Solar pv generation

[Lime]

Global climate change has always happened and is happening now.
the influence of mankind on the changes is unproven.
The crux of the claim by those who believe burning fossil fuels needs to be stopped or curtailed is that the situation will change for the better IF the burning of fossil fuels stops.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

 

[Flyfisher]

What is it that you find so difficult to understand about there is no solution without an end to burning fossil fuels?

What is it you find so difficult to understand about that message not being taken seriously?

Talk about molten lead is about as helpful as saying that all life on earth will perish when our sun dies and it gives people the perfect excuse to put such things out of their minds because it's not going to happen for centuries so no one can relate to it.

But the green movement is as much in denial about this as the people they accuse of being in climate change denial. Even the Durban conference, hailed as successful, has only agreed to "work towards" a legally-binding deal by 2015 and implement it by 2020, so that's another decade (at least) in which business can continue as normal, which it will.

Perhaps our only hope is that god built the planet with just enough fossil fuel to kick-start our industrial revolution but not enough to completely wreck it.

 

[biffvernon]

What is it you find so difficult to understand about that message not being taken seriously?

Not difficult to understand at all. Certainly the world's political leaders aren't taking it seriously. Neither does Lime, who clearly does not understand the science.

Talk of lead melting may be scary but it's about time people started being scared. There is enough carbon in the coal, oil, tar sands, oil shales and tight gas to heat our planet to Venusian temperatures if it were all to be burnt and the carbon added to the atmosphere. We either stop burning fossil carbon quite soon and then start sequestering what we've already put into the atmosphere to bring atmospheric levels back below 350ppmv or we do not become ancestors.

 

[Lime]

Neither does Lime, who clearly does not understand the science.

Ah! The usual reaction when faced with the truth: belittle and dismiss.

Not much of an argument I think.

 

[biffvernon]

Sorry Lime but if you had any understanding of Earth systems science you would not have written

Global climate change has always happened and is happening now. the influence of mankind on the changes is unproven. The crux of the claim by those who believe burning fossil fuels needs to be stopped or curtailed is that the situation will change for the better IF the burning of fossil fuels stops. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support that claim.

If you would genuinely like to learn some of the science I'll be glad to point you in productive directions, but I'm not going to waste time arguing with those in denial or those who wilfully misrepresent science.

 

[biffvernon]

A pertinent article in this morning's Independent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-ice-releases-deadly-greenhouse-gas-6276134.html

Dramatic and unprecedented plumes of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – have been seen bubbling to the surface of the Arctic Ocean by scientists undertaking an extensive survey of the region.

The scale and volume of the methane release has astonished the head of the Russian research team who has been surveying the seabed of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf off northern Russia for nearly 20 years....

This is the kind of feedback, warming causes Arctic house melt, releases methane, causes more warming, that seals our fate.

 

[JoceAndChris]

When are the effects of our squandering of fossil fuels going to be most felt?

Are we going to lead normal lives, and Earth be wiped out in 100 years, 200 years - what?

One thing's certain, the Green Movement will not get most of the people to change their ways significantly unless disaster becomes tangible in more uncomfortable ways than mentioned in the article above.

 

[wobs]

What is it you find so difficult to understand about that message not being taken seriously?

Not difficult to understand at all. Certainly the world's political leaders aren't taking it seriously. Neither does Lime, who clearly does not understand the science.

Talk of lead melting may be scary but it's about time people started being scared. There is enough carbon in the coal, oil, tar sands, oil shales and tight gas to heat our planet to Venusian temperatures if it were all to be burnt and the carbon added to the atmosphere. We either stop burning fossil carbon quite soon and then start sequestering what we've already put into the atmosphere to bring atmospheric levels back below 350ppmv or we do not become ancestors.

Probably the best way to disengage people is with scare stories like this. Such emotive language is counter productive.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/265na3.pdf
And:
"psychologists now need to work with other disciplines, such as engineering, sociology etc. We need to have a much better understanding of the conditions which lead to unsustainable behaviour. It's no good the government saying to us that for journeys less than a mile you should walk or use public transport because when you are trying to juggle demands, such as your job and children within limited time, you are probably going to take your car. We need to change the conditions rather than attack individual behaviours.
There's been a lot of finger-wagging and people resent that. They also notice the contradictions. One of the things that came out of a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs survey in 2007 was that we would do more if the government did more. We see double standards. People also need feedback on how they're doing. People need to know explicitly what the benefits are of what they are being asked to do. People are not interested in concepts such as "saving the planet" or "doing it for their grandchildren". People want impacts that are concrete, immediate and personal to them. They need to see how it's benefiting them. If they are being asked to make - what they see in their terms, at least - as a sacrifice, they need to see what the benefit is to them."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/sep/23/climate-change-psychology-response-scepticism

Engaging with people in a way that works is what we need, not emotion. Tangeable solutions that people can see as well. Although the Government providing consistent and workable incentives/frameworks would be a start.

 

[Lime]

I see that Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45645743

 

[biffvernon]

When are the effects of our squandering of fossil fuels going to be most felt?

Are we going to lead normal lives, and Earth be wiped out in 100 years, 200 years - what?

One thing's certain, the Green Movement will not get most of the people to change their ways significantly unless disaster becomes tangible in more uncomfortable ways than mentioned in the article above.

When? is an interesting question and I don't think there's a straight-forward answer. Gradually we can expect a greater frequency of extreme weather events. You will never be able to say that the tree that fell on you in a storm was because we burnt fossil fuel, though it would be as bad a personal catastrophe as is possible. A drought in Somalia will have a different human impact to a drought in Texas, though both may have their origin in man made climate change. In the rich parts of the world we will be better able to mitigate damage and adapt to change than, for example, a poor person living in what was the Ganges Delta. The Azores may experience little change while Tuvalu disappears. It is likely that the UK will experience one metre of sea level rise by 2100 but much more in following centuries. The biggest uncertainty is human reaction. Will there be warfare as a result of food shortage in certain areas, while other nations carry on regardless?

I think it will be a gradual process and only recognisable with hindsight. The process has already begun.

 

[biffvernon]

Probably the best way to disengage people is with scare stories like this. Such emotive language is counter productive.

I've been trying that for the last thirty years. It has been a complete failure. Time for the frighteners.

 

[biffvernon]

I see that Canada has pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol.

What they've done is to admit the reality that there was no way they intended to meet their Kyoto targets. Exploitation of the tar sands makes the Canadians about the worst offenders on a per capita basis. Still only a small part of global contribution.

 

[tobydog]

I fully accept that human activity has had, and is having, a big impact on our atmosphere. You only need to look at the huge increases in the levels of nitrous oxide, methane and carbon dioxide over the last 100 years or so to see this. This does coincide with the industrial revolution, accelerating global population and increased burning of fossil fuels. It also coincides with an acceleration in the rise of global temperatures.

Climate change and increasing / decreasing average global temperatures is continual and has been happening over millions of years and it's probably fair to say this this is not disputed. Therefore the earth is in a cycle of one sort or another all the time. The big issue is, where exactly are we in that cycle and what can we really do to change things? If every fossil fuel powered car, power station, industry, etc, in the world were to stop today, would this actually stop the increase in average global temperature over time or simply slow it down and bring us back in line with what was already an upward trend? This is what I believe most people struggle with. What difference am 'I' really going to make and can you prove it?

From my reading of reports and articles on the subject, I see that some 'scientists' believe that the world is in a warming phase as part of a bigger cooling cycle. Some believe we are in terminal meltdown. Either of which most / all on PPUK will not witness. I am all for cutting back on the burning of fossil fuels wherever possible because I believe in the benefits and common sense says we can't go on the way we are, however, I can fully understand why many people doubt the science or the scientists.

I have to say that I also don't believe big scare stories work. People are more likely to respond positively to smaller parcels of bad news that they can actually equate to or comprehend rather than the "we're all doooomed unless" messages. But that's just me.

Okay, that's my head above the trenches. Fire away!! :wink:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Human instinct is for survival, acquisition, nest-feathering, material wealth. You can't alter that. If there's a tangible threat we avoid it but if there isn't then it's business as usual - as illustrated by FF's excellent example of smoking, being overweight and alcohol abuse. People, over evolved animals, look for instant gratification and betterment, just like the animals do. To run your life with a mind to the better chances of happiness for future generations goes counter to every normal human instinct. To be cold, when you've been warm, to walk, after the luxury of a car, to not shop, when there's money in the bank - it's asking too much of people, it's expecting the altruistic part of the brain to be larger than the main instinct-drivers. Impossible, unless the trees were really crushing your loved ones, and the water was rising up the hill.

But by then it would be too late anyway!

 

[biffvernon]

I fear you are right, Joce.

Oh dear, Tobydog, it is clear from you post that you have not understood what the science is telling us. If we were to stop all fossil fuel burning today the anthropogenic warming so far of about 0.9 degrees C would continue until we have around 1.5 degrees. This is because the greenhouse gasses we have put into the atmosphere will stay there, for years in the case of methane and for centuries in the case on CO2. Temerature will rise until a new equilibrium temperature for the planet is achieved, where incoming solar radiation exactly matches outgoing radiation. It will take many decades for this equilibrium to be achieved. Of course, as we have seen at COP17 in Durban, there is no willingness on the part of political leaders to stop burning fossil fuel, not even a willingness to agree a timescale for stopping it in the future. We are, therefore, on a trajectory towards 3 or 4 degrees of warming. This is utterly disastrous. There will be a mass die-off of most if not all of the human population. Runaway feedbacks could lead to the extinction of all life.

I don't know whether scare stories will work. Probably not. I do know that the softly-softly approach does not work. We've been trying that for decades. If it worked we would not be where we now are.

Tobydog, forget all the talk about cycles - they are just not relevant on the times-scale we are addressing if they exist at all. People need to learn the science. Notice I do not post about brain surgery or how to fly airliners. I only post on subjects I understand. Of course it wouldn't matter much if I did and I actually influenced people as brain surgery and even airliner flying can only kill a few hundred people at a time when it goes wrong. When people who do not understand climate science start influencing politicians they put the whole human race at risk.

 

[skier-hughes]

Tobydog, forget all the talk about cycles - they are just not relevant on the times-scale we are addressing if they exist at all. People need to learn the science.

Notice I do not post about brain surgery or how to fly airliners. I only post on subjects I understand.

But for people like me who don't understand the fine science, but have been told we had an ice age which killed off much of life at that time, I can understand a hot age killing off life in the same manner and knowing it is inevetible because of the cycle. I can also understand us making this happen quicker. The fact you wonder if they exist at all makes me doubt your other facts.

Of course, we only have your word for it that you understand it, no offence Biff, but the internet is full of peole pretending to know about things they don't, pretending to be people they aren't etc! :wink:

 

[JoceAndChris]

Biff - you say that runaway feed-backs could lead to the extinction of all life. What are runaway feed-backs?

Isn't there hope that some humans and some animal life will adapt to a hotter Earth? Does it just depend how hot it gets?

 

[wobs]

Probably the best way to disengage people is with scare stories like this. Such emotive language is counter productive.

I've been trying that for the last thirty years. It has been a complete failure. Time for the frighteners.

Never seen you do that, certainly not here.

We know that "frighteners" do not work, so why continue?

If you'll forgive the analogy, it's like the nagging wife who says she tried asking nicely, but claims it didn't work, and has since nagged continuously, ignoring the fact that that doesn't work either. What is needed is a different strategy.

No wife needs to nag (any that does, lacks the communication skills as my Grandma would say), and any environmentalist who uses scaremongering is accumulating a wall of resistence that is counter productive to their claimed cause.

 

[Flyfisher]

When? is an interesting question and I don't think there's a straight-forward answer. Gradually we can expect a greater frequency of extreme weather events. You will never be able to say that the tree that fell on you in a storm was because we burnt fossil fuel, though it would be as bad a personal catastrophe as is possible. A drought in Somalia will have a different human impact to a drought in Texas, though both may have their origin in man made climate change. In the rich parts of the world we will be better able to mitigate damage and adapt to change than, for example, a poor person living in what was the Ganges Delta. The Azores may experience little change while Tuvalu disappears. It is likely that the UK will experience one metre of sea level rise by 2100 but much more in following centuries. The biggest uncertainty is human reaction. Will there be warfare as a result of food shortage in certain areas, while other nations carry on regardless?

I think it will be a gradual process and only recognisable with hindsight. The process has already begun.

I agree with that but, interestingly I think, I could paraphrase it all to relate to human population growth. There have been dire predictions about the effects of human population growth for as long as I can remember and no doubt before, but nothing seriously was done about it, probably because the effects are also too intangibe for people to get too worried about it. So that doesn't bode very well for the climate change debate.

Except, perhaps, technology could be the answer. All the doom and gloom about food shortages because of population growth did not predict the huge advances in agriculture anymore than the old extrapolations of London becoming knee-deep in horse dung could predict the internal combustion engine. Of course, reliance on some sort of as-yet-uninvented technology to solve all our problems is rather fanciful and, arguably, irresponsible but the fact remains that we don't have a very good track record of predicting the future.

Add to that the psychological and sociological dimensions to the problem that wobs highlighted and it's pretty obvious why nobody really takes climate change seriously. Not taking it seriously is not the same as denying the science, but telling people that they've got to turn their life upside down because of a prediction about how bad things will be in 200 years time when we have such a dismal track-record of predicting future events, is simply not credible. People are not stupid and they can see the credibility gap.

What might seem to be a very simple science to the scientists - burn fossil fuels and destroy the planet - is actually fairly irrelevant because the problem we face is not scientific, it's sociological. A far more difficult thing altogether.

 

[Flyfisher]

We know that "frighteners" do not work, so why continue?

Perhaps "frighteners" do not work because, in this context and given the timescales involved, there's very little to actually frighten people with.