The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is the unusual weather we have been having a result of global warming?  (Read 50215 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Whether it's sufficient?
Probably not JP, Climate and statistics are both non-linear phenomena, at least climate :)

When the devil gets old he cite statistics :)

Statistics is what it is, one statistician making a graph/plot, another calling it 'biased'. But it reflects what I think is true. And the link I gave follows it up, with the comments. And the next link makes it even clearer, and helps to define what it is discussed. It's not storms per se, it's a lot of things.

It's your local weather changing, for better or worse, probably worse. It's the night temperature changing globally. It's more, or less rain. It's seasons for the farmers getting disturbed. We have a food crisis this year, not that we in the rich countries notice. When the oceans acidity takes its toll we're gonna have a billion, if I remember right, that will find it harder to get food from the sea.

Weather is in the end your climate, but locally. And Earth is not a linear system, so small changes globally can mean great changes locally.

"Gerry Quinn @ 120 and 121

As a weather forecaster, I would expect some rather dramatic changes in extremes with a 1C rise in temperatures. This is especially relevant in the sub/tropics, and in more poleward locations that receive subtropical advection. That’s because this would also raise the dew points by about the same 1C. Considering energy partition at fairly typical tropical temperatures and RH (70% for a crude estimate) over 2/3 of the extra thermal energy goes into evaporating water. This latent energy is made available downstream by increasing the CAPE (convectively available potential energy), thus energizing thunderstorms, tropical systems, etc.

Models are typically not gridded finely enough to resolve convective instability. That’s why an important task for warm season forecasting in the mid latitudes of the humid U.S. is evaluating the low level moisture, and the potential for instability. Even 1C extra dew point at, say, 850 mb is enough to cause a “loaded gun” barely capped airmass to blow in spectacular convection.

Poleward transport of moisture and instability by narrow low level jets, another feature not well resolved by models, also results in many flooding episodes, as well as severe convection.

Considering that the capacity of air to hold water vapor increases nearly exponentially with temperature, I think a 1C increase is truly a big deal, and will add substantial extra energy to some already strong systems, models or no."

And "the last ice age was only about 5 or 6 deg C colder than today, and that was effectively a different planet. The change by 2100 will be the same order of magnitude if we are unlucky - this is not some trivial change we are talking about."

Ah, but in the other direction :)
So no, I'm not predicting an ice age.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 13:12:49 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
It's your local weather changing, for better or worse, probably worse.

Unless you're in Montana.  :)

But seriously, What worries me about unfounded claims about what climate change is doing is that some of them are bound to be wrong.  This is such a politically charged issue that those who oppose climate change legislation will jump all over any failed prediction to promote their views.  It's also just plain bad science to hype such claims when there isn't enough evidence to back them up!  I suspect a lot of it is the media's fault for blowing things out of proportion, but when I see graphs like the ones on the previous page without error bars, statistical analysis of the results or detailed discussion of the potential errors, I get worried. 

For comparison, I worked a bit in high-energy physics at Fermilab.  Every result there had to include a huge analysis of possible errors and results had to be quoted with error bars, saying exactly how certain the physicists were of seeing something new.  When you hear that physicists at the LHC have discovered a new particle, you can expect them to be sure they've actually discovered it.  Even if those dealing with weather aren't quite so sure about their findings, it would be nice to see how sure they are. 
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 08:05:31 by JP »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Sure, but this is climate JP, the whole Earth is our 'particle detector' here. If we want the same kind of certainty as you got at Fermilab we gonna need us some serious 'Borg technology', and a lot of probes, the oceans for example.

"We will overcome your climate. Resistance is futile"

It would be nice if that worked :) The models gets changed with new findings, but as we also seem to stop a lot of research, and don't want to spend the money it will cost to get all that data? There is one thing that is very easy to see for me at least. IPCC is constantly revising its trends upwards for each report it delivers. It's always choosing the lower more moderate path, and never in line with the actual climate. It seems to prefer it to be, not extrapolating, instead hoping for almost linear significances, proving their point.

Its like LHC, with 99 % of its probes taken away.
It's not the same.

But satellites seems a extremely cost effective alternative, if we just could 'afford' them :)

ahem.

Take a look here.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 09:33:25 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
But you're missing the point!  I'm saying the plots being thrown around here are pretty meaningless and I daresay sensationalistic without some context.  If they're being related to climate change, we need numbers of how confident we are in the measurements and how confident we are that they represent an actual trend, not natural variation.  Otherwise you can't make any claims that climate change has caused, for example, an increase in tornadoes in the US this year.  If a single number, maybe "we are X% sure that the increase in storms shown in this plot is directly attributable to climate change."

Of course those numbers won't be anything like the 99.9999% confidence of particle experiments, but it would be nice to know it it was 90% or 60% or 20%.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Here you can find some statistics JP.

Are Category 4 and 5 hurricanes increasing in number? (2005) and rebuttals too.

And here's a interesting link Dusty hurricanes. (2007)

As most of the weather phenomena in our world everything seems linked to everything else. To attach a secure vote of confidence to a open non-linear system? Can you do that? Myself I think it's about how you limit your 'system', and also about what consequences that are known at the time a specific paper is written. If you take any peer reviewed paper I'm sure you will find limitations for its validity.

And I did not state that that graph is the absolute truth, I just showed that there can be other interpretations. My views are not based on it, okay? It's statistics, and depending on your definitions statistics seems able to define a lot of contradictory 'facts'.
==

And there seems to be some evidence for hurricanes becoming worse.
Hurricanes are getting fiercer from Nature 2008.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 13:26:09 by yor_on »
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
As most of the weather phenomena in our world everything seems linked to everything else. To attach a secure vote of confidence to a open non-linear system? Can you do that?

Depends on the system.  I know a bit about nonlinear dynamics in physics and with enough study, I could probably put bounds on a system's behavior.  I couldn't do it for climate or weather, but I'm not a climate scientist!  Part of their job is to study put bounds on those systems.

There is a lot of good research out there that does this, and a lot of controversy.  From what I've read, there just isn't enough good data to say conclusively in most cases what will happen weather-wise as a result of climate change.  That was my complaint.

By the way, re-reading the page from which that graph was taken (and what I should have posted in the first place instead of a complaint about the lack of error analysis) is:
Quote
But while the numbers are not contested, their significance most certainly is. Another study considered how this information was being collected, and research suggested that the increase in reported storms was due to improved monitoring rather than more storms actually taking place.

And to cap it off, two recent peer-reviewed studies completely contradict each other. One paper predicts considerably more storms due to global warming. Another paper suggests the exact opposite – that there will be fewer storms in the future.

So yes, the experts seem to believe that plot is pretty hard to take at face value at least.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
We have had 30 years of scare-mongering about our use of fossil fuels causing dangerous changes to global climates and the scare-mongers blame every natural damaging weather event on us but ignore the fact that such events are not peculiar to the last 200 years. All that we can do is protect ourselves as much as we can against their effects. It is pure speculation that humans are causing any of it and we certainly have no way of controlling any of it on a global scale.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Yep, that's why I left the link too. I figured that it was a good example of 'graphs' and my views about them, not that I wanted to steer anyone to my view but anyone following them, reading the comments, would get a good first expression of the difficulties with choosing parameters.. When I look at it I find it incredibly complicated. It's a whole Earth that we want to define suddenly, and all the way to the sun too.

We need a he* of a lot more probes to do a really good job, but as it is I think those working with it do the best they can. And they have convinced me at least :) But not me relying on the graphs, well, some graphs are more probable than others of course, but it's reading the papers and watch the overall developments that will show you if there is a trend. And that we all can do, it's no rocket science.

But I'm not really into arguing about it anymore :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
And Yelder, that's not true :)

As I said, there are some simple connections between what we see now and our industrial revolution. CO2 is a big one to me. And it doesn't get better by the acidity created.

"The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study. The energy stored is enough to power nearly 500 100-watt light bulbs per each of the roughly 6.7 billion people on the planet continuously over the 16-year study period “We are seeing the global ocean store more heat than it gives off,” said John Lyman, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Joint Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, who led an international team of scientists that analyzed nine different estimates of heat content in the upper ocean from 1993 to 2008.

The team combined the estimates to assess the size and certainty of growing heat storage in the ocean. Their findings will be published in the May 20 edition of the journal Nature. The scientists are from NOAA, NASA, the Met Office Hadley Centre in the United Kingdom, the University of Hamburg in Germany and the Meteorological Research Institute in Japan.

“The ocean is the biggest reservoir for heat in the climate system,” said Josh Willis, an oceanographer at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory and one of the scientists who contributed to the study. “So as the planet warms, we’re finding that 80 to 90 percent of the increased heat ends up in the ocean.” A warming ocean is a direct cause of global sea level rise, since seawater expands and takes up more space as it heats up. The scientists say that this expansion accounts for about one-third to one-half of global sea level rise."

We have other evidence in ice cores, tree rings, sediments etc that all point to that this warming we see today is a 'new phenomena', extremely well correlated to our industrial revolution. All glaciers is receding now as I understands it, and in some decade(s) we will be able to open the Arctic for shipping. That mean that the old thick ice that once existed now is the same type of ice that you will find in your lake at winter, melting to each summer.

Myself I don't find it meaningful to argue about that. And the time to start acting only exist in a small time-window as I think. Maybe twenty years? Not more than fifty as a educated optimistic guess. Or maybe we missed the train, but if so, we can still minimize the effects. And you better hope that it is man made and that we can reverse it by reducing our manmade carbon footprints. Because if it's not, well, it's constantly accelerating and..
==

Here you have a good discussion about oceans acidity. It's worth reading.
« Last Edit: 08/06/2011 19:48:12 by yor_on »
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
As I was saying yor_on, there is a lot of scare-mongering and there are lot of scare-mongers. Fortunately they are making less and less impression on the general population who are getting wise to the nonsense, especially after the Climategate revelations, the Hockey Stick Illusion and the UN’s COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
It's your local weather changing, for better or worse, probably worse.
Unless you're in Montana.  :)

That is a big part of the problem with this entire argument.

Everyone believes that today we are at a "Climate Optimum", and that increasing or decreasing the temperature by 2°C or so would lead to severe negative consequences.  Yet, we believe that the planet has been as much as 8 to 10°C warmer or cooler in the past.

Most people agree that dropping the temperatures by a half a dozen degrees Celsius could be devastating for humanity, but even so, there would likely be parts of the world that would reap benefits from an overall cooler planet.

Likewise, if the planet warms, it will likely bring huge benefits to Russia and Canada, and perhaps other areas too.  Water distribution will change and some currently arid and marginal areas may get more water, and some will get less.

One of the problems is that we are already draining some very large rivers, but in many cases it is the population that puts more stress on our water resources than climate alone.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Maybe in America Yelder?

There climate seems to have become a political issue more than a question for science. It's a little ironic as America also have some of the best climate scientists in the world. Maybe you think you can 'debate' it away, I don't think so myself though. And what I don't like with this political definition of climate is that it makes people assume that this is exactly what it is.  A debate.

It's gone past a debate.
 


Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
As for benefits?

I think of earth as stochastic system, non-linear, where everything goes into each other. There is no way to be sure on what country's, or where, you will survive a climate disaster best to my eyes. It's easier to see who first is going to pay the price, and that will as always be the poorest countries.


When it comes to Russia they have their tundra becoming bogs just now. That's also where the methane pipelines rest that is expected to warm Europe, now, and in the future. Methane are also released under the oceans, Methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf. by Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov.
==

Seems that this link to their pdf is gone? :( So, if you missed getting the pdf, the best I can offer for the moment is Interview with Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov: Arctic seabed methane stores destabilizing, venting 2010.
=

But there is another, more immediate problem. A Warming Tundra Releases Carbon Dioxide. From 2009. And here you have a 'worst case scenario' from 2011 Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source. 

Now, I sincerely hope this is wrong. It's a rather dramatic description, there are also some links to the studies he refer too in it. And this is what scares me most. Because I think of earth as a non-linear system, I also expect it able to 'tip' from one 'stable' configuration to another 'stable' configuration fairly quick, quicker than you would ever expect in fact. And this scenario would be a 'tipping' to me.

So yes, I'm worried, if that was what you meant by scaremonger Yelder? And not over pleased over the way it seems to have become a political issue in the States.
« Last Edit: 18/06/2011 00:25:51 by yor_on »
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
http://beta.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/intense-northeast-heat-storms_2011-06-07
Whew...
That looks HOT!!!  At least for this time of year.
Also warmer than normal in Russia, Norway, Sweden, and parts of Antarctica (although I don't think it ever really gets hot in Antarctica).

Here, on the opposite side of the country, yesterday was 3°F below normal, and I don't anticipate today to be any warmer.

The cold West and warm East is one of the reasons for the vicious storms in the middle.

Overall, this year has been cooler than recent years.

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/weather/
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/extreme/gfs/current/raw_temp_c.html
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
Back to Joe's original question, I think the answer is a definite maybe.

For a start, we probably should not even use the term "Global Warming" unless we can unambiguously measure the globe's temperature. As far as I know, we can't. Let the media use the term if they wish to, but unless scientists can agree on a method of measurement, the term should not be part of their vocabulary.

What we do know is that we (humans) are altering the composition of the atomsphere in ways that can trap heat in our atmosphere and can have a profound effect on ocean acidity. In other words, we are conducting a gigantic experiment on our planet without the necessary metrology to even quantify the effects properly, or predict the outcomes.

Is this a good idea? Personally, I think it's a very bad idea to tinker with a mechanism that you don't really understand, particularly when your future depends on it. On the other hand, the mechanisms that keep global politics and economics running are probably about as well understood as the effects of altering the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, so it may be just as dangerous to tinker too much with them.

The bottom line is that we really don't have a very good handle on what's going on, and, even if we did, there does not appear to be a quick fix.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Geezer, that is a very good post!

I would just add that politics and economics can be changed with a relatively short timescale but changing the climate can be reversible only on a very long timescale and we do not have any idea how to do it. Personally, I would take the cautious approach, even if slightly inconvenient in the short term.
 

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Clifford, Geezer, JP, you can offer logical arguments and facts till the cows come home and it has not the least impression on the scare-mongers and doom merchants. To them we humans are destroying the earth, even though they continue benefiting from all of the improvements that humans have made and continue to make at an increasing pace. Some people just have to have something to be scared of.

Christopher Booker, who writes extensively in the Daily Telegraph on the myth of catastrophic human-made climate change, wrote an excellent book “Scared to Death” <link removed> and I picked up a copy for nowt at a second-hand shop in Watford as a reward for buying a recycled desk chair for my wife. (I’m fully against the scare-mongering over our use of fossil fuels – as long as it is clean use - but all for reusing, refurbishing, repairing and recycling rather than disposing). Perhaps the biggest problem we humans have that threatens existence is greed and too many of us suffering from the L’Oreal Disease.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 10:21:27 by peppercorn »
 

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
I don't why most people seem to concentrate on worrying about (or equally arguing against) temperature change per se.

Bottom line is, just as the planet's climate is a dynamic system, so are natural, living systems.

Who cares if the global mean of CO2 (or whatever) was factors greater in the past?  The key point is always going to be Rate of Change. - As Graham inferred.

The question should be, not 'What happened last time CO2 levels were at today's (or tomorrow's predicted) levels?'.
It should be 'When was the rate of change this great?' and 'If we can find out, what were the effects on life?'.
 

Offline graham.d

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2208
    • View Profile
Yelder, I think you are falling into the same category as those you call scaremongerers. There is a huge amount of politics involved here with a lot of financial weight being put behind people trying to discredit the informed opinion of a majority of those involved in climate science. As Gore said, this is an "inconvenient truth", and as the famous cartoon implied, the "reassuring lie" is an easier pill to swallow, especially as most businesses and politicians are not looking much further that their next balance sheet or the next election. Now it is reasonable to question the science, and nobody with any scientific understanding of this would claim certainty in the predictions. Unfortunately this doubt factor is an easy one to exaggerate and ridicule. And guess what, this is what is being done. It is so easy for people to project the equally scaremongering image of the people who say that we should try to do something about the changing climate as sandal-wearing hippies who think we should live in caves. The reality is that a majority of genuine climate scientists have enough convincing evidence to register a lot of concern about climate change. I think they could often do without the hysteria of support from the uninformed loonies who just present the strawmen arguments that enable the equally uninformed, but politically aware, opposition to present a seemingly convincing opposition.

According to wikipedia: Christopher Booker "often takes a stance which runs counter to mainstream views on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] asbestos[3] and the Darwinian theory of evolution."

So he is much more believable then!!!
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Don't fool yourself :)

We won't change a thing. We' haven't yet and I doubt we ever will, we're better at reacting at our front door than on what we see on our telly. 99.9% of the changes I see is just cosmetics, like the Kyoto deal. The only way to change it is by us committing to changing it, and we're noway near that idea, as proven in this discussion.

So I do not expect any changes to be made, and neither do you. It would cost you to do them, and we're comfortable as we are right? The summers may become a little hotter, the weather more unpredictable, but he* :)

Stay indoors :)
==

As for if we should react?
Sure we should, and we will, when it's at our front door.
« Last Edit: 09/06/2011 14:58:05 by yor_on »
 

Offline Geezer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8328
  • "Vive la résistance!"
    • View Profile
What I want to know is how Graham found out I wear sandals and live in a cave.

It's true to say that nothing very dramatic has happened to address the issue, but it's also true to say that there has been some significant progress. At least we are talking about it, and there is far more awareness of the problem than there was, say, twenty years ago. Consequently, a lot of smart people are working on things that can all make a contribution.

For no particular reasons I find myself in the "somewhere in the middle" camp on this one. I think it's a real problem that requires urgent attention, but adopting "knee jerk" cures to try to fix it could turn out to be worse than the actual disease. I certainly do not think we should cover our eyes and chant "go away nasty problem".   
 

Offline imatfaal

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2787
  • rouge moderator
    • View Profile
Damn - I must be losing it, I find myself agreeing with Geezer.  Regardless of the veracity of the claims and counter-claims, I hope that one upshot is a re-examination of our use of resources and energy.
 

Offline JP

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3366
  • Thanked: 2 times
    • View Profile
So regarding the original question, it sounds very likely that climate change is influencing the weather somehow, and it's a definite "maybe" that it's responsible for the increase in major storms/tornados?
 

Post by Peter Ridley under another name click to view.

Offline Peter Ridley under another name

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 69
    • View Profile
Shrunk
Graham, I think it may be a case of each to his own. In “An Inconvenient Truth” Gore offered many distortions of fact (AKA lies). Have a look at “35 Inconvenient Truths – The Errors in Al Gore’s Movie” by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf.

Nigel Lawson (Lord Lawson of Blaby) said in his article “The REAL inconvenient truth: Zealotry over global warming could damage our Earth far more than climate change”
Quote
Over the past half-century, we have become used to planetary scares. .. late Sixties .. a population explosion .. global starvation. .. later .. the world was running out of natural resources. By the Seventies .. a new Ice Age. .. the latest scare, global warming, has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than any of these. .. this fashionable belief has led the present Labour Government, enthusiastically supported by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, to commit itself to a policy of drastically cutting back carbon dioxide emissions - at huge cost to the British economy and to the living standards not merely of this generation, but of our children's generation, too. .. most of those scientists who speak with such certainty about global warming and climate change are not climate scientists, or Earth scientists of any kind, and thus have no special knowledge to contribute
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&catid=1:latest&id=51:agw-zealotry-could-damage-our-earth-far-more-than-climate-change. Try his book “An Appeal To Reason: A Cool Look At Global Warming” amazon link deleted.

As the registration page for The Heartland Institute’s Sixth International Conference on Climate Change on June 30 – July 1, the “Global Warming Conference - Restoring the Scientific Method” says
Quote
Dozens of think tank cosponsors and hundreds of scientists will gather in an effort to “restore the scientific method” to its rightful place in the debate over the causes, consequences, and policy implications of climate change. The theme of the conference, “Restoring the Scientific Method,” acknowledges the fact that claims of scientific certainty and predictions of climate catastrophes are based on “post-normal science,” which substitutes claims of consensus for the scientific method. This choice has had terrible consequences for science and society. Abandoning the scientific method led to the “Climategate” scandal and the errors and abuses of peer review by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
http://climateconference.heartland.org/.

What’s your opinion about Steven Scheider-’s promotion of scare-mongering by scientists and his reluctance to condemn them if they considered presenting a misleading picture to the general public (i.e. lying)?  As Pete Ridley pointed out on his question about the misleading demonstration in the BBC’s “Climate Wars” program “What does Iain Stewart's CO2 experiment Demonstrate” http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=38723.0
Quote
There are those who support the view which Professor Steven Schneider expressed in 1989 about the manner in which climate science should be presented. He said "To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest" http://www.john-daly.com/schneidr.htm. My interpretation of that statement is that it is up to each of us to decide whether to lie or not. This is expected of politicians and those who earn their living through the media but not of those in a position of trust like physicians and researchers
I think that Pete Ridley’s opinion on that is close to the bulls-eye.

I agree that
Quote
There is a huge amount of politics involved here
although I think that it’s a gross understatement. The whole thing is driven by the power-hungry like Strong, Gore, Soros, etc. supported by political organisations like the UN and EU for reasons far removed from controlling the global climates.

You forgot to mention the even more huge amount of taxpayers money going into spreading the propaganda that humans are destroying the planet?

As for Wikipedia, I suspect that the comment you refer to was written by one-time Wikipedia moderator, staunch supporter of the AGW hypothesis, one-time member of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” publicity section  Realclimate, software engineer Dr. William Connolleyhttp://scienceblogs.com/stoat/about.php. Many of us were delighted when he had his Wikipedia editing privileges withdrawn.

yor_on, many of us look forward to seeing Kyoto expiring quietly in its sleep with nothing to replace it. After the UN’s 2009 COP15 fiasco in Copenhagen (destoyed by the Climategate revelations) and the 2010 COP16 comedy in Cancun we can look forward to a final derailment in Durban of the UNFCCC AGW band-wagon after COP17 http://www.cop17durban.com/COP_17/Pages/default.aspx. Hopefully that will be the last of the UN’s wasteful extravaganzas (but of course, being politicians they’ll find some other way of hosting a luxury break at taxpayers’ expense).

Maybe then they'll start addressing real global problems like the disgusting waste by us in the developed economies and the disgraceful poverty in many of the developing or stagnant economies. Perhaps then our leaders will concentrate on putting resources into what we can do something about, like improving  technology for protecting humans from whatever weather extremes and other catastrophes that Nature decides to throw our way – but that is just wishful thinking, after all, they are politicians.
   
As imatfaal says
Quote
I hope that one upshot is a re-examination of our use of resources and energy
but not a further waste of resources installing things like those useless wind turbines or systems for sequestering that essential, life-supporting substance CO2 from our industrial, commercial and domestic emissions. Yes, lets research alternative energy sources so that we are ready for when those wonderful fossil fuels expire, but that won’t be for centuries yet. Put those wasted resources to good use minimising genuine pollutants from our emissions, improving repairing and preventing unnecessary damage to the natural envirnment, but most importantly of all, helping humans throughout the world to improve their enjoyment of life.

JP, you comment “that climate change is influencing the weather somehow, and it's a definite "maybe" that it's responsible for the increase in major storms/tornados?” surprises me. In my ignorance I thought that it was weather, in terms of temperature and rainfall, that were the basis of Koppen’s definitions of those different global climates (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/322068/Koppen-climate-classification). Sounds a bit like the cart before the horse, like CO2 driving temperature rather than the correct way round.
« Last Edit: 12/06/2011 10:53:32 by Yelder »
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums