas of Earth covered by snow and ice reflect more cosmic rays back to space), proportions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (still less than 1% IIRC), biomass (rainforests mainly), aerosols (any type of atmospheric particle, usually dust).

Vulcanism can have a warming (gases) and cooling (aerosols tend to be reflective) effect. After Krakatoa blew up in the late 19th century, GMTs dropped significantly owing to the quantity of aerosols in the atmospheres. Effects of a big eruption on GMT are reckoned to be short-term (10-15 years)

My questions are: 1) so what was this 'other thing' that started off the temperature rise, and how do we know it isn't what's causing our problem today?

Dunno

and 2) how come - with increasingly warm climate and ever-larger proportions of CO2 - we don't have an atmosphere like Venus? Something drastic must have happened to reduce temperatures in the teeth of all that CO2 accelerated warming...

We're further away from the Sun than Venus. And Earth's atmosphere is largely inert in terms of greenhouse effect (the two largest components, N2 & O2, are not greenhouse gases)- whereas Venus' atmosphere contains well in excess of 90% greenhouse gases (mainly methane I think).

Biomass effect (takeup of CO2 by plants) is insignificant compared with those two factors, but way back in primordial soup days when greenhouse gas levels were higher (extreme vulcanism), the evolution of photosynthetic life may well have been the deciding factor that tipped the balance between Earth's atmosphere 'stabilising' or developing a runaway greenhouse effect. Unfortunately, algae are not good at keeping detailed records. On this planet anyway.

[David Bailey]

But the real statement is 'we should place a higher premium on non-pollution than on other things - better quality of life and better life expectancy for third world peoples, for example'.

No, the statement is "industrialisation has a cost - and global warming is part of that cost". The cost may be unavoidable, it may not - but "clean industrialisation" must be a good thing in anyone's book, so pumping funds into that sort of development won't be wasted.

In his book, Lomborg costed the implementation of the then-current CGW recommendations at something like 12 trillion dollars over the next X years (10? or 20?) and then made comparisons with the costs of coping with the effects, which was orders of magnitude lower.

Hmmm, I'm not convinced that any future cost / benefit projections are accurate. Lomborg's not an economist, and no-one can factor in technological changes.

Factoring the strong possibility that CGW is mistaken, meaning that anything spent on reducing global warming would be more or less wasted.

You could say that about any insurance premium. The devil is in the details - how much risk, compared with how much money?

Whilst the "Climate change / global warming" lobby is a lobby, so is the "No human impact" lobby. Lomborg's not a saint - and there's always money in generating controversy.

As for "soundbite science":

You and a thousand other people before you.

Huh, next thing you'll be telling me that this Cool Move I made up isn't original

[David Bailey]

Barry,

just a polite request: could you make your thread titles relate even vaguely to your topic?

I'd agree with this - in fact, I've renamed this thread.

Clarity in thread title is essential to keep debates alive.

[StokeBloke]

I didn't see the program, but I think it has served its purpose really nicely. In as much as it has given the 'Jeremy Clarkson Brigade' a viable platform to start to challenge these so-called green statements without looking like callous, selfish, planet polluters. Rather than saying "I don't care", they can now openly start to say "where's the proof to back up your guesses" or "that's simply untrue because...".

Anything that generates proper debate about a subject the effects us all has to be applauded in my view.

[Barry Shnikov]

Barry,

just a polite request: could you make your thread titles relate even vaguely to your topic? You've posted some excellent threads in the past, which have disappeared quite quickly (and some drivel as well, of course, but then haven't we all). I suspect a contributory factor has been that the thread title has been "Ooo, blob (followed by the inevitable ellipsis...)" when the subject has been, say, 16th century suffrage movements.

Some examples:
In the name of the....?
Probably...
...and a thread I particularly liked:
more time wasting... which was about guitar licks. May I suggest "Guitar licks" would have been fine as a thread title.

Rant over.

A reasonable request at a reasonable time. I shall try to do better in future.

[Stuart M]

I'd agree with this - in fact, I've renamed this thread.

Clarity in thread title is essential to keep debates alive.

A reasonable request at a reasonable time. I shall try to do better in future.

B****r - if my rants are coming over like sensible suggestions, what does that make my sensible suggestions?

On topic, George Monbiot's deconstructed this documentary online. I haven't seen the doc so I can't comment on it, but as clevedonboy has pointed out, the director Martin Durkin has form in the "let's stir it" stakes. His bias always seems to be conveniently corporatist, I note.

[Astro]

the director Martin Durkin has form in the "let's stir it" stakes. His bias always seems to be conveniently corporatist, I note.

Would have to be, only monetary interests would get the programme made in the face of such disasterous reality.

Due to climate change, there appears to be risks of rising sea levels and changing ecology patterns.

I think the answer to many of these problems could be in nuclear energy, but that is not without its own problems...

The ice caps are melting. This is big news. Living anywhere near water will be much more at risk from flooding.
Nuclear energy is the worst

[David Bailey]

Would have to be, only monetary interests would get the programme made in the face of such disasterous reality.

Yeah, I agree - it smells a bit like those nicotine-doesn't-cause-cancer "independent studies" funded by the cigarette companies.

The ice caps are melting. This is big news. Living anywhere near water will be much more at risk from flooding.

Yep, that's inarguable.

What is arguable (to a point) is how much warming will happen in the future, what's causing it, what can be done about it, and what consequences / problems such remedial action will have.

Nuclear energy is the worst

James Lovelock disagrees with you. Ignoring the security-of-supply arguments, nuclear power is arguably the lesser of two evils. But that's a little off-topic.

[Astro]

James Lovelock disagrees with you. Ignoring the security-of-supply arguments, nuclear power is arguably the lesser of two evils. But that's a little off-topic.

Greenpeace is against nuclear energy.
The Irish Sea (the one at Southport) is supposed to be radioactive from Sellafield.
There is a nuclear power station at Dungeness too (near Camber), but I think their waste goes to Sellafield - possibly on the Norf Lundin Line

[LMC]

The ice caps are melting. This is big news. Living anywhere near water will be much more at risk from flooding.

Actually, melting ice caps will not add that much to sea levels overall. However, the thermal expansion of the oceans will.

[David Bailey]

Greenpeace is against nuclear energy.

Greenpeace isn't always right.

The Irish Sea (the one at Southport) is supposed to be radioactive from Sellafield.

The Earth is radioactive, and has been for billions of years.

And most of the radioactive discharge came from the British early nuclear weapons programme in the 1950s - it had very little to do with the generation of nuclear power.

There is a nuclear power station at Dungeness too (near Camber), but I think their waste goes to Sellafield - possibly on the Norf Lundin Line

That'd explain a lot about Finchley cerocers...

[tsh]

Having said that, there's no doubt that the temperature has zoomed up over the past 20 years. So the debate is not about the change itself - even the Bush administration now accepts it - but mainly about the causes of the change.

Well, to be honest, there is some doubt... Trying to compare todays temperatures with measurements made 20 years ago ought not to be too hard, but comparing against 100 years ago is difficult to do with any degree of precision. Equipment is replaced, or moved. The local environment changes, the process for taking measurements changes, etc. Comparing some of the historical trends against the figures published even 10 years ago shows that the historical record has been re-interpreted. Only by maybe 0.5 degrees, but that's a fairly significant proportion of the effect we're supposed to have observed.

Still, it's all good for raising taxes, and that's the main thing...

Sean