Chinese coal blamed for global er... cooling !

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/05/global_warming_on_pause_but_stop_burning_coal_anyway/

Now a team of academics, after tweaking a statistical model to include sulphur emissions, suggest that coal power stations may be to blame for a lack of global warming since 1998. The IPCC's 2007 assessment acknowledged the negative radiative forcing (aka, cooling effect) of both natural aerosols from volcanoes and manmade aerosols, but admitted the level of scientific understanding was low.

Needler

I think this is a short lived effect that wears off long before the warming effect. So after a while the warming effect really starts to kick in

Maybe we can blast some sulphur into the air by itself if needs be to buy us more time

slowburner

Added to all this, there is the possibility that we are entering a mini ice age similar to one in the 17th century. The Thames was frozen so solidly that markets and fairs were held on the ice. This is purportedly due to sun spot activity or lack of. If it is the case, then it is expected to last 70-80 years. Maunder minimum is the term for it, I believe.
See here for a discussion.

djpbarry

slowburner wrote: »

Added to all this, there is the possibility that we are entering a mini ice age similar to one in the 17th century. The Thames was frozen so solidly that markets and fairs were held on the ice. This is purportedly due to sun spot activity or lack of.

Actually, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that the arches on the old London Bridge were extremely narrow, slowing the flow of water considerably, to the extent that stretches of the Thames were essentially standing water susceptible to freezing.

easychair

certainly you are right that it occurred before the river was embanked, after which the water probably flowed faster.

As for global warming, it seems that those who still cling on to the theory, will use any event of weather as "evidence" that the climate is changing as never before, and it's all due to mans wickedness, when the facts seem to suggest otherwise.

I've heard some claim that the flooding in Queensland, Austraila, is evidence of climate change, or that the Russian heatwave is evidence of climate change. Apart from the fact that "evidence" is not climate change, they ignore the fact that Russia has been having heatwaves for over 130 years, and some worse than the modern ones. Or that the floods in Queensland were worse in 1974. It's all happened before, but that doesn't stop some making ludicrous claims in an effort to scramble about and find some "evidence" for their increasingly disbelieved theory.

As I sit here, at the height of summer, in the middle of July in the middle of the day, my weather station tells me it's 11.5°C outside, and I take some comfort to know that fewer and fewer people are taken in by the increasingly hysterical global warming believers, whose theory is less and less credible..

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

As I sit here, at the height of summer, in the middle of July in the middle of the day, my weather station tells me it's 11.5°C outside...

So what? You wouldn’t be taking a single weather event in isolation and using it to characterise the climate, would you? Certainly not after criticising others for doing just that?

easychair wrote: »

...and I take some comfort to know that fewer and fewer people are taken in by the increasingly hysterical global warming believers, whose theory is less and less credible..

So what’s all this then?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

So what? You wouldn’t be taking a single weather event in isolation and using it to characterise the climate, would you? Certainly not after criticising others for doing just that?

No, I wouldn't and didn't. i merely pointed out a fact. It's now 11.8°C according to my weather station.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

No, I wouldn't and didn't. i merely pointed out a fact. It's now 11.8°C according to my weather station.

That’s not going to fly – if you’re not prepared to discuss something then don’t post it.

Now, care to answer the question?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

That’s not going to fly – if you’re not prepared to discuss something then don’t post it.

Now, care to answer the question?

I have to admit to being somewhat taken aback by your apparently aggressive response.

You asked me a question, implying that i was making a claim from one fact, that my weather station was reading a particular temperature at a particular time. I made no such claim, and clarified that point in my reply. I was simply stating a fact about the temperature, at the time I made the post.

Others have made claims for certain events, suggesting they are evidence of global warming. I make no such claims.

Macha

easychair, according to the Forum Charter:

This is not a blog – if you’re not prepared to discuss the content of your posts, which will inevitably involve your opinions being challenged, then please do not post.

I'm issuing you with an infraction as you are no complying with the forum charter. Please be prepared to back up your claims - or insinuations.

easychair

Please do not discuss moderation in-thread. You have received a PM to which you can respond if you have any queries.

thanks,

Macha.

Amateurish

easychair wrote: »

No, I wouldn't and didn't. i merely pointed out a fact. It's now 11.8°C according to my weather station.

Hi Easychair, I assume you're pointing out thats its unusually cold for July, it certainly seems to be and the winter we've just gone through was unbelievably cold too. Can I assume you feel this shows global warming theories to be unfounded? I disagree and tend to believe studies which show average temps are rising. Such as
"warmth of the last half century is unusual in at least the previous 1,300 years." from...
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-a-palaeoclimatic.html

The daily or even yearly data from ireland does not determine global trends. In fact I understand that rising global temps will result in more rainfall for us (and I guess cooling) though I have no source for that. As with the op, my level of scientific understanding is low

easychair

I suppose the point is that many things have been claimed, but so few of them have come to happen.

I am of course aware that we have had cool summers before, and make no claims that my personal experience is universal. I remember being told not so long ago that, amongst other things, the UK was going to be like the mediterranean thanks to global warming, and I suppose that the only lesson to learn is to beware of claims about what is going to happen in the future, which seem to owe as much to Mystic Meg as to science.

Amateurish

easychair wrote: »

I suppose the point is that many things have been claimed, but so few of them have come to happen.

I am of course aware that we have had cool summers before, and make no claims that my personal experience is universal. I remember being told not so long ago that, amongst other things, the UK was going to be like the mediterranean thanks to global warming, and I suppose that the only lesson to learn is to beware of claims about what is going to happen in the future, which seem to owe as much to Mystic Meg as to science.

I understand that vineyards in the south of england are producing well. Mystic Meg is a personal hero of mine but I didn't rely on her to accept that Ice turns into liquid water as it rises above 0-deg-c. I learned that one 30 years ago in a science book. From that I accept all claims that warming the poles will result in higher sea levels.
Similarly GHGs preventing the radiation of energy thru the atmosphere from the surface of the earth means the atmosphere gets hotter. I need only turn on my cooker for a few minutes to cause 1kg of CO2 to be produced. So I accept people are responsible for the GHGs. Global warming is shown it the links shown above, if you dont believe them throw up something (not from wikipedia) that shows they are wrong. Leave Mystic Meg out of it she's been comissioned to get next weeks lotto numbers for me.

Macha

But what about negative forcing in all of this, as discussed in the original article?

slowburner

Macha wrote: »

But what about negative forcing in all of this, as discussed in the original article?

When the theory of global warming as a result of man's activities was first proposed, there was colossal resistance. It was a long time before the theory achieved any momentum. The theory had to be pushed so hard to get it going, that it has gained an unstoppable inertia.
I believe that so many people argued so hard in favour of the theory that it is well nigh impossible for them to accept any other possibility and to simultaneously save face.
If there is significant evidence of global cooling which could herald a Maunder minimum or a Heinrich event - how long will it take to step up the momentum on that? And if those who argue in favour of its occurrence are wrong - will they accept any other possibility?
Impartiality is the key, surely?

easychair

Amateurish wrote: »

From that I accept all claims that warming the poles will result in higher sea levels.

Really? Our science teacher demonstrated to us that the mass of ice is more than that of water. When he filled a glass with ice, when it melted, the level of the resulting water is lower that that of the ice. That suggests that, when the ice caps melt, the water level will drop, resulting in lower sea levels.

gbee

CHINA saves the world by being wasteful, I guess Lisa Simpson was right, don't recycle, burn, burn, burn.

Save the world, burn, burn, burn.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

...when the ice caps melt, the water level will drop...

If the melt is confined to frozen seas, maybe. But of course, that's not going to be the case, is it?

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

If the melt is confined to frozen seas, maybe. But of course, that's not going to be the case, is it?

I have no idea what is going to be the case, but if the ice caps (ie frozen seas) melt, there seems to be no reason why that should lead to increased sea levels.

Indeed, the ice caps partially melt and refreeze annually, and I've not noticed any increase or decrease in the sea levels as a result.

Macha

easychair wrote: »

I have no idea what is going to be the case, but if the ice caps (ie frozen seas) melt, there seems to be no reason why that should lead to increased sea levels.

Ice caps melting will indeed result in increased sea levels:

Including the glaciers and ice caps surrounding the Greenland Ice Sheet and West Antarctica, but excluding those on the Antarctic Peninsula and those surrounding East Antarctica, yields 0.72 ± 0.2 m SLE. These new estimates are about 40% higher than those given in IPCC (2001)

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch4s4-5.html

easychair wrote: »

Indeed, the ice caps partially melt and refreeze annually, and I've not noticed any increase or decrease in the sea levels as a result.

What do you mean by "noticed"? Do you regularly conduct scientific surveys of rising sea levels?

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Ice caps melting will indeed result in increased sea levels:

That's quite a claim, and if it's true it seems to fly in the face of the scientific fact that ice, when it melts, has less mass as water.

Macha

easychair wrote: »

That's quite a claim, and if it's true it seems to fly in the face of the scientific fact that ice, when it melts, has less mass as water.

Not really - it's backed up by the IPCC. You're forgetting the impact of land-based ice.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I have no idea what is going to be the case...

Oh I think you do.

easychair wrote: »

...but if the ice caps (ie frozen seas) melt...

Why are you restricting the term "ice caps" to frozen seas? Won't frozen land thaw too?

easychair wrote: »

...there seems to be no reason why that should lead to increased sea levels.

Melting of land ice? Thermal expansion of water?

easychair wrote: »

Indeed, the ice caps partially melt and refreeze annually, and I've not noticed any increase or decrease in the sea levels as a result.

Haven't you? Well NASA have:
http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#seaLevel

easychair wrote: »

...ice, when it melts, has less mass as water.

No it doesn't. I think you mean water has a smaller volume than ice, per unit mass.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Not really - it's backed up by the IPCC. You're forgetting the impact of land-based ice.

I have to be honest and I find it hard to actually believe much of what the IPCC says without evidence, as the evidence so far has been that they have, at times, made great and serious claims, which have turned out to be based on no evidence at all.

You may be right, that if some ice is on land, then if it melts the sea levels will rise. How much of the ice is on land?

Macha

easychair wrote: »

I have to be honest and I find it hard to actually believe much of what the IPCC says without evidence, as the evidence so far has been that they have, at times, made great and serious claims, which have turned out to be based on no evidence at all.

I think you're being a little unfair to the IPCC, which is a massive project that is bound to have some human error. Whenever it's been uncovered, they've always done their best to correct mistakes. If you look at the total body of evidence created by the IPCC, the number of errors are minute. If you'd like to start a thread discussing particulars of the "great and serious claims, which have turned out to be based on no evidence at all", feel free.

easychair wrote: »

You may be right, that if some ice is on land, then if it melts the sea levels will rise. How much of the ice is on land?

During the last interglacial period, sea levels rose by 4-6 metres.

If you read up on Antarctic ice, you'll see that a great deal of it is on land.

I don't know the exact figure for ice on land in Antractica but it is 100s of metres thick in places. If you find some figures, please share - there's a lot of data out there!

easychair

Macha wrote: »

I think you're being a little unfair to the IPCC, which is a massive project that is bound to have some human error. Whenever it's been uncovered, they've always done their best to correct mistakes. If you look at the total body of evidence created by the IPCC, the number of errors are minute. If you'd like to start a thread discussing particulars of the "great and serious claims, which have turned out to be based on no evidence at all", feel free.

Sure, we all have to make up our own minds on these things. For me, the IPCC has demonstrated it is not impartial and has its own agenda, and consequently we have to treat everything it says, and claims, with suspicion.

I remember the IPCC telling us that everything they did was bona fide because it was all peer reviewed, was backed by virtually every scientist with any knowledge of the field and so on.

They they made the alarmist that the Himalayan Glaciers would be melted in a few years. We should trust them because it's all scientifically based and peer reviewed and so on. Only it wasn't peer reviewed, and turned out to have no scientific basis at all.

I also remember their alarmist claim that global warming would halve crop yields in Africa. Again, it was all scientifically based and peer reviewed. Only, again, it wasn't and was, like the Himalayan glaciers, simply fiction.

Another similar claim, which the IPCC said was based on science and peer reviewed, was that global warming would destroy almost half of the amazon rain forest. Again, this was not true and, in the end, was based on a pamphlet produced by an activist group, and had nothing to do with science or peer review.

For me, I think , bearing in mind the claims being made by the IPCc, we should be "hard" on them. Especially in light of the sorts of claims they have made which turn out to be a distortion of the truth, and seemingly designed to further its own agenda, rather than discover the truth.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I remember the IPCC telling us that everything they did was bona fide because it was all peer reviewed...

I don’t. In fact it is specifically stated in the IPCC reports that so-called grey literature (i.e. non peer reviewed publications) is included in their reviews.

easychair wrote: »

They they made the alarmist that the Himalayan Glaciers would be melted in a few years. We should trust them because it's all scientifically based and peer reviewed and so on.

I also remember their alarmist claim that global warming would halve crop yields in Africa. Again, it was all scientifically based and peer reviewed. Only, again, it wasn't and was, like the Himalayan glaciers, simply fiction.

Another similar claim, which the IPCC said was based on science and peer reviewed, was that global warming would destroy almost half of the amazon rain forest. Again, this was not true and, in the end, was based on a pamphlet produced by an activist group, and had nothing to do with science or peer review.

This has all been done to death in the past and rebuttals delivered (and I suspect you know that), in this thread in particular.

easychair

djpbarry wrote: »

I don’t. In fact it is specifically stated in the IPCC reports that so-called grey literature (i.e. non peer reviewed publications) is included in their reviews.
This has all been done to death in the past and rebuttals delivered (and I suspect you know that), in this thread in particular.

Sure. But there is a difference between a "review" and a "claim".

The three claims which I mentioned were not reviews, but were specific claims made. It was only when these claims were investigated, and the truth uncovered, that the IPCC eventually agreed they were not accurate, were untrue, and were based on single and unreliable sources.

For me, the history of the IPCC making untrue claims is enough to treat with caution any further claims. You may be different, and each of us has to decide that for ourselves.

Your suspicions are unfounded, and I am a little surprised that "suspicions" about individual posters have any place in a discussion, where what is important is the discussion itself, and not personal "suspicions" about individuals.

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

Sure. But there is a difference between a "review" and a "claim".

The three claims which I mentioned were not reviews...

The three “claims” you mentioned above featured in an IPCC review of grey literature (well, one did anyway).

easychair wrote: »

...but were specific claims made. It was only when these claims were investigated, and the truth uncovered, that the IPCC eventually agreed they were not accurate, were untrue, and were based on single and unreliable sources.

My understanding is that the IPCC recognised one error with regard to Himalayan glaciers – I am not aware of any other errors that were in need of correction.

easychair wrote: »

For me, the history of the IPCC making untrue claims is enough to treat with caution any further claims.

You may be shocked and horrified to learn that scientific papers often contain errors (or “untrue claims” as you call them), hence the need for errata.

Anyway, this is veering off-topic for this thread. If you want to continue, please do so in the above-mentioned thread on the subject.

Macha

easychair wrote: »

Your suspicions are unfounded, and I am a little surprised that "suspicions" about individual posters have any place in a discussion, where what is important is the discussion itself, and not personal "suspicions" about individuals.

Cut out the nonsense please.

easychair

According to Ray Bates, of the Meterology & Climate Center of UCD, he says the Artic ice is floating n the sea, and if it melts will cause no increase in sea levels, due to Archimedes Principle. He further goes on to say that ice on Greenland, if it melts, probably will add to sea levels, but that’s counteracted by the fact that the Antartic is doing the opposite of the Artic and is actually getting colder and the areas of ice are increasing. As the seas are connected, and bearing in mind these facts, he says that its unlikely there will be much difference either way in sea levels.

Macha

Link?

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

He further goes on to say that ice on Greenland, if it melts, probably will add to sea levels, but that’s counteracted by the fact that the Antartic is doing the opposite of the Artic and is actually getting colder...

Is it?

Capt'n Midnight

easychair wrote: »

According to Ray Bates, of the Meterology & Climate Center of UCD, he says the Artic ice is floating n the sea, and if it melts will cause no increase in sea levels, due to Archimedes Principle. He further goes on to say that ice on Greenland, if it melts, probably will add to sea levels, but that’s counteracted by the fact that the Antartic is doing the opposite of the Artic and is actually getting colder and the areas of ice are increasing.

Since you didn't bother to provide a link, here is one from Ray


http://www.c-s.ie/media/Climate_Change_Update_Bates.pdf

7. Land-based Ice
Unlike the melting of sea ice, which does not directly influence sea level, the melting of land-
based ice does contribute directly to sea level rise. The melting of many glaciers along the
margins of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets is accelerating (Pritchard et al., 2009;
Velicogna, I., 2009). Globally, ice losses are estimated to contribute 1.8 mm yr-1 to sea level
rise, the remainder of the total of 3.5 mm yr-1 being due to thermal expansion (see Section 8).
Ice loss as a result of accelerated ice-sheet flow is so poorly understood that its potential
contribution to sea level over the twenty-first century remains unpredictable.

easychair

Macha wrote: »

Link?

It is from an interview he gave to Pat Kenny on 250110, and which I downloaded from Pat Kelly show website. I got a new phone recently and it turned up on and it must have downloaded automatically as I'd forgotten about it. It's interesting tho.

easychair

Coincidentally, we were watching this last evening, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00818zy/The_Blue_Planet_Frozen_Seas/ in which David Attenborough claims the the Artic is a "Frozen Sea".

Macha

easychair, please try to reference sources that are accessible to all readers. BBC iPlayer is not open to Irish IP addresses.

When we talk about ice on land, we're referring to Antarctica, Greenland, etc. I don't think anyone here is claiming that the Arctic represents a significant amount of land ice.

Capt'n Midnight

easychair wrote: »

Coincidentally, we were watching this last evening, http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00818zy/The_Blue_Planet_Frozen_Seas/ in which David Attenborough claims the the Artic is a "Frozen Sea".

I'm not watching a 50 minute program to see if there are a few seconds where he actually says that .

and even if he did, what was the context ?

could he perhaps have referred to the sea in winter as the ice cover is cyclic

this from 11 years ago Ice free water at the north pole / artic ice has thinned by 40% in the last 40 years
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/888235.stm


This thread is in the science category , which means you need to back up your opinions with with facts that can be verified. Heresay or vague references don't make for a strong argument. Especially when going off topics on stuff that has been done to death before.



has anyone mentioned the effects of acid rain from Chinese power stations ?

easychair

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm not watching a 50 minute program to see if there are a few seconds where he actually says that .

and even if he did, what was the context ?

I was asked for a reference, and I gave it. No one is forcing you to do anything, or watch anything, you don't want to do.

The context was that he was talking about the Arctic and Antartic, and there is no way I can prove that to anyone who wants to disbelieve anything unless someone else provides proof.

Where we differ is that I am interested in more thank just the science, ( I am interested in the science also) and am happy to debate and discuss without laboriously expecting that every point be backed up with evidence.

Acid rain is such an evocative term and was much in use in the 1980's when were all terrified that acid rain was going to destroy the forests of Europe. Thank heavens most of the forests seem to have escaped unscathed, and acid rain seems to have been consigned to history. Is it a particular problem in China?

djpbarry

easychair wrote: »

I was asked for a reference, and I gave it.

You gave a source that most posters on this forum cannot access. Can you provide another please.

easychair wrote: »

The context was that he was talking about the Arctic and Antartic, and there is no way I can prove that to anyone who wants to disbelieve anything unless someone else provides proof.

Or you could just provide another, more accessible source.

easychair wrote: »

I Where we differ is that I am interested in more thank just the science, ( I am interested in the science also) and am happy to debate and discuss without laboriously expecting that every point be backed up with evidence.

Well that’s not how this forum works, particularly in threads prefixed with “Science” – if you make a claim/point, you have to back it up if challenged to do so.

easychair wrote: »

I Acid rain is such an evocative term and was much in use in the 1980's when were all terrified that acid rain was going to destroy the forests of Europe. Thank heavens most of the forests seem to have escaped unscathed, and acid rain seems to have been consigned to history.

Eh, no, not really – it’s still a problem in several parts of the world, including Eastern and Northern Europe.

Overheal

easychair wrote: »

I was asked for a reference, and I gave it. No one is forcing you to do anything, or watch anything, you don't want to do.

Could you perhaps at least point out at which point in the video we are supposed to look at? 38 minutes in? 12 minutes 45 seconds?

Capt'n Midnight

easychair wrote: »

I was asked for a reference, and I gave it.

That would be like me saying just google the points I make, the references you've provided are that vague. Drug companies and alternative medecine and many sceptics use the old trick of obstrufucating results and references such that they can't be examined so people can't refute them.

Acid rain is such an evocative term and was much in use in the 1980's when were all terrified that acid rain was going to destroy the forests of Europe. Thank heavens most of the forests seem to have escaped unscathed, and acid rain seems to have been consigned to history. Is it a particular problem in China?

Actually it's a HUGE problem


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5290236.stm

"Increased sulphur dioxide emissions meant that one-third of China's territory was affected by acid rain, posing a major threat to soil and food safety," Sheng Huaren of the standing committee, was quoted by state media as saying.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/dust-storms-china.html

The situation is much the same in the northeastern United States and Canada, though further advanced. There, natural buffers -- calcium magnesium in soils and bedrock -- are so depleted from half a century of acid rain that forests continue to suffer to this day, even though federal regulations regulations have cut acid deposition in half.

At this rate it's just a matter of time until China's dusty protection is gone, too.

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/acid-rain-makes-life-hard-in-258-chinese-cit/736487/

China, the world's largest consumer of coal, is paying a heavy price for its rapid development, with 258 of its cities experiencing acid rains due to excessive emission of sulphur dioxide, causing health hazards and damage to buildings and scenic spots, according to official statistics.

The study of the changing weather pattern in Xiamen in the southeastern part of Fujian province, regarded as one of the best places to live or visit in China, shows that the city is witnessing continuous acid rains, staining its centuries-old colonial buildings and the world's biggest Buddhist statue.

"Official statistics show every drop of rain in Xiamen in the first half of 2010 was acidic, recording pH levels of less than 5.6 (neutral is 7)," Zhuang Mazhan, chief engineer at Xiamen's Environmental Monitoring Central Station said.

Stinicker

Global Warming does not exist and was concocted by various governments and discredited "scientists" as a revenue generation exercise. Any person who is so arrogant to believe that the hand of man could change the world like this is truly deluded. Climate Change however is happening and has been happening for thousands and millions of years, its part of a natural cycle and if we get snow or heat it is all attributed to global warming or some other pish posh green nonsense.

It is all about one thing, increasing taxation and nothing else. I'm Glad to see the Green Party wiped out and Environmentalism totally dicredited in this country for the lies and fraud it represents.

Macha

<mod>Oops, forgot to lock this thread.

Stinicker, please use the Climate Change megathread.</mod>