What I was getting at was this
"One degree C is a small change which may increase storm severity, but these impacts are not yet world changing with the rise in co2 levels from 240ppm to 417ppm."
That implies a rise from 240ppm to 417 ppm raises global temperature by 1 degrees (which wouldn't be that much of a problem) but is completely wrong, please read up on the difference between Transient Climate Response and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (it's about double !)
Look - I know you are a clever guy Peter - but I am surprised that you don't recognise the range of the predicted possibilities that are made about how the climate MIGHT respond. The outcomes of increasing carbon dioxide are not KNOWN. They are guessed at and the suggested outcomes vary wildly. As I have said many times - there is no settled science. The whole idea encapsulated in that term 'settled science' is completely unscientific - ESPECIALLY, as in this case where there is no possibility of obtaining empirical data. We can't get measurements from the future - obviously, so any values put about in papers are predictive and estimated based on a variety of model inputs.
This uncertainty is reflected in the range that exists in predictions about climate sensitivity - even from the IPCC. As you are careful to read before making a post, you willn o doubt be aware that the estimated predicted range between different modelling outcomes TCR, ECS and ESS have a big range of uncertainty. Some suggest doubling of CO2 will lead to 1.5c, others 4.5c. We do not know and we do not know because no one understands the feedback mechanisms with any certainty at all. It is not KNOWN - people make estimates.
Take for example the FACT that warming will increase evaporation and hence increase the atmospheric content of water vapour. Water vapour helps prevent IR radiation from the earth back into space acting as a blanket. So - things will warm because of greater water vapour content in the atmosphere.... So far so clear, but then a side effect of more water vapour is more cloud. So what?
Well - cloud as viewed from above is white. It is highly reflective of sunlight. Indeed it is extremely reflective of sunlight. We have had perhaps a fortnight of high pressure weather recently. We might expect that to mean wamr sunny weather - oh no... not this time. The current blocked in high pressure system is plastered with cloud and has brought at the surface a complete lack of sunshine striking the earth's surface and consequent miserable low temperatures. All that radiation which struck the clout tops was bounced back into space. It didn't heat up the cloud tops and get trapped when IR radiation was given off, it simply bounced back into space as it does when it strikes polar regions with snow cover. It is EXTREMELY hard to consolidate the combined feedback effects of warming at the levels we have seen. ALL estimates are nothing more than guesswork - as can be readily seen by the range of predicted outcomes from IPCC documents.We DO NOT KNOW.
The only actual empirical data is that we can derive from paleo sources in the fossil record. These are pretty sound factually based data and not modelling.
In the end - this squabble we are having is about my contention that I think much of the hysterical hype about consequences of increased co2 in the atmosphere is over the top and is not based on certain measurements.
I do not say that we need do nothing, but I do say that the United Kingdom has ALREADY reduced its co2 output by half since 1990.
I DO recommend making more wind farms, but I also say that demands that we scrap backup gas generating systems and rely entirely on renewable generation by 2030 or 2035 are RIDICULOUS and will leave us in dire distress when we get these fortnight long blocked, occluded high pressure systems.
In the last week the empirical data shows that our vast forest of offshore and onshore wind farms(30.299 Gwatts of installed capacity) has produced only 10.6% of our electricity supply, or coincidentally almost exactly 10% of its potential at 3.29 Gwats average power, and that gas has had to be turned on to supply 48.1%. That data comes from Elexson Insights Solution and is accessed at the National Grid Portal or it can be readily seen on the excellent website
https://grid.iamkate.com/ which I consult several times each day.
I want to see renewable energy succeed, but the ideological stupidity of the sort that Miliband calls for, the shutting down of gas generation, is insane and damaging, and if carried out would leave us sitting for weeks at a time in the dark with a grid completely unable to supply power. A secure electricity supply is one of the essentials of modern life and putting it at risk for ideological reasons, is intolerable. I already think that there is serious risk at a time of conflict of having such a resource offshore. Russia is a dab hand at under sea shenanigans and has already sent ships to lurk around our offshore cable infrastructure. They are widely blamed for the damage to certain cables in the Baltic Sea in 2023. If problems persist between our nations, expect much more of this and perhaps more candle lit dinners than we are used to having - only they will perhaps be in the cold and not romantic at all.
Earlier this month, as the world’s attention was focused on the horror unfolding in Israel and Gaza, it was easy to miss the news that two subsea telecommunications cables and a gas pipeline in the ...
www.aspistrategist.org.au
