350

[biffvernon]

Ha! You should go to LATOC (life after the oil crash). It's an American peak oil forum where, being Americans, they are often talking about stockpiling guns, food and sandbags.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the word 'faith'. It's rather open to interpretations different to what I had in mind. When I said I had faith in climate scientists and telecoms engineers it was not in the sense of a 'blind faith' or a 'religious faith', rather it was in the sense that I was confident that, if I was so inclined, I could look up the scientific and technical literature and satisfy myself that these guys knew their stuff. In the case of climate science I've done just that. In the case of telecoms I just have that' faith'.

I think I'm using the word in a sense different to that which Flyfisher implies.

 

[Flyfisher]

That's a good definition of 'faith' in this context, but not exactly what I was thinking of. I think we all exhibit the sort of faith you've described; phones, computers, cars, bridges etc - we could probably understand what makes them tick if we took the time (and were interested enough) to learn the relevant disciplines. But no-one has time to become all-knowing, so we have faith in the relevant professionals.

But I think climate change modelling is somewhat different. We can have faith in the professional scientists that are doing the work and could even fall back on the relevant literature ourselves to verify their work if we were thus disposed, but their core achievement is a predictive model which cannot be totally verified in the same way as a phone or a car or a bridge. Thus, it's a different type of faith to fully believe the climate models and, perhaps, another leap of faith to significantly change one's entire lifestyle - and the world's - based on its predictions.

 

[biffvernon]

But I think climate change modelling is somewhat different.

I really don't think it is different. That's why it has been possible for my son to move from his computational physics MSc project, modelling the behaviour of nuclear powerstation cores, to eight years of designing mobile telecoms systems, to his current Phd modelling the ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. The skills learnt are largely transferable as similar methods, mathematics and computation are involved. Nuclear engineering, radio architecture and glaciology have a common denominator, science.

 

[bower1]

The skills learnt are largely transferable as similar methods, mathematics and computation are involved. Nuclear engineering, radio architecture and glaciology have a common denominator, science.

Nuclear is another interesting example. However much the scientists and engineers insist they are right, there are a considerable number of people who do not trust it.

The reason is probably more about the repercussions of being wrong. There would probably be a large number of people who would have doubts about many other areas of science, its just that its outcome does not effect them, so they are never asked to question it. I don't think climate research is being singled out, its just the repercussions that make it different.

 

[Penners]

When I said I had faith in climate scientists and telecoms engineers it was not in the sense of a 'blind faith' or a 'religious faith', rather it was in the sense that I was confident that, if I was so inclined, I could look up the scientific and technical literature and satisfy myself that these guys knew their stuff. In the case of climate science I've done just that. In the case of telecoms I just have that' faith'.

The problem for me is that climate science is at the cutting edge of science. And that's where my faith is put to the test and found a little wanting.

The telephone has been around for about 150 years, so we've had time to get it pretty well right and reliable. When I pick up the phone, I have faith that it will work.

When I turn on that relative newcomer, the home computer, my faith is considerably less absolute.

I tend to regard climate science as a computer, rather than a telephone. I may be right, I may be wrong, but it's perception we're talking about here, isn't it?

 

[Flyfisher]

But I think climate change modelling is somewhat different.

I really don't think it is different. That's why it has been possible for my son to move from his computational physics MSc project, modelling the behaviour of nuclear powerstation cores, to eight years of designing mobile telecoms systems, to his current Phd modelling the ice mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet. The skills learnt are largely transferable as similar methods, mathematics and computation are involved. Nuclear engineering, radio architecture and glaciology have a common denominator, science.

The difference is that we can model a nuclear powerstation core and then build the powerstation and measure the core behaviour to validate (or not) the model. We can model a mobile telecoms system and then build it and then measure its behaviour to validate (or not) the model.

But, while we can model climate change over the next 100 years or so, we can't validate the model. All we can do is to keep tweaking the model as new data becomes available over the next 100 years. In 2109, we'll be able to look back (if we're still here :wink: ) and validate (or not) the model, but we can't do it right now. That's the difference and that's where faith creeps into the issue.

 

[Lime]

Well of course faith plays a part.
What happens in the future is not a reality.
The human mind has to project concepts into the future in the hope (faith) something will give assurance the concept is correct.
But I'm not talking about the future.

I'm talking about what we know not what we conceive.

We know the earth has been far hotter than now and that life existed in abundance then.
We know that the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have been a full order of magnitude greater than they are now and life was abundant on earth.
We know that cataclysmic changes have happened to the earth over an extremely short time scale and life has survived with difficulty.
We also know our sister planet, Venus, is very like us but very different too.

The pivot (IMO) in any of the arguments used to support or deride the climate change worry (I don't dispute climate change, the earth has never stayed the same) is the relationship between the oceans and the atmosphere.
Crucially, is it the warming of the oceans that is causing the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the other way round?

 

[biffvernon]

@bower1. Some, like me, are against the building of more nuclear power stations but the reasons are because I do trust the nuclear scientists and engineers. They provide the information that leads me to think that nuclear waste will not be stored safely, that the consequences of human error are too serious, that weapons proliferation is too likely, that bad people will obtain dangerous materials more easily, that the supplies of uranium, capital, skills, and manufacturing capacity is insufficient to meet the near term energy needs and that there are better ways producing and using electricity. These are essentially political and social judgements, but supported by science which I regard as reliable.


@Penners. Climate science is rather older than the telephone. The basic physics of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide causing global warming was worked out in the 19th century and the work validated by a century of observations. For sure some aspects of climate science is very much cutting edge. Glacier dynamics and the rate that the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets is a very serious uncertainty.

@Flyfisher. The climate models are constantly being checked by 'hindcasting' - using the data from a while ago to forecast the known present and seeing if it works. And of course James Hansen made rather famous forecasts based on the quite primitive models available at the time. And they turned out good.

@Lime. Of course climate has varied over the geological past. Probably past changes were very much more slow. And it is not desirable from the human perspective. The end-Permian event wiped out 95% of all fossil forming lifeforms. Of course life will carry on, the planet will continue to orbit the Sun, but I care for human civilization that created beautiful buildings. The continued existence of the people and the buildings is what is under threat.

As for your question is it the warming of the oceans that is causing the rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or the other way round? It's is definitely the other way round. The CO2 we release into the atmosphere traps energy in the air, much of which will eventually warm up the oceans, water having a much higher thermal capacity than air. Indeed the slow rate of atmospheric warming observed in the last few years is associate with more heat being drawn down into the oceans during the la Nina regime in the Pacific. Much of our CO2 gets dissolved in the sea water causing ocean acidification, which will produce feedbacks that make the situation still worse. I'm afraid that suggesting the warming oceans cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 is rather like the idea that the trees waving causes the wind.

 

[bower1]

@bower1. Some, like me, are against the building of more nuclear power stations but the reasons are because I do trust the nuclear scientists and engineers. They provide the information that leads me to think that nuclear waste will not be stored safely, that the consequences of human error are too serious, that weapons proliferation is too likely, that bad people will obtain dangerous materials more easily, that the supplies of uranium, capital, skills, and manufacturing capacity is insufficient to meet the near term energy needs and that there are better ways producing and using electricity. These are essentially political and social judgements, but supported by science which I regard as reliable.

I am interested at what point you feel you can trust the scientist and engineers in a particular field. I think I just have a mindset which doesn't believe in things until I am convinced to do so, which I accept in the case of global warming could be a problem (unless I put a lot more effort into understanding the research, which unfortunately at the moment I do not have time to do!) If your own feelings went against the scientific consensus would you still believe the consensus?

 

[Flyfisher]

@Flyfisher. The climate models are constantly being checked by 'hindcasting' - using the data from a while ago to forecast the known present and seeing if it works. And of course James Hansen made rather famous forecasts based on the quite primitive models available at the time. And they turned out good.

Yes, hindcasting is a valuable technique, provided the system being modelled 'behaves itself' and no new, currently unknown, factors come to light. Tipping points and other non-linearities, for example, would stretch any model. As for James Hansen, there will always be someone who correctly predicted something in the future, whether they used a crystal ball or a supercomputer, but it's human nature that all those people who wrongly predicted something are not so well remembered.

But we're in danger of drifting back to debating climate change itself. As Penners pointed out, it's the public perception and the challenge of finding practical solutions that's the really difficult challenge. If these can't be solved then the accuracy of climate change models is a bit of a red herring.

 

[biffvernon]

I am interested at what point you feel you can trust the scientist and engineers in a particular field. I think I just have a mindset which doesn't believe in things until I am convinced to do so, which I accept in the case of global warming could be a problem (unless I put a lot more effort into understanding the research, which unfortunately at the moment I do not have time to do!) If your own feelings went against the scientific consensus would you still believe the consensus?

In an ideal world (Ha!) one should be able to trust the science. The science should be open and transparent and verifiable by anyone with the nouse so to do. The problems tend to happen when non-scientists, politicians, lawyers, civil-servants, ordinary bods, take decisions based on their interpretation or ignorance of the science.
We happen to have a structural engineer staying with us tonight. She works on small jobs, domestic and minor public works, often in historic buildings being converted. She tells me of the many occassions when she has judged a building element safe but the Buildings Control Officer has insisted on what she regards as an over-engineered solution - all those steels going in where there should be timber beams, for instance. The scientist who gives advice gets overuled by the non-scientist with the power.

 

[biffvernon]

As for James Hansen, there will always be someone who correctly predicted something in the future,

Yes but the someone is not always the director of Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studdies, the lead agency in the field. That's why his prediction has significance.

 

[Flyfisher]

"trust me, I'm a scientist . . . trust me lot's because I'm an eminent scientist". :wink:

But we're still discussing the science. Let's assume (or actually believe, if you wish) that the science is spot-on. Now what?

What's the plan to head-off catastrophic climate change? How do we get down to 350ppm CO2 from the current 390ppm? The 350.org action day on 24th Oct is all very well but what, exactly, will it take to remove 40ppm of CO2 from the atmosphere? 10:10 doesn't seem like anywhere near enough. Indeed, can climate change be avoided (Lovelock thinks probably not). Even after the Kyoto Protocol was 'agreed', the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions increased by 38% during 1992-2007, yet 350.org is requiring reduced emissions - how can that be achieved in practice? And if it can't be achieved, what should we be thinking or doing to best adapt to the inevitable climate change?

Perhaps the Copenhagen conference in December 09 will provide all the answers - or will it be about as productive as Kyoto has been?

 

[JoceAndChris]

I hardly dare join this debate. It is fascinating, but I'd just like to dip my ignorant toe in for a moment.

As Penners pointed out, it's the public perception and the challenge of finding practical solutions that's the really difficult challenge. If these can't be solved then the accuracy of climate change models is a bit of a red herring.

It's the heart of the problem - people (myself) don't want to be forced to reuse plastic bags and then see masses of unnecessary plastic when in the supermarket, or, be forced to recycle our waste and then see children sifting through it in India looking for goodies ( as I did). It's an insult to our intelligence. The trival gestures we're asked to make belittle the green movement, and alienate the cynical sector. The other things we're asked to do - walk or cycle, not drive, use less water, make do and mend, switch off lights - also seem fairly pointless when the perception is that huge companies and governments don't really match our little sacrifices. The green stuff that greenies are proud of (I don't mean you Biff) is almost laughable, it's so inadequate to alter things.

I'd almost prefer it if a crisis and a state of emergency was declared, and huge legislation took place on a global scale to prevent the destruction of the planet. Now that would be exciting, and Britain might pull together, as in wartime. But this namby pamby pussy footing around and crowing that takes place when people cycle to work or grow a few potatoes, now that just makes me want to switch on all the lights and eat only imported goods!

 

[biffvernon]

It's not so much "trust me, I'm a scientist" as "trust me, I'm a scientist and you can read my peer reviewed papers, look at my career path, check out the credentials of the organization that employs me and challenge me with your own peer reviewed paper or, these days, challenge me quickly and publicly on the blogosphere where your and my ideas will be endlessly debated".

What to do to reduce CO2? Lovelock may be right and we're toast but I haven't quite given up all hope yet. Realistically I don't think there's much we can do to stop all the oil being burnt about as fast as it can be sucked out of the ground. Fortunately we are probably past peak oil and on the depletion curve's downslope now. (Much trumpeting of new find in Gulf of Mexico this week - maybe a fortnight's worth of global demand if they can ever get it out of such deep hurricane invested waters.) Coal is the really big one. We have to stop burning coal. This morning sees the sentencing of the Drax 29, the 29 people who held up a train carrying coal to Drax power station in June 2008. They knew the importance.

10:10 is a pretty ambitious project. Reducing emissions by 10% in just one year is a big ask and a remarkable number of influential people, companies and organizations have signed up in just the first few days. Evert little action helps and I do think it wrong to say that one's own personal efforts are not significant. You never know just what influence on others the smallest thing can have. And millions of small actions add up.

Taking CO2 out of the air is the other side of the not putting it in coin. There's been talk in the media this week about 'artificial trees' (What's wrong with real ones? I hear you shout.). The idea does have merit, but we are a long way from a viable scale CO2 scrubbing plant. Meanwhile biochar, involving the pyrolysis of waste biomass to form charcoal that can be added to agricultural soil, looks like the front-running technology, sequestering carbon and adding soil fertility.

Keep doing the little things, Joce, we're trying to avoid the crisis and a state of emergency . That could be very unpleasant.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Evert little action helps and I do think it wrong to say that one's own personal efforts are not significant. You never know just what influence on others the smallest thing can have. And millions of small actions add up.

That's one of the most positive things to have been said in the whole endless debate. I hope you're right, and all these damn hemp bags and recycled loo roll are not just folly.

My life is pretty green, well, you all know all about it! The things which are environmentally friendly in my life appeal to me for other reasons, a point Robin made in the last environmental debate. I hate waste and it's great to save money on fuel. I'm interested in how you create your heat, Biff - it could work here; it would save a lot of money. I like rearing chickens, buying antiques, mending clothes and brewing things up from the garden. I don't like being stuck on a motorway or spending hours in a plane. The staycation has huge plus points over and above the foreign hoiday, I wouldn't be too upset to never go abroad again.

The green movement, or maybe I mean the government, are going to have to appeal to our frugal, nature loving, creative sides strongly if they want to persuade people to change their lives significantly - their argument being that it's healthier and more fun to be green; rather than we must deny ourselves the meat and bones of life.

 

[Penners]

recycled loo roll

I really think you need to phrase that more carefully. "Loo rolls made of recycled paper" perhaps?

 

[Moo]

And millions of small actions add up.

You're right, there, Biff. For the last few weeks I've been screwing small amounts of sponsorship for a charity cycle ride our son's currently undertaking. A couple of pounds here, a fiver there...... I've been surprised and delighted to discover that I've managed to raise nearly £300 !!!!!
So it's a nice feeling to know that I must have done even better in my petty domestic economies: never a light left burning in an unoccupied room, stairway or landing; teeth cleaned in half a cup of water; water for tea and coffee measured into the kettle to the nearest millilitre so as to conserve both water and power. And the electric saved by not using the iron or the vacuum cleaner must be huge. But as I loathe both activities with a deep and burning passion, does it count as a virtuous deed or just an excuse?


ps
If only I had the space for a water tank to hold all the water from the dishwasher and the washing machine so that we could divert it to the lavatory cisterns any ideas?

 

[skier-hughes]

Aha, that's who it is doing the bike ride !

 

[FamilyWiggs]

The things which are environmentally friendly in my life appeal to me for other reasons

[/quote]

Yes, my motivations for leading a "greener" life are more to do with a desire to a) be personally relatively self-sufficient (power, water, food, guns, sandbags, etc) in order to survive the various apocalyptic scenarios (from swine flu to the French invading again), b) to live in a natural environment that is clean, tidy and pleasant and c) to live in a property that is historically sensitive. Ironically much of this achieves similar ends to what Biff is exhorting us to do.

To link to the OP, is it possible to lead a reasonable standard of Western life that is completely carbon-neutral?