|
What he says applies to all encyclopedias. They are a first source, not a primary one.
|
|
Concern about global warming is coming from scientist all over the globe, Russia, US, Japan, even China. Fluctuations in Earth's temperature have happened in the past, however at the moment its the speed of change that is the concern. Sharp changes in just 1-2 decades. Even if it all proves to be a false theory the risk of ignoring the potential risk is rather large and the cost of doing something about it (1% of global GDP according to Stern?) is actually quite modest in the grand scheme of things.
|
All I know about my personal experiences with global warming is that 25 years ago when we moved here: 500feet above sealevel, North Staffs, a rwd car was a liability in winter due to frost ,ice and 4 feet snowdrifts - and that was in our yard! Getting out of our inclined drive onto the road: a rise of 2 feet was very difficult and I bought a 50kg bag of mixed sand and salt to help.
And when I got up at 5am to drive 200miles in the winter, the windscreen bottle in my Sierra froze due to the cold. And our pond had frozen solid to the depth of 30cms for a month..
Now we are lucky if we see any snow for more than 1 day.. and I still have my bag of salt and sand - half used... Mind you with fwd cars getting out of the drive is no longer an issue.
So it's getting warmer..
I'm no expert. Climate changes are not very well understood. But the chances of getting another Mini Ice Age by stopping the Gulf Stream would worry me. Cos what people don't realise is that CUrrent gas supplies in Western Europe are finite.. and a Mini Ice Age would probably kill off 70% of the population: either through cold (no gas fired central heating, lack of fresh water (supplies all frozen) or starvation (crops cannot be grown and livestock die).
So if the price of preventing a MIni Ice Age includes Green Taxes - which were properly applied- it looks to me like a good tradeoff.
(And the last Ice Age was only about 20,000 years ago).
But others may deny it will ever happen as clealry man is immortal and can do no wrong .
madf
|
But others may deny it will ever happen as clealry man is immortal and can do no wrong . madf
I quote from a song by my youngest daughter's boy friend:
You don't matter, you're a tiny little spot
And no one gives a ****** if you kill yourself or not;
Your precious planet hasn't even noticed that you're here,
You're just a fluctuation in the mighty biosphere...
|
|
|
|
and the cost of doing something about it (1% of global GDP according to Stern?) is actually quite modest in the grand scheme of things.
I dont think it is the cost that is the issue, rather it is a question as to who pays.
On a global level should the developed nations and corporations domiciled within them pay the total cost or should the burden be spread evenly even if this adversely effects the developement of some developing countries. Afterall we could say that we have our house in reasonable order where as the Chinese, Koreans etc dont, it they are not required to invest in environmental technology then we are handing them a further competitive advantage.
On a national level I am concerned that the motorists is burdened with too high a proportion of the blame and, via taxation, the cost.
|
So if we go green in this country we will all be safe from global warming/ice age/gulf stream being dammed/etc.
It will be like in the 70's and 80's when Derbyshire County Council had a nuclear free zone, I felt really safe from the Ruskies and their misiles.
|
I cannot comment on the accuracy of their figures, but last week's Autocar broke down household CO2 output:
Food, production and consumption 29%
Flights 22%
Home heating 22%
Light 16%
Cars 10%
So if we use heating and lighting less then we could make a big difference to CO2. Perhaps bigger than car use.
It also looked at global warming, and again I do not know if figures were accurate, etc:
Non-energy 42% (waste 10%, Agriculture 14%, Land use 18%)
Power 24%
Transport 14% (planes, trains, ships cars, motorcycles, etc.)
Industry 14%
Buildings 8%
Other 5%
If transport of all types is down to cars then we can also make a big difference via other means...
That's my 2p input anyway.
Rob
|
the harsh reality is that the UK is soooooooooo small a place on such a big planet
even if we all killed ourselves, prevented anyone living here and using cars, heating etc
this would be but small spuds in the worldwide scheme of things
the real environmental disaster is the factories in China/India running with next to no exaust system at all, just throwing all that pollution into the air
the UK could have much more impact on global environment by helping the biggest Chinese factories improve their emissions than messing around pretending more tax here is going to do any good
the reason China/india etc can flood our markets with cheap goods is not just cheap labour, its also lack of basic safety and environmental emmissions regimes
europe/usa could drive this by graduated tax depending on emission in country of production or similar
|
>>the UK could have much more impact on global environment by helping the biggest Chinese factories improve their emissions than messing around pretending more tax here is going to do any good<<
Agreed but they are hardly likely to listen if we've done sod all to reduce emissions. "Do as I say, not as I do" rarely carries much credibility.
|
|
|
|
The Government is the new Catholic Church
Wan't to go and pollute the earth, shame on you, so pay some extra tax and everything will be OK - makes a change from saying Hail Marys.
I love TBs new "green man" image - under his PMship, discount airlines have flourished - these are far more harmfull to the environment than cars.
How come airplane fuel for people to go on holiday is tax free, while a working man driving to work has to pay 80% tax on his tankfull?
Also, if you have a diesel engined Gin Palace that you sail around the Solent on a week end, you don't pay tax on the fuel.
Global Warming = lie, so call it climate change.
|
re ">>the UK could have much more impact on global environment by helping the biggest Chinese factories improve their emissions than messing around pretending more tax here is going to do any good<<
Agreed but they are hardly likely to listen if we've done sod all to reduce emissions. "Do as I say, not as I do" rarely carries much credibility."
We are already miles ahead of Chinese factories, our factories would be shut down instantly if they were a fraction as dirty as the average Chinese one
We are already in as position to take the "Do as I say" line and be able to improve them significantly
|
Oh well I don't care: I live 500feet above sea level. Tough if you live in London/Lincolnshire or in the Fens...
There are an awful lot of monyed and vested interests who will lose Billions if sea levels rise 5 feet.. and most live in London.
So you may scoff BUT if it's real the millionaires and property companies will take notice... and so will the Government which of course is based in London - anyone want to drown in Green Park on a flood tide?
madf
|
|
|
|
............ but last week's Autocar broke down household CO2 output: Food, production and consumption 29% Flights 22% Home heating 22% Light 16% Cars 10%
That's household output. Emissions from cows is a major source of CO2! Nobody complains about that.
--
L\'escargot.
|
"Emissions from cows is a major source of CO2"
Methane I think you mean, though cows also breathe, so yes, they do produce CO2
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
So if we go green in this country we will all be safe from global warming/ice age/gulf stream being dammed/etc. It will be like in the 70's and 80's when Derbyshire County Council had a nuclear free zone, I felt really safe from the Ruskies and their misiles.
Gotta start somewhere.
No good telling others to do something when we don't.
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
It will be like in the 70's and 80's when Derbyshire County Council had a nuclear free zone, ...
Imagine the council's horror when someone told them what went on in *Rolls Royce & Associates' premises on Raynesway!
Number_Cruncher
* Now called Rolls Royce Marine Power
|
|
|
|
|
|
"the speed of change that is the concern. Sharp changes in just 1-2 decades"
Except that, according to IPCC temps have risen by only 0.6deg (+or- 0.2Deg ) since 1880 and half that rise took place before 1950.
--
Phil
|
"Greenhouse gases aren't all bad!"
L'Escasrgot,
you are of course correct, without the greenhouse effect the earth would be a heck of a lot colder (let alone the fact that the greenhouse is caused by the atmosphere without which you would not be able to breathe, plants could not respire and there would not be much air going into the cylinders of your car to mix with the diesel or petrol!
"Is the greenhouse effect a totally bad thing?
"Only if you think undesirable a habitable planet with relatively stable temperature. Our moon, lacking greenhouse effect, makes a kind of comparison even though lack of atmosphere makes it uninhabitable regardless of temperature. The moon's mean surface temperature by day is 107 °C (225 °F) and by night drops to -153 °C (-243 °F). The Lunar temperature increases about 260 °C from just before dawn to Lunar noon. So, if you fancy such a temperature range then a greenhouse effect-free world is for you, otherwise you might want to be pleased we have it here on Earth.
How much does the so-called 'greenhouse effect' warm the Earth?
It's estimated that the Earth's surface would be about -18 °C (0 °F, 255 K) with atmosphere and clouds but without the greenhouse effect and that the (we'll call it "natural") greenhouse effect raises the Earth's temperature by ~33 °C (59 °F). Devoid of atmosphere it would actually be a less cold -1 °C (272 K) because the first calculation strangely includes 31% reflection of solar radiation by clouds (which could obviously not occur without an atmosphere) while clouds actually add significantly to the greenhouse effect - for simplicity, just stick with ~33 °C. "
from
www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
--
Phil
|
So I take it that relatively few of us are actually questioning just how big a role CO2 plays in climate change?
I still remain to be convinced.
Even IF I were convinced, I would still take a lot of convincing that nature doesn't emit more CO2 than mankind's activities all put together. When I say "nature" I'm referring to the ocean, volcanoes etc.
Blue
|
"I would still take a lot of convincing that nature doesn't emit more CO2 than mankind's activities all put together. When I say "nature" I'm referring to the ocean, volcanoes etc."
Blue,
You are correct - virtually everyone agrees with this statement - "Humans can only claim responsibility, if that's the word, for about 3.4% of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere annually, the rest of it is all natural. Of that, PERHAPS 10% is down to all motor vehicles. Remove all motor vehicles from the planet and you reduce CO2 emissions by about 0.3%. "
These are IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
www.ipcc.ch/
Also look here
www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
--
Phil
|
So if that's the case, why in god's name do we worry about how much CO2 we chuck out?!?
Surely even if we ceased to exist, there would only be a 3.4% reduction in CO2 emmissions, which would make what difference to climate change exactly? I would guess nothing when you consider that the climate has been changing quite happiy without any help from us for a great number of millenia.
I will now take even more persuading that we can do anything to affect Climate Change! I think we would be better off investing the money that is currently been invested in low carbon technologies into systems and technology that will help us deal with the effects of climate change, and of course, harness it's advantages (longer growing seasons for crops etc.)
Blue
|
But isn't the point we do it and try to convince India, China and even the USA to do it. We cannot force them but we can persuade them.
"May your God" help our children and the planet's future.... stealing the bit in quotes from the great Dave Allen who I loved as a kid and was allowed to watch :-)
We obviously need to do something as a planet for the future.... thousands, tens of thousands and even millions of years to come. Our sun (the star not the tabloid) is not going to obliterate us for a long time yet.
|
on CO2 this issue in made worse by the destruction of larger and larger areas of the worlds forests, it is those trees which turn back the CO2 which animals breathe out back in O2 ie oxygen we can all breathe
without the forests we will end up like the 3 guys on Apollo 13, those forests are our canister, and boy do we need to get the gaffer tape out quickly
as for other greenhouse gasses methane etc, yes there is a growing problem, but the problem is almost entirely down to China/India/to some extend the old Soviet states/ and of course the USA - the UK is but a pin head in this massive context
i repeat the UK could have much more impact by helping China/India improve its own factories emissions technology than anything we do internally
go and have a look at some Chinese factories and witness Victorian standard factories spewing raw dirt of all kinds straight into the air, and they have many more poisons they are able to produce than the Victorians ever did
|
This is all very well buit no one has yet answered why the human race as a whole (i.e. not just the UK) should care about CO2 when we apparently only account for a tiny proportion of what would be released by natural causes anyway?
What I do think would be useful is if we helped China to stop releasing nasty chemicals into the air from old fashioned factories that cause damage to the health of people in the surrounding area, that would be a worthy cause. Especially when you consider that lots of the factories are making goods for Western markets so that we don't have to bother ourselves...
But back to my point. Why should the human race care if we truly do account for just 3.4% of all global CO2 when natural causes are taken into account?
Blue
|
Because we are producing enough extra (as far as science can currently tell) for the feedback loops to change, melting the ice caps and causing massive problems.
Tell you what, I find the attitude of most people on here more than I can bear. I'm dipping out of this.
|
Because we are producing enough extra (as far as science can currently tell) for the feedback loops to change, melting the ice caps and causing massive problems.
Some people would welcome a bit of warming. I personally would love the UK to have a climate similar to what Spain has currently. It's an ill wind ............
--
L\'escargot.
|
But back to my point. Why should the human race care if we truly do account for just 3.4% of all global CO2 when natural causes are taken into account?
Because we know that it only takes a tiny change in greenhouse gas emissions to make a huge difference. And 3.4% is not a tiny change by nature's standards. Nor is it a one-off, like a volcano or a forest fire, but 3.4% of everything including all those things, all the time.
Having said all that I'm amazed by the lack of economic argument in all this. Rod Eddington made the economic case for alleviating congestion. I'd have thought that more fuel efficient homes, businesses, and cars, combined with minimising actual energy usage--fewer flights, perhaps?--would save us a fortune in the long run and make us more competitive against those countries blessed with an abundance of fossil fuels.
|
Well I still think the miniscule increases that we are talking about make naff all difference to the pattern of climate change that the earth experiences naturally, it seems that there almost as much research to back this theory up as there is reasearch to contradict it. So I'm changing nothing.
Blue
|
By the way, I think Baskerville makes an excellent point, we would be far better off if we were less dependant on foreign fossil fuels. Which is why I support the building of a host of new Nuclear power stations, yes I know that economically they don't make a good case for themselves, but I think that's a price worth paying to not have to depend upon foreign gas quite so much...
Blue
|
Which is why I support the building of a host of new Nuclear power stations ..........
The problem is disposing of the waste.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>> Which is why I support the building of >> a host of new Nuclear power stations .......... The problem is disposing of the waste. -- L\'escargot.
I'm with Blue on this, and I think the latest nuclear power stations don't produce so much waste.
|
and I think the latest nuclear power stations don't produce so much waste.
Perhaps not, but it's still difficult to get rid of safely.
--
L\'escargot.
|
Well I still think the miniscule increases that we are talking about make naff all difference to the pattern of climate change that the earth experiences naturally
The changes aren't miniscule. For starters, comparing the amount emitted by us to the amount emitted naturally is pointless and stupid.
Lots of CO2 is emitted by all sorts of things, and its absorbed by all sorts of things. It's basically a closed loop, causing no net longterm increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. But we're injecting new CO2 into the atmosphere. This is CO2 that hasn't been in the atmosphere for millions of years due to being locked up in fossil fuels. It's now being dumped back into the atmosphere extremely rapidly. The rate of change is unprecedented. CO2 levels have never risen this quickly, and certainly not with humans around.
Look at this graph: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-...g
We've managed, in the last 200 years, to increase the total amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 35%. And that was starting from a high point in the 100,000-year natural cycle. Is that a "miniscule" change? And CO2 levels are still rising. How much more CO2 are you prepared to dump into the atmosphere. Are you happy to risk doubling CO2? Given the well-understood and previously seen link between CO2 and global climate?
Frankly, I think the precautionary principle states that those who want to signficantly alter our atmosphere have the burden of proof to show that it's safe to do so.
|
Blue, Although I accept that natural CO2 is larger than manmade CO2, I don't think this means we can safely continue to produce CO2 without further investigation.
Among the many fears is that the global climate system isn't linear.
By this, I mean that we all tend to have the idea that each small increase in CO2 produces a proportional small increase in warming effect.
It is entirely possible for there to be a threshold in CO2 level beyond which, small changes in CO2 produce really large and worrying changes. For an example of one possible non-linear mechanism, if the melting ice suddenly releases a large current of cold water into the oceans, it's possible that ocean currents could be seriously disrupted, seriously affecting climate over much of the globe, as well as the obvious flooding!
Number_Cruncher
|
To play devil's advocate may I introduce into this discussion, that a large body of scientists have promoted the idea that in the long term history of the atmosphere, CO2 levels seem to have increased AS A RESULT of global warming. ie rise in CO2 follows global warming trends rather than leads it!!
Devil's advocate 2
"global climate system isn't linear.
By this, I mean that we all tend to have the idea that each small increase in CO2 produces a proportional small increase in warming effect."
In a lot of the stuff I have read, it says that the more CO2 increases the smaller the marginal effect it has - a sort of law of diminishing returns.
I can quote sources if you wish!!
--
Phil
|
By the way - just noticed that a Forsythia bush in my garden is just starting to flower - that's about four months earlier than usual!
--
Phil
|
By the way - just noticed that a Forsythia bush in my garden is just starting to flower - that's about four months earlier than usual!
It could be just a second flowering for ths year. Next year's may still appear at the normal time.
--
L\'escargot.
|
>>CO2 levels seem to have increased AS A RESULT of global warming.
I think that because we are dealing with a complex control loop, changing one parameter will cause changes all the way round the loop, and it can be difficult to decide which is the causal factor. It can be quite difficult to find the problem even with a very simple closed loop system - see how many garages struggle getting to the root of problems with mixture control and the lambda sensor! i.e. how many lambda sensors have been changed when the fault was just an air leak in a vacuum pipe! If there is doubt, then the size of the stake surely means that we must play safe, and assume that by our action we must try to help the situation.
a sort of law of diminishing returns.
Yes, just as the mechanism I mentioned is catastrophic, there are other mechanisms which reduce the effect of increases in CO2.
While I think that the stakes involved are too high for us to be nonchalant about the issue, I think that some of our responses to them have been poorly thought out. For example, the total life environmental costs for a Prius must dwarf any saving it makes per mile during use.
There's a lot that's been written on both sides of this debate - for my part, I haven't taken the time to look at the peer reviewed journal articles that, for me, represent the only valid source of data and information. While I might use the internet to help me choose a digital camera, I don't think it has the authority to form the basis for any scientifically valid point of view.
Number_Cruncher
|
CO2 levels seem to have increased AS A RESULT of global warming. ie rise in CO2 follows global warming trends rather than leads it!!
Which rather suggests a dangerous feedback loop. CO2 certainly can increase temperatures. And then if increased temperatures can cause release of more CO2 from the biosphere, we're in big do-do. Which is why many scientists are saying that CO2 levels need to be capped at 500ppm to prevent runaway warming.
Here's a realclimate.org page about the lag: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2.../
And as for diminishing returns, yes, each extra 250ppm we dump in will have a diminishing effect. Going from 0ppm to 250ppm (roughly the pre-industrial figure) vastly warms the earth up. Doubling from 250ppm to 500ppm will have less effect. Another increase from 500ppm to 750ppm will have less effect again. But the effect is still big. It looks like we're going to double the atmospheric CO2. We'd have to work hard to double it again.
|
Well I still think the miniscule increases that we are talking about make naff all difference to the pattern of climate change that the earth experiences naturally, it seems that there almost as much research to back this theory up as there is reasearch to contradict it. So I'm changing nothing. Blue
Well, we now who to blame when the Gulf Stream Conveyor stops and the west freezes and Australia boils.
What ever happened to the precautionary principle?????
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
|
|
|
l'escargot - big, big mistake to cite wikipedia. see chronicle.com/wiredcampus/article/1328/wikipedia-f...n
" .... Wikipedia?s founder, Jimmy Wales, says he wants to get the message out .....shouldn?t use it for .... serious research. ... "
Fair comment. Next time I'll quote Granny Brainiac!
--
L\'escargot.
|
"We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface has been gradually falling. Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought.
The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. "There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me," he says.
Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.
Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a sceptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming"
www.tiny.cc/AsyyB
----------------------------------------------
Aim low, expect nothing & dont be disappointed
|
|
|
|
|
