Carbon emissions
From our Swindon Correspondent:
One of my favourite techniques to verify data is to try and find other data, produced by other, unconnected means that should match an effect. The problem when people are connected is that they can often base their estimations on similar root information that is wrong.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
The progress of frost sensitive plants. For example mangroves, which aren't removed by farmers should have moved several hundred kilometres down our coast.
That's a good one. I have also thought about wine regions. If the earth is getting warmer, why aren't the premium wines moving locations? The optimal climate is considered to be Vosne-Romanee, why hasn't it moved a km or two over 100-ish years?
(and don't say English wines - most of these are vanity projects, not serious, profit making businesses).
Beach house prices may not go down if they end up fully insured by the government though.
The first thing to do is to look at what the UN (who commission the IPCC reports) have said in their government negotiated summaries for each of the COPs over the last 20 years. Usually, "this is the last chance to save the planet". In fact it has generally been "10 years to save the planet" since 1972 and before the COPs
https://order-order.com/2021/08/09/un-has-been-predicting-planetary-disaster-for-50-years/
If you're not prepared to accept "scientists measuring things" then you're a fool who will never be convinced. Anyone who measures things sufficiently carefully is a scientist.
And your examples are seriously flawed. The price of those beach houses depends on the very predictions you are trying to check and the extent to which people believe them. Even if the predictions are wrong, people might believe them, and if the predictions are right, people might not believe them. The only difference between the thing you're trying to check and your observation is people's beliefs. Furthermore, your checks only address the strongest part of the global warning theory. We know that the climate has always changed. We are currently in an ice age (for about 2.5 million years) and an interglacial (for a bit under 12,000 years). It is pretty clear that the temperature is not falling. None of this is at all controversial or needs checking.
The only possible points of doubt (in order of growing doubtfulness) are:
Charles, so confident in the scientific method. As one might be if it was not broken. At the risk of infinite regression falacy, a few studies consistently show unreproducable published results are common, despite peer review. Then we get into issues of self selecting teams, group think and of course the officially recognised state of things, so beloved of bureaucrats. If one really believed in scientific method, new and various independent methods of cross checking would be welcomed. Instead, with climate change, dissent is like your response. Compare this with cosmologists and physisists checking relativity predictions against observations. Any human endevour may be flawed. Cross checking is essential
Firstly, an inconvenient fact: CO2 rises AFTER temperature rises ('ocean outgassing').
Is the temperature higher now than 1000 years ago (Medieval warm period)? - No
Is the temperature higher now than 2000 years ago (Roman warm period)? - No
Is the temperature higher now than 3000 years ago (Minoan warm period)? - No.
Warmer temperatures, all nothing to do with mankind.
According to NASA, Global Temperature (not that such a thing really exists) in 1920 = 13.32c
Temperature today = 13.86c.
It is the most amazing delusion of grandeur that anyone thinks we have such a degree (hoho) of power over this planet.
Addolff, is that from the same USA government site that shows global temperature has fallen slightly for 5 years ?
Not sure if it is US Gov, but does use NOAA data - but unadjusted:
https://temperature.global/#twitter
CO2 is plant food. While the sky has refused to fall an area twice the size of the Amazon basin has greened.
I am a scientist (physicist) by training and I don't accept that this is true. The most accurate piece of measuring equipment most people will ever use is a tape measure but that doesn't make them a scientist.
Measuring things accurately can be very important in scientific disciplines, but most of the skill is in knowing what to measure, all the factors that can influence that measure and interpreting what has been measured. These things can all be done badly, however accurate your measurement.
I am not some sort of 'climate change denier' - I have always thought it highly likely that man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate but I do question when people make statements containing spuriously accurate statistics about the effects of climate change so far and the impact in the future. There are just too many unknowns to be very confident. This makes a cautious approach advisable, of course, but the cost does have to be considered.
Quite. I'm not a "denier". We can do lab experiments, but the models are not simply that result. They include things like feedback effects. Global warming, including man-made global warming is happening. But the degree matters. If it's wildly exaggerated, we should spend our money on other problems (and in terms of deaths, clean water and malaria treatment are more important than climate change).
BoM4, "Global warming, including man-made global warming is happening".
I'm sorry, but until it can be proven that the current temps / hurricanes / floods / heatwaves / cold etc. etc. etc. are exceptional, have not occurred before and MUST be due to man, everything they say is supposition, supported by no real world evidence, just computer models, programmed with assumptions biases / agendas of those who wrote them and which are far to simplistic to capture everything which actually does influence climate. This is Neil Ferguson territory.
Water vapour is 97% (oh wow, THAT number again) of the 'greenhouse' effect, yet the models cannot 'model' clouds.
I didn't say all of this was about climate change. Just that doing things like burning fossil fuels will raise global temperatures. That can be demonstrated in a lab.
What can't be demonstrated is all the modelled stuff.
The earth is not a sealed jar in a lab. Absorption of CO2 is logarithmic.
There have been studies (Angstrom and others) which dispute Arhennius' findings, but if you do believe that experiment, it showed that a doubling of CO2 raised the temperature by just 1c.
The theory is that there will be runaway warming caused by an increase in water vapour (positive feedbacks) is just that, a theory, which is pretty much disproven as we are still here despite CO2 levels being 7000 ppm in the past.
And you are right, it isn't all about climate change - it's all about money, power and the means to impose socialism on a world that whenever given the opportunity to choose it, has rejected it.
Climate models can model clouds but not accurately enough to be of use.. when I was studying for my degree (environment) nearly 20yrs ago we had a distributed climate model called BOINC project it was really interesting my computer was running just a very small part of that model. At the time it was one of the most complex climate models available due to its collective computing power. There are many things that scientists have managed to work out as a net contributer to or mitigator of ‘climate change’ i.e. volcanos cause a net negative effect (on warming) whilst other things cause a warming like a reduction in planetary albedo. But, and here’s the rub the effects of water vapour are not all equal - what I mean by that is different clouds at different altitudes can either contribute to or mitigate planetary albedo and therefore warming - in simple terms cloud cover is an absolute unknown and impossible to predict with any accuracy how it will behave for example water vapour has the strongest climate forcing of all NATURAL greenhouse gases currently the résidence time of water in the atmosphere is 11 days.. as atmosphere warms it can hold more water vapour - would therefore global warming affect the residence time? And if the. amount of water vapour the atmosphere increased would this change significantly the types of cloud and their formation ??
I don’t believe that it is possible to accurately model this .. not even for a weather forecast let alone a climate prediction.. its one thing predicting some rain coming but another entirely to predict the amount and type of cloud and where it will occur because the variables that affect this are manifold... as it is all of this ‘science’ being used to make money out of carbon trading and doing much to maintain status quo and little to mitigate environmental damage caused by human activity.. there is a finer nuance glossed over too and that is that even if there is an anthropogenic component to climate change that will be on top of natural processes not instead of them ie it’s not one or the other but likely both..
I think a much more appropriate focus would be on the biodiversity action plan that also came out of the Rio 92 meeting. A focus on climate allows destruction of biodiversity to continue whereas a focus on preserving biodiversity would greatly challenge the status quo of human induced harms and if climate is an issue it would be automatically addressed properly if we address biodiversity loss rather than focusing on climate and continuation of status quo. Geo-engineering the kind of stuff promoted by the Bill Gâtes of the world will surely be as damaging as the unintended consequences of our emissions.. there is a saying - when you’re in a hole stop digging..
In what is the human influence on weather proven? The vast majority of days in the vast majority of places have temperatures and other weather that are within 2SD of the mean for any period you want to compare. The vast majority of places, the vast majority of the time, have temperatures nowhere near records. The only place "warming" can be seen is in averages over time, because we have had more warm years than cold years in recent times. That is not "warming" as most people think.
Indeed. But. Whatabout 'incentives'? That is gov't spends our money on things it wants to hear. Scientists are therefore incentivised to bid for that funding by supporting the policy government wants to implement. Policy based evidence making in fact.
Well, they're measuring temperatures sometimes, sometimes doing modelling of temperatures where they can't measure (which makes no sense). There may be localised factors that change what is measured. And beyond simple stuff about climate change that we can demonstrate in a lab, they're adding in for feedback effects and making predictions.
And there are plenty of cases of scientists having crap models and crap predictions.
Hence why I like other data that comes from a totally different place. Measurements of predictions should lead to greedy rational actors responding accordingly. Supermarkets are linked into Met Office weather models because they have observed that the data is useful and apply it to decisions about ordering in charcoal briquettes. If people trust the sea rise data, we should see houses in the Seychelles falling each year as the number of remaining years of use decreases. Do we see that? Do property owners trust the data?
If two different methods of measuring a phenomenon move in the same direction, they are measuring the same thing. Scientists are not some lofty cadre of saints and if the job tells them to measure warming via beach front house prices or Olympic medals won, that's what pays the rent. I bet that the organisation you work for sells a product that is not the deserved market leader, in fact you wouldn't buy it yourself, but you do your best to help it thrive anyway. That's what pays the rent. There are two gangs of satellite scientists measuring warming and one gets more warming than the other but their datasets move together in the same direction. That's an indication that we're dealing with science, not opinion. The wonderful scientists who have haemorrhoids cheating spouses delinquent children and an opioid problem are not infallible. They are tackling the area of science that pays the rent.
So you aren't aware that historical temperatures have been "adjusted" by scientists who believe wholeheartedly in man-made Climate Change? Nor are you aware that those scientists are human and thus might just be tempted to some smidgen of bias? Nor are you aware that for some years scientists managed to miscount the number of chromosomes in a human cell? Or countless other errors of actual, basic counting?
I don't see how that is relevant. Scientists make errors all the time - just like anybody else. But the solution is more science (maybe done by different people, posibly even you) - not merely resorting to people believing what they feel is right or making stuff up.
Actually , the temperature has been flat or falling for the last seven years.
We have been in the up phase of the AMO since about 1980, and the down phase started about 2010. Expect temperatures to bottom out about 2050, and then start rising again....
There's the one I've been talking about for years.l The one I'm sitting beside. The Med. Large landlocked sea is the drainage basin for half of Europe & a big slice of Africa. Are we supposed to believe, despite all this climate change we've had, rainfall & Alpine glacier melt is exactly balanced by evaporation. How fortuitous! Because there's been no change in sea levels since Roman times, the currents through the narrow Straits of Gibraltar are what they've always been, as is salinity. And for a double check, the Black Sea is a smaller version of the Med. No changes there either. How odd!.
BiS, we used to holiday on Rhodes. The rocks around Lindos main beach clearly show the water levels as being far higher than they are today (or it could be the rocks have been uplifted?).
The issue is whether the rate of sea level rise has increased, which would occur if what the eco nutterswere right. It hasn't, so they are wrong.
You were holidaying in a volcanic zone. Ground going up & down is what volcanos do.
Ore another one, not far from me. The Desierta de Tabernas. Europe's only desert, in the rain shadow of the Alpajarras. That's a very climate sensitive phenomenon. By rights it either shouldn't now exist or have spread to cover a big chunk of Andalucia. Still the go-to place for filming spaghetti westerns
First you have to find out WHAT is being predicted. When you do, you find that every single possible disaster - wet, dry, windy, still -all are going to bring about the end of the world.
It must be quite obvious by now that there IS no solid 'science' behind all this - it's simply telling the grant providers what they want to hear. So no, you will not get verification of any kind. But the minute a whale swims up the Thames, or a whirlwind is seen in Sussex, that will definitely be a climate change marker..
The Saudis are investing billions in the Maldives which, according to the warmists, is already under water.
O'Barmpot and his beach property come to mind. The two thirds of Septics that cling to the East and West coasts also. I don't see droves of folk heading to the Mid-West either. Then there is New Orleans... Meanwhile the Netherlands and Monaco get bigger every year.