Climate change discussion thread

johntheexpat

Basically what is being called for is a significant investment in efficiency.  Better insulated homes and workplaces, more efficient transport, less waste and more recycling (especially of energy. All energy ends up as heat, ultimately, and to use a primary energy source directly as heat is wasteful on the basis that it could perform useful tasks before being used to heat a home or office, for example).
Then more efficient manufacturing and a raft of other efficiency measures along the way would go a significant way to reducing CO2 output.  It would also reduce our domestic costs and industry's costs, making the country more competitive.

sidicks

The science makes you laugh.  Sums up your stance better than I ever could.

EarthRod

What is amusing is in your belief in models that focus on C02 as the key determinate of future temperature rises with (unproven) positive feedback loops despite the huge range of factors which can influence temperature and despite historically C02 levels lagging temperature rather than leading it.

The fact that those same models have been worse than hopeless at predicting temperature changes over the last 30 years seems to fill you with extra confidence that they will do so over the next 70 years!

In addition there is the  continued evidence that the scientific process has been abused beyond belief.

So forgive me when I at you pointing to the 'science'!

EarthRod

Agreed. Nice one.

I'm all for efficiency.

loz

The science on MMGW is faulty and unreliable for a number of reasons which have already been covered. The main reason is present-day science is not capable of accurate MMGW predictions. Hopefully in the future we will have better capabilities.

We need to separate made-made from natural global warming. Then, as John says, we can concentrate our efforts in reducing MMGW. But at the moment we have no idea what proportion is made-made - we can only guess. Guessing could lead to us making 'solutions' which could negatively effect nature.

Pointless spending millions on a something which could be damaging. Care and caution is primary.

loz

Inside the new climate row as Mystic Met Office goes cool on warming ? The Register

johntheexpat

BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough's Africa

BBC exaggerated climate change in David Attenborough's Africa | Leo Hickman | Environment | guardian.co.uk

Edit: Now on BBC news site http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-21413509

loz

There's no argument that the UK had a very wet 2012, just as it had a very dry 2011. UK rainfall for April-June turned out to be 176%, 94% and 203% of normal. The Met would make four more monthly predictions a likelihood of drier-than-normal weather for the UK, all subsequent months were wetter than normal (September 117%, October 101%, November 111%, and December 150%). As one climate blogger noted dryly:

"It is very kind of Julia [Slingo] to tell us now that she knew all along it was likely to be wetter. It is just a pity, though, that she forgot to tell us at the time."


Why is a "Climate Blogger" commenting on weather?  The rain in 2012 was weather.  One abberant year doesn't indicate anything about Climate Change.  But then a lot of sceptics conveniently forget the difference when they think it suits their argument (although the failure to distinguish between weather and climate instantly indicates a profound lack of understanding of what it is they are being sceptical about)

The adverse weather thread is about record breaking weather with the premise that records are there to be broken, so a broken record is nothing special.  But if records are being broken with a rising frequency, then that is unusual and noteworthy from a climate change point of view.

EarthRod

Because the met office appeared to be claiming that the "clear signs of wetter weather" were a consequence of climate change I guess.

It seems to be the met office who have "conveniently forget the difference" in this case.  Moreover, as the analysis shows, there weren't "clear signs" anyway.

johntheexpat

That's right.

Weather = short term.
Climate = long term.

Bear in mind adverse weather breaking records with a rising frequency only means a possible change in climate. We know that over time climate changes regularly, sometimes the change is slow and sometimes the change is faster. But generally the change is regulated by the Earth's various mechanisms - ocean sink, heat dissipation into space etc.

Over the last few years the CO2 level has increased steadily which has led to fears of a possible runaway greenhouse effect, in fact many people are quite alarmed about this. Speculation about the level of man's contribution to the CO2 increase has added to the tension causing friction - people and scientists taking sides and it's all become political.

This is a pity because we have all our eggs in one basket - the Earth. If we spend time, money and effort in steadily and quietly reducing man's contribution to the rise in the CO2 level (only man's contribution) then that is all well and good. No harm done. IMO we need to reduce the surplus 'energy' we are generating and releasing into the air. Better industrial efficiency, better insulation, more efficient filters and systems to capture exhaust heat, more and better recycling etc.

Basic stuff and no need for rocket science - just more efficiency and less waste.