The real truth about Climate Change from a real scientist.

[Vortex]

I know essentially nothing about Global Warming ... but ...

"If you are calm whilst all about you are in a panic, then perhaps you have misunderstood the situation."

There seems to be a fair degree of panic amongst (most) scientists, so maybe they know something I don't ....

Anyway, as pointed out in an earlier post, we are running out of all sorts of resources, breeding like rabbits, dumping our rubbish all over the place so something is likely to 'give' pretty soon ..

[Blue Peter]

I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that climate is far too complicated for lay people to contribute meaningfully to the scientific debate. Seriously, climate is the most complex subject going, right up there with searching for a grand unification theory for the four fundamental forces. Even "real" climate scientists only have a half decent understanding of their little bit.

My impression is that, while both are "very difficult", climate science and grand unification theory (GUT) are very different beasts.

Climate science is very difficult because there is an awful lot going on and it is very hard to model it all. However, everything that is going on is understandable in terms of current science and therefore there is no conceptual problem. There may well be phenomena which have considerable effects out there which we do not know about. However, if/when they are discovered, they will be understandable.

GUT, if such a thing is even possible, may require totally new concepts, and such a theory may be beyond human comprehension.


The above is why, despite not being able to form any really informed opinion on the subject, I am happy that climate change is basically as the science describes. It's the sort of thing which science is good at - it just basically requires much application of known theories. It is quite possible that climate is too complicated for us to compute accurately; and it is possible that there are phenomena not yet discovered which will negate climate change, or that certain things interact in certain very complicated ways to negate climate change, but, I wouldn't put any money on such things.

But GUT, is an entirely different kettle of fish,


Peter.

[Miss Madam]

[quote="Vortex"]I know essentially nothing about Global Warming ... but ...

"If you are calm whilst all about you are in a panic, then perhaps you have misunderstood the situation."

There seems to be a fair degree of panic amongst (most) scientists, so maybe they know something I don't ....
quote]

Hear hear Vortex. I am a little sick of Biff's one sentence rubbishings of anything to do with AGW - but thanks for providing a bit more info to back it up this time. I'll have a nosy through the blog - cheers!

I spend most of my days working with Oxford University scientists who are 'bricking it' for want of a better term, about climate change. Clearly, they might all be over educated worry worts with too much time on their hands - but I would rather trust their views than an armchair climate scientist. With most science issues that are in the media, the closer you are to the coal face of the science - the less worried about the issue people are (i.e. the whole Daily Mail Frankenfood GMO debate, the public panics, the scientists don't) - climate change seems to be the only issue that contradicts this observation - the scientists most involved are the most worried, whilst Joe Public tells them not to worry their pretty heads about it. Seriously the panic in the normally unflappable scientific community has been ramping up big styleeee in the last 12 months or so, and to be honest - I'm a great believer in the precautionary principle - so I'm listening to the majority opinion from the scientific community on this but also open to hearing from the other side - I just won't be putting all of my eggs in their basket.

[biffvernon]

If we get climate change wrong we're in trouble.

If we get GUT wrong it's just academic interest.

(What's that you say about CERN creating a black hole that we all get swallowed up into? )

[Kieran]

Being a non scientist I too have to pick my way through the claims and counter claims and can well appreciate those who like to stand out from the crowd and say that AGW is a crock (it's great fun being a contrarian). I tend to be very swayed by the positions of scientists like Steve Jones (Coral:A Pessimist in Paradise) who I admire a lot. He's obviously "bricking it"!

Completely anecdotally, in talks with my 88 year old Dad, he has absolutely no doubts that climate has shifted significantly.

[oilslick]

Interesting stuff.

My view these days is that you only have to look at what's happening in the financial system to see that we have no ability to really predict complicated stuff - there are just too many variables and you only have to get one important variable slightly wrong and the outcome is completely different.

If CO2 is the problem, there really is zero chance of anything being done to cut down emissions. Governments don't have the motivation to make the changes and aren't capable of creating a true consensus.

Lets hope he's right. I have more than an itchy feeling he might be.

[Vortex]

Perhaps 'we have had it too good' for too long?

Change happens eventually, and the only possible direction is ... downwards ...

[Bandidoz]

If what Carter says is true, that Global Cooling is imminent, then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to conserve fossil fuels for a time when they are really necessary for our children. If what Carter says is not true then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to ensure that the earth does not over heat and to help maintain a fossil fuel supply for our children to use in moderation.

If we carry on as we are, with 2% growth, we will have doubled our fossil fuel use in 35 years. That means we will have used up most of the reserves, and all the easily accessible ones, that we know of. Our children will then have to go to a solar economy without the energy means to do so.

If we have global warming there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones. If we have global cooling there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones.

Basically global warming or cooling doesn't matter a jot. We must reduce our profligate wasting of the earth's fuel resources and we must control the earth's human population because in the future, possibly near future, we won't be able to feed the current population. Climate Change is a distracting irrelevance. Resource depletion is what matters. Climate Change arguments enable the proponents of BAU to push their spurious claims and prevent any reduction in the rate of resource wastage.

Says it all really. The debate is pure mental masturbation.

PS I'd have put it as:

Basically global warming, cooling, or even staying the same, doesn't matter a jot.

[Miss Madam]

If what Carter says is true, that Global Cooling is imminent, then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to conserve fossil fuels for a time when they are really necessary for our children. If what Carter says is not true then we should be insulating our buildings and reducing our fuel requirements to ensure that the earth does not over heat and to help maintain a fossil fuel supply for our children to use in moderation.

If we carry on as we are, with 2% growth, we will have doubled our fossil fuel use in 35 years. That means we will have used up most of the reserves, and all the easily accessible ones, that we know of. Our children will then have to go to a solar economy without the energy means to do so.

If we have global warming there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones. If we have global cooling there is likely to be a catastrophic drop in food supply caused by shifting temperature and rainfall zones.

Basically global warming or cooling doesn't matter a jot. We must reduce our profligate wasting of the earth's fuel resources and we must control the earth's human population because in the future, possibly near future, we won't be able to feed the current population. Climate Change is a distracting irrelevance. Resource depletion is what matters. Climate Change arguments enable the proponents of BAU to push their spurious claims and prevent any reduction in the rate of resource wastage.

Says it all really. The debate is pure mental masturbation.

PS I'd have put it as:

Basically global warming, cooling, or even staying the same, doesn't matter a jot.

Said from a position of pure first world luxury of someone in Berkshire who's children are not likely to die due to the local well drying up, or the influx of new tropical diseases to which they have no resistance. Global warming matters a damn sight more than a jot to the majority of people on this planet who live in the developing world without our cushioning of wealth and privilege.

[Bandidoz]

You misunderstand, Cat. The point is that the mitigation has to be done, so lets get on with it rather than having a pointless debate over whether it is necessary or not.


...and please don't patronise me about poverty. I've seen African poverty first hand. It ain't nice.

[Miss Madam]

Phew!!!!!!

Yes - 100% agree with you - let's just get on with it and we can witter and debate along the way, but we need to start now rather than waiting for proof from heaven of all of the intricacies of climate change.

By it's very nature science can never prove something 100% - there is always the possibility of some force / cause at work that our puny human brains can't even conceive of, we are never going to get a hurricane with a 'I'm a result of climate change caused by the emission of GHG from burning fossil fuels' label on it. Business is used to operating with some uncertain parameters i.e. interest rates, currency fluctuations etc - it needs to accept that whilst we may not know to 20 decimal places why the climate is changing. It is and we have to respond to it as best we can. At present we are akin to the revellers not wanting the party to end, who are stalling and hoping for a late license for the fossil fuel party to keep going as long as it can.... And bugger the consequences for the generations to come....

[snow hope]

Biff, I did look at Rabetts blog, but didn't find the meaty stuff - will have a more detailed look tonight.

Cat, why exactly are your climate scientist colleagues "bricking it"? Did you watch the video I posted at the start of the thread?

I have no doubt that the climate is changing. It always does, especially regionally. I think it is very important to understand whether humankind are playing a major part in that change, because if we are, then we can possibly (although pretty unlikely in my humble opinion) mitigate that change. If we are not playing a major part, then we haven't a chance in hell of mitigating the changes.

I feel that our best course of action is adaption not feeble attempts at mitigation. Peak Oil will change the whole playing field before politics will anyway....... If we run low on oil and gas for heating our homes, we will burn coal and wood no matter the impact on our planet - humans are like that - we are undoubtedly short-termist!

As for whether it is going to warm or cool, I suspect we are in a very minor warming blip prior to a major cooling trend which may take us into the next glacial period, that will last approximately 90,000 years. You only have to look at the climate of the planet for the last million years to see that is the very likely outcome.

Chris, I believe the IPCC are wrong and that is because they are a politically motivated organisation that put a spin on what the scientists report. You only have to look at the murmurings around the edges from scientists who have resigned from the IPCC or who have openly said they do not agree with the conclusions for Policymakers that have been put forth to see that the political impact is skewing the whole validity of their results. Did you watch the video? If so, tell me which parts you disagree with?

However these are just my considered opinions, I am not a climate scientists and could be completely wrong.......

[PS_RalphW]

Chris, I believe the IPCC are wrong and that is because they are a politically motivated organisation that put a spin on what the scientists report. You only have to look at the murmurings around the edges from scientists who have resigned from the IPCC or who have openly said they do not agree with the conclusions for Policymakers that have been put forth to see that the political impact is skewing the whole validity of their results.

I heard exactly the same thing. Presumably different scientists, because the ones I read about where complaining that their predictions of dire problems were watered down or excluded altogether...

[clv101]

Chris, I believe the IPCC are wrong and that is because they are a politically motivated organisation that put a spin on what the scientists report. You only have to look at the murmurings around the edges from scientists who have resigned from the IPCC or who have openly said they do not agree with the conclusions for Policymakers that have been put forth to see that the political impact is skewing the whole validity of their results. Did you watch the video? If so, tell me which parts you disagree with?

Political motivations? How so? The general understanding of climate change hasn't changed in 20 years. Go back to scientific papers of the late '80s and early '90s. This science I hope you agree is devoid of political interference - it also correlates with the current IPCC position (although the confidence and detail is substantially increased now). You can not use the argument of political motivation to dismiss AGW, the science predates the political interest in the subject.

[Miss Madam]

I heard exactly the same thing. Presumably different scientists, because the ones I read about where complaining that their predictions of dire problems were watered down or excluded altogether...

That's what I've heard - including the head of WGII (Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability) who lodged a formal complaint due to an act that he described as 'scientific vandalism' by the political delegates from Saudi, China and Russia - as they succeeded in watering down key findings, and removed key dates from a figure illustrating the impacts of climate change (at BAU rates of GHG emissions).

My own opinion is that anthropogenic GHG emissions have 'woken the sleeping giant' and are already triggering runaway climate change by releasing natural stores of carbon (ie. DODGY TAX AVOIDERS forest fires, permafrost methane release, release of soil carbon during droughts such as 2003), I'm with Hansen I fear that we have passed the safe ceiling (we're currently at 382ppm) and need to be sustainably retreating pronto toward the 350ppm mark. Our emissions have caused the whole problem by lighting the touch paper, even if in the end it is natural stored carbon that whacks us upside the head imho.