From The Metro:
Adair Turner, chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, has predicted sharp rises in energy prices as he called for cuts of at least 34 per cent in Britain's carbon emissions by 2020. He said these higher electricity and gas prices could push another 1.7 million households into fuel poverty by 2022...But it added that 400,000 households could be lifted out of fuel poverty by energy efficiency measures in their homes...
Lord Turner said: "Climate change poses a grave threat to human welfare... The reductions required can be achieved at a very low cost to our economy: the cost of not achieving the reductions, at national and global level, will be far greater."
Shouldn't that read "Pork barrel spending associated with measures taken to deal with non-existent climate change poses a grave threat to human welfare"?
And how, if at all, does The Committee on Climate Change respond to headlines like "Arctic blast sweeps across Britain"?
What have we wrought in the UK?
3 hours ago
19 comments:
Now now Mr W, you know full well that 'climate change' (morphed from 'global warming') is a religion and is incpable of rational analysis.
But wouldn't some more global warming help with fuel poverty? UK gets warmer, so grannies need less central heating, problem solved.
I usually enjoy and benifit from your blog but attic winds is the whole point. Attic winds blow from he artic which is flipping cold ....... Try going there without a coat. If I'm not wrong, it's all about average temp not deep swings this is why we talk about standard deviation. Even in a world 5C warmer we are still going to have some days colder than normal. But if you expect to continue spouting that hot air you will only contribute to this change.
If we could stop cows farting the problem, (if they're is a problem) would go away! For the record, I really couldn't care less about 'global warming'.
I was just outside, and it's warmer here today than it was yesterday. I suppose that means winter is over, since clearly you believe individual data points trump trends.
A warmer day doesn't mean winter is false. A colder year - or arctic blast - doesn't mean multi decadal trends are false.
@ Anon#2, "A colder year - or arctic blast - doesn't mean multi decadal trends are false."
On that basis, nothing proves anything, does it?
It's warmer today than yesterday, but colder than in the summer.
And last summer was a lot cooler than the previous five, but the last ten years were on average warmer than the 1950s.
And the last 50 years were on average cooler than the 1930s, but the 20th C was on average warmer than the 19th.
And the 19th and 20th taken together were cooler than the Mediaeval Warm Period, but the last two millenia were on average warmer than the last Ice Age.
And so on ad infinitum.
Anon#2 was me.
Mark:On that basis, nothing proves anything, does it?
Well, we can't prove with absolute certainty that next summer will be warmer than this winter, but we have a whole bunch of trend data that can give us confidence that it will be. We also have explanations of why. Yes, there is temperature variation across different time scales, and global warming doesn't change that. The variation is just relative to a different - rising - base line. An atmosphere possessing more energy is also expected to display greater variation.
OK, I just deleted a couple of long paragraphs refuting your points about the '30s and the MWP; I don't want this to get too long. There is always variation, and until recently it was of course all natural. That natural variation didn't end; no sensible person claims it did, but we can see a rising trend that only makes sense as a result of human activity.
Ed, but the baseline has been falling again for the past few five years or so. I hate the cold and I wouldn't mind a bit of global warming, actually.
Seems you might already have a regular commenter here called Ed, so I've expanded a little. It's nearly christmas so I'll be expanding anyway.
The base line only appears to have fallen if you pick a point on the high side of the variations from which to start. Equally, it can appear to rise more than reality if you start with a low point. Which is why scientists use rolling 5, 10 and longer averages, and similar techniques. Look at graphs for the last 50 years; they ain't pretty. We have a good understanding of why as well; we've known CO2 is a greenhouse gas for something like 150 years.
Here in the UK a bit of global warming wouldn't hurt; if it stopped now, or maybe even in the next 5 years or so, we'd be fine. Other places would be less fine though, and in any case there's no reason to think it's going to stop. The problem isn't how things are now, or even in 5 years; it's what we'll be facing in 50 or 100.
I came across your blog while researching LVT, so getting into global warming is going off on a bit of a tangent, and looking back at some of your previous posts I'm probably wasting my time anyway. You clearly don't like 'greenies', but there are plenty of greenies that I don't like either. I don't want global warming to be true since it affects some things that I love. One of the most beautiful sounds I ever heard was the BRM V16 going up the hill at Goodwood a few years ago (I'm sure Lola will appreciate that). Evidence is king though, and it's overwhelming so I have accepted it.
Edd, that's the whole point:
Here in the UK a bit of global warming wouldn't hurt; if it stopped now, or maybe even in the next 5 years or so, we'd be fine.
Human civilisation is concentrated in two fairly narrow bands, between the tropics and the Ant/arctic circles. Humans can live just as happily in Stockholm as in Jakarta. If there is global warming, then the habitable bands shift towards the Poles*, if there is global cooling, the bands shift towards the Equator.
That is assuming that there is either global warming or cooling (of which I am not convinced), and even if there is either, that it is man made (and if so, whether the costs of ending industrialisation justify the modest benefits). As that chap said, what is the bigger tragedy, for 10,000 pensioners to die of hypothermia or 1,000 to die of heatstroke?
* North and South Poles, not Eastern Europe, obviously.
Human civilisation is concentrated in two fairly narrow bands... If there is global warming, then the habitable bands shift towards the Poles...
They shift, and they also get smaller. Partly because sea levels will rise, and partly because getting closer to the poles simply reduces surface area.
Humans can live just as happily in Stockholm as in Jakarta.
Absolutely, but societies in any given location are adapted to the climate in that location. Just look at what happens here when we get a bit of snow. The Swedes cope with way more, because they're adapted to it, but we fall apart. A couple of years ago we had a hot summer in Europe, and thousands died; France was badly hit but a couple of thousand died here too. Other countries get those sorts of temperatures all the time, but they're adapted to them. The cost of adapting to a rapidly changing climate will just knacker us. Just look at flooding; the sort of flooding we've had in recent years is expected to increase.
We don't need to end industrialisation to prevent global warming, we just need to change its nature. One thing I'd be in favour of is a strong push to nuclear power, specifically using thorium. The Americans produced experimental reactors back in the '50s and '60s but abandoned them, largely because they're not good for producing weapons material. Given the way they operate - they can 'burn' existing so-called spent fuel - if we ran thorium reactors for a few decades we'd even end up with less waste than we have now.
Edd, if you're going to be sensible, it sort of takes the fun out of it, but never mind, let me highlight your following statements and try and pick holes in them:
A couple of years ago we had a hot summer in Europe, and thousands died ... The cost of adapting to a rapidly changing climate will just knacker us. Just look at flooding; the sort of flooding we've had in recent years is expected to increase.
Are we now supposed to be worried about Global Wettening? The whole flooding thing is because of poor drainage, building houses on flood plains etc. There is a straight trade off between insurance bills and higher local Land Value Tax to cover these risks/prevention thereof. Or does driving around in a car cause Global Wettening?
This is all jolly good fun, Mr Edd, but what evidence is there of human activity causing whatever changes the climate has gone through in the last 50, 100, 150 years?
It's the lack of evidence to support the man-made global warming theory that causes me to doubt it.
The highest it has been put, as far as I can tell, is: (i) a collection of certain gases in the troposphere absorbs solar radiation and creates a warming blanket around our planet, (ii) one of those gases (carbon dioxide) is increasing in quantity in the troposphere, (iii) therefore the warming blanket creates further warming, (iv) human activity causes the creation of that gas, (v) therefore the increase in the troposphere is caused by that human activity and (vi) therefore human activity causes increased global temperatures. None of the conclusions at (iii), (v) and (vi) follows from its individual premise.
Still less does it follow that any warming that is caused by human activity (if there is any at all) will increase as we produce further "greenhouse gases".
Still less does it follow that there is a point at which warming of the planet will cause catastrophic events.
Still less does it follow that ceasing to emit carbon dioxide entirely will change anything.
Still less does it follow that the Western world ceasing to emit carbon dioxide will stop China and India producing it in ever greater quantities.
There is not a single shred of physical evidence to support the catastrophe theory. That theory is one of thousands of hypotheses spewed out by computer models and specifies certain indicators as a necessary consequence of the theory. None of those indicators has been observed despite careful and detailed examination.
Show me some evidence that is more than mere correlation and I might be persuaded. There is certainly no such evidence available today.
Thumbs up to Thorium, by the way, a fine way of producing electricity without being reliant on the nuttier parts of the globe.
Mark:
Edd, if you're going to be sensible, it sort of takes the fun out of it...
Well, I could accuse you of being a blind apologist for Big Oil/Coal; you could rant about me being a leftist control freak or something, and we could retire to our corners for a nice cup of tea, each convinced that the opposing view is held only by pricks. It wouldn't really move things forward though.
Are we now supposed to be worried about Global Wettening?
Hmmm, in a strict sense I suppose, given that a warmer atmosphere has a greater capacity for water vapour. But no, not in terms of the weather we'll be getting. What we have to worry about is Regional Wettening, as well as Regional Drying, and for the UK most of the projections I've seen indicate we'll be getting wetter. It's not certain though, which just makes adapting harder.
The whole flooding thing is because of poor drainage, building houses on flood plains etc.
Building on flood plains; yeah; idiots. That's not the whole thing though. An pretty important part is how much water falls out of the sky.
There is a straight trade off between insurance bills and higher local Land Value Tax to cover these risks/prevention thereof.
LVT could help with a lot of things, clearly I don't have to convince you of that, but the costs involved adapting to a new climate are enormous.
Or does driving around in a car cause Global Wettening?
It contributes to Regional Wettening, and Regional Drying, and the rest of it.
So it seems I hit the comment length limit; posting this separately. So much for keeping it short.
TheFatBigot:
The highest it has been put, as far as I can tell, is: (i) a collection of certain gases in the troposphere absorbs solar radiation and creates a warming blanket around our planet,
Not quite, but I'll try to keep things short. Solar infra-red radiation is mostly short wavelength, which is outside the absorption bands of CO2. What happens is that the radiation passes through the atmosphere with little absorption, and hits the surface. The surface does absorb it, and heats, re-emiting the radiation - toward space - as long wavelength infra-red, which gets absorbed by the CO2. The CO2 also re-emits the heat, but since the CO2 is in the atmosphere some of it will head down, back toward the surface. That which goes up toward space can in any case get absorbed by other CO2 molecules, and the process continues. The result of all this is that some of the heat is trapped in the atmosphere. No modeling necessary; it's all experimental knowledge.
(ii) one of those gases (carbon dioxide) is increasing in quantity in the troposphere,
Yes. There are other gasses such as methane and nitrogen oxides, but CO2 forms the vast bulk of the greenhouse gas mix.
(iii) therefore the warming blanket creates further warming,
Hmmm, from the way you word this - and (i) - it sounds like you think warming creates more warming. There is an element of this - indirectly - in the form of feedbacks, but it is not the main process at work. Air is mostly nitrogen and oxygen, neither of which absorbs infra-red, but carbon dioxide does absorb it. This isn't hypothesis or modeling; it can be shown to be true with simple experiments. You may even have carried them out at school. So it is the presence of CO2 - and other greenhouse gasses - that produces warming, and yes; adding more of it produces more warming, since there's more of it to absorb the heat that would otherwise escape to space. Fortunately, the effect is logarithmic, meaning that increases of a given amount become progressively less potent. Unfortunately, we still have more than enough carbon to burn to produce significant temperature increases, without even taking feedback into account. So, an accurate wording would be "(iii) thus causing an increase in atmospheric temperature,".
(iv) human activity causes the creation of that gas,
Yes. We can measure it coming out of exhaust pipes and stacks.
(v) therefore the increase in the troposphere is caused by that human activity and...
Yes, but it's not the case that we see the increase in CO2 and just assume that it's the same CO2 that we're releasing - although it's clearly going somewhere. We can tell where the CO2 in the atmosphere is coming from by the change in isotope ratios over time. The carbon in fossil fuels is biased towards the C12 isotope, and this isotope is becoming more common in the atmosphere. Again, this isn't modeling, it's just plain measurement.
(vi) therefore human activity causes increased global temperatures.
Yes.
None of the conclusions at (iii), (v) and (vi) follows from its individual premise.
Not true; (iii) does follow (ii) once you reword (iii) for accuracy and when you understand the experimental evidence of heat absorption that shows the cause. Also, (v) and (vi) do follow (iv) once you realise that we do know where the CO2 is coming from; we're not just guessing.
Still less does it follow that any warming that is caused by human activity (if there is any at all) will increase as we produce further "greenhouse gases".
It follows from the well established - starting way back in the 19th century - experimental knowledge we have for heat absorption. I like the way you've put greenhouse gasses in quotes; does that mean you dispute their existence?
Still less does it follow that there is a point at which warming of the planet will cause catastrophic events.
Well, we should define catastrophic, but sea level rises, heatwaves, droughts and flooding sound pretty unpleasant. Yes, this answer does involve modeling, but there's nothing wrong with modeling. It's how we manage to send space probes to Jupiter and have them actually arrive properly.
Still less does it follow that ceasing to emit carbon dioxide entirely will change anything.
This one is easy; remove the input and the output has to stop. Not right away, since the oceans introduce delay to the system, but it has to stop.
Still less does it follow that the Western world ceasing to emit carbon dioxide will stop China and India producing it in ever greater quantities.
OK, this one is a bit of a problem. It's true that our efforts would have limited effect if these countries don't follow suit, but some reduction is better than none. In addition, if we develop technologies which provide an alternative to coal and oil - such as thorium reactors - we can sell them to the Indians and Chinese. Well, actually, it might be the other way round, since India already has a fairly active thorium programme.
None of those indicators has been observed despite careful and detailed examination.
Not true. If I searched I could give you more, but one off the top of my head is stratospheric cooling, which was predicted by the models and which has now been observed.
Show me some evidence that is more than mere correlation and I might be persuaded. There is certainly no such evidence available today.
There's reams of it, but what sort of sources would be acceptable?
Edd, good comments (I didn't realise there was a limit on length), but I'm not sure about this:
What we have to worry about is Regional Wettening, as well as Regional Drying, and for the UK most of the projections I've seen indicate we'll be getting wetter. It's not certain though, which just makes adapting harder.
In my long and uneventful lifetime we have had
a) some very dry summers with hose-pipe bans (which could be fixed by having bigger reservoirs, more pipes to carry water round the country, less leaks and installing usage meters so there's an incentive for water companies to provide water and for people to minimise use). Malta manages somehow, surely we can?
b) some very wet summers (the risks of which can be greatly reduced with better drainage, flood defences, not building on flood plains etc)
Neither of those is great cause for concern and can be fixed at no huge expense.
Nor do I accept this to be true:
CO2 forms the vast bulk of the greenhouse gas mix.
Nope.
1. Water vapour forms the vast bulk of greenhouse gases. Surely everybody knows that on a cloudy night it is usually noticeably warmer than when there's a clear sky?
2. CO2 may form the bulk of remaining GG's by volume but the vast bulk of CO2 is natural emissions (which by and large regulates itself) and not industrial/fossil fuels.
3. Other GG's like CH4 or N20 have dozens of times the impact of CO2, and again, the bulk of these are natural emissions (depending on whether you count livestock as natural, I suppose).
4. Further, the UK is only one per cent of the world population (altho' we pollute above our weight, to be fair), St John of Redwood's magic fag packet says that UK industrial CO2 emissions amount to 0.25 per cent of one per cent of all global greenhouse gases. So even if we shut up shop completely, it would make no difference to anything (even assuming that we were making a difference in the first place).
5. What I really want to know, how many more years will the global warmenists keep up the propaganda war before they accept that there is no significant climate change? Another five year? Ten? Twenty?
My comment was truncated when posted in one shot, so I assume there's a limit. That or I may have had an open tag or something else that confused things.
Malta manages somehow, surely we can?
As I said before, societies are adapted to the climate they have, which has been stable for a long time. A long time in the context of industrialised societies. If you gave Malta's climate to Sweden then Sweden would be buggered, and vice versa. We're not set up for a Maltese climate either, and the climate we get might be a lot worse anyway.
Now, you can say you don't believe things will get worse in future, but that doesn't answer the point about the cost if they do. If the climate changes significantly the costs involved won't be the same as they have been for the problems we've been dealing with up until now. Imagine worse flooding in more areas more often, or worse heatwaves. Or both at different times of the year.
OK, on to water vapour.
1. Water vapour forms the vast bulk of greenhouse gases. Surely everybody knows that on a cloudy night it is usually noticeably warmer than when there's a clear sky?
Well, the point I was answering was about gasses which have increased. Since temperatures have so far only increased slightly on average, and given that the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature, I don't think this is really an error. I was trying to keep things short though, and I'm willing to concede that I rather skipped over water vapour, even though - in pure absorption at least - it's the most important greenhouse gas. I did so though because although it is powerful it's almost wholly a feedback element (the minor exception is the stratosphere; minor because it's very dry). Unlike the other greenhouse gasses you can't load the atmosphere with water vapour; the amount present is a direct function of the surface temperature of the oceans and other bodies of water. Try to pump in more and it will just precipitate out. There are more details but again I'm trying to keep it short.
So water vapour doesn't force temperature change. Just the feedback from it is bad though, but that only comes into play when something else is providing the forcing. Also, it's not just about pure absorption; water vapour leads to cloud, which reflects sunlight before it can reach the surface, but the significance of that varies with altitude... calculating the net feedback is tricky.
2. CO2 may form the bulk of remaining GG's by volume but the vast bulk of CO2 is natural emissions (which by and large regulates itself) and not industrial/fossil fuels.
Absolutely, most of the greenhouse gasses are there naturally, and a good job too; without them it would likely be too cold for life. Too cold for us anyway. The problem is with the excess, produced by human activity, which is steadily accumulating. The big problem isn't now; it's the future.
3. Other GG's like CH4 or N20 have dozens of times the impact of CO2, and again, the bulk of these are natural emissions (depending on whether you count livestock as natural, I suppose).
No; they are more powerful, but their levels are tiny compared to CO2 and so their measurable impact is significantly lower.
4. Further, the UK is only one per cent of the world population (altho' we pollute above our weight, to be fair), St John of Redwood's magic fag packet says that UK industrial CO2 emissions amount to 0.25 per cent of one per cent of all global greenhouse gases. So even if we shut up shop completely, it would make no difference to anything (even assuming that we were making a difference in the first place).
The most recent figure I've seen was that the UK accounts for around 2.3 to 2.4 percent of global emissions of CO2. No idea on other gases, but they are minimal compared to CO2 anyway (just to be clear; I'm talking about forcing gasses, which doesn't include water vapour, unless it's contrails in the stratosphere). An order of magnitude higher than your trusty fag packet, but still not huge. If we stopped there would be a measurable effect but not nearly as much as is needed. We can't afford to wait for everyone to start at the same point though, and western countries at least are beginning to take action, minimal though it is.
5. What I really want to know, how many more years will the global warmenists keep up the propaganda war before they accept that there is no significant climate change? Another five year? Ten? Twenty?
I guess I'm a propagandist (and a prick and a leftist control freak) because I would say there's already been significant climate change, in the Arctic. Given the measured warming that's already taken place, as well as the projections for future rises and the science behind them, I expect that ten years from now the only people left unconvinced will the the equivalent of the flat earth types.
Edd, fair do's.
I expect that ten years from now the only people left unconvinced will the the equivalent of the flat earth types.
Until two or three years ago, I believed that there was GW, and quite probably that it was MMGW. On the basis of what;s happened over the last five years, I no longer believe that there is GW, let alone MMGW.
We'll reschedule this debate for December 2018 and we'll see if much has changed (for the worse or the better).
It's a deal, if you can keep blogging for ten years.
Post a Comment