Peat bogs and climate change

[Lime]

We've had the debate. Do try and keep up. Now's the last chance to take some action.

Do you really think it's that simple? From some of the things I've read, many proposed 'actions' might lead to worse living conditions for the majority of the population than the effects of global warming itself (assuming it really is happening), i.e. the 'cure' might be worse than the disease.

I suspect the debate is far from over.

The real problem with climate change is that it is far from simple.

The "debate" referred to appears to be:
Is man to blame for climate change or not?


Theories abound based on a plethora of information but can any conclusion be called fact?
I doubt it.
What I gather is that we simply don't know.

If it amounts to a show of hands by "scientists" then man appears to be to blame but is that scientific?

I remind myself of the words of Einstein.

"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I don't think any experiment has proved either side of the debate wrong yet.

 

[charlie-ia]

sorry, was going to interrupt, but will post it up instead

 

[NT]

Every pseudoscience has its believers. This one keeps people in jobs and wins votes.


NT

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, lots of people believe that human personalities are divided into 12 groups dependant on the position of the stars in the sky at the time of birth, some folk think the world is about 400 years old, billions believe in a god, though they don't all believe in the same one, and I'm told that some think the world is flat, supported by four elephants standing on a turtle. If I meet one of these folk I'll ask what the turtle stands on.

Belief, of course, need have no relation to truth. The truth is that, amongst the scientific community, the idea that global warming is taking place and that human activity is responsible, is regarded as a fact established securely enough to make drastic changes in human activity an imperative if we are to continue inhabiting the planet in the numbers that we do and in the comfort that some enjoy and others aspire to.

With regard to living in Period Properties, the only rational thing to do is seek ways of preserving our cultural heritage in a way that minimises the use of fossil fuels.

The debate that goes on within the scientific community concerns the rate of change, the effects of those changes and what, if anything, we can do about it. The greatest uncertainties are in the area of feedback mechanisms where, for example, a small change in temperature leads to greater CO2 emission from peaty soils, leading to more climate change.

The uncertainties really are rather great. The recent IPPC Summary takes a cautious approach with regard to predictions, sticking closely to the most well established effects. Much of the possible consequences of feedback are not included in the report. The uncertainties are therefore whether the future will be worse than expected or much worse. There is little scope for optimism.

 

[biffvernon]

To illustrate the thoughts in the message above take a look at an article by Stefan Rahmstorf published on RealClimate a couple of days ago: The IPCC sea level numbers.

Rahmstorf, who was on the German delegation to the Paris IPCC meeting last month, describes how the IPCC figures were produced and why the uncertainties involved forces a pessimistic rather than an optimistic view of the future. I really hope that those who are still not taking climate change seriously take the time and trouble to read the whole article, but here are Rahmstorf's concluding paragraphs:

The main conclusion of this analysis is that sea level uncertainty is not smaller now than it was at the time of the TAR, and that quoting the 18-59 cm range of sea level rise, as many media articles have done, is not telling the full story. 59 cm is unfortunately not the “worst case”. It does not include the full ice sheet uncertainty, which could add 20 cm or even more. It does not cover the full “likely” temperature range given in the AR4 (up to 6.4 ºC) – correcting for that could again roughly add 20 cm. It does not account for the fact that past sea level rise is underestimated by the models for reasons that are unclear. Considering these issues, a sea level rise exceeding one metre can in my view by no means ruled out. In a completely different analysis, based only on a simple correlation of observed sea level rise and temperature, I came to a similar conclusion. As stated in that paper, my point here is not that I predict that sea level rise will be higher than IPCC suggests, or that the IPCC estimates for sea level are wrong in any way. My point is that in terms of a risk assessment, the uncertainty range that one needs to consider is in my view substantially larger than 18-59 cm.

A final thought: this discussion has all been about sea level rise until the year 2095. Sea level rise does not end there, as the quotes from the SPM at the beginning of this article show. Over several centuries, without serious mitigation efforts we may expect several meters of sea level rise. The Advisory Council on Global Change of the German government (disclosure: I'm a member of this body) in its recent special report on the oceans has proposed to limit long-term sea level rise to a maximum of one meter, as a guard-rail to guide climate policy. But that’s another story.

With our interest in Period Property we are sometimes caring for buildings that are a few centuries old. Are we working to preserve them just for a few more decades or do we hope that many of these venerable buildings will still have a useful life measured in centuries?

Just how long it will take for the 7m of sea level rise attributable to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the further 6m rise from the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet and the thermal expansion, which is already set to continue for a millenium, to flood a significant proportion of our buildings is open to debate.

The consequences of the removal of much of the world's best farmland is for debate on other forums, at least until mass migration forces us to reconsider the use of our housing stock.

 

[Lime]

Accepting that the climate of the world is changing (as it always has) and that it appears that we are going through a warming period, what evidence is there that man has caused this period?

I am aware of some theories/papers linking past temperature changes with past variations of atmospheric and oceanic behaviour.
I am aware of some of the changes occurring now.
Also there are some in the scientific "community" who are convinced of the Man/warming link by computer predictions and extrapolation of present figures.

However a catalogue of past and present examples of global variations does not prove anything except that the world is going through a warming phase/change.
It does not prove that Man has altered anything at all.
The argument that Man is creating global warming is not proved by evidence showing the world is warming up no matter how often it is repeated.
Nor is the Man/warming link supported by voicing prophecies of cataclysmic changes that could be brought about by an increase of sea level.
After all, no one appears to be doing much about over-population which will lead to disaster of which there is no doubt.

So rather than attempting to coerce and frighten others to take the present popular view amongst the scientific "community" why is there so little said about any of the facts that should be supporting this popular scientific view?
Where are these facts that are so convincing?
Facts have to have a scientific foundation and this is not accomplished by a show of hands or majority vote.
Listing present changes and future predicted changes is not evidence of any scientific link between Man and climate change, it is one of association.

I am reminded of the island tribes who once believed that the white man had magical powers because the white man was able to summon ships laden with goods from across the sea when ever he wanted.
It was asociation that caused the tribes to have their beliefs (totemism) and it was based on insular and insufficient evidence and ignorance of what was really happening.
It wasn't a fact nor was it reality except to them with their limited knowledge.
A similar situation appears to be happening now in this debate.



A list of facts together with their interelationhip to the Man/warming link would be helpful.

 

[biffvernon]

Accepting that the climate of the world is changing (as it always has) and that it appears that we are going through a warming period...

Oh, give me strength. The climate is not changing as it always has - it is changing in a completely different way. The past changes such as the warmings at the Paleocene/Eocene boundary, or the late Cretaceous, or the Permian/Triassic boundary (which wiped out about 95% of all known lifeforms) happened in a geological instant, i.e. over periods of thousand or hundreds of thousands of years. What we are now witnessing is a similar scale of change but compressed into a matter of decades. There is no evidence that this has ever happened before.

Where are these facts that are so convincing?

It's all published in the scientific journals. If you don't want to go to your nearest university library then start with RealClimate, which is the most accesible internet portal to the literature as well as providing links to the most up to date findings that haven't made it to the peer reviewed journals yet. Here's an example published only the day before yesterday:Reuters

 

[Lime]

No list I see.

 

[Nemesis]

I rather think Biff is suggesting, rather than spoon feed, people do some wider reading around the subject. That way they can at least have an informed opinion.

 

[Lime]

I rather think Biff is suggesting, rather than spoon feed, people do some wider reading around the subject. That way they can at least have an informed opinion.

Presumable I haven't?

Suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with an opinion is lacking in knowledge or lazy is not a good argument either.

I do know the arguments put forward by those convinced Man is responsible for global warming.
I want the facts that are so convincing to so many so-called well-read people.
I do not see them.
If the facts are so clear cut, list them to me.

Facts that link the global warming we are experiencing now (as opposed to the 1940s to 1970s period of global cooling) directly to Man's activities.


So far what has been put forward is surmise.

Surmise and opinion not based on facts are not science no matter how many times it is said.

 

[Johneds]

Read what though? There are more theories against the C02 cause than for. I rather like the Tungus meteorite theory, which fits very nicely with the time frame and would explain the oddities of the current warming pattern, but I have no way of knowing if it has any merit.

So I have to go back to what seems intuitive to me. A bit like homeopathy. Millions believe that mega diluted solutions have miracle properties. To me, intuitively, I cannot see how. Just like C02. How can our contribution to C02 in the atmosphere have a significant effect when it is such a miniscule proportion compared to everything else? As they say, one puff from a medium sized volcano puts Human C02 in the shade. Just doesn't add up to me.

I don't completely ignore the possibility though. T'is true that by the time we know for sure it will be too late to do anything about it. (if it's not too late allready?) I personally think sustainability of the Earth's natural resources is a good enough reason to go green. And it's a lot more tangible for my small brain to understand.

 

[Nemesis]

Suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with an opinion is lacking in knowledge or lazy is not a good argument either


And maybe people are busy and weary and bored, so very very bored, of repeating the same things over and over and having those with possibly more time and inclination pick it all over and over and over?

Thanks Biff for the links - useful reading. I'm not a scientist but no-one can afford to ignore these issues. IMHO.

I agree though with Johneds - whatever the conclusions, and I have to say there's a great deal which is worrying happening, I think squandering irreplaceable resources isn't a great plan.

 

[Lime]

Still no list forthcoming I see.

Too bored to tell. :shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll:

What is boring is the lack of any facts linking the activities of Man directly with global warming.

 

[Nemesis]

Well I'm not clued up enough to be able to give you a list - never claimed to be. I'm just concerned individual as I think most of us are (or should be). Who do you expect has the time to produce a list for you? Biff? Maybe he's out enjoying the garden or making oak windows or getting drunk in his local hostelry or finding more milestones. Who knows. He's entitled to do all of those things in his own time.

I'm currently dividing my afternoon amongst the following: writing a long submission to the DCMS which is overdue, on a subject on which I do have a fair amount of expertise, writing an objection to the ruination of a group of buildings ditto, potting up my sweet peas, catching up on some vital reading, weeding the garden and checking this forum and my e-mails.

The garden is winning.

 

[biffvernon]

That's right, I'm gardening. Just popped in for a cuppa. Sorry, no time for a list just now, Lime. Do some more reading and write a list yourself. Quick factoid for Johneds, Volcanos, the nasty dirty brutes, contribute about 2% of global CO2 emission. Not very important. Volcanos probably did make quite an impact in the Permo-Triassic warming. There was a great outpouring of lavas in what is now Siberia over a very long period of time. Quite unlike today's situation.

 

[Flyfisher]

I guess global warming is almost a 'faith' issue and will forever stimulate debate because absolute irrefutable proof is likely to be hard to come by (until it's too late perhaps?).

But, surely, to the people who really do believe it's the planet-threatening phenomenon it's often touted to be, shouldn't it be the one-and-only-all-consuming priority of their lives to help reverse it? What I find curious is the general 'yes, global warming is a very bad thing and I've bought new low-energy lightbulbs to help' attitude, while continuing, more-or-less, to run their lives pretty much the same as usual.

Maybe we pick up this attitude from our politicians; a miniscule £5 increase in APD on the one hand but refusal to add VAT to ticket prices on the other (although I read recently that the tories said they would cancel the new Stansted runway, so maybe things are changing?).

Even on this BB we can engage in debates about the seriousness of the global warming threat, as in this thread, while simultaneously debating the horrendousness of invisible and totally-reversible solar panel add-ons to listed properties in another.
Personal priorities can be curious things.

 

[Nemesis]

There is conservation v conservation. It's not a simple or simplistic issue.

As Gareth said - the number of listed properties is tiny when compared with the number of unlisted. Let's try to conserve what we have as well as we can.

And as he also said - when totally invisible he has allowed them. I appreciate that one person's version of 'invisible' is not anothers, but that so far is really covered by law and guidance. I also appreciate individual owners think their case is special and they cannot possibly be wrong.

I think both Gareth and I have had a very long day trying to balance one sort of conservation versus another and unless you are in the thick of it it's difficult to appreciate the subtleties of plot which have to be considered.

Some owners, when thwarted, tend to lie on the ground and drum their heels.

 

[biffvernon]

I guess global warming is almost a 'faith' issue...

No, it's science, not faith. And you don't have to understand all the science to accept what scientists say, and act appropriately. I don't understand how cyanide acts on the body but I don't doubt what scientists say about the undesirability of sprinkling it on one's dinner. I don't class this as a 'faith' issue.

How can our contribution to C02 in the atmosphere have a significant effect when it is such a minuscule proportion compared to everything else?

Even small quantities of substances can have big effects. There's about five miles of air above us and though only a tiny percentage of it is CO2 the chance of an infra-red photon interacting with a molecule of CO2 on its journey from the earth's surface to outer space is quite large. Double the number of CO2 molecules and the probability increases proportionately.

The warming effects of CO2 were calculated by Svante Arrhenius in 1894. Modern science has shown that his calculations were very accurate.
Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about 280 parts per million. That has now risen, because of human activity, to about 380ppm. The rate of increase of CO2 emissions is increasing. If this continues for a very few more years we lose hope of avoiding a runaway global warming which could reach the levels that occurred at the end of the Permian Period, 251 million years ago, when 95% of fossil forming species became extinct.

 

[Flyfisher]

I have had a very long day trying to balance one sort of conservation versus another and unless you are in the thick of it it's difficult to appreciate the subtleties of plot which have to be considered

I don't doubt that your day to day workload in sorting out the minutiae of conservation issues is very demanding, but that was not my point. I was commenting on the curiousness, to me, of prioritising a matter of theoretical aesthetics above the cause of global warming.

the number of listed properties is tiny when compared with the number of unlisted. Let's try to conserve what we have as well as we can.

Claiming that energy inefficiency of period properties is not important because of their relatively small number is akin to claiming that driving a 4x4 is acceptable because there are much fewer of them than normal cars, so their impact is too small to worry about. I wonder how long it will be before there is a social backlash against 'energy-guzzling' period properties as there currently is with 4x4s?

I just find the psychology of how we all make and justify these sorts of inconsistent decisions very interesting, that's all.

 

[Nemesis]

I really, really can't be arsed to argue with you. I think you are as ever and for a long time Mike basically a troll. Not changed much. I find the psychology of that interesting I have to admit.

My period property, with its embodied energy, I suspect guzzles rather less than many a modern property. It's possibly about many another lifestyle issue also.

Lying on floors. drumming heels etc.