The Deathly Silence

[biffvernon]

Your last point, Flyfisher, neatly sums up the state of politics. Politicians are more concerned about the five year than the 100 year plan. But taking the 'right' decision for the five year may mean that in 100 years billions of people will die. Politicians should be above the concerns of short termism and show leadership for the future of humanity. I wish.

On modelling, nothing is handed to the skeptics. The climate scientists have always been aware of the limitations of their models. There has, for many years, been the twin forecasts of what will happen under existing conditions and what will happen if conditions change. The first has been stated with considerable certainty, the latter hedged about with provisos. That is the nature of science. Here's a significant example; sea level rises with the thermal expansion of the oceans and with addition from meltwater. We can know rather accurately the rise attributable to thermal expansion for a given amount of global warming and we can measure tolerably accurately the rate of ice melt happening now. That lead to the sea level rise forecasts published by the IPPC in AR4 in 1997, complete with error ranges associated with the accuracy of our melt rate measurements. But added to the relevant paragraph was an admission of uncertainty about dynamic processes within the Greenland and West Antarctic Ice Sheets. This was not included in the figures published though the problem was recognised. What appears to be happening is that meltwater on the surface of the ice falls down crevasses and reaches the ice/rock interface at the bottom. This lubricates the glacier allowing it to accelerate, delivering ice to sea and then melting much more quickly. At the seaward end of glaciers, higher sea temperatures are melting the ice faster, reducing the damming effect of ice locked to the sea bed, again allowing the inland glaciers to flow seaward more quickly. These are dynamic effects, subject to positive feedback, accelerating with time. Models that assume constancy soon go awry.

This does present our politicians with a dilemma. In my part of the world, the Lincolnshire Marsh, planning decisions are being taken now on the basis of the published figures in AR4 as to where new building in allowed. With a projected sea level rise of 80cm in 100 years that's not too difficult. Decisions are not being taken on the possibility that we might see a rise of a few metres in that time frame and of a great many metres in a timescale rather shorter than the history of my local market town. Louth may become a port once more and it won't be as a result of the canal restoration society. Planning officers, who I know are scientifically literate, are aware of the possibilities. Elected council members, who ultimately take the decisions, may not be.

I'm interested in this subject for two reasons, My 250 year old house lies at present sea level and I keep it repaired and plant oak trees on my land, perhaps a little form of denial. One of my children is doing research for his Phd on improving the measurement of ice mass balance of Greenland and WAIS.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Biff, thanks. Am starting to understand better some of the forecasting and your last post is very helpful in this regard. It is relatively straightforward to model sea level rise I presume - a variety of inputs leading to a range of outputs dependent upon how you link the inputs together.

However, what seems less certain (and where I came in a few pages ago) is the causative link between man-made greenhouse gases/carbon and these climactic changes, in what proportion that link may exist, over what timescale, and critically the impact that changes in human actions may have and again over what timescale.

What is the robustness of evidence for that link? I've heard suggestions that actually climate change may disrupt deep ocean currents leading to cooling rather than warming? Not sure if this is the case though or just the subject matter for good films!

And if it is a strong link (and not just an association or correlation), then given the likelihood that we will not act in sufficient time (the ridiculousness of current carbon targets and trading arrangements are a prime example it seems of the appearance of action rather than real change) then would we not be better as a nation to consolidate and develop our geo-political and economic power for the inevitable strife and conflicts in the centruy ahead rather than altruistically undertake significant economic and material deprivation in the vain hope the rest of the world follows suit and this somehow reverses the problem?

In essence aren;t we better protectiong ourselves as a nation than trying to help everyone else on the planet? We have more chance of success with the former than the latter.

Thanks again.

 

[biffvernon]

That's the politics of 'last man standing', ethically and morally bankrupt and ultimately doomed to fail. Maybe the order for aircraft carriers has something to do with that way of thinking. If there is one thing we should have learnt by now it's that we live in a connected and interdependent world where no nation can remain an island. Warm air and the waves of the oceans do not recognise national frontiers.

I'm afraid sea level is far from straightforward. Some folk think that the sea is flat (give or take waves on a windy day). The rotation of the earth piles the water up on one side of continents, trade winds have another effect, evaporation reduces the sea level in hot places, varying salinity cause currents that have their effects, and the oscillation between el Nino and la Nina periods does likewise. When Antarctic or Greenland ice melts it flows editorially, but there's a big time lag as the water flows slowly. Eventually the mass distribution of the Earth changes, altering the strength of gravity regionally, pulling the waters up or down. Air pressure has it's effect on a shorter timescale. Then there are the tectonic effects; the size and shape of the ocean basins change as the Earths plates move, and locally, land may go up or down. In the case of Britain, for example, the northern half is still rising after being pushed down by the weight of ice in the last ice age, while in the southern half the land is tipping downwards. There's probably more I've forgotten about, but straightforward it certainly ain't.

The causative link between man-made greenhouse gases and climatic changes is about as certain as anything can be. It's probably now the single most studied are of science and all the evidence points one way. The 19th century scientists such as Tyndale and Arrhenius have been shown to be right and, apart from a few discredited mavericks, have never been seriously challenged. It's easy to get the idea from the mass media that there has been active debate on these issues but that's all a bit of an artificial construction. The climate scientists who work in this area have been pretty much united for decades. The oddballs get far more attention than they deserve from their numbers or status.

Where there has been uncertainty and active debate is over the precise amount of warming that results from a given amount of CO2, and just as we pin those numbers down by observation of the records, we move into the area of tipping points and feedback that make past experience a poor guide to the future. The uncertainty is turning out to be all on the bad side.

One very large uncertainty is how the patterns of ocean currents are maintained. There is realistic speculation, for instance, that the flow of water in the Atlantic that gives Britain its mild climate could change so that we experience a colder regime even while global average temperatures increase. The consensus is that it's unlikely but it does remain a possibility.

I personally don't see much chance of humanity voluntarily foregoing the perceived benefits of oil. Fortunately there is a rather limited amount of accessible oil left so if we do burn it all we may, perhaps, keep an inhabitable planet. Coal is a much more serious worry. If we burn the coal we will surely tip over into the abyss. Kingsnorth must be stopped.

This is the campaign of the moment.

 

[Hatster]

PPUKers might be fascinated by Professor David MacKay's book (available free online), "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" http://www.withouthotair.com/ . As well as striking discussion of energy options, it also has practical analysis of things such as keeping your old and drafty house warm wihtout using too much energy, for example. Prof MacKay is a physicist at that Esteemed Seet of Lerning, Cambridge University.

Are you planning to go to the MiliBand, Biff? Perhaps we could hold a PPUK get together?

I was talking to my husband about the Kingsnorth power station, as he has some particular awareness of EOn's policies and motivations, and his feeling is strongly that EOn are in the business to make money (obviously), and that they will only be led to lower carbon sources of power by laws, and government taxation and funding strategy. That is, if they know that they have to, or will make more money from, a lower carbon power source, they will do it. Thus, if we want to see EOn change their decision, we have to lobby policians to push for carbon taxes. Actually, it seems to me a lot of the bigger international companies appear to be preparing for carbon taxes behind the scens already...

You can email the Government and E-On here if you wish:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/get_involved/campaign/climate_change/climate-change.html

 

[Hatster]

oops, mispostetd

 

[biffvernon]

Yes, David MacKay is a good bloke, part of the solution rather than the problem.

What's that stuff about the Heatons doing here? :?

 

[Hatster]

Gosh, that's interesting! I posted that to a totally different forum, and was bemused to see that it didn't appear there.

 

[Pford75]

It's crazy that our nation seems obsessed with the silly games of Westminster

Biff - with respect, if we can't trust policitians to tell the truth over a mortgage claim for a few hundred pounds, why should we be expected to believe them on anything else?

The sheer number of politicians (from all parties) who seem to have been either dishonest, immoral or stupid serves to prove to most people that centralised government is an incredibly inefficient way of spening individual resources.

Give me back my tax and national insurance and i'm sure I could not only improve my own standard of living, but those of other people in my community. Instead, govt (this Labour one more than most) thinks that it knows better and should interfere in almost every aspect of our lives...whilst they are decorating and furnishing at our expense.

Some people in our country have to decide whether to pay the bills or buy some food....so perhaps you can forgive them for being more focused on and irritated by the 'silly games' as you put it....vs. something which may not impact them for years. It's difficult to worry about climate change when you can't feed your kids.

 

[biffvernon]

Oh Peter, I was just pointing out that the problems associated with our politicians and their expenses are utterly trivial when compared with the problems of global warming. We shouldn't get distracted by such stuff. If you want to discuss the merits of various levels of taxation then maybe a separate thread should be started. What I know is that there are some jolly good approaches to looking after buildings in Sweden, a country that has rather higher tax levels than ours. But if you want to reply to that quip, please start a new thread.

 

[Pford75]

And I was just stating that they can't be considered 'trivial' if you are one of the many families struggling to make ends meet. In fact, to many families on the bread line, climate change is regarded as perhaps not trivial, but irrelevant

 

[yamin]

And I was just stating that they can't be considered 'trivial' if you are one of the many families struggling to make ends meet. In fact, to many families on the bread line, climate change is regarded as perhaps not trivial, but irrelevant

I agree with this. Peter well able to defend himself, but I don't see him as making an irrelevant point of debate here, rather, for me, it touches on a crucial factor in the whole difficulty of getting people to change. Its not exactly Maslows Heirarchy of Needs, but its the same idea that before looking towards altruism, (even if that altruism is ultimately to prevent our own or our descendants destruction), each person has to have their own personal secruity/warmth/food on the table/safety, call it what you will. It may be short sighted, but its a basic human instinct.

Having said thus much, I do also see the obvious flaw here, that those whose most basic needs aren't being met are likely to be the least impactful on climate change, but somewhere along the line there will be a point where people, even in our wealthy part of the world, will be struggling and are even less likely to change their ways. In turn, this isn't helped as Peter points out, by dishonest politicians who also seem more intent on feathering their own nests than working for the common good, and delivering long term solutions, no matter how unpalatable.

 

[biffvernon]

...one of the many families struggling to make ends meet. In fact, to many families on the bread line, climate change is regarded as perhaps not trivial, but irrelevant

They may regard it so, but I'm pointing out that global warming is far more important. Let's get a bit of perspective; even the poorest percentile of UK population are better off than a couple of billion people in the world who have less than a couple of dollars a day. Our welfare state ensures that nobody (at least if they have a friend who can help them fill out the forms) is on the 'bread line'. Paying the installments on the plasma tv may be another matter.

Global warming will perhaps be first evidenced to us rich folk by slightly higher food prices. When one spends 15% of one's money on food and prices rise 10% that is an inconvenience. When one spends 80% of one's money on food and prices rise 10% you start missing meals. Those figures came from a friend researching the position in the Yemen last year. This thread started with Kofi Annan's report that highlighted the 300 000 people per year who are already dieing from the effects of global warming.

Frankly, our politicians' expenses and our 'struggling families' should just not feature in the global warming problem.

 

[yamin]

Let's get a bit of perspective; even the poorest percentile of UK population are better off than a couple of billion people in the world who have less than a couple of dollars a day. Our welfare state ensures that nobody (at least if they have a friend who can help them fill out the forms) is on the 'bread line'. Paying the installments on the plasma tv may be another matter.

I think thats a tad unfair. I am a horrible snob about the whole 40" plasma TV and wheres the money for the next packet of Bensons coming from, I admit it, but even I find that paragraph a little harsh. You, as me and most posters here, are to a greater or lesser extent, comfortable enough to absorb the cost of increased food. From that position its easy to say that no one is really poor, its like the whole line of 'if they wanted to get out of the estates they all could, education is free, wh don't they take a part of it?' I will have to go and substantiate my evidence, but I believe there is a significant minority of people in this country who really do live below the breadline, welfare state or not. I willingly admit that ultimately this may be a debate that doesn't change the original point, but I think however persuasively you argue the point, it is not one that can be dismissed quite so easily as you are doing.

 

[yamin]

By the way, I am well aware that our 'below the breadline' is way different to that endured in the third world, this is not an 'I'm poorer than you' competition, but nevertheless, its a level of poverty that prevents the victim from looking outwards other than to gain subsistence - very far from caring whether that subsitence comes from a responsible or sustainable source.

 

[DaveBrigg]

I'm deeply ashamed to admit that I live in the Yorkshire and Humberside region and am now 'represented' by someone whose political leader spoke on Radio 4 this morning about the myth of global warming. :evil: It's not the only event proven beyond reasonable doubt which they are happy to deny, but seeing someone like that in a position of power has cast a cloud that won't easily be lifted.

 

[Schoolmarm]

So many people have been apathetic about voting, if more had got off their bums the bnp wouldn't have a chance. Unbelievable.

 

[Flyfisher]

Frankly, our politicians' expenses and our 'struggling families' should just not feature in the global warming problem.

I entirely agree that, in many respects, MPs fiddling their expenses is a trivial diversion from more important issues (I don't remember the same level of fuss over the £trillions used to bail out the banks). Nevertheless, I don't think the matter can be so easily dismissed. For whatever reasons - misguided or not - the fact of the matter is that people are, apparently, up in arms about the whole affair and that outrage will influence their thoughts and behaviour regarding future issues. In that sense, the matter is far from trivial.