Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Not to mention BSE and the millenium bug.christianb said:
On a lighter note: http://www.ixibo.com/2009/03/30-failed-predictions-about-future-of-technology/
- Thread starter ilikecobwebs
- Start date
On a lighter note: http://www.ixibo.com/2009/03/30-failed-predictions-about-future-of-technology/
Biff - This is, with respect, where my views divert from yours. I never studied Science or Environmental issues at university, but I do remember from my early schooling that nothing in Science can ever be proven...only disproven. There are so many things which had been accepted as universal fact and are now being questioned, so I truly believe that debate and research should always be encouraged (even applauded). Mankind knows very little about the world we live in and anything which increases this understanding is a good thing.
The problem with the climate change debate is that (on both sides), the true science has stopped and it has become dogma driven. You believe passionately that you are right, whilst others believe that they are right. There are millions of us stuck in the middle.
I'm surprised that you haven't mentioned the CRU news scandal (or perhaps you don't see it as a scandal?). The way I (and I suspect many other 'undecided' people) read it, is that it proves that those on the pro climate change side are just as fallible and prone to 'hiding the data' as those being funded by huge oil companies or other vested interests. Those 'scientists' had clearly reached a conclusion and were now massaging the data to fit their conclusions (which even my elementary science education tells me is wrong). They had also sought to exclude recommendations to the IPCC from other scientists who held alternative views from their own.
I don't say that this proves climate change is wrong, I don't say that it proves it right.
It just demonstrates that the current zealotry and demonisation of those who demand a more sensible debate is overdue. The ridiculous usage of the 'denier' adjective to equate challenging the output of groups like the CRU with anti-semitism is the thin end of the wedge. Even here, people seem unable to challenge your views without being subjected to personal insults.
I lean towards "a plague on all your houses" in this debate....both sides have elements driven by personal ambition, desire for 'fame', vested interests and spinning of lies.
wobs
Member
- Messages
- 536
- Location
- Hull - there's a nip in the air.
Flyfisher said:
I do enjoy many of your posts on this subject. A well balanced approach generally.
What this post reminds me of is the fact that where you have a threat that reaches the media's (and society's) consciousness, there are usually large amounts of work involved in combatting it. If its disease, we are all told to take precautions, and many vaccines are often rolled out to key people. Then, when it doesn't pan out into an epidemic (or pandemic), the people behind the scare are criticised as being over zealous. Well could it be that they might of prevented said scare?
In years gone by, we've had many pandemics when society may have understood much less about the problem. I know the media love a good scare story, but what society often struggles with identifying real threats, and then when a threat is acted upon, we assume because it didn't pan out, it must have been a overblown.
I for one get very tiried of the over zealous approach of many of those in the climate change debate, where the science takes a back seat. However, if we were to take act more upon the warnings, and climate change isn't that bad, then it will be the same thing again: Both the advocates and skeptics would claim they were right.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
Glad to hear these discussions are enjoyed by some. I keep telling myself it'll be the last time I respond but it's hard to resist attempting to bring (I hope) a modicum of balance. The more I read about the issue the more confused I become, even when trying to pin down simple 'facts' like UK coal reserves. Perhaps AGW really is a faith issue in the end, which is a somewhat bizarre thought.
Your point, I believe, is based on the 'precautionary principle' of (simplistically) giving the benefit of the doubt to scenarios that might cause immense harm and taking action to prevent, or mitigate, the scenario in question. So, for example, worldwide vaccination against smallpox is a good idea, even though millions of children might never be affected. A similar thing is currently happening with swine flu vaccinations.
But the precautionary principle needs to be carefully considered in terms of the cost of the forecast scenario playing out against the cost of prevention (or attempted prevention). In black-and-white terms, AGW might be considered an easy decision; it will destroy mankind so drastic action is needed immediately, e.g. stop burning fossil fuels right now (including leaving all remaining coal in the ground and forget about it!) and we're all saved. Except we wouldn't be because there would be huge costs associated with such actions - economies would crumble, millions would die of starvation, millions would die through lack of medicine etc etc. Would that be saving the planet or just killing off large numbers of people so that the survivors would be able to enjoy a good standard of living with little ecological impact?
'The west' enjoys a standard of living that is unimaginable to billions of people living today, never mind 100 or 200 years ago. Energy is the prime mover in bringing a similar standard of living to the the so-called developing nations and will save billions of people from starvation and disease. Given our state of technology, it is fossil fuels that are responsible for these historically unprecedented standards of living and abandoning them will have catastrophic effects on mankind's average well-being. Is such action a reasonable precaution against AGW? I don't know, of course, but I do believe it's not quite as simple as some may paint it.
The consequences of pre-emptive action seem to receive little debate. Everything is all to do with reducing carbon to limit climate change (too late to actually stop it, it would seem - if you believe in AGW of course, and futile if you don't) but with little debate about the consequences. Biff says we must stop burning coal right now. OK, but what would happen then? The 'greens' are also saying don't build nuclear power stations, don't cover pretty landscapes with wind turbines (not to mention preserving dwindling populations of a few species when millions of people already die through lack of water, food and medicine) . . . do we really have our priorities right in the face of AGW-driven assured destruction of mankind, if not the entire planet?
It's a tough subject alright and it may be that there is no satisfactory solution. Perhaps that's why the debate only seems to focus on mitigating AGW and side-stepping the consequences of the mitigating actions themselves. Perhaps we can only save the climate for a couple of billion people? But who's going to stand up and break that news to a global population of 6.5bn, and rising?
Your point, I believe, is based on the 'precautionary principle' of (simplistically) giving the benefit of the doubt to scenarios that might cause immense harm and taking action to prevent, or mitigate, the scenario in question. So, for example, worldwide vaccination against smallpox is a good idea, even though millions of children might never be affected. A similar thing is currently happening with swine flu vaccinations.
But the precautionary principle needs to be carefully considered in terms of the cost of the forecast scenario playing out against the cost of prevention (or attempted prevention). In black-and-white terms, AGW might be considered an easy decision; it will destroy mankind so drastic action is needed immediately, e.g. stop burning fossil fuels right now (including leaving all remaining coal in the ground and forget about it!) and we're all saved. Except we wouldn't be because there would be huge costs associated with such actions - economies would crumble, millions would die of starvation, millions would die through lack of medicine etc etc. Would that be saving the planet or just killing off large numbers of people so that the survivors would be able to enjoy a good standard of living with little ecological impact?
'The west' enjoys a standard of living that is unimaginable to billions of people living today, never mind 100 or 200 years ago. Energy is the prime mover in bringing a similar standard of living to the the so-called developing nations and will save billions of people from starvation and disease. Given our state of technology, it is fossil fuels that are responsible for these historically unprecedented standards of living and abandoning them will have catastrophic effects on mankind's average well-being. Is such action a reasonable precaution against AGW? I don't know, of course, but I do believe it's not quite as simple as some may paint it.
The consequences of pre-emptive action seem to receive little debate. Everything is all to do with reducing carbon to limit climate change (too late to actually stop it, it would seem - if you believe in AGW of course, and futile if you don't) but with little debate about the consequences. Biff says we must stop burning coal right now. OK, but what would happen then? The 'greens' are also saying don't build nuclear power stations, don't cover pretty landscapes with wind turbines (not to mention preserving dwindling populations of a few species when millions of people already die through lack of water, food and medicine) . . . do we really have our priorities right in the face of AGW-driven assured destruction of mankind, if not the entire planet?
It's a tough subject alright and it may be that there is no satisfactory solution. Perhaps that's why the debate only seems to focus on mitigating AGW and side-stepping the consequences of the mitigating actions themselves. Perhaps we can only save the climate for a couple of billion people? But who's going to stand up and break that news to a global population of 6.5bn, and rising?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Pford, yes science does not prove things. Proof is in the realm of maths and logic, not science. Take gravity. Newton described it well enough for inter-planetary space navigation, but Einstein showed that he was, quite fundamentally wrong. Einstein did not manage to unite gravity with the other forces so did not provide a full description. Yesterday the Large Hadron Collider attained record energies. Work there may lead to a fuller description. Nevertheless, we all know enough about gravity to usefully inform behaviour when standing close to high cliffs.
We don’t have a full description of the whole climate system, but we do know enough to usefully inform behaviour with respect to burning the remaining carbon sinks of coal, gas and oil.
Jump off a cliff and you go splat. Burn the carbon and we end life as we know it.
The CRU scandal? The only scandal is that someone hacked into the system with the deliberate aim of inciting doubt about the known facts. This link: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&src=tw
reports that what small fragments of data in the possession of the University of East Anglia, that are not yet in the public domain, will be released just as soon as permission from the owners can be obtained. I think I did post a link to the RealClimate account of the affair about a day after it broke. Here it is again in case you missed it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ and here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Nothing hidden, nothing massaged, just honest scientists sometimes being very angry and rude about idiots who try to undermine their work.
I really think the word denier is all too restrained. It is you who associate the word with the holocaust, not me, but since you raise the matter I would point out that the second world war resulted in the death of many millions of people. Global warming could result in the death of several billion people. The problem is three orders of magnitude larger. And irreversible.
We don’t have a full description of the whole climate system, but we do know enough to usefully inform behaviour with respect to burning the remaining carbon sinks of coal, gas and oil.
Jump off a cliff and you go splat. Burn the carbon and we end life as we know it.
The CRU scandal? The only scandal is that someone hacked into the system with the deliberate aim of inciting doubt about the known facts. This link: http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=17333&src=tw
reports that what small fragments of data in the possession of the University of East Anglia, that are not yet in the public domain, will be released just as soon as permission from the owners can be obtained. I think I did post a link to the RealClimate account of the affair about a day after it broke. Here it is again in case you missed it: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/ and here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Nothing hidden, nothing massaged, just honest scientists sometimes being very angry and rude about idiots who try to undermine their work.
I really think the word denier is all too restrained. It is you who associate the word with the holocaust, not me, but since you raise the matter I would point out that the second world war resulted in the death of many millions of people. Global warming could result in the death of several billion people. The problem is three orders of magnitude larger. And irreversible.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Maybe there's a not seeing wood for the trees problem.Flyfisher said:
Back in the 19th century the basic physics was worked out and 150 years of science has just confirmed it ever more firmly.
The atmosphere keeps us warm maintaining the balance between incoming and outgoing radiation at a particular temperature. A temperature that suits us just fine and dandy.
Adding CO2 enhances this effect so that the balance becomes maintained at a higher temperature. A temperature that will not suit us one little bit.
That really is all you need to understand. Simple. Undeniable.
JohnB
Member
- Messages
- 493
- Location
- Beautiful sunny West Wales!
I'm useless at taking in and remembering figures, so I'm not going to argue about details, but here's a few bits of information I've picked up along the way:
- The ice at both poles is melting. There's rather a lot of it, apparently enough for sea levels to rise by enough to put parts of this country under water, and totally obliterate some small countries.
- Some glaciers are melting. I believe that these glaciers provide water for drinking and crop irrigation for a significant proportion of the world's population.
- Permafrost in places like Siberia is starting to melt. There are vast quantities of methane trapped in it that is starting to be released, and methane is a many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
I think those are facts that are easy to prove, or disprove if incorrect.
- Ice, glaciers, permafrost, and cold things in general melt because they are exposed to heat.
- There seems to be dispute about whether global temperatures are rising.
- But temperatures must be rising in the places that matter, or the melting wouldn't be happening.
Isn't that enough to convince people that there's a bit of a problem that it might be a good idea to do something about?
Does it matter if the problem is man made or not? The climate is changing, and nature is starting to throw some nasty stuff in our direction. Who cares who's causing it? Even if it's not us, it seems that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are implicated in some way. We do have an influence over some of these gases in the atmosphere, so it makes sense to stop putting more of it there, and try to get some back, even if it's just to try to compensate for what nature is doing.
If your house is burning down with you inside it, would you refuse to call the fire brigade because you don't think you started the fire?
- The ice at both poles is melting. There's rather a lot of it, apparently enough for sea levels to rise by enough to put parts of this country under water, and totally obliterate some small countries.
- Some glaciers are melting. I believe that these glaciers provide water for drinking and crop irrigation for a significant proportion of the world's population.
- Permafrost in places like Siberia is starting to melt. There are vast quantities of methane trapped in it that is starting to be released, and methane is a many times more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
I think those are facts that are easy to prove, or disprove if incorrect.
- Ice, glaciers, permafrost, and cold things in general melt because they are exposed to heat.
- There seems to be dispute about whether global temperatures are rising.
- But temperatures must be rising in the places that matter, or the melting wouldn't be happening.
Isn't that enough to convince people that there's a bit of a problem that it might be a good idea to do something about?
Does it matter if the problem is man made or not? The climate is changing, and nature is starting to throw some nasty stuff in our direction. Who cares who's causing it? Even if it's not us, it seems that greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are implicated in some way. We do have an influence over some of these gases in the atmosphere, so it makes sense to stop putting more of it there, and try to get some back, even if it's just to try to compensate for what nature is doing.
If your house is burning down with you inside it, would you refuse to call the fire brigade because you don't think you started the fire?
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
It's not quite so simple, though, is it?
For example, melting of the arctic ice cap won't contribute to rising sea levels because it's floating (have you ever seen a full glass of iced drink overflow when the ice melts?). We can agree on that as a fact can't we?
Yes, I know not all the ice is floating, but does anyone know what happened to sea level during the last ice-age? This was a mere blip ago in geological time, so I'd guess some sea-level data still exists. I've read (unfortunately I can't remember where) that it was less than 1m lower than current levels, the implication being that if covering most of the northern hemisphere with thick ice only made a 1m difference to sea level, how can melting the relatively small, by comparison, amount of current ice make a big impact?
Does it matter if the problem is man-made? I think so, because if it's not man-made then changing what we do is unlikely to make much difference.
We also know that the climate has changed dramatically without the benefit of man-made emissions throughout the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. We also believe that H.Sapiens is the most adaptable form of life ever to have walked its surface, so do we really believe we'll let a bit of weather wipe us out?
No, it all boils down to preserving our standard of living. Where are the scenarios that show what our standard of living will be without fossil fuels? The country goes into semi-panic when fuel tanker drivers go on strike for a few weeks, never mind giving up the stuff forever. Let's better understand the real consequences of going without abundant energy before we decide to leave the coal in the ground, especially given the anti-nuclear and anti-windfarm lobbies that would hold back some possible alternatives.
For example, melting of the arctic ice cap won't contribute to rising sea levels because it's floating (have you ever seen a full glass of iced drink overflow when the ice melts?). We can agree on that as a fact can't we?
Yes, I know not all the ice is floating, but does anyone know what happened to sea level during the last ice-age? This was a mere blip ago in geological time, so I'd guess some sea-level data still exists. I've read (unfortunately I can't remember where) that it was less than 1m lower than current levels, the implication being that if covering most of the northern hemisphere with thick ice only made a 1m difference to sea level, how can melting the relatively small, by comparison, amount of current ice make a big impact?
Does it matter if the problem is man-made? I think so, because if it's not man-made then changing what we do is unlikely to make much difference.
We also know that the climate has changed dramatically without the benefit of man-made emissions throughout the 4 billion year history of life on Earth. We also believe that H.Sapiens is the most adaptable form of life ever to have walked its surface, so do we really believe we'll let a bit of weather wipe us out?
No, it all boils down to preserving our standard of living. Where are the scenarios that show what our standard of living will be without fossil fuels? The country goes into semi-panic when fuel tanker drivers go on strike for a few weeks, never mind giving up the stuff forever. Let's better understand the real consequences of going without abundant energy before we decide to leave the coal in the ground, especially given the anti-nuclear and anti-windfarm lobbies that would hold back some possible alternatives.
JohnB
Member
- Messages
- 493
- Location
- Beautiful sunny West Wales!
You mean adaptable like making our homes better insulated and more energy efficient, which is where this discussion started :wink:Flyfisher said:
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Flyfisher, John said “The ice at both poles…” Obviously he was talking about the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS)in the sea level rise context but that the sea ice is melting is a demonstration of warmer conditions, which was John’s point.
>does anyone know what happened to sea level during the last ice-age?
Yes, we have good data on this. It was much, much more than your 1m. All of the North Sea was dry land. Melting of GrIS adds ~7m, melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) another 6m and , heavens forbid, East Antarctic Ice Sheet over 100m.
It now seems possible that most of the world's major cities, several small island states and half of Bangla Desh could be lost by the end of the century. And my house.
>do we really believe we'll let a bit of weather wipe us out?
In the end Permian event some 95% of all fossil-forming lifeforms went extinct. With a less severe warming there might be many opportunities for human survival on the northern coasts of Canada and Russia.
>Where are the scenarios that show what our standard of living will be without fossil fuels?
There are plenty of people who think that our 'standard of living' will not survive the energy shortages brought on by Peak Oil over the next couple of decades, long before the worst effects of global warming hit us.
>does anyone know what happened to sea level during the last ice-age?
Yes, we have good data on this. It was much, much more than your 1m. All of the North Sea was dry land. Melting of GrIS adds ~7m, melting of West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) another 6m and , heavens forbid, East Antarctic Ice Sheet over 100m.
It now seems possible that most of the world's major cities, several small island states and half of Bangla Desh could be lost by the end of the century. And my house.
>do we really believe we'll let a bit of weather wipe us out?
In the end Permian event some 95% of all fossil-forming lifeforms went extinct. With a less severe warming there might be many opportunities for human survival on the northern coasts of Canada and Russia.
>Where are the scenarios that show what our standard of living will be without fossil fuels?
There are plenty of people who think that our 'standard of living' will not survive the energy shortages brought on by Peak Oil over the next couple of decades, long before the worst effects of global warming hit us.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,202
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
There you go.JohnB said:
Although perhaps we'll need more energy to run air-conditioners instead.
Regarding ice-age sea levels, I must have mis-read the 1m figure I mentioned, or confused it with another source - easy to do with such a complex subject so thanks for the correction Biff. I know wikipedia is not definitive, although at least it provides references, but this makes interesting reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise, particularly all the plus and minus contributers to sea-level rises. For example, water to the equivalent of about 8mm of sea-level falls on Antarctica each year, not all of which is returned to the oceans by melting, making Antartica cause a net reduction in sea level. Even IPCC projections for the effect of Antarctica over 1990-2100 is -170 to +20mm, which is a pretty large range of uncertainty.
Also interesting: The strong 1997-1998 El Niño caused regional and global sea level variations, including a temporary global increase of perhaps 20 mm. The IPCC TAR's examination of satellite trends says the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea-level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability. Am I the only one to worry about long term prediction accuracy when a single event can introduce "difficulty" into the data and modelling?
So why isn't this part of the debate when objections to nuclear power and tens of thousands of wind turbines are being discussed? Perhaps because there is no-one able to offer a solution?biffvernon said:
I've just been listening to someone on R4 reporting on the run-up to the Copenhagen conference explaining that by 2050 the world needs to get to a carbon budget of 2 tons/person/year. This is a global average figure. At present, apparently, we are at 5.5 tons/person/year but of course it is not evenly distributed and a figure of 20 tons/person/year was quoted for the USA. Even assuming that we only use half the USA carbon figure, it means that we have to reduce our own carbon emissions by 80% over the next 40 years. Try to imagine the impact that's going to have - rather more, I suspect, than switching to CFL lightbulbs, buying a smaller car and turning down the heating a tad. I wonder how the Copenhagen meeting will explain the implications?
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
<hesitates, then ploughs on in>
There seem to me (2.1 (hons) science graduate) three questions:
a) is the planet warming?
b) is any warming due primarily to man-made causes and actions?
c) if it is, is there diddly-squat we can do about it?
The hockey-stick graphs do indeed look dramatic and suggest we are warming. However, without the original (some say "uncorrected", others say "unmanipulated" - who can tell, now?) data, it is not possible for others to attempt to reconstruct the observational data for the past 150-odd years from scratch. I'm not sure that this means the original data upon which it seems all other projections are based, can be subjected to peer review. Biff - has the original source data and subsequent "corrections" for observational bias/method ever been peer reviewed? If I recall, the corrected data shows a 0.8 deg C planetary warming over the past 157 years.
Let's assume we are warming. Is it due to man-made actions? Intuitively it seems that the warming coincides with industrial growth. Is this coincidence? The planet warms and cools all the time and by significantly more than we seem to be at present and before humans could have ever influenced it - and this is influenced by the amount of energy the planet receives externally - ie from the sun.
I understand from those who ascribe any warming to carbon-based fuel burning, that methane is a far more potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2. Methane produced via meat production and driven by population growth and economic development elsewhere in the world seem to be far bigger potential problems than my patio heater (my illustrative patio heater as I don't have one!)
Lets assume we are warming, and it is primarily human-driven. So can we do anything about it? Well we could start by economically improverishing ourselves and condemning ourselves and our kids to an (carbon-based?) energy-lite existence. Or we could withold economic development from the rest of the planet and dramatically cut the world's population. Selfish, but probably more likely to have a bigger impact than stopping all those cheap flights.
Guess which ones they're discussing in Haven't-got-a-Hopenhagen next month!
I think the answers to my questions are:
a) Probably yes, but what is the longer term trend doing?
b) Probably in part, but may be a small part of a bigger natural phenomenin. Waht caused previous warming and cooling events? Why is this one any different?
c) Probably not much. As a result, I for one would rather see us protect our influence, power and economy to prepare us for any impending problems, not impoverish us so that the Chinese can all eat Big Macs.
Berating me for holding what arre probably fairly understandable views commonly held, is not going to win the "believers" any more influence.
In the meantime, lets hope the scientists can come up with a technical solution...
There seem to me (2.1 (hons) science graduate) three questions:
a) is the planet warming?
b) is any warming due primarily to man-made causes and actions?
c) if it is, is there diddly-squat we can do about it?
The hockey-stick graphs do indeed look dramatic and suggest we are warming. However, without the original (some say "uncorrected", others say "unmanipulated" - who can tell, now?) data, it is not possible for others to attempt to reconstruct the observational data for the past 150-odd years from scratch. I'm not sure that this means the original data upon which it seems all other projections are based, can be subjected to peer review. Biff - has the original source data and subsequent "corrections" for observational bias/method ever been peer reviewed? If I recall, the corrected data shows a 0.8 deg C planetary warming over the past 157 years.
Let's assume we are warming. Is it due to man-made actions? Intuitively it seems that the warming coincides with industrial growth. Is this coincidence? The planet warms and cools all the time and by significantly more than we seem to be at present and before humans could have ever influenced it - and this is influenced by the amount of energy the planet receives externally - ie from the sun.
I understand from those who ascribe any warming to carbon-based fuel burning, that methane is a far more potent "greenhouse" gas than CO2. Methane produced via meat production and driven by population growth and economic development elsewhere in the world seem to be far bigger potential problems than my patio heater (my illustrative patio heater as I don't have one!)
Lets assume we are warming, and it is primarily human-driven. So can we do anything about it? Well we could start by economically improverishing ourselves and condemning ourselves and our kids to an (carbon-based?) energy-lite existence. Or we could withold economic development from the rest of the planet and dramatically cut the world's population. Selfish, but probably more likely to have a bigger impact than stopping all those cheap flights.
Guess which ones they're discussing in Haven't-got-a-Hopenhagen next month!
I think the answers to my questions are:
a) Probably yes, but what is the longer term trend doing?
b) Probably in part, but may be a small part of a bigger natural phenomenin. Waht caused previous warming and cooling events? Why is this one any different?
c) Probably not much. As a result, I for one would rather see us protect our influence, power and economy to prepare us for any impending problems, not impoverish us so that the Chinese can all eat Big Macs.
Berating me for holding what arre probably fairly understandable views commonly held, is not going to win the "believers" any more influence.
In the meantime, lets hope the scientists can come up with a technical solution...
christianb
Member
- Messages
- 202
- Location
- Helford River, Cornwall
Ooooh, much to catch up on...
Flyfisher: Not to mention BSE and the millenium bug. Indeed. And pretty much every other issue governments and NGO's get twisty-knickers over if recent form is anything to go by.
I also think FamilyWiggs pretty much nails the general mood on the street. Truth is, I certainly don't deny that climate change occurs. Nor, indeed, do I contest that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (without it and its chums we'd be frozen, nevermind the fact that life on earth would be impossible). But the notion that mankind is effectively the sole cause of the pandaemonium (in some quarters) I just don't buy.
That said, I am, in fact, an environmentalist. I'm passionate about conservation and the protection of the earth's ecosystems - these having provided a buffer against many a potential global catastrophe in the past. And they're a lot better at doing so than some self-satisfied p1llock in Islington riding a bike to work, buying "sustainable" hummus, driving a hybrid, and lecturing everyone else about their carbon footprint.
Anyway, the human race is fortunate enough to have flourished in the most benign period in the earth's history. Climate-wise, we've done pretty damn well. We still do. And nature has plenty of things it can do to make this little episode seem like a temperate spring breeze.
Lastly, I really don't doubt that Biff means well. In fact, I'm sure he's an agreeable fella if you steer clear of eco-chat. And maybe at this rate he'll even convert lots of people... to coal-fired power stations.
Flyfisher: Not to mention BSE and the millenium bug. Indeed. And pretty much every other issue governments and NGO's get twisty-knickers over if recent form is anything to go by.
I also think FamilyWiggs pretty much nails the general mood on the street. Truth is, I certainly don't deny that climate change occurs. Nor, indeed, do I contest that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas (without it and its chums we'd be frozen, nevermind the fact that life on earth would be impossible). But the notion that mankind is effectively the sole cause of the pandaemonium (in some quarters) I just don't buy.
That said, I am, in fact, an environmentalist. I'm passionate about conservation and the protection of the earth's ecosystems - these having provided a buffer against many a potential global catastrophe in the past. And they're a lot better at doing so than some self-satisfied p1llock in Islington riding a bike to work, buying "sustainable" hummus, driving a hybrid, and lecturing everyone else about their carbon footprint.
Anyway, the human race is fortunate enough to have flourished in the most benign period in the earth's history. Climate-wise, we've done pretty damn well. We still do. And nature has plenty of things it can do to make this little episode seem like a temperate spring breeze.
Lastly, I really don't doubt that Biff means well. In fact, I'm sure he's an agreeable fella if you steer clear of eco-chat. And maybe at this rate he'll even convert lots of people... to coal-fired power stations.
JohnB
Member
- Messages
- 493
- Location
- Beautiful sunny West Wales!
A properly designed house should stay at a pretty constant temperature all year, with little active heating or cooling required. Didn't people in hot countries once manage to build houses that kept cool, until they discovered "modern" building techniques that need air conditioning?Flyfisher said:There you go.JohnB said:
Although perhaps we'll need more energy to run air-conditioners instead.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
@Flyfisher. The 1m perhaps should have been 100m. Sea level is, indeed, a very complex thing. But sattelites now allow us to measure it very accurately right across the globe. Global average sea level is now rising at 3.4mm per year, which is 80% faster than the rate reprted in IPCC AR4 a couple of years ago. The increase is thought to be mostly from loss of GrIS and WAIS.
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet has been assumed to be about stable of perhaps even with a positive ice mass balance as increased snowfall leads to accumulation. But.
Just last week a paper was published that suggests ice mass loss from EAIS too.
Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements, Chen et al Nature Geoscience Letters 22 November 2009. Here's the abstract:
The East Antarctic Ice Sheet has been assumed to be about stable of perhaps even with a positive ice mass balance as increased snowfall leads to accumulation. But.
Just last week a paper was published that suggests ice mass loss from EAIS too.
Accelerated Antarctic ice loss from satellite gravity measurements, Chen et al Nature Geoscience Letters 22 November 2009. Here's the abstract:
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
biffvernon said:
Hmmm - at 750 ft I seem to be safe for another 67,000 years... guess I don't need to stockpile those sandbags after all... :wink:
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Accurate quantification of Antarctic ice-sheet mass balance
and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging,
because in situ measurements over both space and
time are sparse. Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations
and ice motion show significant ice loss in the range
of 31 to 196 Gt yr 1 in West Antarctica in recent years1–4,
whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or slightly
gain mass1,2,4, with estimated rates of mass change in the
range of 44 to 22 Gt1. The Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment5 (GRACE) offers the opportunity of quantifying
polar ice-sheet mass balance from a different perspective6,7.
Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the
period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of
Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier
assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190 77 Gt yr 1, with
132 26 Gt yr 1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in
contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that
East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a
rate of 57 52 Gt yr 1, apparently caused by increased ice
loss since the year 2006.
and its contribution to global sea-level rise remains challenging,
because in situ measurements over both space and
time are sparse. Satellite remote-sensing data of ice elevations
and ice motion show significant ice loss in the range
of 31 to 196 Gt yr 1 in West Antarctica in recent years1–4,
whereas East Antarctica seems to remain in balance or slightly
gain mass1,2,4, with estimated rates of mass change in the
range of 44 to 22 Gt1. The Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment5 (GRACE) offers the opportunity of quantifying
polar ice-sheet mass balance from a different perspective6,7.
Here we use an extended record of GRACE data spanning the
period April 2002 to January 2009 to quantify the rates of
Antarctic ice loss. In agreement with an independent earlier
assessment4, we estimate a total loss of 190 77 Gt yr 1, with
132 26 Gt yr 1 coming from West Antarctica. However, in
contrast with previous GRACE estimates, our data suggest that
East Antarctica is losing mass, mostly in coastal regions, at a
rate of 57 52 Gt yr 1, apparently caused by increased ice
loss since the year 2006.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
This follows the paper the previous week that I think I commented on earlier about the sudden increase in ice loss from Greenland.
I too heard that piece on Radio 4. The problem as I see it is that there is still an enormous mis-match between what even concerned politicians are calling for and what the science demands. We currently have ~387ppmv CO2 in the air. Adding ANY more CO2 pushes that number up but to prevent global warming we have to reduce that number. This is what the 350 campaign is all about. 350ppmv is the figure that Jim Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studdies (the prime climate monitoring body) said would be the maximum safe figure. That means we have to remove CO2, not talk about how much more we can put in.
@FamilyWiggs. Easy questions, Answers are Yes, Yes and Yes. The harder question is, d)Will we get round to doing diddly-squat about it in time. Answer probably not, but, in the word's of Dan Dare, While there's life there's hope.
All the data used in the hockey-stick graphs are in the public domain and have been for ages. That diagram was published in a peer reviewed journal - follow the links I gave.
Don't use intuition to decide on veracity. Use physics. The bent end of the hockey stick is because we burn coal and oil. Yes and keep belching cows and all the other greenhouse sources, but coal and oil are the two biggest sources. Methane from melting arctic permafrost may soon become very important. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas but leaves the atmosphere in years and decades. The CO2 stays for centuries and millenia so in the long run has a much bigger effect.
Don't wait in hope for techie solutions. We do know how to live well in a carbon free world with current technology.
I too heard that piece on Radio 4. The problem as I see it is that there is still an enormous mis-match between what even concerned politicians are calling for and what the science demands. We currently have ~387ppmv CO2 in the air. Adding ANY more CO2 pushes that number up but to prevent global warming we have to reduce that number. This is what the 350 campaign is all about. 350ppmv is the figure that Jim Hansen, Director of NASA Goddard Institue for Space Studdies (the prime climate monitoring body) said would be the maximum safe figure. That means we have to remove CO2, not talk about how much more we can put in.
@FamilyWiggs. Easy questions, Answers are Yes, Yes and Yes. The harder question is, d)Will we get round to doing diddly-squat about it in time. Answer probably not, but, in the word's of Dan Dare, While there's life there's hope.
All the data used in the hockey-stick graphs are in the public domain and have been for ages. That diagram was published in a peer reviewed journal - follow the links I gave.
Don't use intuition to decide on veracity. Use physics. The bent end of the hockey stick is because we burn coal and oil. Yes and keep belching cows and all the other greenhouse sources, but coal and oil are the two biggest sources. Methane from melting arctic permafrost may soon become very important. Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas but leaves the atmosphere in years and decades. The CO2 stays for centuries and millenia so in the long run has a much bigger effect.
Don't wait in hope for techie solutions. We do know how to live well in a carbon free world with current technology.
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Yes, it's really a very small proportion of the land mass that gets flooded even if all ice melts. Trouble is a ver large proportion of the people live on the low bit. Including me.FamilyWiggs said:
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
biffvernon said:
biffvernon said:
biffvernon said:
Put those three statements together biff, and without a techie solution we're screwed if they're all correct. There's no way other way to reduce carbon from the current level down to 350ppm if it is up there for millenia otherwise.
Re - peer review of the original data. My understanding from the UEA "lost" data saga, is that all they have retained are the "corrected" figures, and not the original measurements for weather stations across the world for the past 150 years. Thus no one can go back and review, test or reconstruct their "corrections". Now I'm not a conspiracy theorist - but to discard your original observational data and only retain your derived data (on the basis of "storage cost" in the 80s!) seems to be to a little bit slipshod for a scientist?
Or have I misunderstood?