The Deathly Silence

[yamin]

fair enough (moo)

my concern was that a good and productive discussion (and as i've said before Biff, I thought one of your earlier posts very interesting) - has become a repeated argument between the population vs climate argument, and it doesn't seem to be 'going' anywhere, and repeats the earlier age of stupid thread. However, fair enough if others are still following with interest.

 

[Schoolmarm]

and think you might be losing the rest of us ........ I just won't bother to read the posts, as I suspect a lot of others aren't ....... your audience has left the building.

I've logged in** in order to respond to those points, Yamin. Just because I've not taken part in the discussion doesn't mean that I've not been following the argument with great interest, and I reckon that there are other people who have been doing the same.
It's fascinating and frightening, and I really do appreciate the fact that there are people who know so much and are prepared to take time to debate in language that dimwits like me can understand.

Thanks, Biff et all.

xx M

** My system won't log me in automatically.

Same here. Same as many threads on here.

 

[biffvernon]

the population vs climate argument,

I don't see that there is such an arguement. We all know that there would be less of a problem if there were less people, but we are where we are and nobody is seriously suggesting 'control' or any other euphamism for killing off a significant proportion of humanity is a smart idea.
The best we can do is to campaign for better women's education, healthcare and welfare in old age because that's what lowers the birth-rate.

Meanwhile we have to deal with global warming, mitigation and adaptation.

It's crazy that our nation seems obsessed with the silly games of Westminster while the really important news is centred in Bonn this week, but there are sparks for optimism:

LONDON, June 5 (Reuters) - Britain is on course to cut its greenhouse gas by about 23 percent by 2010 from the 1990 level -- nearly double its target under the Kyoto agreement, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said on Friday.
"Our latest report...shows what can be achieved when Government, communities and business work together," Climate Change Minister Joan Ruddock was quoted as saying
"We know there is more to be done -- we must continue to work urgently to reduce our emissions further and faster."
The UK's target under the Kyoto agreement stood at 12.5 percent by 2010.
Under the EU promise to cut the region's emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020, Britain has to reduce its emissions by 34 percent.
Separately, the country has also committed itself to an ambitious cut of 80 percent in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 from the 1990 level.

Looks like Obama may be going to Copenhagen for COP15 http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1437
and Russia has made a radical policy shift in the right direction http://en.cop15.dk/news/view+news?newsid=1373

184 days to go.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Oooh I didn't know we had mods now.

Leave Yamin alone, *** *** ***. As if you hadn't done enough of your own sneaky form of witching, bitching, and moderating in your own way. Other people with different views have a right to speak.

 

[Schoolmarm]

Oooh I didn't know we had mods now.

Leave Yamin alone, *** *** ***. As if you hadn't done enough of your own sneaky form of witching, bitching, and moderating in your own way. Other people with different views have a right to speak.

*** *** :lol: :lol: :lol: .
"Other people", being Biff, have a right to post threads without yamin deciding whether it should exist or continue. I think that is a form of forum bullying.

All views and discussions read with pleasure by me, but not the constant drivel spouted by yourself on every thread.

And speaking of moderating, I'm sure that your comments that I have highlighted, contravene forum rules.

 

[Flyfisher]

but there are sparks for optimism:

LONDON, June 5 (Reuters) - Britain is on course to cut its greenhouse gas by about 23 percent by 2010 from the 1990 level -- nearly double its target under the Kyoto agreement, the Department of Energy and Climate Change said on Friday.

Interesting Biff. Do you know how these reductions have been/will be achieved? Reducing greenhouse gas emissions in absolute terms by almost one quarter over 20 years seems like a pretty big deal, but I'm not aware of any mass changes in population behaviour over that period, so what's the trick?

 

[biffvernon]

the trick?

Your suspicion is well-founded. In 1990, the base-line date, we were just embarking on the 'dash-for-gas' which substitued a lot of coal for gas fired electricity generation. Coal is, more or less, just carbon, while gas is carbon and hydrogen so has a much lower CO2 emission rate when used as a fuel. Our government has been basking in this accidental windfall. That said, there are some, but not all, cabinet members who take global warming very seriously and are doing good work.

Please, could we all try to check our posts for fact to insult ratio before hitting the submit button? It will help to keep Rob the Mod's blood pressure down.

 

[yamin]

Please, could we all try to check our posts for fact to insult ratio before hitting the submit button? It will help to keep Rob the Mod's blood pressure down.

Couldn't agree more Biff, and it is distracting to this thread. To be fair though, if someone comes on and is snide or unpleasant to me then I cannot be expected to lie down and not react to that. I am happy not to 'start' anything and I have been following that, there are ways and means of disagreeing with people - as you and I have found - we're still friends I think....? - and that debate is what makes this forum work, but unwarranted snappish and somewhat bullying comments should be rejected by all, and not just ignored.

 

[worms]

the trick?

As Biff points out much of the "good work" is down to incidental consequences of other chenges in the economy.

Another example might be that between 1990 and 2007, our steel production has fallen by about 18%, while our demand has stayed virtually the same. This doesn't actually mean we have exported our greenhouse gas production, but our steel exports and imports are now more or less in balance, where in the past we were a net exporter. Since the big changes in energy efficiency in the steel sector appear to have been before the 1990s it probably follows that the 18% fall in production equals an 18% fall in greenhouse gas production in that sector, which is in line with the expected reduction over 1990s levels with no change in our behaviour.

However, even if global steel demand had stayed static over that period (actually it has increased), it follows that someone else must be producing the steel that we once exported and our 20% greenhouse gas reduction will now be part of someone else's increase.

 

[skier-hughes]

The man who does not understand the difference between climate and weather knows nothing about the reliability of forecasts. It behoves those of us who know to inform those who don't, lest Lime's pessimistic view becomes real.

I couldn't argue comfrtably on the difference between climate and weather, but I know about the reliability of forecasts. I know on the local morning weather forecast on Thursday we were due for heavy rain, with more on Friday. I also know I spent most of Thurs/Fri out in the garden in lovely sunshine!!

It's crazy that our nation seems obsessed with the silly games of Westminster while the really important news is centred in Bonn this week, but there are sparks for optimism:

If our politicians can't control their own greed, how are they going to persuade us to control ours?

 

[yamin]

If our politicians can't control their own greed, how are they going to persuade us to control ours?

It does seem that as a population mass, we are incapable of controlling our greed to a greater (politicians!) or lesser extent, so any appeal to us to do that seems doomed to failure. Whichever argument we follow or use becomes a mute point in the face of this resistance to change our behaviour. It really is a depressing view of the future...........

 

[worms]

If our politicians can't control their own greed, how are they going to persuade us to control ours?

Oh no I didn't! It's a skier-hughes quote!

 

[yamin]

Good grief, all this quoting of each other, its very confusing! Sorry about making you look like a plagiarist!

 

[biffvernon]

Of course MPs get paid much less than most people in equivalent positions of responsibility, both in the public and private sectors, but, hey, let's not get sidetracked.

Worms, your steel comments were, as you say, based on the period to 2007. Since then there has been a big change. By far the largest cause of a reduction of CO2 emissions has been the global economic recession. This has meant that some four million barrels of oil PER DAY are not being burnt that would have been burnt if the economy had been in the state it was in 12 months ago. My local plastic window factory is on a three day week. Long may the recession last. (We just need to find a just way of sharing the pain. Perhaps we should pay the politicians more to sort that one better.)

Graham, the difference between weather and climate is really quite simple - it's a time-scale thing. Weather is the short-term high-frequency noise, climate is the smoothed out average. An analogy is the difference between day to day stuff and seasonal variation. Tomorrow's weather forecast is usually pretty good, next fortnight's is usually pretty poor. You can be pretty sure of the forecast that January's temperatures will be lower than July's. (Reverse that for the Antipodes.)

And when I say tomorrow's forecast is pretty good, I mean the essential variables of temperature, pressure, wind velocity, and humidity in three dimensional space. Then comes the tricky bit of interpreting that in terms of the weather experienced on your head or umbrella. Get the position of a front wrong by 50 miles and you experience the difference between hot sun and cold rain, but that shouldn't mean the forecast was bad - just that its precision didn't match your expectation.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Re forecasting. I work in the NHS as a general manager for a surgical division in Wales. We have complicated activity/waiting list forecasting models - I am currently being beaten up because reality is not conforming to the theoretical model, which is apparrently all my fault! Pointing out that I did suggest that not putting any growth into the model may have been a bit foolish, has strangely fallen on deaf ears.

I quite like the idea raised by Biff of "hindcasting" - presumably I'll need a shiny new retrospectoscope to undertake this?

Biff - can you point me to a decent summary/meta-analysis of the scientific evidence and modelling of climactic change - I did point out I am rational enough to be persuaded by the evidence.

Incidentally, if the models are increasing in accuracy as demonstrated by hindcasting, why did the article you link to identify a doubing of the projected temperature change in only six years? I understand that the public want precise answers from "science" when often only a range of probabilities and hypotheses is possible, but this level of variation is partly why the public are getting increasinly confused/distrustful about scientific advice on a range of issues.

This is a good thread, and I'd ask us all to play nicely...

 

[yamin]

Here here to playing nicely

shiny new retrospectoscope

Oh yes, definitely. If only for the pure joy of pronouncing it!

 

[biffvernon]

For thems wot don't know, hindcasting is when you have a model that predicts the future from a set of inputs that describe the now. If you input data from a while ago instead and run the model you can see how it predict the now. Since you already know the past and the now it's a good test of the model. This is routinely done with the climate models, probably the most thoroughly thus tested are the forecasts made by James Hansen's group at NASA Goddard.

What we are now beginning to suspect is that the standard models are wrong. They have not taken into account the tipping points, where we enter positive feedback loops such as: sea ice melts - albedo goes down - water absorbs more heat - more sea ice melts etc. So the thinking now is that the models' prediction of recent years are underestimates of the amount of global warming we will soon be seeing.

Science will never give precise answers so if that's what the public want they'll just have to be disappointed, but science can give answers that are good enough to inform public policy. And that's what counts.

Sorry, Robin but I can't immediately think of one location for the meta-analysis you're looking for, but, as ever, the first place to look from will be RealClimate: http://www.realclimate.org/ That's where the folk who know hang out.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Biff - thanks.

I guess I should get better acquainted with the subject...

 

[Flyfisher]

An analogy is the difference between day to day stuff and seasonal variation. Tomorrow's weather forecast is usually pretty good, next fortnight's is usually pretty poor. You can be pretty sure of the forecast that January's temperatures will be lower than July's. (Reverse that for the Antipodes.)

Seasonal variations, though, are not really weather/climate forecasts as such are they? That's like 'forecasting' that midnight is darker than midday, which not only has well known astronomical reasons to support it but also a wealth of historical information. There is no comparison with trying to model the weather/climate for the end of the century - the physics is nowhere near as well known and there is limited historical data, which gives the models hugely varying outcomes. So, yes, January's temperature will be lower than July's, but we still can't predict what that temperature will be with much certainly. I'm sure you're aware of Lovelock's views on climate models.

but that shouldn't mean the forecast was bad - just that its precision didn't match your expectation.

A fair point, in scientific terms, but not particularly helpful when trying to persuade the population at large to change their behaviour in quite radical ways.

 

[Flyfisher]

What we are now beginning to suspect is that the standard models are wrong. They have not taken into account the tipping points, where we enter positive feedback loops such as: sea ice melts - albedo goes down - water absorbs more heat - more sea ice melts etc.

Or, in a nutshell, exactly how science works - theories/models are developed on the basis of data available at the time and as new data becomes available the theories/models are modified.

So the thinking now is that the models' prediction of recent years are underestimates of the amount of global warming we will soon be seeing.

Unfortunately, this also hands the AGW skeptics a track record of changing data, changing models and changing 'expert' opinions - enabling them to 'forecast' that current thinking is likely to change again many times in the very timescale of the things being predicted. In other words, AGW predictions are all over the place.

Science will never give precise answers so if that's what the public want they'll just have to be disappointed, but science can give answers that are good enough to inform public policy. And that's what counts.

I agree that it's policy that counts but I'm less sure that science can give good enough answers on this issue at present. Imagine you're a head of state and confronted with a choice of building new fossil-fuelled power stations or rationing electrical power. You have a wealth of highly experienced, intelligent and expert advisers on hand telling you that (to keep it simple) the sea is going to rise by a few metres by the end of the century - maybe - and that not building these new power stations will help - a bit - to prevent this from happening - maybe. But you have to balance this against the certainty of power cuts within 5 years. I wonder what the 'public policy' would be in such a situation?