to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

[moogy1a]

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

As I said before, whether or not you believe that climate change is caused by fossil fuels, there is consensus - among fossil fuel conglomerates, governments and green lobbyists - that there is a finite amount of fossil fuel available. Hence renewed interest in nuclear power and renewables, pipelines across Europe from Russia, and deals between dodgy governments and power companies as they scramble to control resources.

Is anybody honestly arguing that current use of fossil fuels is sustainable?

The thing is though Merry, if we burn all the fossil fuel supplies that are accessible (not to mention tar sands etc...) and then switch to something more sustainable, we will not avoid 4-6 degrees climate change and all the negative impacts that will have. What's more the impacts of ocean acidification are pretty dire too.

This is an interesting and very civilised discussion. :) Just marking my place.

Does anyone else think that solar activity might have a much greater influence on global climate than anything man can do? if so, there's very little we can do about it and our influence pales into insignificance compared to the ininfluence of a mahoosive nuclear explosion going on in the centre of our solar system.
Too sleep deprived to look it up, but I have a recollection that a direct correlation between sun activity and previous mini ice ages / hot spells has been found.

Moogy - what you might have been reading in your sleep deprived state is the stuff recently put out by James Delingpole etc... in advance of the next IPCC report. You might want to read this piece from skeptical science

Form himalayas link:-
"The body of peer-reviewed scientific literature is very clear: human greenhouse gas emissions, not solar activity or galactic cosmic rays, are causing global warming. The leaked IPCC report is entirely consistent with this conclusion. In fact, in attempting to argue to the contrary, Rawls has scored an own goal by showing that if anything, GCRs are currently amplifying a solar cooling effect".

Rawls actually leaked the report because he had apparently misread it's conclusions. That is why they call the leaking an own goal.

Another thing to take into account is that 2010 which was one of the hottest years on record coincided with the deepest solar minimum since satellite measurememts began in the 1970's.

I thought the link between solar activity and global temp. was the opposite of what you would assume it would be. ie. during periods of lots of solar activity, the earth is cooler than "normal" and vice versa?

Climate change is normal. Greenland was inhabited in the 1600s and crops were grown, sustaining a population for over a hundred years. Ice ages come and go, as do mini ice ages, and droughts. What would be abnormal is climate staying the same.

merrymouse, I am not very well versed in this but I do work for the world's largest exporter of LNG and a significant amount of oil. My own experience of my company has been that they are realistic about both the environmental effects of the processes we use and of the finite resources, hence Qatar creating a self sufficient vision beyond 2030. On a day to day level, this has impacted on me in the last 10 years. When I first arrived, power and water were free, they still are but we are now metered and will be charged over a certain, wasteful level. Our new water recycle system means water is used 3 times, the last time for irrigation. The gay abandon with which money and power were thrown around with 10 years ago is over.

Greenland was inhabited in the 1600s and crops were grown

Yes. Tiny bits of Greenland, some fjords which today still have a very conducive microclimate.

Greenland was still basically ice in 1600.

I thought the link between solar activity and global temp. was the opposite of what you would assume it would be. ie. during periods of lots of solar activity, the earth is cooler than "normal" and vice versa?

The solar minimum I referred was in the energy radiated from the sun.
There are also ways of distinguishing between warming caused by greenhouse gases and solar radiation. If the current warming was caused by the sun then the troposphere and stratosphere would warm uniformly. In actual fact the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling.

the troposphere is warming and the stratosphere is cooling

Statements like this send my inner sceptic stratospheric! How long have we had instruments to accurately measure rates of change in the stratosphere's temperature? How long to a cycle of change in the planet, let alone the solar system?

If this conclusion has been extrapolated from effect-based data, what is the statistical reliability of that data? How was this parameter determined? What further conditions are required to afford stability?

When you asked about my quote above, inde, you seem to have missed its main message ... The ice core measurements that were used to suppose historical climactic conditions on Earth are only reliable to a level of 300 years. You can compare one 300-year period to another with some degree of confidence, but not shorter periods. We've only been measuring surface temperatures for 150 years, therefore meteorological information isn't yet available for a 300-year comparable period.

My quote was generous again, since no sensible statistician compares unlike data. Readings taken from the surface are not the same as information construed from ice cores. You have to rely on suppositions about the ice data, always bearing in mind that these only record changes occurring at the ice caps. And they show rates of change, not absolute measurements - those, again, have to be construed.

Plus, the surface meteorological readings of 150 years ago (even 50 years, actually) aren't the most reliable. We won't have comparable ice core records for our age in our lifetimes because the ice needs to be laid down, settle and compress before it gains historical properties.

I recognise the scientific rigour of those who interpret ancient geological information ... and question the statistical honesty of those who mould it into forecasts and policies.

Garlic, you do realise that scientists have considered all this ..... don't you ?

A climate scientist would not slap their head at your posts and cry "Oh my giddy aunt, I'd never thought of that".

It's just that a lot of your posts come across as though you genuinely think they haven't.

cumfy, I'm really shit at explaining my perspective on this, aren't I? Sorry!

Far from questioning the science of those who recover the information and figure out how to interpret it, I admire them hugely. It's taken a truly impressive amount of dedication and much suppression of competitive egos.

When they publish charts going back 1,200 years (Holocene) and 450,000 years (entire), explaining how the charts show rates of change in Earth's temperature and CO2 levels and why the data must be smoothed to 300 years, I respect that tremendously! It's amazing work. When I see "experts" abusing the 300-year data smoothing to make scientifically unstable predictions, I suspect ulterior motives. Same when I see them ignore or wilfully misinterpret other caveats that were published with the findings.

When I ask "How do we know about temperature changes in the stratosphere?", that is actually a question. If someone reads such questions as attacks, it probably means they neither understand nor care about the source of their assertion and/or have an agenda to pursue.

The global climate is changing. Some places are getting warmer and drier, some places are getting warmer and wetter. There are more catastrophes. These are facts.

Whether all of these are as a result of human activity is a cause of speculation, but given that we have the science and technology to do our best to mitigate against these situations, surely we ought to?

BTW I am studying ecology/conservation and climate!

A climate scientist would not slap their head at your posts and cry "Oh my giddy aunt, I'd never thought of that".

Well, no, because I'm just repeating what they said.

Maybe I should give up trying here, and watch prison break series 2 instead ... ?
... yes, I should

given that we have the science and technology to do our best to mitigate against these situations, surely we ought to?

This is my view - though I was told off for saying mitigate when I meant 'minimise the deleterious effects to humanity'.

The majority of posters here believe the best approach to mitigation is to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I think it's wiser to start creating a human-friendly world that can operate under widely varying climactic conditions and is less reliant on fossil fuels.

I don't actually believe fossil fuels are running out but, all the same, they generate wars and political problems along with the CO2. Best reduce our dependence on 'em, imo.

Now I have a date with a good-looking, adrenalin-pumping, androcentric mine of TV tropes

Statements like this send my inner sceptic stratospheric! How long have we had instruments to accurately measure rates of change in the stratosphere's temperature? How long to a cycle of change in the planet, let alone the solar system

I do take your point garlicbaubles and it is good to be sceptical.
On the point about the temperature of the stratosphere, recent measurements are crucial to the debate. This is because sceptics say that recent warming could be caused by solar forcing. If this is the case data for the last thirty or forty years should bear this out. It doesn't. Scientists are becoming increasingly overwhelmed with data that does bear out AGW.
On your points about reliability of data then this is why peer reviewed evidence is so important. This is to filter out the bias of scientists and to make sure their conclusions do stand up.
It's interesting to see what one leading sceptic, Lord Monckton, said when asked why he doesn't submit his research to be peer reviewed. He tries to humiliate the young lady who asked by claiming that he she hasn't done her homework. Trouble is the paper that he claims was reviewed actually says below his article that it is not peer reviewed. He makes many claims that are thoroughly debunked. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton You might say that he is just one man in this debate butMonckton was called as the only witness for the Republicans at a subcommittee hearing on climate science. He also seems to be the speaker of choice for sceptics all over the world.
These are the kind of thing that sends my inner sceptic stratospheric.

On the point about the temperature of the stratosphere, recent measurements are crucial to the debate. This is because sceptics say that recent warming could be caused by solar forcing. If this is the case data for the last thirty or forty years should bear this out. It doesn't.

Thanks for that, inde. It looks as though we're getting worrying close to a discussion about what causes ice ages, why they recede and can we influence this process. Personally I think such questions are slightly bonkers when we have observable and fixable problems to solve before attempting global climate control. I'm very interested in the economics/politics of power and water control and perceive a hijacking of the green/CO2 business by those with interests to protect. Might be a different thread, though, eh!

garlicbaubles I agree with you. I reckon it's a good idea to use fossil fuels sparingly, they are too valuable to just burn. The Chinese are investing in Thorium Salt reactors, I think we should too. The other thing we should do is try to stop the human population growing as it is. That's the true elephant in the room.

I want somebody to make a tiny salt-reactor plant that will fit under my lawn, Pam! Anybody got a geeky teenager with a secret stash of nuclear ingredients?

Garlic - I didn't mean to tell you off about mitigation/ adaptation, just to clarify. Your use of the word makes complete sense in terms of English language, but its worth knowing that how the words are used by climate wonks of you are reading round the subject.

s'okay, Himalaya!

This bloomin' language corruption by 'specialists' is an even bigger - and almost as damaging - bugbear of mine. I was in the early Plain English movement and today's word-twisting makes me despair as much as it makes me laugh ... flippin' majority minorities, opaque transparency, correctional mitigations, argh!!!

Is it very wrong to have lewd fantasies about a slightly cissy actor who's 16 years my junior?
No?
Ah, good