BBC jakes GW demo?

[dennis]

Ah yes, the original fake that you have been trying to prove so far.

[dennis]

Good.

That indicates that you don't know anything useful that I need to know. You sure as hell don't know anything about what I said.

>

[dennis]

Are you sure you didn't mean more massive?

[Man at B&Q]

It's the magnitude of the some that I question. How much of any warming is due to man and how much to natural climate change?

MBQ

[Bob]

The point is: how do you think you can put energy into a system without increasing its temperature? What do you think temperature actually is? That's why Roger quoted Wikipedia - so that you can do a bit of background reading. I don't blame him for not wanting to have to explain A level physics in detail to you. You need to take some responsibility for educating yourself.

[Roger Chapman]

That is the $64,000 question.

Both sides seem to have nailed their colours to the mast. On one side we have the Met Office predictions of a renewed spurt in GW while on the other the prediction is for a period of GC. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If the Met Office's predictions prove on the mark and there is no evidence of increased radiation from the Sun then their case may well have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. If on the other hand there is a significant shortfall without something like a major volcanic eruption to cool things down then the sceptics' case that the influence of CO2 has been exaggerated will be greatly strengthened. The deniers will meanwhile go on without a care in the world as their case is based on faith, not reason.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well since we haven't had since st helens, a major volcanic eruption, and since the solar output has remained reasonably constant over the last century, one deduces in the absence of other causes, that most of it is in fact man made.

Of course climate is sufficiently complex to produce chaotic behaviour: and the formal analysis of chaotic systems who that they tend to exhibit, quasi-periodic zones, interspersed with zones of deep instability.

That is, you are likely to see what look like cycles of temperature of various harmonic relationships, and then a sudden flip to a completely new mean.

This is particularly worrying, since the earth's albedo will decrease dramatically if substantial ice melt happens, and the actual stabilising effect of ice, which needs a lot or warmth to turn it into water, will vanish. So, if polar ice area decreases dramatically, global warming will accelerate, and result in more and more ice melting..not good.

The initial effect will of course be an increase in flow into the deep sea polar cold currents. This may or may not actually cool some places. But don't be fooled.

If the polar ice goes completely, then a huge stabilising effect goes with it.

Its probably true to say that the most noticeable areas where climate change is seen, are the polar regions, right now: elsewhere its not reflected in particularly higher temperatures, but more an alteration in rainfall patterns.

One of the most disturbing things about chaotic systems, is their propensity to stabilise around attractors for a time, and then flip suddenly to a new attractor.

It is more than likely that the mass extinctions of the past were trigger by quite small events, these being just enough to flip to a new quasi stable climate model.

Viz we have had snowball earths, and desert earths as well as steamy tropical ones and today's relatively 'in the middle and suitable for mammals' one.

The second disturbing thing about chaotic systems, is that whilst we have a handle on roughly how they behave, the sensitivity to initial conditions, and the precision required for computing them means that accurate predictions are almost impossible.

Hence the widely differing values on what the final temperature rise will be.

To summarise: the science says

- that we have already put more CO2 into the atmosphere than has been there ion the last few million years.

- it is inconceivable that this will make no difference to the climate.

- if it simply results in an overall temperature rise concomitant with the retained extra energy, we are in fairly major trouble, but broadly speaking mankind and civilisation will survive in some places.

- If it however results in a flip to a new attractor, then all bets are off. It becomes less a question of who is going to die, and more a question of who is going to survive, and where. We could flip to subtropical here, or desert, instead of 'more like the South of France' . And bang in a 50 meter sea level rise, and things start to look a bit dodgy.

There are some figures online somewhere for CO2 released by major volcanic activity, and also what we have burnt to date. I haven't time to look them up, but I think you will find that its not hugely different.

It seems that major CO2 and dust releases from major volcanic action are one of the more likely drivers for prehistoric climate flips. If its all dust, its 'nuclear winter' time and the resultant ice build up and low cloud cover then stabilise into a high albedo earth, that stays cold for millions of years. If on the other hand the dust settles on top of existing snow, and there is a lot of CO2 released, then the albedo drops, and the planet warms, and stays that way.

Asteroid impacts are mainly dust generation, unless they trigger volcanic releases elsewhere.So by and large they tend to flip the climate towards cold.

What is most concerning is that these climatic periods last aeons, and only change under the impact of fairly dramatic and literally earth shattering events. And cannot be explained by simple solar radiation variation.

That is that we may actually see an IRREVERSIBLE transition to a new climate state. Pulling the CO2 out wont get us back to here. It would require something on a global scale - covering the earth with mirrors or a dustcloud for a few years..to push it all backwards

I think this is what underlies the broad consensus amongst scientists that we are taking already a major risk: even if we stay within the same climate attractor, it will nit be easy. I suspect that politically what is happening is that most governments cannot actually see a way to do anything about it without the naysayers jumping up and down and claiming its not necessary: So the current politics is to appease the panicky with eco-bollox, and to appease the nay sayers with no real action that costs real money. And hope we stay on the same attractor. When the cost of dealing with the changes will be less than the costs of trying to stop it.

If we do move to a new attractor, all bets are off. We know its happened in the past, and it could happen at any time if we get hit by an asteroid, or a major volcanic eruption happens. Or possibly if we burn up all the fossil fuel we can get our hands on.

I cannot understand the attitude that says 'I could get killed by a falling tree, or in a car crash, which are things I cant do anything about, therefore I wont bother to fix my brakes' which seems to be the attitude here.

It may be that politically it is NOT possible to prevent the crash here, just as it wasn't politically possible to stop the market crash. Even though plenty of people saw it coming and tried to say so.

Ultimately though, there is one fact that is to me inescapable, and climate change just makes it different: Man as a species is overpopulating his habitat. All studies of populations and habitats show there is no steady state of population in a species. It fluctuates, often WILDLY as the complex interactions between food supply, predator to prey ratios, birthrates and death rates as a function of available food, all dance together to give massive quasi periodic effects.

MOST of the world DEPENDS on fossil fuel for its survival. You have to go a long way down the scale to find cultures that do not use it or manufactured items to a level they would not be lost without them. The more civilised we are, the more we are hooked, and the more political power those so hooked have. Its a fine line between a government killing its population by denying them access to fossil fuels and letting them die because the fuel ran out, or made such gross changes to teh habitat that they couldn't survive.

And pragmatically, a government that does what the people want, gives them the products of a mechanised society, and then throws up its hands and say 'its not our fault the world has changed' (especially if they have been warning you about it, though not actually DOING anything about it, for decades) is more likely to survive than one who says 'this country needs to reduce its carbon emissions by 90%, and you don't want nuclear power, so it's off to the gas chambers for 90% of you I am afraid,and a child tax of £10k p.a. on the rest so the 10% left will have the standard of living they want'

[Stuart Noble]

And we won't ever know the answer. In 50 years time people will still be arguing whether future changes came about because of human intervention, or whether they would have happened anyway. Governments like GW because they have a ready made excuse to impose whatever draconian measures they think fit. The war on global warming will be just like the war on drugs, or the war on terrorism, with the added advantage that no one will know whether the threat is increasing or decreasing. It's all about control and getting the population to do as they're told. How else do you get people to buy Susan Boyle cds?

[The Natural Philosopher]

It actually doesn't matter if the major causes of global warming aren't man made if the man made contribution is enough to make a significant difference.

As I said in the last post, just because a tree may fall on the road in front of your car is no reason not to fix the brakes. Indeed, its actually the reverse.

The ONLY way in which the deniers case makes sense is if man made CO2, now 50% of all atmospheric CO2, has negligible impact on anything.

Who wants to claim that?

[dennis]

I recommend you do just that. I also suggest you don't tell me to do A level physics as if that is what they are teaching these days its would be a waste of time. Temperature is not a measure of the energy in a system.. it is the measure of one type of energy in a system. I can easily put energy into a system without changing its temperature.. I could put an AA battery on a shelf, or a stick of dynamite in there, neither has increased its temperature but the energy has gone up. The same with water vapour, it has energy due to its state which can be converted to heat energy but isn't. In fact I can lower the temperature of a system by making water vapour out of water already in that system.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

That should be a third, not a half.

A denier by the name of Piers Corbyn among others. The list is quite long and probably includes such well known names as Lawson (both Nigel and Dominic)and Monckton as well as Dennis and The Medway Moron.

The deniers case has never made sense but the skeptics might just have a point. Somewhere within the link below is a claim that if atmospheric CO2 doubled from 300 ppm to 600ppm the rise in average temperatures would be just 0.4C. I can't see anything obviously wrong but you may have better luck than me.

At that level shouldn't we be concentrating on just about anything else aimed at reducing global warming and forget about reducing CO2 output?

[The Medway Handyman]

You could of course rephrase that as;

"Those who have a different opinion to mine....

But you deliberately choose the pergoartive term 'deniers'.

You then carry on to attack those with a different opinion by claiming their case is based on faith, not reason.

The jury is well & truly still out on climate change being man made.

You are totally unable to explain the eyrar of black swans that abound.

[The Medway Handyman]

Instead of insulting me in your pathetic manner, why don't you try answering some questions?

(Without posting a link to a Wikipedia page).

[Roger Chapman]

I chose to differentiate between the deniers like yourself and the sceptics who argue from a scientific point of view.

The Medway Moron has clearly demonstrated that his beliefs are based on faith, not reason, as he lacks the ability to understand even the simplest science.

There you go again. Faith rather than reason. What is at issue is the degree that global warming is man made.

If I knew what you were rabbiting on about I could at least make an informed decision whether or not to respond. I currently see no reason to bother with swans black or white or "eyrars" either for that matter.

change.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about science.

Answer: No.

Question: Does The Medway Moron understand anything about statistics.

Answer: No.

Two questions posed and answered without the need to check Wikipedia or any other reference source other than this very thread.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Well that is like it or not the biggest driver which we have potential control over. Unless you want to reintroduce smog and industrial pollution.

[Roger Chapman]

snip

But if the 0.4C rise for doubling CO2 is correct there is something else driving the current warming phase and tinkering with CO2 levels will have a negligible effect. Average temperatures have risen by about 0.4C over the last 25 years.

It would of course help the sceptics argument if that (possibly imaginary) 'something else' could be positively identified.

Smog and industrial pollution we can leave to the Chinese but seeding the upper atmosphere to mimic a volcanic eruption is one of the more viable alternative suggestions around although I think the apparent preferred choice of sulphur dioxide is more than a little unfortunate.

[The Medway Handyman]

Two pathetic attempts at insulting me, which shows what a complete and utter tosser you are.

If you have to resort to this you clearly have no argument left.

[The Natural Philosopher]

It isn't.

It doesn't work like that. There is a MASSIVE lag due to things like oceans and icecaps taking a LONG time to warm up.

[Dave]

It is certainly misleading. I'll kick off with my specialist subject, a Tornado ADV.

We had an influx of ex RAF men who thought that they knew everything about them. It took them about 2 days to find out they didn't. We had spent (or I had) 21 years on the development of that aircraft.

The wiki entry is in ' ' quotes.

'The Panavia Tornado Air Defence Variant (ADV) is an interceptor version of the Panavia Tornado in service with the British Royal Air Force. The aircraft's first flight was on 27 October 1979'

This is untrue as it wasn't a true ADV It was a mish mash of an extended Tornado IDS version. It had Tornado wings and a Tornado fin and as such, had the outboard wing hard points that the RAF put back on in later years.

'The Tornado ADV's differences compared to the IDS include a greater sweep angle on the inboard fixed wing sections'

Untrue again, the first 3 had IDS wings and fins. There were tiny differences between the two styles of wings, but nothing drastic. Later production ones were similar.

'The Tornado F2 (sometimes written as F.2) was the initial version of the Tornado ADV in Royal Air Force service, with 18 being built. It first flew on March 5, 1984 and was powered by the same RB.199 Mk 103 engines used by the IDS Tornado, capable of four wing sweep settings'

It was capable of any wing sweep between 25 and 67 degrees. Only later was it given auto wing sweep depending on its flight speed, as was described later in the wiki.

'and fitted to carry only two under wing Sidewinder missiles.'

To carry 4, it was just a wiring change through the wings from the weapons computer and the addition of a stub to carry the additional Sidewinder. The stub is what you might consider a small pylon connected to the main wing pylon that the missile was mounted to. It was common to both variants of Tornado

'Serious problems were discovered with the Foxhunter radar, which meant that the aircraft were delivered with concrete and lead ballast installed in the nose as an interim measure until they could be fitted with the radar sets.'

The reason ballast is fitted is to ensure that the centre of lift is at the same place as the centre of balance of the aircraft. If it is not at the same place, the pilot could not control the flight path. It was made out of steel, and no concrete, or lead was used.

'The ballast was nicknamed Blue Circle, which was a play on the Rainbow Codes nomenclature, and a British brand of cement called Blue Circle.'

Mmmm. Close. But definitely no cigar.

'The Tornado F3 made its combat debut in the 1991 Gulf War'

It entered combat service, just after the Falklands war, after we at British Aerospace had done a modification to give them chaff and flair capability, to fend off un-friendly missiles. In the event, they didn't need them, as the Argies stayed home.

'with 18 aircraft deployed to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. However, they did not get the opportunity to engage any enemy aircraft. The F3 lacked modern IFF and a full suite of defensive aids,'

It had the same, or better IFF (interogator, friend or foe, used to check if another aircraft, in the area was, well, would you believe, a friend, or an enemy) that the ids version had that was doing the bombing. It didn't have full RHWR (radar homing and warning receiver) to the same extent that a GR1 had and didn't have the structure built in to mount it

'thus they flew patrols further back from Iraqi airspace where encounters with enemy aircraft were less likely.'

This was because the Saudi's had foreseen the need for the defence for this and had it built into the aircraft they ordered. Chaff and flair dispensers were built into all their ADV's to prevent a chance of an enemy missile from shooting them down.

'The CSP would see the removal of a non-standard state of aircraft; various upgrades (notably to the Foxhunter radar) had led to the situation described as "fleets within fleets." However the Foxhunter radar, having overcome many of the early difficulties, was to cause significant problems during the upgrade programme.'

These problems came about because of the various computers needing to talk to each other. It was solved many years earlier by a data bus.

On the subject of this radar, I was asked to ground crew an F3 (this was not my job, but I was cleared to do it.) When the aircraft landed, the navigator came down the steps and told me that the US stealth bomber was on its way to the UK and that he had seen it on his radar. It was coming over for an aircraft display somewhere down South and was in the mid Atlantic. Mmmm Should I be writing this? But there again it was some time ago. That amazed me.

Dave