This discussion is locked.
You cannot post a reply to this discussion. If you have a question start a new discussion

1.5ºC will change the world: tackling climate change

Does anyone with an inquiring scientific/engineering mind really still believe all the AGW hype? The whole process has deviated so far from scientific principle to be almost completely invalid.

Before I continue I will say that I believe that the climate has changed, is changing and will continue to change. I believe that we should minimize our use of finite resources and that we should minimize our impact on the Earth. Using bad science to achieve this will not work in the long run.

Let’s start with the ‘scientific process’.
  1. Formulate a theory

  • Use this theory to make some predictions

  • Make some experiments/observations to confirm or deny these predictions

  • Look for and try and remove confounding factors.

  • Decide if the theory is valid.

  • If the theory does not produce valid predictions refine/change the theory

Where does AGW sit with this?

  1. A theory was formulated that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the main driver of global temperatures. All good.

  • This theory was used to build a series of mathematical models based on Arrhenius’s ‘greenhouse’ model with a number of forcing functions to allow then to be calibrated to the historic records. These models then gave values for ‘Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity’ ECS, which is the expected temperature rise for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. The current ‘accepted’ values are 1.5-4.5°C. OK so far.

  • We cannot easily experiment with the atmosphere but we can make observations of CO2 level and temperatures. Both are a bit difficult because they vary around the globe so some form of average has to be formulated and long term direct measured values are limited. The longest direct CO2 measurement (Mauna Loa series) only goes back to 1958. The longest direct temperature measurement (Central England Temperature) goes back to 1772. All older data has to be calculated from proxies. Ok so we can make some observations to check our theories but it is not so easy.

  • There are a number of possible confounding factors including variations in the sun’s output and variations in the earths orbital path. These are confirmed to exist but their level of influence is not certain. They are not currently factored into the climate models because there is insufficient data. So we know that there are confounding factors but don’t know how big they are. Not so good

  • These models have been around for a while now so how are their predictions shaping up? To keep with the ‘official’ view let’s start with the Last IPCC report, AR5. The graphs on slides 18 and 22 show that up to 2012 the actual temperatures (black line) reaching the bottom range of the model predictions (yellow band).What has happened since? Has the global average temperature jumped by more than 0.3°C? Have the model predictions reduced to match reality? The answer in both cases is no. These slides also note the lower rate of increase in global temperatures since 1998. Have the models explained this? The answer again is no. What did happen was that some NASA researchers manipulated the measurements to smooth out this change.

  • Are the theories being refined to deal with the discrepancies? A clear no. We are told that the science is settled. The Paris agreement to maintain the temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial times is based on a badly defined ‘pre industrial temperature’and a CO2 sensitivity with and accepted range of 3-1 and a likely range that is significantly higher. The TCR(Transient Climate Response) and ECS in the published literature are falling continuously with time. Looking at the trends and the current climate response the ECS is likely to be around 1 or even less.

Some other points:

NASA launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 in 2014 with a view to supporting the manmade CO2 problem. The first results were posted in December 2014, but other than a concentration over part of China it did not support the idea that man was responsible for CO2 increases. It’s still up there collecting data, but it does not support AGW so no one talks about it anymore.

The disappearance of Arctic (and Antarctic) sea ice has been predicted for a number of years, it’s still there. David Hempleman-Adams made a well publicized sea voyage through the  Arctic this year. It might have been meaningful if his skipper hadn’t already made the trip a couple of times.


There are many more examples of attempts to support a dying theory but I will leave it there for the moment. Maybe next we should look at the reality behind the so called renewable energy sources.


Best regards

Roger




attachments.zip
  • Formulating new scientific theories is a hard, tortuous and thankless exercise. Why do it when there is easy money to be made, and scientific accolades to be gained, riding on the coat-tails of the consensus "dangerous" AGW theory? I find it most hard to accept the corollary (or auxiliary thesis), held by most of those "dangerous" AGW believers, that the human race can effectively control or limit the maximum gobal average temperature of the earth solely by altering the rate at which anthropogenic CO2 is released into the atmosphere (excluding of course, that CO2 we collectively emit through respiration). Perhaps the new President Trump, when he comes to office next year, will force a few more US based scientists to make more of their money the hard way, i.e. by thinking and testing new and more credible thoughts and ideas.


    James
  • This video is worth watching...

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/11/22/the-needle-in-the-haystack-pat-franks-devastating-expose-of-climate-model-error/


    The true uncertainty bars (which grow as the previous errors propagate forwards) are far too large for the predictions about future global temperatures from current global climate models to be considered scientifically meaningful.


    James
  • Far be it from me to question the credentials of 2 random people on an internet forum.....but I will base my own opinions on the 97% of climate scientists who do believe in man made climate change; and I suspect many others will too.  When dealing with a large complex multivariable problem / issue, equilibrium is not likely nor possible, however if minimal disturbance is the desired outcome, then huge perbutations with unknown consequences is never a smart line of inquiry (eg dumping ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere).  


    Pollution is a market failure, "there is no such thing as a free lunch" as they say, yet for hundreds of years people / industry has been free to dump gases and particulates into the atmosphere without price nor any consideration of the future costs they are imposing on the forthcoming generations. Global warming aside, is it a clever idea to load up the air we rely on for life with particulate matter?  The UK already faces a public health crisis from the dire air quality, 40,000 premature deaths a year is the conservative claim :-(  


    While I recognise CO2 and pollution are not the same issue, they are 2 sides of the same coin, requiring similar adjustments to a more sustainable methodology in the medium to long term; whats the worse that can happen we "accidentally" / "needlessly" buid a better world for no reason; I am finding it hard to see a downside.
  • We (as engineers) need to know the actual and fair economic price democratic society wants to put on emitting one tonne of CO2. In his Autumn statement Philip Hammond decided to freeze the carbon floor price until 2020 at £18 per tonne of CO2. At the moment this is low enough just to affect the relative competitiveness of coal fired electricity generation vs gas fired electricity generation. 


    Yet if consumers are eventually forced to move from gas fired heating to heating their homes using electricity from Hinkley Point C etc (assuming it ever gets finished), the effective price of carbon dioxide emission rises then to over £1000 per tonne of CO2.

    [The calculation assumes 12000 kWh heating per annum and around 2 tonnes of CO2 emitted using a natural gas fired heating system, with gas at 5p per kWh and Hinkley Point C retail electricity at 25p per KWh). The heating bill rises from £600 per annum to £3000 per annum with 2 tonnes of CO2 saved. The cost of not emitting one tonne of CO2 is £1200.]


    So what is the true price of carbon dioxide emissions -  £18 per tonne CO2 (which is making coal fired power stations uneconomic compared with gas fired stations) or over £1000 per tonne of CO2 (when the gas grid is eventually shut down by political decree).


    Politicians will have to decide soon because from an engineering point of view a 2 order of magnitude uncertainty range on this particular economic cost moving forward is completely unacceptable.


    James
  • Someone else has seen the light :-)

    http://www.thegwpf.com/lord-donoughue-labour-must-ditch-its-climate-change-obsession/


    The world is gently warming after the last ice age. It is not warming as fast as any of the models suggest. Extreme weater events are not increasing, Polar bears are doing ok. Why are we wasting money trying to reduce the level of plant food in the atmosphere?


    Best regards


    Roger 



  • I notice that the Japanese plan to build over 40 new coal power stations. We in the UK are building HS2 and expanding airports including Heathrow, etc, also building Fission power stations that are very unlikely to work as planned and Fission Fusion designs that will never work cost effectively at all. The people who are actually saving most energy and carbon are the fuel poor and the homeless in developing countries - and they have been given little choice.  


    I went to hear Geoffrey Maitland, Professor of Energy Engineering speak at a Imperial College Friends event a couple of weeks ago on "Managing the Energy Transition towards 2100". He was a former president of the Institute of Chemical Engineers and an [over?] enthusiastic supporter of the idea that carbon capture and storage (CCS) will save the planet from "carbonogedon" [my word].


    At the end Professor Geoffery Maitland happened to mention in passing that we in the UK will only be able to emit 2 tonnes of CO2 per person by 2050 under the Climate change act. Afterwards I told him this figure was nearer 1.4 tonnes per person due to the actual and projected increase in UK population between 1990 and 2050. He said that this was not a significant difference, but I think it is - a further 30% decrease which could have comparable cost to all the other notional carbon reductions before it.


    Who is correct Professor Geoffery Maitland or me?


    What difference would the adoption of CCS make to the price of fossil fuel in developed and developing countries? How does this affect the fuel poor? How far can the country go in getting the poorest in society to reduce their fossil fuel demand even futher?


    James