Chief Scientific Adviser advises.

[biffvernon]

Here's a really scary article, particularly scary since its our Chief Scientific Adviser telling us to prepare to be toast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... matechange

The UK should take active steps to prepare for dangerous climate change of perhaps 4C according to one of the government's chief scientific advisers.

In policy areas such as flood protection, agriculture and coastal erosion Professor Bob Watson said the country should plan for the effects of a 4C global average rise on pre-industrial levels. The EU is committed to limiting emissions globally so that temperatures do not rise more than 2C.

"There is no doubt that we should aim to limit changes in the global mean surface temperature to 2C above pre-industrial," Watson, the chief scientific adviser to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, told the Guardian. "But given this is an ambitious target, and we don't know in detail how to limit greenhouse gas emissions to realise a 2 degree target, we should be prepared to adapt to 4C."

Globally, a 4C temperature rise would have a catastrophic impact.

more

[snow hope]

Yes, that is quite alarming.

On the other hand, I thought this was an interesting read from a Professor in South Africa.

http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB051%20Will%20 ... 20erin.pdf

[Adam1]

I thought that, if we go past 1.5C or 2C, various positive feedback mechanisms are likely to take us beyond 4C. Isn't that Mark Lynas's point in "6 degrees"?

[clv101]

I find it hard to take Alexander seriously when he says things like this:

TEMPERATURE INCREASES ARE IRRELEVANT
The claimed increases in surface air temperature resulting from global warming are less than those between having breakfast and taking morning tea on a sunny day. In our part of the world they are also considerably less than those experienced when moving in and out of the shade on a cloudless day.

We've seen how significant small changes have been in the past, why not now?

The reprehensible edicts of the Royal Society, the patently dishonest Stern Review and the pompous attempts to prevent the distribution of the DVD on the climate change swindle are evidence of the desperate situation in which the doomsday advocates find themselves.

The climate change swindle film has been widely discredited now, his implied support for it does his credibility no favours.

Taking a broader view, if the developing nations of the world refuse to implement the costly emissions control measures, the forthcoming G8 meeting fails to convince them otherwise, and continuing research succeeds in demonstrating that variations in solar activity, and not human activity, are the dominant cause of climate variability, thereby exposing the dishonest science, then the whole climate change issue must collapse like a pack of cards.

I'd read that recent solar research had backed up the position that solar activity does not explain the recent changes in climate, reinforcing the human activity explanation.


His position seems to be emotionally and politically affected by his relationship to the African continent.

Mix Al Gore, polar bears, Kilimanjaro, Katrina, the Royal Society, the Stern Review, the 2000 IPCC scientists, and what do you get? – the end of the world. Should we in Africa start digging our graves or make reservations at the crematorium? Or should we challenge the doomsday scenarios?

Just because you happen to live in Africa shouldn't impact your reading of the science. He seems motivated to challenge the conclusion because he doesn't like it.

[RenewableCandy]

Here's a really scary article, particularly scary since its our Chief Scientific Adviser telling us to prepare to be toast.

He's either going to get the sack or else an "offer he can't refuse" from the nuclear boys.

[biffvernon]

Not easy to sack a Chief Scientific Adviser at DEFRA when he is backed up by the previous Chief Scientist. King's first move on retirement was to write a book warning about global warming. I guess there must be folk in Government who are beginning to think we have a problem.

For those who don't know Bob Watson, start here.

[snow hope]

Some fair points there Chris, although I don't think we can dismiss his findings completely.

Do you discard the fact that he has seen no increase in flooding / droughts over the last 25 years in Africa, despite the fact that we are being told (by the IPCC) that these should change and that Africa will be one of the worst effected nations?

What about his research that rain / flooding seems to be much more strongly linked to the solar cycle than CO2?

I still feel we are under-estimating the impact our local star has on the planet's climate. The latest solar cycle that was expected to start a couple of years ago still hasn't really started and some folks are predicting that we are entering a cooler solar period due to the Gleissberg cycle. I find Dr Landscheidt's papers particularly interesting.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006 ... m?list3134
http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

[Bandidoz]

That's funny, I've heard anecdotal stories about people from Swaziland saying words to the effect of "The Weather's f**ked up, man".

[kenneal - lagger]

We are at a Solar Sun Spot minimum at the moment and the next cycle taking a while to start suggests a not very vigorous next cycle. This means a cooler than normal few years, say 12 to 15. Unfortunately the underlying trend of CO2 based global warming will continue through this period, although masked by the cooling due to the lack of sunspot activity, and so, when we get back to higher sunspot activity, we will have a much, much warmer climate to contend with. It will really hit us with a bang.

Regarding Africa, Mozambique has seen some exceptional flooding in the last few years.

[Totally_Baffled]

This means a cooler than normal few years, say 12 to 15

Rightly or wrongly, considering the quote above, man made climate change is a very tough sell.

To sell to the average joe in the street that man made global warming is still real despite...

a) A decade of no warming and then:

b) a possible 12 - 15 years of cooler temperatures AND THEN...

c) ... a massive apocalyptic rise in temeratures.

... is going to be nigh on impossible!

Hell I think I am even more skeptical now!! (not that it matters due to peak FF's!)

[snow hope]

If you get a chance Ken, have a read of the second link I gave above to one of Dr Landscheidt's papers about the solar cycles - very interesting stuff

[snow hope]

Occasionally I have to go to Rabat in Morocco. Since I first went there 3 years ago, I have kept a weekly eye on the BBC 5-day forecast for Rabat and Cassablanca. I have noticed this year that the temperatures have been much lower than previous years, rarely getting above about 30c. Quite strange for this region which is often pretty hot and got well into the 40s a couple of years back.

[kenneal - lagger]

If you get a chance Ken, have a read of the second link I gave above to one of Dr Landscheidt's papers about the solar cycles - very interesting stuff

That's a very convincing paper, Snow. I'd read quite a bit about solar cycles and sun spot cycles but hadn't come across the Gleissberg cycle. I'd been waiting to see what the ice loss in the Arctic was going to be like this year in order to gauge whether AGW or solar cycles were having the strongest effect. Could AGW reduce the effect of Global Cooling due to a lack of solar activity? Would the Arctic/Greenland thaw continue as it has done? We'll just have to see, won't we.

I take solace (!!!!) in the fact that the mitigation for Global Warming, Global Cooling and Fossil Fuel Depletion is virtually the same: INSULATE LIKE B****RY!! We have to make ourselves more efficient by reducing our consumption of all fuel in order to (Global Warming) reduce the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere, or (Global Cooling) reduce the amount of fuel needed to keep us warm to manageable, affordable proportions, or (Fossil Fuel Depletion) virtually the same as the last one.

We're using so many of the earth's resources in such a profligate manner that any change in our circumstances that causes any sort of chaos will cause a serious loss of life, both human and animal. In previous times, a warming or cooling period that interrupted food/fuel supply could be mitigated by spreading out into previously uncultivated lands, possibly in more clement climes. We're in a position now where, because of overpopulation, we can't take up the slack in food or fuel production anywhere else.

So, if we get an interruption in food/fuel supply for any of the above three reasons a lot of people somewhere are going to be very hungry. Any two of the above three reasons, depending on your point of view, are about to cause us a problem, so those of us who have a degree of self sufficiency in fuel and food supply are going to be in a much better position than most others.

People might argue about the reason to prepare, but they can't argue that there is a necessity to prepare or what those preparations should be.

[biffvernon]

There seems to be a reluctance to accept that chaotic systems produce variability, sometimes masking trends. We are good at pattern recognition and search for patterns even where none exist. Cycles can usually be found within varying phenomena - until the cycle stops - but the cycles are often human artifacts. It took a long time for the epicycle explanation of planetary movement to be abandoned.

I find it a good rule of thumb to send any pseudo-scientific article that mentions cycles to the waste bin, closely followed by most articles that mention sun-spots.

[clv101]

I take solace (!!!!) in the fact that the mitigation for Global Warming, Global Cooling and Fossil Fuel Depletion is virtually the same: INSULATE LIKE B****RY!! We have to make ourselves more efficient by reducing our consumption of all fuel in order to (Global Warming) reduce the amount of carbon we're pumping into the atmosphere, or (Global Cooling) reduce the amount of fuel needed to keep us warm to manageable, affordable proportions, or (Fossil Fuel Depletion) virtually the same as the last one.

We're using so many of the earth's resources in such a profligate manner that any change in our circumstances that causes any sort of chaos will cause a serious loss of life, both human and animal. In previous times, a warming or cooling period that interrupted food/fuel supply could be mitigated by spreading out into previously uncultivated lands, possibly in more clement climes. We're in a position now where, because of overpopulation, we can't take up the slack in food or fuel production anywhere else.

Good post.