Climate Change by Numbers

BBC 4 Monday

"At the heart of the climate change debate is a paradox - we've never had more information about our changing climate, yet surveys show that the public are, if anything, getting less sure they understand what'sgoing on.

This programme aims to remedy that, with a new perspective on the whole subject. Presented by three mathematicians - Dr Hannah Fry, Prof Norman Fenton and Prof David Spiegelhalter - it hones in on just three key numbers that clarify all the important questions around climate change. The stories behind these numbers involve an extraordinary cast of characters, almost all of whom had nothing to do with climate change, but whose work is critical to our understanding of the climate.

The three numbers are:
0.85 degrees (the amount of warming the planet has undergone since 1880)
95 per cent (the degree of certainty climate scientists have that at least half the recent warming is man-made)
1 trillion tonnes (the total amount of carbon we can afford to burn - ever - in order to stay below 'dangerous levels' of climate change)

Understanding how scientists came up with these three numbers gives a unique perspective on what we know about the past, present and future of our changing climate."



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jsdrk

Its on the telly tonight.

Perhaps one or two prefer this account....

• 0.85˚C – The amount of warming the planet has undergone since 1880.
• 95% – The degree of certainty climate scientists have that at least half the recent warming is man-made.
• 1 trillion tonnes – The total amount of carbon we can afford to burn – ever – in order to stay below “dangerous levels” of climate change.

Did you watch this Oss?

I was surprised at the 0.85 degree figure and the error potential.

On BBC iPlayer :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p02jsdrk/climate-change-by-numbers

I fell asleep halfway through and caught up when I woke up, on iPlayer.

And tonight on BBC4 9 pm

"Today, the topic of climate change is a major part of daily life, yet 40 years ago it was virtually unheard of. Since then, Horizon and the BBC have followed scientists as they have tried to unpick how the climate works and whether it is changing. Dr Helen Czerski delves into this unique archive to chart the transformation of a little-known theory into one of the greatest scientific undertakings in history. It has been a constantly surprising journey of discovery that has revolutionised our understanding of climate, and seen scientists face unprecedented controversy and criticism."


http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054fg05

http://www.dcclothes...dermuch-colder/





The Maunder Minimum (also known as the prolonged sunspot minimum) is the name used for the period roughly spanning 1645 to 1715 when sunspots became exceedingly rare, as noted by solar observers of the time.

Like the Dalton Minimum and Spörer Minimum, the Maunder Minimum coincided with a period of lower-than-average global temperatures.



During one 30-year period within the Maunder Minimum, astronomers observed only about 50 sunspots, as opposed to a more typical 40,000-50,000 spots. (Source)



Climatologist John Casey, a former space shuttle engineer and NASA consultant, thinks that last year’s winter, described by USA Today as “one of the snowiest, coldest, most miserable on record” is going to be a regular occurrence over the coming decades.



Casey asserts that there is mounting evidence that the Earth is getting cooler due to adecline in solar activity. He warns in his latest book, Dark Winter that a major alteration of global climate has already started and that at a minimum it is likely to last 30 years.



Casey predicts food shortages and civil unrest caused by those shortages due largely togovernments not preparing for the issues that colder weather will bring. he also predicts that wickedly bitter winter temperatures will see demand for electricity and heating outstrip the supply.



Casey isn’t alone in his thinking. Russian climate expert and astrophysicist Habibullo Abdussamatov goes one step further and states that we are at the very beginning of a new ice age.



Dr. Abdussamatov points out that Earth has experienced such occurrences five times over the last 1,000 years, and that:



“A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse gas emissions. The common view of Man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect.” (source)



Don Easterbrook, a climate scientist based at Western Washington University predicted exactly what Casey is saying as far back as 2008. in his paper ‘Evidence for Predicting Global Cooling for the Next Three Decades’ he states:



Despite no global warming in 10 years and recording setting cold in 2007-2008, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climatic Change (IPCC) and computer modelers who believe that CO2 is the cause of global warming still predict the Earth is in store for catastrophic warming in this century. IPCC computer models have predicted global warming of 1° F per decade, and 5-6° C (10-11° F) by 2100 which would cause global catastrophe with ramifications for human life, natural habitat, energy, water resources, and food production. All of this is predicated on the assumption that global warming is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2 and that CO2 will continue to rise rapidly.



The list of climate scientists that are moving into the global cooling camp is growing, many of them base their views on past climate records and history suggests a link between diminished solar activity and bitterly cold winters, as well as cooler summers, in the northern hemisphere.



“My opinion is that we are heading into a Maunder Minimum,” said Mark Giampapa, a solar physicist at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson, Arizona. “I’m seeing a continuation in the decline of the sunspots’ mean magnetic field strengths and a weakening of the polar magnetic fields and subsurface flows.”



David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Solar Physics Center explains:

“We’re at the sunspot maximum of Cycle 24. It’s the smallest sunspot cycle in 100 years and the third in a trend of diminishing sunspot cycles. So, Cycle 25 could likely be smaller than Cycle 24.”



A NASA Science News report of January 2013 details the science behind the sunspot-climate connection and it well worth reading. It should be remembered that since the report was written Solar cycle 24 has been proven to be not the smallest cycle in 50 years, but the smallest for more than 100 years. The last one with sunspot numbers this low was 1906, solar cycle 14.

“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”



Livingston and Penn are solar astronomers With the NSO (National Solar Observatory) in Tuscon, Arizona. They use a measurement known as Zeeman splitting to gather data on sunspots. They discovered in 1990, that the number of sunspots is dropping and that once the magnetic field drops below 1500 Gauss , that no sunspots will form. (A Gauss is a magnetic field measurement. The Gauss of the Earth is less than one). If the decline continues at its present rate they estimate that the Sun will be spot free by 2016.



If these scientists are correct, we are heading into a period of bitterly cold winters and much cooler summers. Imagine year after year of ‘polar vortex’ winters that start early, finish late and deliver unprecedented cold across the country. Cool wet summers will affect food production, as will floods from the melting snow when spring finally arrives.



The American Meteorological Society Journal gives the following information regarding cold related deaths in comparison to heat related deaths in the United States from 1979-1999. The article is entitled Heat Mortality Versus Cold Mortality.



During the study period from 1979 to 1999 a total of 3,829 people died from excessive heat across the United states. An average of 182 deaths per year. For the same time period 15,707 people died of cold, an average of 748 deaths a year.



Based on these figures cold kills four times more people than heat. If these scientists are right you can expect that figure to rise dramatically as energy demand outstrips supply. Power supplies are also impacted by ice storms and heavy snow which will lead to more outages and the disruption that brings. Generally the infrastructure will fail to cope with month after month of excessive cold. Transportation is severely impacted by weather events and that has the knock on effect of hitting the economy as people struggle to get to work. For the unprepared regular food deliveries not making it to stores will leave many hungry and increasingly desperate.



The consequences of global cooling are huge and those who fail to consider it as a possibility are risking their lives and the lives of their families.​

Sadly, The climate change theory is widely abused by politicians and businesses that feel they can gain social leverage or make money from it.

There have been many ice ages in the past and no doubt more to come. Question is when. Its a bit like trying to predict the next earthquake in Manila or the next serious volcanic epsisode in the Philippines. We know they are inevitable but its a case of when and not if.

Perhaps if we get the timing right we can avert the next ice age by burning up heaps of hydrocarbons.

Oss, My point still stands.

I don't disagree with science, I disagree with the political / social manipulation of the environmental issue.

I would prefer a nuclear solution myself.
.

The earth recycles itself, we will not run out of carbon.

There are burning bans throughout the Philippines.
People in Manila used to burn their worthless rubbish but now throw it in the creeks and rivers to avoid proper disposal costs and burning fines..
The bottle necks are the flood drains next to the public high ways which they clean out by hand once a month and then after being left on the streets for a few days, goes to land fills and places like smokey mountain where it composts and leaches not only poison into the soil but carbon into the air.
Is that composted carbon dioxide a different and less harmful type than carbon emitted by burning?
I guess it must be or why have a burning ban?? (shakes head)
Many agree (except Politicians) that a modern incinerator is the solution!!
They say that the massive rubbish volumes would provide an excellent source of power that could be utilized by the power grid.. Wrong type of recycling?
The good news is EVERYTHING of value is collected and recycled by junk shops.. This processed junk is sent to China where it is again processed into more junk and sent back to Filipino consumers.

I forgot to mention. Filipino`s also dump their rubbish in the sea to avoid burning fines and landfill costs. Between Oct and Feb the winds wash it all onto the beaches.. At least here in Bohol.
The locals always clean up the washed up coconut husks and drift wood for cooking fuel but they leave the plastic and old nappies for the tide to deal with.
Perhaps they feel that these days its far less harmful to the planet than burning it?

There is an advocacy in the Philippines to not dump anything (harmful) in the sea. But how effective that is, is questionable.

Likewise there is an advocacy in the Philippines towards using recyclable products instead of plastics etc.

There is not total agreement on the origin of our main hydrocarbon resources. There is a school of thought that says that some, at least, has not be created by the "fermentation" of deeply buried bugs and beasties and that they have simply found a way into the crust from beneath. There appears to be examples of hydrocarbon reservoirs that are self replenishing (as the hydrocarbons are being consumed) and in that sense could be categorised as a virtual renewable resource.

The flames of Mount Chimera have burned for thousands of years. The source of which is, apparently, both biological and non biological. The non biological stuff is the renewable stuff.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanartaş

How do you account for rising sea levels these days, Dave? And the acidification of the oceans?

We live in an interglacial phase right now. IE between glacial cycles. Inevitably the worlds temperatures will drop yet again, but will that be before we have banged global temperatures up a few more notches, enough to flood ourselves out of house and home?

You be the judge.