Crazy weather and armageddon

Posted by: DAVOhorn on 12 January 2005

Dear All,

Watching the news over the last few weeks it would appear that the world is in a very unhappy condition.

First the tsunami after the earth quake.

then the severe weather oop noorth with flooding and severe storms winds etc.

And the same in the good ole US of A.

The enormous iceberg that has gone walk about

So what is going on?

Has global warming almost hit critical mass and this is the start of the climate change that has been forecast.

Has the day after tomorrow arrived?

Here in very sunny mild suffolk i watched the above on my tv and wondered what is going on?

regards David
Posted on: 19 January 2005 by Derek Wright
Luxembourg's excuse - they sell the cheapest petrol in Europe and you can travel many miles without needing to show one's passport or cross any water using a very expensive ferry

And possibly because the place is so small one needs to get out of the place.

and the EU meets there and that is the biggest excuse to ignore any rules or laws or commonsense
Posted on: 19 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Paul,
quote:
This is all so fuzzy and rather New Labour, almost quasi-religious

But you reduce everything to economic growth figures and material wealth, it's all a bit Thatcherite and shallow; it's so easy to throw these labels around.

Why does your predicted future have only two outcomes: 'rosy, economically rich and happy' - your 'do nothing, wait and see' approach, and 'doom laden, post Armageddon Stalinism' - any approach that suggests that we try and exercise some form of restraint or self control. It all suggests a lack of imagination.

Will.
Posted on: 19 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
But you reduce everything to economic growth figures and material wealth

No I don't.

You could just say 'I have no idea, I don't know what I'm talking about'.

Paul
Posted on: 19 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
FWIW the Green Party state that the UK needs "to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by up to 80% by 2050 to check climate change".

So my 50% guess up thread was probably in the ballpark. And it's not the same as 'recyling a bit more' or 'doing my bit'. It's radical life style changing stuff. Who is going to start eating their own dog food?

Paul
Posted on: 19 January 2005 by Steve Toy
Reconcile the following cycle:

Acknowledge the need to reduce CO2 emissions > examine ways of reducing CO2 emissions > adopt anti-car policies > lose sight of objective of reducing CO2 emissions whilst relentlessly pursuing anti-car policies for their own sake > curtail available road space, increase congestion, install speed humps and lower urban speed limits > increase fuel consumption of vehicles > increase CO2 emissions > acknowledge the need...
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Paul,

This:
quote:
You could just say 'I have no idea, I don't know what I'm talking about'.



coming from the bloke who said we should all go & live on the Isle of Man is classic

Will.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Nime
Steve

If they ever cut back on personal transport yours will be the plumb job.

Nime

I note that Britain is about to be hit by a third wave of storm force winds above 85mph within quite a short period.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Steve,

I don't think it is logically possible to reconcile such a cycle, but it can be studied for its validity and feasibility. I concluded that it's just a figment of somebody's imagination, weakly used as a tool to bring their paranoid hatred of anything perceived as 'anti-car' into the debate, therefore dismissible.

BTW, some suggested reading for you and your woefully misinformed erstwhile lecturers. Not many, but I didn't have much time to scan my old degree texts (such dust!) when I got home last night, as I had the much more important task of playing with second born. I didn't get them from the Internet, so I don't know how easily you will find them:

1. Kellog W.W. and S.H.Schneider, 1974. "Climate Stabilization: for better or worse?". Science, vol 1 186, pp. 1163-1172 (Dec 27).
This has a very useful description of the then well understood complexity of feedback mechanisms governing the global climate

2. Study of Man's Impact on Climate (SMIC) 1971. Inadvertent Climate Modification. M.I.T. Press.
prepared as input to the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Who is going to start eating their own dog food?

Paul


WTF? What are you eating Paul? Big Grin

Stephen
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
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? Paul


Why is economic growth such a given? Is it some natural force that suggests that this is the only way to live? Why do you think that economic growth necessarily means a better standard of living?

As for the others, surely, compared to the problems that continuing as we are will bring, they are relatively small fry. What have property rights to do with global warming? Or wealth policies? I was suggesting a green future, not a Green Party future.

I was reading an article the other week which was discussing the costs of doing nothing about climate change now, rather than waiting. The usual excuse of the 'do nothing' lobby is that policies to reduce pollution are unaffordable.

The author was comparing this to the US clean air act. When that was introduced, industry and consumers were trotting out exactly the same excuses as today; too expensive, economically damaging e.t.c. It cost millions of dollars to implement in the '60. Today’s estimates are that it has now saved trillions of dollars in lower health care costs, less sick days, better health, lower building maintenance and improvements and efficiency in fuel technologies.

The long term view can work.

Not likely to under the present US admin though.

Frown

Stephen
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Why do you think that economic growth necessarily means a better standard of living?

The example that comes first to mind is our expectations of the health service.
quote:
I was suggesting a green future, not a Green Party future.

The context was 'Green Party' from Tim's original 'recycle more and vote Green' post.
quote:
The usual excuse of the 'do nothing' lobby is that policies to reduce pollution are unaffordable.

The argument is obviously rather more sophisticated than that. The Kyoto agreement achieves nothing, the best estimate I saw was that full implementation would delay 'climate change' by 6 years in 100. So it must be a first tentative step. But the cost of implementation is much more than ensuring every human has clean water for ever. So how many lives is that 6 years worth?

Paul
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
What are you eating Paul?

I haven't started my car for a month. You?

Paul
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
1. Kellog W.W. and S.H.Schneider, 1974. "Climate Stabilization: for better or worse?". Science, vol 1 186, pp. 1163-1172 (Dec 27).
This has a very useful description of the then well understood complexity of feedback mechanisms governing the global climate

This is during the period when the same 'S.H.Schneider' was promoting global cooling as a consequence of these well understood feedback mechanisms?

I recommend moving forward 30 years and getting your data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, http://www.ipcc.ch just don't take the summaries for 'policy makers' too seriously.

Paul
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Paul,

The point I was trying to make to Steven (and others), and that you have missed, was that his claim that a) climate change is not significantly affected by the activities of humans, and b) that in the 1980s this fact was accepted academic opinion was patently untrue, and that their attempts to tendentiously simplify the situation would serve only to confuse people. Hence my ancient references.

Perhaps a better reference for this period would have been "Ecoscience" by Ehrlich, Ehrlich & Holdren (Freeman, 1977), esp. ch 2 and 11. In which the mechanism by which CO2 affects climate, and some fairly uncanny (for the time) predictions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and average global temperature changes are given. The main thing that gives away this edition's age is the fact that these subjects warrant only a few pages, however the process was definitely understood.
quote:
I haven't started my car for a month.

Admirable, but why not?

Regards,

Will.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
quote:
What are you eating Paul?

I haven't started my car for a month. You?

Paul


I was thinking about this yesterday. I last used it in mid-december - 4000 miles total last year.

Should I keep it or not, I wonder?

Confused

Stephen
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
In which the mechanism by which CO2 affects climate, and some fairly uncanny (for the time) predictions of atmospheric CO2 concentrations and average global temperature changes are given.

The Greenhouse Effect is not news, I'm sure it was covered in school in the 70s. What's still very controversial in is the likely consequences of human actions on the climate. Unfortunately conventional wisdom in the media, chattering classes and grant-aided globe-trotting 'environmentalist' doesn't make for good science.

Albeit Steven is obviously talking nonsense with his 'anti-car' stuff...

Paul
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
Albeit Steven is obviously talking nonsense with his 'anti-car' stuff...

Paul


I assume you don't mean me?

Confused

Stephen
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
Of course not. I'd spell your name right...

Look at Steve Toy's post up thread a bit.

Paul
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Paul,

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The Ecoscience text describes not only the mechanisms involved, but predicts future levels of CO2 and temperature rises. Albeit based on a simple model, and in the relative dark ages of the subject.

Back when I were a lad the book was considered an important and respected scientific tome, and it would never sit easily in any of the categories you listed (you weren't suggesting that, were you?).

I conclude that we're just going to have to differ on this, before we go round in circles and bore the pants out of any poor fool who is tempted to read it.
I believe that the controversy about the likely consequences of human actions on the climate is minimal (and limited mainly to the political and commercial sphere), and that scientific agreement on this is in the majority; and you don't. I don't imagine that I'm going to change your mind, but I've enjoyed the debate.

I also think that Joe Petrik summed up the whole situation far more succinctly than I could in his 'statistical errors' post above.

Regards,

Will.

P.S. I agree about the Steven Toy thing, but it was the crude attempts at academic credibility, rather than the delusional drivel that riled me.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
I concluded that it's just a figment of somebody's imagination, weakly used as a tool to bring their paranoid hatred of anything perceived as 'anti-car' into the debate, therefore dismissible.



If it were still a matter for debate then you'd be quite correct in regarding my ant-car cycle as dismissible.

It just happens to be government policy.

For example: limitation of parking space allocations on new residential developments imposed by the government is a case in point - it does absolutely nothing to discourage increasing car ownership. It just ensures that more cars clutter the streets causing congestion and providing convenient hiding places for children before they leap out into the path of an on-coming vehicle, in pursuit of a ball.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Will_Dias
Steve,
quote:
For example: limitation of parking space allocations on new residential developments ...


There are three new developments in my area (one <2yrs old, the other two <6 months old): 2 blocks of flats, and 1 housing estate. They all have ample dedicated private parking and advertise the fact.

Will.

P.S. Why would a vehicle persue a ball?
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
P.S. I agree about the Steven Toy thing, but it was the crude attempts at academic credibility, rather than the delusional drivel that riled me.


"Riled" hey?

That's a bit strong.

University life taught me only to be angered at invective pointed at me, and never towards viewpoints that I didn't share, for the simple reason that people often express viewpoints that they themselves don't acually agree with.

It is therefore important to regard viewpoints and their authors as completely separate entities in debate.

Beware, the viewpoint I express isn't always my own.

I was, and am still quite a disorganised academic.

I cannot remember the names or the authors of the books I read, but for one called Future Weather, and I don't even remember where I put the book (I have a copy) or its author Red Face I do remember him discussing cause and effect reversal wrt CO2 in the atmosphere and global warming.

My own viewpoint is that the world is warming up anyway, and, yes, man is accelerating the process.

I also believe that our government's anti-car policies are rooted more in socialist notions of control and regulation, revenue raising, as well as a desire to see people from all levels of society interacting with each other - on the bus!

Certainly one of the main attractions of private transport is you don't have to sit next to the nutter on the bus or the woman who has just wet herself, and opposite the mother who has lost control of her screaming brats. For some reason train travellers are far more civilised on the whole (except on the West Coast Main Line) than travellers on the bus. Certainly around here there is a degree of social stigma attached to catching buses, and you can deny it if you wish.

The environmental aspect of policy just provides an element of additional justification. The red flag has turned a rather funny shade of green, and if I thought it was actually going to do any good in both the short term and the long term I'd be all for it.

I admire places like Barcelona and Stuttgart where public transport provision is so comprehensive and widely used as to eliminate the social stigma associated with such use, that with ample provision of the means of getting around it would actually make sense to ban cars altogether - instead of the pathetic, feeble attempts currently used that serve only to make getting around by car more irritating, whilst actually worsening the impact of cars on the evironment at the same time.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Steve Toy
quote:
P.S. Why would a vehicle persue a ball?


"They" meant children.

Children play in their front gardens...

I agree that not all Local Authorities take any notice of central Diktat. Indeed, my local District Council has a policy of allocating 3 parking spaces per dwelling compared with the government's maximum of 1.5.

In a neighbouring District, they have adhered to central Diktat, and the resulting chaos is plain to see.
Posted on: 20 January 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
I believe that the controversy about the likely consequences of human actions on the climate is minimal (and limited mainly to the political and commercial sphere), and that scientific agreement on this is in the majority

In that case why is it so difficult to find statements regarding best estimates of the needed action? I can see five scenarios,

1. Catastrophe (end of the world as we know it).
2. Disaster (massive climate changes leading to substantial migration, depopulation, etc).
3. Discomfort (wetter/hotter/colder/floods/pestilence but most nation states continue).
4. Tolerable (hotter or colder but so it goes).
5. No change.

I found the Green Party suggesting 80% reduction in emissions to achieve 5 (they'd actually like a '6'...).

Paul
Posted on: 21 January 2005 by Nime
You forgot to mention the wind. Even ignoring all other factors the damage being caused by the frequent storms of recent times in N Europe is adding up. Improving all housing and infrastructure to cope with greater frequency of these extreme weather conditions would bankrupt many countries. The 1999 "Storm of the century" cost 22 milliard Danish kroner. The lesser storm of January 2005 has just cost another 4 milliard DKK. The insurance companies must be wondering how much longer the gravy train will keep on running.

Nime