Moves to adapt our society for a changing climate may have focused rather too much on long-term scenarios and not enough on how to cope with weather and short-term variability, argues Mike Hulme. He says the past two British summers show the dangers of this overemphasis on laudable long-sightedness.

...

Are we paying too much attention to uncertain long-term climate predictions - dominated by greenhouse gas-driven global warming - whilst taking our eye off the more immediate weather futures which will determine the significance of climate for society over the next years and decades?

Using the jargon of climate science, are we giving too much weight to the anthropogenic "signal" of global warming whilst ignoring the natural "noise" of climate?

 ...

Weather forecasts offer easily demonstrable and quantified skill. But climate scenarios for the year 2050 cannot be tested against observations; we have to rely on our faith in the underlying climate models.

This faith is tested when we endure summers like those of 2007 and 2008. All long-term climate scenarios suggest British summers will become drier; if we now start adapting for drier summers what happens to farmers, businesses and tourists when we have two successive very wet summers?

All long-term scenarios also suggest heatwaves, such as the one in August 2003, will become more frequent, even the norm, by 2050. How does adapting to this prospect improve our ability to survive cool, gloomy weeks like those we had in 2008?

We will never know empirically on any useful timescale whether or not we have accurate climate predictions for 2050. Yet even if they do prove accurate, if our shorter-term forewarning of daily weather to decadal climate is poor, we may end up just as maladapted and just as exposed to weather risks as if we had ignored global warming entirely.

Full article here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7643883.stm

What is particularly telling about this article is the level-headed response of the comments section. I think this is quite a clear example how when we are told the truth about climate and weather, people are willing to accept it.

Perhaps they ought to state Mike Hulmes philosophical disposition at the bottom of the article.

I notice our old friend Richard S Courtney amongst the commentators too.

Ulric:

Perhaps they ought to state Mike Hulmes philosophical disposition at the bottom of the article.

I notice our old friend Richard S Courtney amongst the commentators too.

it must be a conspiracy if our old friend is involved

When I observe bluebottles congregating around an object that attracts them, I don't usually suspect conspiracy. Its all part of a natural cycle.

Ulric:

When I observe bluebottles congregating around an object that attracts them, I don't usually suspect conspiracy. Its all part of a natural cycle.

very witty ,i have to hand that one to you.lol

AIMSIR:

Ulric:

When I observe bluebottles congregating around an object that attracts them, I don't usually suspect conspiracy. Its all part of a natural cycle.

very witty ,i have to hand that one to you.lol

all the same prof.hulme makes some good points.i think its good to see a balanced veiw like his popping up every now and then.we should have more of it really.

Pingo:

What is particularly telling about this article is the level-headed response of the comments section. I think this is quite a clear example how when we are told the truth about climate and weather, people are willing to accept it.

 

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about here?  I have just done a little background reading about Mike Hulme and I think his credentials are excellent. However....

His message is stated very clearly here, for example:

Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change.

That sounds about right to me.

And later this:

The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change.

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

I liked this statement, which echoes much of the discussion in this Forum:

Scientists have recently begun to tackle seasonal to decadal climate forecasting, time-scales in which natural variability ("noise") is more important than global warming ("signal")

 

All of which is eminently reasonable.  In summary:

• Climate change is happening
• Human activities are heavily implicated
• Natural variability will at times drown out the underlying AGW signal
  
• Because nobody is meeting their targets the stakes have been raised by the use of crisis language, which risks producing an over-reaction

Nothing contentious there at all, and I am pleased that Pingo posted the article.  Is this a sign of acceptance of some common ground?   ()

I agree with the main thrust of the article, as Gandalf says it sets out what can reasonably be expected without alarmist hysteria.

What it does not do however, is actually say where we are going wrong or where we are getting it right.  It does not comment on the current adaptions being proposed whether these are a 300mm increase in the height of the thames flood barage or changes to governement planning policy in respect of building on flood plains or upland management etc.

It also does not make comment to issues surrounding the hydrocarbon economy.  Most industry commentators agree that there will be a peak in the production oil within the next 15 years.  This is a more obvious, pressing and predictable threat and adaption to address this, such as increased use of renewables or investment in R&D into alternative power sources would probably go a long way towards increasing resilience to climate change.

DBH:

It also does not make comment to issues surrounding the hydrocarbon economy. 

 

Precisely what caused me to review the philosophical context of the commentary.

Gandalf The White:

Pingo:

What is particularly telling about this article is the level-headed response of the comments section. I think this is quite a clear example how when we are told the truth about climate and weather, people are willing to accept it.

 

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about here?  I have just done a little background reading about Mike Hulme and I think his credentials are excellent. However....

His message is stated very clearly here, for example:

Climate change is a reality, and science confirms that human activities are heavily implicated in this change.

That sounds about right to me.

And later this:

The IPCC scenarios of future climate change - warming somewhere between 1.4 and 5.8 Celsius by 2100 - are significant enough without invoking catastrophe and chaos as unguided weapons with which forlornly to threaten society into behavioural change.

I believe climate change is real, must be faced and action taken. But the discourse of catastrophe is in danger of tipping society onto a negative, depressive and reactionary trajectory.

I liked this statement, which echoes much of the discussion in this Forum:

Scientists have recently begun to tackle seasonal to decadal climate forecasting, time-scales in which natural variability ("noise") is more important than global warming ("signal")

 

All of which is eminently reasonable.  In summary:

• Climate change is happening
• Human activities are heavily implicated
• Natural variability will at times drown out the underlying AGW signal
  
• Because nobody is meeting their targets the stakes have been raised by the use of crisis language, which risks producing an over-reaction

Nothing contentious there at all, and I am pleased that Pingo posted the article.  Is this a sign of acceptance of some common ground?   ()

i see you picked all the things you liked and left out all the things you did not like,we could all write a summary of the points that suited our argument, warmist or not,and present them to suit our own beliefs.why not accept all of what the good prof.is saying and stop trying to rip it apart to suit your own agenda.

AIMSIR:

i see you picked all the things you liked and left out all the things you did not like,we could all write a summary of the points that suited our argument, warmist or not,and present them to suit our own beliefs.why not accept all of what the good prof.is saying and stop trying to rip it apart to suit your own agenda.

 

Have you taken the trouble to read the article or research the author - or do you devote all of your modest brainpower to writing tedious ill-informed posts (in poor English)? 

I assume that you haven't because if you had you would recognise my points as being a reasonable precis of his position on AGW.  He does not in any way dispute that AGW is occurring. The article focuses on the slide into emotive and alarmist language.  This slide seems to me entirely predictable given the emotive nonsense spouted by some of the lobby on the sceptical side but he is correct that it may be unhelpful if it results in a push for the wrong sorts of policy changes.

By all means post something constructive and I will respond in a more measured tone. 

 

Gandalf The White:

AIMSIR:

i see you picked all the things you liked and left out all the things you did not like,we could all write a summary of the points that suited our argument, warmist or not,and present them to suit our own beliefs.why not accept all of what the good prof.is saying and stop trying to rip it apart to suit your own agenda.

 

Have you taken the trouble to read the article or research the author - or do you devote all of your modest brainpower to writing tedious ill-informed posts (in poor English)? 

I assume that you haven't because if you had you would recognise my points as being a reasonable precis of his position on AGW.  He does not in any way dispute that AGW is occurring. The article focuses on the slide into emotive and alarmist language.  This slide seems to me entirely predictable given the emotive nonsense spouted by some of the lobby on the sceptical side but he is correct that it may be unhelpful if it results in a push for the wrong sorts of policy changes.

By all means post something constructive and I will respond in a more measured tone. 

 

to be sure, i have read the article and understood what the good prof.had to say.but i read it with blinkers off.as for your insults.i really think they would suit an other forum.

AIMSIR:

Gandalf The White:

AIMSIR:

i see you picked all the things you liked and left out all the things you did not like,we could all write a summary of the points that suited our argument, warmist or not,and present them to suit our own beliefs.why not accept all of what the good prof.is saying and stop trying to rip it apart to suit your own agenda.

 

Have you taken the trouble to read the article or research the author - or do you devote all of your modest brainpower to writing tedious ill-informed posts (in poor English)? 

I assume that you haven't because if you had you would recognise my points as being a reasonable precis of his position on AGW.  He does not in any way dispute that AGW is occurring. The article focuses on the slide into emotive and alarmist language.  This slide seems to me entirely predictable given the emotive nonsense spouted by some of the lobby on the sceptical side but he is correct that it may be unhelpful if it results in a push for the wrong sorts of policy changes.

By all means post something constructive and I will respond in a more measured tone. 

 

to be sure, i have read the article and understood what the good prof.had to say.but i read it with blinkers off.as for your insults.i really think they would suit an other forum.

 

Well, good manners applies to both sides my friend.  My post was an attempt to be constructive but you chose to read it with your blinkers firmly on and I took exception to your reply.  If you had read and understood the article and looked - as did I - at other information on the Internet, then you should not have had cause to object to my post.

The author is a supporter of AGW, as am I.  His article was - as I said - highlighting how the AGW debate has been infiltrated by extremists (and that applies to both sides).  As a result it is possible that some incorrect policy decisions may be made. What is there to misinterpret - unless you choose only to read and accept what fits your viewpoint?

 

 

Gandalf The White:

All of which is eminently reasonable.  In summary:

• Climate change is happening
• Human activities are heavily implicated
• Natural variability will at times drown out the underlying AGW signal
  
• Because nobody is meeting their targets the stakes have been raised by the use of crisis language, which risks producing an over-reaction

Nothing contentious there at all, and I am pleased that Pingo posted the article.  Is this a sign of acceptance of some common ground?   ()

Climate change is happening, and always has. We have no evidence that it is happening at an unusual rate.

Human activities are heavily implicated, and I wouldn't put CO2 at the top of the list.

Natural variability will at most times drown out any human effects except on local scales where UHI effect of 3c or 4c will always be dominant.

Crisis language risks actually discrediting the whole case.

Pingo:

Climate change is happening, and always has. We have no evidence that it is happening at an unusual rate.

Human activities are heavily implicated, and I wouldn't put CO2 at the top of the list.

Natural variability will at most times drown out any human effects except on local scales where UHI effect of 3c or 4c will always be dominant.

Crisis language risks actually discrediting the whole case.

 

I do not agree with your first point but clearly you have your view of the world and it is unalterable.

I would be very interested in seeing some evidence for the points highlighted in bold above. I think these are more likely to be your unsubstantiated opinions rather than anything based on fact or science.

As for the final point, I'm not sure how you would expect those who accept the case for AGW to react to the weight of misinformation and nonsense emanating from the sceptical/denial lobby?  I understood it to be a typical feature of debate that each side gets forced into ever more entrenched positions?  There is enough evidence of that behaviour here - on more than one occasion I have tried to find common ground but it doesn't exist because certain people on here resort to insults and accusations of conspiracies and cherry pick any data they can find in an attempt to rubbish the AGW argument.