Climate split from Ukraine thread

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 29 Dec 2015, 15:03

Orlov refers to this link, Chris, from Paul Beckwith from the University of Ottowa, on Climate Change Deep Freeze (Polar Vortex, Jet Stream and Sea Ice). At the end he refers to rapid climate change being a distinct possibility along with releases of methane from Arctic areas. This would also point to rapid loss of land born ice as well.

Although this might not be the accepted science at the moment surely we should be taking it seriously. After all only a few short years ago accepted science had it that the Arctic wouldn't be ice free in summer before the end of this century. Now that is accepted to be wildly out and that the Arctic could be sea ice free in summer before 2050.

Post by **clv101** » 29 Dec 2015, 18:45

kenneal - lagger wrote:This would also point to rapid loss of land born ice as well.

It all depends on what one means by 'rapid'. I think we'll see rapid loss of land born ice, contributing to up to 1.5m rise by 2100. That's rapid! Some of the other numbers being bounded about at little more than doomer-porn in my opinion.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 30 Dec 2015, 13:07

We'll see how the science progresses in the future as well as the ice loss then.

AutomaticEarth · Post by **AutomaticEarth** » 30 Dec 2015, 14:42

Should we not be discussing this on the Climate Change thread? Just a suggestion of course......

Post by **clv101** » 30 Dec 2015, 16:04

kenneal - lagger wrote:We'll see how the science progresses in the future as well as the ice loss then.

For sure, and I'll be the the first to change my mind in light of any new evidence. Currently there's lots of evidence to support a maximum 21st C. SLR of ~1.5m, and very little evidence for more.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 30 Dec 2015, 20:15

clv101 wrote:
kenneal - lagger wrote:We'll see how the science progresses in the future as well as the ice loss then.
For sure, and I'll be the the first to change my mind in light of any new evidence. Currently there's lots of evidence to support a maximum 21st C. SLR of ~1.5m, and very little evidence for more.

Has anyone done a meta analysis of the extent to which predictions have had to be revised upwards over time? In other words, are you factoring into your prediction, not just current evidence, but also, the statistical probability (based on previous occasions it has occurred) that your predictions may have to be revised upwards?

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 31 Dec 2015, 05:13

I think Hanson was doing this on the basis that the politicians are so slow to do anything about anything that the anti needs to be upped to give then the sense of urgency that is required. I am quite happy to proceed on this basis but I don't think Chris is.

Post by **clv101** » 31 Dec 2015, 11:26

I'm very happy to do anything that leads to action...

What I, and many scientists, are unhappy about is folk misrepresenting the science, claiming it says something it doesn't. Of course our current understanding is incomplete, and I expect plain wrong in some areas - but it is our best current understanding. Of course folk are very welcome to say its rubbish, and forward their own alternatives. There's no shortage of books, newspapers, magazines, websites etc where alternatives can be forwarded.

Hansen's behaviour of late has been poor - he should never have promoted his latest work as he did before peer review for example. Its led to countless articles and discussions seemingly based on science when in fact, currently, they are based on no more the unreviewed work for a few individuals.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Dec 2015, 12:44

My action has been to buy property at below sea level at high tide, secure in the knowledge that the Environment Agency will protect it throughout the 21st century!

The trouble with criticising the doomerish end of scientific opinion is that we know that the last 30 years and more of scientific discourse that has played by the rules hasn't worked. We're on a trajectory for the end of civilisation as we know it, whatever the sea level at the end of this century turns out to be.

Clearly scientists will present the case in different ways, covering a spectrum, Hansen towards one end, Curry at the other. I'm impressed with Kevin Anderson's position but there are many more on the more cautious side than on the doomerish side of Anderson.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 31 Dec 2015, 12:49

kenneal - lagger wrote:I think Hanson was doing this on the basis that the politicians are so slow to do anything about anything that the anti needs to be upped to give then the sense of urgency that is required. I am quite happy to proceed on this basis but I don't think Chris is.

Exaggeration tends to lose an argument.

What is most likely to result in improvements in the use of renewables is cuts in the cost of Solar.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 31 Dec 2015, 13:09

clv101 wrote:I'm very happy to do anything that leads to action...

What I, and many scientists, are unhappy about is folk misrepresenting the science, claiming it says something it doesn't. Of course our current understanding is incomplete, and I expect plain wrong in some areas - but it is our best current understanding. Of course folk are very welcome to say its rubbish, and forward their own alternatives. There's no shortage of books, newspapers, magazines, websites etc where alternatives can be forwarded.

Hansen's behaviour of late has been poor - he should never have promoted his latest work as he did before peer review for example. Its led to countless articles and discussions seemingly based on science when in fact, currently, they are based on no more the unreviewed work for a few individuals.

If this is in any way a response to my last post, it is disingenuous. I am not saying current understanding is rubbish. I am asking to what extent the predictions that arise from such understanding have to be revised over time and whether a meta analysis has been done on this..

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 31 Dec 2015, 15:41

johnhemming2 wrote: Exaggeration tends to lose an argument.

But it sells newspapers.

The argument, set out in the 1970s, that we should shift from fossil fuel to renewables, was lost not because a few people exaggerated the case.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 31 Dec 2015, 17:13

I would argue that this particular argument has not been lost it is merely that progress is gradual.

Post by **clv101** » 31 Dec 2015, 17:41

Little John wrote:
clv101 wrote:I'm very happy to do anything that leads to action...

What I, and many scientists, are unhappy about is folk misrepresenting the science, claiming it says something it doesn't. Of course our current understanding is incomplete, and I expect plain wrong in some areas - but it is our best current understanding. Of course folk are very welcome to say its rubbish, and forward their own alternatives. There's no shortage of books, newspapers, magazines, websites etc where alternatives can be forwarded.

Hansen's behaviour of late has been poor - he should never have promoted his latest work as he did before peer review for example. Its led to countless articles and discussions seemingly based on science when in fact, currently, they are based on no more the unreviewed work for a few individuals.
If this is in any way a response to my last post, it is disingenuous. I am not saying current understanding is rubbish. I am asking to what extent the predictions that arise from such understanding have to be revised over time and whether a meta analysis has been done on this..

No, sorry it's not a response to your post. I'm not aware of any such studies and haven't had a chance to investigate.

Post by **kenneal - lagger** » 31 Dec 2015, 19:04

johnhemming2 wrote:I would argue that this particular argument has not been lost it is merely that progress is gradual.

So gradual that we are going backwards rapidly. We do not yet have an imposable agreement on cutting fossil fuel use but we are getting into the realms of positive feedbacks with methane emissions increasing in the Arctic, with unknown metres of sea level rise locked in and our government passing a law requiring the maximising of fossil fuel extraction from the North Sea and encouraging the exploration for further fossil fuel supplies by fracking.

Our politicians should be taken out and shot in a Clarksonesque way.