Global Warming

[Gray-Wolf]

Apart from a few enlightened souls the bit of that thread I dipped into can be summed up by three words 'ignorant, complacent, flippant'. Now, why not go back there - tis what you seek surely?

Let Mondy be Mondy, I'm sure he's mostly harmless (if a little tinker) !

[Devonian]

Let Mondy be Mondy, I'm sure he's mostly harmless (if a little tinker) !

Yeah, sorry, let myself be fished :blush: We must all be mindful of this kind of thing

[Guest Viking141]

Found this interesting little snippet on the Beeb website. Whilst everyone seems obsessed with CO2, does anyone know what, if any, research has been done into the impact Methane from hydrates has on global climate and is it possible we are concentrating on the wrong main culprit in the current warming phase?

Hydrates

[parmenides3]

This is a fairly detailed article on the subject: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=227

I also recommend following the Schmidt & Shindell link to another paper on the subject, which is in the bibliography at the bottom of the article.

No question that methane is a worry, but the blunt answer to the question 'have we been looking at the wrong culprit?' is no. The amount of methane in the atmosphere is known, as is the amount of CO2. The effect of these on temperature change is also pretty well understood, even allowing for the fact that methane is so potent a GHG.

Of more concern is the possibility of a large emission of clathrate (the proper term - not, as the Beeb has it, hydrate) into the atmosphere is real, but please note that the 'shallow depth' deposits are 60-100 metres beneath the sea-floor, beneath the 'stable layer', and subject to several hundred atmospheres. Something unusual needs to happen to release it, like a huge tear in tectonic plate boundaries, or someone drilling into the gulf of Mexico in the wrong place. Er...

Don't read this as pooh-poohing the idea that methane is an important source of warming and a bit of an unknown in terms of its future impact, just as an observation that this doesn't suggest anything about the effect of CO2 on GW, as both GHGs are already quite extensively researched and modellled.

:)P

[jethro]

I've got time on my hands over the hols, was trawling around the net checking out property prices in Canada - plan on moving out there soon; I found the story below. Apparently it happened a while ago but has only just been released. Any thoughts?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...498&k=55306

[parmenides3]

I've got time on my hands over the hols, was trawling around the net checking out property prices in Canada - plan on moving out there soon; I found the story below. Apparently it happened a while ago but has only just been released. Any thoughts?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/st...498&k=55306

Not as simple as it might at first seem. This paper is from the 1980s: http://pubs.aina.ucalgary.ca/arctic/Arctic39-1-15.pdf

There's a similar one. chronicling such calvings for half a century or more, by the very scientist quoted in the article, from 2001. Rather than look at an isolated event and ask if it is evidence of a long-term trend in climate, consider that the Ellesmere shelf is estimated to have lost around 90% of its mass in the past century: that is much more likely to be evidence of global warming. As ever, though, its never easy to be sure what's going on in such an isolated region of the world.

:)P

[Mondy]

A group of scientists who have previously warned against climate change "hysteria" say yesterday's figures revealing one of the coldest Decembers in 60 years were evidence there is no global warming in New Zealand.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....jectid=10417735

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story....jectid=10417735

So whilst they're enjoying their coldest Chrimbo on record,watching icebergs of South Island in an ocean packed with cold anomalies they question climate change?

By what mechanisms do we feel the southern ocean could be being 'chilled'??? Could there be a change in currents down there or is there an influx of cold water fron somewhere? Hmmmm......

[Mondy]

Ok. Let me add something here.

To the people who continuously go on about GW, do you, hand on heart do "your bit" to halt GW?

Or is it easier to mump and moan about it, surf the web for all sorts of facts and figures, bleat out how the Earth is waming, yet, ironically, you are still adding to GW by the way you go about life?

If you do "your bit", what do you do? I'm just interested

[BrickFielder]

might get quite exasperated with people questioning things that have been proven 'right' beyond a reasonable doubt. (like increased CO2 causes a 'warming effect')

I always get a bit worried when I see comments that CO2 warming is proven. That the temperatures have risen over the last few decades is proven but the exact mechanisms of how are a little more difficult to pin point.

A CO2 molecule and a H20 molecule have absorption and radiative spectrums which are very close and in affect act very similarly in terms of greenhouse affect. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere range between 300 to 600ppm where as H20 concentrations range from 10000 to 16000 ppm. Sunspot activity can change H20 concentrations by as much as 1000ppm. You might wonder with those numbers why any increase CO2 is not dwarfed by changes in water vapour, but the answer is not quite so simple. Typically climate scientists refer back to work done by Ramanathan and Coakley in model simulations during the 1970's which in recent times look to be somewhat questionable. The basic premise that water vapour forms cloud which reflects light is correct and this compensates for the greenhouse affect of water vapour. Well thats not exactly true either because it depends on the depth of cloud and height of the cloud and the amounts of cloud. To some extent these are governed by ionisation patterns which can be linked back to sunspot activity. Typically during high sunspot activity there is more high level cloud which has a net greenhouse affect rather than light reflective affect. Where it is claimed that CO2 contributes 35 % and water vapour 65 % to the greenhouse affect these values are likely to fluctuate depending on the sun cycle such that during active sun periods such as now CO2 contributes 40% but at quieter times this may reduce down to 20%. I have not disproved that CO2 is causing global warming but just wanted to show that the amount may be questionable and even latitude in some of the basic ideas can lead to dramatic differences in conclusions when dealing with such a complex system as the earths climate.

Solar Changes affects on Climate (Hadley Center)

[Devonian]

Ok. Let me add something here.

To the people who continuously go on about GW, do you, hand on heart do "your bit" to halt GW?

Or is it easier to mump and moan about it, surf the web for all sorts of facts and figures, bleat out how the Earth is waming, yet, ironically, you are still adding to GW by the way you go about life?

If you do "your bit", what do you do? I'm just interested

Ahh, try to stick the hypochrite label on eh

Well, when I drive I use a tiny decade old car (that does 50 mpg). I haven't flown since 1991. I grow much of our own vegitables and try to buy loaal rather than organic from Egypt or something. We burn wood collected locally. We're in the process of fitting more and more long life lightbulbs. We use those 'tote' reusable bags when shopping becuase, well, they're miles better than the ones the supermakets gives you. Our farming business produces half the emissions it did a decade ago (becuase it's half the size it was - and that was a decision I took), about 25% of our smallholding is now planted with trees. I'm a member of several campainging group because, while I can do my bit, on my own I can't just change the world - for that we need the push of democracy.

Otoh, I'm not perfect and wouldn't claim to be. I don't bike around enough. I don't take the bus enough. We do have computerised gadgets. We do use a supermarket. And I am a farmer.

[Gray-Wolf]

Never mind what 'we' may do in a materialistic sense there are many other ways that we probably 'do our bit' too!.

Our children and how we condition them through their growing (becoming accustomed to eating 'seasonal goods' ,by having recycling as an everyday thing and not a 'goodie ,goodie' thing, by allowing them access to the facts about our planet and our responsibilities to it)

The way we endeavor to form conversation or debate around the planets current 'situation' (who knows, somewhere out there may be the one to 'solve' the situation but to 'solve' a problem you must first 'define' the problem and to define the problem you must first concede that there is a problem)

To properly address the problem would mean ALL the first world coming on-board so how do you motivate the masses? You either wait until they have nothing left to loose and everything to gain or you allow them to understand why ,before times, it is in their best interests to act now.

To be left asking why didn't you clap only avoids the issue leaving the little old man clapping alone in the wilderness for no greater reason at all other than his own conscience/honour.

Edited January 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Mondy]

To properly address the problem would mean ALL the first world coming on-board so how do you motivate the masses?

True. You really mean how do you motivate/educate fat lazy Americans?

[Gray-Wolf]

True. You really mean how do you motivate/educate fat lazy Americans?

By having them know it's their lardy abcdefg that's in the pan.............Nah, F**kit. It's going to be an interesting few years without all the fret and worry about the rest. Survival, in this instance bears a remarkable resemblance to charity in that it begins at home!

I've mentioned on other threads that I am without hope for 'remedy' but believe some of the world will make it through the looming crisis with all of our current technology so a 'clean slate' is the best I can hope for.

Post appocalypse carbon needs will be greatly reduced purely by demand drop off and so with Agriculture. Shame about the middle bit though . I imagine 'canny folk' will have enough nouse to get through the 'Great collapse' and exist for the 18months before things start to improve (for society not for the planet) and that is our intention. See ya on the other side eh?

If we don't face this 'Great collapse' then we may well be totally doomed.LOL

Edited January 4, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[snowsure]

Interesting web site here: http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4607

This seemed like the best thread to attach it to. Prof Wunsch sums up well at the end with "...Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

Once this is accepted then mankind change can influence climate change!

[parmenides3]

Thanks for reminding us of that, Snowsure - though it has been cited in previous posts.

The more I look at what governments are doing - which has more to do with securing future fossil fuel energy sources and less to do with acting on climate change, the more I am convinced that we will not see a fundamental reduction in emissions untill all the oil has just about gone and it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy; in about twenty years or so. OTOH, most of the energy companies are working to find alternatives already; they appear to have a longer-term view than governments and have self-interest at heart, as well as environmental concern or regulation.

Note that, when the effect of CFCs was shown thirty years ago, nothing was done until regulation was brought in. it was resisted on the grounds of 'unsustainable expense' and 'no suitable alternative' for years. After regulation, companies producing/using CFCs found alternatives within a very few years, at a cost far below what was originally 'projected - much of that cost being borne, inevitably, by consumers anyway; few shareholders lost any sleep over the regulations. the implication is that real and effective changes in behaviour by the major polluters - the energy industry - will only happen under force majeure; this should be sufficient to justify creating policies which regulate carbon emission, not create a false market in carbon trades, which does little to actually reduce emissions, it merely passes the problem on, at a cost.

:)P

Edited January 6, 2007 by parmenides3

[HighPressure]

Although not very scientifically educated I have followed or tried to follow the arguments when it comes to global warming, because I genuinely would like to know if we are effecting out planets climate and if we were could we do anything about it? Quite basic questions I think almost like Global warming and man's influence for dummy's yet it appears to me that this most basic of information does not exist. There seems to me to be a massive amount of weight put behind the premise that global warming is caused by man or at least accelerated by his activities, but as think as I must be I cannot find a single shred of evidence to back this up as fact. I can find certain governments of the world putting 100% of their energies in supporting the argument one way or another and I can also predict each countries stance on Global warming and carbon emissions based on their political and taxation setup? Now I am not saying if the augment for or against is right just that it must be worrying when people sitting on Oil wells don't believe in GM, those that don't do, governments that tax heavily to support a social state Do and those that rely on an oil/enegy economy don't? Excuse me for being a little sceptical of the motives of those supporting either side here, simply if this was a court case the judge would probably chuck it out as all the main witnesses are unreliable. If you dismiss almost every government and their own government back scientists you do actually end up with a much more balanced argument as you end up with independent no axe to grind views based on what is actually known, of course those that don't support Man's influence are known as cranks in Europe or government spokesman in the US and visa versa.

So what do I reckon, well based on what I have seen in the way of graphs going back thousands of years, there is no doubt that the earth is in a natural warming phase. The last warm period being 10th/11th century and is backup up by entries in the doomsday book, and there was certainly no influence by man then. We had our cooling period of 16th17th century and we are now back into warming again, the earth shows a continual warming and cooling trend back as far as core samples go. So is man influencing the speed of change, well its a faster change then the last warming period but I cannot see anything abnormal when you look at the graphs over a period of thousands of years and many cycles. We would also appear to be in the early phases of this trend and based on the data so far it is surely not possible say whether man has any effect on this at all at this stage.

So if we say that lets side on the caution side and say that man is effecting his climate, what do we do about it, Charge £5 extra to take a plane and build extra airports to cope with increased demand? Now I am not very bright but I can see just a slight flaw in this plan to save the earth. Not to mention that sea traffic emits more CO2 then air traffic jet no extra taxation is to be levied on ferry or cruise liner passengers. The UK currently emits 2% of the worlds CO2 gasses and could probably cut this by up to 10% that's 0.2% of world emissions over the next 10yrs, very good I hear you say. When you then realise that China plans to commission new coal fired power stations at the rate of one per month for the next 7 years then the reality of just how futile any attempt to reverse or stop this influence is.

Although still unable to answer the basic question it does actually lead us to a conclusion that mother nature coupled with human nature is an irresistible force. This results in the fact that man is unable to effect climate change therefore he has no option but to live with its consequences. To follow this on we end up with Human nature Vs Mother Nature a contest for which there is only one winner, the earth will survive as Mother nature will take what action is required to redress the balance whether man does in another matter. For human's to believe they have influence over such a power is absurd.

[parmenides3]

High pressure: for a 'dummy's guide', try one of the links here: http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=32794

The first two are particularly clear. Included is also information on many of the other issues you bring up.

Hope this helps.

:)P

[Mondy]

Seems unfair to continue to clutter up West is Best's thread, where many of us have had 'extreme thread drift syndrome'.

So, being the devil i am, i note it's currently -22c in Yellowknife, NW Canada. http://theweathernetwork.com/features/scho...es/CANT0032.htm

Global Warming? That's positively cold

Edited January 28, 2007 by Mondy

[Devonian]

Seems unfair to continue to clutter up West is Best's thread, where many of us have had 'extreme thread drift syndrome'.

So, being the devil i am, i note it's currently -22c in Yellowknife, NW Canada. http://theweathernetwork.com/features/scho...es/CANT0032.htm

Global Warming? That's positively cold

Click on 'statistics' - that's above normal...

(not that either comment prove owt).

Edited January 28, 2007 by Devonian

[BARRY]

only -11 in vyborg in russia vyborg

Edited January 28, 2007 by BARRY

[Mondy]

..and very nice the webcam (on your link) looks too.

[parmenides3]

Here are a few other places where it's quite cold: http://firenzemeteo.com/inverno.html

Enjoy the pics; one of my favourites.

:)P

[Thundery wintry showers]

Thanks for reminding us of that, Snowsure - though it has been cited in previous posts.

The more I look at what governments are doing - which has more to do with securing future fossil fuel energy sources and less to do with acting on climate change, the more I am convinced that we will not see a fundamental reduction in emissions untill all the oil has just about gone and it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy; in about twenty years or so. OTOH, most of the energy companies are working to find alternatives already; they appear to have a longer-term view than governments and have self-interest at heart, as well as environmental concern or regulation.

Note that, when the effect of CFCs was shown thirty years ago, nothing was done until regulation was brought in. it was resisted on the grounds of 'unsustainable expense' and 'no suitable alternative' for years. After regulation, companies producing/using CFCs found alternatives within a very few years, at a cost far below what was originally 'projected - much of that cost being borne, inevitably, by consumers anyway; few shareholders lost any sleep over the regulations. the implication is that real and effective changes in behaviour by the major polluters - the energy industry - will only happen under force majeure; this should be sufficient to justify creating policies which regulate carbon emission, not create a false market in carbon trades, which does little to actually reduce emissions, it merely passes the problem on, at a cost.

:)P

We've had similar discussions before; I fear that the second paragraph's points may well be correct. I have a relatively open mind on what has to be done to regulate CO2 emissions but suspect that there's more than a grain of truth in the third paragraph, particularly re. the energy industry, and the issue of regulation vs. carbon trading.

In general I'm a proponent of the old 'carrot and stick' approach, where authorities help to invest in developing clean alternatives and helping make change possible without large sacrifices having to be made- but with a 'stick' in the form of some regulation also, to force change. As far as I can see, the problem with just using 'carrots' is that some will make the changes while others won't, and the problem with using just 'sticks' is that people are forced to make changes while little effort is put into developing alternatives, thus forcing unnecessarily large sacrifices. I also think this needs to apply to energy companies et al. and not just the general public as politicians often seem to be making out.

I'm putting my manifesto up on the internet soon, mainly as a means of hoping that some people will read it and, even if they don't agree with my suggestions, at least think more about the important issues (my manifesto covers a wide range of social issues, but a large part of it concerns anthropogenic climate change, which I consider to be one of the most important issues facing humanity). It's very easy to think "it's so difficult to get coherent action together that it isn't worth dealing with", but surely it's at least worth giving it a try- after all, we have more to lose than we have to gain by maintaining the status quo. For now, that's probably going to be the biggest contribution of me "doing my bit".

[parmenides3]

There's been a lot of work on the 'carrot' approach for some years now by the Rocky Mountain Institute, who have demonstrated that energy efficiency (and ewnvironmentally friendly business) is both profitable and good PR. They have been involved in consulting on industrial and construction projects where the bried was to spend a bit more to use better, more efficient materials. Almost without fail, the project going into the black in their ROI within three years, after which, they are increasing their profits and keeping the shareholders happy year-on-year. Given the recent hike in fuel prices in the USA, where most of there work has been based, companies which have become more energy efficient have been laughing all the way to the bank recently, while their competitiors are having to adapt to cope with the financial pressure.

There really are common-sense approaches to making things better (less bad), which don't involve taxation and don't require intervention (though this, as I have said, will probably become necessary eventually). How many people who have made their homes more energy efficient now regret the investment they made two or three years ago?

Perhaps we should also bear in mind that much of Europe is well ahead of the rest of the world on these issues (including the UK!). Bottom line, though, is that unless the USA, China & India sign up to some kind of emissions reduction process, everyone else's efforts are going to be wasted.

Time for bed. :)P