On 14/08/2019 13:41, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Alastair B. McDonald wrote:


So I will only post my take on the article.

It is titled "Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change" and
subtitled "How will the world cope as more extreme weather becomes
the norm?" by Simon Kuper

It begins
" I live in France, where last Friday was the hottest day ever
recorded. In Gallargues-le-Montueux in the south, the temperature hit
45.9C. In Paris, where it was only 37C, people around me with asthma
and eye allergies suffered terribly. My doctor told me the heat was
aggravating his older patients’ cardiovascular problems. But, he
added, it was dangerous for them to come and see him because his
waiting room was boiling. He plans to install air-conditioning. That
will worsen the climate further."

He then argues that the climate will become unbearable, but that the
current politicians such as Trump, Boris and greenie Elizabeth Warren
are incapable of solving the problem. They are proposing green
growth. "Instead the world needs a new political class obsessed with
climate and engineering. ... Once some engineering-savvy climate
leaders emerge, we can finally start taking climate change seriously."

As I am an engineer obsessed by climate change, you might think I
would agree, but I don't. The scientists are using outdated science,
and have not been trained in dynamical systems, yet that is what they
are trying to analyse. As I see it the climate is not going to get
incrementally worse. What will happen is an abrupt change to new
climate system similar to that which happened 10,000 years ago when
the Arctic sea ice, which had spread into the North Atlanic during
the Younger Dryas interstadial, suddenly retreated and temperatures
soared. It is too late to stop that happening now.

I can certainly see that abrupt changes to the global climate are
possible and perhaps likely. Exactly what these changes might be is a
bit more speculative but I certainly agree with you, Alastair, that
whatever is now locked into the system will happen and there's nothing
we, the human race, can do about that. Mega disaster management looms
for later this century. Forget Brexit, forget the NHS, forget
everything that seems important today. IMHO managing the climate
catastrophe will be the only thing that matters later this century. As

I doubt it will be quite so catastrophic as that even in the very worst
case scenarios. Parts of the middle eastern deserts may become so hot
that it is impossible to go outside during the day and larger storms may
be able to deposit more precipitation in a single event.

I suspect the chaotic climate will at some point snap to another
attractor in the parameter space and then it will have a lot of
hysteresis needed to get it to jump back again the other way.

It is too early to tell where or when exactly this tipping point has
been reached. I reckon we will know it when we see it though since
things may change quite radically when it happens.

One perverse effect of a globally warming world is that some places may
actually get colder. The UK presently benefits from the warming Atlantic
conveyor current (aka Gulf stream) and if that were to shut down we
would then have weather more appropriate to our rather high latitude.

We are headed back to a climate more like the pliocene era 2-3My ago.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-above-400ppm/

I once had a chance to torment a climate change simulation model and set
out to boil the equatorial oceans with a large step injection of CO2.
The amount required would make the atmosphere toxic to human life.

I have said before, it won't be a case of 'save the planet'. It'll be
'save the human race'. The planet can look after itself and would
probably do so much better without the meddling humans.

The planet will take care of itself with or without the human race.
However there will be a lot of people wanting to migrate from the parts
that have become too hot and dry to grow crops or live without aircon.

It has survived much worse CO2 excursions in the past and will doubtless
do so again. However, our technological infrastructure is relatively
fragile wrt sea level rise so the initial effects will initially be felt
in low lying highly populated cities and farm land. These include many
major ports and capital cities like London and Tokyo.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 08:59:34 UTC+1, Spike wrote:
On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as it
is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it (as
well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to access - or
be willing to pay - to access the original.

--
Spike

Strange, I can read it and I certainly don't subscribe.

Keith (Southend)

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 13:29:06 UTC+1, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Norman Lynagh wrote:

Spike wrote:

On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:

An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726

" Become an FT subscriber to read:

Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"


No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.


If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.


Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the
paywall. Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display
it elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.

I haven't given up! I tried doing a search on

simon kuper emission impossible? harsh facts on climate change

Clicking on the first link that came up took me directly to the article
with no paywall.

--
Norman Lynagh
Tideswell, Derbyshire
303m a.s.l.
https://peakdistrictweather.org
twitter: @TideswellWeathr

I saved the text to a word document he

www.southendweather.net/Simon%20Kuper.docx

You can download if you want to.

Keith (Southend)

On 14/08/2019 15:35, Martin Brown wrote:
One perverse effect of a globally warming world is that some places may
actually get colder. The UK presently benefits from the warming Atlantic
conveyor current (aka Gulf stream) and if that were to shut down we
would then have weather more appropriate to our rather high latitude.

The Gulf Stream can't stop but the North Atlantic Drift may do so. That
would put us back to the Little Ice Age scenario but, considering we're
running at 1.3C warmer than pre-industrial times - not the Early
Industrial era favoured by the IPCC which had already warmed by 0.2C due
to the Industrial Revolution - it will not be anywhere near as bad as
alarmists have made out. It will probably mean we just slip back to
temperatures experienced during the first half of the Twentieth Century.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.

On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 16:13:10 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 14/08/2019 15:35, Martin Brown wrote:
One perverse effect of a globally warming world is that some places may
actually get colder. The UK presently benefits from the warming Atlantic
conveyor current (aka Gulf stream) and if that were to shut down we
would then have weather more appropriate to our rather high latitude.

The Gulf Stream can't stop but the North Atlantic Drift may do so. That
would put us back to the Little Ice Age scenario but, considering we're
running at 1.3C warmer than pre-industrial times - not the Early
Industrial era favoured by the IPCC which had already warmed by 0.2C due
to the Industrial Revolution - it will not be anywhere near as bad as
alarmists have made out. It will probably mean we just slip back to
temperatures experienced during the first half of the Twentieth Century.

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.

https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/a....8.12.2019.gif

I would have expected the areas nearer the Arctic to be lower given the sea ice and Greenland melt. Anthen there'e the 'Greyhound' looking colder wedge.

Keith (Southend)

On 14/08/2019 16:33, Keith Harris wrote:
On Wednesday, 14 August 2019 16:13:10 UTC+1, Graham P Davis wrote:
On 14/08/2019 15:35, Martin Brown wrote:
One perverse effect of a globally warming world is that some places may
actually get colder. The UK presently benefits from the warming Atlantic
conveyor current (aka Gulf stream) and if that were to shut down we
would then have weather more appropriate to our rather high latitude.

The Gulf Stream can't stop but the North Atlantic Drift may do so. That
would put us back to the Little Ice Age scenario but, considering we're
running at 1.3C warmer than pre-industrial times - not the Early
Industrial era favoured by the IPCC which had already warmed by 0.2C due
to the Industrial Revolution - it will not be anywhere near as bad as
alarmists have made out. It will probably mean we just slip back to
temperatures experienced during the first half of the Twentieth Century.


https://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/a....8.12.2019.gif

I would have expected the areas nearer the Arctic to be lower given the sea ice and Greenland melt. Anthen there'e the 'Greyhound' looking colder wedge.


The mel****er may have made surface waters less saline but they have
been warmed more than normal. Also, some of the areas that have been
ice-free for a while would normally have been ice-covered.

The greyhound is probably an extension of the Labrador Current. This
_may_ be a sign that it is overriding the NAD due to the Labrador
Current being less dense than normal so that it, or some of it, no
longer sinks beneath the Gulf Stream.

The anomalies from that source are pretty dodgy. For instance, the cold
anomalies in the Arctic Ocean cannot be real. The normals are very
short-term and correct use of the normal sea-ice distribution has not
been made. The following link gives somewhat better values - at least it
does when it's up and working which, unfortunately, is not the case at
the moment.
https://polar.ncep.noaa.gov/sst/rtg_high_res/

--
Graham P Davis, Bracknell, Berks. Web-site: http://www.scarlet-jade.com/
“Understanding is a three-edged sword. Your side, my side, and the
truth.� [Ambassador Kosh]
Posted via Mozilla Thunderbird on openSUSE Tumbleweed.