350

[biffvernon]

From my limited understanding of the subject of climate change there seems to be about as many scientists who think that climate change happens regardless of human activity

I'm doing my best to improve your understanding of the subject, chippy. Your perception about what scientists think is seriously mistaken. Apart from a handful of nutters whose opinions can safely be disregarded, there is a consensus amongst climate scientists about Anthropogenic Global Warming. The scientific community recognises Pachauri, the Chair of the IPCC, as the leading spokesman on the subject.

 

[Penners]

You have to keep in mind just what the IPCC is, how it's report is written, and the timings. Although essentially made up of climate scientists, the politicians had the veto in the wording of the final report.

Another significant factor is surely that, fundamentally, we're all making this up as we go along.

This global problem has never happened to homo sapiens before, so none of us - scientist, politican, oak window maker or retired layabout - has any previous experience on which to base their opinions and decisions.

So, those people charged with solving the problem offer their best suggestions. But as circumstances develop and change, those suggestions change too. As they should.

 

[Flyfisher]

Phil - don't go, these spats happen, they blow over.

Hear hear.

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with the 'tax raising' point that seemed to start this whole row off. The recent PPS15 topic is just one example of this. Whether such measures are cynical exploitation of global warming fears or genuine attempts to help doesn't really matter, the end result still seems to be higher taxes. Perhaps this opinion makes me a 'prize p#llock' too, but I'd have preferred to hear a counter-argument rather than simple abuse, which only serves to add fuel to the smouldering embers of initial misunderstanding.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Phil - don't go, these spats happen, they blow over.

Hear hear.

Personally, I have a lot of sympathy with the 'tax raising' point that seemed to start this whole row off. The recent PPS15 topic is just one example of this. Whether such measures are cynical exploitation of global warming fears or genuine attempts to help doesn't really matter, the end result still seems to be higher taxes. Perhaps this opinion makes me a 'prize p#llock' too, but I'd have preferred to hear a counter-argument rather than simple abuse, which only serves to add fuel to the smouldering embers of initial misunderstanding.

It's not an opinion that makes someone a prize p!ll0ck, it's the person who posted it confusing the one-line response

Did you realize this forum is about Period Properties? Not misguided politically correct tax raising buffoonery

with an opinion.

I don't see much that could be justified as an "initial misunderstanding" in Aeroguide's post.

 

[Flyfisher]

Perhaps, but I suspect the thread would have developed rather differently if Biff had posted his reply before Schoolmarm.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Perhaps, but I suspect the thread would have developed rather differently if Biff had posted his reply before Schoolmarm.

And utterly differently if Aeroguide hadn't posted his comment at all...

 

[biffvernon]

So, if you've all finished and I can get a few more words in edgeways, here are some words that just arrived from the RSPB:

Dear Supporter

It's time for coal to clean up its act!

Climate change is the biggest single threat to wildlife and people. Left unchecked it could cause mass extinctions, the breakdown of ecosystems and the loss of millions of lives and livelihoods.

We can stop this happening

Coal is the most climate-polluting fuel currently used to generate electricity. Continuing to use it, without first developing the technology to capture and store its carbon emissions, represents a huge risk to the stability of our climate.

This technology is being developed, but not fast enough. The UK Government must step in to help speed it up.

Send a message to Government

New coal-fired power stations must not be built in the UK unless 100% of their carbon emissions can be captured and stored from day one.

Take part in our online action today and help us send this message to Government.

 

[Flyfisher]

I do wonder if such statements might be counter-productive when species extinction, mass-extinctions even, have been a normal state of life on Earth throughout its history. I'm sure I've read that more species have become extinct than actually exist today, so that alone is hardly a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Change is the norm and is, if you believe in such things, the very engine of evolution.

That's not to deny the basic message though and the good thing, I think, about the message is that it's promoting 'clean coal' rather than campaigning for not using it at all, which is completely unrealistic.

But things do move fast. In New Scientist, 8th August 2009, Julian Hunt (professor of climate modelling at UCL) wrote "In discussions over how to avoid dangerous climate change, two numbers are especially prominent: 450 ppm and 2 degrees C", these figures being the "safe" upper limits for CO2 and temperature rise to avoid irreversible tipping points. Barely one month on and the 450 figure is being suggested to really be 350. Quite a change.

Hunt also writes: "China is absolutely commited to political stability, and that stability depends on economic growth. Over the next 40 years it forecasts that its GDP will increase by a factor of 6. The driving force of this massive growth will be fossil fuesl, in particular coal" . . . "China, in other words, is not commmited to limiting emissions so as not to exceed any particular target for global CO2 concentration. China's booming emissions will contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2. With this in mind, the lastest annual report of the Beijing Climate Center considers two future scenarios for greenhouse gas concentrations in 2100. One puts CO2 at 550ppm, which is double pre-industrial levels. The other is even higher at 750ppm, with an average temperature rise across China exceeding 4 degrees C.".

Hunt goes on to say that the only way out of all this is for the western nations to cut their emissions by at least 80% before 2050 and meanwhile provide China with substantial technological assistance to help develop clean coal so that their emissions will also drop after 2050. Do we have sufficient faith in our political leaders to deal with the massive socio-political issues that will arise, let alone the technical ones?

Full article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327206.700-comment-why-china-needs-help-cutting-its-emissions.html

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Hunt also writes: "China is absolutely commited to political stability, and that stability depends on economic growth. Over the next 40 years it forecasts that its GDP will increase by a factor of 6. The driving force of this massive growth will be fossil fuesl, in particular coal" . . . "China, in other words, is not commmited to limiting emissions so as not to exceed any particular target for global CO2 concentration. China's booming emissions will contribute significantly to atmospheric CO2. With this in mind, the lastest annual report of the Beijing Climate Center considers two future scenarios for greenhouse gas concentrations in 2100. One puts CO2 at 550ppm, which is double pre-industrial levels. The other is even higher at 750ppm, with an average temperature rise across China exceeding 4 degrees C.".

Which is why, despite Biff's persistent and well referenced attempts to increase my/our understandong of the problem we face (and I was one of those who thought that there was still a scientific debate over AGW, and have now concluded there isn't), I feel it is all rather futile in the face of the above stark reality.

I still subscribe to the view that developing and protecting our own national political, economic and miltary interests is the logical response to what is happening. It may not work, but unless technology can solve the AGW debate, human nature is such that we are all screwed.

Honest open question here. Do the experts really expect Copenhagen to make much difference to the outcome of AGW? Or will it be a political failure again (carbon-trading anyone?) with no attempt to curb either population or economic growth?

 

[Schoolmarm]

Perhaps, but I suspect the thread would have developed rather differently if Biff had posted his reply before Schoolmarm.

OY!! :lol: :lol:

 

[christianb]

... and just to add to the heated debate (no pun intended).

Even though I spent three years of my life studying an environmental degree (and thus sitting in the pub growing a goatee beard) I'm still not entirely sold on the 'we can change global warming thing'. Don't get me wrong, there's certainly more CO2 in the atmosphere, but I've seen some stats say that the earth's surface temperature has been flatlining for the last decade.

Either way, the most realistic thing we can do is put everything into protecting our ecosystems. And this is most important in the case of our oceans where most carbon is sequestered.

Science changes its mind. And this is good. Not so long ago everyone in the green lobby was panicking about how the arctic conveyors were packing up and this would spell doom for the UK because the warmth of the gulf stream would reduce. We now know that the North Atlantic Drift is actually wind generated and won't change as long as the earth keeps spinning.

Alas, we cannot easily change the ambitions of the developing world. Second, it would only take an eruption half the size of Tambora to make the human emissions of the past 100 years look like fag smoke.

C.

 

[robgil]

Gareth doesn't deserve anyone having a go like that , he went out of his way to help me when i was trying to buy an old house , took the best part of a day to come and chat with me and had i have bought the house he would have been right there beside me helping to get permissions etc etc. he didn't have to do this but he did and his time was greatly appreciated. he's a bloomin good bloke and a damn good c.o.
by the way Gareth , i took a drive out to horningsea today as our cat had to go to a specialist vet in cambridge university. the cottage is all boarded up and completely untouched , or at least it looks untouched apart from some bushes being cut back. probably a good thing we didn't buy it in the end although i am sure with your help we probably would have had things moving by now eh?

anyhow , global warming.
man made or not its still happening and we are contributing to it , that much is pretty easy to see isnt it?
i found this a few days back , there is a very good reference to the earth's temperature compared to that of the moon.
i don't know how accurate this paper is as i am no expert but its still quite a good read.

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/environ.htm

http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/environ.htm

there is also quite a good read on time travel (i know , i know) on that site as well.

 

[biffvernon]

species extinction, mass-extinctions even, have been a normal state of life on Earth throughout its history.

It's a timescale thing. Of course species become extinct but not at the rate we are now witnessing, let alone the rate that may occur in, geologically speaking, the next moment. With the possible exception of an asteroid impact, humans look like being the greatest ever cause of mass extinction. Even the dinosaurs took many millions of years to all die out. We seems to be working on a decade or century timescale, not the million year timescale that the fossil record describes.

I too read Hunt's piece in th eNew Scientist, but read it carefully: "In discussions over how to avoid dangerous climate change, two numbers are especially prominent: 450 ppm and 2 degrees C, these figures being the "safe" upper limits for CO2 and temperature rise to avoid irreversible tipping points." Yes, 450 is the number 'prominent' in discussions between governments and assumed by these governments to be safe. It is not a safe number in the eyes of climate scientists that work in this field. Unfortunately perhaps, many climate scientists have hitherto been reluctant to sound alarmist, which is why Pachauri's statement is so important. It frees others to say what they really think.

"Honest open question here. Do the experts really expect Copenhagen to make much difference to the outcome of AGW?" It's a fair question, Robin. Honestly, I am very pessimistic. But as I've said before, I maintain hope, and a lot of people are making a great effort to ensure the success of Copenhagen. We may not succeed but I'm not prepared to say I didn't try.
Acting locally, I hosted a meeting at my house last Saturday where 35 people listened to David Fleming giving a lecture. Today I took him to the station - he's off to talk to a bigger audience at Climate Camp on Blackheath. We each of us have to do what we can, denial not being an option. The future is unknown.

 

[biffvernon]

I've seen some stats say that the earth's surface temperature has been flatlining for the last decade.
Not so long ago everyone in the green lobby was panicking about how the arctic conveyors were packing up and this would spell doom for the UK because the warmth of the gulf stream would reduce. We now know that the North Atlantic Drift is actually wind generated and won't change as long as the earth keeps spinning.it would only take an eruption half the size of Tambora to make the human emissions of the past 100 years look like fag smoke.

Good of you to join the debate, Christian. Dust off those uni notes Current surface temperatures are accounted for in the climate models. Remember we're at solar minimum and surface temps don't account for heat moved into the deep ocean in an el Nino period. Dunno about green lobby panicking but there was certainly a bit of talk in the less than scientific media about the 'Gulf Stream' stopping. I don't think many oceanographers took this as a high probability though it still is a scenario that's on the table. It's one of the areas that rather too little is known about. There are surprisingly few measurements made of ocean currents much below the surface but the data is now accumulating. We'll see.
Tambora 1815, though probably the biggest eruption for almost two millenia, did not have a lasting effect. The injection of stratospheric sulfate aerosol is associated with a cooling over the following months and the so called 'year with no summer' but it was insignificant in the grand scheme of things. CO2 emission orders of magnitude lower than we manage.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Gareth doesn't deserve anyone having a go like that , he went out of his way to help me when i was trying to buy an old house , took the best part of a day to come and chat with me and had i have bought the house he would have been right there beside me helping to get permissions etc etc. he didn't have to do this but he did and his time was greatly appreciated. he's a bloomin good bloke and a damn good c.o.
by the way Gareth , i took a drive out to horningsea today as our cat had to go to a specialist vet in cambridge university. the cottage is all boarded up and completely untouched , or at least it looks untouched apart from some bushes being cut back. probably a good thing we didn't buy it in the end although i am sure with your help we probably would have had things moving by now eh?

Well, I'm flattered - but thinking back on it, I'm not sure the only movement so far wouldn't just have been the cottage getting closer to the river :shock:
It's odd that the one you have gone for isn't listed while that one was, seeing how similar they appear to be (though one's in - superficially at least - far better condition).

 

[Flyfisher]

I too read Hunt's piece in th eNew Scientist, but read it carefully:

I believe I pointed out that the 450 figure is now considered too conservative, but that only makes the Chinese forecasts even more alarming.

Frankly, the really depressing aspect of this whole debate is the sense that we're fiddling while Rome burns; there is so little consensus - and I mean that in the sense of everyone on the planet being engaged, pulling in the same direction and really being prepared to change their way of life. Witness all the objections everytime someone wants to build a wind turbine or a barrage scheme. What does a spoilt view or a few upset wading birds really matter compared with an irreversible climate tipping point? The whole thing is unreal - which is probably the biggest part of the problem.

And, personally, I also find it astonishing that population growth and nuclear power seem to be taboo subjects, even for discussion. I accept that nuclear power has it's problems but if we really believe that fossil fuels will destroy our climate by the end of the century isn't nuclear power a no-brainer? Sure, we'll have to find a way to deal with the waste, but at least we'll have bought the time to do it. 90 years is nothing really, expecially considering the progress we've made in the last 30 years or so. Perhaps we'd be more productively engaged in campaigning for more nuclear power instead of trying to convince people to cut back on fossil fuel consumption? We seem to be able to find trillions to save the banks; why not flood the energy market with cheap nuclear power instead?

As for CO's (something of a change of tack after discussing the end of the world), my experience may be limited to just one (and not Gareth) but it has been a complete revelation. These people will freely give immense help and advice to any listed building owner and ask only that you have the best interest of the building at heart - which is hardly unreasonable. They really are priceless in my view.

 

[biffvernon]

I don't think population growth and nuclear power are taboo subjects. The blogosphere is full of it. Population pressure is clearly a great problem, but two observations: rather than population numbers, how the population behaves is more important, by at least an order of magnitude, and secondly the most effective way to reduce the birth rate is to improve wowmen's education, peri-natal and child health care, social security and pensions. Just shouting "there's too many people" doesn't seem to do much.
Nuclear is clearly less carbon intensive than burning fossil fuels but it's not such a clear winning strategy. It's not zero carbon by a long way. Uranium mining and processing depends on oil, as does building the power stations - think of all that concrete and steel. The supply of uranium is very limited, a number of studies arguing that this will limit nuclear power to about where it is now for a very long time. About 1% of the global energy use is nuclear, derived from 60000 tonnes per year of which 20000 are being supplied from the stock of old nuclear bombs. That runs out in a few years and there are serious doubts about how easy it will be to fuel the stations being built at the moment. It takes about 10 years to build a power station and, importantly, the rate of build is constrained by available expertise, production capacity and, these days, capital. What with the current fleet of power stations getting old, it is going to be difficult to keep nuclear power output at the current rate, let alone create an expansion. Talk of replacing oil and coal with nuclear leads us firmly into cloud cuckoo land.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Biff - what is the answer then? Assuming you had untrammelled power and a fully engaged population - what would you have us do? I appreciate you saying you don't want to have not tried, but what should the whole world do, and more importantly what is the minimum we can get away with (and even more realistically what is the maximum we are likely to actually do)?

 

[Penners]

Woah! An all-powerful Biff - there's a terrifying thought! :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

I don't think population growth and nuclear power are taboo subjects. The blogosphere is full of it.

But it's not on the political agenda, where it matters, unlike climate change.

Just shouting "there's too many people" doesn't seem to do much.

Fair point, but nor does just shouting "we must stop burning coal".

Talk of replacing oil and coal with nuclear leads us firmly into cloud cuckoo land.

Whereas talk of leaving coal in the ground does not?