|
Post by principled on Sept 30, 2010 16:23:53 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Sept 30, 2010 16:42:37 GMT 1
How many others will now feel liberated to admit that there is much less certainty about the Anthropogenic aspect of climate change than we were led to believe up to less than a year ago? "The new guidance still makes it clear that human activity is one of the likely causes for climate change" Download the report here: royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/"The size of future temperature increases and other aspects of climate change, especially at the regional scale, are still subject to uncertainty. Nevertheless, the risks associated with some of these changes are substantial. It is important that decision makers have access to climate science of the highest quality, and can take account of its findings in formulating appropriate responses." So the guide contains absolutely no reason to be less certain about "the anthropogenic aspect of climate change", and it offers no comfort for anyone who wants to think we do not need to do anything.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Sept 30, 2010 18:20:52 GMT 1
Couldn't agree more about the need to do something. The problem is that previous reports so overdid the catastrophe cause that governments ran around like headless chickens "doing something", without taking stock and doing the "right" something. We all know that wind energy, pv panels, electric cars are an expensive waste of time (BTW: not saying we shouldn't carry out research on them) as they will do little to mitigate the rise in anthropogenic CO2. I'm not going to rehearse all of the "why" arguments on this thread, but anyone with a little nous knows why. So, I lay at the feet of the scientists who preached "gloom, doom , and catastrophe in 50 years" the responsibility for lamentable state of our "lower CO2" energy policy, as I lay at the feet of the anti-nuclear "green movement" the responsibility for fact that our CO2 could have been 40% less per capita than it is currently had the politicians not listened to them.
So, let's be level headed. Let's improve the climate science, the analysis, think more then decide. Seems an eminently sensible policy to me. P
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 30, 2010 21:42:18 GMT 1
Here here! Unfortunately I'm a bit more cynical than you - I think the whole catastrophe deal was thought up to make us plebs use less energy before the oil ran out. Then every nitwit with an agenda piled on board...and here we are.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 1, 2010 10:59:23 GMT 1
The problem is that previous reports so overdid the catastrophe cause There is an interesting article www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Reports-Science-or-Spin.html that states: "There are numerous instances where the IPCC reports, which are summaries of published climate change science, have understated the case - hardly suggesting exaggeration in pursuit of an agenda. Here are some examples: •CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years). •Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends). •Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating." It seems to me that a lot of the blame for the 'catastrophysing' should be laid at the media. Scare stories written by humanities graduates with no understanding of the science given headlines whose purpose was to grab attenion - well they certainly achieved that. If there has been exageration in the way that the science has been presented to the people, blame the presenters (meeja studies graduates), not the scientists.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Oct 1, 2010 11:13:10 GMT 1
Enquirer "If there has been exaggeration in the way that the science has been presented to the people, blame the presenters (Mejia studies graduates), not the scientists."
Fair point. But, like the Royal Society, I suspect that many scientists went with the flow for fear of being marginalized. Science is littered with scientists who have been vilified and name-called, because their views were at odds with the supposed consensus at the time. I see little reason to believe that the AGW debate is any different. You have to be strong in conviction and character and willing to face the wroth of your fellows. In this aspect, scientists are no different from the general populace, some are willing up and be counted, others just go with the flow.
My point about the result of this, viz:a headless chicken energy policy stands. How much CO2 has been saved by the current UK renewable energy policy, that's the real measure I'm concerned about. (BTW, don't forget to include the "back-up" firm generation needed for renewables in your answer)?
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Oct 1, 2010 11:23:51 GMT 1
Another way in which the catastrophic cause is understated is the fact that almost all predictions only go as far as 2100AD. If you look at the graphs, these are still rising rapidly at the end of the century with no indication of the eventual outcome. They mostly do not make any predictions about 3000AD. The research that does look that far into the future says that the Greenland ice sheet could be almost completely melted by then, resulting in a 7m rise in sea level (on top of the increases from other causes) and a temperature increase of 10+ degrees C. That is scary! But it hardly gets a mention.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 14:17:36 GMT 1
The problem is that previous reports so overdid the catastrophe cause There is an interesting article www.skepticalscience.com/IPCC-Reports-Science-or-Spin.html that states: "There are numerous instances where the IPCC reports, which are summaries of published climate change science, have understated the case - hardly suggesting exaggeration in pursuit of an agenda. Here are some examples: •CO2 output from fossil fuels: observed emissions are close to the worst-case projections made by the IPCC, despite them offering a range of potential emission scenarios. (In fact, atmospheric CO2 is increasing ten times faster than any rate detected in ice core data over the last 22,000 years). Yet there has been no warming since 1998•Sea-level rise is accelerating faster than the IPCC predicted. Actual sea-level rise is 80% higher than the median IPCC projection. By 2100 sea-level rise was predicted by the IPCC to be in the range of 18-59 cm. It is now believed that figure may be far too low, because estimates of contributions from Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps were excluded from AR4 because the data was not considered reliable. (This omission hardly supports the notion that the IPCC seeks to exaggerate global warming trends). No it isn't•Each Arctic summer, sea-ice is melting faster than average predictions in the last IPCC report. The Arctic is experiencing a long-term loss of multi-year ice which is also accelerating." No it isn'tIt seems to me that a lot of the blame for the 'catastrophysing' should be laid at the media. Scare stories written by humanities graduates with no understanding of the science given headlines whose purpose was to grab attenion - well they certainly achieved that. If there has been exageration in the way that the science has been presented to the people, blame the presenters (meeja studies graduates), not the scientists.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 1, 2010 14:30:17 GMT 1
Yet there has been no warming since 1998No it isn'tNo it isn't Yes there has
Yes it is
Yes it isI can see why so many people flock to this board - the level of debate is intense
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 14:32:49 GMT 1
Then support your assertions with evidence. Real evidence.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 14:33:44 GMT 1
And remember that all the temperature data used in GAT calculations is corrupt.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 14:34:05 GMT 1
As are sea level rise numbers
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 14:34:33 GMT 1
And ice extent measurments.
|
|
|
Post by enquirer on Oct 1, 2010 14:36:08 GMT 1
Then support your assertions with evidence. Real evidence. After you... You have made many postings on this board - I can't claim to have read them all but those I have read show that you are very keen on making completely unfounded assertion as as if these are facts. Well, this is your chance to prove that you are able to discuss science on a science board.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Oct 1, 2010 16:20:19 GMT 1
I haven't the time or inclination to go over old ground on these well known facts. I'm also unmotivated due to the fact that the silly catastrophic AGW fad is fading into history. I just hope the governments of the world catch up very quickly before the economy is destroyed.
|
|