Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[42]

That's the wrong 'solar activity' that you've shown, it's a common misapprehension. Total solar irradiance is not important, it's high-energy solar output that matters.

 

Good point. Here is an interesting page: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/156098/

 

I noticed the comment which accompanies a graph showing increases from the sun output from 1978 to 2000. It says: 'Some researchers have also suggested that the increase in the average global temperature over the last century may have been solar in origin. This statement, however, is difficult to prove because accurate data on solar output of radiation only goes back to about 1978'.

 

The human global warming lobby may have a valid point but it is their almost jihadist type resistance to any other opinion and aggressive belittling of others which is bad for their own cause and bad for keeping an open mind. I think we absolutely should reduce our carbon footprint so no argument there but tinkering around the edges will not solve the issue anywhere near as much as stopping the population from hitting 10 Billion in 30 years. Refusal of the lobby to accept they might be partially wrong is ironically letting the global warming situation get worse

[42]

No, they can't...

 

 

 

 

No, they aren't...

 

http://www.china-briefing.com/news/2012/01/18/china-sets-new-greenhouse-gas-emission-reduction-goals.html

 

http://ipcs.org/article/india-the-world/carbon-footprint-reduction-3027.html

 

I do have to agree with your point about population control though. There is hardly a single environmental issue affecting mankind today that could not be solved simply by having fewer people on the planet.

 

 

 

Skeptical science is not the most objective source of info. I suggest you keep an open mind to BOTH sources of warming as the sun IS getting hotter. The 2 issues are not mutually exclusive after all so don't fall into the trap of saying the sun is cooling to prove it is not part of the problem ;-)

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5239

 

http://lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

 

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html

[buctootim]

Skeptical science is not the most objective source of info. I suggest you keep an open mind to BOTH sources of warming as the sun IS getting hotter. The 2 issues are not mutually exclusive after all so don't fall into the trap of saying the sun is cooling to prove it is not part of the problem ;-)

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5239

 

http://lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm

 

http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html

 

Two obscure and outdated articles from 1997 and one populist discussion from 2006. Thats amongst the weakest 'evidence' I've seen on this thread.

 

nb the Sun isnt "getting hotter" you are mistaking a regular 11 year cycle. This intro covers the basics http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

Edited 23 April, 2014 by buctootim

[aintforever]

That's the wrong 'solar activity' that you've shown, it's a common misapprehension. Total solar irradiance is not important, it's high-energy solar output that matters.

 

Weird that because sceptics always used to show the correlation between solar irradiance (or amount of sunspots) and temperature to try and prove that man made climate change was all nonsense (as if the greenhouse effect wouldn't be linked to the solar output anyway). That was until recently when solar irradiance has remained low and temperature high.

 

Would be interesting to see the graphs of high-energy solar output against temperatures.

[Saint George]

I am not making any claims.. ...just asking you to back yours up.

 

Simply put; you used poor science to prove your point. By using a later graph (there are graphs available where the data is from 2007 compared to 2011) and only a snippet of the email, you are falling foul of the exact same errors (intentional or not) that you are chastising the members of the CRU for (Namely hiding raw data and cherry picking other bits).

 

It didn't take someone 'as clever as me' too long to find those graphs and the full email online. Millions of pages in fact. Oh, and looking through that information, one soon 'realizes' that most of the info out there exonerates those accused of having 'grubby little hands'.

 

(By the way, it is considered the norm to take the most recent date when referencing the 'date of data' not the start date, but hey if you wish to refer to the date of data in any instance as "the earliest date, onwards" then fine, just don't expect to be taken seriously or to be of use).

 

I asked if you could explain the descreprancy in the dates. Alas you can't and...

 

...Actually, I am bored of this. There is no point discussing this with conspiracy theorists and paranoia buffs.

 

FFS, this not my area of interest or expertise - I came to this thread to learn a little bit more myself.

 

Certainly not to listen to the same old crap being retrod by the same people week in week out.

 

Look; if you are happy to keep banging on about one event five years ago to support your crippled theory, then fine:

 

You are in a tiny and shrinking minority and really (really!) can and will be easily ignored.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

So you came to a soccer forum to learn something about climate change?...and you call yourself clever?

 

No wonder you can't provide any justification for Wigley, Jones et al ironing out earlier warm periods at Reykjavik and other locations.

 

By the way, in case you're not aware, and I'm starting to suspect you're not.....This is the 'erm stable mind who's been running the show at GISS over the last couple of decades.....(where the graph came from) James "Coal trains of death" Hansen .......http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?_r=0

 

Just fills you with unbiased and neutral confidence doesn't he?...Thankfully he's gone now, although god knows what kind of indoctrination his successor has endured.

[Polaroid Saint]

So you came to a soccer forum to learn something about climate change?...and you call yourself clever?

 

No wonder you can't provide any justification for Wigley, Jones et al ironing out earlier warm periods at Reykjavik and other locations.

 

By the way, in case you're not aware, and I'm starting to suspect you're not.....This is the 'erm stable mind who's been running the show at GISS over the last couple of decades.....(where the graph came from) James "Coal trains of death" Hansen .......http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?_r=0

 

Just fills you with unbiased and neutral confidence doesn't he?...Thankfully he's gone now, although god knows what kind of indoctrination his successor has endured.

 

I didn't call myself clever. You did, you utter pr!ck...

 

...ignored! Hahahaha.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Whitey Grandad]

Weird that because sceptics always used to show the correlation between solar irradiance (or amount of sunspots) and temperature to try and prove that man made climate change was all nonsense (as if the greenhouse effect wouldn't be linked to the solar output anyway). That was until recently when solar irradiance has remained low and temperature high.

 

Would be interesting to see the graphs of high-energy solar output against temperatures.

 

Total solar irradiance has nothing to do with sunspots. I don't think anybody is saying that man has absolutely no effect in the climate, just that bigger influences are at play. If you've got a few moments just look up Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum and then read some of the work done by Jasper

Kirkby at CERN in his CLOUD experiment. As always, bear in mind that this is a scientist with a point to prove and expensive research that needs funding.

 

http://normanpilon.com/2014/01/05/the-cloud-experiment-at-cern-jasper-kirby-follows-up-on-henrik-svensmarks-work/

[42]

Two obscure and outdated articles from 1997 and one populist discussion from 2006. Thats amongst the weakest 'evidence' I've seen on this thread.

 

nb the Sun isnt "getting hotter" you are mistaking a regular 11 year cycle. This intro covers the basics http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php

 

First of all obscurity does not mean the evidence is weak, secondly the age of the article (post 1978) does not make it weak, thirdly populist (curiously the opposite of obscure so you covered the spectrum of opinion!) does not make it weak. Fourthly, your own reference recognises that a multi-decadal trend may exist - doh! Fifthly, rubbishing a 'populist' viewpoint and then putting up a 'populist' link of your own is hardly the brightest move.

 

My point is that no one truly knows or can categorically prove the causes or combination of causes for warming and that both effects could be combining. My main point however is that World population needs controlling and that the combination of massive population and emerging middle classes of billions increasing their carbon footprints needs to be tackled more urgently than the fiddling around the edges we are doing today

[buctootim]

First of all obscurity does not mean the evidence is weak, secondly the age of the article (post 1978) does not make it weak, thirdly populist (curiously the opposite of obscure so you covered the spectrum of opinion!) does not make it weak. Fourthly, your own reference recognises that a multi-decadal trend may exist - doh! Fifthly, rubbishing a 'populist' viewpoint and then putting up a 'populist' link of your own is hardly the brightest move.

 

My point is that no one truly knows or can categorically prove the causes or combination of causes for warming and that both effects could be combining. My main point however is that World population needs controlling and that the combination of massive population and emerging middle classes of billions increasing their carbon footprints needs to be tackled more urgently than the fiddling around the edges we are doing today

 

Its telling you prefer to debate the choice of adjectives used to describe desperately weak and outdated evidence than defending the substance. Use whichever descriptor you prefer - it doesn't change the fact you posted up two 1997 reports of a Press Association syndicated article and a jokey discussion forum akin to this one as 'evidence' to counter the overwhelming contemporary scientific opinion. You dismiss NASA as 'populist' . Their link actually says there is no evidence for a multi-decadal trend and anyway the nature of the warming experienced is not consistent with increased solar activity.

 

Your argument basically amounts to - we should force the foreigners to reduce birth rates so they don't end up with population densities anywhere near ours in England and similarly should deny them the right to consume energy at a level comparable with our own use. What do you suggest? forced abortions and bombing them back to the stone age? Why bother anyway - its all down to the sun innit? India has a per capita energy use around one tenth of that of the US and one fifth that of the UK. China is approaching similar emissions to western Europe largely because it has become the manufacturing centre of the world - if that manufacturing was repatriated to Europe our emissions would be far higher.

 

Developed nations need to accept growth in energy consumption in the developing economies. As a consequence we need to at least halve our current ghgs in order to control total global emissions. Its not even that hard - I halved my footprint last year by insulating the house and buying a more fuel efficient car - and saved around £1,400pa in the process. The move to a low carbon economy would be broadly economically neutral and likely have beneficial side effects for health. The arguments that go along the the lines of "there is no problem and even if there was its caused by the sun / Chinese and there is nothing we can do about it / they should go first" are just peurile.

Edited 24 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Saint Paul C]

What We Don't Know About CO2

 

There is no question that CO2 levels are increasing due to human activity. But predicting the impact of this is less straightforward. Will our understanding of the world's climate system remain mired in complexity until it is too late? Or is apocalyptic thinking confusing the science?

 

The Panel - Cambridge atmospheric physicist Michael McIntyre, author of Lives of the Planets, Richard Corfield and palaeontologist Robert Carter try to clear up the future of the atmosphere.

 

http://iai.tv/video/what-we-dont-know-about-co2#

[Sheaf Saint]

That's the wrong 'solar activity' that you've shown, it's a common misapprehension. Total solar irradiance is not important, it's high-energy solar output that matters.

 

Are you certain?...

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

 

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.

[Guided Missile]

Are you certain?...

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

 

More made up, navel gazing, b0ll0x purporting to be a scientific paper but really a work of science fiction...

 

Variations in the Sun's total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.

 

Two main points from this pile of cr@p:

 

1. What accelerated global warming over the last 30 years?
   
2. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.
   

In other words, they haven't got a clue...

[Sheaf Saint]

Sorry Bexy - I wish you were right (I really do) but China and India are still going in the opposite direction. Your links only show they both have plans to do something about it but their growing middle classes (hundreds of millions) will want what we have in the West and that will drive carbon footprint per head. Their efforts will amount to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic

 

I would guess that China may make some head way but India has no chance. What is worse is India's population is totally out of control (£1.5billion in 15 years time) and that does not count the millions who emigrate and repeat the cycle abroad

 

I am totally sold on reducing pollution but still maintain that we are deluding ourselves somewhat about the size of our impact on temperature and that the Sun's variations will always have significantly more impact than we ever will.

 

My view is action is needed whatever but the global warming lobby are well meaning but have their eye of the ball because population control is too much of a hot potato. They remind me a little of the AIDS lobby back in the 80's. For political reasons (to deflect from high risk groups) they decided to reduce the threat to those high risk groups and the general populous by terrifying absolutely everyone by saying we were all equally at significant risk which was and still is an outright lie.

 

My view is that a 100 year population reduction plan is the way to go and we should all be focusing on this as the primary objective. As a by product, it achieves a reduction in global warming, reduces risk of war over resources and gives the other creatures on this planet a chance.

 

Yes I fully appreciate that China's economic boom over the last 30 years has created a burgeoning middle class, and there are a number of environmental effects of this increasing affluence, mostly due to the rising demand for energy and a more westernised, meat-heavy diet.

 

I wrongly assumed from your initial post that you were holding the common misconception that China is building a new coal-fired power station every week (a statistic that somehow entered the public consciousness a number of years back and doesn't appear to have gone away). I was attempting to counter that by showing that even China has identified the need to reduce dependence on fossil-fuels and has now set carbon reduction targets and is now investing in a renewables program of its own.

 

As for India, they are currently investing heavily in a new generation of thorium-based nuclear reactors which, while not exactly carbon neutral, will still make a big contribution to lowering the country's overall emissions.

[Whitey Grandad]

Are you certain?...

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/abs/nature05072.html

 

Yeah, that review hasn't understood the issue. A few sunspots don't make much change to the total solar irradiance and there is something more complex at work. There is definitely a correlation between the sunspot cycle and the earth's weather but the mechanism is not scientifically understood. From this review:

 

'Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun's output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present.'

 

More reading. This rather lazily talks about 'solar radiation' which covers many aspects:

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/sep/6/global-warming-fanatics-take-note/

[Whitey Grandad]

An interesting train of thought from The Times By Matt Ridley last week:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4068299.ece

 

You'll need to be logged in as a member to read it and if I get into trouble for this I apologise in advance:

 

The world’s climate change experts are now saying that strong growth doesn’t hurt the environment, it protects it

 

In the past 50 years, world per capita income roughly trebled in real terms, corrected for inflation. If it continues at this rate (and globally the great recession of recent years was a mere blip) then it will be nine times as high in 2100 as it was in 2000, at which point the average person in the world will be earning three times as much as the average Briton earns today.

 

I make this point partly to cheer you up on Easter Monday about the prospects for your great-grandchildren, partly to start thinking about what that world will be like if it were to happen, and partly to challenge those who say with confidence that the future will be calamitous because of climate change or environmental degradation. The curious thing is that they only predict disaster by assuming great enrichment. But perversely, the more enrichment they predict, the greater the chance (they also predict) that we will solve our environmental problems.

 

Past performance is no guide to future performance, of course, and a well aimed asteroid could derail any projection. But I am not the one doing the extrapolating. In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asked the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to generate five projections for the economy of the world, and of individual countries, in 2050 and 2100.

 

They make fascinating reading. The average per capita income of the world in 2100 is projected to be between three and 20 times what it is today in real terms. The OECD’s “medium” scenario, known as SSP2, also known as “middle of the road” or “muddling through”, sounds pretty dull. It is a world in which, in the OECD’s words, “trends typical of recent decades continue” with “slowly decreasing fossil fuel dependency”, uneven development of poor countries, delayed achievement of Millennium Development Goals, disappointing investment in education and “only intermediate success in addressing air pollution or improving energy access for the poor”.

 

And yet this is a world in which by 2100 the global average income per head has increased 13-fold to $100,000 (in 2005 dollars) compared with $7,800 today. Britain will be very slightly below that average by then, yet has still trebled its income per head. According to this middling scenario, the average citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who today earns $300 a year, will then earn $42,000, or roughly what an American earns today. The average Indonesian, Brazilian or Chinese will be at least twice as rich as today’s American.

 

Remember this is in today’s money, corrected for inflation, but people will be spending it on tomorrow’s technologies, most of which will be cleverer, cleaner and kinder to the environment than today’s — and all for the same price. Despite its very modest assumptions, it is an almost unimaginable world: picture Beverly Hills suburbs in Kinshasa where pilotless planes taxi to a halt by gravel drives (or something equally futuristic). Moreover, the OECD reckons that inequality will have declined, because people in poor countries will have been getting rich faster than people in rich countries, as is happening now. All five storylines produce a convergence, though at different rates, between the incomes of poor and rich countries.

 

Can the planet survive this sort of utopian plutocracy? Actually, here it gets still more interesting. The IPCC has done its own projections to see what sort of greenhouse gas emissions these sorts of world would produce, and vice versa. The one that produces the lowest emissions is the one with the highest income per head in 2100 — a 16-fold increase in income but lower emissions than today: climate change averted. The one that produces the highest emissions is the one with the lowest GDP — a mere trebling of income per head. Economic growth and ecological improvement go together. And it is not mainly because environmental protection produces higher growth, but vice versa. More trade, more innovation and more wealth make possible greater investment in low-carbon energy and smarter adaptation to climate change. Next time you hear some green, doom-mongering Jeremiah insisting that the only way to avoid Armageddon is to go back to eating home-grown organic lentils cooked over wood fires, ask him why it is that the IPCC assumes the very opposite.

 

In the IPCC’s nightmare high-emissions scenario, with almost no cuts to emissions by 2100, they reckon there might be north of 4 degrees of warming. However, even this depends on models that assume much higher “climate sensitivity” to carbon dioxide than the consensus of science now thinks is reasonable, or indeed than their own expert assessment assumes for the period to 2035.

 

And in this storyline, by 2100 the world population has reached 12 billion, almost double what it was in 2000. This is unlikely, according to the United Nations: 10.9 billion is reckoned more probable. With sluggish economic growth, the average income per head has (only) trebled. The world economy is using a lot of energy, improvements in energy efficiency having stalled, and about half of it is supplied by coal, whose use has increased tenfold, because progress in other technologies such as shale gas, solar and nuclear has been disappointing.

 

I think we can all agree that this is a pretty unlikely future. It’s roughly like projecting forward from 1914 to a wealthy 2000 but with more people, lots more horse-drawn carriages and coal-fuelled steamships, and no clean-air acts. But the point is that making these sorts of assumption is the only way you can get to really high levels of carbon dioxide in 2100. And even so, remember, the average person is three times as rich. If the food supply had collapsed and fossil fuels had run out, then there would hardly be 12 billion people burning ten times as much coal and living like kings, would there? You cannot have it both ways.

 

These IPCC and OECD reports are telling us clear as a bell that we cannot ruin the climate with carbon dioxide unless we get a lot more numerous and richer. And they are also telling us that if we get an awful lot richer, we are likely to have invented the technologies to adapt, and to reduce our emissions, so we are then less likely to ruin the planet. Go figure.

Edited 24 April, 2014 by Whitey Grandad

[buctootim]

Obviously if people get richer then they tend to have fewer children and can afford to think about long term issues such as the environment as opposed to immediate essentials like food and housing. In general though I think the whole article is fatally flawed on two levels:

1. There is absolutely no guarantee the west, or indeed anyone, will continue to see economic growth on the same levels as the past 50 years or so. Indeed I think its unlikely given increasing scarcity and prices of raw materials and growing problems like waste disposal and access to fresh water.

2. Even if we do get wealthier all that happens is that wealthy people consume more - more flights, more imported food, more goods and bigger houses. That will far offset adoption of greener production technologies.

[Whitey Grandad]

Obviously if people get richer then they tend to have fewer children and can afford to think about long term issues such as the environment as opposed to immediate essentials like food and housing. In general though I think the whole article is fatally flawed on two levels:

1. There is absolutely no guarantee the west, or indeed anyone, will continue to see economic growth on the same levels as the past 50 years or so. Indeed I think its unlikely given increasing scarcity and prices of raw materials and growing problems like waste disposal and access to fresh water.

2. Even if we do get wealthier all that happens is that wealthy people consume more - more flights, more imported food, more goods and bigger houses. That will far offset adoption of greener production technologies.

 

It was by Matt Ridley who I should have credited in my link.

 

I don't think the concerns are so much with the west as with the growth in the rest of the world. Either way, there is never any room for complacency.

[Saint George]

I didn't call myself clever. You did, you utter pr!ck...

 

...ignored! Hahahaha.

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

You sound about as stable and blinkered as James Hanson himself....Seems to be a common theme amongst certain alarmist...on a par with religious zealots with global warming your God.

 

Interesting to note, you still couldn't provide any justification for manipulating the Reykjavik data....Nope just hurled some abuse, ran away and hid behind a rock....So I'll just take it, you don't have any justification for data manipulation and chalk one up to me.

 

Oh...and i know you're going to peek at this...you won't be able to help your self.

[Polaroid Saint]

Hey, you are right I couldn't help myself. Ignoring the fact I just read the wonderful and interesting posts from bexy, tim, whitey and so on and happened to be on the thread, however I must say; please stop wasting your time on me.

 

Look at the above posts. THEY are useful. You have nothing to say.

 

Look, I am sure you are a lovely chap and I did feel bad calling you a rude name.

 

I don't wish to upset you or belittle you.

 

So, when we meet at a match or discussing some other nonsense on here, I will treat you with the love and dignity I afford everyone I meet.

 

However on this thread, you are nothing more than an irritant.

 

I haven't claimed anything controversial, I have only asked you explain your initial chart and the dates compared to the email.

 

You haven't. That's all I asked.

 

You then went off on one and instead asked me to come up with a justification for something I don't think actually happened in the way you alleged?!?! I did mention there are thousands of websites discussing it and most exonerate the CRU et al. THAT was my response to your accusations of manipulation. You could look at them yourself, seeing as you are so interested; I am not, ergo I am not doing your investigation for you, sorry!

 

Also, I am NOT an alarmist. Read my post on this thread (they clearly show I am not an alarmist) and my statement 'this is not my area of interest' should be clear enough too; honestly not that bothered.

 

Glad you can chalk this up as a win, I am genuinely happy for you; But please don't ask me to engage with you again when you continue to ignore my very simple request for you to explain the errors. It's just rude and, you know, people get frustrated and end up hurling abuse!

 

*goes back behind rock*

 

Pfft!

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

An interesting train of thought from The Times By Matt Ridley last week:

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article4068299.ece

 

You'll need to be logged in as a member to read it and if I get into trouble for this I apologise in advance:

 

The world’s climate change experts are now saying that strong growth doesn’t hurt the environment, it protects it

 

In the past 50 years, world per capita income roughly trebled in real terms, corrected for inflation. If it continues at this rate (and globally the great recession of recent years was a mere blip) then it will be nine times as high in 2100 as it was in 2000, at which point the average person in the world will be earning three times as much as the average Briton earns today.

 

I make this point partly to cheer you up on Easter Monday about the prospects for your great-grandchildren, partly to start thinking about what that world will be like if it were to happen, and partly to challenge those who say with confidence that the future will be calamitous because of climate change or environmental degradation. The curious thing is that they only predict disaster by assuming great enrichment. But perversely, the more enrichment they predict, the greater the chance (they also predict) that we will solve our environmental problems.

 

Past performance is no guide to future performance, of course, and a well aimed asteroid could derail any projection. But I am not the one doing the extrapolating. In 2012, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asked the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to generate five projections for the economy of the world, and of individual countries, in 2050 and 2100.

 

They make fascinating reading. The average per capita income of the world in 2100 is projected to be between three and 20 times what it is today in real terms. The OECD’s “medium” scenario, known as SSP2, also known as “middle of the road” or “muddling through”, sounds pretty dull. It is a world in which, in the OECD’s words, “trends typical of recent decades continue” with “slowly decreasing fossil fuel dependency”, uneven development of poor countries, delayed achievement of Millennium Development Goals, disappointing investment in education and “only intermediate success in addressing air pollution or improving energy access for the poor”.

 

And yet this is a world in which by 2100 the global average income per head has increased 13-fold to $100,000 (in 2005 dollars) compared with $7,800 today. Britain will be very slightly below that average by then, yet has still trebled its income per head. According to this middling scenario, the average citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo, who today earns $300 a year, will then earn $42,000, or roughly what an American earns today. The average Indonesian, Brazilian or Chinese will be at least twice as rich as today’s American.

 

Remember this is in today’s money, corrected for inflation, but people will be spending it on tomorrow’s technologies, most of which will be cleverer, cleaner and kinder to the environment than today’s — and all for the same price. Despite its very modest assumptions, it is an almost unimaginable world: picture Beverly Hills suburbs in Kinshasa where pilotless planes taxi to a halt by gravel drives (or something equally futuristic). Moreover, the OECD reckons that inequality will have declined, because people in poor countries will have been getting rich faster than people in rich countries, as is happening now. All five storylines produce a convergence, though at different rates, between the incomes of poor and rich countries.

 

Can the planet survive this sort of utopian plutocracy? Actually, here it gets still more interesting. The IPCC has done its own projections to see what sort of greenhouse gas emissions these sorts of world would produce, and vice versa. The one that produces the lowest emissions is the one with the highest income per head in 2100 — a 16-fold increase in income but lower emissions than today: climate change averted. The one that produces the highest emissions is the one with the lowest GDP — a mere trebling of income per head. Economic growth and ecological improvement go together. And it is not mainly because environmental protection produces higher growth, but vice versa. More trade, more innovation and more wealth make possible greater investment in low-carbon energy and smarter adaptation to climate change. Next time you hear some green, doom-mongering Jeremiah insisting that the only way to avoid Armageddon is to go back to eating home-grown organic lentils cooked over wood fires, ask him why it is that the IPCC assumes the very opposite.

 

In the IPCC’s nightmare high-emissions scenario, with almost no cuts to emissions by 2100, they reckon there might be north of 4 degrees of warming. However, even this depends on models that assume much higher “climate sensitivity” to carbon dioxide than the consensus of science now thinks is reasonable, or indeed than their own expert assessment assumes for the period to 2035.

 

And in this storyline, by 2100 the world population has reached 12 billion, almost double what it was in 2000. This is unlikely, according to the United Nations: 10.9 billion is reckoned more probable. With sluggish economic growth, the average income per head has (only) trebled. The world economy is using a lot of energy, improvements in energy efficiency having stalled, and about half of it is supplied by coal, whose use has increased tenfold, because progress in other technologies such as shale gas, solar and nuclear has been disappointing.

 

I think we can all agree that this is a pretty unlikely future. It’s roughly like projecting forward from 1914 to a wealthy 2000 but with more people, lots more horse-drawn carriages and coal-fuelled steamships, and no clean-air acts. But the point is that making these sorts of assumption is the only way you can get to really high levels of carbon dioxide in 2100. And even so, remember, the average person is three times as rich. If the food supply had collapsed and fossil fuels had run out, then there would hardly be 12 billion people burning ten times as much coal and living like kings, would there? You cannot have it both ways.

 

These IPCC and OECD reports are telling us clear as a bell that we cannot ruin the climate with carbon dioxide unless we get a lot more numerous and richer. And they are also telling us that if we get an awful lot richer, we are likely to have invented the technologies to adapt, and to reduce our emissions, so we are then less likely to ruin the planet. Go figure.

 

What he's basically saying is don't listen to the green, doom-mongerers because development doesn't have to hurt the environment as long as we invest in green technologies (i.e. do what the green, doom-mongerers are saying).

[42]

Its telling you prefer to debate the choice of adjectives used to describe desperately weak and outdated evidence than defending the substance. Use whichever descriptor you prefer - it doesn't change the fact you posted up two 1997 reports of a Press Association syndicated article and a jokey discussion forum akin to this one as 'evidence' to counter the overwhelming contemporary scientific opinion. You dismiss NASA as 'populist' . Their link actually says there is no evidence for a multi-decadal trend and anyway the nature of the warming experienced is not consistent with increased solar activity.

 

Your argument basically amounts to - we should force the foreigners to reduce birth rates so they don't end up with population densities anywhere near ours in England and similarly should deny them the right to consume energy at a level comparable with our own use. What do you suggest? forced abortions and bombing them back to the stone age? Why bother anyway - its all down to the sun innit? India has a per capita energy use around one tenth of that of the US and one fifth that of the UK. China is approaching similar emissions to western Europe largely because it has become the manufacturing centre of the world - if that manufacturing was repatriated to Europe our emissions would be far higher.

 

Developed nations need to accept growth in energy consumption in the developing economies. As a consequence we need to at least halve our current ghgs in order to control total global emissions. Its not even that hard - I halved my footprint last year by insulating the house and buying a more fuel efficient car - and saved around £1,400pa in the process. The move to a low carbon economy would be broadly economically neutral and likely have beneficial side effects for health. The arguments that go along the the lines of "there is no problem and even if there was its caused by the sun / Chinese and there is nothing we can do about it / they should go first" are just peurile.

 

OK so you are fine with another 3 billion people on the planet as it wont really make a difference to the human race's carbon footprint will it? As they consume at the same level as we do in the West it wont make a difference will it?

 

Forcing abortions? Bombing to the stone age? - don't be silly. How about you recognise that more people, with more aspiration to consume and producing more pollution increases the carbon footprint and hence global warming. How about small variations in the Sun's outputs contribute to Global Warming?

 

The problem with you zealots is that you blank out other opinions with your blind aggression and arrogance - even when they broadly agree with your point of view?

 

So sad

[buctootim]

OK so you are fine with another 3 billion people on the planet as it wont really make a difference to the human race's carbon footprint will it? As they consume at the same level as we do in the West it wont make a difference will it?

 

Forcing abortions? Bombing to the stone age? - don't be silly. How about you recognise that more people, with more aspiration to consume and producing more pollution increases the carbon footprint and hence global warming. How about small variations in the Sun's outputs contribute to Global Warming?

 

The problem with you zealots is that you blank out other opinions with your blind aggression and arrogance - even when they broadly agree with your point of view?

 

So sad

 

Yes of course 3 billion extra people on the planet presents major challenges of all sorts - pressure on food, water, biodiversity,energy et al . No-one disputes an extra 3 billion is undesirable - it is, to quote Monty Python bleeding obvious, not insight. The question is what can realistically be done about it - and the answer in the short to medium term is 'not much'.

 

Young populations have lots of babies, ageing populations don't. For example 63% of the population of Nigeria is under 24 - nothing in the world is going to stop them doubling their population within 25 years. The long term solution to controlling birth rates lies with increased affluence, education and things like access to secure banking and property rights.

 

The UN predict the global population will hit 10bn around 2060 and then gradually stabilise. It is far far easier to deal with the relatively easily fixed technological problem of ghg emissions than the fundamentally already 'built in' structural problem of population growth over the next 50 years.

 

Edited 25 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

[Whitey Grandad]

Very good

 

Quite a few years ago I saw a programme about the world's energy needs and for an American production it was quite balanced. It looked at biofuels and solar farms and concluded that we would need to dedicate about 16% of the world's land surface to it. To put this into perspective they said that this was also the proportion of land area that was currently used for agriculture. Apparently nothing comes close to matching the energy-producing density of a typical power station.

[Guided Missile]

[buctootim]

The whole growing crops to make ethanol for transport idea is crazy. Hydrogen fuel cells is the long term way forward with liquefied natural gas as a stopgap.

[Guided Missile]

The original edition of The Population Bomb the best-selling book written by Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich in 1968. began with this statement: The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate … Ehrlich argued that the human population was too high already, and that while the level of disaster could be mitigated, humanity could not prevent severe famines, the spread of disease, social unrest, and other negative consequences of overpopulation. However, he argued that societies must take strong action to curb population growth in order to mitigate future disasters both ecological and social.

 

Yawn....

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Yawn....

 

 

And, of course, the higher concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is a large factor in the increased crop production.

[Saint George]

Just as nature intended

[buctootim]

Just as nature intended

 

Nature intended the carbon would be locked up in timber for a couple of hundred years - not released through an annual crop cycle. Clearly, before GM jumps in, we need crops to survive, but lets pretend it isn't yet another way man has deformed natural cycles.

Edited 25 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

I have decided that I will no longer lay awake at night, worrying about the predicted 500 ppm increase in CO₂ and the terminal effect it will have on our species.

 

No, the real problem facing us is dark matter. Dark matter sends comets hurtling towards Earth every 35 million years. As solar system orbits the centre of galaxy, it moves around in 70 million year cycle. This means it would move through a dark matter disc every 35 million years. This corresponds to increase in pattern of comet impacts on Earth and scientists have concluded this could have led to impact that has been linked to the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. I have spent some time on my computer, on some complicated projections and can predict with some degree of certainty, that a major comet strike on the earth is 31 million years overdue. I can reveal a graphical image of my modelling below:

 

 

After the last major comet strike on Earth, it appears that no species weighing over a pound survived and the larger the creature, the quicker it was wiped out. I think the only option we have, if mankind is to survive this event, is to embark on a program in which humans are genetically modified, so that they don't exceed this weight. There may be some interim adjustment required, particularly with our race temporarily slipping down the food chain, but when Armageddon happens, we will be in a great position to crawl from under the nearest rock and watch while all the bigger creatures go the way of the dinosaur.

 

I bet women will still ask "Does my bum looks big in this", though...

[Halo Stickman]

I think you may be onto something GM. If humans all became very tiny then we could stop worrying about rising population. Plus, think how many spectators we could fit into St Mary’s – season ticket-holders and PAYG people would be able to bring as many mates as they like to watch Man Utd, 42 could drop his campaign, and Boruc might be able to keep his drop kicks in play.

[Guided Missile]

I think you may be onto something GM. If humans all became very tiny then we could stop worrying about rising population. Plus, think how many spectators we could fit into St Mary’s – season ticket-holders and PAYG people would be able to bring as many mates as they like to watch Man Utd, 42 could drop his campaign, and Boruc might be able to keep his drop kicks in play.

Mind you, if a dog got on the pitch, it would be mayhem. Sat in the middle, chewing on Rickie's leg would be enough to send me back into hospitality. I might stay and watch if the mutt started on Rooney, mind...

[42]

Yes of course 3 billion extra people on the planet presents major challenges of all sorts - pressure on food, water, biodiversity,energy et al . No-one disputes an extra 3 billion is undesirable - it is, to quote Monty Python bleeding obvious, not insight. The question is what can realistically be done about it - and the answer in the short to medium term is 'not much'.

 

Young populations have lots of babies, ageing populations don't. For example 63% of the population of Nigeria is under 24 - nothing in the world is going to stop them doubling their population within 25 years. The long term solution to controlling birth rates lies with increased affluence, education and things like access to secure banking and property rights.

 

The UN predict the global population will hit 10bn around 2060 and then gradually stabilise. It is far far easier to deal with the relatively easily fixed technological problem of ghg emissions than the fundamentally already 'built in' structural problem of population growth over the next 50 years.

 

 

 

 

Population will stabilise - so funny - and so full of bull

 

Very convenient to say: 'No-one disputes an extra 3 billion is undesirable - The question is what can realistically be done about it - and the answer in the short to medium term is 'not much''

 

If that is the case we are wasting our time on reducing our footprint. You can keep on arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic mate. I'm off for a rip in the Jag

 

 

and what exactly stabilises the population growth -

[42]

I think you may be onto something GM. If humans all became very tiny then we could stop worrying about rising population. Plus, think how many spectators we could fit into St Mary’s – season ticket-holders and PAYG people would be able to bring as many mates as they like to watch Man Utd, 42 could drop his campaign, and Boruc might be able to keep his drop kicks in play.

 

Good one - however, the campaign goes on

[buctootim]

Population will stabilise - so funny - and so full of bull

 

Very convenient to say: 'No-one disputes an extra 3 billion is undesirable - The question is what can realistically be done about it - and the answer in the short to medium term is 'not much''

 

If that is the case we are wasting our time on reducing our footprint. You can keep on arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic mate. I'm off for a rip in the Jag

 

 

and what exactly stabilises the population growth -

 

Ah, thanks for the heads up - another St George - no capacity / desire to learn. Its not mandatory for sceptics you know. GM is deliberately provocative and can be funny, Whitey posts up counter hypotheses.

 

Just as matter of interest, what would you actually do about preventing the extra three billion? Its one thing to bemoan it and another to come up with a workable answer. My position is its far easier and cheaper to adopt low carbon energy usage than it is to control population growth over the next 50 years. Yours appears to be, like St George, "its all too difficult and I'll be dead in 50 years so I don't care". Correct me where Im wrong.

Edited 26 April, 2014 by buctootim

[Saint George]

Nature intended the carbon would be locked up in timber for a couple of hundred years - not released through an annual crop cycle. Clearly, before GM jumps in, we need crops to survive, but lets pretend it isn't yet another way man has deformed natural cycles.

 

Last time i checked...Humans were pretty much 100% natural....Just another species on this planet and part of the natural cycle....We wouldn't have been given the tools we have, if we weren't meant to use them....That's natures way.....

[Saint George]

Ah, thanks for the heads up - another St George - no capacity / desire to learn. Its not mandatory for sceptics you know. GM is deliberately provocative and can be funny, Whitey posts up counter hypotheses.

 

Just as matter of interest, what would you actually do about preventing the extra three billion? Its one thing to bemoan it and another to come up with a workable answer. My position is its far easier and cheaper to adopt low carbon energy usage than it is to control population growth over the next 50 years. Yours appears to be, like St George, "its all too difficult and I'll be dead in 50 years so I don't care". Correct me where Im wrong.

 

Nope....Your position is called ****ing in the wind.....Aint gunna happen.....Far too many billions of humans need to produce carbon to survive or progress and both are hard coded within us.....

 

Not to mention no one has yet been able to prove that the current levels of atmospheric carbons are a bad thing.....Certainly not by measuring against some arbitrary datum that a few alarmist tree huggers have deemed to be set at snapshot of just a few years ago, when history shows the planet's carbon levels have fluctuated massively since it creation.

[42]

Ah, thanks for the heads up - another St George - no capacity / desire to learn. Its not mandatory for sceptics you know. GM is deliberately provocative and can be funny, Whitey posts up counter hypotheses.

 

Just as matter of interest, what would you actually do about preventing the extra three billion? Its one thing to bemoan it and another to come up with a workable answer. My position is its far easier and cheaper to adopt low carbon energy usage than it is to control population growth over the next 50 years. Yours appears to be, like St George, "its all too difficult and I'll be dead in 50 years so I don't care". Correct me where Im wrong.

 

A fair question. 'what would you actually do about stopping the extra 3 billion?'

 

For starters. the UN should adopt a general policy of returning skilled immigrants from the developing world back to their home countries as they need their own young people to stay at home and make their own countries better. After all, we should stop robbing poor countries of doctors, nurses, engineers etc.

 

Then we pour money, education and materials into those countries infrastructures so that they can modernise as efficiently as possible; however, all aid would be conditional on countries adopting population control programmes to stop the poverty cycle. After around 50 years many countries will be looking at the 2 child family model of Europe, North America and Australasia as opposed to the 10 child model of Africa, Asia and South America.

 

This can only be a good thing when coupled with a pollution reduction policy which will complement a global cooling policy. Your solution only tackles the symptoms of a growing carbon footprint - mine tackles the cause as well.

[Hokie]

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt

 

"A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html&assetType=nyt_now&_r=1

[Whitey Grandad]

Scientists Warn of Rising Oceans From Polar Melt

 

"A large section of the mighty West Antarctica ice sheet has begun falling apart and its continued melting now appears to be unstoppable, two groups of scientists reported on Monday. If the findings hold up, they suggest that the melting could destabilize neighboring parts of the ice sheet and a rise in sea level of 10 feet or more may be unavoidable in coming centuries."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/13/science/earth/collapse-of-parts-of-west-antarctica-ice-sheet-has-begun-scientists-say.html&assetType=nyt_now&_r=1

 

There's a volcano under it, isn't there?

[Saint George]

Now, now, Whitey......Stop confusing the poor alarmists with facts and logic.......The NYT omitted that bit just to intensify the hand wringing.....Nothing new here

[Whitey Grandad]

Now, now, Whitey......Stop confusing the poor alarmists with facts and logic.......The NYT omitted that bit just to intensify the hand wringing.....Nothing new here

 

Yeah but it's still a 10ft rise no matter who gets the blame.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/active-volcano-discovered-beneath-antarctica-will-melt-destabilise-ice-sheet-if-it-erupts-1448200

[Hokie]

Reading the abstract of "Seismic detection of an active subglacial magmatic complex in Marie Byrd Land, Antarctica" (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n12/full/ngeo1992.html) Lough and colleagues are observing earthquakes, that "occur beneath active volcanoes, are caused by deep magmatic activity and, in some cases, precede eruptions." I can't see that any eruptions have occurred other than evidence of one 8000 years ago. Rather they suggest "Eruptions at this site ... would generate large volumes of melt water that could significantly affect ice stream flow." (Italics mine.)

 

I would suggest that future eruptions do not explain the observation of retreating glaciers from 1992-2011 as reported in the study by Ringot in Geophysical Research Letters, which the New York Times reports on.

[badgerx16]

Now, now, Whitey......Stop confusing the poor alarmists with facts and logic.......The NYT omitted that bit just to intensify the hand wringing.....Nothing new here

 

Yeah but it's still a 10ft rise no matter who gets the blame.

 

About Saint George

Location:New Orleans

 

By the metric of most people living on land less than 10 ft above the high tide line, New York City is most threatened in the long run, with a low-lying population count of more than 700,000. Sixteen other cities, including New Orleans, La.; Norfolk, Va.; Stockton, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Jacksonville, Fla.; are on the list of places with more than 100,000 people below the line. (Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but is protected at today’s level by levees.)

[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428]

 

Hope you've got some waders Georgie !

[aintforever]

Yeah but it's still a 10ft rise no matter who gets the blame.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/active-volcano-discovered-beneath-antarctica-will-melt-destabilise-ice-sheet-if-it-erupts-1448200

 

Where is the evidence that it has erupted or caused any melting at all?

[Whitey Grandad]

Where is the evidence that it has erupted or caused any melting at all?

 

I don't think anybody is saying that it has. 'Active volcano' doesn't actually mean 'erupting', but if it does the results will be similar to wide scale melting. It's just something else for people to worry about.

[Twiggy]

As Whitey said, active doesn't mean erupting. Most volcanoes are classed as "active". If i remember correctly (in this intoxicated state) its if the volcano has erupted within the last 100 years (?). However, there are other volcanoes within the ice caps, within most areas at both poles and Greenland, that are classed as "inactive" / "dormant" however a volcano is never actually "inactive" as all it requires is the convection currents to change rotation and send magma back up the existing chambers.

 

However the volcano supposedly melting the ice cap in the pole, is the least concerning ice cap melting. The ice cap in Greenland, that is retreating at an alarming rate is more of a concern. As the increasing temperature is causing the area around greenland to increase, melting the ice. If the entire cap collapses then the sea level will drastically rise, as well as the issue that dumping a large amount of cold water into the atlantic will cause the currents to shift and change, most importantly the North Atlantic Drift, which is vital in controlling the temperature and climate of Northern Europe and the UK.

 

I imagine this will cause a massive b!tch fest.

[Saint George]

About Saint George

Location:New Orleans

 

By the metric of most people living on land less than 10 ft above the high tide line, New York City is most threatened in the long run, with a low-lying population count of more than 700,000. Sixteen other cities, including New Orleans, La.; Norfolk, Va.; Stockton, Calif.; Boston, Mass.; St. Petersburg, Fla.; and Jacksonville, Fla.; are on the list of places with more than 100,000 people below the line. (Much of New Orleans is already below sea level, but is protected at today’s level by levees.)

[http://www.climatecentral.org/news/u.s.-with-10-feet-of-sea-level-rise-17428]

 

Hope you've got some waders Georgie !

 

No worries here....We learnt some lessons from Katrina, put right some man made **** ups and adapted......9 years and $14B later we're ready....Can you say the same?

 

http://www.nola.com/hurricane/index.ssf/2013/08/upgrated_metro_new_orleans_lev.html

 

http://www.arcadis-us.com/Content/ArcadisUS/docs/News/AUS_DefendingNewOrleans_ASCE.pdf

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-10_Twin_Span_Bridge

 

http://www.swbno.org/work_drainageSELA_claiborne.asp

 

So my recommendation to everyone is to quit the hand ringing and get on and prepare for the inevitable

 

Oh and @Hokie...You do realize that there were no ice glaciers at all in Greenland just 35m years ago?.....We, at this moment in time are just a small snap shot of this planets existence, nothing more and nothing less

[Hokie]

So my recommendation to everyone is to quit the hand ringing and get on and prepare for the inevitable

So, help me understand this. Your comment seems to indicate you believe the evidence leads to a reasonable conclusion that the earth is warming, and action is needed and you are just dickering over the best course of action, i.e. build walls? I have a lot more respect, scientifically, for the later.

 

Oh and @Hokie...You do realize that there were no ice glaciers at all in Greenland just 35m years ago?

 

A little devil in me wants to ask how you know there were no ice glaciers in Greenland 35 m years ago? Is your previously expressed skepticism in climate science selective?

 

As for me, I don't deny climate has changed over the history of the earth. Heck, dinosaurs once roamed Antarctica, and more recently, (drinkable) wine was made in Britain. However, I defer to the scientific consensus that indicates that the recent rapid warming a) is occurring, b) is being caused largely by human activity, c) will cause great and negative impact on economic and human endeavours, d) will accelerate with population and economic growth.

 

I also believe, that collective action is possible to mitigate the effects and that actions we take now will give greater benefit at a lower cost than actions we take 20-30 years from now.

 

We, at this moment in time are just a small snap shot of this planets existence, nothing more and nothing less