2038: here we come

No. I walk away. ;-)

Oh, you mean politicians’ hot air?

Well – technically, water vapour is.

Let’s talk, but forget that ‘technically’. ;-)

No, I don’t forget the “technically” because it’s technically correct, and important. Current levels of water vapour in the atmosphere mean that it’s the dominant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide (a fair way behind), then methane (much further behind still), then others (very much further behind).

Analysing the effect of water vapour is extremely difficult, since warmer air holds more of it (thus increasing its greenhouse effect, a positive feedback) but possibly also increasing cloud cover (a negative feedback). But even if the overall feedback is negative the nett effect of negative feedback never actually removes the effects of an input altogether (except possibly temporarily during transitions or oscillations), whereas the effect of rising levels of carbon dioxide (and methane) are well understood and without complications.

So there’s room for doubt about how much warming will be caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane, but no room for doubt at all that the effect will be warming. That’s on the theoretical side; on the observational side, we’re beginning to get some indication of the size of the warming – and it appears that changes in cloud cover may almost compensate for increases in water vapour, but by a very long way fail to compensate for loss of summer sea ice in the arctic. This means the nett effect is a positive feedback, sadly. At least that might stop when there’s no arctic sea ice left in summer at all…

http://clive.semmens.org.uk/Climate.html

(I wrote that, and the linked supporting pieces, ten years ago, when the IPCC were still hedging their bets a lot. They’re catching up…not in the science, on which they always knew more than I do, but in their public statements.)

but in their public statements

I just wish climate science had more science and less “ARGH! THE SKY IS FALLING!” which politicians usually translate into excuses to add environmental tax onto things (money which is then not used for any environmental benefit).

That said, the best science in the world won’t convince everybody – I mean there are still people who think the earth is flat despite that fact that a flat earth defies logic even more than a round one would…

But, yeah, more impartial statistics and data and less bull and spin, please.

http://clive.semmens.org.uk/Climate.html

I would be interested if you can start with backing up the very first paragraph with some facts. My take on the current scientific body of evidence is that all of what you wrote there is wrong, because we just don’t know (and probably cannot know). The economics of climate change are unknown. Warmer may be better. We don’t know.

Your article on nuclear power that is linked from there is mostly full of the typical anti-nuclear fear-mongering that burns my eyes. Your four main points are at least debatable and in my opinion completely and demonstratably wrong.

So there’s room for doubt about how much warming will be caused by rising levels of carbon dioxide and methane, but no room for doubt at all that the effect will be warming.

And physics tells us that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to a warming of around 0.8 degrees. Adding the probable positive feedback of more water vapor will up that to 1.2 degrees. Or in other words: nothing much will happen. To predict catastrophic warming based on greenhouse gas emissions, you need to invoke large positive feedbacks, and this only seems to happen in the climate models but not in reality. Earth’s historic CO2 levels also show that “runaway greenhouse” is extremely unlikely.

So I stay firmly in the “lukewarmer’s camp” of climate change sceptism.

and this only seems to happen in the climate models but not in reality

Yes, one should not overlook the approach that was taken about ten or so years ago that was basically most of our climate models agree therefore the observations must be wrong.

There’s good science, and there’s that.

I would be interested if you can start with backing up the very first paragraph with some facts.

Given that my website has dozens of pages and thousands of words of facts backing it up, I don’t think I’ve got anything to add.

Your article on nuclear power that is linked from there is mostly full of the typical anti-nuclear fear-mongering that burns my eyes.

Unlike ignorant writers on both sides of this debate, I’m able to back up my measured criticism of the nuclear industry with information and careful argument, all presented on my website. I’m not alone in this. I quite agree that many nuclear opponents overstate their case, but I’m careful not to, and know what I’m writing about. I also provide links to The World Nuclear Industry Status Report, which broadly agrees with me, and is produced by folks with more credibility than I can muster, and several other similar links.

Earth’s historic CO2 levels also show that “runaway greenhouse” is extremely unlikely.

Absolutely agreed, and I’ve never argued that it is likely. Nor do the IPCC. They do argue – and they know more about this than either you or I do – that it’s likely to warm considerably more than that 1.2 degrees. Observations are of MORE global warming than the IPCC was predicting in past reports, not less.

I mean there are still people who think the earth is flat despite that fact that a flat earth defies logic

Believing the earth is flat demonstrates that they have no knowledge of cats either – because if it were flat then cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now…

I’m not qualified to argue the science, but it seems to me that the issue of consequences is pertinent. If we take action on the basis of the climate-warming consensus and the effects turn out to be much more trivial than forecast, we shall have incurred an economic cost (possibly large) but that is all; if on the other hand we ignore the issue and the models turn out to be right after all, the result will be global catastrophe, or if not, very great economic and social dislocation costing much more than de-carbonising the world economy.

I’ve heard that consequences argument many times. It works the other way too. The UK is well into making energy extremely expensive, all in the name of saving the planet. What about those at/near the bottom, who struggle to pay for this middle-class/elite virtue-signalling? Some people will be priced out of their cars, or freeze to death in the winter. I don’t think that’s morally justifiable.

Why don’t the virtue-signallers simply set up a regular donation to their favourite eco-warrior charity? Why this obsession with forcing everyone else into paying? Or maybe we could look at the world population: what effect does that have? For ‘the good of the planet’, wouldn’t the eco-warriors like to reduce it?

Virtue-signalling, as you put it, is not the point. If the climate science consensus is wrong, and we do nothing, fine. But if it’s right, and we do nothing….

There are lots of things you could call the current UK government but I don’t think virtue-signallers is one of them. If the UK’s energy prices are artificially high there are quite a few explanations other than a sudden outbreak of environmentalism on the part of the last n governments; not least of which is the UK’s addiction to oil and (particularly) natural gas.

But if it’s right, and we do nothing….

We allocate carbon quotas to countries with low emissions in order that rich polluting countries can feel good about buying quota to continue polluting, we go all gung ho for banning plastics and pushing eco fuel despite the side effects of both being worse environmentally than the “bad” things, we persist in building on flood plains, and has any important river been dredged this century?

Plus, I’m sure there is exactly zero political desire to relocate entire major cities based upon a “what if” scenario.

I think your statement needs to be amended to:

But if it’s right, and we pretend to do something….

That’s a good post, Rick.

This, especially:

Plus, I’m sure there is exactly zero political desire to relocate entire major cities based upon a “what if” scenario.

Nor, in most cases, would it make much sense. It’s cheaper to build barriers and instal pumps. The Dutch can teach everyone a thing or two about that.

Sea levels are quite likely to rise too much for that solution eventually – but by that time the picture would be clear enough that abandoning major cities to their watery fate would be understood and accepted by most folk, and not many people would still be there by the time it actually happened.

There’s optimism for you. Now for some realism. Sea level rise is a slow process, and will still be a slow process even after it speeds up (as it is doing already). Like the climate change signal having weather noise on top of it, the sea level change signal has storm surge noise on top of it (tide signals too, but they’re nice and predictable). The flooding of major cities won’t happen to any exact schedule, it’ll happen in a storm surge, and people will die. Hell, that’s already happening – but it’ll get worse. But back to optimism: it won’t be millions at a time, because people will evacuate in a hurry ahead of the storm surges. Nasty, but not apocalyptic.

More problematic, and even less predictable, is what’s going to happen to food supplies, with ever more unpredictable weather making farmers’ planning increasingly difficult.

As for pretending to do something – how very, very pertinent that observation is.

UK average: woman 82.9 years, men it is 79.2 years. But can you cheat the system? ;-)

But if you’ve already reached a good age, the average is quite a bit higher. I recently used an online life expectancy calculator. Having already reached 63 it told me I’m likely to live till I’m 91

But if you’ve already reached a good age, the average is quite a bit higher.

Yes, obviously, since those who’ve died already were bringing the average for your cohort down, and you weren’t among them. I’ll be 69 in three weeks’ time – how old am I likely to live to?

Having already reached 63 it told me I’m likely to live till I’m 91.

That’s presumably an average expectation for men (I’m guessing you’re a man) of 63, not taking any particular information about you into account, such as family history, or your own health or circumstances.

it told me I’m likely to live till I’m 91

Wasn’t that stupid crap at Aviva was it? Ignore it, it is just there to upsell retirement policies.

It, too, said I would live to be 91. It never asked any of the following:

• Diabetes?
• Smoker?
• Passed out blind drink on Friday nights?
• Like a Full English Breakfast three times a day?
• Do you own anything other than a deep fat fryer?
• Is your exercise regime reaching for the remote control?
• Do you delude yourself by drinking diet coke?
• How many heart bypasses have you had?
• Do you get great sex?
• Do you get any sex?
• If you look down can you even see the sex apparatus (and no, we don’t mean that studded leather thing)?
• What’s your income?
• Where do you live (air quality, sanitation level, etc)?

There are so many potential variables that any age calculator gizmo that doesn’t ask most of those questions (maybe a tad less facetiously) isn’t worth paying attention to…

Just did one using a spamdrop address and fake name… It thinks I’ll make it to be 83.

25% Chance you’ll live to 89
Your life expectancy is a bit less than other people your age, (2.2 years less than average).

Why?

Well apparently:

Since you don’t drink, your life expectancy is actually about 2.3 years shorter than those who have approximately one drink a day.

Yeah. Marvellous. I smell outdated research: https://www.livescience.com/61824-drinking-alcohol-longer-life-explainer.html

thinks I’ll make it to be 83.

Another 39 years of this insanity. I’ll be totally gonzo by then…

by then

??

I went to here to see what all the fuss is about.

I’m 72 and it said I’d live to 85.22.

I then entered other factors like parents both died of cardiovascular related causes, drink like a fish, have just recently got down to just being “overweight” from “obese”, walking the dog is my only exercise, and it dropped to 75.22.

So enjoy me whilst you may!

I smell outdated research

Actually there have been a large number of studies on alcohol consumption over many decades that have not produced the “required” result¹ and thus the studies are almost invariably buried as deep as the funders can manage. The funders did like the stats for higher consumption levels² but were upset when the results were corrected by removing other factors³

¹ Most studies have been funded by anti-alcohol groups who have been rather upset when the results indicate moderate alcohol consumption to be better than zero consumption.
² Early studies failed to account for the normal consumption point being a smoke filled public house and therefore bundled in the secondary smoking problems, but despite that people drinking about 2 pints a day (every day) were shown as healthier than tee-totallers. At higher levels people spent more time secondary smoking and the mortality rate climbed alarmingly.
³Removing secondary smoking effects took the positive health to a point where most drinkers I know would consider the consumption a little high.

by then

??

:-p

I went to here to see what all the fuss is about.

Hmm, it told me I would live to be 80.66 years.
So I modified it with my BMI (only just slightly into the first overweight section by a decimal place thanks to my predilection for Mars bars), and said I have moderate activity as my job is fairly active (I put my phone in my pocket and let it run a GPS trace while I was working, slaughtered the battery but before the phone pooped out it had already passed 8km!). No smoking.
This adjustment took me to 81.06 years.

Sorry, I don’t buy this one either. Marking myself as proper overweight, knocking back 14-21 units of booze per week and stuff all exercise tells me I’ll make 81.66 years. So clearly the way to a long and happy life is to give up exercise, drink enough to be at risk of alcoholism, and hit the doughnuts big time. Yeah. Riiiiiight.