Global Warming And Climate Change

[Stratos Ferric]

Some interesting thoughts in all the above.

Re Sweden, Germany et al, and their green credentials c.f. the UK. A couple of thoughts: 1-The green political groups have always been more strongly supported in the NE of Europe, probably, I think, as much down to the fact that there is no real liberal group in these countries so there is something of a mid-left gap. 2-These countries have no oil. In the UK, whilst we don't get petrol from our oil, the impact of a high global price for carbon fuels is ameliorated somewhat by the fact that we can supply to the market ourselves, and until very recently were net exporters of oil and gas. If you have no (or very little) raw carbon sources, then economic neds dictate a more prudent approach, hence lots of investment in alternatives. All this demonstrates is the power of economics, and the inertial impact of short-term economics on long-term green policies.

To be fair in the UK labour have established the Carbon Trust, and having done some interesting work with them I can vouch for the efforts they are making to push voluntary compliance up the agenda. Within the next decade we will probably have carbon charging / tax on a (near) global scale, which will be a start towards management of the anthropogenic GW issue.

TM: I agree absolutely with your sentiments regarding what willbe required to make the major governments of the world sit up and take note. I am more optimistic, however, that we will not fal off a cliff before this happens, but that change will continue steadily such that freak events will become more frequent, rather than commonplace. Of course, assuming a very signifcant lag, even if intervention is made globally, things may spend 100 years getting worse (whatever form "worse" takes) before they get better. The scary thing it that scenario is that, like the pilot pulling on the stick trying to break a jumbo jet out of a catastrophic dive, we might pass a point of no returns before we can enter the return trajectory. If the polar ice melts then it is easy to envisage that a new, much warmer, equilibrium will have been set.

I've just thought...I never actually gave the reason why I started this comparitive topic :blink:

The reason is, that i've noticed on political interviews, both words (CC + GW) being used by politicians to describe the same thing.

Personally, I do think theyre different, and I think this 'loose wording' used by such politicians is confusing to the general public. The reason being, that everytime they see either word, they associate it to the one thing (which is GW).

Anyway, just thought i'd add that comment

being semantically strict I would offer the following clarification.

CC is simply any climatic change irrespective of driving mechanisms. The earth's climate, viewed over any scale of time, is in a state of constant instability. Over relatively short time frames (e.g. human life span) there is an illusion of stabilty (hence climate) with slow change at the margins.

GW is warming climate change, again of any cause. It TENDS to be used in everyday terms to infer man made warming, but for the latter I would suggests ANTHROPOGENIC GW to differentiate clearly between warming that is induced as a direct consequence of man's activities and warming that is due to a global level of natural forcing.

[parmenides3]

P3, TWS, TM,

I don’t think you’ll have to wait (and wait, and wait,) for a North Atlantic shut down to achieve the effect you desire.

As the USA is currently one of the biggest blockers in relation to climate sensitive planning, all you would need would be four or five years of Gulf Coast flattening or flooding, or two or three years of Washington DC being covered in ten feet of snow, and I bet you would see a step-change in world environmental activity.

This is probably true, as the US govt. tends to act in a self-interested way, it would have to be seen to be responding to a perceived 'crisis', hence all the current emphasis on ENSO and also hurricane activity. Trouble is, when it is the primary sponsor, it can be too influential; the recent decision to cut NASA's outreach budget can be seen as a response to their more recent findings about Global Warming; they were contradicting the 'party line', so they got hammered. This generates a tendency in much US research (and they are the primary suppliers of satellite-based information worldwide), towards conservatism; they don't want to step too far out of line.

The other point is that, as in the UK, action is invariably retroactive; too little, too late. It is of little value to any government to plan even ten years ahead, as the political future is always uncertain; they tend to deal in the here and now, irrespective of the claims they make about looking ahead. This is not to say that there isn't a great deal of important work being done all over the world at the moment, including here and in the US, but the only influence on policy is going to be a perceived need to survive on the part of the politicians.

TWS; a 'what if'. If there is ineffectual government and a general lack of confidence at a stage in the near future when the climate changes rapidly, directly effecting millions of citizens, do you think we would be 'four meals away from revolution', or would we simply vote in a 'tough' government to do the thinking for us and introduce draconian measures to manage the worst of the impacts/crises?

:blink: P

[Thundery wintry showers]

Most of the general public have a fair degree of inertia. In a way, I often think that short-term government and market policy inertia, and general public inertia, self-perpetuate in a vicious circle as both groups are very keen to redistribute the "blame" for the problem over to the other. Much of the inertia is selfish ("it doesn't bother me, why should I care") and financial ("we can't compromise the economy" or "I want lots of money so in the future I may be able to afford a BMW and three holidays at the Costa del Sol every year")

I'm guessing that the general public would see voting in a hard-authoritarian party as a lesser evil than doing nothing, and would not be happy with the idea of significant change (as revolution would probably bring) so while it's a tough one, I suspect that the latter would be the more likely. It would require someone else to do the thinking, and it may be that the tough party in question advocates more liberal solutions than it actually carries out (much in the way that current political parties do).

That is, unless the current situation changed in some way before this scenario arose, in which case it may be a different story.

[The Penguin]

The problem is that Britain, as an example, operates in a world economy and relies on success in that arena for the comfort to which we have all become accustomed. Also, the British people and the British Government believe, or would like to believe, that Britain is a major power in global affairs. I think it’s pretty well understood that getting serious about restrictive legislation to reduce our contribution to anthropogenic global warming (if it really is responsible) would, if done in isolation, lead to a recessive economy and a drop down the world economic league. In that context it is not so hard to understand why taking our foot off the power pedal is not currently a vote winner, or even a manifesto objective.

Last year, led by SF, there was a fairly lengthy and detailed discussion about the individual’s responsibility to the common good. Similarly, until there is no other way out, this applies to national politics too. Having said that, nobody can have missed the fervour with which the media is focusing on climate change issues at the moment. Maybe with that, or an increased level of attention this issue could become people driven rather than government driven.

[parmenides3]

I think it’s pretty well understood that getting serious about restrictive legislation to reduce our contribution to anthropogenic global warming (if it really is responsible) would, if done in isolation, lead to a recessive economy and a drop down the world economic league. In that context it is not so hard to understand why taking our foot off the power pedal is not currently a vote winner, or even a manifesto objective.

This is the current 'understanding'. But we are behind other European countries already, so we are unlikely to be left out alone. Secondly, Lovins, in his book 'Factor Four', demonstrates that, on a corporate level at least, radical increases in energy efficiency through initial investment in 'green' technology pays back the investor four times over in the short to mid term. Just imagine, if we didn't have to spend such a large proportion of our income/GDP on the energy we used, we could spend it on something else, like shoes! I think that this understanding about it being to our disadvantage is false, even though it is probably the majority view.

Arguably, one benefit of Democracy is that we have the option to decide for ourselves whether we would rather be led by policies which attempt to serve our interests by making us 'wealthier' (and there's contention here, too) or making us 'better' in a more moral way. But, as TWS points out, as a collective group, we tend to go with the easier, more self-interested option, rather than the more difficult, more altruistic one.

Everybody is making good points on this strand at the moment, so, sticking with the 'GW & Government Policy' flavour for the time being, does anyone have any suggestions for government action, assuming the general GW scenario of extreme weather, drought in the South and flooding in the North, mild Winters and Mediterranean Summers, (until the THC kicks in), and sea level rise? Please keep your suggestions clean...

:blink: P

[Terminal Moraine]

Without thinking too deeply (as I haven't much time ) a few things spring to mind, none of them are new, having been around for hundreds of years, but the old ones are always the best and we seem to have lost sight of them.

A national water grid would be handy for the drought stricken southerners, the investment required would be huge and I haven't investigated deeply enough to ascertain whether or not a similar investment into replacing the existing pipe work and eliminating the leaks would be a better/ easier option.

Considerable thought would also have to be given to the likely disruption caused to those in the path of the aquaducts, being the archetypal N.I.M.BY I wouldn't want a 50 inch pipe coming through my garden thank you very much. ( In reality it would be highly unlikely up here but you know what I mean )

Another useful step would be to abandon area of vulnerable coastline to natural wetland rather than spend millions on sea defences, a small step has already been made in Essex I understand.

A mile or so of wetland is a far more efficient and environmentally friendly way of absorbing the energy of a sea inundation than a wall and requires far less maintenance.

Lastly, for now, leave the most vulnerable river valleys to the rivers rather than fill them with housing development.

I realise that the Romans et al had more space to play with than we now have in our overpopulated Isle but it was for good reason that river flood plains were left as meadowland.

It's a betrayal of the future inhabitants of these riverine developments to sell them houses which are almost guaranteed to flood within a decade or so; there's little solace in governmental/ council hand wringing when the event occurs and platitudes are no substitute for a negated insurance policy and a houseful of ruined posessions.

That's it for now.

T.M

[Stratos Ferric]

All very sensible stuff TM. I don't think a grid would require aqueducts though. The Romans needed them because they couldn't pump, so pipes had to follow a gradient (this isn't strictly true; it may be that they hadn't learned the principles of artesian draw). Yorkshire Water have a 30 odd mile pipeline from Nidderdale to Bradford, which doesn't use a pump until the very last frag to the raw tanks right on top of a hill to the W of the city. That pipe is visible in only two places I can think of. The pipe that feeds water from (effectively) Kielder to the YW grid is entirely buried.

It would not be implausible to move water NW-SE across the UK using existing infrastructure - canals! This network would require some augmentation, but it would be a very cost effective solution.