Climate scientists: it's time for 'Plan B'

[Digit]

So why have temps dropped in recent years against the rising CO2?

Roy.

[harasseddad]

Red herring. the fundemental question is "where's the heat going" because we know that it's being caused on the basis of fundamental science. If we're were wrong about the machanism of global warming we would also be wrong about atoms, electricity and radiation: and if we were wrong about them we wouldn't be able to build a car, a radio or an atomic bomb.

The precise effect of that extra heat in any particular year in any particular area of the globe may be imprecisely known - but the fundamental principle that more CO2 means more thermal energy being retained in the atmosphere is not a matter for debate any more than gravity or the shape of the planet. So if you want to argue that it doesn't matter, that the heat will have no effect on life on the planet, you have to come up with some mechanism to explain where it's going. Energy can't just disappear.

[Digit]

Being scientifically trained HD I can't disagree with any of that, but my complaint is against the BS being associated with GW. The CO2 models have failed continuously to explain the rate of warming at the poles, the only model that I am aware of that does this is the Stellar model.
And as I noted earlier, and you seem to agree, heat is heat, the source is errelevant.

Roy.

[harasseddad]

But in a sense the models are irrelivent. The effects of climate change are already evident all around us: in terms of fauna the uk has effectively been towed about 150 miles south; we've had people rescued from roofs by helicopter from flooding; we came within 3inches two years ago from losing large chunks of several coastal towns from high tides;glaciers are retreating across the planet, threatening water supplies..

I could go on, but add to this a population that's going to increase by 50% in the next century, peak oil spelling the end of our current energy and economic system, and the collapse of eco-systems around the world - and the conclusion that we are facing catastrophe is inescapable.

[Digit]

Again, I agree, but that has been going on for many years and has had nothing to do with CO2.
Check the history of the east coat, check the history of the Humber and of Hull.

Roy.

[harasseddad]

Here in Britain we are blessed with the longest continous sequence of natural history records in the world. We have knowledge of the distribution of wildlife in these isles going back to the 1650's. And we know that the distribution of insects was stable for nearly all of those years. Populations have declined, species have become extinct from areas they used to live in but their distribution was stable - there were just lss of them. And then suddenly in the 1990's everything changed. Common species suddenly errupted out of their normal regions and began heading North. Broad-bodied chaser, never seen above leeds, now occurs in Scotland, Southern Hawker, confined to below a line from the Wash to Wales now found in the Caingorms, Small Tortoiseshell headed into regions of scotland never before seen. Meanwhile Southern European species start colonising the UK - small red-eyed damselfly, Bombus hypnorum, Willow Emerald. Up until 1995 we hadn't added a single dragonfly species to the UK list in a hundred years, since then we've added one every two years.

Nothing to do with CO2? All across the world species are moving out of the tropics into temperate regions as the planet warms: and cold-adapted species are retreating to the poles. Exactly in step with CO2 increases. Exactly as we'd expect to see as global warming takes hold.

[Paul mabbott]

Originally Posted by Digit

Again, I agree, but that has been going on for many years and has had nothing to do with CO2.
Check the history of the east coat, check the history of the Humber and of Hull.

Roy.

That's due to the normal processes of erosion and deposition - land erodes in one place and is deposited in another: has nothing to do with absolute change of sea level. (Except, of course, in relation to the tilt of the land - the island is tilting NW>SE).

[Ted Pearson]

“Just over half – 54 per cent – of the 80 international specialists in climate science who took part in our survey agreed that the situation is now so dire…”

Wow, I am now completely convinced of significant effects of anthropogenic global warming. According to this report, 80 climate ‘experts’ were willing to take part in this survey. One of these experts was a Nobel laureate, (Al Gore?). Out of this huge group of alarmists, only 43 think we have a problem that needs to be addressed.
You see, this is the problem I have always had with the assertions of the IPCC. They have a minority group of climatologists who are paid very well to provide reports and models defining man-made Armageddon. I have no idea if 54% constitutes a consensus of ‘international specialists’, but in the true style of the IPCC it is presented as such. There is no mention of the 600+ climate specialists in the NIPCC that completely disagree with the fact that man’s contribution to the CO2 warming is significant. If the survey did include them, the number could fall to16%. Not to worry though, even this could translate into a ‘consensus’ in the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers”.

[Digit]

the island is tilting NW>SE).

A point I have made in the past in relation to 'rising' sea levels as the station normally quoted is Newquay, where the land is going down!

Roy.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Ted Pearson

“Just over half – 54 per cent – of the 80 international specialists in climate science who took part in our survey agreed that the situation is now so dire…”

Wow, I am now completely convinced of significant effects of anthropogenic global warming. ....Out of this huge group of alarmists, only 43 think we have a problem that needs to be addressed.

you have completely misrepresented the quote. The 54% refers to those scientists who think the situation so dire that we need to artificially manipulate the climate to counter the effects of CO2.

Of the remainder "About 35 per cent of respondents disagreed with the need for a "plan B", arguing that it would distract from the main objective of cutting CO2 emissions, with the remaining 11 per cent saying that they did not know whether a geoengineering strategy is needed or not."

So it's not that only 54% of scientists believe 'the problem needs to be addressed' as you state. They're simply disagreeing about how to address it.

Matt