Ed Miliband: 'Britain is sleepwalking to a climate crisis'

[BlasterBates]

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.u...ail/story.html

Prof Collins said: "There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter. If this is due to climate change, it is outside our knowledge."

Prof Collins is an internationally acknowledged expert on climate computer models and forecasts, and his university post is jointly funded by the Met Office.

[BlasterBates]

If the CO2 increases were purely due to human emissions then the CO2 increases would increase proportionally to emissions.

In fact if you look at emissions increases they don't continuously increase as you would expect, and certainly not in proportion to emissions.

As the Sea Surface Temperatures go up and down the CO2 increases go up and down with them.

Scientists do not dispute this and a significant proportion of CO2 emitted is simply due to the fact that the ocean is warmer. The argument is of course is that man made CO2 triggers natural emissions. If this hypothesis is wrong and the oceans cool off then the CO2 increases will "decrease". One could even envisage that if a significant cooling does take place that CO2 will begin to disappear from the atmosphere.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/05/...-simple-model/

[pjclarke]

Climate change is likely to be a factor in the extreme weather that has hit much of the UK in recent months, the Met Office's chief scientist has said.

Dame Julia Slingo said the variable UK climate meant there was "no definitive answer" to what caused the storms.

"But all the evidence suggests there is a link to climate change," she added.

"There is no evidence to counter the basic premise that a warmer world will lead to more intense daily and hourly rain events.".

And Matt Collin's actual response?

I said that the models don't tell us much about how the jet stream is affected by climate change. I don't disagree with Julia

https://twitter.com/mat_collins/stat...61295025381376


Always best to get a direct quote, rather than a Daily Mail paraphrase.

[pjclarke]

In fact if you look at emissions increases they don't continuously increase as you would expect, and certainly not in proportion to emissions.

Care to rephrase that?

As the Sea Surface Temperatures go up and down the CO2 increases go up and down with them.

Scientists do not dispute this and a significant proportion of CO2 emitted is simply due to the fact that the ocean is warmer.

This is pure weapons-grade balonium. The oceans are a net CO2 absorber, if they weren't then concentrations would nearer 500ppm, rather than 400ppm.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

[SpontaneousOrder]

Care to rephrase that?



This is pure weapons-grade balonium. The oceans are a net CO2 absorber, if they weren't then concentrations would nearer 500ppm, rather than 400ppm.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

Exactly. Warmer seas -> more CO2 in atmosphere. Cooler seas -> less CO2 in atmosphere.

[BlasterBates]

Care to rephrase that?



This is pure weapons-grade balonium. The oceans are a net CO2 absorber, if they weren't then concentrations would nearer 500ppm, rather than 400ppm.

Oceans Found to Absorb Half of All Man-Made Carbon Dioxide

Exactly so you agree the oceans play a significant role in absorbing and emitting CO2.

That's good. , because many people aren't aware of it.

...and you also agree that if the oceans were to significantly cool (which obviously don't think will happen) that amount of CO2 absorbed out of the atmosphere would increase significantly.

[pjclarke]

Dr Spencer needs a lesson in omitted variable bias.

Roy's Risky Regression

We know from the mass balance analysis that the annual rise is about twice the annual increase in atmospheric CO2, so in reality approximately 200% of the rise is anthropogenic. However, the natural environment is known to be a net sink, again via the mass balance analysis, and has been taking up about half of anthropogenic emissions each year. Thus the natural contribution to the observed increase is about -100%. Changes in SSTs do affect the annual growth rate of atmospheric CO2, but its effect is cyclical, so overall it does not lead to a significant long term trend in atmospheric CO2 (as discussed in the previous post), but just modulates atmospheric CO2 up and down slightly.

[EternalOptimist]

if a warmer world leads to more rain, why doesnt it rain more in summer than in winter ?
why doesnt it rain more in the sahara than in Somerset ?

a. because its not as simple as that and only an eco-loonie would make such ridiculous claims

[BlasterBates]

Dr Spencer needs a lesson in omitted variable bias.

Roy's Risky Regression

Roy Spencer is a climate scientist as opposed to being a professional cartoonist, so I'm not sure how credible this critique is.

(The blog that pj links to is run by a professional cartoonist who comments on climate science).

[pjclarke]

The ad hominem fallacy.

But if you want to play the credentials game, that particular debunking of the oft-debunked Dr Spencer was authored by Dr Gavin Cawley, a senior lecturer in Computing Sciences at UEA. And its spot on.

John Cook is just one of the Skeptical Science team, a trained solar physicist and hasn't been a professional cartoonist for many years. He's now Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland, and winner of the 2011 Eureka prize ....

John Cook at Skeptical Science Wins Eureka Prize - Dan's Wild Wild Science Journal - AGU Blogosphere

Can't even get the ad-homs right ....