Floods-Climate change-Global warming-Causes-Outcome-Precidtions....

Mountainsandh · 13-12-2015 10:04am

He also points out how Cop conferences are usually covered by economics or business journalists (look at the Irish example) rather than meteorologists or other scientists, who might be more critical of press releases and topics discussed there.

It's also interesting to know that some time last year, Laurent Fabius invited top weather personalities (inter nations) to a meeting in Elysee, where it was suggested, amongst very little else, that they should start using terms such as "climate chaos or collapse" rather than the old boring climate change.

Not sure if the book is available in English yet.

Corpus Twisty · 13-12-2015 10:43pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

He also points out how Cop conferences are usually covered by economics or business journalists (look at the Irish example) rather than meteorologists or other scientists, who might be more critical of press releases and topics discussed there.

It's also interesting to know that some time last year, Laurent Fabius invited top weather personalities (inter nations) to a meeting in Elysee, where it was suggested, amongst very little else, that they should start using terms such as "climate chaos or collapse" rather than the old boring climate change.

Not sure if the book is available in English yet.

They will launch "The War on Climate Change" soon and start bombing high carbon users in the middle east.

Wonder what the old "emissions" profile of the burning oil wells in Iraq etc looked like? Carbon spendy? Probably. No one seemed too bothered. Too worried about Mr and Mrs Average leaving the car idling on the drive for 10 minute.

LordSutch · 14-12-2015 8:14pm

iguana wrote: »

Canute never thought he could stop the tide, you got the whole entire point of the story backwards. So excuse me if I seem a little skeptical of someone who doesn't even understand a really straightforward myth about a King who knew he had no power over the tide proving to his courtiers that he had no power over the tide.:)

Well smartie pants, there are indeed two versions of the Canute story, and both versions can be applied to my theory

https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/123/Canute%20Waves.htm
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-13524677

Version One upholds my theory, and version two yours, so either the king really believed that he could command the sea, or he proved to his followers that he had no power what so ever over the sea!

and that his commands were worthless against mother nature.

So either the leaders at the Paris summit believe that they really can reduce the planets temperature by 1.5D/c, or they will be shown not to have any control over the natural climatic cycle of the planet (by reducing our imissons) .... ergo, either version of the Canute story works.

And anyway, I don't believe that we can just limit our burning of fossil fuels and the planet will magically get cooler (minority view admittedly). But personally speaking, I think there's more to climate change than just us humans and our pollution.

Samaris · 14-12-2015 8:40pm

It's true that the Paris conference won't really make much difference. There is a lag between pollution* and effects, and we've already gone past the point of preventing a rise in temperature. I think we'll be lucky if we hold it at 2C rise, to be honest, and that's only if we get -really- strict. 3C is probably more likely at this point.

Limiting carbon emissions will not -cool- the planet, it will just hopefully limit how much the global temperature rises.

The warming is "natural", so to speak, insofar as it follows basic chemistry and physics. But the triggering of this particular cycle of warming is anthropogenic. It is not -just- the fossil fuels we put into the atmosphere, but the knock-on effects. For instance - the ocean is a massive carbon sink. As the ocean warms however, it holds less carbon; it releases it into the atmosphere. Now, we're not directly putting -that- carbon into the atmosphere, but it was triggered by our emissions and land use choices destablising that system. Further, it is not -just- a massive influx of ice-water into the oceans that would cause sea level rise, the majority of it is, again, a warming ocean expanding - same as in a kettle when you boil it.

It is complex, no-one denies that. But at base, the whole situation does follow basic laws of nature.

*word used in a very generalised sense, I mean emitting of "greenhouse gases".

ScumLord · 14-12-2015 8:40pm

Mountainsandh wrote: »

I'm currently reading Philippe Verdier's book, Climat investigation. He's the French meteorologist who was recently sacked from his TV weather man job because he intended to publish said book.
There's too much in it to explain here... to give a broad idea, he does not deny climate change, but does question the validity of linking it to human activity, and questions the transparency, bias, and exposes weaknesses in various studies on climate change.
He describes economic (and political) policies and how they link to the issue.

He is of the opinion that human impact is greatly over estimated, and the sense of emergency is calculated and not justified.

He makes the very valid point that over population and increasing fertility rates are a lot more serious for our planet than reducing emissions, but that the subject is so taboo and less profitable that nobody wants to bring it up.

There's probably a lot of truth to it. I think the main problem is this focus on carbon emissions. I do think it's a bit of a big distraction, but I do think humanity is having a devastating impact on the planet and that focusing on carbon emissions is the big smoke screen corporations are using to distract us from the worse things their doing. We're pumping huge amounts of chemicals into the environment, we're abusing land until it's next to useless., we're destroying the lands ability to cope with weather (the flooding this year is in large part down to the fact we just didn't put any thought into the fact it rains here all the time).

The climate is changing, it will always be changing but we're tipping the scales and sending it to extremes I think, and destroying the land means it has no way of coping with the climate changing. Carbon is just the tip of the iceberg, it's probably the least worst thing we do. It's become a bit of a go to thing that governments and corporations can wave about in an attempt to look like they give a damn.

They've basically agreed to do as little as they possibly can here.

Samaris · 14-12-2015 8:44pm

ScumLord wrote: »

There's probably a lot of truth to it. I think the main problem is this focus on carbon emissions. I do think it's a bit of a big distraction, but I do think humanity is having a devastating impact on the planet and that focusing on carbon emissions is the big smoke screen corporations are using to distract us from the worse things their doing. We're pumping huge amounts of chemicals into the environment, we're abusing land until it's next to useless., we're destroying the lands ability to cope with weather (the flooding this year is in large part down to the fact we just didn't put any thought into the fact it rains here all the time).

You're definately not wrong on that; there are a lot more problems along with CO2 and associated gas releases. But this -is- a major one. Land use is another.

The climate is changing, it will always be changing but we're tipping the scales and sending it to extremes I think, and destroying the land means it has no way of coping with the climate changing. [

Agreed.

Carbon is just the tip of the iceberg, it's probably the least worst thing we do. It's become a bit of a go to thing that governments and corporations can wave about in an attempt to look like they give a damn.

Yes and no. It's certainly not the least damaging thing we're doing, and it is one that people can at least get a grasp on. It's one major issue, one of the biggest, and its effects are absolutely not negligible.

They've basically agreed to do as little as they possibly can here.

As usual. But there's only so much they can do with a population that resists it until the flood water is in their house.

Mountainsandh · 14-12-2015 11:35pm

Over population though ! This has to be addressed, and they're just shying away. Ironically I saw an article this week titled : China and India support the adoption of the Paris agreement. Well, yeah, sure.

I agree that land use and abuse certainly have as much effect on climate as emissions. I don't know much about the subject though.

But just this week, I thought I'd find out about the formation of the Sahara desert, and there's a mention about dry dust, and a link to this other very interesting article about how Earth's Orbit shaped the Sahara.
It's dated 2010.

Thought I'd share it here, it's another possible factor for climate change.

For a long time, the belief was that the Earth's tilt would change only insignificantly in the next century. However, recent research is suggesting that the effects of global warming?particularly the oceans?could cause a change in the Earth's axial tilt. Scientists from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory say that the current melting of ice in Greenland is already causing the tilt to change at a rate of approximately 2.6 centimeters each year. They predict that his change could increase in the years ahead.

Phillippe Verdier's book is not really about denying climate fluctuations, it is about denouncing the deliberate political agenda in focusing on CO2 emissions only. To him, a wealth of information from climatologists is being lost or deliberately kept quiet, research is either overlooked or simply not taking place, because climatologists are either swallowed up in the Giec machine, or they (or their research) ignored.
He's very upset that meteorologists are now asked by governments to link extreme weather events to climate when there is as of yet not definitive data to show these events can be attributed to man-made global warming.

mad muffin · 14-12-2015 11:38pm

I watched 2012. I am prepared.

gk5000 · 15-12-2015 1:34am

Climate change is ..an unproven theory, too unproven to spend money on or on fixing/negating yet loads of pc hangers on being funded by the threat of it.

mickdw · 15-12-2015 1:39am

I blame the porsche drivers for melting the ice during the ice age.
Its been a slippery slope from there.

enfant terrible · 15-12-2015 2:14am

Any chance the warming could move the Azores high over us in the Summer and push the Jet Stream away?

Mediterranean summers for Ireland would be nice.

15-12-2015 4:06am

Akrasia wrote: »

climate is supposed to be stable on human timescales, that's the difference between climate and weather

These guys disagree with you:
http://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/ice-ages-what-are-they-and-what-causes-them/

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more

topmanamillion · 15-12-2015 4:19am

Extremely worrying poll, that anyone believes climate change is due to anything other than mankind's burning of fossil fuels is mind boggling.

Research shows that we've experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution, as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history--but this change happened a lot more quickly.

Anyone that suggests 200years + of blowing holes in the ozone layer and poisoning the earth has has had no impact on climate should be ignored and labelled an idiot.

Natural cycles my arse!

As for what will happen. It certainly won't be pretty. We, as humankind, have shown a complete lack of respect for nature and she's kicking back.

As an island nation we can expect to bear a heavy burden.
Ever more severe flooding along rivers and lakes, increased sea levels and environmental refugees are all in our future.

We deserve every bit of it. The only people I feel sorry for are native tribes, who had no impact on the problem but are living on Islands whose home is slowly being swallowed by rising ocean levels.

Samaris · 15-12-2015 4:24am

On a shorter time scale, global temperatures fluctuate often and rapidly. Various records reveal numerous large, widespread, abrupt climate changes over the past 100,000 years. One of the more recent intriguing findings is the remarkable speed of these changes. Within the incredibly short time span (by geologic standards) of only a few decades or even a few years, global temperatures have fluctuated by as much as 15°F (8°C) or more

The tipping point phenomenon, yes. Basically, that is where a slow overloading of X factor reaches a point where a positive feedback cycle starts. The results at that point -can- be very quick. You will note, by the way, in the same article that it references carbon dioxide as a potential loading factor.

Your point does not refute Akrasia's, however, in direct terms, she is correct (s/he?). Climate is the accumulated data from several decades of relatively stable conditions - we use a thirty year baseline.

kneemos · 15-12-2015 4:45am

topmanamillion wrote: »

Extremely worrying poll, that anyone believes climate change is due to anything other than mankind's burning of fossil fuels is mind boggling.

Research shows that we've experienced almost the same range of temperature change since the beginning of the industrial revolution, as over the previous 11,000 years of Earth history--but this change happened a lot more quickly.

Anyone that suggests 200years + of blowing holes in the ozone layer and poisoning the earth has has had no impact on climate should be ignored and labelled an idiot.

Natural cycles my arse!

As for what will happen. It certainly won't be pretty. We, as humankind, have shown a complete lack of respect for nature and she's kicking back.

As an island nation we can expect to bear a heavy burden.
Ever more severe flooding along rivers and lakes, increased sea levels and environmental refugees are all in our future.

We deserve every bit of it. The only people I feel sorry for are native tribes, who had no impact on the problem but are living on Islands whose home is slowly being swallowed by rising ocean levels.

The poll doesn't surprise me at all,the general public are extremely sceptical of this stuff.
The slightly manic,smug and fanatical nature of the green brigade doesn't help,particularly when anybody that questions their theory is considered an idiot or sacked from their job.

Geoffrey Dalton · 15-12-2015 4:53am

Silicone and a hammer.

Samaris · 15-12-2015 5:06am

kneemos wrote: »

The poll doesn't surprise me at all,the general public are extremely sceptical of this stuff.
The slightly manic,smug and fanatical nature of the green brigade doesn't help,particularly when anybody that questions their theory is considered an idiot or sacked from their job.

Actually, looking at the poll, I'm not that surprised. There's two answers that line up with the scientific evidence; neither are phrased exactly correctly, but both are within an ass' roar of it. Those two answers make up over two thirds of the poll answers.

To give an option that fits most closely with the current state of knowledge;

Climate change is a natural and ongoing semi-regular set of cycles based on the widest scale on the shape and rotation of the earth - the "Milankovitch Cycles". However, these cycles do not account for recent fluctuations and speed of said fluctuations as evidenced from recorded data over the past few hundred years. These are results that would be expected from a relatively large influx of so-called "greenhouse gases" being pumped into the atmosphere, having a knock-on effect on various carbon sinks, exacerbated by land use changes.

Oddly enough, we have seen just this sort of activity on the earth during that time.

I appreciate that that is rather long for a poll option though.

15-12-2015 5:47am

Abrupt climate change is normal on planet earth. We need to learn how to adapt to it. It will happen at some stage whether we pump out CO2 or not.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005QSRv...24..513G

We revisit the portion of (Nature 391 (1998) 141) devoted to the abrupt temperature increase reconstruction at the Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition. The original estimate of +5 to +10 °C abrupt warming is revised to +10±4 °C. The gas isotope data from the original work were employed, combined with recently measured precise air thermal diffusion constants (Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 67 (2003a) 345; J. Phys. Chem. 23A (2003b) 4636). The new constants allow a robust interpretation of the gas isotope signal in terms of temperature change. This was not possible at the time of the original work, when no air constants were available. Three quasi-independent approaches employed in this work all give the same result of a +10 °C warming in several decades or less.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621

Near-simultaneous changes in ice-core paleoclimatic indicators of local, regional, and more-widespread climate conditions demonstrate that much of the Earth experienced abrupt climate changes synchronous with Greenland within thirty years or less.

Both abrupt cooling and abrupt warming are normal. Times lines involved range from 30 years to 10 years or less. We have been warming on and off since 1850.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Samaris · 15-12-2015 6:22am

Deleted User wrote: »

Abrupt climate change is normal on planet earth. We need to learn how to adapt to it. It will happen at some stage whether we pump out CO2 or not.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005QSRv...24..513G

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379199000621

Both abrupt cooling and abrupt warming are normal. Times lines involved range from 30 years to 10 years or less. We have been warming on and off since 1850.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think those occurred? What were the processes leading up to those abrupt shifts?

15-12-2015 7:49am

Samaris wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, why do you think those occurred? What were the processes leading up to those abrupt shifts?

Definitely CO2 emissions.

Mountainsandh · 15-12-2015 8:55am

topmanamillion wrote: »

Natural cycles my arse!

.

Implacable argument. I bow to your superior knowledge. We should really let paleoclimatologists know.

LordSutch · 15-12-2015 9:07am

Deleted User wrote: »

Definitely CO2 emissions.

Some would say that CO2 is but a' contributing factor' to global warming...

The natural cycle, and all that.

ScumLord · 15-12-2015 6:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Abrupt climate change is normal on planet earth. We need to learn how to adapt to it. It will happen at some stage whether we pump out CO2 or not.

That's true, but I don't think we can safely say we're having no effect on that process. We also can't assume we can stop the environment from changing. If it wasn't for climate change the human animal simply wouldn't be here. Which also shows the incredible impact climate change can have. Climate change is something we should keep an eye on, it will have a huge affect on our lives, and anything we can do to slow climate change would be beneficial to us, so that we can adapt. I've heard some people say our affect on the environment is actually beneficial to us, because we're holding off the onset of another ice age by keeping greenhouse gases up.

18-12-2015 4:33am

So em our climate models are wrong and have been underestimating H20 and overestimating Co2
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35082422

New calculations show that our already sizeable water footprint is 18% bigger than we thought.

The study is based on a century's worth of observational data drawn from 100 river basins across the world.

It reveals a significant increase in the water being "lost" to the atmosphere as a direct result of human activity.

This occurs through evaporation from land and water surfaces, and from plants as they transpire.

Link to the paper itself
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/350/6265/1248

This increase raises a recent estimate of the current global water footprint of humanity by around 18%, to 10,688 ± 979 km3/year. The results highlight the global impact of local water-use activities and call for their relevant account in Earth system modeling.

This is not insignificant.

"Dam and irrigation developments - even though local - have a big global impact on human water consumption. That's what has not been calculated before and what we've estimated in this paper," Prof Destouni said.

"The water footprint could be up to 20% larger than previously estimated," Dr Jaramillo revealed.

"In dry areas, reducing the water in the environment can have an enormous impact on humans and ecosystems. In a wet landscape, it is in relative terms not as big in the direr areas. Central Asia (Aral Sea), Middle East, areas around the Mediterranean - these are examples of most vulnerable."

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35121340

A new global temperature forecast from the UK's Met Office says that 2016 is likely to be even warmer than 2015.

This year has already been provisionally declared the warmest on record thanks to a combination of global warming and a strong El Nino.

The Met Office believes that temperatures in 2016 could be 1.1C above pre-industrial levels.

Last week in Paris, countries agreed that the world should pursue efforts to limit the rise to 1.5C.

What next? Tell the world it cant irrigate?

Floods-Climate change-Global warming-Causes-Outcome-Precidtions....

Comments