OneGuyFromBarlick

Stanley wrote: Add extreme weather event frequency,

Look on the bright side. Changes in weather patterns will produce larger fluctuations in crop growth. The futures market will love it,swinging from one extreme to another. Lots of opportunity to make bigger profits. A good reason to do nothing!

P, you've read the same books as me!
Have you read Naomi Klein, 'Shock Doctrine'. If not get it and have a good read. She has studied the subject and drags together the use of crisis as a political and economic tool. Every cloud has a silver lining for the few.....

See THIS article for further evidence supporting the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Based on carefully observed real time evidence it is another significant addition to the case for CO2 being a major element in global warming. No doubt the deniers will argue against it......

A very useful contribution to climate science and a well-written article as you'd expect from the Institute of Physics. I wish web sites wouldn't always feel obliged to have a `comments' section at the end; they are mostly populated by the small number of deniers making outrageous claims whereas the climate scientists themselves avoid them. That then gives a skewed impression of the argument. The same applies whatever the topic - you can't have a rational debate on a public web page.

The Horizon programme last night was basically a rehash of previous programmes but I suppose it did reinforce the claIMS THAT cc ACTUALLY IS HAPPENING.

Good stuff from the UKIPs in the European Parliament. It came from UKIP MEP Stuart Agnew, a former Rhodesian soldier and member of the National Farmers Union and the self-proclaimed ‘only person willing to stand up for British farmers’

In a debate in the Parliament, true to his word Farmer Agnew indeed stood up and described as ‘madness’ the EU’s proposals to reduce emissions of CO2 as this would reduce crop growth.

Well a couple of things. First it’s further evidence that makes me feel that if you want to know what to do in the countryside then go and ask the famers and then when you have gathered their views, do exactly the opposite, but that’s a bit unfair (he is UKIP after all and that requires a particular trait). Second, and more seriously, he’s confusing emissions with concentrations, and probably doesn’t know it.

The tweet from the EU Commissioner for Environment and Climate Change was priceless. In a move from a Spaniard almost designed to make the typical Kipper have a fit of the vapours, he quoted the Englishman Sir Isaac Newton: ‘I can calculate the motion of the heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people’. Quite.

Richard Broughton

The vigorous growth of vegetation in the Carboniferous period when levels of CO2 was high resulted in the coal measures that now redress the balance by returning the CO2 to the atmosphere. This supports the argument for greater growth now but would we want to live in a tropical forest?
See THIS for an account of the (temporary) halt in the rise of CO2 concentration last year.

Cyclone Pam has been rated as probably the worst tropical storm on record. See THIS for an account of the devastation. Of course we have no evidence that extreme events like this are a consequence of climate change.....

...but at least the Prime Minister of Vanuatu isn't afraid of saying they are a consequence. The climate warming models predict that such events will become more common, and of course they will be more devastating when superimposed upon the instability caused by the higher temperatures. Oxford university is planning to abandon its investments in coal and tar oil sands.

BBC web site today: "The University of Oxford will decide whether to pull out of its investments in coal and oil sands later. Students have been campaigning on the issue for over a year because scientists say burning the world's coal will result in reckless risks to the climate. It is part of a global movement for public organisations to divest from fossil fuels. Glasgow University has done so, along with other organisations worldwide. They include Stanford University, the British Medical Association, the World Council of Churches and the Rockefeller Brothers. This month, members of the London Assembly urged the Mayor Boris Johnson to withdraw investments in coal, oil and gas. It is said to be the fastest-growing divestment movement the world has seen as the public becomes increasingly aware that firms have discovered three times more fossil fuel than can be safely burned without excessive risk to the climate."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31877595

It took Mother Nature all those millennia to convert living matter to fossil fuel. We extract it in the blink of an eye in geological terms, burn it, return the CO2 to the atmosphere and then wonder if we could possibly have made a mistake. Greedy kids in a sweet shop who make themselves sick.....

The BBC has spoken to several people in the news media to ask why there seems to be less reporting on climate change now. One interesting comment, from Max Boykoff who founded the Media Climate Change Observatory, was that news businesses have been cutting costs which leaves less time for investigating and reporting; climate change is a complex subject and therefore it gets cut first and farthest. The moral is don't assume that the coverage of news in the media is representative of events, because the simple stuff now gets preference - it's cheaper.

Another expert, Joe Smith who teaches geography at the Open University, said:
"I'm not sure that people need to engage with climate change at all. It's more or less unreportable if you just describe it on the page. It's complex, interdisciplinary, the findings drip out over time, and the boundary between science and policy and politics is a very messy one. It's a real challenge for the media.

"The idea that we will mobilise any more people with fear messaging is wrong. I think we've knocked at the door of everyone that might respond to such a thing, but you've also got to ask whether it's an accurate way of telling the science. I think it is more respectful to the nature of the science to say that it's one of humanity's most ambitious questions.

"There was a tactical wrong turning in suggesting that by insisting that the debate is over, we can move onto the action. It somehow implied that the science was complete, and that, of course, left lots of space for those people who have arguments about the actions on climate change to stand in the way of us having a proper public conversation about those actions because they were able to pick apart minor details in the science.

"It's not just that climate science isn't finished, it's actually unfinishable.

"The rest of science - particle physics, cosmology - is allowed to be rather saucy. I would love to get to the point where we allow climate change science to simply be interesting, enchanting even, as fascinating as any area of science because it's a hugely ambitious and compelling mission.

"If you want to talk to a business person, you talk about energy security for their business or energy security for their nation. If you want to talk to a parent at the school gate, you talk to them about the health of their child, their experience of the trip to school - wouldn't they be happier walking and cycling?

"Talking about climate change doesn't have to involve 'talking about climate change' to lead us to some really substantial actions.

"We don't need to wear a climate change t-shirt."

One of the big problems has been the confusion in ;people's minds because they equate climate change with global warming. Closely related but actually two different fields.
Have a look at THIS for the imposition of mandatory water use restrictions in California. Funny thing is that one of the big users, fracking, is excluded.....

This is interesting:

Interactive World wind map in current time.

http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wi ... ,30.50,458

Click on where it says earth and it gives information.

Zoom in, drag it around etc.

You can see why weather patterns are described as 'chaotic'.

See THIS for the latest serious statement about the need for action world-wide.
I can't find any mention on the web yet but Professor James Lovelock, he of the Gaia Theory, has said he is dismayed at the lack of mention of climate change in the election debate and manifestos. That is apart from the Greens for whom Lovelock is God of course! He is particularly warning about sea level rises, he says it could make last year's floods in the Somerset Levels look like a 'pinprick'. Amazing that reports like these and evidence from figures like Lovelock is almost totally ignored. Or am I a freak?

The worrying thing about sea level is that it could undergo `catastrophic' change...an accelerating ice thaw at the poles, running out of control and pushing sea level up in a very short time and by a dangerous amount. It's difficult to get Joe Public to understand how significant even a one inch rise in sea level is. After the last Ice Age, when the ice was melting, sea level was rising at about an inch a year and humans, who lived mostly on the coast or estuaries, had to keep moving their homes further inland. But homes then were easy and quick to build...just imagine now if we had to start moving away from the coast, estuaries and tidal reaches of rivers and abandon our cities, towns and ports...

True. I can't remember the actual figures but it's amazing what a large proportion of the world's population live in areas under threat from sea level rise. (and earthquakes as well due to the higher fertility of land in those areas) A concomitant of that is of course that places like Barlick well above sea level would also suffer because of the disruption to services and migration of populations. No room for complacency!

Even the Daily Mail has worried about sea level rise and they kindly published the National Geographic's maps showing the areas most at risk LINK. Of course, they covered themselves by making sure that the sentence "Scientists believe it would take more than 5,000 years for all the Earth’s ice to melt" was in a prominent position just below the headline. In fact it doesn't need anything like `all' the Earth's ice to melt in order for human life to be dramatically affected and the maps only tell a fraction of the story. About a quarter of the world's population are threatened by sea level rise and most of our cities, ports, factories, power stations and the like are in the same situation; often airports too (especially if Boris gets his way!). A much smaller rise in sea level would still have a devastating effect.

I agree and your point is well supported by the incontrovertible fact that the frequency of deployment of the Thames Barrier is increasing. I don't see how anyone can argue against the contention that something is changing..... Can you remember when, for the first time, the large transformer station near Gloucester that is the main source of power for GCHQ was almost inundated by higher than expected floods? I wonder what alleviation measures have been taken there? One would imagine it was high priority!

`CO2 levels reach monthly record', 7 May 2015, BBC
Global carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations have reached a new monthly record of 400 parts per million, according to scientists. The milestone was announced by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). They said it was the first month that the entire globe broke 400ppm, reaching levels that haven't been seen for about two million years. Noaa's Pieter Tans said that reaching the mark was "a significant milestone".

Scientists announced that CO2 had passed the 400 ppm level for the first time in the Arctic in 2012, and then at Mauna Loa in Hawaii in 2013. "It was only a matter of time that we would average 400 parts per million globally," said Mr Tans, lead scientist at Noaa's Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. He added that CO2 has risen more than 120 parts per million since pre-industrial times. "Half of that rise has occurred since 1980," he said. Noaa collects its data on global carbon dioxide concentration on air samples taken from 40 sites around the world, including some remote islands. LINK

It's seems inexorable Tiz. I wonder how we'll adapt?

At least Amber Rudd, the former minister at the Department for Energy and Climate Change, has now been been promoted to Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. She might not be a scientist but she's not over-sceptical on climate denier like some others. And you'll be pleased to know she's an Edinburgh history graduate. She worked in venture capital raising money for small businesses, then a financial journalist and later started her own business.

The BBC report says: "Green groups and low-carbon firms have welcomed the appointment of Amber Rudd as the new head of the energy and climate department, Decc. Many will be sighing with relief that David Cameron did not choose one of the more climate-sceptic candidates at his disposal. Ms Rudd is convinced of the threat of manmade climate change. She acknowledges uncertainties in the science, but says the risks are so huge that precaution is essential. When confronted by sceptical colleagues on the right of the Conservative Party she quotes Mrs Thatcher, who described climate change as an experiment with the planet itself." LINK

One of the occasions when Thatcher was right. I recognise the gaps in our knowledge but have always believed we should act on a worst case scenario, the Precautionary Principle. As time goes on I become more convinced that the 'doom mongers' are actually nearer reality than the deniers.

`One of the occasions when Thatcher was right' ...and an example of how it's a benefit to have a scientist in government.

Climate change and what we are doing to aggravate the situation should now be clear to everyone. But it shouldn't be used as an 'enemy' for social engineering. Making the bottom rung consumer pay for the excesses in other industries, ie: shops with doors wide open, excessive lighting in empty offices and general poor energy management must be addressed at government level.