More of OUR money down the drain

[FalconFN]

Are they, depending on who you speak to, current readings are not matching the forecasted increases.

Yes they are, broadly. They are not looking at short time scales but 30-50 year minimums. There will be fluctuations from year to year, decade to decade and solar cycle to solar cycle but the changes are there to be seen, even those that say humans aren't responsible accept the trend, but the big question is are we to blame?

 

Don't pay too much attention to 'forecasts', as I said before, they are just educated guesses in a very new field and very unlikely to be accurate to any degree, they are just a way to help show what may, and not what will, happen - in the same way you can forecast that falling from a building may break your bones, but pinpointing exactly which bones is a little more tricky and dependent on various other factors.

Edited December 14, 2015 by FalconFN

[norfolk dumpling]

The trouble is us mere mortals just don't know. I have serious doubts these extreme weather events are just a variation on similar recorded back in time but different because their are 7(?) billion of us now. Also Scientists do whatever the person paying the big bucks say. Having these reservations I recycle more, have bought (what I thought was) an Eco friendly diesel car and do less air travel. It's called keeping your options open in the same way I don't believe in God but try to be nice to my fellow man, keep the law and pay my taxes.

[grrclark]

To counter your first point, could it not be seen a supremely arrogant to think we can, in a blink of an eye, unlock billions of tonns of carbon that was laid down over many millions of years, without causing some fundamental atmospheric changes?

 

But then again, PW says that's all fine so why worry.

 

Yes it is supremely arrogant of us :(

 

As much as I believe that we are naive in the extreme to believe we can control the natural cyclical global climate change I also do think that we are being hugely arrogant in believing that we have no impact or influence is precipitating an acceleration of that change. Even if my previous post didn't say that.

 

My worry is that we seem to be all or nothing, at least in the media and in the political rhetoric.

 

We don't really know if 2'c is the right target. That is why I think our (national) targets should be localised ones, we can measure those targets and influence change in those so much more effectively.

 

As yet I think we don't understand enough of the variables involved in global climate change although that doesn't mean we should do nothing until we do understand them all.

 

I was reading a month or two ago about the anomalous cold pool in the Atlantic, we know it's there and we measure it using all sorts of amazingly clever things like satellite based gravity sensors and basic things like temperature probes on bouys, yet we don't really understand it, but we know it has the potential of massive influence.

 

How can we set a global target when we don't understand enough of the game yet?

[Scully]

 

But then again, PW says that's all fine so why worry.

 

I'm not really sure they're saying it's 'fine', but speaking for myself I'm saying no matter how I feel the matter is out of my hands so why worry about it?

There are an increasing number of people being born to this planet every minute of every day, the vast majority of whom see what you and I have and want the same; nice cars, foreign holidays, a nice house. Even on the news this morning it was announced there will be no pay rises this next year unless productivity is increased; not many want less of what they have, and most want more. They see the affluent west and it's celebrities, and even those who live on benefits are wealthy in comparison to many, and they want what we have, and who can blame them?

The bloke I work for most of the time is a 'green' freak and is constantly lecturing us regarding our carbon footprint etc, yet he employs us to build and erect sustainable houses as though they're going out of fashion. He isn't building them for families on low incomes so they can reduce their carbon footprint; he's building them for incredibly wealthy people as they are the only ones who can afford them while they continue with their wealthy lifestyles, jetting off here and there after travelling off to the airport in their hugely expensive vehicles spewing out carcinogenic diesel fumes. A recent one bought the plot next to him, complete with four bedroomed house, and knocked it down as his wife doesn't want neighbours! These people don't want less, and neither do I.

Then he'll tell us how good his solar panelling is at creating him money by selling excess electric back to the grid, neatly overlooking the fact it was the taxpayer that has subsidised his photovoltaics. Nobody wants less, nobody wants just to exist.

Despite all this, isn't mans contribution to the entire carbon footprint around 3%?

An increasingly unsustainable growing population means more demands on the earth and its capabilities, with more housing, more food, more warm shelter and the infrastructure to support it all, for people who to merely exist isn't enough; they'll want to thrive. We're only here once, none of us want to spend what time we have merely existing, for the sake of something which may or may not happen, especially as it is something we have no control over. Don't we all want to enjoy the time we have? IF climate change is man made, then we're burgered basically.

[Vince Green]

I think there is an element of the Emperor's new clothes about climate change. Only 5% of the world's CO2 production is man made apparantly. My main beef with the Climate Change Lobby is that you are expected to buy into the whole package or you are called a climate change denyer. James O'Brian on LBC held a phone in on LBC about climate change and he was just ridiculing anyone who phoned in with any view other than that of the rather extemist lunatic fringe. That worries me

 

That's my main point, there is a lunatic fringe and they tend to be the sort of people who also belong to other lunatic fringes as well. That makes me very wary of what they say.

[FalconFN]

Scully, you are absolutely right, nobody in their right mind wants less as it is human nature to aspire to more greater things, however I don't necessarily believe that having a low carbon world equates to having less.

 

If we take carbon out of the equation just for a moment and take a look at the current situation: Increasing global population + development = increasing energy demand. Most of the global energy demand is provided by fossil fuels BUT they are a finite resource and basic economics show that reduction of supply (or perceived future reduction) and increasing demand will push energy costs ever higher. That will make development impossible for third world countries, it will also make growth difficult for the west, which is why it is vital to find alternative energy sources - in fact China is the biggest investor in solar energy ad they have spent billions and billions on hydroelectric generation (controversially) and most developing countries recognise the problem and are looking to the west for long term technological and engineering solutions so that they have a viable and secure energy supply.

 

The developing world is increasing it's CO₂ output as the developed world is decreasing it's emissions, the are not doing that through spite but because currently fossil fuels are currently the cheapest and most convenient way to do it, largely due to 100 years or so of governmental help for companies to extract and deliver them so the infrastructures and agreements are in place. But times have changes and now there is a shift in governmental help from hydrocarbon to renewable sources and in this country we have a great opportunity, both economically and politically, to lead the world in energy supply technologies. As has been said it is a major growth industry and a vital one, which is why oil companies are increasingly getting involved as they recognies natural hydrocarbons will soon become very valuable indeed - In 100 years time we will be astounded that we burned oil to create electricity!

 

You also said the matter is out of your hands, which is partially true, as we have delegated the big carbon reduction decision making to the government, but we also need to be aware of our energy future and accept that the world is changing (technologically and climatically) so we don't sit in a bubble an complain that 'China produces more....' or 'we are too small to make a difference...' or ' I don't like my neighbor's solar panels...' but instead see that we can make a difference, and a profit, from the changing situation.

 

Grr, I again see what you are saying and agree that we really don't understand enough to me making exact, and very arbitrary, claims about a 2^oC limit but, if the general scientific consensus is even broadly right, the consequences of doing nothing will be financially, politically and developmentally crippling for the planet. If the science is flawed and it is found that we make no difference to the atmospheric conditions then the worst thing that has happened is that we have globally transitioned from an economy based on a finite substance to one where there is a long term and never ending supply.

 

I find it astounding that nobody sees the very fact that 200 countries, all with very different political and cultural beliefs and systems, have met AND agreed that something has to be done, is an amazingly rare achievement and a sign how important a shift from hydrocarbons is for our development and security.

 

Could a conspiracy to keep scientists in jobs persuade the whole world to shift direction, or is it possible that anthropogenic climate change is a very real possibility?

[FalconFN]

I think there is an element of the Emperor's new clothes about climate change. Only 5% of the world's CO2 production is man made apparantly. My main beef with the Climate Change Lobby is that you are expected to buy into the whole package or you are called a climate change denyer. James O'Brian on LBC held a phone in on LBC about climate change and he was just ridiculing anyone who phoned in with any view other than that of the rather extemist lunatic fringe. That worries me

 

That's my main point, there is a lunatic fringe and they tend to be the sort of people who also belong to other lunatic fringes as well. That makes me very wary of what they say.

I agree, branding people as 'denier' is as wrong and counter productive. There is a lot of political and financial prospecting in this too, but there are in any major event, that doesn't mean it isn't based in scientific probability.

 

Regarding the 5% (or 3%) figure, you have to look at the carbon cycle and the natural input and output rates to see that any percentage rise over such a short term is undeniably unusual. The amount of carbon in the earth's system is naturally very stable (there is exchange between parts of the system but the total amount is in balance), but when carbon that was being locked away (100 million years before dinosaurs appeared) it was done over a massively long period (around 500 million years). When even a small proportion of the carbon that was locked away over a period of 500 million years is released in a period of only around 100 years the change to the system can potentially be very large.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to change anyone's opinion, I would just like to see some balance and some understanding of the science behind the politics.

[islandgun]

Complete agree with FalconFN, what possible harm can there be in limiting our use of finite resources and finding alternate ways of saving energy, Energy saving in all its guises is a cost benefit to all, via lower fuel bills etc, So we have an industry of researchers, scientists, installers, and builders employed in alternative energy, since when has employment been a bad thing, bring it on,

[grrclark]

Grr, I again see what you are saying and agree that we really don't understand enough to me making exact, and very arbitrary, claims about a 2^oC limit but, if the general scientific consensus is even broadly right, the consequences of doing nothing will be financially, politically and developmentally crippling for the planet. If the science is flawed and it is found that we make no difference to the atmospheric conditions then the worst thing that has happened is that we have globally transitioned from an economy based on a finite substance to one where there is a long term and never ending supply.

 

I find it astounding that nobody sees the very fact that 200 countries, all with very different political and cultural beliefs and systems, have met AND agreed that something has to be done, is an amazingly rare achievement and a sign how important a shift from hydrocarbons is for our development and security.

 

Could a conspiracy to keep scientists in jobs persuade the whole world to shift direction, or is it possible that anthropogenic climate change is a very real possibility?

I agree it is amazing in itself that agreement was reached and also reached so quickly given the level of disagreement that has taken place at previous discussions, but the cynic in me does wonder if it was an agreement for the sake of face and folks will be quick to dismiss the targets, as has happened previously.

 

For what it's worth I really am in total agreement with your position and argument on this, although I rather suspect I have explained myself poorly.

 

I normally argue that people don't see the bigger picture and focus on the micro detail rather than the macro detail, however this time I wonder if we are too focussed on the macro detail and ignoring what is right below our noses.

 

To try and explain what I mean, Germany is currently investing in coal fired power stations to fulfil an immediate need in energy security, so a micro focus in terms of energy supply, but they happily sign up to the macro focus deal around climate change, despite the two things being contradictory.

 

The UK are moving away from renewables subsidies and promoting smaller scale gas generation for some really good micro focus economic reasons, but sign up to the macro focus deal on climate change, likewise they are contradictory.

 

In the UK we have a micro focus on health, especially around obesity levels so are promoting an alternative diet strategy, but one which uses food that has a massive mileage associated with it and is causing very real impact on land use and food distribution around the world, i.e. quinoa which was a staple part of the diet of South America is now too expensive for the natives to eat because it is all being sold to the developed west, but again we seem to miss this when we sign up to a macro focus deal on climate change.

 

It is almost too easy to sign up to an arbitrary target of 2'C as it is all a bit wishy washy, difficult to measure because everything is so vague and we can always blame someone else.

 

Global climate change is so big and so complex and lacking in any immediacy in terms of monitoring our impact that I think it is in some ways the wrong thing to focus on in terms of a measurable goal, yet it is of course the thing that we must influence.

 

As individuals there will be some of us who try to play our part, but because a global goal of 2'C is so far beyond our individual responsibility it is easy to abrogate responsibility to big industry or government, which really means that it becomes a financial issue in either tax or cost of goods/services, but if the goals were more specific and more local then we are perhaps more inclined to play our part as individuals, i.e. buy local seasonal food and don't expect fresh strawberries every day of every year, have individual responsibility in the level of waste we produce, stop expecting everything to be shrunk wrapped in shiny plastic, etc.

 

I know all of those things are trivial when talking about global climate, but it is these little trivial things multiplied by 2 or 3bn people in developed economies that influence global behaviour and that does impact on climate change.

[secretagentmole]

 

Despite all this, isn't mans contribution to the entire carbon footprint around 3%?

 

 

 

Man's contribution is reckoned to be 3-4%, % of CO2 in atmosphere, 0.04%, man is responsible for, wait for it, 0.0016, 16 parts per million! And that is a guess too (a guess at a not very conservative level either).

 

Have a look at this website for all you need to know, green is just cabbage looking!

 

http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx/MenuItemID/103/MenuSubID/49/MenuGroup/ClimateChange.htm

[FalconFN]

If you took 0.00000004 grams of botox you would die. That is equivalent to approximately 50 parts per million in a pint of water. Small amounts don't mean small effects.

Edited December 15, 2015 by FalconFN

[STOTTO]

If you took 0.00000004 grams of botox you would die. That is equivalent to approximately 50 parts per million in a pint of water. Small amounts don't mean small effects.

 

A fact that upon reading would leave some ‘Stoney Faced’ at the prospect!

 

Just trying to inject a bit of light-heartedness amongst all the gloom!

[Scully]

Scully, you are absolutely right, nobody in their right mind wants less as it is human nature to aspire to more greater things, however I don't necessarily believe that having a low carbon world equates to having less.

 

If we take carbon out of the equation just for a moment and take a look at the current situation: Increasing global population + development = increasing energy demand. Most of the global energy demand is provided by fossil fuels BUT they are a finite resource and basic economics show that reduction of supply (or perceived future reduction) and increasing demand will push energy costs ever higher. That will make development impossible for third world countries, it will also make growth difficult for the west, which is why it is vital to find alternative energy sources - in fact China is the biggest investor in solar energy ad they have spent billions and billions on hydroelectric generation (controversially) and most developing countries recognise the problem and are looking to the west for long term technological and engineering solutions so that they have a viable and secure energy supply.

 

The developing world is increasing it's CO₂ output as the developed world is decreasing it's emissions, the are not doing that through spite but because currently fossil fuels are currently the cheapest and most convenient way to do it, largely due to 100 years or so of governmental help for companies to extract and deliver them so the infrastructures and agreements are in place. But times have changes and now there is a shift in governmental help from hydrocarbon to renewable sources and in this country we have a great opportunity, both economically and politically, to lead the world in energy supply technologies. As has been said it is a major growth industry and a vital one, which is why oil companies are increasingly getting involved as they recognies natural hydrocarbons will soon become very valuable indeed - In 100 years time we will be astounded that we burned oil to create electricity!

 

You also said the matter is out of your hands, which is partially true, as we have delegated the big carbon reduction decision making to the government, but we also need to be aware of our energy future and accept that the world is changing (technologically and climatically) so we don't sit in a bubble an complain that 'China produces more....' or 'we are too small to make a difference...' or ' I don't like my neighbor's solar panels...' but instead see that we can make a difference, and a profit, from the changing situation.

 

Grr, I again see what you are saying and agree that we really don't understand enough to me making exact, and very arbitrary, claims about a 2^oC limit but, if the general scientific consensus is even broadly right, the consequences of doing nothing will be financially, politically and developmentally crippling for the planet. If the science is flawed and it is found that we make no difference to the atmospheric conditions then the worst thing that has happened is that we have globally transitioned from an economy based on a finite substance to one where there is a long term and never ending supply.

 

I find it astounding that nobody sees the very fact that 200 countries, all with very different political and cultural beliefs and systems, have met AND agreed that something has to be done, is an amazingly rare achievement and a sign how important a shift from hydrocarbons is for our development and security.

 

Could a conspiracy to keep scientists in jobs persuade the whole world to shift direction, or is it possible that anthropogenic climate change is a very real possibility?

Bearing in mind I am still very sceptical as to mans involvement in the causes of climate change, and very much so as to mans capability to influence or manage it, I'm not against renewable or other sources of energy at all. Science, technology and industry need to research and develop alternative means of energy for the well being of us all, and

I am very willing as an individual to do my bit simply because I deplore waste and greed......as long as it doesn't have a detrimental effect on my way of life, and therein lies the crux of the matter.

Will there come a time when my 45 year old vehicle is taxed off the road simply because it is perceived as environmentally unfriendly, despite the fact that the vehicles of today are generally scrapped within less than half that time, and bearing in mind the largest part of a vehicles carbon footprint is created while being built?

To be seen to be a non-believer or sceptic is regarded as heresy by some, and there is much money to be made off the back of the 'green' revolution, and as a cynic I can seriously see the time coming when we are taxed for the spurious claim it is for the good of the planet.

I'm not averse to the theory, but am averse to those who in practise, would **** down my back and insist it's just rain.

[Vince Green]

There are two bigger dangers to the future of the planet / human race.

 

1) Changing the pH of the world's oceans caused by dumping effluent - never ever mentioned but its a massive danger and its real. Remember, all pollution eventually ends up in the sea one way or another.

 

2) Human population growth - another massive time bomb. The prediction that people in the poorer areas will attack the richer areas as resources run out has a spooky resonance with the migrant crisis. Again its never mentioned because the only apparant solution would be political suicide for any politician to discuss.

[FalconFN]

Vince, yes that is a problem for inshore waters but the acidification of open ocean is a direct result of the absorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide, and it dwarfs the acidification by effluent. The problems of acidification are well publicised but you are completely correct about population growth, it is the elephant in the room and one that has massive knock on effects.

[islandgun]

There are two bigger dangers to the future of the planet / human race.

 

1) Changing the pH of the world's oceans caused by dumping effluent - never ever mentioned but its a massive danger and its real. Remember, all pollution eventually ends up in the sea one way or another.

 

2) Human population growth - another massive time bomb. The prediction that people in the poorer areas will attack the richer areas as resources run out has a spooky resonance with the migrant crisis. Again its never mentioned because the only apparant solution would be political suicide for any politician to discuss.

 

1) population growth = increased demand for food and resources

2) pollution, see (1) agricultural run- off, (eutrophication) caused by the over use of fertilisers etc, eg The Indian,green revolution

3) possible part solution = genetic modification to reduce agricultural inputs

[FalconFN]

To be seen to be a non-believer or sceptic is regarded as heresy by some, and there is much money to be made off the back of the 'green' revolution, and as a cynic I can seriously see the time coming when we are taxed for the spurious claim it is for the good of the planet.

I'm not averse to the theory, but am averse to those who in practise, would **** down my back and insist it's just rain.

Yes, very true on both points, and a great turn of phrase. There will always be the risk of people, companies or governments exploting the situation but that is a symptom of the problem and not a cause.

 

Questioning climate change is vital to drive our understanding of the situation, and really that's what science is for, so blindly following either 'side' is just as stupid. Saying you don't believe the consensus is not quite seen in the same league as holocaust denial, but not far off for some. If a conclusion has been reached by sound data and logical thought then it is a valid opinion, if its been formed solely by reading the green party manifesto or daily mail headlines then as far as I'm concerned it can be discounted.

[Scully]

 

Questioning climate change is vital to drive our understanding of the situation, and really that's what science is for, so blindly following either 'side' is just as stupid. Saying you don't believe the consensus is not quite seen in the same league as holocaust denial, but not far off for some. If a conclusion has been reached by sound data and logical thought then it is a valid opinion, if its been formed solely by reading the green party manifesto or daily mail headlines then as far as I'm concerned it can be discounted.

Fair points.

[Nial]

that's what science is for, so blindly following either 'side' is just as stupid. Saying you don't believe the consensus is not quite seen in the same league as holocaust denial, but not far off for some.

 

Science has nothing to do with consensus.

 

The amount of time and effort pushing the 'consensus' line shows how little science is behind the whole scam,

[rodp]

I agree it is amazing in itself that agreement was reached and also reached so quickly given the level of disagreement that has taken place at previous discussions, but the cynic in me does wonder if it was an agreement for the sake of face and folks will be quick to dismiss the targets, as has happened previously.

 

For what it's worth I really am in total agreement with your position and argument on this, although I rather suspect I have explained myself poorly.

 

I normally argue that people don't see the bigger picture and focus on the micro detail rather than the macro detail, however this time I wonder if we are too focussed on the macro detail and ignoring what is right below our noses.

 

To try and explain what I mean, Germany is currently investing in coal fired power stations to fulfil an immediate need in energy security, so a micro focus in terms of energy supply, but they happily sign up to the macro focus deal around climate change, despite the two things being contradictory.

 

The UK are moving away from renewables subsidies and promoting smaller scale gas generation for some really good micro focus economic reasons, but sign up to the macro focus deal on climate change, likewise they are contradictory.

 

In the UK we have a micro focus on health, especially around obesity levels so are promoting an alternative diet strategy, but one which uses food that has a massive mileage associated with it and is causing very real impact on land use and food distribution around the world, i.e. quinoa which was a staple part of the diet of South America is now too expensive for the natives to eat because it is all being sold to the developed west, but again we seem to miss this when we sign up to a macro focus deal on climate change.

 

It is almost too easy to sign up to an arbitrary target of 2'C as it is all a bit wishy washy, difficult to measure because everything is so vague and we can always blame someone else.

 

Global climate change is so big and so complex and lacking in any immediacy in terms of monitoring our impact that I think it is in some ways the wrong thing to focus on in terms of a measurable goal, yet it is of course the thing that we must influence.

 

As individuals there will be some of us who try to play our part, but because a global goal of 2'C is so far beyond our individual responsibility it is easy to abrogate responsibility to big industry or government, which really means that it becomes a financial issue in either tax or cost of goods/services, but if the goals were more specific and more local then we are perhaps more inclined to play our part as individuals, i.e. buy local seasonal food and don't expect fresh strawberries every day of every year, have individual responsibility in the level of waste we produce, stop expecting everything to be shrunk wrapped in shiny plastic, etc.

 

I know all of those things are trivial when talking about global climate, but it is these little trivial things multiplied by 2 or 3bn people in developed economies that influence global behaviour and that does impact on climate change.

Call me a cynic as well but out of the 200 countries in agreement I can see 190 with their hands out and the tax payers of 10 coughing up again.

[grrclark]

Call me a cynic as well but out of the 200 countries in agreement I can see 190 with their hands out and the tax payers of 10 coughing up again.

Cynic

 

I am fairly cynical too.

[Vince Green]

America is the biggest user of energy per head of population. Everybody immediately thinks of the cars but actually its all the air conditioning that eats the energy. Thats not going to stop and no Climate Change Conference is going to make any difference to that carbon footprint

[FalconFN]

To be fair to the US, their emissions have been falling over the last few years - probably more to do with replacing coal with shale gas, but still it is heading south.