Climate change another name for Weather

[Garpal Gumnut]

I'm not very learned or as scientifically constipated as many on this thread.

The argument is basically between a rational approach and empiricism.

The empirical evidence is all over the place for global warming, weather whatever you want to call it.

My reason tells me that the world will change over the next 100000 years, but not over the next 15-40.

I saw Flannery and that joker who performs with HG Nelson, on the Murray River programme last night on TV.

They found fossils from millions of years ago 50 feet above the level of the river.

Think about it. 50 feet ABOVE the river level.

My reason tells me that in 1000000 years some joker will pick one of my incisors out of a rock near here.

Graphs, statistics , all bunkum, all scientifically falsifiable.

Rationalism and Empiricism., thats what it comes down to.

gg

 

[spooly74]

Correlation? Maybe?

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

 

[basilio]

Basilo did you read the latest report from U.S. Climate Change Science Program ? Available from http://climatescience.gov

Quote:
Considerable effort is now underway to improve the models, but it is far from complete, leaving us unable to make reliable predictions of ice-sheet responses to a warming climate if such glacier accelerations were to increase in size and frequency. It should be noted that there is also a large uncertainty in current model predictions of the atmosphere and ocean temperature changes which drive the ice-sheet changes, and this uncertainty could be as large as that on the marginal flow response.
CCSP vs The Independant?

Thanks for the tip off Spooly. I did check out the website and the report. Did you have an opportunity to read the information in its entirety ? I suspect that the section you have quoted has been very selectively picked up and flogged around the world as another example of the "uncertainty" surrounding rapid climate change.

I have posted the US Climate Change science press Release. It simply echos the conclusions reached in the other story I cited from The Independent. Please note that the reporter was quoting the scientific research on the topic. The statements about the Arctic region warming quicker than ever is their conclusion.

Abrupt Climate Change: Will It Happen this Century?
The United States faces the potential for abrupt climate change in the 21st century that could pose clear risks to society in terms of our ability to adapt.
“Abrupt” changes can occur over decades or less, persist for decades more, and cause substantial disruptions to human and natural systems.
A new report, based on an assessment of published science literature, makes the following conclusions about the potential for abrupt climate changes from global warming during this century.
•
Climate model simulations and observations suggest that rapid and sustained September arctic sea ice loss is likely in the 21st century.
•
The southwestern United States may be beginning an abrupt period of increased drought.
•
It is very likely that the northward flow of warm water in the upper layers of the Atlantic Ocean, which has an important impact on the global climate system, will decrease by approximately 25–30 percent. However, it is very unlikely that this circulation will collapse or that the weakening will occur abruptly during the 21st century and beyond.
•
An abrupt change in sea level is possible, but predictions are highly uncertain due to shortcomings in existing climate models.
•
There is unlikely to be an abrupt release of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, to the atmosphere from deposits in the earth. However, it is very likely that the pace of methane emissions will increase.
The U.S. Geological Survey led the new assessment, which was authored by a team of climate scientists from the federal government and academia. The report was commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program with contributions from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Science Foundation.
“This report was truly a collaborative effort between world renowned scientists who provided objective, unbiased information that is necessary to develop effective adaptation and mitigation strategies that protect our livelihood,” said USGS Director Mark Myers. “It summarizes the scientific community’s growing understanding regarding the potential for abrupt climate changes and identifies areas for additional research to further improve climate models.”

Further research is needed to improve our understanding of the potential for abrupt changes in climate. For example, the report’s scientists found that processes such as interaction of warm ocean waters with the periphery of ice sheets and ice shelves have a greater impact than previously known on the destabilization of ice sheets that might accelerate sea-level rise.

(This is the conclusion reached by the scientists reported in The Independent)

To view the full report, titled Synthesis and Assessment Product 3.4: Abrupt Climate Change, and a summary brochure on abrupt climate change, visit http://www.climatescience.gov/default.php.

http://climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-4/final-report/sap3-4-press-release.pdf

_______________________________________

Climate Change and Peak Oil - The right solutions, right now.

 

[spooly74]

Thanks for the tip off Spooly. I did check out the website and the report. Did you have an opportunity to read the information in its entirety ? I suspect that the section you have quoted has been very selectively picked up and flogged around the world as another example of the "uncertainty" surrounding rapid climate change.

No, the link to the independant did not work ..... and don't suspect anything, read it all. It's about modelling uncertainty with regard to Ice Sheets and their Effects on Sea Level only.

"Selectively picked and flogged around the world"... LOL, the irony!
_______________________________________

Climate Change and Peak Oil - The right solutions, right now.[/QUOTE]

 

[2020hindsight]

.. And for some perspective again from the head of the IPCC.

"What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with." :bs:

… and don't suspect anything, read it all. It's about modelling uncertainty with regard to Ice Sheets and their Effects on Sea Level only.

"Selectively picked and flogged around the world"... LOL, the irony!

btw spooly, that quote which you've now quoted twice - it could be that you are quoting seriously out of context yes?-

have you posted a link to the full speech ? If you have I've missed it ... I think (might be wrong) that the closest would be my link to that article as follows (and btw, if you read it all , it's bludy terrifying) :-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...enhagen-global-warming-targets-climate-change

Almost certainly he is saying that he doesn't need any more encouragement from Jim Hansen that things are serious, - and let's face it , he doesn't need to paint it any more serious, - so he doesn't take on that paper.

THAT's what he is saying (surely?) - he is not (on first read of the extract in that article) - as you try to twist his words - ignoring any evidence against the theory that it's getting hotter etc. (it is evidence FOR warming - AND some - that he says "will not influence their projections")


PS Have you ever read the IPCC report on levels of certainty? confidence etc? They're scientists m8 - they aren't ostriches . sheesh. Trouble is they don’t have infinite funds to keep defending scurrilous and vexations counters from vested interests.

 

[Panacea]

Out with it, Smurf.

 

[wayneL]

PS Have you ever read the IPCC report on levels of certainty? confidence etc? They're scientists m8

No they're not. They're lobbyists and vested interests with a science degree, big difference. In fairness, these people exist on both sides.

Real scientists use a real scientific process and don't purport statistical confidences from inadequate data sets. The real scientists are marginalized because they come up with inconvenient truths.

 

[Smurf1976]

The level of public misinformation on this whole issue is incredible. I'd guess that no more than 5% of people here (or anywhere else) could explain why replacing the bulbs at home with energy savers actually leads to a slight increase in emissions, not a decrease. Same as they couldn't explain why switching from electric hot water to solar will have zero net impact on emissions either way (assuming coal is used to generate the power).

Anyone game to have a go at answering that question? It's a simple answer that doesn't relate to power station efficiency or anything technical like that. Just about everyone has actually heard the answer already via the media and it's been widely discussed on this forum. It's just that the politics and commercial interests have effectively covered it up in order to profit - and that's my point.

Any takers?

My aim here is solely to illustrate the extent of mass misinformation on this subject.

The answer?

Australia has announced a 5% cut to emissions.

That's it. That's the answer. Here's the explanation:

Each year government will make available the required number of permits (or whatever they end up calling them) to allow the legislated amount of CO2 to be emitted. Those wishing to emit CO2 (eg power stations) need to surrender the required volume of permits in order to do so - no permits = no CO2 emitted.

What happens if we go over the limit? In short, we can't. The market price of the permits soars in order to prevent that happening. There's no more supply at any price therefore demand (ie CO2 emissions) can't exceed the legislated cap (unless the law is changed).

What happens if we go under the limit? In short, that's very unlikely to occur. The market price of the permits would collapse completely if emissions fell short of the target since supply of the permits is at a fixed rate determined by government. Lack of buyers, same supply = price crash. Now, in that scenario industry is just going to buy permits and not bother cutting emissions, thus putting us back on the CO2 growth path until emissions once again equal the availability of permits.

The end result of this scheme is that, unless we end up with an outright economic collapse, war or some similar scale event that pushes emissions right down then we already know exactly what our CO2 emissions in 2020 will be. The law tells us that, all we've got to do is look at the number.

So what happens if I cut my energy use at home in half? In short, through the market mechanism, someone else ends up emitting that CO2 instead. There's a fixed volume of permits and it's virtually guaranteed they'll ALL be used.

So by switching to solar (for example) I'm not really cutting emissions - we've already determined what the emissions total will be. All I'm doing is providing a means of meeting that target. National CO2 emissions will be exactly the same if I disconnect the power or alternatively leave everything running 24/7. All that changes is my share of market demand for CO2 permits - I use more, someone else must therefore use less and vice versa.

Same applies if we build a new coal-fired power plant or alternatively build a new wind farm. We'll need to use things like wind to meet demand for electricity with less CO2 that's for sure, but simply building the coal plant will not of itself increase national CO2 emissions - those emissions are capped at a set level. All it will do is mean that new plant emits x amount of CO2 and something else emits less - the total remains unchanged.

For pretty obvious reasons, those who would like to see a low price for CO2 permits (eg industry) will be very keen to find consumers willingly cutting their emissions and bearing much of the cost. Someone's going to pay and from industry's perspective it's just fine if someone else can either (1) do it cheaply or (2) makes uneconomic decisions that reduce CO2 because they're not aware of how this all works. Even better if you're the one selling the solar panels etc.

And the CFL's? That's a bit more complex but in short:

1. Me using less energy at home merely results in someone else in Australia completely offseting that saving in CO2.

2. The CFL's are generally accepted as more energy intensive to manufacture than incandescent lamps.

3. Since they are largely manufactured in China, a country not bound by Australia's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme or even the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions from manufacturing are not subject to any form of emissions cap.

4. A + B = C. No change in Australian emissions since they're at a fixed level by legislation. Some increase in overseas emissions due to manufacturing. Total emissions therefore go up.

In and of themselves CFL's do have a lot of advantages and they do save energy. Same with solar HWS, catching buses and lots of other things. Since both manufacturing and consumption occur in Australia (generally) for the solar HWS, it's overall impact is effectively zero - it's a means of meeting a national target but it doesn't change the end result in terms of total emissions.

But when you have a fixed national volume of CO2 emissions, no individual or even a large corporation can in practice opt out. I can't opt out and neither can the likes of BHP. To the extent that one individual or business pollutes less, somoene else will pollute more as a direct result. That's the very basis of how this and all "cap and trade" schemes work.

Now, all this is very open public knowledge. But I'd doubt if more than 0.1% of the population realises that this is what is being done. You may well be encouraged to go solar etc, but all you are doing is providing, at your expense, the means of compliance with legislation. You aren't saving one gram of CO2 - the total level is set by legislation - but you're helping drive down the cost of CO2 permits for those who need to buy them.

Bottom line is there's nothing any of us can do now. Government has taken the decision out of our hands and decided what the total level of emissions will be. We can't act to cut further no matter how concerned we might be as individuals. Nor can we opt out and pollute.

The only thing we can rationally do is:

(1) lobby for change if we want a different set level of emissions

(2) take whatever action is in our personal best interests (generally a purely financial consideration) in relation to all of this. Use solar and fill the house with CFL's for sure if that's benefiting you financially or in some other way. But just remember that every gram of CO2 you save will simply enable someone else to pollute more - and they almost certainly will.

Me? If I needed to buy a new hot water system then I'd go for a heat pump in my present house. And I do have some energy saving lamps. 10 years ago I would have done it for the energy savings, environmental benefits and to support innovative technologies. The only reason to do it now is if it saves money (which it does, but that's largely due to subsidies in the case of the heat pump - I'm saving money but society as a whole isn't).

 

[Julia]

Smurf, how depressing. How pointless it all is.
You've just confirmed what I'd been thinking would happen.

How is it possible that no one stands up and yells about the stupidity and hypocrisy of all this?

I was listening to a radio talkback programme last night on climate change (I'm getting to really hate the expression). There was a guest who was a rabid devotee of what he described as the unquestionable science plus the presenter who displayed an equal level of enthusiasm.

Any listener who called in with objections or scepticism was quickly deluged with scorn and derision.

And so it goes.

 

[spooly74]

Fantastic post Smurf

 

[Smurf1976]

A simpler way to look at all of this.

Say that last year you had a party and 200 cans of beer were drunk. It would have been a lot more than that, but you only bought 200 cans.

This year you are having another party and inviting all the same guests plus 25% more people. But you will only buy 190 cans of beer.

It's highly likely that you're going to run out of beer at the party.

What happens if someone drinks more than they really should? It means others drink less - you've only got 190 cans.

What happens if you and a few others decide to remain completely sober the whole night? It just means others drink more than they otherwise would - you don't have enough beer at the party and it's near certain that the whole lot is going to be consumed.

So there's nothing you can do to avoid running out of beer. Your guests are almost certain to drink the whole lot.

It's the same with CO2 now. We've decided on 190 cans and that's what's going to happen. Nothing even a large corporation does will alter the final outcome.

 

[2020hindsight]

It's the same with CO2 now. We've decided on 190 cans and that's what's going to happen. Nothing even a large corporation does will alter the final outcome.

yeah but ... there's less waste (if you step down to lesser wattage lamps for instance - your example you'll recall) and hence more productive use of that "can".

i.e. it goes to a thirstier man

 

[2020hindsight]

Gentlefolk, have a close look at the graph posted by 2020Hindsight titled "Global Annual Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly"

Note that in the period 1910 to 1940 the temperature rose by half a degree, the same as in the period 1970 to 2000. But from 1910 to 1940 greenhouse gas emissions by humans was a small fraction of that in the second period. A reasonable interpretation of the graph is that up to 1970 all variations were "natural", ie due to changes in sunlight or other non-human causes. After 1970, humans probably caused some of the increase.

LCL , Here are the various contributions to the temp at those years...

Btw, the shape of that graph has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads - all triggered by the Great Global Warming Swindle. I've given a bit of a summary - or at least the links - on the "Poll on Action" thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Here's a good wiki article on the controversy surrounding that show :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

However, though the model captures the gross features of twentieth century climate change, it remains likely that some of the differences between model and observation still reflect the limitations of the model and/or our understanding of the histories of the observed forcing factors.

In the lower portion of the figure are the results of additional simulations in which the model was operated with only one forcing factor used at a time. A key conclusion of the Meehl et al. (2004) work is that the model response to all factors combined is to a good approximation equal to the sum of the responses to each factor taken individually

[However] ....
Note that "Net" reflects the model runs with all factors included and is not identical to simply summing the individual factors.

 

[Panacea]

Thanks Smurf, your post clarified the issue very well.

One question though. If I buy an Australian product, I know that the emissions produced in it's manufacture fit under our cap. Products manufactured overseas presumably don't fit under our cap. Do I not therefore have an incentive to buy Australian products given that anything manufactured in Australia cannot increase emissions, while overseas produced goods can?

 

[Smurf1976]

yeah but ... there's less waste (if you step down to lesser wattage lamps for instance - your example you'll recall) and hence more productive use of that "can".

i.e. it goes to a thirstier man

Indeed it does. But if it's the social drinker staying totally sober so that the loud mouth alcoholic can guzzle massive amounts then I see a problem there. In practice, that's exactly what seems to be happening so far.

 

[2020hindsight]

Two obvious points from these charts:

1. There is a warming trend.

2. Warming over the period 1910 - 1940 and 1978 - 2008 occurred at about the same rate of 0.5 to 0.6 over a 30 year period ...

c. Not shown on the chart is that CO2 emissions during the period 1978 - 2008 were far higher than during the period 1910 - 1940 and yet the extent of warming was almost identical. That very strongly suggests that there are factors other than CO2 at work here.

...
d. I note an approximately 30 year cycle seems to exist at least during the 20th Century. It could be argued that the 1940's - 1970's period should have cooled more than it did but CO2 emissions worked to keep temperatures higher.

e. But if that is the case, then you would logically expect the rate of warming since the late 1970's to have exceeded that during the 1910 - 1940 period which it clearly hasn't.

Incidentally Smurf,
when you say “rate of warming since (late) 1970s clearly hasn’t exceeded that during 1941 – 1940", the approx numbers (referring to that table in post #493) would appear to be :-

total 0.26degC between 1900 and 1940; and then a further 0.26 to 1994 (= 0.52 total)

but the CO2 contribution in each case is approx
0.10 degC; and then a further 0.59 resp due CO2 (GHG); (= 0.69 total)
and
0.18 degC; and then a further 0.03 due to solar forcing. (= 0.21 total)

Summary, the CO2 (GHG) contribution is the big contribution to the recent warming.

 

[derty]

I'm not very learned or as scientifically constipated as many on this thread...

They found fossils from millions of years ago 50 feet above the level of the river.

Think about it. 50 feet ABOVE the river level.

My reason tells me that in 1000000 years some joker will pick one of my incisors out of a rock near here.

A little assistance with your scientific learning GG.

Just as the climate is not static, neither are rocks. Tectonic forces over time can buckle and uplift deposited sediments. Dependant on how strong and long lasting the tectonic event is, sediments and their hosted fossils can be lifted kilometres above their original level of deposition. The rocks at the summit of Mt Everest are sediments and contain fossils of extinct animals from the ancient Tethys Sea.

So as the fossils on Mt Everest do not indicate that the Earth's sea level was 8 kilometres higher than present levels in the Ordovician times (~450 million years old), finding fossils 50 feet above a current river level is not necessarily an indicator of fossil sea levels. I have drilled limestones that contain shells, corals and even whale teeth (30-55 million years old - so are younger than the dinosaurs) under the salt lakes in WA. These fossils are situated 250-300m above current sea level. Tectonically WA has been a very quiet place over the last few hundred million years. In comparison the eastern part of Australia has been extremely active. So finding fossils 50 feet above the level of the Murray is not particularly surprising. You will find that there are fossils at much higher levels over there.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

A little assistance with your scientific learning GG.

Just as the climate is not static, neither are rocks. Tectonic forces over time can buckle and uplift deposited sediments. Dependant on how strong and long lasting the tectonic event is, sediments and their hosted fossils can be lifted kilometres above their original level of deposition. The rocks at the summit of Mt Everest are sediments and contain fossils of extinct animals from the ancient Tethys Sea.

So as the fossils on Mt Everest do not indicate that the Earth's sea level was 8 kilometres higher than present levels in the Ordovician times (~450 million years old), finding fossils 50 feet above a current river level is not necessarily an indicator of fossil sea levels. I have drilled limestones that contain shells, corals and even whale teeth (30-55 million years old - so are younger than the dinosaurs) under the salt lakes in WA. These fossils are situated 250-300m above current sea level. Tectonically WA has been a very quiet place over the last few hundred million years. In comparison the eastern part of Australia has been extremely active. So finding fossils 50 feet above the level of the Murray is not particularly surprising. You will find that there are fossils at much higher levels over there.

Thanks derty,

It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.

I'm not.

Its a chaotic system our universe.

gg

 

[wayneL]

Thanks derty,

It makes me wonder though that with so many variable changes, weather, tectonics etc, how the warmeners with their graphs and predictions can be so sure about the future.

gg

Because it's a religion, as per the article I posted earlier in this thread.

And like any religion, their behaviour does not reflect their doctrine. (eg Al Bore)

 

[Wysiwyg]

My reason tells me that in 1000000 years some joker will pick one of my incisors out of a rock near here.

Etch your initials on it.Might be worth a bit.