UK to end hydrocarbon-fuelled cars in 2040

[Andres125sx]

I agree one glacier dissapearing does not show a trend nor is representative of anything, but unfortunately it´s not just one glacier, but all around the world, so yes, there´s a trend

Glacier mass changes were negative in all regions over the latest observational decade, from 2006 to 2016 (Table1)

Nine out of nineteen regions lost between 0.5% and 3% of their total ice volume per year. The other regions featured smaller loss rates. Under present ice-loss rates, most of today’s glacier volume would thus vanish in the Caucasus, Central Europe, the Low Latitudes, Western Canada and the USA, and New Zealand in the second half of this century.

By comparison with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report (IPCCAR5)11,24, the greatest improvement herein is in the geodetic sample: it has been boosted from a few hundred glaciers7 to morethan 19,000 globally, with an observational coverage exceeding 45% of the glacier area in 11 out of 19 regions (Extended Data Fig.1). Our approach, combining the temporal variability from the glaciolog-ical sample with large-scale observations from the geodetic sample, facilitates the inference of mass changes at annual resolution for all regions, back to the hydrological year 1961/62. This represents a major development compared with IPCC AR5, which had to focus on the satellite altimetry and gravimetry era (2003–2009) and relied on estimates modelled using climate data or on interpolated values from scarce and mostly uncalibrated observational samples for earlier time periods (seeMethods)

Our central estimate for the global rate of glacier mass loss is 47Gt yr−1 (or 18%) larger than that reported in IPCC AR5 (section 4.3.3.3, table 4.4)11,24 for the period 2003 to 2009 (Extended Data Fig.5

The parts I bolded were to highlight the criticized (by some) IPCC method was actually too conservative!

[hollus]

Larget than, smaller than...
I’d like to point out that 18% is way smaller than the error bars in both that study and the IPCC reports, so essentially the estimations are the same within method uncertainties.
The error bars are part of any measurement or model result. In technical terms the difference is not statistically significant.

[vdemeter]

https://geoethic.com/2016/03/09/reflect ... s-climate/

[DChemTech]

18% more compared to the rate of disappearance mentioned in the IPCC report; so even if that number is insignificant, that does not mean glacial melting itself is.

Regarding the age of the Glacier, I do see the number of 700 popping up in a few news reports, but I never see a reference to any source where it's stated what that age means (discovery or inception).
If it's indeed 700 years since it's origin, that would be a bit unfortunate as it gives ammunition to contrarians via the 'medieval warming period' (which was of course a local warming event, not a global one - and it rules out the current epoch of man-made global warming just as much as prior natural wildfires rule out arson in a fire where the matches were found).

[Tommy Cookers]

AGW could/would tend to cause cooling in NW Europe
by permanently weakening the N Atlantic Gyre (this anyway is at its weakest for 1000 years
but the UK thinks of everything - so it's now law that we must be zero-carbon for everything by 2050

aren't we still seeing melting (10000 years into the interglacial period) from the 'last' ice age ?
such melting wouldn't be constant-rate
wasn't eg central UK was under 1 km thick ice only 8000 years ago ?
Scotland still rises and S England still sinks from this

and btw
wasn't freedom & democracy etc invented by some regarded as silly old contrarians ?
what's a contrarian ?

[Andres125sx]

Larget than, smaller than...
I’d like to point out that 18% is way smaller than the error bars in both that study and the IPCC reports, so essentially the estimations are the same within method uncertainties.
The error bars are part of any measurement or model result. In technical terms the difference is not statistically significant.

An error bar does not mean you must substrac from the calculation Hollus, it may also mean it may be added so it might be lower than 18% difference, or even higher

IPCC had higher error bars, some argued that meant their results were arbitrary, but further analysis have proved, while lowering error bars, their results were conservative. Now with lower error bars results are more reliable, and those are pointing to a higher melting rate... Not just for one glacier, but all around the world, which is a crucial data most people around here is conveniently ignoring

[nzjrs]

what's a contrarian ?

It's shorthand for a characteristic form of motivated reasoning or argumentation with diverse characteristics. While it has a strong intellectual tradition (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_t ... Contrarian), it's often just arguing as sport.

In this modern social media age there has been a growing trend where one can take particular position, and then when people push back strongly against it, they interpret the unpopularity of their position as further evidence that they possess a certain intellectual purity or revealed wisdom that 'the establishment' lacks. Its some form of martyrdom/persecution complex writ contrarian.

Here viewtopic.php?p=855074#p855074 are my experiences interacting with one flavour of contrarian which I suggest can be a useful guide to apply to some members in this thread.

[DChemTech]

AGW could/would tend to cause cooling in NW Europe
by permanently weakening the N Atlantic Gyre (this anyway is at its weakest for 1000 years
but the UK thinks of everything - so it's now law that we must be zero-carbon for everything by 2050

aren't we still seeing melting (10000 years into the interglacial period) from the 'last' ice age ?
such melting wouldn't be constant-rate
wasn't eg central UK was under 1 km thick ice only 8000 years ago ?
Scotland still rises and S England still sinks from this

and btw
wasn't freedom & democracy etc invented by some regarded as silly old contrarians ?
what's a contrarian ?

Well, permanently weakening the North Atlantic gyre, with all due consequences, doesn't seem like a particularly good thing to do - so good thing action is being taken. Also be aware "net zero carbon" does not mean zero carbon for everything - it means that wherever carbon is being emitted, it needs to compensated elsewhere. I am not a fan of literal zero carbon regulation either because it's an unrealistic expectation, but net zero is necessary.

Yes, UK was under a thick ice sheet 8000 years ago. But different mechanism, different timescale - irrelevant for the current discussion on AGW. Without human interference, it should be (slightly) cooling now. It isn't, and that's due to us. The experimental evidence for the warming is immense, for the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, and the link between increasing CO2 (equivalents) and warming is simple physics.

And yes, maybe the use of the word contrarian was too much honor (even though being contrarian is not necessarily a good thing - it just states you are opposed to whatever the current majority wisdom is, regardless of it's validity). I'd happily use climate change denier if you so prefer, although I don't really like the term myself - too long. I surely won't use the term skeptic, however. Climate change deniers have successfully framed it as meaning "disbelieving X", but that's not what it means. Being skeptical, scrutinizing data and interpretation, is a good thing. Just mindlessly swallowing whatever the 'alternative media' claims is the opposite of skepticism.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... Yes, UK was under a thick ice sheet 8000 years ago. But different mechanism, different timescale - irrelevant for the current discussion on AGW. Without human interference, it should be (slightly) cooling now. It isn't, and that's due to us. The experimental evidence for the warming is immense, for the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, and the link between increasing CO2 (equivalents) and warming is simple physics. ....

so you're saying that the current interglacial period would already have finished - but for the industrial revolution ?

it's 'simple physics' that ...
there's 50 times more CO2 in the ocean than in the atmosphere
so atmospheric CO2 is driven by ocean warming not vice versa
global warming disproportionately increases atmospheric water (vapour and condensate)
increasing cloud cover and reducing solar energy reaching this planet
yes this last seems to have now been disproved - if one test result convenient to warmism cancels all inconvenient ones

afaik
about 75 m down in the Greenland ice cap there's 11 P-38 fighter planes in quite good condition (1 was raised)
all 12 having been parked at ground level in 1942
these machines were advertised for sale - but a buyer needed to collect (from 75 m depth - increasing annually)
is this now wrong ? can a buyer now wait for natural melting to present his purchase at the new ground level ?
this question is crucial to today's investment-minded collectors

[DChemTech]

.... Yes, UK was under a thick ice sheet 8000 years ago. But different mechanism, different timescale - irrelevant for the current discussion on AGW. Without human interference, it should be (slightly) cooling now. It isn't, and that's due to us. The experimental evidence for the warming is immense, for the human contribution to atmospheric CO2, and the link between increasing CO2 (equivalents) and warming is simple physics. ....

so you're saying that the current interglacial period would already have finished - but for the industrial revolution ?

it's 'simple physics' that ...
there's 50 times more CO2 in the ocean than in the atmosphere
so atmospheric CO2 is driven by ocean warming not vice versa
global warming disproportionately increases atmospheric water (vapour and condensate)
increasing cloud cover and reducing solar energy reaching this planet
yes this last seems to have now been disproved - if one test result convenient to warmism cancels all inconvenient ones

afaik
about 75 m down in the Greenland ice cap there's 11 P-38 fighter planes in quite good condition (1 was raised)
all 12 having been parked at ground level in 1942
these machines were advertised for sale - but a buyer needed to collect (from 75 m depth - increasing annually)
is this now wrong ? can a buyer now wait for natural melting to present his purchase at the new ground level ?
this question is crucial to today's investment-minded collectors

No, I'm not saying the interglacial period has finished. I'm saying there would be a slight decrease in temperature (a.o. due to decreasing solar activity), but nothing of the sorts of a glacial period. Again, different timescale, different mechanism.

Your claim about CO2 release from the ocean is blatantly false. While the slight heating of oceanic water may decrease the solubility of CO2 somewhat, the increase in partial pressure of atmospheric CO2 more than makes up for that. The flux is from the atmosphere into the ocean, not the other way around. Without the oceanic buffer, warming would be more severe than it is - byproduct is the (measurable) acidification of the ocean, which also proves the direction of the flux. You can find a further discussion, well referenced, here: https://skepticalscience.com/warming-co2-rise.htm

Now when it comes to water... A hotter atmosphere means 1) more evaporation (and hence eventually more rain to balance), 2) increased absolute humidity, i.e. there is more vapor in the air before cloud formation starts. There is, however, no direct increase in water vapor content in the air due to human activity. The increase in water vapor due to initial warming (caused by the increasing CO2 level) does amplify the effect of CO2. It's a feedback loop, not a driver. On top of that is the effect of clouds. Clouds are tricky because they have the potential to warm (via a mechanism as above) as well as cool (via albedo effect). This is a major reason for the range of uncertainty in climate sensitivity - but no more than that. It's anyhow a feedback effect, which means it explains why warming may be slower or faster than anticipated based on CO2 alone, but that does not in any way affect the warming potential of CO2 itself. You say that the effect of water has "been disproved". If that is so, it would be great if you could provide a reference to said claim. But don't come up with that preprint of Kauppinen and Malmi please, because those claims have been shredded. https://theness.com/neurologicablog/ind ... ate-change

As for those planes. the fact that the climate is changing doesn't mean it is not snowing at all anymore...

[Big Tea]

Didn´t read it yet, but wondering if some will think this is just another coincidence...

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586- ... elpais.com

I had just sen something on 'disappearing glaciers' ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-49345912 )
This one was 'declared dead' after 700 years. My first thoughts were well, 700 yrs ago it was not there and it would have been headline news. 'New glacier formed, things have gone wrong' sort of thing.

I was a little confused by that one. Did it form 700 years ago, presumably at the end of the Middle Age Warm Period, or is that just when it was first discovered / recorded? If it formed at the end of the MAWP / beginning of the Little Ice Age then using it as a sign post for recent climate changes might be a bit tricky. It's not like we're talking about the Antarctic ice sheet, for example.

I don't know that either, but they state '700 years?' If I had to guess I would assume it would have formed durign the younger dryas, but if it was continual I really have no idea except for the exact stipulation of its 'age'

[Andres125sx]

global warming disproportionately increases atmospheric water (vapour and condensate)
increasing cloud cover and reducing solar energy reaching this planet
yes this last seems to have now been disproved - if one test result convenient to warmism cancels all inconvenient ones

I will not reply the rest of your post as DChemTech replied much better than I´m able to

But this one is ironical... what are all those inconvenient test results? Because it´s actually the other way around, some of you are constantly ignoring or discrediting anything wich comes from anyone who disagree with your point of view, it doesn´t matter if it´s IPCC, WHO, NASA, EU... anyone!, while you provide an unbelieveble credibility to some isolated report who disagree with the general consensus and whose method is more than questionable

So I´ll ask again, what are all those inconvenient reports wich you think are more reliable than those from the statements who are designed to study the problem like WHO or IPCC, and some others with no obvious hidden interests like NASA?


Sorry but I have to repeat this, I find it unbelieveble that some people think NASA or WHO have hidden interests in the matter and manipulate their own reports (risking their own credibility, wich as scientific statements is their only power) for some hidden interest no one here has been able to explain , while at the same time you think oil companies and powerful countries like US or China, who have huge, incalculable economical interests, don´t pay for biased reports wich confuse lots of people discreditting reports that may be harmful for their economical interests. Sincerely, to me this is unbelieveble, reading some arguments here I feel like a marcian who can´t understand humans

[strad]

it's often just arguing as sport.

I think we have quite a bit of that here.
Since some can only argue and not discuss I think this thread should be permanently locked.

[Just_a_fan]

As it's a thread that's about the UK, perhaps you could just avoid it rather than get it locked. You know, you don't have to read/comment on it. For those of us more directly affected by the subject of the thread, we can also choose to be involved or not. Locking the thread will affect us more than you.

[DChemTech]

global warming disproportionately increases atmospheric water (vapour and condensate)
increasing cloud cover and reducing solar energy reaching this planet
yes this last seems to have now been disproved - if one test result convenient to warmism cancels all inconvenient ones

I will not reply the rest of your post as DChemTech replied much better than I´m able to

But this one is ironical... what are all those inconvenient test results? Because it´s actually the other way around, some of you are constantly ignoring or discrediting anything wich comes from anyone who disagree with your point of view, it doesn´t matter if it´s IPCC, WHO, NASA, EU... anyone!, while you provide an unbelieveble credibility to some isolated report who disagree with the general consensus and whose method is more than questionable

So I´ll ask again, what are all those inconvenient reports wich you think are more reliable than those from the statements who are designed to study the problem like WHO or IPCC, and some others with no obvious hidden interests like NASA?


Sorry but I have to repeat this, I find it unbelieveble that some people think NASA or WHO have hidden interests in the matter and manipulate their own reports (risking their own credibility, wich as scientific statements is their only power) for some hidden interest no one here has been able to explain , while at the same time you think oil companies and powerful countries like US or China, who have huge, incalculable economical interests, don´t pay for biased reports wich confuse lots of people discreditting reports that may be harmful for their economical interests. Sincerely, to me this is unbelieveble, reading some arguments here I feel like a marcian who can´t understand humans

I agree. It baffles me. Even more, what incentive would the IPCC have to be biased towards climate change?
Politicians have nothing to gain from climate change - in fact, they have a lot to lose. It's going to be an immensely expensive exercise, whether they opt for transitioning to a sustainable economy or for repairing the damage as it comes along, and being in favor of climate regulation is not exactly a vote magnet; on the contrary. If an inter-governmental panel would be biased towards anything, it would make more sense if it was biased to denial. The current IPCC argument to me makes as much sense as stating that research linking smoking and cancer would be biased towards that connection, if it were funded by tobacco companies.