has anybody read or viewed vicky pope's views on climate change.she posted a letter to the guardian and can be viewed on utube.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

Here's the link to youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyDmdcPw7Uw

Plus the link to the Guardian article (I think).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/22/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Michael:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

Does she say we're doomed? 

Devonian:

Michael:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

 

Does she say we're doomed? 

Did I say she did?

Michael:

We're doomed

Michael:

Devonian:

Michael:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

 

Does she say we're doomed? 

Did I say she did?

No, you indeed didn't but she did write it

But, ok, so, do you mean to say we are doomed (I don't btw) or were you not being entirely serious? It is hard to tell.

Michael:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

It quotes a worst case result to a worst case problem (continuing rise in CO2 throughout the century) at a 7deg rise in global temp.   If that did happen then I believe than hundreds of millions if not billions of people would be.

Question for people with knowledge of the science -  lets assume we do see levels of CO2 continue to rise and that we have the science pretty close and we don't see major feedbacks or consequences we don't know anything about as yet.  Is a 7 deg rise really possible?  And at what kind of probability would you estimate it to be of happening?

jtwigge:

Michael:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/01/climatechange.carbonemissions

We're doomed

 

It quotes a worst case result to a worst case problem (continuing rise in CO2 throughout the century) at a 7deg rise in global temp.   If that did happen then I believe than hundreds of millions if not billions of people would be.

Question for people with knowledge of the science -  lets assume we do see levels of CO2 continue to rise and that we have the science pretty close and we don't see major feedbacks or consequences we don't know anything about as yet.  Is a 7 deg rise really possible?  And at what kind of probability would you estimate it to be of happening?

Vicky Pope is the boss of a lot of experts. If any people are knowledgeable they are.

Now, it seems to me with have some choices. Dismiss what they say in the kind of way science like this is so often dismissed here, or accept what they say because they are the expert. Myself I trust them and if they say there is a risk I think that is what they think. Disruption to the carbon cycle seems possible, with the warmer it gets the greater the risk. Or maybe the carbon cycle is more resilient than we think? Again, I don't know better than the experts... But, might they be wrong? They might. I hope they are.

 There seems not much science there - more like wild speculation.

Devonian:

jtwigge:

It quotes a worst case result to a worst case problem (continuing rise in CO2 throughout the century) at a 7deg rise in global temp.   If that did happen then I believe than hundreds of millions if not billions of people would be.

Question for people with knowledge of the science -  lets assume we do see levels of CO2 continue to rise and that we have the science pretty close and we don't see major feedbacks or consequences we don't know anything about as yet.  Is a 7 deg rise really possible?  And at what kind of probability would you estimate it to be of happening?

 

Vicky Pope is the boss of a lot of experts. If any people are knowledgeable they are.

Now, it seems to me with have some choices. Dismiss what they say in the kind of way science like this is so often dismissed here, or accept what they say because they are the expert. Myself I trust them and if they say there is a risk I think that is what they think. Disruption to the carbon cycle seems possible, with the warmer it gets the greater the risk. Or maybe the carbon cycle is more resilient than we think? Again, I don't know better than the experts... But, might they be wrong? They might. I hope they are.

Having stated that a rise of 1.7C is likely if emissions are cut, the article's next paragraph says that a 7C rise is possible is emissions are not curbed - this is a typical juxtaposition of the 'expected' rise of temperature due solely to CO2 alongside the very worst case scenario which actually would involve all sorts of positive feedbacks and not just uncurbed CO2. True, some of the feedbacks are touched on later in the article, but the degree of uncertainty (especially with those feedbacks) is only discussed one-way:-

"The uncertainties in the science mean that even if the most likely temperature rise is kept within reasonable limits, we cannot rule out the possibility of much larger increases."

Well, very true, but so is...

"The uncertainties in the science mean that if the most likely temperature rise is kept within reasonable limits, we cannot rule out the possibility of a very small increase."

...the article just doesn't mention it.

I hope we keep emitting CO2 like normal so that this sort of idiotically wild speculations are shown to be wrong. History will not be kind to these people.

Pingo:

I hope we keep emitting CO2 like normal so that this sort of idiotically wild speculations are shown to be wrong. History will not be kind to these people.

Pingo, the specific individual grouped under your less-than-helpful title of "these peopl" happens to work for the Met Office and with respect her views carry more weight than yours.  She was reporting in a very neutral and professional way what the latest climate model predicts for the future and it is in fact quite a modest prediction compared to some.

Help me understand wher eyou are struggling with the science:

• CO2 results in more of the sun's heat being retained in the atmosphere
• CO2 results in increased acidification of the oceans, threatening marine eco-systems.  There is evidence of this already on coral reefs due to higher SSTs and - I think - acidification
• The Arctic region will warm more quickly due to melting ice changing the albedo and that this is a progressive change
• Shifts in climate zones due to warming will result in drying out of the zone where the rainforests currently dominate

In conclusion, I have to say that I am 100% certain that your comment will be played back against the sceptics, i.e.  "History will not be kind to these people (who helped to delay actions that might have mitigated the problems)".

We are living on borrowed time and you don't have permission of future generations (or the other living things on this planet with which we co-exist) to use up this precious time.

Gandalf The White:

Pingo:

I hope we keep emitting CO2 like normal so that this sort of idiotically wild speculations are shown to be wrong. History will not be kind to these people.

 

Pingo, the specific individual grouped under your less-than-helpful title of "these peopl" happens to work for the Met Office and with respect her views carry more weight than yours.  She was reporting in a very neutral and professional way what the latest climate model predicts for the future and it is in fact quite a modest prediction compared to some.

Help me understand wher eyou are struggling with the science:

• CO2 results in more of the sun's heat being retained in the atmosphere
• CO2 results in increased acidification of the oceans, threatening marine eco-systems.  There is evidence of this already on coral reefs due to higher SSTs and - I think - acidification
• The Arctic region will warm more quickly due to melting ice changing the albedo and that this is a progressive change
• Shifts in climate zones due to warming will result in drying out of the zone where the rainforests currently dominate

In conclusion, I have to say that I am 100% certain that your comment will be played back against the sceptics, i.e.  "History will not be kind to these people (who helped to delay actions that might have mitigated the problems)".

We are living on borrowed time and you don't have permission of future generations (or the other living things on this planet with which we co-exist) to use up this precious time.

Then you have to explain why temperature never follows CO2 in ice core samples.

The rest of that was just Gaia-inspired speculation.

Gandalf The White:

Pingo:

I hope we keep emitting CO2 like normal so that this sort of idiotically wild speculations are shown to be wrong. History will not be kind to these people.

 

Pingo, the specific individual grouped under your less-than-helpful title of "these peopl" happens to work for the Met Office and with respect her views carry more weight than yours.  She was reporting in a very neutral and professional way what the latest climate model predicts for the future and it is in fact quite a modest prediction compared to some.

Help me understand wher eyou are struggling with the science:

• CO2 results in more of the sun's heat being retained in the atmosphere
• CO2 results in increased acidification of the oceans, threatening marine eco-systems.  There is evidence of this already on coral reefs due to higher SSTs and - I think - acidification
• The Arctic region will warm more quickly due to melting ice changing the albedo and that this is a progressive change
• Shifts in climate zones due to warming will result in drying out of the zone where the rainforests currently dominate

In conclusion, I have to say that I am 100% certain that your comment will be played back against the sceptics, i.e.  "History will not be kind to these people (who helped to delay actions that might have mitigated the problems)".

We are living on borrowed time and you don't have permission of future generations (or the other living things on this planet with which we co-exist) to use up this precious time.