Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

We can't afford not to tackle AGW


Iceberg

Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

Though it deeply saddens to come to this self reaslisation I will be greatly relieved when the effects that mankind has had on our planet and its climate over the past 16 thousand years are proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

At that time the 'Nay sayers' will be confined to the selfish fringe of 'it wasn't me so I won't pay' ............. 'it's been this warm before'..................'the Antartic is colder'.............'crops will grow better if the world was warmer.'..........

I thought we could do no worse than having to live amongst the nutters of god but hey! look what's turned up..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire
  • Location: Coventry,Warwickshire

Interesting report in the times today about the sources of Carbon Dioxide emissions. By far the largest emissions are by Industry, transportation as a whole was calculated at producing 14% of carbon dioxide of which a lower percent is produced by personnel travel. I can not really argue with arguments that we will all have to pay towards combating climate change although I would still argue we should be tackling all forms of emission not just carbon dioxide. I would argue that taxing personal motoring may have very little affect and that the politicians will continue to shy away from the difficult policies which will achieve results despite this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Interesting report in the times today about the sources of Carbon Dioxide emissions. By far the largest emissions are by Industry, transportation as a whole was calculated at producing 14% of carbon dioxide of which a lower percent is produced by personnel travel. I can not really argue with arguments that we will all have to pay towards combating climate change although I would still argue we should be tackling all forms of emission not just carbon dioxide. I would argue that taxing personal motoring may have very little affect and that the politicians will continue to shy away from the difficult policies which will achieve results despite this report.

Hooray! Somebody else has finally noticed. I've been saying this for weeks, now; we (the public) are the source neither of the cause nor the solution. Industry and energy producers make the most mess. They are the ones who need to act on emissions and wastage; they are the ones who should pay. Of course, in the real world, even if this happened, they'd simply pass the price on to the consumers, so we'd end up paying anyway. But this is where policy needs to be directed, not towards generating tax revenue to pay for clearing up the mess.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Agree, it's tax, tax, tax - it doesn't seem to matter what your doing tax.

They're all tax-mad, these political types. Got nothing else on their minds. Tax-obsessed, tax maniacs, taxpots, taxonomists (?), taxagenarians.

I'm thinking of starting a new magazine for tax-obsessed men. How does 'Payboy' sound?

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

I think the above is a large part of the reason why I've often found myself defending motorists in the past in discussions, on this forum and elsewhere.

I don't deny that cars are a significant pollution source and need to be tackled along with everything else- but I often feel that there's too much environmental focus on private motoring at the expense of the other major factors. I also have little time for attitudes that view motorists much in the way that the Nazis viewed the Jews; I think we should actually be working with motorists to help cut pollution, not alienate them. Motorists are human beings just as non-motorists are; some may be selfish pigs, but that's true of all human "groups"; in my experience a significant proportion would like to see pollution cuts.

I'm very much with Parmenides3 on this issue (in fact I haven't come across an environmental issue where I've disagreed with P3 yet!); we need to be tackling all sources, not just some of them, and on a global scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales
  • Location: Llandysul, Ceredigion, Wales

The majority of motorists of course are generally not people who are at all interested in cars yet use one as it's currently, as far as i'm aware more practical than a f(blue language) bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
  • Location: Coalpit Heath, South Gloucestershire
They're all tax-mad, these political types. Got nothing else on their minds. Tax-obsessed, tax maniacs, taxpots, taxonomists (?), taxagenarians.

:)P

We could tell them where to stuff their taxes and then they'd be taxidermists too!

Sorry, I'm not very funny....it's the way I tell 'em.... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Rochester, Kent
  • Location: Rochester, Kent

Here's my plan: have another tier on VAT; the carbon tier. For all products that pollute above the mean for that class of product charge 30% VAT. It'll cost a fair few bob to implement the agency that will test, measure, and implement this, but I'm sure a study will show that this will be self-funding very shortly. Any profits can go into developing more 'green' energy . . . (which, of course, would be run by the same NGO that implements the carbon VAT tier - not by politicians)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

:angry: Errrr enough is enough. I can't listen to any more drivel on 'climate change' from programmes like Newsnight a while back ( I did not know whether to laugh or cry at the ludicrous interview) or countless more.

It was bad enough when the media were simply urging governments or somebody or other to act, like some latter day King Canute, to "stop", "tackle" or "combat" Climate Change. More recently though, weve been fed regular slots featuring some imbecile called "ethical man" and his crackpot wife. But Newsnight really plumbed the depths for me as to just how low the whole argument is going. I am referring to the 'debate' between some token presence from the aviation industry and what appeared - from the level of his argument- to be a particularly bolshie 10 year old. It was chaired by Jeremy Paxman (who seems to have taken to 'Climate Change' like a duck to water) who's clearly getting madder by the day.

Anyway at some point, Paxman asked what must be the stupidest question ever which went something like "Why should millions of Africans die just because 'we' want to travel abroad on holiday?" What!!. Where on earth does this come from? I can only assume from some study with the usual plethora of 'could bes', 'may bes' and 'up tos'. So Africa im assuming is first and worst place hit? Really? Perhaps, however the atmosphere in the tropics, including Africa, consists of high concentrations of water vapour - the dominant greenhouse gas - oh its true.... The absorption bands of water vapour overlap those of carbon dioxide. Hence the addition of CO2 will not have the same impact as it might in other parts of the world. Also - radiation energy and therefore wavelength varies as a function of the temperature of the emitting body. Basically the higher the temperature - the shorter the wavelength of the emitted radiation. Peak CO2 absorption wavelengths occur at colder temperatures, i.e. in the extreme latitudes towards the poles. In a nutshell CO2 should, theoretically, be most effective in the cold dry regions of the Arctic and the Antarctic. Ah - I hear you cry - isn't this exactly what's happening. Well - Yes and No. The Arctic has certainly warmed in the past 30 years, but it has only just reached the temperatures it reached in the 1940s. Check GISS station data for confirmation. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has actually cooled over the past 3 decades. Forget what you hear about Antarctic warming. This only refers to the Antarctic Peninsula - a small finger of land which juts out into the Southern Ocean. The climate of the Antarctic Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in ocean circulation. The large mass of the Antarctic interior shows a definite steady cooling trend. So a definate contradiction here. Who in gods name came up with the conclusion that Africa would be 'worst effected' anyway? Because its poor? More to the point - am I going to be to blame as a consumer here for deaths in Africa!? Perspective is needed here IMO and there is not much of it out there, particularly in media circles atm. Im not saying Africa or where-ever else is not going to see severe droughts or anything else, far from it, but it is NOT a fact that Afrca would be worst effected. IMO this claim is to emotionally blackmail the public to the tree huggers way of thinking - you know that were better off living in tents! (god forbid we would warm the environment) The message that the average Joe Soap is not only responsible for Africa being so poor but ALSO that we would knowingly be killing them too if we drive 'Gas Guzzlers'!! Feel responsible yet? Well I dont - im going for a drive :nonono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
:angry: Errrr enough is enough. I can't listen to any more drivel on 'climate change' from programmes like Newsnight a while back ( I did not know whether to laugh or cry at the ludicrous interview) or countless more.

It was bad enough when the media were simply urging governments or somebody or other to act, like some latter day King Canute, to "stop", "tackle" or "combat" Climate Change. More recently though, weve been fed regular slots featuring some imbecile called "ethical man" and his crackpot wife. But Newsnight really plumbed the depths for me as to just how low the whole argument is going. I am referring to the 'debate' between some token presence from the aviation industry and what appeared - from the level of his argument- to be a particularly bolshie 10 year old. It was chaired by Jeremy Paxman (who seems to have taken to 'Climate Change' like a duck to water) who's clearly getting madder by the day.

Anyway at some point, Paxman asked what must be the stupidest question ever which went something like "Why should millions of Africans die just because 'we' want to travel abroad on holiday?" What!!. Where on earth does this come from? I can only assume from some study with the usual plethora of 'could bes', 'may bes' and 'up tos'. So Africa im assuming is first and worst place hit? Really? Perhaps, however the atmosphere in the tropics, including Africa, consists of high concentrations of water vapour - the dominant greenhouse gas - oh its true.... The absorption bands of water vapour overlap those of carbon dioxide. Hence the addition of CO2 will not have the same impact as it might in other parts of the world. Also - radiation energy and therefore wavelength varies as a function of the temperature of the emitting body. Basically the higher the temperature - the shorter the wavelength of the emitted radiation. Peak CO2 absorption wavelengths occur at colder temperatures, i.e. in the extreme latitudes towards the poles. In a nutshell CO2 should, theoretically, be most effective in the cold dry regions of the Arctic and the Antarctic. Ah - I hear you cry - isn't this exactly what's happening. Well - Yes and No. The Arctic has certainly warmed in the past 30 years, but it has only just reached the temperatures it reached in the 1940s. Check GISS station data for confirmation. The Antarctic, on the other hand, has actually cooled over the past 3 decades. Forget what you hear about Antarctic warming. This only refers to the Antarctic Peninsula - a small finger of land which juts out into the Southern Ocean. The climate of the Antarctic Peninsula is extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in ocean circulation. The large mass of the Antarctic interior shows a definite steady cooling trend. So a definate contradiction here. Who in gods name came up with the conclusion that Africa would be 'worst effected' anyway? Because its poor? More to the point - am I going to be to blame as a consumer here for deaths in Africa!? Perspective is needed here IMO and there is not much of it out there, particularly in media circles atm. Im not saying Africa or where-ever else is not going to see severe droughts or anything else, far from it, but it is NOT a fact that Afrca would be worst effected. IMO this claim is to emotionally blackmail the public to the tree huggers way of thinking - you know that were better off living in tents! (god forbid we would warm the environment) The message that the average Joe Soap is not only responsible for Africa being so poor but ALSO that we would knowingly be killing them too if we drive 'Gas Guzzlers'!! Feel responsible yet? Well I dont - im going for a drive :nonono:

You start off with a florish: 'drivel', 'ludicious', 'imbecile', 'crackpot', take a predictable swipe at JP, continue on to re invent GHG theory (but, then most sceptics know better than the experts...) and then, as presumably a clincher, bang on about Antarctian 'cooling' as if it proves something?

You really ought to read and digest this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
You start off with a florish: 'drivel', 'ludicious', 'imbecile', 'crackpot', take a predictable swipe at JP, continue on to re invent GHG theory (but, then most sceptics know better than the experts...) and then, as presumably a clincher, bang on about Antarctian 'cooling' as if it proves something?

You really ought to read and digest this

No, the crux of my point is this conclusion that has been plucked from the sky in recent years that Africa would be worst effected and could kill 'millions'. Where is the evidence for this? This is suppose to motivate us to take action? Well - no and yes, JP does deserve a swipe after that interview (unless your on the other side of the fence of course). I have not rewritten anything. What I said is fact and that map of the Antartic - whats that big blue area in the middle?

Temperatures in the Artic are at early 1940's level - again a fact.

'Drivel', 'Ludicrous', 'imbecile' and 'crackpot' would just about sum up alot of commentary on GW from certain quarters and not from this side.

(but, then most sceptics know better than the experts...)

:nonono: The GW fan club have always been very choosey about which 'experts' they would rather listen too.

Edited by Icicles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire

It is true that the climatic models aren't perfect at predicting what will happen in the future, or even what is happening now- though they will almost certainly continue to improve with time.

"Global warming" certainly doesn't mean that all places would become warmer; rather, it would mean that the globe, on average, would be warming up, with reduced negative anomaly areas and increased positive anomaly areas. In the past 30 years, that's what we've been seeing.

There can be debate on how much of the warming is down to human activity, but it's very difficult to find viable counterevidence to the assertion that on average, the globe is warming up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
There can be debate on how much of the warming is down to human activity, but it's very difficult to find viable counterevidence to the assertion that on average, the globe is warming up.

I would agree entirely with that.

Meanwhile while Rome burns etc.

The temperature, for whatever reason, globally rises ever so slightly each year. One assumes this must cause a touch more ice to melt and one must equally assume that another fraction of a centimetre is added to the oceans levels.

Inexorably, at first, small islands in far flung places, convenient for the major powers to ignore will slowly go under water.

Eventually somewhat larger islands and possibly one or two areas of mainland may start to suffer the same fate.

Eventually more populated areas, heaven forbid, in the richer nations areas MAY begin to experience this.

In the meantime Rome burns etc.

For once I am glad I am as old as I am and will not live to see possible widespread catastrophes occurring with most nations simply wringing their hands.

Sorry for the rant. I've tried not to get involved in this thread as its one thing that does make me very cross and also quite ashamed to be a member of the human race.

John

Edited by johnholmes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
I would agree entirely with that.

Meanwhile while Rome burns etc.

The temperature, for whatever reason, globally rises ever so slightly each year. One assumes this must cause a touch more ice to melt and one must equally assume that another fraction of a centimetre is added to the oceans levels.

Inexorably, at first, small islands in far flung places, convenient for the major powers to ignore will slowly go under water.

Eventually somewhat larger islands and possibly one or two areas of mainland may start to suffer the same fate.

Eventually more populated areas, heaven forbid, in the richer nations areas MAY begin to experience this.

In the meantime Rome burns etc.

For once I am glad I am as old as I am and will not live to see possible widespread catastrophes occurring with most nations simply wringing their hands.

Sorry for the rant. I've tried not to get involved in this thread as its one thing that does make me very cross and also quite ashamed to be a member of the human race.

John

I see the point John but it would be stating the obvious that this has happened before and that Natural variation is simply occuring. Just one of Earths cycles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Anyway at some point, Paxman asked what must be the stupidest question ever which went something like "Why should millions of Africans die just because 'we' want to travel abroad on holiday?"

The question should be: why should millions of Britons lose their homes beneath rising sea levels just because the Brazilians want to chop down all their trees?

Defforestation of Amazonia contributes 2.5% of annual global carbon emissions. The UK in all it's activities contributes 2% No wonder some folk see a scam .....

Temperatures in the Artic are at early 1940's level - again a fact.

But not yet at 6,000BC levels ........

Of course, the warmer world of 6,000BC was due to variations in the milankovitch cycles affecting N Hemisphere insolation. The warmer world of the 2,006AD is due in part to human greed and despoilation of the planet .... It might well be warmer today than 100 years ago had mankind never existed. But it wouldn't be as warm. And other climatic patterns would be different too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
The question should be: why should millions of Britons lose their homes beneath rising sea levels just because the Brazilians want to chop down all their trees?

Andy, you contradict your 'why should I bother not to drop litter if others do?' argument of elsewhere (which was a good one I think). Why do some of us not drop litter?

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
  • Location: Evesham, Worcs, Albion
Andy, you contradict your 'why should I bother not to drop litter if others do?' argument of elsewhere (which was a good one I think). Why do some of us not drop litter?

Trouble is Peter, I can find myself arguing both sides at the same time on some occasions ...... :nonono:

However, the fact is, Amazonian defforestation is a bigger cause of carbon emissions than Britain. That doesn't mean we don't bother reducing our emissions. But it does mean we need to step up efforts to stop other activities around the world the impact on regional and global climates.

Or, put it another way, if we don't stop the defforestation we have no choice but to cut our own emissions!

(btw thanks - I thought the litter thing was a good analogy :angry: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
  • Location: just south of Doncaster, Sth Yorks
I see the point John but it would be stating the obvious that this has happened before and that Natural variation is simply occuring. Just one of Earths cycles?

in its previous cycles there were NOT many many millions of humans, many hundreds of thousands of them likely to be flooded out of their homes as the years go by.

do you honestly believe this statement you made

The question should be: why should millions of Britons lose their homes beneath rising sea levels just because the Brazilians want to chop down all their trees?

Chopped down by Brazilian workers very probably but who do they work for?

Where do the chopped down trees end up. Not in Brazil although I grant that deforestation is partly self driven by farmers there. The major input is from outside Brazil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
in its previous cycles there were NOT many many millions of humans, many hundreds of thousands of them likely to be flooded out of their homes as the years go by.

do you honestly believe this statement you made

The question should be: why should millions of Britons lose their homes beneath rising sea levels just because the Brazilians want to chop down all their trees?

Chopped down by Brazilian workers very probably but who do they work for?

Where do the chopped down trees end up. Not in Brazil although I grant that deforestation is partly self driven by farmers there. The major input is from outside Brazil.

Sorry to put a few 'add ons' in but have they no idea how our land looked 8000yrs ago before we set about it? Did they not know that, as a percentage of trees , we in the Uk uprooted over 15% of our remaining trees between 1985/95? (mainly by 'grubbing out' hedge lines to expand field systems to accommodate larger machines)

How dare he/she, as one who has already devastated their lands, preach to those who feel forced to do the same? Let he who is without sin...........

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Further to Icicles previous questions about Africa: there have been several commissions on Africa's future climate this year, including on produced by the Hadley Centre. Pretty much without fail, whatever scenario they run, the models show drying at the Tropics and 'wetting' in the high latitudes (very broadly speaking). The model runs consistently predict continuing and expanding drought in several places, of which Africa will be worst hit because the people involved are least able to adapt or respond, and the countries involved often lack the infrastructure to support large-scale human disaster.

Then I came across this (below), which is about the modelling of water vapour under CO2:

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 33, L21701, doi:10.1029/2006GL027060, 2006

Three-dimensional tropospheric water vapor in coupled climate models compared with observations from the AIRS satellite system

David W. Pierce

Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA

Tim P. Barnett

Climate Research Division, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, USA

Eric J. Fetzer

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California, USA

Peter J. Gleckler

Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California, USA

Abstract

Changes in the distribution of water vapor in response to anthropogenic forcing will be a major factor determining the warming the Earth experiences over the next century, so it is important to validate climate models' distribution of water vapor. In this work the three-dimensional distribution of specific humidity in state-of-the-art climate models is compared to measurements from the AIRS satellite system. We find the majority of models have a pattern of drier than observed conditions (by 10–25%) in the tropics below 800 hPa, but 25–100% too moist conditions between 300 and 600 hPa, especially in the extra-tropics. Analysis of the accuracy and sampling biases of the AIRS measurements suggests that these differences are due to systematic model errors, which might affect the model-estimated range of climate warming anticipated over the next century.

It has often been said how complex and difficult climate science is, so I don't read this as evidence of the models' failure, but a suggestion that the model parameters need adjusting, something which would happen regularly anyway, when new data became available. Note also that it doesn't let Afirca off the hook, but does remind us of the uncertainties involved in climate projections.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Buckingham
  • Location: Buckingham

The world's richest nations need to invest in developing ones to provide practical alternatives to cutting down trees. It would be cheaper (now and in the long term) to pay for 'set aside' forests on a huge scale in the rainforests that are threatened.

It's also vital to cut carbon and methane emissions globally - invest in the technology that is out there, improve it by a factor of 10 and make it available to the growing industrial nations aswell. But it needs to be done quiickly before countries such as India and China can do the same sort of damage that Europe, USA, Russia et al have done.

Needs five things though - complete trust, honesty, cooperation and commitment and investment. From governments. Hmmm

:):) Moose

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland
  • Location: Co Dublin, Ireland

One must also factor in the question - Is it climate change that may kill ppl or the over-population of the wrong areas? There is a fundamental difference between the two and I firmly believe its the latter. Africa has been hot and dry for as long as it has existed either side of the conveyor belt of moisture in the middle. 'Millions will starve because of climate change'.........Millions are starving right now and it has nothng to do with climate change and more to do with the fact they are inhabiting a forever desolate land.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-29 07:13:16 Valid: 29/03/2024 0600 - 30/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - FRI 29 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    Difficult travel conditions as the Easter break begins

    Low Nelson is throwing wind and rain at the UK before it impacts mainland Spain at Easter. Wild condtions in the English Channel, and more rain and lightning here on Thursday. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...