Reporting of the Climate Change Report

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Is that in your scientific opinion ?
(I honestly don't know ....... BUT I do know the scientists I met from the British Antarctic Survey were very concerned about Climate Change)

About the Antarctic sea ice increasing, or their climate research grants?

[johnb]

I doubt whether any confusion is deliberate but I do think that the implications of ...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Have been totally glossed over (or ignored) by the media.

(The emphasis is in the original report and "extremely likely" means 95% in 'IPCC speak'.)

To take the extreme - if only 51% of global warming is due to human influence that means there is 49% we have absolutely no control over. This is turn implies that the emissions reductions necessary to have any significant effect would have to be dramatically greater than if, say, 95% of warming was due to human influence.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hidden in that statement is the possibility that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is far below 1 C.

If
half the global warming is caused by anthropic CO2,
CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 1951 were ~290 ppmv,
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now 400 ppmv, and
temperatures have risen by a total of 0.45 C since 1951,

then

0.45/2 C of that warming has been caused by anthropic CO2 (i.e. 0.225 C), and
the sensitivity must be 0.45/2*ln(2)/ln(400/290),

which I make to be ~ 0.48 C.

So if we get to 580 ppmv, we can expect another 0.255 C rise due to anthropic CO2.

[teamsaint]

Hidden in that statement is the possibility that the climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is far below 1 C.

If
half the global warming is caused by anthropic CO2,
CO2 levels in the atmosphere in 1951 were ~290 ppmv,
CO2 levels in the atmosphere are now 400 ppmv, and
temperatures have risen by a total of 0.45 C since 1951,

then

0.45/2 C of that warming has been caused by anthropic CO2 (i.e. 0.225 C), and
the sensitivity must be 0.45/2*ln(2)/ln(400/290),

which I make to be ~ 0.48 C.

So if we get to 580 ppmv, we can expect another 0.255 C rise due to anthropic CO2.

But presumably that is assuming that there are no other variables, when in fact there are many, such as Sulphur Dioxide levels?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Yes, but they're all in the other 50 % (if we believe the original IPCC statement).

[french frank]

The IPCC is a group, as I understand it, put together by national governments under the auspices of 2 UN Organisations.
The Summary for Policy Makers seems to be approved line by line by governments before it is presented. However it is far from clear from the mainstream media reporting how this process happens, and who exactly does the approving.
The reports have huge scope, and great influence in areas where we need to be wary, because there is big money at stake. Carbon Trading would be one such.

It isn't difficult to see the IPCC summary as governments telling the rest of us what governments want us to hear, and for our long term good that suspicion needs to be eradicated, IMHO.

That doesn't really address my puzzlement. I understand the involvement of governments. But I can't understand why governments should push the climate change argument: I would have expected them, like most right-wingers, to pooh-pooh it.

[Mr Pee]

That doesn't really address my puzzlement. I understand the involvement of governments. But I can't understand why governments should push the climate change argument: I would have expected them, like most right-wingers, to pooh-pooh it.

Because they're desperate for every penny they can squeeze out of the taxpayer, and so-called "green" taxes are a safe way of raising dosh for the Governement whilst being seen to do the right thing.

Even if it is all a load of baloney.

[MrGongGong]

About the Antarctic sea ice increasing, or their climate research grants?

You see the problem with what you skeptics say is that it seems that the only motivation that you can imagine for anyone is money.
Now when i've met real scientists (like the BAS folk or the Cambridge department of astronomy) what i've noticed is that they are very clever. Actually I have met some astronomy folk who (apart from the viola playing which seems to be popular !) are maybe the most intelligent folk on the planet. So, one would imagine if they wanted to make lots of money they easily have the maths and other skills to earn a fortune in business or the city.......... why would someone who was passionate about science as a pure subject (which is what many of these folks are) want to make things up for money ? Money (as Richard pointed out) isn't the primary motivation for everyone......

So i'm still waiting for your credentials Inspector , if this was a discussion about music I would happily give you mine, complete with links to pieces etc ....... otherwise you (and the Peester) seem to be just folk who like to rant in pubs about their favourite conspiracy.

Personally I'd go with the clever people ...... not the ones who seem to rely on "common sense" !

[teamsaint]

Because they're desperate for every penny they can squeeze out of the taxpayer, and so-called "green" taxes are a safe way of raising dosh for the Governement whilst being seen to do the right thing.

Even if it is all a load of baloney.

Absolutely. That sort of thing.

And control.
Plus if they don't take control of this issue, there is always the danger that somebody else will.
.

[teamsaint]

Absolutely. That sort of thing.

And control.
Plus if they don't take control of this issue, there is always the danger that somebody else will.
.

And incidentally, we should take very great care of our world. Governments seem to have failed to do this pretty spectacularly, really.

[french frank]

And incidentally, we should take very great care of our world. Governments seem to have failed to do this pretty spectacularly, really.

Aren't you having your cake and eating it there?

Incidentally, I was looking at a Conservative blog as to who is 'winning' in the coalition (Tories, apparently), but it's Blues 1 – Yellows 5 on Energy and the Environment.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Energy and Environment

Chris Huhne, and later Ed Davey, have dominated these policy fields from DECC until Owen Paterson gave DEFRA more Tory bite in the last year. The Green Deal is in place (and splashing money everywhere), wind farms are still going ahead despite the Tories wishing to implement a moratorium and the Green Investment Bank has got the go-ahead. Shale gas has now been given the green light, but only after lengthy delays thanks to Lib Dem opposition.

Blues 1 – Yellows 5

I presume the scoring is one point per 'favourable' point?

Stalling on shale gas seems a rather silly 'victory' point to claim, but then it probably excites the LibDems.

And 'The Green Deal is in place (and splashing money everywhere)' is somewhat of a damp squib:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10321339/Just-12-homes-get-Green-Deal-energy-savers.html

12 homes out of 24 million is hardly 'splashing money everywhere' in my book.

[MrGongGong]

I presume the scoring is one point per 'favourable' point?

Stalling on shale gas seems a rather silly 'victory' point to claim, but then it probably excites the LibDems.

And 'The Green Deal is in place (and splashing money everywhere)' is somewhat of a damp squib:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/10321339/Just-12-homes-get-Green-Deal-energy-savers.html

12 homes out of 24 million is hardly 'splashing money everywhere' in my book.

and your scientific credentials are ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You see the problem with what you skeptics say is that it seems that the only motivation that you can imagine for anyone is money.

Well you said this yourself earlier in this thread

. . .
Because everyone else is only motivated by money
after all , there's nothing else that motivates people is there ?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

and your scientific credentials are ?

Oh, if it'll shut you up:

B.Sc., Ph.d., MBA, F.Inst.Phys, FIET, C.Eng.