Crazy weather and armageddon

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
...Back in the eighties, before anti-car propaganda reared its ugly head on the political stage, it was widely accepted that global warming was the enevitable consequence of retreating from the last ice age.

---

Also, it's possible that the self-balancing mechanisms of the planet will lead to an increase in volcanic eruptions, spewing sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere and leading to a cooling down of the planet.

So that would be alright then.

Nevertheless, it does give cause for concern that there has been an exponential increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1750 and additional concern when one compares this increase with the similar shaped curve of fossil fuel emissions.

Exponential increases of this nature are rarely a good sign.

Would you argue that there is no link between fossil fuel emissions and increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or just that the increase in the burning of fossil fuels, combined with other human caused activities such as the de-forestation of the planet, have had an insignificant affect?

Steve M

Notes: Figure 7y-3 on this PhysicalGeography.net page shows a graph of carbon dioxide levels.

Iowa State University gives this page on Atmospheric Composition, Carbon Dioxide, including this graph on fossil fuel emissions, which details some possible causes for the increases in CO2.

quote:

---

So, a long time ago you took a few undergraduate courses on geography, meteorology and climatology. Well, that would make you an authority on climate change.

---

Nope.

But it makes me better informed than the average taxi driver and it entitles me to an opinion.

Regards,

Steve.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:

quote:

---

Don't what I'm going to do - try harder with recycling, perhaps, definitely vote Green next time, maybe try to work for them voluntarily.

---

Well if that helps you feel better.

Try halving your total energy consumption.

Paul

---

Is that it, Paul? Is that really the most interesting or constructive thing you have to say?

I refer you to 7V's post above: 'Would you argue that there is no link between fossil fuel emissions and increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere or just that the increase in the burning of fossil fuels, combined with other human caused activities such as the de-forestation of the planet, have had an insignificant affect?'

If your answer to this is 'yes' then perhaps you are much better informed than many of us, but I'd like to see any references you may have to serious scientific sources that dispute the link between emissions and global warming. If your answer is 'no', what is your proposal, save making sarky comments?

Tim

I've no idea whether there's a link between emissions, global warming and bad stuff for the planet. AFAIK nobody knows what will or will not happen but there is a large political industry based on misanthropy that would like you to believe they do know.

The idea that by recycling a bit more a difference can be made is laughable. If everybody cut their consumption by half then you might see a significant change in the rate of rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, but you have to convince India and China to join in. And that's not going to happen. Why shouldn't they have fridges and air-conditioning?

There's nothing quite like fiddling while the planet explodes and feeling good about the process...

My proposal is to reduce consumption where possible and put our resources into dealing with a changing world rather than trying to keep the world exactly as it was and inevitably failing. The world will be here long after us, it's our job to find a way of surviving. If a few environmentalists get eaten by wolves then that would be rather fitting, although I'd prefer it were tigers.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by 7V:
I realized that you were being :ironic: but I assumed that you really did have friends who were climatologists and that they might have some interesting views on the issue of to what extent 'these things are cyclical, and man's activities play just a tiny role.'

Steve M

---

I do have climatologist friends (both paleo and future climates.) The straw poll I took yesterday was pretty consistent.

They believe there's overwhelming evidence that man's activities are causing climate change.

If we stopped emitting all C02 now (unlikely!) global warming would still happen, but the ultimate damage would be reduced compared to continuing to pollute.

If we do nothing the future environmental effects will be disastrous - especially to mankind.

I work in an Environmental Science department as part of my many faceted work-life.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:
Mr Bennet,

---

So polite! So formal!

quote:

---

A long time before I first drove a taxi I went to University. For the first two years of my modular degree course I studied geography, meteorology and climatology.

Back in the eighties, before anti-car propaganda reared its ugly head on the political stage, it was widely accepted that global warming was the enevitable consequence of retreating from the last ice age.

Regards,

Steve.

---

I also studied climatology in the 1980s - before a true realisation came of the harm we were doing to the climate by unfettered burning of fossil fuels. In the '70s, the thought was that we were heading towards another interglacial event; that's gone out of the window now.

Anti-car? I think most of the people concerned about the environment aren't anti-car but anti-fossil fuels. Personally I love cars. I'd love them more if they were carbon neutral in build and operation.

Do you honestly believe that relasing the millions of years worth of stored up carbon in a few decades will have no effect? Or do you think that it will, but the earth will 'sort it out by itself'?

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve Toy:


Nope.

But it makes me better informed than the average taxi driver and it entitles me to an opinion.

Regards,

Steve.

---

Being badly informed has never stopped a taxi driver from giving me his opinion, in my experience.



Stephen

Paul,
Can you please explain how you reconcile:

quote:

---

The real thing about global warming is that there's nothing we can do about it. If we cease all emissions it's still going to happen.

---

with what you wrote later:

quote:

---

I've no idea whether there's a link between emissions, global warming and bad stuff for the planet.

---

Furthermore, in one post you wrote:

quote:

---

AFAIK nobody knows what will or will not happen

---

and in another:

quote:

---

So practically we should be working on ways to deal with the consequences.

---

Can you explain how we can plan to deal with consequences of something when we don't know what's going to happen? We can't even deal with existing catastrophes that will, in all probability, be dwarfed by the problems that could result from climate change.

Finally:

quote:

---

My proposal is to reduce consumption where possible and put our resources into dealing with a changing world rather than trying to keep the world exactly as it was and inevitably failing. The world will be here long after us, it's our job to find a way of surviving. If a few environmentalists get eaten by wolves then that would be rather fitting, although I'd prefer it were tigers.

---

This displays such delightful ignorance of the causes and potential consequences of climate change, and what is being proposed by those wishing to limit the damage.
It is strangely ironic that those arguing for a status quo in consumption are the ones accusing the environmentalists of trying to keep the world just as it is. Nobody is suggesting that we attempt to prevent the inevitable, but that we accept the growing evidence for the effect of our behaviour, and that perhaps we alter it to avoid expediting a situation that could yet be averted.

The only realistic solution to the problem of global pollution lies with individuals, us, and a change in our behaviour. Politicians can in reality do little here. If measures are brought in to curb our consumption, then people complain about nanny state tyranny, if they do nothing then they're being negligent, the development of viable alternatives would require significant public investment and therefore tax rises, and who would vote for that? That's why were probably doomed, especially if the short-termist, selfish and fatalistic arguments presented here are anything to go by.

Will.

Steve Toy,

quote:

---

A long time before I first drove a taxi I went to University. For the first two years of my modular degree course I studied geography, meteorology and climatology.

---

I can do little but conclude from the complete lack of evidence that you have managed to grasp the concepts being discussed here that you chose to concentrate on French because you understood so little of the subjects you list above.

quote:

---

Back in the eighties, before anti-car propaganda reared its ugly head on the political stage, it was widely accepted that global warming was the inevitable consequence of retreating from the last ice age.

---

At about the same time as you were struggleing with/considering dropping geography etc., I was studying ecology and environmental science. Warning bells were being sounded then about the many problems associated with carbon cycle disruption. The growing use of motor vehicles and the pollution associated with them was also a well established cause for concern among scientists.

You appear to have a wonderfully convenient gift for dismissing anything with which you disagree as 'political propaganda', regardless of who is saying it, or what supporting evidence they have. Generally it's scientists who are telling us that we are affecting the planet and it's politicians and major corporations who are trying to get us to ignore this message.

To all who say that the earth's climate has been changing for millions of years, therefore we can't be the cause of the current change:
Historically, mankind has had little effect on the global climate because the timescales involved are so huge and we have been around for such a short time. Our behaviour has only been affecting the planet significantly for a relatively minute period of time, but this does not negate its effect. Just because we did not have anything to do with the extinction of the dinosaurs millions of years ago does not mean that our more recent activity has not had a devastating effect on bio-diversity over the last 100 years.

The evidence is overwhelming, and growing year by year. The scientific view almost unanimous: our activity is having an effect on the climate of our planet.

Finally, all the gas locked in the benthic depths is methane, not CO2 as reported by others above. This is a much more effective geenhouse gas, and there's loads of it.

Will.

Will, it's really quite simple, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between the planet getting warmer and the Gulf Stream stopping. The former is happening to some degree, the latter may or may not be a consequence, sometime or other.

By how much does world wide consumption have to drop to make a difference to climate change? How confident are you? How much will it cost in economic and human terms?

Paul

We're doomed.

And I'm not joking.



Stephen

Paul,

quote:

---

By how much does world wide consumption have to drop to make a difference to climate change? How confident are you? How much will it cost in economic and human terms?

---

It's occurred to me that the side of the debate you're on is probably related to how comfortable you are making statistical errors -- type I (false negative: falsely concluding that we aren't causing climate change and therefore doing nothing about) or type II (false positive: falsely concluding that we are causing climate change and therefore doing something about it).

For me it comes down to this: When the stakes are high, I'm more comfortable making Type II errors.

Joe

Paul,

I wouldn't expect or wish you to explain any such thing. I know the difference, and if I didn't I would go & ask somebody who's job it is to study these subjects. The failure of the gulf stream is only one of many possible consequences of global warming, some of them are starting to manifest themselves already.

I have no simple figure to hand to offer to as to how much we should reduce global consumption to cancel climate change, but that does not prevent me from appreciating the precarious situation that our species (and indeed the whole planet) is now facing, and understanding that I can make a difference. Worryingly, though, instead of reducing CO2 output, we seem to be churning it out at a faster rate than ever (an increase of 2ppm per annum for the last 2 years as a pose to 1.5ppm per annum previously

How much would it cost in economic and human terms to prevent CO2 levels reaching catastrophic levels? I don't know, and I doubt there is consensus, but it's my belief that it would be a lot less then doing nothing.

Stephen Bennett - unfortunately, I think I agree, and I hate doom merchants.

Regards,

Will.

But you have to factor the costs of 'doing something about it', not to mention whether there is actually something that can be done rather than motions to go through.

Tim's idea that he will recycle some more and vote Green is typical. To make a difference we have to cut consumption drastically, not maintain it or simply reduce the rate of increase.

Ironically a transformation to a 'Green' society would look a lot like the aftermath of Armageddon.

Paul

quote:

---

I have no simple figure to hand to offer to as to how much we should reduce global consumption to cancel climate change, but that does not prevent me from appreciating the precarious situation that our species (and indeed the whole planet) is now facing, and understanding that I can make a difference

---

This is all so fuzzy and rather New Labour, almost quasi-religious.

The models that are being used to predict the climate in 100 years can clearly be used to derive the consequences of behaviour changes from now on. I have to presume that there's no hope otherwise interested people like you would know what was implied as necessary.

In the meantime every winter storm will be a consquence of climate change and property developers will continue to build on flood plains.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Ironically a transformation to a 'Green' society would look a lot like the aftermath of Armageddon.

Paul

---

Yeah, windturbines, biofuels, fit people who walk & cycle more, plastics made out of plant materials, home working, recycling, polluter pays policies, solar panels, properly built environmental housing, more green areas in cities, carbon neutral industry, less meat eating (thus more crop/biofuel space), more healthy eating, local produce,less smoking, less air pollution, less cancer.

What a terrible, terrible world.



Stephen

Paul,

quote:

---

To make a difference we have to cut consumption drastically, not maintain it or simply reduce the rate of increase.

---

I did a couple of per capita energy consumption comparisons using EarthTrends Energy Consumption page, and looking at just eight countries -- Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Sweden, UK and US -- it's clear that energy consumption (estimated in kg of oil equivalent) varies greatly among even some "advanced" industrial nations:

Australia -- 5,974
Canada -- 7,999
Denmark -- 3,706
Germany -- 4,263
Norway -- 5,920
Sweden-- 5,762
United Kingdom -- 3,993
United States -- 7,920

Can you think of a good reason why Canada, for example, couldn't drop to Denmark's level of consumption and still enjoy a standard of living that's at least as high as what Danes enjoy? It seems to me that the impediments to energy conservation (or resource use more generally) have more to do with intransigence and lack of imagination than anything else.

For what it's worth, with a bit of conservation and better technology I think we could get below the Danish level of energy use and still have fun, enjoyable lives sans stone knives and bearskins. I really don't understand why this is anathema to so many people.

Joe

Perhaps the prime cause of those differences are climate related? The low consumers are countries with no tradition of home air conditioning and where it doesn't really get cold.

Paul

quote:

---

What a terrible, terrible world.

---

Why did you miss out all the no economic growth, limits on property rights, minima and maxima on wealth policies? All the green-tinted Marxist bits?

We know from repeated bitter experience that such a society ends up destroying ordinary people. The USSR without the pollution would still be as bad.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Petrik:
For what it's worth, with a bit of conservation and better technology I think we could get below the Danish level of energy use and still have fun, enjoyable lives sans stone knives and bearskins.

---

It's the 'better technology' that may need a kick start. My view, FWIW, is that technology has got us into this mess and technology is probably the only thing that can get us out.

I have a suggestion which I posted somewhere else but it was completely ignored (maybe everyone thought it was too dumb or maybe they thought I wasn't serious or both). Anyway, I'll float it again and see if there's any response here ...

I propose to launch a special competition to encourage innovation.

The prizes will £1 million for 1st place, £500k for 2nd and £250k for third place, in each category. They will be awarded to individual innovators and also to the institution or university to which they belong.

Prizes will be awarded in the following categories:

• Best original idea for a renewable energy source
  
• Best novel development of existing idea for renewable energy
  
• Best way to fix the existing imbalance in greenhouse gases
  
• Best new concept for a motor suitable for powering transportation

The competition will be judged by a panel of experts in the relevant fields (physics, ecology, etc. with representatives from the power companies)

The competition will be sponsored by a number of energy corporations who will retain an interest in any practical applications arising from the innovations. The prize winners will themselves retain a point or two in their innovation and, of course, the competition organizer will take a couple of percent as well.

I appreciate that this is very rough so far and many details would need to be rounded off but what do you think?

Steve M

Paul,

quote:

---

Perhaps the prime cause of those differences are climate related? The low consumers are countries with no tradition of home air conditioning and where it doesn't really get cold.

---

No doubt local climate plays a part in a county's per capita energy consumption, but I doubt that the average Canadian car, home, business, or industry is anywhere as energy efficient as the average Danish car, home, business or industry, even after taking into account that Canadian cars and homes are larger.

While in Copenhagen a couple of years ago, it was hard to miss all the energy-saving devices part of Danish daily life, everything from toilets that have two levels of flush (depending on need), to hallway lights that shut off when no one is present, to efficient, affordable public transit. You might argue that these are superficial piss-in-the-ocean kinds of conservation efforts, but they add up and they're just a start.

quote:

---

Why did you miss out all the no economic growth, limits on property rights, minima and maxima on wealth policies?

---

Why would going green necessarily mean no economic growth? All the new technologies and processes needed to become more efficient would create all sorts of jobs. I'm far from being the marketplace's biggest champion, but invention and innovation are things its good at as long as there's an incentive.

quote:

---

The USSR without the pollution would still be as bad.

---

I'd argue that such a USSR would be a little better. Oppression without environmental degradation has to be an improvement over oppression *plus* environmental degradation. (Anyway, pointing to the USSR as a failed example of what you don't like is me pointing to Enron as a failed example of what I don't like. Poor government/management and public/private corruption tend to lead to rather spectacular downfalls. Surely there are some successes out there.)

Joe

quote:

---

it's clear that energy consumption (estimated in kg of oil equivalent) varies greatly among even some "advanced" industrial nations

---

Looking at the figures for Europe in general makes me wonder whether the statistics are sound. Why should the Netherlands energy consumption (flat, good trains, everybody rides bikes) be so much higher than Switzerland (mountainous, cold bits, good trains but they go up and down, not a lot of biking)? And what's going on in Iceland compared to Norway?

Albania                  549.3 
Austria                3,789.9 
Belarus                2,444.9 
Belgium                5,743.3 
Bosnia and Herzegovina 1,071.8 
Bulgaria               2,424.5 
Croatia                1,778.2 
Czech Rep              4,035.9 
Denmark                3,706.1 
Estonia                3,471.5 
Finland                6,517.9 
France                 4,458.6 
Germany                4,263.5 
Gibraltar              6,148.1 
Greece                 2,622.1 
Hungary                2,542.1 
Iceland               11,800.0 
Ireland                3,876.1 
Italy                  2,990.2 
Latvia                 1,827.7 
Lithuania              2,302.8 
Luxembourg             8,693.9 
Macedonia, FYR         1,281.6 
Malta                  1,887.5 
Moldova, Rep             734.3 
Netherlands            4,831.3 
Norway                 5,920.6 
Poland                 2,343.3 
Portugal               2,465.1 
Romania                1,642.0 
Russian Federation     4,288.8 
Serbia and Montenegro  1,523.1 
Slovakia               3,470.0 
Slovenia               3,439.6 
Spain                  3,116.4 
Sweden                 5,762.3 
Switzerland            3,906.2 
Ukraine                2,872.3 
United Kingdom         3,993.8

Paul

The Danish versus Canadian example is even more skewed than the figures suggest.

Denmark has thousands of windmills and a poor rural population burning wood. Felling, cutting, splitting and stacking wood for burning is a major pastime for many poor, rural Danes. The reason is undoubtedly the very high domestic electricity charges. Read on:

There are those that argue that the 500% surcharge for wind generated energy is cheating (robbing?) the Danish consumer when any excess wind-generated power is simply dumped on the Swedish grid for small change. 1/7th the cost to the Danish consumer.

The Danish population has financed their own wind energy industry from their electricity bills. No wonder Denmark leads the world on wind power production and export of the technology.

Meanwhile the rich buy shares in windmills and get major tax breaks on them! Equivalent to a large, guaranteed cash handout at the consumer's expense.

If the ever-increasing wind regime from global warming continues they should have enough wind power to drain the rising sea from behind the freshly built Dutch-style dykes!

Don't get me wrong. I love windmills. I just think the manufacturers should have paid for their R&D like any other competitive industry. Denmark already has (probably) the highest taxes in the world.

Nime

Canada's high energy consumption can be attributed to large land distances (transportation), a cold climate, an energy-intensive industrial base, relatively low energy prices, and a high standard of living.

What's Luxembourg's excuse?

Paul