Excessive Weather

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Fine by me – I was just getting 'warmed up'…and have a lot to say about Sherwood.  PM to Paul…

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 06/01/2016 16:33:40

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Colin

Thank you for your comments from which I will ask a relevant question.

If global warming is just so much hot air why have the world leaders agreed to limit global temperature rises?

Paul

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Ah! Sherwood! Suburb of Nottingham astride the A60 northbound, right next to where we live. How do you know it, D-G?
Paul – you always want to have the last word. I wasn't once married to you, was I??
Colin – I'm so glad someone else feels as out-of-his-depth with this as I do. I still can't help feeling that we're into "immovable object vs irresistible force" territory, though.

If you all want a giggle I've just had an E-Mail telling me that Papplewick pond has now been drained in order to repair a leak, but the Trust needs volunteers to clear the mud first. "Bring your own shovel and wellies". That's going to put a few more kilos of methane into the atmosphere!

DM

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 06/01/2016 17:22:17:

Colin

Thank you for your comments from which I will ask a relevant question.

If global warming is just so much hot air why have the world leaders agreed to limit global temperature rises?

Paul

Address the science. You have a large PM to get through…

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Yup! Don't ask me. Get on with your homework, both of you. Dave and I will mark it by tossing a coin.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

I strongly suspect that tossing a coin will not resolve this.

I find myself reading through reams of data balancing claim against counter claim and wondering why I bother, as DG points out there is a pleather of papers, documents and articles that contradict each other whilst not coming to any concrete conclusions.

I also understand why DG makes repeated references to activists although I still disagree that Anderson and the Tyndall Centre fall into this category.

I should apologise for the shotgun approach to citing dubious data, its an old ploy but it usually chases off the non committed.

So now we are at the point where only pure data will suffice and this will take me some time.

Paul

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

…no ones's ever called me non-committed before…

[harry smith 1Participant @harrysmith1]

If pollies and the greenies stop flapping for 12 months the problem would be over!!!!

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hello Harry

I've been reading up on the Great Barrier Reef after watching a superb UK documentary by Sir David Attenborough.

They make reference to climate change and the effects on the reef, there is a very well written piece by the Union of Concerned Scientists **LINK** but DG will probably refer to them as the Union of Leftie Activists.

I don't think the doubters will ever agree to the possibility of climate change.

Paul

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

I think a lot of the problem is that the choice is commonly presented in the media and elsewhere in black and white terms as either 'it isn't happening' or 'we're all doomed' when the ultimate truth, if there is one, is somewhere between the two but nobody can prove exactly where.

Colin

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Hi Colin

Perhaps your right.

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Personally, I take all this "climate change caused by human activity," with a pinch of salt!

Neither do I worry about it!

As I have said before, even if it is 100% true:

Everybody knows what needs to be done, but nobody wants to do it!

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Everybody knows what needs to be done, but nobody wants to do it!

On the contrary Bob plenty of people want to do it and make strenuous efforts to reduce their own carbon footprint but this is just a drop in the ocean when you consider the huge impact that air-travel and using fossil fuels to generate power has.

But instead of taking positive steps toward mitigating this problem (real or not) the decision makers continue to prevaricate.

If the Thames ever floods London there will be no pleasure in saying 'I told you so'

Paul

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

I don't believe they do for one moment! They might make "strenuous" efforts by not using aerosols, turning lights off when not in use etc. But when it comes to major polluters such as aircraft, cars and flying. Virtually no-one is prepared to make "strenuous efforts!" They all flew off to the conference to discuss "climate change" or whatever, when they could have had a virtual conference via satellite link! They will continue to build airports and add runway, and they will continue to fly on foreign holidays. Neither will the vast majority use buses instead of their cars!

The decision makers prevaricate because they "know what needs to be done, but don't want to do it!"

All these wind turbines don't help either. They are only of benefit when the power stations are running at full capacity and they can add to it. The electricity they produce cannot be stored because it is AC, so most of the time, they are just churning round doing nothing! In fact I believe (and I may be wrong) that on calm days, they run them as electric motors to give the impression the wind is turning them when in reality, there isn't any wind!

Let's add another runway to Heathrow in the meantime!

But, as you rightly say, us "doubters" will never agree!

Bob

[Colin BishopModerator @colinbishop34627]

Apparently one of the biggest sources of pollution is shipping. I have seen some pretty convincing photos of the haze over the Dover Straits showing this.

Colin

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 22/01/2016 13:08:18:

…They make reference to climate change and the effects on the reef, there is a very well written piece by the Union of Concerned Scientists **LINK** but DG will probably refer to them as the Union of Leftie Activists.

I don't think the doubters will ever agree to the possibility of climate change.

Paul

 

I don't think the believers will ever stop trying to push their political agenda, in spite of the fact that the world no longer believes them, and that science itself has taken a damaging blow as a result. The 'Union of Concerned Scientists' is a classic lobbying group. You don't have to be a 'scientist' to belong to it – famously, Anthony Watts' dog is a member. They specialise in smear stories – as here http://reason.com/archives/2012/06/05/follow-the-pennies

I am surprised to find Paul raising this issue here – I had provided a set of references for him to consider via a PM (which I am sure is the best medium for these discussions) and have not yet had a response to them. So maybe I can make a few of points here.

1 – Global temperature data is now a political football, with retrospective adjustments making nonsense of any attempt to examine what is really happening – see here **LINK**

or here: **LINK**

2 – Presenting the argument as "denying the possibility of climate change" is a sly debating trick. Everybody agrees that the climate changes as time goes by – cycling between ice ages and hot ages on a timescale of many millions of years. Inside an Ice Age, there are cold periods (glaciations) and warmer periods (inter-glacials) on a scale of perhaps a million years. We are in an interglacial now. Inside an interglacial, there are cold and hot periods on a scale of hundreds of years. We are just coming out of a cold period – the 'Little Ice Age' (about 1500-1850)

So you would expect the temperature to be gradually rising, and indeed it has been since the depth of the Little Ice Age – last cold point around 1850. On top of this we can detect many temperature cycles, including an approximate 60-year oscillation, which is not well understood. We were in a down part of that cycle during the 1970s, when stories about a coming ice age were in vogue, and we were in the up period during the 1990s, when Global Warming was a fear. See **LINK**

3 – "If pollies and the greenies stop flapping for 12 months the problem would be over!!!!" (harysmith1)

I concur with this 100%, though I would prefer to make it 24 months. We have just had a medium-sized El Nino, which pushes global temperatures up. It should end this summer. This is likely to be followed by a La Nina, which depresses global temperatures. Added to that, we have peaked at the high point of the 60-year cycle, and so temperatures from late 2016 ought to be firmly on a downward phase. I expect 2017/18 to be a very bad year for global warming supporters, and hope that Paul T takes note…

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 22/01/2016 15:42:41

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Bob Wilson on 22/01/2016 15:07:49:

…..

All these wind turbines don't help either. They are only of benefit when the power stations are running at full capacity and they can add to it. The electricity they produce cannot be stored because it is AC, so most of the time, they are just churning round doing nothing! In fact I believe (and I may be wrong) that on calm days, they run them as electric motors to give the impression the wind is turning them when in reality, there isn't any wind!

………

Bob

 

While I agree with the general gist of your post, I could add a few more points..

All these wind turbines don't help either. They are only of benefit when the power stations are running at full capacity and they can add to it.

A wind turbine will generate energy at no cost (ignoring the initial investment and maintenance) when the wind is blowing. That is good as it stands. However, to be of use to the grid, the requirement is to provide electricity WHEN IT IS NEEDED. This, the turbines cannot promise to do. In order to justify the spend on turbines that we have, we now have a law that says whenever a turbine is running the grid MUST accept its electricity.

This provides a business case for the turbines. But for this to happen, other power stations must intermittently cut their output, or power down completely. This makes THEM very inefficient, and endangers the stability of our supply. It also means that they emit more CO2 when stopping and restarting. When you do the sums, you find that, even assuming that saving CO2 is a benefit (which I do not believe), adding wind power to a grid is beneficial up to around 20%-30% penetration. Beyond this, it is uniformly bad. Here is a worked example: **LINK**

The electricity they produce cannot be stored because it is AC, so most of the time, they are just churning round doing nothing!

So long as we have energy, we can store it – it doesn't matter if it's ac electricity, dc electricity or straight heat. We may need to convert it and lose efficiency, of course. If we could store energy effectively, wind power and many other generating processes would become economical. But, with current technology, we can't. There are lots of other reasons why this is so – if you want to talk about this, start another thread….!

In fact I believe (and I may be wrong) that on calm days, they run them as electric motors to give the impression the wind is turning them when in reality, there isn't any wind!

You are right, and the reason is much the same as the reason you have to move a big ship's shaft at intervals. You don't want stresses bending the shaft or inactivity encouraging the gearboxes to lock up…

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 22/01/2016 16:06:29

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 22/01/2016 16:07:02

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

Motor ships tend to emit invisible noxious fumes, so maybe the smoke over Dover is coming from somewhere else, but even if it is coming from the ships, it is because so many are packed together in a small area. A few miles out to sea, everything is clear from smoke and fumes. Fifty years ago, we passed numerous ships every day on the route from Southampton to Cape Town… 25 years ago, hardly any! One ship these days takes the place of 10 or 20 more than 50 years ago, and their engines are more efficient! So they have made progress.

Windsor Castle guzzled about 250 tons of oil a day! Present day ships only a fraction of that, and steamers have all gone. They polluted every four hours by blowing tubes to get rid of the soot!

Steamer propeller shafts did keep turning in port to preserve the shaft, but not very fast. They seemed to click round at about one inch per second at the blade ends. As far as I know, motor ship shafts do not turn in port. That may be due to the fact that they are shorter with the engines aft designs! Also in port stays are a fraction of what they once were.

At present, as far as I know, the only way to store AC is to convert it to DC and put it in a battery. To put it in the grid, it would have to be converted back to AC. That would be one big battery, and one big converter!

We all know the pollution made by shipping could be eradicated by going back to sail, but that will not happen because they were too dangerous to be tolerated today.

As far as I am concerned, flying machines are the worst thing the human race ever invented in noise, pollution and their obvious uses in the many wars than never cease. I haven't flown for over 25 years, and don't intend to, but how many of "climate change" believers will put their beliefs into practice and abandon their flying holidays and motor cars? – not many, I suspect!

Bob

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

DG

I have been carefully going through the documents and references that you supplied and other papers related to this subject.

I am the first to admit that this subject is outside my particular area of knowledge and as such I can only reach a personal conclusion by reading academic papers written by people who are knowledgeable in this subject, No doubt the sources that I cite will all turn out to be sandal wearing, left wing activists but I chose to rely upon their academic credentials and impersonal insults.

My personal conclusion is that climate change is happening and regardless of whether the causes are natural or man made we as a species should take the responsible view and limit our impact upon the environment until the real cause is identified.

Given you previous disapproval of Manchester Universities Climate Department I looked further afield and submit the following.

 

Author Mark B Dyurgerov and Mark F Meier

Paper Twentieth century climate change: Evidence from small glaciers

Published The National Academy of Science February 15^th 2000

Abstract

The relation between changes in modern glaciers, not including the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, and their climatic environment is investigated to shed light on paleoglacier evidence of past climate change and for projecting the effects of future climate warming on cold regions of the world. Loss of glacier volume has been more or less continuous since the 19th century, but it is not a simple adjustment to the end of an “anomalous” Little Ice Age. We address the 1961–1997 period, which provides the most observational data on volume changes. These data show trends that are highly variable with time as well as within and between regions; trends in the Arctic are consistent with global averages but are quantitatively smaller. The averaged annual volume loss is 147 mm⋅yr⁻¹ in water equivalent, totalling 3.7 × 10³ km³ over 37 yr. The time series shows a shift during the mid-1970s, followed by more rapid loss of ice volume and further acceleration in the last decade; this is consistent with climatologic data. Perhaps most significant is an increase in annual accumulation along with an increase in melting; these produce a marked increase in the annual turnover or amplitude. The rise in air temperature suggested by the temperature sensitivities of glaciers in cold regions is somewhat greater than the global average temperature rise derived largely from low altitude gauges, and the warming is accelerating.

 

Author Camille Parmesan & Gary Yohe

Paper A globally coherent fingerprint of climate change impacts across natural systems

Published Nature 421 2^nd January 2003

 

Abstract

Causal attribution of recent biological trends to climate change is complicated because non-climatic influences dominate local, short-term biological changes. Any underlying signal from climate change is likely to be revealed by analyses that seek systematic trends across diverse species and geographic regions; however, debates within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reveal several definitions of a 'systematic trend'. Here, we explore these differences, apply diverse analyses to more than 1,700 species, and show that recent biological trends match climate change predictions. Global meta-analyses documented significant range shifts averaging 6.1 km per decade towards the poles (or metres per decade upward), and significant mean advancement of spring events by 2.3 days per decade. We define a diagnostic fingerprint of temporal and spatial 'sign-switching' responses uniquely predicted by twentieth century climate trends. Among appropriate long-term/large-scale/multi-species data sets, this diagnostic fingerprint was found for 279 species. This suite of analyses generates 'very high confidence' (as laid down by the IPCC) that climate change is already affecting living systems.

 

cont.

 

 

Edited By Paul T on 22/01/2016 18:14:43

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

 

Authors

Larry D. Hinzman Affiliated with University of Alaska Fairbanks, Water and Environmental Research Centre, Neil D. Bettez Affiliated with Marine Biological LaboratoryW. Robert Bolton Affiliated with University of Alaska Fairbanks, Water and Environmental Research Centre F. Stuart Chapin Affiliated with University of Alaska Fairbanks, Water and Environmental Research Centre Mark B. Dyurgerov Affiliated with University of Colorado Chris L. Fastie Affiliated with Middlebury College, Brad Griffith Affiliated with US Geological Survey, Robert D. Hollister Affiliated with Michigan State University, Allen Hope Affiliated with San Diego State University and 26 more

Paper       Evidence and Implications of Recent Climate Change in Northern Alaska and Other Arctic Regions

Published Springer Climate Change October 2005, Volume 72

 

Abstract

The Arctic climate is changing. Permafrost is warming, hydrological processes are changing and biological and social systems are also evolving in response to these changing conditions. Knowing how the structure and function of arctic terrestrial ecosystems are responding to recent and persistent climate change is paramount to understanding the future state of the Earth system and how humans will need to adapt. Our holistic review presents a broad array of evidence that illustrates convincingly; the Arctic is undergoing a system-wide response to an altered climatic state. New extreme and seasonal surface climatic conditions are being experienced, a range of biophysical states and processes influenced by the threshold and phase change of freezing point are being altered, hydrological and biogeochemical cycles are shifting, and more regularly human sub-systems are being affected. Importantly, the patterns, magnitude and mechanisms of change have sometimes been unpredictable or difficult to isolate due to compounding factors. In almost every discipline represented, we show how the biocomplexity of the Arctic system has highlighted and challenged a paucity of integrated scientific knowledge, the lack of sustained observational and experimental time series, and the technical and logistic constraints of researching the Arctic environment. This study supports on-going efforts to strengthen the interdisciplinary of arctic system science and improve the coupling of large scale experimental manipulation with sustained time series observations by incorporating and integrating novel technologies, remote sensing and modelling.

Edited By Paul T on 22/01/2016 18:16:49

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

Posted by Paul T on 22/01/2016 18:13:36:

DG

I have been carefully going through the documents and references that you supplied and other papers related to this subject.

I am the first to admit that this subject is outside my particular area of knowledge and as such I can only reach a personal conclusion by reading academic papers written by people who are knowledgeable in this subject, No doubt the sources that I cite will all turn out to be sandal wearing, left wing activists but I chose to rely upon their academic credentials and impersonal insults.

My personal conclusion is that climate change is happening and regardless of whether the causes are natural or man made we as a species should take the responsible view and limit our impact upon the environment until the real cause is identified.

Given you previous disapproval of Manchester Universities Climate Department I looked further afield and submit the following….

 

1 – I am uninterested in scientists' political affiliations. It is of more interest whether they would lose their grants if they did not come up with the 'right' answer. But of greater interest still is the science behind their assertions, the accuracy of their data and the logic of their arguments. I submit that in all these areas they are found wanting, and that you should be able to come to a conclusion on this issue, and justify it, without needing to be an expert in that particular topic.

2 – No one disagrees that the climate is changing. It changes naturally. We do not know all the reasons why, though we can understand some of them. To assert that we should 'stop having an impact' before we know what we may be having an impact on, or, indeed, whether we are having an impact at all, is a meaningless request. Further, it provides carte blanche for activists to close down our industrial society, or damage it severely. Such damage is already apparent in the German and UK electricity sectors, so we are not talking hypothetically.

If we were to sustain considerable damage in this manner we could not support the number of humans that the Earth currently supports, and very many would die. So calling for a vague 'limit to environmental impact', which sounds uncontroversial, is really playing with fire, and policies based on this idealistic notion need to be examined very carefully indeed.

3 – You have offered me a set of papers (2000 to 2005 – it would be nice to have more modern ones) describing various natural changes. Simply describing changes and then saying that they MUST be due to human CO2 output is a completely unjustified leap of faith. And yet this is essentially the argument we are asked to believe. Looking at a quick overview of your papers:

a) – Dyurgerov and Meier on 'Small Glaciers'. Glaciers were a favourite 'Climate Change Canary' 15 years ago, when this paper was written. They are not now, because the glaciers are coming back again. See **LINK** One other reason that they have fallen out of fashion is that, as the glaciers retreated, they uncovered examples of vegetation and sometimes human habitation that was beneath them – showing that they had retreated at least this far back before, at times when men were presumed 'not to have impacted the climate', so such retreat must therefore be natural! And finally, there is no study showing 'all' or any 'defined percentage' of glaciers shrinking, for the simple reason that no one knows how many glaciers there are in the world….

b) – Parmesan & Yohe on 'Species Impact'. Citing Camille Parmesan does you no favours at all. Her position is well known – I quote her "From the scientific perspective, there are simply no longer “two sides” to the climate-change story: The debate is over. The jury is in, and humans are the culprit.” More importantly, in her well-known butterfly study she has been shown to have altered and manipulated data to produce a conclusion which matched her prejudices. See **LINK** and **LINK** If you read none of my other cites, read this one.

c) – Hinzman et al 'Arctic Change' I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this one. We know the Arctic warmed 10 years ago – this paper simply documents the fact. The Arctic is now cooling again. Anyone who holds up Arctic warming as an example of Global Warming will face a difficult task explaining why, while the Arctic warmed due to a hypothesised world-wide CO2-driven heat wave, the Antarctic cooled at the same time, and its ice expanded to record-breaking levels. You will find attempts to do this, claiming that the Arctic melted while global warming made the Antarctic snow more heavily – these are cries of desperation, equivalent to the explanation in the UK that both droughts and floods are caused by CO2. In all these cases no proven mechanism exists – natural weather cycles are just taken and presented as justification for more grant.

 

 

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 22/01/2016 20:28:01

[Dodgy Geezer 1Participant @dodgygeezer1]

I really think that if you want to continue this conversation you should:

– Not include the abstracts of papers in a post – a cite will do fine.

– Find a paper which provides unequivocal evidence that human CO2 is impacting the world's climate in a dangerous way

– Cite it and explain why you find this evidence compelling

– Do this in a PM where we can have an opportunity to discuss things at length without clogging up model boat discussions too much!

Edited By Dodgy Geezer on 22/01/2016 20:29:06

[Bob WilsonParticipant @bobwilson59101]

This article appeared in the Daily Mail this morning! I do not care one way or the other, but generally agree with what it says.

Bob

**LINK**

[Paul TParticipant @pault84577]

Yes reading Jim Steel is very revealing and demonstrates how easy it is to be a critic and rip apart academic works simply to sell books. But then in a world where every scientist is evil and corrupt and every journalist is honest and trustworthy what else can we expect, perhaps we should close down of the universities, throw out all of the research and rely upon the Daily Mail for all of our scientific knowledge.

I'm done

[Dave MilbournParticipant @davemilbourn48782]

Posted by Paul T on 23/01/2016 12:56:42:

I'm done

Is that a promise, Paul?

[Author]

Posts