Greg, now do you believe that Climate Change is real?

pblakeney

I really enjoy threads such as this. Primarily because I laugh at those spending too much time trying to get their point of view across.

You need only ask two questions.

1. What are you willing to do to change things?
2. If you do all you can, what difference will it make?

I can supply the answers.

1. Not enough.
2. Not enough.

Not that I am promoting doing nothing. I fully encourage any attempts to reduce pollution.
But anyone thinking that taxes can help is living in cloud cuckoo land.

notsoblue

PBlakeney wrote:

But anyone thinking that taxes can help is living in cloud cuckoo land.

To be fair though, people aren't proposing to spend taxes on a 100ft tall sea wall, or a weather dome to cover the country... Government spending that is influenced by the idea of man made climate change tends to be on things like subsidies for renewable energy sources or flood defenses. In principle, I think betting on sustainable industry is a fairly good long term investment strategy with the potential for pretty good ROI. And isn't that really the best way to spend taxes?

pblakeney

notsoblue wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

But anyone thinking that taxes can help is living in cloud cuckoo land.

To be fair though, people aren't proposing to spend taxes on a 100ft tall sea wall, or a weather dome to cover the country... Government spending that is influenced by the idea of man made climate change tends to be on things like subsidies for renewable energy sources or flood defenses. In principle, I think betting on sustainable industry is a fairly good long term investment strategy with the potential for pretty good ROI. And isn't that really the best way to spend taxes?

I was not referring to the spending of taxes.
I was referring to the justification for raising taxes and as far as I am aware there is no justification in the Government giving the energy producers any subsidies as they seem to be capable of making substantial profits as it is.

notsoblue

PBlakeney wrote:

I was not referring to the spending of taxes.
I was referring to the justification for raising taxes and as far as I am aware there is no justification in the Government giving the energy producers any subsidies as they seem to be capable of making substantial profits as it is.

Which taxes are you talking about here?

pblakeney

notsoblue wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was not referring to the spending of taxes.
I was referring to the justification for raising taxes and as far as I am aware there is no justification in the Government giving the energy producers any subsidies as they seem to be capable of making substantial profits as it is.

Which taxes are you talking about here?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defi ... -published

notsoblue

PBlakeney wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was not referring to the spending of taxes.
I was referring to the justification for raising taxes and as far as I am aware there is no justification in the Government giving the energy producers any subsidies as they seem to be capable of making substantial profits as it is.

Which taxes are you talking about here?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defi ... -published

How are these related to giving profit making energy producers subsidies?

pblakeney

notsoblue wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

I was not referring to the spending of taxes.
I was referring to the justification for raising taxes and as far as I am aware there is no justification in the Government giving the energy producers any subsidies as they seem to be capable of making substantial profits as it is.

Which taxes are you talking about here?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/defi ... -published

How are these related to giving profit making energy producers subsidies?

I was addressing your own point. Taxes are put into a pot and prioritised as to where they should go.

notsoblue wrote:

....In principle, I think betting on sustainable industry is a fairly good long term investment strategy with the potential for pretty good ROI. And isn't that really the best way to spend taxes?

Unless I misunderstood?

MaxwellBygraves

Sounds like some posters could use a Beginners guide! No more than 250 words!

paul2718

But that New Scientist piece contains no references, weasel words like 'recent slowing in the pace' to describe a cooling period and states as facts things that cannot be known. Such as

New Scientist wrote:

The extent of sea-ice loss is unprecedented in 2000 years and very likely due to man-made climate change.

It's this misrepresentation and unwarranted certainty that gives climate science a bad name.

Paul

rjsterry

paul2718 wrote:

But that New Scientist piece contains no references, weasel words like 'recent slowing in the pace' to describe a cooling period and states as facts things that cannot be known. Such as

New Scientist wrote:

The extent of sea-ice loss is unprecedented in 2000 years and very likely due to man-made climate change.

It's this misrepresentation and unwarranted certainty that gives climate science a bad name.

Paul

That may be because you are looking at the free to view summary of a site with a paywall. NS usually has references for its articles. A moment's googling will throw up plenty of references if you care to look. Here's a graph of extrapolated world temperature over the last 1000 years for a start. At something of a peak, right now, wouldn't you say?


Historic sea ice extents can be extrapolated from the presence of a phytoplankton derived organic compound in Antarctic ice cores. Here's a reference

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

Stick "historical sea ice extent over last 2000 years" into Google image search and you'll find plenty of graphs and diagrams that back up the statement you highlighted.

The Rookie

Isn't the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere, the same CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere thousands to millions of years ago?

I reckon the world was warmer than than it is now when Kent was under a tropical rainforest?

Just a couple of things to consider!

As an aside, as a engineer I abhor the so called 'climate change model' as it cannot be checked, when we model something we never get it quite right, so we do some basic tests on the real thing to confirm it reacts as the model predicted, then we consider the model correlated. There has been no such correlation on the climate change model.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Climate change - small "c" - is undoubtedly real. The climate is dynamic. That's its nature. Ice ages came and went. That's climate change, but not caused by us. Ever wondered why the dinosaurs were so big? Because the atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of oxygen back in the day.

So if we grew our own humans and while at the embryo and fetus stage we exposed them to 10 times the amount of oxygen would they then be 10 times taller?

:shock:

MaxwellBygraves

The Rookie wrote:

Isn't the CO2 we are pumping into the atmosphere, the same CO2 absorbed from the atmosphere thousands to millions of years ago?

I reckon the world was warmer than than it is now when Kent was under a tropical rainforest?

This is akin to arguing that because cavemen got cancer, there is no link between smoking cigarettes and developing cancer.

The physical science basis is well established and well documented for example.

Until deniers can produce any peer reviewed scientific evidence that contradicts the mountain of growing evidence that we have accumulated over the last few decades, the scientific footing of those who continue to deny will continue on a par with those creationists who insist the Earth is 6000 years old.

rjsterry

The Rookie wrote:

There has been no such correlation on the climate change model.

Really? You actually think that nobody has put the predicted temperatures alongside actual observations to see how well they match? Does that even seem remotely likely?

Have a look at figure SPM.4 on page 11 of this document from the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Sure, the models may not be perfect, but they seem to be broadly accurate.

Kieran_Burns

I think it worth pointing out that anyone not being sceptical about Climate Change is not being scientific in their approach.

rjsterry

It's also worth pointing out that scepticism does not suggest one should ignore evidence

DonDaddyD

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Climate change - small "c" - is undoubtedly real. The climate is dynamic. That's its nature. Ice ages came and went. That's climate change, but not caused by us. Ever wondered why the dinosaurs were so big? Because the atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of oxygen back in the day.

So if we grew our own humans and while at the embryo and fetus stage we exposed them to 10 times the amount of oxygen would they then be 10 times taller?

:shock:

So it seems this thread isn't ready to jump the shark...

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Climate change - small "c" - is undoubtedly real. The climate is dynamic. That's its nature. Ice ages came and went. That's climate change, but not caused by us. Ever wondered why the dinosaurs were so big? Because the atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of oxygen back in the day.

So if we grew our own humans and while at the embryo and fetus stage we exposed them to 10 times the amount of oxygen would they then be 10 times taller?

:shock:

No, its because a higher partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere allows for longer diffusion distances within respiratory tissues (I think).

The size of animals is limited in part by the efficiency of their respiratory system. Vertebrates generally have more specialised circulatory systems that can distribute respiratory gasses pretty efficiently to and from the extremities of the body. Invertebrates less so. So their size is more limited by the relative proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere. This is why during periods in history when Oxygen was more abundant, insects used to grow really huge.

notsoblue

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think it worth pointing out that anyone not being sceptical about Climate Change is not being scientific in their approach.

Theres no point in being sceptical if this doesn't lead to you reviewing evidence...

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Climate change - small "c" - is undoubtedly real. The climate is dynamic. That's its nature. Ice ages came and went. That's climate change, but not caused by us. Ever wondered why the dinosaurs were so big? Because the atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of oxygen back in the day.

So if we grew our own humans and while at the embryo and fetus stage we exposed them to 10 times the amount of oxygen would they then be 10 times taller?

:shock:

No, its because a higher partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere allows for longer diffusion distances within respiratory tissues (I think).

The size of animals is limited in part by the efficiency of their respiratory system. Vertebrates generally have more specialised circulatory systems that can distribute respiratory gasses pretty efficiently to and from the extremities of the body. Invertebrates less so. So their size is more limited by the relative proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere. This is why during periods in history when Oxygen was more abundant, insects used to grow really huge.

The two sentences don't seem to make sense. Firstly you say no, but then you go onto say yes more oxygen makes creatures bigger.

OK so if the atmosphere had the same level of oxygen as the dinosaurs had, would we be bigger?

paul2718

rjsterry wrote:

That may be because you are looking at the free to view summary of a site with a paywall. NS usually has references for its articles. A moment's googling will throw up plenty of references if you care to look. Here's a graph of extrapolated world temperature over the last 1000 years for a start. At something of a peak, right now, wouldn't you say?

If you believe that graph reflects reality with any confidence I have a couple of bridges to sell you. It commits the data fraud of overlaying incompatible data and omits the inconvenience of the proxies heading down in modern times, in opposition to the measurements. Not impressed.

Historic sea ice extents can be extrapolated from the presence of a phytoplankton derived organic compound in Antarctic ice cores. Here's a reference

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/full/nature10581.html

That's a pay-walled article about Arctic ice. Global sea ice is currently on the high side of measured history.

If you want to make the case for AGW you need to go back to the basic argument, which is essentially the divergence of climate models from observed reality unless forced with warming from CO2. Although, rather awkwardly, over the last 10 years or more the converse has been happening.

Paul

paul2718

rjsterry wrote:

The Rookie wrote:

There has been no such correlation on the climate change model.

Really? You actually think that nobody has put the predicted temperatures alongside actual observations to see how well they match? Does that even seem remotely likely?

Obviously lots of people have done this. It doesn't look good for the models.

Have a look at figure SPM.4 on page 11 of this document from the IPCC.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Sure, the models may not be perfect, but they seem to be broadly accurate.

Now why would you choose a graphic that ends in 2000 and was published in 2007, to illustrate a point you want to make in 2014?

This figure,

was deleted from last autumn's AR5 report. It too clearly shows the divergence between AR4 models and reality. The causes of this 'hiatus' are currently very topical and worth reading about, assuming you have a Nature subscription.

I think you could advance the case for AGW rather more effectively.

Paul

rjsterry

So based on a relatively small divergence over the last 10 years, but a preceding 100 years of fairly close correlation, we're going to throw the whole thing out as misguided rubbish? Seems a little rash . Is there a graph that sticks the post-2000 bit onto the pre-2000 bit so that you can see it in context? Your graph does seem to contradict the one(s) I posted, but obviously they are over dramatically different time frames. It's also quite a leap to go from "climate model is starting to deviate from observations" to "AGW doesn't exist".

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Climate change - small "c" - is undoubtedly real. The climate is dynamic. That's its nature. Ice ages came and went. That's climate change, but not caused by us. Ever wondered why the dinosaurs were so big? Because the atmosphere contained a much higher percentage of oxygen back in the day.

So if we grew our own humans and while at the embryo and fetus stage we exposed them to 10 times the amount of oxygen would they then be 10 times taller?

:shock:

No, its because a higher partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere allows for longer diffusion distances within respiratory tissues (I think).

The size of animals is limited in part by the efficiency of their respiratory system. Vertebrates generally have more specialised circulatory systems that can distribute respiratory gasses pretty efficiently to and from the extremities of the body. Invertebrates less so. So their size is more limited by the relative proportion of Oxygen in the atmosphere. This is why during periods in history when Oxygen was more abundant, insects used to grow really huge.

The two sentences don't seem to make sense. Firstly you say no, but then you go onto say yes more oxygen makes creatures bigger.

OK so if the atmosphere had the same level of oxygen as the dinosaurs had, would we be bigger?

Sorry, wasn't written very clearly.

Theres a bunch of factors that can place limitations on the size of species within an evolutionary context; for example the biomechanics of bone morphology, the ecology the species evolves within in, and the relative abundance of respiratory gasses.

If oxygen was more abundant, it would reduce the effect of that particular limitation and potentially allow that species to evolve into others that would be larger over time (Though other limitations may still be present, such as the ecology or behaviour strategy, e.g. being larger might make an animal more vulnerable to predation in some contexts). So thats over many generations. What you're suggesting is making a change within a single generation. The only effect this would have would be a bunch of dead babies, because unfortunately, Oxygen is pretty toxic at 10x normal levels.

So I guess the answer is, in the long term it may cause some species to be larger, but in the short term it wouldn't have any effect other than the morally abhorrent.

OK so if the atmosphere had the same level of oxygen as the dinosaurs had, would we be bigger?

Probably not because oxygen partial pressure isn't what is limiting our size. For a long time it was diet, I think. Maybe now its mainly sexual selection. I think the variations we see in heights these days kinda shows that it can be many different things, but oxygen level probably isn't a major influence.

jimmypippa

notsoblue wrote:

If oxygen was more abundant, it would reduce the effect of that particular limitation and potentially allow that species to evolve into others that would be larger over time (Though other limitations may still be present, such as the ecology or behaviour strategy, e.g. being larger might make an animal more vulnerable to predation in some contexts). So thats over many generations. What you're suggesting is making a change within a single generation. The only effect this would have would be a bunch of dead babies, because unfortunately, Oxygen is pretty toxic at 10x normal levels.

So I guess the answer is, in the long term it may cause some species to be larger, but in the short term it wouldn't have any effect other than the morally abhorrent.

Well if there was 10x the oxygen in the atmosphere I'd guess that the atmospheric pressure had at least doubled (or the atmosphere had become about 180% oxygen.

There'd also be loads of fires.

AFIK, the best example for the higher oxygen levels enabling larger organisms are the large invertebrates in the carboniferous period.

Vertebrates can grow larger because of having lungs or gills and circulation systems that mean oxygen doesn't just need to diffuse from the outside.

MaxwellBygraves

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I think it worth pointing out that anyone not being sceptical about Climate Change is not being scientific in their approach.

As I understand it, being sceptical means using all the available evidence to reach a conclusion not based on conjecture or faith, then continuing to accumulate evidence and weighing it against your conclusion to see if it confirms or contradicts your findings.

It doesn't mean ignoring a veritable mountain of scientific, peer-reviewed evidence accumulated over several decades in order to sustain ignorance and indifference.

Sewinman

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

rjsterry

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Yes, lots of it iirc.

paul2718

rjsterry wrote:

So based on a relatively small divergence over the last 10 years, but a preceding 100 years of fairly close correlation, we're going to throw the whole thing out as misguided rubbish? Seems a little rash. Is there a graph that sticks the post-2000 bit onto the pre-2000 bit so that you can see it in context? Your graph does seem to contradict the one(s) I posted, but obviously they are over dramatically different time frames.

I don't think you can claim '100 years of fairly close correlation' since any model output that didn't correlate with history wouldn't persist very long as a potential indicator of the future.

The divergence between model and reality over the last 10-15 years is a hot topic, and I think there is some interesting work being done. It's a bit of a problem that 'wolf' has been cried so loud for the last 15 years.

Paul

paul2718

Sewinman wrote:

I wonder if Darwin faced this kind of amateur scepticism!

Darwin had two advantages.

1. A logical argument that stood alone, something like, 'If a population has variability and heritability then, in the event of resource limits, variations that provide an advantage will prosper'.
2. Real world evidence that supported his argument being applicable to actual living things.

And of course over the last 150 years or so nothing has been discovered that challenges the basic contention.

It seems premature and rather hubristic to put modern climate science on the same pedestal.

Paul