On the subject of public debate about climate change, I've just been doing some research which illustrates the immense difficulty involved in (a) framing such a debate in terms which will actually result in a real increase in public understanding and (b) conducting the debate over an acceptable timescale whilst still unpicking the various pro- and anti-AGW arguments in sufficient detail to reach a widely-acceptable consensus.
The issue I was researching was the study by Oreskes:
which was used by Al Gore to illustrate the strength of the consensus among the climate science community that man-made emissions are the main driver of recent climate change. The official website of the "Great Global Warming Swindle" program cites a letter from the sceptic Benny Peiser to "Science" magazine pointing out supposed flaws in Oreskes' study, which the magazine refused to publish. This letter, and the magazine's refusal to publish it, have got out into the media and have been used to undermine the argument that there is scientific consensus and to support the view that the scientific establishment is suppressing dissent (as was probably the author's intention).
When you look in detail at Pieser's claims and in particular at his methodology it is clear that his analysis does not in fact support his assertion that there is widespread lack of support for the consensus position. But the point is that in order to satisfy myself that this is the case I have had to read the abstracts of 34 scientific papers and other publications which he (incorrectly in most cases) cites as evidence of opposition to the consensus, which has taken me about 2 hours. The same applies to almost any aspect of this debate - if you want to understand it properly it takes a lot of time and requires a reasonable level of scientific literacy. The multitude of denialist memes such as Peiser's which have got into circulation and been reinforced by op-eds, blogs etc can only be addressed by detailed analysis, and I am at a loss to see how this can be done with the necessary rigour in the context of a public debate of the kind advocated on this forum.
Well I said I was going to put a proposal up and got involved with the difficulty.
I think I have a formula for doing it now.. it needs a lot of assistance and quite a lot of patience. I will also need a very strong arbiter/chairman to ensure all remains factual and no bad tempers and name calling. In addition I need a spokesman interrogator both pro and con.
I'm impressed with the work you are putting in Providor, and think Jonjii's idea is good. I hope you can work something out.
An honest informed debate without cries of Heresy. I'm not holding my breath.
On this blog we are talking about Tory Policies.
You both know where I stand in this debate, I think it would be a great idea if we could just accept that there is a problem.
Then set about defining the UK issues that need to be addressed and brainstorming out a set of workable policies that will help.
One of the thorny issues in the climate change debate is the suspicion, frequently aired by the denialists, that the consensus view appears stronger than it actually is because contrarian views are suppressed and ridiculed. In the US at least, the exact opposite appears to be the case - the US Govt seems to have succeeded in creating a climate of fear (no pun intended!) so that without having actually to exert overt pressure on public employees to talk down the risks of global warming, people self-censor what they say and publish because they "know what's good for them." For example:
The other night I had a visit from my friend Kenny, who has the hump at the moment because his 06 Jeep Grand Cherokee diesel is subject to increased road tax thanks to Brown's Climate Change efforts. Obviously upset at this, and me as well, because I no longer doubt the science since I received a reply to my questions from Piers Forster, who wrote the chapter on Radiative Forcing for Working Group 1, 4th Assessment Report. Kenny's complaint with me is that I am a turncoat, and just because I have City and Guilds in engineering just means I know diddly about science. (although his words were a tad stronger, you get the general idea) He then set out to prove to me on the web that although what the Working Groups present to the IPCC might well be accurate, the IPCC on the instruction of government, tamper with the data. When he left, I went back on the site to digest exactly what was being said, and fair enough to Kenny, anyone reading this could not be blamed for thinking that if even one of the allegations were proved correct, then nothing less than an independent public enquiry should be held.
These are serious allegations of unauthorised changes made to global climate reports post review, up to 16 per document, and a lot worse as well.
OK, it may well be that the site itself has a bias, however the allegations are there in the public domain for all to read and all that matters is simply, did the individuals quoted make the allegations or not?
Such accusations of manipulation of data go far beyond anything that can be excused by normal expected government incompetence, and take the matter to a higher level, namely a deliberate intention to deceive. Although much of the article is comprised of what I would term a "re-hash" of data that has already been dealt with in these forums, the second chapter, headed "in the begining" quotes many instances of questionable activity, that if found accurate, would leave the IPCC presentation of Climate Change Theory slam dunked as a con.
It surely must be in everyones interest to have all allegations examined and answered by independent enquiry, to get the whole sorry debacle sorted out once and for all.
The full article, titled "Climate Change Truths" can be found on the site "Association of British Drivers" on the left of the home page under Essential Reading.
I have deep skepticism regarding Al Gore and feel he is essentially a politician jumping on a bandwagon to make money.
The way the environmentalists ridicule anyone who presents evidence for an alternative, or modification, to the now PC correct view is concerning, as is the almost religious unquestioning zeal of the acolytes of the new order.
As had been said before; environmentalists have positioned themselves into positions of influence within governments, and politicians are embracing the new religion.
The suspicion is that governments are simply raising false concerns to enable them to raise taxes and impose controls on the population.
The increases made by Brown and the proposed taxes from the Tories, without any real structural proposals for ensuring we meet the CO2 reduction targets reinforce that view.
Any proper review of the problem will show that taxation will not produce the structural changes needed.
There has to be a plan driven by legislation. It is not just behavior that has to change but the technology we use to drive our world.
Insulation, improved home efficiency, etc. is a small step but will only scratch the surface.
The white paper proposing replacement of the aging Nuclear power stations is good news, but is simply replacement, and does not go far enough. There are no plans to shutdown the large inefficient coal fired power stations.
The environmentalists support unrealistic proposals, such as Carbon capture.
But condemn viable proposals that involve a step wise progression to a sustainable future. Simply because some of the steps involve short term use of technology that is better than what we have, but are listed as bad in the greens black book.
The £13.5 Billion funding suggested for the Severn barrage sounds great but if that funding was put into free standing tidal turbines we would comfortably exceed the expected 5% generation of UK energy from the barrage, within the same time frame, but without the colossal ecological and social impact of the Barrage.
Hi all I am stalled because I have suddenly got quite busy and have been inundated with a lot of reading that I am not getting to.
But I am coming back to the statement by Providor which introduces this thread.
It is extremely difficult to clarify the issues involved here.
It is complex and involved and requires understanding of math, statistics and science.
It is further hugely complicated by the ill tempered rankling that is manifest in debate between the Converts and the Sceptics. In fact it is not so much a debate as an outright panto like "oh yes it is so,""no it isn't so" type of ludicrous spectacle which would be funny if it wasn't so important.
If the converts are right then the sceptics and uninitiated are endangering the future of humanity by their recalcitrans or bloody mindedness.
If the sceptics are right the converts are collectivist politicians driving the "global warming" debate in an
obvious "action now, study later"; the mantra of those who want irreversible socialism with the attacks being almost exclusively aimed at the US.
What is more confusing is the economics behind the whole issue. Kyoto has spawned a whole multi-billion dollar industry based on premises that the sceptics regard as flaky.
Taxes and other type levies are not ring fenced at bast at worst the financing of wind farms for example, is based on under the counter measures and back handers and hidden subsidies that mean the whole thing is tainted.
Here is the thing... This Green energy is hugely more expensive and the real costs are being disguised
And now to complicate the issue the N debate has finally been loosed upon the British public. It is my firm belief that this debate is necessary, that the true facts have to emerge about the differences between sixties type N power plants and the modern pebble bed breeder reactors which provide the closest thing to "Clean N energy".
But what must be shown openly are the costs and show the public what they are actually paying for this ebnergy and why.
The info Lizabeth has brought to light by her tireless and devoted research taints the wind farm renewables because instead of them being a gift of free and clean energy in fact they are covered with sleaze..
So Providor, Glynne, I will be coming up with the next stage of the stuff we are working on, Give me a day or so.
The full article, titled "Climate Change Truths" can be found on the site "Association of British Drivers" on the left of the home page under Essential Reading.
http://www.abd.org.uk/
Direct link
I think that any educational site is going to have to address these and other denialist myths, similarly with named anchors.
Hi Dave G,
The major trouble is that these articles just add confusion to already muddied and turbulent waters.. Yes they have to be addressed but the sources which are quoted here
are not at all that reliable.
Hell my head hurts with all the contradictory information coming in.
I don't know what to say.. just that The internet on it's own is like the bible... if you want to you can show that 1+1= 1.9 or 2.3
This is not about whether you are right on MGW this is about attitudes.
You said:- One of the thorny issues in the climate change debate is the suspicion, frequently aired by the denialists, that the consensus view appears stronger than it actually is because contrarian views are suppressed and ridiculed.
By using the term denialists you are displaying that same attitude you criticise when it occurs in the US towards greens. After all green was originally used as a form of insult regarding their naive acceptance of anti industrial propaganda. The greens perverted the term to become a thing of beauty. Why should I believe anyone who can pull that trick isn't controlling my thinking?
You have stung me into a comment I decided not to get involved with but.
Start the debate with bugetary information on how much has been spent on monitoring natural emissions. If less than 50% restart the project as currently worthess. This is the most difficult part to quantify so should have been most researched. Without an accurate reference how can we know if man's output is significant?
We have data that Mount St Helens caused less cooling, yes, cooling in spite of all the global warming gases, than is usual for other erruptions. The supposition was that it was because the side of the mountain was blown off so that the gas velocity was lower than usual.
A project to show that high velocity gas jets cause long term cooling effects, not warming, because of a poorly understood aerosol effect was cancelled part way.
This would have had serious implication for the case against air travel where the emissions effect value has been doubled on evidence that would not have sufficient value to justify the purchase of a bar of chocolate.
As an ex engineer who's colleague left the work he loved because he was only allowed one view I find your comment somewhat offensive. The environment's loss was our gain.
Since social science is an interest of mine the sociology of group thought control holds a considerable fascination for me.
Oh and jonjii I can do 1 + 1 = 1.9 proof how do you do 1 + 1 = 2.3 ?
Roverdc, I'm sorry you find my use of the term "denialist" offensive, but I use it advisedly. Denial is a defense mechanism deployed when a person is confronted with a fact that they don't want to face up to, so they reject it instead, convincing themself that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. They may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). It is entirely appropriate to use the term when this pattern of behaviour is exhibited.
If someone disputes the existence or magnitude of anthropogenic global warming using half decent scientific arguments supported by proper peer-reviewed research, I think of them as "sceptics" or "contrarians". But you don't do that. I spent quite a while yesterday evening giving you a reasoned, referenced response to your comment about geothermal heat sources, yet this morning you are once again saying that cimate change research is worthless because less than 50% of the research budget is spent on monitoring natural emissions. That's denial in my book.
Quote:
By using the term denialists you are displaying that same attitude you criticise when it occurs in the US towards greens.
I don't believe I've made any such criticism. As a matter of fact I dislike the terms "green" and "environmentalist", and certainly don't apply those labels to myself. I use the term "denialist" because in my opinion it accurately describes the attitude of those who denigrate the decades of painstaking professional scientific research which has gone into building the current state of climate science.
If I get time I'll come back to your comments about Mount St Helens etc later.
The major trouble is that these articles just add confusion to already muddied and turbulent waters.. Yes they have to be addressed but the sources which are quoted here
are not at all that reliable.
Never said it would be easy. ;)
However, we've seen these kinds of denialist arguments again and again. As soon as we (mostly Providor) painstakingly address one, a different one comes in. Thus a nice URL pointing to refutations of 10+ different denialist claims would be useful.
So I'm not saying address the site, I mean copy the structure of the site. The denialists have been quite successful in spreading their message so they must be doing something right.
I would also have a preamble on science and the IPCC. Firstly, point out that scientists never universally agree on anything eg a lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. But the facts that:
a) you have at least 300 of the world's best climatologists agreeing with the IPCC wording (and mostly thinking it's not worded stronly enough) and none are actually disputing it.
b) there are still no serious scientific disputes of the IPCC reports
c) There is clear evidence of political interference from Washington to tone down the warnings
... should be a challenge to even the most hardened conspiracy theorist.
After all, you're going to lose at least half the audience if you force them to go through all the science, so the easiest argument is demonstrating the credibility of the IPCC.
Rather than describe mechanisms of MGW yourselves, I'd link to (or even cut & paste if not copyrighted) articles from highly credible organisations.
You might even start off with "Yes, it's exciting to be a rebel and take a contrarian position and some of the denialists are very persuasive. It's also scary to think about the kinds of global changes which are happening and it's good to keep governments accountable" etc.
You might also link to one of those pages of debating fallacies, as the denialists consistently use them.
eg from http://www.abd.org.uk/climate_change_truths.htm, point 1 contains a strawman, false dichotomy, unjustified use of emotion.
I'd also write to some relevant high-traffic websites who'd be interested in linking to you.
So I probably don't have time to contribute but hope some of this is useful. Keep up the good work.
No this is totally the wrong approach to convince anyone not already convinced.
Global Warming studies are not based on a firm foundation they have mushroomed so anyone looking at the base sees a dodgy foundation while anyone looking at the top sees a nice row of houses exquisitely displayed.
To prove global warming is man made there must be a list of all natural sources of both actual energy and global warming gases listed together with references to their source, scope of investigation, extent of investigation, known deficiencies and hence likely accuracy to name a few relevant factors. To convince sceptics that it is impartial the budgets for these investigations should also be given clearly. There should then be an equivalent for man made sources.
This is just phase one of anything intended to convince rather than browbeat and indoctrinate.
Deficiencies listed in earlier versions of reports should be shown to have been seriously and meticulously addressed instead of just repeated as innocuously as possible.
I did a degree in social science as a basis of an interest in methods of indoctrination and social control after reading 1984 and it may interest you to know just how far down the line advocates of this particular 'science' have descended. Goebbels was really only a beginner, though good for his time.
Denialist has for better or worse been associated with holocaust denial so in using this term you are equating disbelief of something proven beyond any doubt with firm photographic evidence with not so much a bad science as one that has holes that are bigger than the substance. As it is being done it is a convenient answer to a completely different set of questions i.e.
1) How far can we blame human intervention based on emissions when we only have the difference value between warming and cooling as a reference.
2) If we take the difference value for nature between warming and cooling can we compare human gas emissions only using positives and get away with it. The answer to this question is clearly yes as so far that is all that any of the studies seem to actually display.
3) Can we ingore studiously any questions not likely to yield a larger natural than human dimension or worse, one that points to the clean up and use of cleaner less particle emitting fuels as being responsible. The latter effect I might add was predicted before environmental groups got so powerful and wealthy.
To prove global warming is man made there must be a list of all natural sources of both actual energy and global warming gases listed together with references to their source, scope of investigation, extent of investigation, known deficiencies and hence likely accuracy to name a few relevant factors.
Actually this would only prove current warming. For all we know, God just turned up the thermostat for the past 30 years.
So this is a strawman argument. We will never be able to prove beyond all doubt that global warming is man-made. We are proving 'on balance of probabilities' that global warming needs urgent attention.
Now even if was only 3 to 1 that we could avert the wars, the massacres, the eviction of a million people, the floods etc, I still think we should give it a much better shot than we are doing at the moment.
But what if as is the opinion of the best educated person I have ever met the actions currently being taken are going to cause a real and unarguable man made global warming scenario? This, because actions were taken without checking both sides of the balance of global warming and cooling which is all we can measure, to understand the net effect.
You can at least start by knowing the extent of the variables being compared and it is a measure of the politicisation of the issue that this has apparently not already been done.
If it has then list the projects together with their budgets as I find only incidental measurements of natural outputs done in connection with other issues.
Why when I ask for fundamental data do I always get emotive responses like it is a strawman argument? This is purporting to be science for heavens sake. If man made emissions are significant we can ask compared to what and how accurate is this reference. Without this I can equally argue there could be a war of those hounded when it is finally proved there was no case to answer which by your argument is then a 2 in 3 possibility.
I see no case for acting on a less than 50 50 probability as the projections are already showing themselves to be pathetically inaccurate even by the standards of a difficult science.
Government action over the years has taught me to see the glass as half empty. You are seeing the glass as half full. Nothing can or will change either view.
I am saying we have paid enough for it to be full to overflowing but the scientists are refilling the same half over and over again with a finer and finer brew. Why do they or their paymasters not want the other half filled? Perhaps the answer would not be taxable or yield the next project.
I suggest the MGW advocates stop now and do something constructive to reduce energy consumption and forget carbon equivalent emissions. This does not mean more taxes it means less stupidity. Look at the biggest energy use sectors. Concentrate on improving the efficiency of these.
Look at bureaucratic obstruction to small scale energy generation projects like, here I plug unashamedly and admittedly, reviving water mills for electricity generation.
Look at the way that we have cars that are hybrid but unaffordable when just making them able to run for two miles at a few mph in a traffic jam would save at a guess based on the fuel computer on my car 5% af fuel used and be technically and economically viable.
Look at the sale and use of patio heaters. What price the environment there?
Look at electric powered air conditioning. Only the abuse of concern for safety killed absorption refrigeration which would have made solar air conditioning cooling cheaply available but it could be revived. It has the advantage that most power is available when most is needed.
Even look at hydrogen filled airships which are only regarded as unsafe because of 'scientific knowledge' which can be disproved by anyone with some old syle metallic dope of the type used at the time and a good safety zone round for the spectacular flames. It gets hot enough to set fire to the aluminium alloy pan it was in. And has no one heard that there have been some advances in flame retardant fabrics?
Freethinker:
the IPCC on the instruction of government, tamper with the data
There is much misundersatnding of the way that the IPCC works. Governments cannot make changes to the underlying scientific papers on which the report's conclusions are based - those papers are already published in the scientific press. The lead authors of the individual chapters of the IPCC report write the draft summary and ensure that it correctly reflects what is said in the main body of the report. The governments then review the draft summary and are entitled to have changes made so that the conclusions are correctly understood - the language used by the scientists is not necessarily sufficiently clear and unambiguous. But any changes demanded by the governments have to be agreed by the scientists, who must ensure that the final version of the summary does not contradict or misinterpret the underlying science. Some of these changes may feed back into the wording of technical chapters but only in terms of clarifying the language, not changing the actual scientific conclusions.
This process, although cumbersome and open to suggestions of abuse, is essential because the report is after all being prepared for the governments so they must have some "ownership" of it. If the end result has been agreed by all the governments it is unlikely that any of them will later reject it on the basis that it was all someone else's work. Therefore it is in the governments' interest to ensure that the report is right. It seems to me from what reports I have seen about the changes demanded by governments that there were just as many attempts to tone down the conclusions as there were to emphasise the more dramatic possibilities. I don't think that the report has been skewed in any particular direction simply because the process described above provides safeguards specifically to prevent this.
As for the rest of the ABD website, I don't have time to read it in detail but it looks to me like yet another version of the usual litany of denialist myths, straw men, out-of-date data, half-truths and misleading selective quotes, many of which, as you say, we have already discussed on this forum.
Has anyone considered precession of the equinoxes?
Quote:
Orbital eccentricity adds another component to the seasonal variations in solar energy influx: As the Earth's orbital eccentricity increases, the speed of Earth in its orbit changes. Orbital mechanics require that the length of the seasons be proportional to the area of the Earth's orbit swept during the seasonal quadrants, so when the eccentricity is extreme, the seasons on the far side of the orbit can be substantially longer in duration. Today, when northern hemisphere fall and winter occur at closest approach, the earth is moving at its maximum velocity and therefore fall and winter are slightly shorter than spring and summer. Today, summer is 4.66 days longer than winter and spring is 2.9 days longer than fall.
Has anyone considered precession of the equinoxes?
Yes, precession of the equinoxes is one of the components of the Milankovitch cycle which drives the ice-ages. This is a well-understood phenomenon which has little relevance to present-day climate change.
I just thought all the publicity being given to Spring arriving earlier, summers getting hotter and drier etc. and equating that to being as a result of climate change was slightly misleading if seasonal change is actually due to the earth's movement in relation to the Sun which is an entirely natural process.
Climate changes due to orbital variations are orders of magnitude too small and too slow to account for present-day global warming. They are thought to be the main factor in initiating and terminating glaciations, but that's all.
'orbital variation are orders of magnitude too small and slow to account for present-day global warming'.
So what about a doubling of the coronal magnetic field since 1900? Is it possible the increasing field strength of the sun is related to the decreasing field strength of the earth thus exacerbating the rapid glacial melt?
And why has planetary warming been measured on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto?
Why when I ask for fundamental data do I always get emotive responses like it is a strawman argument?
Because you used a strawman argument.
Most of the data you ask for doesn't exist and most of that won't exist.
We have a fully documented cause-effect: excess man-produced CO2 is causing global warming.
Of course, other things are going on but no-one has ever challenged this AFAIK.
But you are advocating the status quo on the basis of not having data that peer-reviewed climatologists consider irrelevant.
It is like arguing that we shouldn't try to prevent terrorists trying to acquire WMD because we haven't proved they will use them.
And why has planetary warming been measured on Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto?
In the case of Mars, firstly we don't have enough data to show that there is "global" warming - the observed temperature changes are most likely a regional effect. Secondly the orbit of Mars is much more eccentric than Earth's so we would expect orbital effects to be more significant. Thirdly, Mars has a very thin atmosphere and no oceans so the thermal inertia is very small compared to Earth, so Mars' climate is bound to be more easily disturbed by external factors. It appears to be very sensitive to large dust storms, which, depending on their size and frequency, can alter the average global temperature on Mars by several degrees from year to year. The media hype along the lines of "global warming on Mars proves that SUVs aren't responsible for GW on Earth" was sparked by the observation that Mars' south polar ice cap is shrinking which is almost certainly a regional trend and is well modelled by the Martian Global Climate Model.
It amuses me that the denialists leap upon the slight melting of an ice cap on Mars as proof that GW is happening there, yet when presented with irrefutable evidence of shrinking glaciers and retreating polar ice on Earth they either try to deny it's happening or come up with some other explanation than GW.
Pluto hasn't yet completed even one third a single orbit since we discovered it, so it's possibly a bit premature to start inferring global climate change there based on a couple of observations 14 years apart!
The bottom line with all these observations of "climate change" on other planets is that they tell us very little about the current causes of climate change on Earth. Scientists have been accurately measuring the intensity of solar radiation for decades and have shown that it is actually declining slightly at present, while temperatures continue to rise at an unprecedented rate, which strongly suggests that we need to look elsewhere for the reasons for present-day GW.
Quote:
So what about a doubling of the coronal magnetic field since 1900? Is it possible the increasing field strength of the sun is related to the decreasing field strength of the earth thus exacerbating the rapid glacial melt?
How would changes in the magnetic field affect glacial melting?
Magnetotellurics (MT) is a geophysical method to study the distribution of electrical conductivity in the earth. It uses natural electromagnetic field variations (caused by solar radiation/particles or atmospheric sources, e.g., lightning discharges), which induce electric currents in the subsurface. The depth of penetration of the field variations depends on period length and the conductivity of the subsurface (skin effect).
Physicists call the occurrence of these magnetic channels Flux Transfer Events. Each magnetic channel appears like a curve shaped tube that can be anything from 5000 to 25000 kilometers in diameter. One end of the magnetic flux tube is connected to Earth while the other end is connected to the solar wind.
Since solar wind plasma is comprised of electrically charged particles that are moving rapidly past the Earth's magnetic field, a multi million amp electric current is generated, which flows down the Earth's invisible magnetic field lines and pumps up to a trillion watts of power into the magnetosphere, especially above the polar regions.
ESA's quartet of space-weather watchers, Cluster, has discovered vortices of ejected solar material high above the Earth. The superheated gases trapped in these structures are probably tunneling their way into the Earth's magnetic 'bubble', the magnetosphere. This discovery possibly solves a 17-year-mystery of how the magnetosphere is constantly topped up with electrified gases when it should be acting as a barrier.
The magnetosphere connects to the Earths magnetic field at the magnetopause. The cause of the Earths magnetic field is probably explained by dynamo theory associated with the circulation of liquid metal in the core, driven by internal heat sources.
The Earth's core, however, is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature at which the orientations of spins within iron become randomized. Such randomization causes the substance to lose its magnetic field. Therefore the Earth's magnetic field is caused not by magnetized iron deposits, but mostly by electric currents in the liquid outer core.
If the magnetic field increase at the Sun has doubled and the Earths field has decreased, could it be that in loosing magnetism in the Earth due to heat loss from the outer core, it causes the poles to melt because new ice isn't being formed as a response to internal heat.
In other words prior to a hundred years ago, the magnetic force of the sun was equal to that of the earth, the current disparity is what is causing the melt.
That's an interesting theory Astrocat but I think you are confusing cause and effect when you attribute loss of polar ice to changes in the solar magnetic field. The strength of geomagnetic field goes up and down all the time and sometimes stops altogether or even reverses, and I'm not sure that heat loss from the outer core has much to do with that. I'm also doubtful that the Sun's magnetic field has much to do with it. Whilst heat escaping from the core to the Earth's surface could in theory melt the ice, the global average geothermal heat flux is a mere 0.05 watts per square metre and is only about 0.2Wm-2 even in tectonically active locations such as the mid-ocean ridges, which hardly seems enough to melt much ice. Moreover I don't think there's much evidence that this heat flux has increased recently, whereas North polar ice loss has accelerated significantly in recent years. Also you would expect that if if the ice loss was linked to the magnetic field, the melting would be occurring in both hemispheres but in fact it's much more rapid in the North, so I think we need to look elsewhere for the cause.
If I'm missing anything here please let me know, or if you have any references which support a link between solar magnetism and ice loss I'd be very interested to see them if you could provide a URL - I still have much to learn about climate change and I want to be sure that what I "know" about it is in fact true.
By the way Astrocat, in one of your last comments on the old version of this forum you said something like "I stopped believing the hype surrounding climate change after reading the Royal Society's report into it". Do you mean that you stopped believing that man-made GW is a reality or that you just stopped believing what the politicians and media tell us about it?
Thanks Providor. If I can find some links I'll forward them but I wouldn't hold your breath, it was just me looking at something and wondering whether it played into a climate model.
With regard to the N. Pole accelerated ice loss by comparison to the south, again it was the idea that the Sun's increased magnetism and the Earths decreased magnetism was parallelel or replicated in the disparity between the two poles, one plus - one minus.
I believe that mankind is having an impact on global warming but I still believe that the cooling and heating of the planet is cyclical and would happen whether or not. What I don't believe is the political and media spin that is often put on it where every man and his dog and every indicator connected to climate further supports the concept that man has made this problem and can therefore resolve it if we change our ways.
I think there are things we can do that just are plain common sense but when the politicians get hold of it and start spouting uncertain science as fact and then try to sell it and indoctrinate our kids by teaching it in school - my hackles go up and I start smelling corporate manure.
Anyway, I'll get back to you if I come across anything .... nice talking to you
I have done a quick take on The Energy White Paper proposals in respect of the ROCs subsidy and the renewable technologies mentioned.
Extract “….banding of the RO to offer differentiated levels of support to different renewable technologies... Alongside this White Paper, we are launching a consultation document on the specific bands we propose to introduce"
Comment Onshore wind remains unchanged, one ROC per MWh despite the adverse comments of the Auditor General and the HoC Public Accounts Committee
Most other technologies will get more than one ROC per MWh.
There will be a consultation on the following proposal: -
Table 5.3.1 Proposed banding regime [for the Renewable obligation RO]
Sewage gas; landfill gas; co firing of non-energy crop (regular) biomass 0.25 ROCs/MWh
Onshore wind; hydro-electric; co-firing of energy crops; energy from waste with combined heat and power; other not specified 1.0 ROCs/MWh
Wave; tidal-stream; advanced conversion technologies (gasification, pyrolysis and anaerobic digestion); dedicated biomass burning energy crops (with or without CHP); dedicated regular biomass with CHP; solar photovoltaics; geothermal 2.0 ROCs/MWh
Isn't the fight against man made global warming a bit like trying to bail out the Titanic with an egg cup?
It may yet turn out that way Canvas, but my view is that since we need to reduce and eventually end our reliance on fossil fuels anyway we might as well give it a go - we've nothing to lose by trying and whilst I think there's virtually no chance of reversing or even stopping global warming in the short or medium term, we might at least succeed in keeping it to a level that doesn't leave too big a mess for our grandchildren to deal with.
Dman and Blast! I have just spent 90 minutes, on and off, writing a response and I get a message that "You can't post" In other words I had been logged off and it is gone...
The words of wisdom lost... oh hell...
Anyway in summary Well done Providor, Astro I thought you were extracting the michael quoting Rudyard Kipling but I short changed you.
Rover and Dave.. well you are taking up positions neither of which are completely supported by the facts.
Nevertheless it is certain that the preponderance of evidence is toward validation of AGW.
Plus reduction of one's own energy usage is simple... turn off a few more lights, Switch the Home enetertainment off at the switch or the wall and don't boil more water than one is going to use.. those steps alone will cut down electricity usage by some 7 to 10% and they are not onerous.
I am a believer that any messing around with taxes unless specifically ringfenced should be resisted for this stuff. Also I am anti the environmentalist lobby who want to push us around bt restricting the abilities of human ingenuity, instead imposing their own miserable and shgort sighted points of view.
Even more apparent is this work done by Lizabeth who has shown that there is sleaze in the windfarms and that each turbine is getting under the counter subsidies which mean that they are not economic.
The N debate has been opened now... Way to go..(especially since the sodding green lobby are opposing).. but be aware that there is likely to be underhand dealing here too
Jonjii, I always compose my comments in Notepad then paste them into the blog - that way it avoids losing your "words of wisdom" if the site logs you out, and you have a backup copy if you need it. (I have copies of all the stuff I posted on the old site.)
Where was Astrocat quoting Kipling? Missed that completely. Mind you I have been wondering whether some of the stuff I have been responding to has been a bit tongue-in-cheek ......
As you say, there are lots of ways to cut personal energy consumption without donning a hair shirt. But donning a fleece and turning down the heating to 17 or 18 degrees saves a lot of energy. It takes a bit of getting used to if you've been in the habit of heating your house to 22 or 25 degrees, but I can assure you it's not fatal! One of my son's girlfriend's house is like an oven, and when she first started coming here she thought it was freezing but once she got used to it she started to find her own place too hot and demanded that her parents turn the heating down!
I am against even ringfenced green taxes. Taxation will not reduce energy consumption significantly unless the rates are so high that they risk causing civil unrest. Rationing is the way to go IMHO. And I agree Jonjii that the environmentalists, with their knee-jerk opposition to big technological fixes, are becoming part of the problem rather than contributing to the solution.
However I'm not opposed to subsidies to give things like wind, solar and biomass projects a head-start. These are expensive and uneconomic technologies until economies of scale kick in so they'll never get off the ground without subsidies. But although I'm delighted to see nuclear power back on the table at last, I don't think that new nuclear stations should be subsidised since it's a mature, proven technology that should be able to stand on its own feet.
Hiya, I don't necessarily object to the subsidies, and am quite sure that both nuclear and Tidal are going to need a lot of subsidy yet.
What I object to is being deceived.. If the powers that be feel it is necessary to subsidise to achieve some longer term goal... then tell us.
Sure it may take some marketing and/or persuasion but we need to know.. not have to find out and then wonder just how much we haven't been told...
Just now I am going to sound like Rumsfeld:-.. "we know what we know, we know what we don't know, we don't know what we know, we don't know what we don't know and if you are confused then that goes for the rest of us here in foggy bottom".
As to Kipling..Have you not been read to, read yourself or not read to your children/grandchildren the Just So Stories? Read "How the Rhinocerous got his skin", or was it "How the Camel Got his hump"? Sheer delight.. Kipling writing at his most lyrical to a daughter who sadly didn't survive.
Anyway this, from that book, is probably pertinent to current themes
"I have six honest serving men
they taught me all I knew
there names are what and why and when
and where and how and who...."
I read about someone else who told about his two precocious grand daughters who would argue with everything they were told as follows:-
Why?
Who told you?
How do they know?
Sobering but good advise.. always check the sources.
canvas
Isn't the fight against man made global warming a bit like trying to bail out the Titanic with an egg cup?
No.
There's no such thing as a partially sunk Titanic. But the extent of man-made global warming is largely dependent on our actions over the next few years.
Actually if you read really carefully I have actually just questioned from the point of a non believer having started from a point of total disinterest but then aroused by an example of the movement’s dubious ethics started looking at it.
My summary of what I have seen is that with a few notable exceptions ,and even they would disown being members of it, who have come out extremely well as providing good well researched and balanced answers, it is a movement I would never join.
It appears to be full of people whose certainty could never be justified for any case with such a one sided budget and power base. Most of these people exhibit the mental state consistent with the worst characteristics of cult members and are amazingly rude to those that disagree. The one point I can't seem to get across and I am sad that this is the case is that if A is said to be worse than B then any summary should show the data of A and B as the starting point. Without doing this it is no longer impartial and should not be used in any decision making process. If those in power do not understand this we will be guaranteed bad decision making based on biased information.
Equally sadly the aims correspond exactly to those of energy efficiency but again little or no interest is shown in discussion of practical solutions to what are actually common aims.
For those who love conspiracy theories how about this one from an ex US marine. The US doesn't support global warming theories because it knows the source of the increased gas emission to be natural because it is alongside one of its spy bases and being used for cover.
Roverdc, I do actually understand the point you are trying to get across about the apparent disparity between the relative amounts of research and funding going into what is now considered to be the mainstream view of climate change and what you consider to be neglected areas such as natural emissions and energy sources.
What you have to remember is that there is much more to climate research than just the third and fourth IPCC assessment reports, which seem to be the main cause of your cynicism. Climate science goes way back to the 19th century, and for most of its history the mainstream view was that the climate was entirely controlled by natural forces. Nevertheless the concept of a human influence began in 1896 when Svante Arrhenius realised that burning fossil fuels added CO2 to the atmosphere and speculated that this could raise the planet's temperature. But at that time this was not considered very plausible and scientists found reasons to believe that human emissions could not change the climate. Even in the 1930s, when it was becoming obvious that average temperatures were rising, scientists insisted that it was just some natural variability, although they had no idea what the cause might be. The amateur scientist G.S. Callendar however stuck his neck out and single-handedly pushed the idea of greenhouse warming, and received plenty of ridicule as a result.
It wasn't until the 1950s that Callendar's maverick ideas began to get serious attention, when systematic measurements of atmospheric composition began to reveal that CO2 was indeed accumulating year on year and empirical studies showed that increased CO2 could and should cause warming. The cooling trend of the post-war decades caused confusion as to the true direction of climate change and the only "consensus" by the 1970s was that we didn't really have a clue about the climate system. Research was disorganized, funding was irregular and not directed at any particular outcome, and the effort was dissipated among many different scientific fields, each of which had a different view of climate change.
The point I'm trying to convey is that the fundamentals of our current knowledge of climate change are based on unbiased research carried out long before the politicians got involved, by people and organisations with no vested interest in steering the conclusions in any particular direction. They just wanted to understand how the climate worked, so they objectively investigated all the possibilities and attempted to quantify all the variables. Even the 1995 second IPCC report recognised that it was a priority to improve our understanding of biogeochemical cycling, including sources and sinks, of greenhouse gases, and of atmospheric energy balance components.
The subsequent IPCC reports increasingly emphasise the role of human activities because that's where decades of painstaking, objective measurement and research have led us. The fact that they don't go into great detail about other possible causes is not because there is some dirty secret that they are desperate to conceal lest it derails their gravy train, it's because all these other known potential influences have already been considered and either eliminated as implausible or insignificant, or incorporated into the models as appropriate.
Quote:
Equally sadly the aims correspond exactly to those of energy efficiency but again little or no interest is shown in discussion of practical solutions to what are actually common aims.
I'm not sure which planet you live on Roverdc, but from where I'm looking I can see a positive blizzard of information and policy proposals about ways to increase energy efficiency and implement practical solutions to reduce emissions.
Well maybe Tony Blair, that self serving rat, is not going to revel in the supposed glory of having changed the US's mind about climate change after all.
In the planet I live on of very limited resources I would say that since the case for MGW is so proven that even questioning it means running the gauntlet of ridicule then all future studies into climate change can be scrapped.
The IPCC is totally redundant and the money used for contributions towards its upkeep and any UK based projects can be transferred to more useful activities like recycling without resorting to the health hazard of scrapping weekly waste collections.
Strange all I see is new taxes and subsidies for projects of little value and little real progress or innovative thinking. I really ought to get some rose tinted lenses sometime and maybe even the environmental lobby will start to look good.
Quote
funding was irregular and not directed at any particular outcome.
So you admit the study is rigged to a desired outcome. No I don't actually mean that but it is the sort of word twisting that is used all the time by the pro group perhaps that is why we antis probably will lose the argument.
Thank god for the US of A bringing a sense of balance. Love you all over there. Until you convince the third world not to have exemption and the US I will oppose any environmental taxes, which is the only actual real action being taken, by all legal means I can think of. Not that I can do anything much. I am green by necessity not choice, I suspect that most shouting loudest wouldn't even get a look in any assessment of actually being green.
Why don't we hear about the 'hole in the ozone layer' anymore?? What's that about??
Like most aspects of atmospheric physics, ozone depletion is a rather complex phenomenon influenced by a number of factors. Human CFC emissions are the principal cause of the polar ozone holes, and these emissions are now declining following the ban on their use. Total CFC levels in the atmosphere have declined by about 7% from their early 90s peak, but these molecules are very stable and take decades to decay. It looks like the global average amount of ozone depletion has now more or less stabilised, and the ozone layer is expected to show signs of recovery in the next few decades.
However it's not going to be a steady improvement because other climate factors also influence the size and duration of the holes. They are a seasonal feature which occur in the spring and their size varies considerably from year to year - in 2004-5 the Arctic hole was the largest observed since 1997, mainly due to unusually low stratospheric temperatures.
Ironically it is likely that global warming will lead to generally lower temperatures in the stratosphere, which may slow down the recovery of the ozone layer. On the other hand stratospheric ozone has a direct effect on global warming and the loss of ozone over recent decades appears to have had a small net cooling effect, so a general recovery in ozone levels may increase warming. But then again, CFCs are themselves very powerful greenhouse gases so as atmospheric concentrations of CFCs gradually decrease their contribution to GW will diminish.
Oh dear Providor I've got it wrong!
I thought it was the just the Greens trying to panic people into supporting them:
1970 - 1985 Imminent Ice age
1985 - 2000 Loss of the Ozone layer
2000 - Present Global Warming
Joking of course!
There is a serious side;
The damage done to public perception by inaccurate scare stories put out by green activists.
The way they block rational steps to reduce carbon emissions, and present and support some very dubious proposals.
Mean that to many rational and educated people the whole GW issue is seen as just another publicity stunt.
Canvas I see it is a live debate way in the future. It should be very interesting as I have a lot of respect for Neill. Letwin's intellect is undoupted but his lack of clarity is likely to lose it for the pro side.
Lawson is a vociferous debunker of Global warming and the Stern report and has gravitas indeed.
But hey... it is still 122 days away... I don't know what I am doing next week.
Apologies but am not sure where this information is most likely to be read so have posted similar information elsewhere where it is very relevant.
I must clarify my stance. This is about methodology used to promote a technology rather than the technology itself. I support renewable energy where environmentally,economically and socialy acceptable. and above all if it works! In the North Eastof England onshore wind is not doing what was expected in terms of electricity generation or saving carbon emissions
NEW REVIEW
The Quarterly Renewable
Energy Newsletter
Issue 49
August 2001
World's Largest Urban Wind Farm Under StudyThree national companies, Corus,
Northern Electric Generation and AMEC
Border Wind have joined together to investigate the feasibility of establishing a wind farm on a major industrial brownfield site on the south bank of the River
Tees, within the Redcar and Cleveland Borough. They will work in partnership with the Borough Council, the Tees Valley Joint Strategy Unit, Regional Development Agency One NorthEast and The Northern Energy Initiatives Renewable Energy Agency, and Renew North to develop the TeesWind
project.Substantial grant assistance for the study, expected to take about 18 months to complete, was secured through the European Commission's ALTENER Programme. The TeesWind project is being managed by Renew North, which played a key role in getting the idea moving and in winning EU
financial support. If successful, work on the site could commence in 2003. The exact scale of the project has yet to be decided, but a wind farm of 30 turbines,for instance, would generate enough electricity to supply the annual requirements of about 45,000 homes.
For more information, contact:Adrian Smith, Renew North,
Tel: 0191 2339303, Fax: 0191 2339309,
E-mail: [email protected] Cost was reported as £30 million and turbine heights of 450 ft
Comment This project on contaminated land I gave support to provided it was accepted by Teesside Airport that there would be no interference with their radar system. The issue of a nearby special protection area for birds I left to the expertise of RSPB
Permission was granted with conditions but as the conditions have not been met, the 'books have now been closed' on this application. However this information is not on official websites so far as I can see. To assume it is still 'live' is surely adding to the deception and delusion.
Thank you all for your comments on global warming and ideas for reducing carbon emissions. However this is almost now cut and dried and the best, perhaps the only, way to make any impression on government is to read the Energy White Paper EWP and respond to the consultations listed.
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/whitepaper/page39534.html Extract "Some of the measures in this White Paper require further public consultation Today we are launching consultations on nuclear power, the Renewables Obligation and guidance on the 1965 Gas Act. If you would like to take part in the nuclear consultation, see the Future of Nuclear Power website. We will launch further consultations in the coming months. For more information on these, please see the Consultations page."
Comment This document is 342 pages long and costs £40 postage and packing extra. Events leading to this many are unaware of but there is still a chance to have your say.
The Planning White Paper PWP is a document 220 pages long and cheaper at £32.50. As with the EWP there is opportunity to contribute to the consultations but will the government take notice of the electorate or attempt as usual to use verbosity in an attempt to baffle our brains?
The Planning White Paper PWP is available for download at http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1510503 It aims to fast-track massive and damaging new development It will reduce the right of local people to object to schemes that threaten their communities, so what has happened since? Stephen Byers in his speech on the Planning Green Paper (26/07/01) said the system then would give communities the right to express their views
My aim now is simply, and always has been, to alert the wider public to facts and events relating to the current proposals for the planning system in general and renewable energy in particular. Surely we all prefer Openness and the truth to delusion and deception? The most frustrating of all is the fact that only Tony Blair can rectify this situation before it is too late.
Just to clarify before I take any active role in the debate;
I whole heartedly support the concept of renewable energy and reducing Human impact upon our environment.
I personally have chosen to become as self sufficient as possible, and while this was my original goal I found myself becoming very “green” and more and more convinced by the idea that humans are destroying the environment.
However as the augments have become more and more evangelical I have become more and more sceptical.
As I read more the more I become more sceptical, the more I realise that virtually everyone involved in the debates have some financial interest, including the pro scientists.
Is anyone involved in this forum debate a scientist specialising in this area?
I personally now accept that humans have little impact on the environment from a warming point of view, but also accept that we have a very large impact upon the environment from an ecological view point, and by this I refer to habits etc.
Can I also suggest dropping words like contrarian, which suggest one is being deliberately opposite, just to be different or antagonistic.
Well done with the self-sufficient lifestyle, was planning to go that way myself once but got a bit sidetracked! But personally I am coming to dislike the "green" and "environmentalist" labels - those terms are too loaded nowadays and are often used pejoratively.
Quote:
However as the augments have become more and more evangelical I have become more and more sceptical.
Sceptical is good, but scepticism must be applied even-handedly. Most of the evangelism comes from the media, the politicians and the campaign groups. In my experience the real scientists are pretty level-headed and objective, and are fully aware of the uncertainties involved in their predictions. I'm not sure if it's possible for non-specialists to navigate through the mass of contradictory opinions about climate change, but my view is that you have to ignore the hype and try to understand the science.
Quote:
virtually everyone involved in the debates have some financial interest, including the pro scientists.
Scientists have a vested interest in doing good science - getting caught falsifying results is invariably bad for their careers. Likewise the scientific press have a vested interest in not publishing bad science. Although the peer-review process isn't perfect, the peer-reviewed scientific press should be a reliable source of information. The occasional duds that do get through peer-review are normally quickly rebutted by other scientists. So beware of any material that hasn't been filtered through this process. If a scientist feels the need to bypass peer-review and go straight to the mass media or a website in order to get his work noticed, be very sceptical. It probably means either that they have tried to get published in several journals and been unanimously rejected, or that they know that they won't get past peer-review so haven't even tried.
Quote:
Is anyone involved in this forum debate a scientist specialising in this area?
There was one in the early days of the original site, but he hasn't posted for a long time. If Webcameron ever restore the archive it would be worth reading what he said. I can't remember his words well enough to give any detail, but ISTR he gave a pretty candid account of what motivates scientists.
Quote:
Can I also suggest dropping words like contrarian
OK, let's try and stick to "pro-AGW" and "anti-AGW" then! But similarly, maybe one should avoid using emotive language like "To say a word against it is to be a heretic".
Quote:
I personally now accept that humans have little impact on the environment from a warming point of view
Well perhaps that's a good point to kick off. If it's not human activity that's causing GW, what is?
MGW is being found guilty without being allowed cash for a defence. Well how about kicking off with a theory from the fifties that there have been a series of natural events that have disturbed the earths axis and therefore the ocean currents. This has altered the normal current patterns initially causing global cooling and now like many self correcting systems the overshoot is causing global warming.
With the global warming work the mechanism may well be to do with CO2 but if this was assumed how about using proper scientific method and attempting to knock holes in the theory instead of 'co-ordinated' research to verify it.
This co-ordination alone is complete justification for rejecting any action based on the findings.
We need to understand global cooling mechanisms to be sure the real problem isn't there. Suppose for one moment it is, then nearly every action of the green lobby is almost certainly making things worse and expensively at that.
Roverdc: Once again you have come up with an interesting sounding theory but give no supporting references. Where did you hear about this? My initial reaction is that it's hard to see how altering the ocean currents could cause a global temperature change - surely this would just make some places warmer and others cooler? Without a net change in energy input or some other change in the global energy balance how could it cause a change in the global average temperature?
Also, ocean circulation has been intensively studied for many decades and its role in the climate is quite well understood AFAIK, so I really think that if changes in currents were causing global warming someone would have noticed by now.
As for your persistent assertion that nobody has attempted to disprove the theory of man-made global warming, did you actually read my brief history of climate science posted above (26/07/2007 09:45)? This is not a new theory, components of it have been around for over a century, and there have been plenty of attempts to show that CO2 cannot be responsible for global warming and that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will have no effect. For example, in the 3rd edition of Humphrey's Physics of the Air (1940), and in an article on climatic change in the USDA Yearbook for 1941 he wrote:
"Much has been written about varying amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a possible cause of glacial climates. The theory received a fatal blow when it was realized that carbon dioxide is very selective as to the wavelengths of radiant energy it will absorb, filtering out only such waves as even very minute quantities of water vapor dispose of anyway. No possible increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide could materially affect either the amount of insolation reaching the surface or the amount of terrestrial radiation lost to space."
Needless to say, subsequent research on the greenhouse effect showed that he was wrong, but the theory had to overcome many such sceptical attacks along the way. Much of the research which underpins our current understanding of the greenhouse effect was done long before the politicians or the oil companies or the environmental pressure groups got involved. The role of CO2 is not "assumed" as you appear to be suggecting, nor has it been arrived at as a result of "co-ordinated research" which somehow bypasses the scientific method.
A friend of mine was really interested in this topic in the sixties and I used to give him a lift to meetings of some friends on his PHD course also interested in the topic which I am sorry to admit seemed esoteric and irrelevant to me at the time.
If I remember correctly the way it worked was that the cooled bits of ocean lost their gases but it takes a long time to re absorb the increased gas into the warm bits, about five years.
I am not saying this or any other theory is right only that of over a hundred thoeretical models of climate change only a very few are researched and the current 'coordination' favours only those supporting the idea of more taxation.
I have just paid £15 to dispose of a fridge when its failure mechanism was the corrosion of a welded joint and hence loss of the coolant.
I no longer have access to about 15 square feet of high quality steel sheet. What a waste and this is environmentally sound? CFC levels have declined very much faster than predicted with considerably less effect than the models suggested and yet we are to swallow more based on these theories when weather forecasts can't do the next 24 hours.
Many studies indicate, even from supporters of the MGW theories, that high level vapour and particle emissions reduce not increase global warming but the movement for its own reasons still likes to hammer flying. Why?
Because it gives a green light to tax increases.
Show me the budget for research into the cooling side of man's activity and I will believe MGW if it is as big as the MGW one. If not the dice is loaded and not usable no matter how convincing the argument.
