Why Global Warming = Floods Is Rubbish

[Jason]

[WSG]

Eventually Mankind will be forced to migrate to a new home on Mars before Earth grows to the size of Neptune. Today's global warming is an early warning to Mankind

How ffycing big will Mars be by then though. - Oh hang on wait a minute - Neptune will be ffycing Enormous.

I suppose all the cars that were used several millions of years ago have rusted away because Stainless Steel is a recent invention.

If cavedwelling Homo Erectus were clever enough to build Honda Civics with stone tools, I think they probably could have worked out how to come up with stainless steel - another dried frog pill bursar???

[Te Mata]

What is interesting in these discussions is how dominant theory turns to dogma.

Dissenters are castigated as heretics imbeciles, and drug addicts, no matter what substance their own particular theory contains.

I see all the hallmarks of religion in the area of science.

[Badger]

So 'A Place in the Sun' will take on a new meaning if we think long-term..

[WSG]

What is interesting in these discussions is how dominant theory turns to dogma.

Dissenters are castigated as heretics imbeciles, and drug addicts, no matter what substance their own particular theory contains.

I see all the hallmarks of religion in the area of science.

Horseshit

[Te Mata]

Horseshit

I rest my case your Honour

[WSG]

I rest my case your Honour

You are confusing theory with testable hypotheses. Science doesn't proceed with theory, it moves forward by proposing testable hypotheses and then allowing the rest of the scientific community a chance at knocking them down, this is a process other scientists sieze on with glee.

The quality of scientific education in this country is woeful, the fact that so many people have no understanding of the scientific method is frightening.

[whitemice]

Negating the wind up at the beginning of this thread, last night I watched Al Gores’ movie “An inconvenient truth” and did some digging on the global warming ‘”debate”.

Pro issue:

http://www.read-the-truth.com/ - Connected with the film.

Anti issue:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/ - Points out that water is the major greenhouse gas.

The essential argument (as far as I can make it out):

Atmospheric CO2 Concentration == higher global temperatures

...Or that these two have a long history of being related, or proportional to each other over a long record of natural history as illustrated by the ice record:

With recent Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations seemingly ‘rocketing’, as illustrated by the graph of more recent history (with the funny axis) and future human sourced CO2 emissions set to increase further with predicted population growth & industrialisation. It would suggest that global climate is about to change in such as way as to make life on Earth very difficult indeed:

Problem (as I see it) is that either:

(a) Greater atmospheric CO2 Concentration results in higher global temperatures, or…

( Higher global temperatures results in greater atmospheric CO2 concentration.

With (a) meaning we have to take action now to avert a major global disaster of our own making or ( nothing much at all.

This dilemma is complex enough before you involve climatologists (with dodgy climate models), international politics (capitalism), vested interests (scientific and energy related) so as to allow real action to be delayed indefinitely. If there is a consensus on this from politicisations, expect it to come in the form of a new tax.

If this problem exists and some of the predictions turn out to be true:

• How does this overlap with current predictions on Peek oil, which appears to be inevitable and will become apparent in a similar timeframe (i.e. the next few decades)?
  
• What strategies can we utilise do to protect ourselves?
  
• Where should we live (will that house be underwater?), what professions (should I raise my children as a farmer?)
  
• Should we really be contemplating the potential slow or accelerated collapse of sophisticated human civilization or concentrating on issues closer to home that we can actually do something about?
  

Bloged here.

[Te Mata]

You are confusing theory with testable hypotheses. Science doesn't proceed with theory, it moves forward by proposing testable hypotheses and then allowing the rest of the scientific community a chance at knocking them down, this is a process other scientists sieze on with glee.

The quality of scientific education in this country is woeful, the fact that so many people have no understanding of the scientific method is frightening.

Many hypothesis rely on untestable assumptions.

I am not a scientist but have read many research papers in the field of equine exercise physiology. Ironically, that delightful term you used to disagree with me above is exactly what was contained in most of these papers - Horseshit!

The science was appalling, built on religion-like adherence to bunkum, with the tests obviously *designed in order to obtain specific results.

Commercial vested interests abound.

So don't give me waffle about scientific process. It relies on an integrity that is sadly lacking.

Nutritional science is another field which is full of crap.

Scientists are human.

Cheers

[Guest wrongmove]

It is the middle of November, yet I look out of the window of my E Mids office to see lots of green trees.

What are the alternative explanations? The "normal" time for fall round here is late Sep/early Oct.

[peemac]

You are confusing theory with testable hypotheses. Science doesn't proceed with theory, it moves forward by proposing testable hypotheses and then allowing the rest of the scientific community a chance at knocking them down, this is a process other scientists sieze on with glee.

That's how it's supposed to work. In reality it rarely does. I know of at least 2 scientists (one of them a VERY eminent worker in his field) who have had great difficulty getting rigorous but controversial work published. One of them believes he has the answer to the problem of how the pyramids were built, it's a good piece of work but no one will touch it with a barge pole.

Edited November 13, 2006 by peemac

[whitemice]

His argument is that "the hockey stick" is heavily biased towards historical temperature measurement based on pine-ring size. This has proven to be unsafe, because pine-ring sizes are not solely dependent on temperature, but on CO2 which is plant food. So they seem to show massive recent warmth, and under-report medieval warmth, because they are well-fed by the undisputed recent CO2 rise.

Thanks, I’ve put the article on my reading list.

So basically he’s saying the historical data record is wrong and/or misleading? (I will comment again once I’ve read the article).

[quinndexter]

There is also another issue which is serious in that the huge amount of fresh water melting will alter the chemistry of the oceans. Changing it's salinity and therefore temperatures.

I don't really care. As long as I can still buy strawberries in December I'll be happy

[WSG]

Thanks, I’ve put the article on my reading list.

So basically he’s saying the historical data record is wrong and/or misleading? (I will comment again once I’ve read the article).

Make sure you also put the Royal Society Facts and Fictions about Climate Change webpages on your reading list too. link here .

The deliberate confusion between regional and global climates leading to the unwarranted emphasis (by the fossil fuel lobby aka Junk-science.com et a)l on the Medieval Thermal Optimum is dealt with under Misleading Arguments 3

HTH

WSG

There is also another issue which is serious in that the huge amount of fresh water melting will alter the chemistry of the oceans. Changing it's salinity and therefore temperatures.

I don't really care. As long as I can still buy strawberries in December I'll be happy

And of course increasing CO2 in the atmosphere will be absorbed into the upper layers of the ocean reducing it's pH, i'e making it more acidic and less alkaline.

[Te Mata]

In this global warming debate, I fall firmly on the side of caution. i.e. I presume the pro warming scientists are correct and personally do all I can to eliminate emissions and actively promote the same amongst my circle of influence. If the pro warming scientists are wrong, then we have still done the planet some good by reducing pollution (which I regard as an emergency requiring drastic action)

But as I say there is scientific dissent.

What do folks here think of this article from Christopher Monckton: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

I would appreciate reasoned views.

Cheers

[Buylowsellhigh]

What do folks here think of this article from Christopher Monckton: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...lit/nwarm05.xml

"Usually, similar curves are superimposed for comparison. The UN didn't do that. If it had, the truth would have shown: the changes in temperature preceded the changes in CO2 levels

...Next, the UN abolished the medieval warm period ...A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "

...So they did

...They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so)

...They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data"

...Next, the UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger

...Even a 0.6C temperature rise wasn't enough. So the UN repealed a fundamental physical law ...Dick Lindzen emailed me last week to say that constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right

...Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range, and a fifth of the UN's new central projection."

Surely they're not massaging the facts to fit the policy ?

And if they were, would anyone fcukin' notice ?

---

[Rapid Descent]

Make sure you also put the Royal Society Facts and Fictions about Climate Change webpages on your reading list too. link here .

The deliberate confusion between regional and global climates leading to the unwarranted emphasis (by the fossil fuel lobby aka Junk-science.com et a)l on the Medieval Thermal Optimum is dealt with under Misleading Arguments 3

Interesting! The Royal Society (which appears to be a political player in this piece, sad to say) references the IPCC TAR (Third Assessment Report) which quotes the conclusion "Furthermore, the increase in surface temperature during the 20th century in the Northern Hemisphere was likely (a chance of 66 to 90%) to have been greater than for any other century for the last 1000 years."

If you do some digging, you find that the report the IPCC relied on for this conclusion was... the very "hockey stick" graph Chris Monckton refers to; the very one which contains the statistical errors. But don't just take the "fossil fuel lobby"'s word for it, criticisms have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature (details below)

"Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance", McIntyre and McKitrick, Geophysical Research Letters

Please note this is not on the website of a "fossil fuel lobby" promoter, but in the same peer-reviewed journal that the original 1000-year hockey stick article appeared. The American academy of sciences subsequently investigated the results and concluded that it was incorrect to assign confidence intervals (e.g. the 66% to 90% chance) to any claims associated with temperatures prior to the 17th century, as no independent assessment is possible due to the lack of available data.

So both the IPCC TAR and the Royal Society report quoted above are in error. The IPCC TAR has the excuse that it was published before the errors in the graph were found. What is the excuse of the Royal Society for still having out-of-date scientific information on their website?

[Son of Taeper]

Sorry people, just messing about.

Nothing to see here, move on please!

Too late

[Charles_Darke]

Are you seriously suggesting that the UK is on some kind of pivot?

For some reason, this quote makes me think of a quote about internet and tubes...

[WSG]

The telegraph article is debunkedhere

No doubt this will ensure that the global conspiracy masterminded by top middleaged slipper and scruffy cardigan wearing boffins will continue.

What is the purpose behind this global UN/IPCC Climate Change conspiracy anyway??

[laurejon]

Global Warming is other way for the Government to take money out of the publics pocket and subject them to a life of debt.

Sack the Government, we are here to enjoy our lives, we dont need them to tell us what to do.

Carbon trading

Published: July 28 2006 12:04 | Last updated: July 28 2006 12:04

The amount of harmful gases a company produces may sound like an unlikely investment opportunity. But David Urch, manager of Scottish Widows Investment Partnership’s UK Opportunities fund, has spotted solid potential in greenhouse gases – or at least the effort to reduce them.

Governments around the world are battling to cut the amount of greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and fluorocarbons – that are being pumped into the atmosphere. These gases are significant catalysts of global warming, which could trigger severe changes in weather patterns.

In its effort to find a cost-effective way of cutting carbon emissions, the European Parliament has created a trading scheme by which companies can buy and sell allocated carbon credits.

Under this scheme, which entered its first stage in January 2005, all member states have a cap on emissions. This is then divided into tradeable allocations, which are distributed among different companies, usually energy and industrial groups such as power stations and cement producers.

If a business emits more carbon than it has been allocated, it must purchase extra credits from “cleaner” companies, which have not filled their quota, via carbon exchanges.

Urch says: “The idea is to reduce carbon emissions on a global basis. Tougher regulation is driving the creation of a large market for trading carbon credits.”

He says the opportunity to sell excess carbon credits is giving incentives to companies in developing economies – such as Thailand, Latin America and China – to use cleaner production techniques to generate their energy.

These countries are experiencing rapid rises in energy consumption. If their businesses meet this increased demand through environmentally-friendly production methods, they will be rewarded with “certified emission reduction” (CER) credits, which they can sell to western companies that fall short of carbon allocations.

Urch says this is a fairly new market but as restrictions on carbon emissions become stricter, many western companies will be eager to get their hands on extra credits.

“There has to be a shortage of credits otherwise people won’t change their behaviour, so we anticipate tougher allocations in the second phase,” he says.

The second phase of the EU trading scheme – between 2008 and 2012 – coincides with the objectives of the Kyoto protocol. This states that by 2008, member states must have met the initial emissions targets set out in 1991.

The level of carbon credits allocated to each country will also be cut further after 2008. The UK has pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 7m tonnes a year after this time.

“Developed countries will find it increasingly tough to meet the targets so companies are warehousing extra credits from emerging economies to sell on,” says Urch.

A wave of businesses has been set up to trade carbon credits between companies, run carbon exchanges or to build cleaner energy projects in emerging economies to sell the emissions credits they earn. It is these companies that Urch invests in on behalf of his fund.

“This is a nascent market that we believe will develop very significantly over the next three years,” he says.

The price of carbon has been volatile over the past couple of months, but is currently around €16.50 per tonne for 2006, €17 for a tonne that would be delivered in 2007 and €19.50 for 2008. Urch says these prices are all in excess of the fund’s expectations of a range of €12-€15 per tonne between now and 2012. “If these emissions prices stay above our assumptions, we should make lot more money for investors,” he says.

One company he invests in is Trading Emissions, which is listed on the Alternative Investment Market (Aim). This company invests in projects that produce carbon credits in emerging markets. It encourages developing countries such as China, India and Thailand to turn to cleaner energy production by giving them the opportunity to sell excess credits, which they receive as a reward for cutting emissions.

Simon Shaw, chief executive, says Trading Emissions is buying CER credits at around €7. He expects to sell these on for €12-€20 once Europe has entered the second phase of its trading scheme.

Numis, stockbroker to Trading Emissions, expects earnings per share to grow to 23.3p by 2010, compared with 1.6p this year. It has a target share price of 137p, a 33 per cent premium to the current level.

Trading Emissions is the joint largest holding in Urch’s fund, accounting for almost 5 per cent of the total £112m investment. The fund also holds a near 5 per cent stake in Econergy International, which is building a portfolio of clean energy assets in Latin America, the Caribbean, and other emerging economies.

Through these projects, Econergy aims to generate power and carbon credit sales. It runs a carbon brokerage division, which trades with governments, utilities, carbon funds and energy agencies. Numis has a target share price of 120p for Econergy – a 35 per cent premium to yesterday’s price.

Shaw also heads Climate Exchange, another company that Urch invests in. This runs the carbon exchanges in Chicago and Europe, which provide trading services to carbon users and financial speculators such as investment banks.

The performance of this company depends on how much carbon is traded. The future looks promising. The amount of traded EU units – one unit representing the right to emit one tonne of carbon – in May this year was 53m, compared with just 1m the previous year. One analyst expected that between 2008 and 2012, 10bn units would be traded each year, compared with just 260m in 2005.

Private investors seeking exposure to these opportunities have a number of options through specialists brokers or by purchasing shares directly in these companies.

However there are questions over the long-term opportunities, as it is not yet clear how these companies will develop when government targets have been met. Carbon trading also carries a fair degree of risk: “It is a lumpy, illiquid market, prone to pricing anomalies,” says Urch.

Edited November 14, 2006 by laurejon

[Te Mata]

The telegraph article is debunkedhere

No doubt this will ensure that the global conspiracy masterminded by top middleaged slipper and scruffy cardigan wearing boffins will continue.

What is the purpose behind this global UN/IPCC Climate Change conspiracy anyway??

This readers comments pretty well some up my feelings.

dear George Monbiot,

No doubt it is upsetting to be abused by numerous web based idiots. And of course you should point out the inadequacies of this Sunday Telegraph article. However, attacking the author for not having a science degree and being a lord seems hardly relevant

"The author of this "research article" is Christopher Monckton, otherwise known as Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. He has a degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and, as far as I can tell, no further qualifications."

"But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist."

According to your biography, you are not (as far as I can tell) an atmospheric physicist; yet you seem to have no problem understanding what was written.

Science should be accessible to everyone. To reinforce the idea that science can only be understood by a select group seems dangerous. Unless people have the information and the confidence to judge for themselves, they must rely on one interest group or another to digest the information for them.

Surely, any prospect for activity by large numbers of people to try to address climate change is dependent on people being able to successfully interpret the evidence for themselves and act accordingly.

While Mr Monbiot picks up some good points, it is a long way from completely discrediting Moncktons article, as Durch points out.

One need look no further than nutritional science and the vested interests involved there to become completely cynical with regards to "science". End consumers of many scientific endeavours are getting a seriously raw deal. I apologise in advance if that reflects poorly on the good scientists. But scientists are human after all, good and bad, honest and corrupt, moral immoral, yin and yang.

We shouldn't assign superior credibility and status to anyone because they are a scientist. Let them earn it.

That said, I'm quite prepared to go along with the suggested remedies for global warming (and I hope others), because there are hopefully other side benefits I am more concerned about... pollution, environmental degradation etc.

But I remain deeply skeptical of the whole global warming agenda and the science behind it. We really need to keep an eye on these globalist bastards; there is aways a hidden agenda.

[JustYield]

because nature is not properly valued by human economics. Pop tarts and nylon stretch pants versus the loss of original ecosystems probably couldn't even begin to be compared by anyone with a detached, rational perspective.

Yes!

[Objective Developer]

I can’t believe that we have got this far with out mentioning the thermohaline.

Put enough fresh water into this and the UK will end up with weather like Moscow.

[steve99]

How does this overlap with current predictions on Peek oil, which appears to be inevitable and will become apparent in a similar timeframe (i.e. the next few decades)?

The good thing is, peak oil problems are going to happen much sooner than global meltdown (starting now), if we are lucky the powers that be and the real people will actualy start demanding we do something about it, and if we are realy lucky it will be the collection of renewables that we already know about, the worst possible outcome would be (as is more than mooted) turning massive amounts of coal into liquid fuel and building new coal fired power stations.