91热爆

so the future is being determined by a gaggle of European politicians?....OMG we really are in the crap...

DESPERATELY SHRIEKING (AT) SUSAN

Aaaaarrrrgggggghhhh! Sooooooooooosaaaaaaaaaaaaan!

Polar warming (of Earth) is reported as twice average. Does that not gain your attention a little? Is it not a puzzling datum?

There is 50 years of EXQUISITE scholarship pointing to electrical flows in space; and OTHER PLANETS (in our system) are showing POLAR HEATING.

Are you really INTERESTED in science? Or just 'doing it for Newsnight'?

I would go and lie down, but something dramatic seems to be brewing and I don't want to miss it. (And I DON'T mean a bunch of poor minds having a jolly to talk bad science.)

#2. barriesingleton wrote:

"Are you really INTERESTED in science?"

1. Being interested in something is not the same as caring about the planet.

2. The science behind the cause of the warming of our planet is not completely understood, however observations indicate that the planet is warming and that there will be consequences that we can have an approximate stab at.

3. The causal link between CO2 emission and global warming is not well scientifically founded. However the climate is warming and lowering CO2 emissions may help moderate the rise, but as we are not yet sure of the cause of the worming there may be better ways.

4. The best form of action is not to try to achieve the impossible, that may not work (lowering CO2 emissions) but to plan to deal with the consequence of climate change in a flexible manner, such that we do not wait until a million or more people die before we try to help ameliorate the consequences - prepare for large scale climate related migration, before people are drowned or starve through crop failure. (Perhaps we should build more floating cities for the fishermen of Bangladesh etc.?) Although, given the global increase in xenophobia this may be just as difficult as agreeing to do anything about CO2 (to say nothing about methane etc etc etc etc.)

Last week we heard that the sun is about to enter a 10 year cooling period whilst the long-term up trend remains in place. It was a lead item from John Huphreys on Radio 4. Mr. Humphreys failed to point out that this new prediction makes the Hadley centre prediction that the planet will warm 2 centigrade by 2050 almost certaintly inaccurate. For both predictions to be true, the planet would have to warm more than 2 centigrade in the period 2019-2050.
Within months a government prediction has now been effectively contradicted. The Hadley prediction was launched and publicised to coincide with millions of pounds of government expense on local authority weather and insurance advice. A national climate change weather service was launched 10 years too early. Local authorities are employing their climate change advisers and staff 10 years too early. The new prediction about short-term cooling also means that Edward Miliband was pre-mature in talking about the devestating effects of climate climate change on the UK. And the bills for local authority combined heat and power projects are now starting too arrive on door mats across the country. Is anyone at the 91热爆 willing to look at the true political facts and details?
At the outset of any discussion, it is important to stress that Edward Miliband knew very little about climate change befor taking on the job of Climate Change secretary. His main interest has been in social inequality. He will not be in his present job more than a year or two. In effect, it is a 鈥淵es Minister鈥� situation, where he is fed his lines by the bureaucrats. Kyoto was signed in 1997 by Prescott acting on civil servants鈥� advice. In 1997 the Miliband boys were young lads and the politicians of the day, such as Robin Cook, had not the slightest interest in climate change. Blair never mentioned it. The crucial historical period in understanding the formation of this bureaucratic policy is 1985 to 1997 from the discovery of the Vostock ice records to Kyoto.
The 91热爆 needs to start criticising a state bureaucracy for being pre-mature and alarmist. Bureaucrats has a professional interest in exaggerating the extent of the climate change threat. No bureaucrat would want to take the blame for failing to avert a major disaster. They have a natural incentive to err on the side of excessive caution. Everyone remembers Michael Fish, the weather forcaster who failed to give adequate warning of the October 1987 storm. By exaggerating risk, bureaucrats create work for themselves and protect their reputations. Such bureaucrats do not pay in person for the costs of such policies and it is in their professional interest to whip up public support in order to obtain funding for preventative measures. In recent years there has been a long list of disasters that never happened, where bureacrats have protected the public against threats that never materialised. The Iraq War was planned on the supposition that chemical, biological and nuclear weapons progrmmes would be found in Iraq. Protective muasures to deal with the Milleneum computer Bug were undertaken. The government has planned extensively for an Asian bird Flu pandemic, only to find that a relatively mild pandemic of Mexican swine flu arrived first. There has been a BSE scare and a foot and mouth crisis. In both cases it is arguable that government responses were disproportionate. The obligation to take excessive administrative measures is frequently written into the statutory framework under health and safety law or EU regulations or treaties such as the Kyoto accord.
"Use-it-or-lose-it" now affects decision-making about environmental expenditure; and there are turf wars between government departments that have to protect budgets. Please would the 91热爆 consider applying the normal standards of political analysis to the politics of climate change.

鈥溾�he concentration of greenhouse gases should not go beyond 450ppm of carbon dioxide equivalent鈥︹�� ???
What is a CO2 equivalent?
CO2 ppm is currently 390/400 ppm. So 450 ppm is an increase of 50 ppm. A 12% increase in CO2 is a global temparature increase of less than 0.5 c. over today鈥檚 levels. Which scientists say that is dangerous?

FUNNY YOU SHOULD ASK THAT (#5)

One contender for CO2 equivalence is, of course, water, in its gaseous state. As a purely 'agricultural' observation, English clouds seem to be able to deliver a lot more water than was the norm. If this relates to higher average water content in the atmosphere, generally, this would boost global warming. As the water-saturation level is higher in warm air, there is positive feedback - a further factor.

While speculating: the electrical state of the solar system is changing, and earth's atmosphere is plugged in to that state. This may also have an effect on atmospheric heating. I have already posted to Susan Watts regarding polar heating of planets (PLURAL).

LIGHT BULBS AND CLIMATE CHANGE.
It is interesting to see that Mr. Rippon and Ms. Watts chose not to do an analytical scientific programme on the recent government ban on traditional light bulbs. Enough coverage of the global problem. Let鈥檚 look at the LOCAL problem concerning the politics of climate change.
1. The so-called wastage from these bulbs is the heat they produce instead of light. In England most people have their central heating on from mid-September to mid-May. During this period heat from light bulbs is not being wasted. It is useful background heat.
2. Many traditional light fittings (e.g. chandeliers) are not designed to use neon lights. It will not be long before the government has to introduce all kinds of exceptions to this regulation at museums, national trust properties, state banquets etc. etc. The Department of the Environment can expect a call from the Ministry of Art shortly.
3. The solution to the problem of climate change, if it exists, will be found in developing new forms of energy production, such as renewables. It makes little sense to constrain consumer choice of light bulbs.
4. An army of trading standards officers and environmental advisers is now enforcing the new regulation at local authority level. The administrative cost of enforcing the policy is very high. This kind of regulation is a 鈥渂ean-feast鈥� for red-tape merchants and bureaucrats.
5. The policy was invented in Brussels and imposed on the British people.
6. By contrast, the government has been incapable of taking strategic decisions about nuclear energy so far. What does it tell us that our government can come up with a petty and inane policy on light bulbs but cannot ensure enough energy to keep them on 10 years down the road?
7. Other areas were there are wasteful and bureaucratic 鈥渃limate鈥� policies include bicycle lanes, car-hire businesses set up by Local Authorities, tree planting schemes, loft-lagging schemes etc etc.
8. Is it not time for the 91热爆 to start calculating the real cost of climate change policies and to start focusing on the bureaucrats who make a living from administering all this nonsense.
9 Ed Miliband said that climate change in the UK will be devastating; he was referring to extreme weather events, droughts and flooding. Everyone agrees that the UK is, in fact, a part of the world were climatic change is relatively benign at all temperature levels under consideration. In other words, Mr. Miliband is dishonest
10. Why would anyone trust the British Government when it is capable of policy like banning light bulbs?

Climate Change and Public Information.
Government public information should be limited to what is proportionate, cost-effective and necessary. We can expect a lot of bureaucratic wastage and scare-mongering in connection with climate change budgets. I have seen a government poster telling employees not to overfill the kettle at work when they want to make a single cup of coffee. This came out of a climate change budget. Then there is the poster telling everyone how to sneeze properly and what to do with a paper tissue. This is a government response to swine flu at a time when, perhaps, only 20 have died. At a local bus stop there is a poster of an attractive 16 year old black girl, which exhorts the general public and young people in particular to carry a condom with them on Friday and Saturday nights. It has not had any effect on me and I doubt that anyone in the world pays attention to it. Expect lots of the same kind of nonsense in connection with climate change as the years go by.

Pre-Copenhagen Propaganda and Contradictions.
Just last week Susan Watts said 鈥溾�eaders of the world's largest economies have accepted scientific advice that the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought to stay below 2C - defining this as the threshold into dangerous climate change. This claim has now been contradicted by a government funded study looking at the non-fossil fuel effects of climate change.
The study, a met office report which has been sent to the Department for Energy and Climate Change, included new figures on increased emissions from fossil fuels and also considered the effect global warming will have on the ability of the oceans and rainforests to absorb carbon dioxide. There is now more information on the affect global warming will have on certain "carbon cycles"鈥� It is thought more carbon dioxide will be released into the atmosphere by organic materials in the soil decomposing at a faster rate, while warmer oceans are less able to absorb the greenhouse gas. An average global temperature rise of 7.2F (4C), considered a dangerous tipping point, could happen by 2060, causing droughts around the world, sea level rises and the collapse of important ecosystems, it warns...鈥� So, is the 鈥渢ipping point鈥� 2 centigrade or 4 centigrade? Scientists don鈥檛 know and can鈥檛 make up their minds.
If the world is lucky the 鈥渢ipping point鈥� is 4centigrade and non-fossil fuel effects won鈥檛 be as strong as envisaged in this report. No one knows for sure. In fact, there may not be a tipping point. It is also important to note that the report stresses that it is not burning fossil fuel that causes climate change directly but secondary effects.
So following from earlier posts, there are two errors or uncertainties in Susan Watts' article.
1. 450 atmospheric CO2 ppm is a tipping point.
2. A 2 centigrade increase is a tipping point

Carbon Cycles and Copenhagen.
This is what the Met. Office had to say about carbon cycles on 30 June 2009:
鈥溾��.There is still substantial uncertainty in the strength of feedbacks between climate
and the carbon cycle that determine CO2 uptake, so the UKCP09 projections sample a
range of land carbon cycles consistent with current understanding. For the SRES A1B
scenario the projected median value for mean atmospheric CO2 concentration for the
period 2050-2070 is 600 ppmV. The projected 10-90% range for this period is 520-650
ppmV with A1B forcing. More detailed analysis will be presented in future
publications from the Met Office Hadley Centre...鈥�

In other words, they didn鈥檛 know. But just 3 months later Dr. Betts and Dr. New have a clear idea about the strength of carbon cycles.
However, they have already made an earlier set of predictions that this incompatible with their new assertions. During the summer the Hadley centre claimed that there will be a 2c increase and 600 ppm by 2050-2060. These numbers imply strong non-CO2 effects such as such as northern hemisphere effects (local), improved air quality, water vapour effects, less SO2 etc. because a 50% ppm increase from 400 ppm to 600 ppm cannot alone account for a 2c. temp. increase.
Taking all factors together, the new claim amounts to an admission that the earlier Hadley centre prediction that UK temperature increases in 2050 would be 2 centigrade was, in fact, an under-estimate. Or, alternatively, for those who are more cynical about government information, the government scare-mongering machine is contradicting itself within the space of 3 months.

Let's not have unbiased postings by 91热爆 correspondents we pay for. Many of us think Danish or other greenery is based on crumbling science but do we get a look in? No.

It may interest some of you south of the border to hear a story about the UK Government and the Copenhagen Conference which was widely reported in Scotland recently, but I don't think was much outside.
The SNP Scottish Government brought in groundbreaking climate change legislation earlier this year which set the ambitious target of an 80% reduction in Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 with an interim target of 42% by 2020.Local authorities will be encouraged to give Council Tax discounts to help pay the costs of home energy efficiency.The bill includes other measures and has generated a good deal of interest worldwide.
The Scottish Government wished to have a Minister included in the UK delegation to Copenhagen to explain the measures to the delegates and a good deal of interest has been shown.
The Labour Government has refused point blank to allow a Scottish Govt. member on the UK delegation.Ed Milliband and Jim Murphy both saying there was no precedent for this.This has been shown to be completely untrue as the Scottish media produced the pictures of the then Scottish First Minister Jack McConnell attending the 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg as part of the UK delegation.
Therefore Scotland,with the most ambitious statutory emissions target in the world, will be stopped from telling it's story in Denmark because the Labour Government is so insecure and partisan it couldn't bear to see an SNP Minister take centre stage for an hour or so at an international conference.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.