Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

NO, but it makes a lot of money for the government to squander, same as climate change taxes
So we go back to diagnosis/prognosis/treatment.

and cigarette taxes pay for the NHS resources they use up.
 

anglo

LE
So we go back to diagnosis/prognosis/treatment.

and cigarette taxes pay for the NHS resources they use up.
"So we go back to diagnosis/prognosis/treatment."

We are talking about climate change and the government, not the NHS
same rules don't apply
 
Can't you see we have done, nothing, just snipping at the edges
Just about sums up the utter pointlessness of us doing anything, because any new expensive and onerous measures we take will do nothing, absolutely nothing, to curb the pollution in India and China.
Actually China is doing more to curb climate change than other nations.


They have the leading solar panel (PV)and wind turbine installation of any nation - they have to - considering the amount of people and the smog.

Very similar reasons as to why CA enacted the CARB and clean energy bills back in the day.
 
Snip

As you suggested, I read P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (link), and I'm curious - my reading of the paper is that as relevant expertise increases, so does the level of belief that humans have significantly affected global warming. I agree that a survey with a 31% response rate to two simple questions (paraphrased, 1. Have the oceans risen since 1800, and 2. Has human activity been a significant contributing factor) isn't perfect, but it's not bad. Why would you characterise it otherwise?

"In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2% (76 of 79) answered “risen” to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.
First off, thanks for taking the time to go deeper and read the literature. It may seem condescending for me to say so, but I do appreciate it. I know it was provocative to claim that anyone quoting the 97% figure doesn't have the first clue, but it's designed to be. I see so many people quote that statistic yet have no idea where it comes from and even fewer who'll do the donkey work in reading the relevant paper.

You can see verily readily why, when the likes of Barack Obama stand up and make a speech using this 97% figure, that it rankles because it's untrue. He's not the only one who has done it. The problem is it gets spread throughout the world through the media who have as much clue as to where it came from as Barack.

I've snipped the bit about loons quoting Pete Doran, because it's not relevant. It's the statistical methodology which is important.

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that sea levels have risen since 1800. The problem is that if you look at historical sea level data, then it's plain to see that sea level was rising on average pre-1800. What's more, we know that global temperatures were low during the 19th century and much before, so much so, that the 'Little Ice Age' phrase has been coined to describe it. Some argue that this cold period was localised, but there is evidence it wasn't.

Natural warming is going to increase the volume of the oceans and thus lead to an increase in sea level.

The first question might as well be: do you agree 2x2=4. It's a non-question.

Warming since the LIA is a fact and so is the sea level rise. No one can argue with that. The problem is two fold:

1. Setting a baseline during a natural cold period.
2. Ascertaining the amount of increase in sea level from that period due to mankind's activity, specifically with regard to increasing CO2 emissions and whether that's significant or not.

You can well see that the first question posited to the climate scientists whether they responded or not is a given. No one can argue against it.

The second is more difficult to quantify, because there's never been to my knowledge a solid figure of just how much warming is caused by man and the affect on sea levels. The IPCC (the last time I looked) estimates 50% warming due to man.


I agree that there's a lot of hysterical reporting; and that there are a lot of loonies out there turning serious and credible "AGW is happening" science into "look at the worst-case figures! Eleventy! Doomed! Waterworld!".

But just because most journalists are crap at reporting science, or probability; and news editors want to put up clickbait; it doesn't mean that AGW isn't a reality. No, we aren't all going to drown in the next two decades, and yes the worst-case scenarios are exactly that - but they don't invalidate the science.

I agree with you that there's too much nonsense reported, but it's not you or I whom are given prime spot at the UN to rant about our lost childhoods. ;)

The significance ties into the last question asked in the survey, my problem 2 and your graphic above. You know as well as I do that significance is a statistical calculation. We see high numbers on the graphic and we see high numbers to question 2 of the survey saying that the role of human beings in global warming is significant, but those are opinions so we have to separate the two.

What is the significance with respect to the data and what do those asked with regard to their opinion mean when they say it's significant?

We know sea level is rising as is temperature (from the satellite record of the last 40 years) and we can measure those and calculate confidence limits etc, but how much is due to humans?

Is a 10% human contribution considered significant? 50%? A scientist who thinks 10% is significant will answer in the affirmative whilst another who thinks it isn't won't, even thought they attribute the same significance.

I'd answer yes as to whether sea level has risen since 1800. I'd answer whether humans have contributed to such with, 'possibly (due to my knowledge of the physics), but there's not enough data to make a judgement'.

The problem is no one in the media questions or challenges where the 97% figure comes from. In fairness they aren't trained to nor have the incentive to do so, but if you do take the time to look at it you can see that there's an enormous gap between what is reported and what is real.
 
Actually China is doing more to curb climate change than other nations.


They have the leading solar panel (PV)and wind turbine installation of any nation - they have to - considering the amount of people and the smog.

Very similar reasons as to why CA enacted the CARB and clean energy bills back in the day.
China’s power industry calls for hundreds of new coal power plants by 2030 Yep - Great job.


Which has led to the most expensive power/gas in the country, an exodus of business and industry from the state all for the GHG emissions that made up less than 1% of the worlds emissions.


 
Nice strawman for you to blow down.

I actually said "I acknowledge that I'm not a subject matter expert". I do know something about the subject, I'm just not arrogant enough to believe that a basic level of understanding is enough for me to declare that the majority of scientists specialising in researching a particular area, are liars. I find it fascinating that you believe that you do know enough to call them liars.

As I asked, why are you so convinced they're lying? Is it Dunning-Kruger, is it politics, or is it religion?
It is small groups learning they don't have to actually be goverment to utilize the lesson plans given by Orwell.

Or you agree that 32% of a cherry picked sample of .0003% really is a 97% majority.
 
That may as well be. But I have not made reference to that figure, or any page.

As an organisation, NASA have stated human emissions are impacting on the Holocene climate.

As I understand it, you are claiming that human emissions are impacting on the Holocene climate is untrue and NASA’s organisational position is incorrect and they actively involved in a global conspiracy to perpetuate this and in order to do this, they are actively publishing falsified data.
No, as an organization NASA has reported the claims of others as truth, when there isn't any.
 
No, as an organization NASA has reported the claims of others as truth, when there isn't any.
And NOAA, the ESA, Met Office et al?

You seem to imply NASA hasn’t read, understood or checked any of the papers on climate change and is instead just hoping the papers are correct and have based their organisational position on them being so.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
Don't be too sure.

As a "for instance", the Institution of Electrical Engineers (the IEE, and now part of the IET) was warning that successive governments were so scared of offending the NIMBYs that not enough was being done to guarantee continuity of supply - no politician was willing to commit to base load generation, and they were all kicking the can down the road (in much the same wway as the Army did with Challenger 2 obsolescence). The IEE journals would fairly regularly try to analyse what the likely outcome would be; brownouts across the country, a crash build program to replace coal-fired stations with gas-fired, declarations that Kyoto targets wouldn't be met, etc, etc.

However; one aspect of the "no, you can't buy a 100W incandescent bulb, the EU says no" or the "no, there's a 1.5kW upper limit on a vacuum cleaner, curse Brussels", or all those efficiency stickers on white goods, or heat ratings on houses; is that we've been scaling back the load in houses - we used to have over 600W of halogens around our house, I've got that down to 30W of LEDs. It's not enough in global warming terms, but it's significant enough that we haven't hit the brownouts that the IEE/IET was concerned we would, at predicted growth rates.

Consider also that during a couple of days this summer, we actually hit the point where the UK was getting more energy from wind, sun, and wave power; than we were from coal and gas.

So when James Delingpole (or any other Breitbart rentagob with no qualifications or background in science or engineering) starts mouthing off about how "wind farms are horrible, they spoil the view from my cottage in the country / over my 50,000 acre shooting estate", take them with a pinch of salt.
Firstly the “dim energy efficient bulbs” cause eyesight problems and secondly renewables account for under 13% of daily uk energy production so unless 87% was switched off for those few days you are fibbing! Figures from ceequal briefing on Tuesday this week!
Eyesight problems?
Yup I didn’t need reading glasses until after that one eyed twat outlawed proper lights ergo it’s empirical evidence
 
Now you're getting it. Doesn't stop them kicking up a fuss about cancer to help justify that tax though.
now you’re getting it.

there is a difference between cause, diagnosis, prognosis and treatment.
 
Firstly the “dim energy efficient bulbs” cause eyesight problems
Agreed that the CFL tubes are a bit rubbish, I've slowly replaced all of ours (ooooh, not very green, but at least I can see). Fortunately, the new LED bulbs are developed by the microelectronic industry, not the electrical industry - so the design cycles are a lot shorter. Newer high-light-output LEDs are now available at a much lower price even than two or three years ago; I can get a 6W white-labelled LED from B&Q for half the price that Phillips were flogging a 2W LED five years ago...

and secondly renewables account for under 13% of daily uk energy production
Yup, there are caveats. Renewables outperformed fossil fuels only - not fossil fuels and nuclear together. If you want a (very) rare day like that, you pick one where there are short nights, long and very sunny day, a decent breeze, and not much need for hot drinks.

Having said that, Scotland used to get an awful lot of its electricity from hydroelectric power and nuclear; very green, even in the 80s (we used to export a lot of electricity to England)
 
There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that sea levels have risen since 1800. The problem is that if you look at historical sea level data, then it's plain to see that sea level was rising on average pre-1800. What's more, we know that global temperatures were low during the 19th century and much before, so much so, that the 'Little Ice Age' phrase has been coined to describe it. Some argue that this cold period was localised, but there is evidence it wasn't.
I've attached this graph before to address the "yes, but global temperatures are cyclic" and "yes, but it's only a degree, what's the big deal" issues, because I think it shows the impact of small changes in global average rather well...

 
Firstly the “dim energy efficient bulbs” cause eyesight problems and secondly renewables account for under 13% of daily uk energy production so unless 87% was switched off for those few days you are fibbing! Figures from ceequal briefing on Tuesday this week!
 

anglo

LE
Actually China is doing more to curb climate change than other nations.


They have the leading solar panel (PV)and wind turbine installation of any nation - they have to - considering the amount of people and the smog.

Very similar reasons as to why CA enacted the CARB and clean energy bills back in the day.
Google "china building more power stations" and educate yourself
 
Google "china building more power stations" and educate yourself
Trying to sustain their power grid? - it is after all a fast expanding economy trying to keep up with energy needs. Mind you they have the fastest rate of renewables of any country as well.
 

Latest Threads

Top