We can't afford not to tackle AGW

[parmenides3]

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.

What you are talking about here, Icicles, is 'vulnerability', an idea very much in vogue in some climate science circles. One problem is poulation growth, something which is projected to continue until after 2050, when it will reach 9-10 billion. Much of the growth is in underdeveloped, or developing countries. There is also a strong correlation between this and the status and education of women in these countries. Hard to know how to slow it down quickly without massive investment in people and probably interventionist political strategies; a hard pill to swallow.

Another problem is the location of the poorest people in ecologically marginal areas; semi-desert and low lying coastline, for the most part. These are the places most likely to be hit soonest by continued warming. This problem is one which exists in many countries, not least China, the USA and the UK (think of the Thames estuary development plan!).

The point is that the people who live on the edge don't do so by choice, most of the time, but by necessity. We can't simply write them off because they are unlucky enough to be born in the wrong place at the wrong time. The alternative to to provide help. We may not particularly want to subsidise the survival of millions in Africa (whioch we do already through the World Bank, etc.), but speaking personally, I'd rather do without a few quid than have that hanging on my conscience. A simple question: how much is a life worth?

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

If we are going to pick on Africa then lets not forget our colonial past. The imposition of our systems on their systems whilst ravaging their economies, the clever way we increased life expectancy and lowered infant mortality rate whilst doing nothing about birth control.

We (the first world) have messed up Africa real bad and now we want to drop it? In so far as it being 'too dry' why did we become bipedal if not because of the drying of the continent and the move to open grasslands from forest. We ,as a people, have a lot to thank Africa for..... it was our nursery after all!

[The Eagle]

If we are going to pick on Africa then lets not forget our colonial past. The imposition of our systems on their systems whilst ravaging their economies, the clever way we increased life expectancy and lowered infant mortality rate whilst doing nothing about birth control.

We (the first world) have messed up Africa real bad and now we want to drop it? In so far as it being 'too dry' why did we become bipedal if not because of the drying of the continent and the move to open grasslands from forest. We ,as a people, have a lot to thank Africa for..... it was our nursery after all!

Birth control is a major issue here IMO. For a continent like Africa, the most desolate on the planet, it angers me when I see all these children born to a certain fate. Then again what else is there to do in sub - Saharan Africa?! I honestly can never see an end to the problem of poverty and over population here. I think we have passed the point of no return and I think many of us are choosing to ignore that reality. Sub Saharan Africa is completely corrupt and morale values simply dont exist anymore (if they ever did). Its horrific, it really is but I see most of the continent now as a lost cause beyond repair. There is nothing more we can do for the despot governments there anymore. They literally are criminals and they are the ones primarily responsible for the disaster we have on our hands now. The west has tried to help and we have failed. Thats our record. Back on topic though and tbh GW or not, natural disasters will happen.

[VillagePlank]

It is, I think, indeed true, that climate models are not good predictors of what it is that is to come; that is why there are, effectively, ensembles, that show both ends of the output by the climate models. Needless to say these models predict further warming.

It may indeed be possible to criticise the climate models, and their associated software, but unfortunately, we do not have that grace as the software is never published - it is protected rather like a business or trade secret. Sure, the mathematics is out there for all to see, but we cannot - I repeat cannot verify that this is what the models are implementing; although I suspect, that given what we know it is at the very worse a good approximation of the mathematics.

What seems a little odd to me is the denial that we are in a warming phase. The cursory "well it's just down to natural cycles" demands that the cycle be shown to implement today's warming; which, as I understand it, it currently doesn't. We can reproduce those cycles by incorporating natural variation only in addition man's influence.

It could well be the case that there is a hitherto unknown cycle that apparently follows the recent acceleration in warming; that is, as all things, a valid hypothesis - but in order to assert that this must be the case then I'm afraid that evidence of existence, not evidence of hypothesis needs to be a lot more forthcoming.

I have a lot of sympathy with the sceptics - especially in the regard that climatology seems to fall behind the rigour of mainstream scientific study; the most probably cause is because it's in it's infancy, but the overriding view is that it is a political cludge to exert influence on a global scale, and extract more taxes from those already overburdened.

Nevertheless; it stands, in the face of the sum of published knowledge, that the climate is warming, and human beings are, at the very least, partially to blame. No matter how contrarian you feel, this is, I'm afraid, inescapable.

. . . to gently nudge back on topic . . . even to accept the minimalist thinking as I've written here, I think you are compelled to agree that action is required sooner rather than later. The worst case scenario? The climate unpredictably starts cooling - in which case it'll be compulsory for everyone to do an hours extra driving every night;)

Edited November 2, 2006 by Wilson

[Mr Sleet]

It is, I think, indeed true, that climate models are not good predictors of what it is that is to come; that is why there are, effectively, ensembles, that show both ends of the output by the climate models. Needless to say these models predict further warming.

It may indeed be possible to criticise the climate models, and their associated software, but unfortunately, we do not have that grace as the software is never published - it is protected rather like a business or trade secret. Sure, the mathematics is out there for all to see, but we cannot - I repeat cannot verify that this is what the models are implementing; although I suspect, that given what we know it is at the very worse a good approximation of the mathematics.

What seems a little odd to me is the denial that we are in a warming phase. The cursory "well it's just down to natural cycles" demands that the cycle be shown to implement today's warming; which, as I understand it, it currently doesn't. We can reproduce those cycles by incorporating natural variation only in addition man's influence.

It could well be the case that there is a hitherto unknown cycle that apparently follows the recent acceleration in warming; that is, as all things, a valid hypothesis - but in order to assert that this must be the case then I'm afraid that evidence of existence, not evidence of hypothesis needs to be a lot more forthcoming.

I have a lot of sympathy with the sceptics - especially in the regard that climatology seems to fall behind the rigour of mainstream scientific study; the most probably cause is because it's in it's infancy, but the overriding view is that it is a political cludge to exert influence on a global scale, and extract more taxes from those already overburdened.

Nevertheless; it stands, in the face of the sum of published knowledge, that the climate is warming, and human beings are, at the very least, partially to blame. No matter how contrarian you feel, this is, I'm afraid, inescapable.

As a bit of a sceptic (50/50 ) you have to do a risk analysis.The probability of catastrophic warming may be quite low but the consequences are probably mostly very bad. At only 1% of GDP to limit the damage it's worth a punt. If we could limit and then see CO 2 levels drop it would be one of mankinds greatest achievements, in my view.

[VillagePlank]

As a bit of a sceptic (50/50 ) you have to do a risk analysis.The probability of catastrophic warming may be quite low but the consequences are probably mostly very bad. At only 1% of GDP to limit the damage it's worth a punt. If we could limit and then see CO 2 levels drop it would be one of mankinds greatest achievements, in my view.

Yes, any sort of risk assessment on the nature of the future, is sure to drill down to that outcome. One thing to be wary of, though, is any sort of measurement that uses GDP. GDP is not really an accurate indicator . . .

[Essan]

Is there actually any good reason for not reducing carbon emissions? Or defforestation?

I know cutting down on your energy consumption saves you money and you've all got so much money you need to waste it on something ..... but even so?

Edited November 2, 2006 by Essan

[VillagePlank]

Is there actually any good reason for not reducing carbon emissions? Or defforestation?

I know cutting down on your energy consumption saves you money and you've all got so much money you need to waste it on something ..... but even so?

I agree; turn off your computer, now - it's hardly essential <_<

[Wynn D Woo]

Maybe we should have a new VAT band of say 40%. Then any country which doesnt pull their weight regarding tackling CC could have that band applied to anything sold in this country produced by that country or companies based there.

Might even encourage more people to buy locally which would be good for the uk economy as a whole.

[jethro]

Hi Folks, I've been a lurker for a couple of years but never posted before. Being a professional gardener, the weather impacts my daily life, for good or bad. When it comes to climate change issues, I admit it confuses the hell out of me, so many differing opinions and arguements from both sides of the fence, it's often difficult to gain any insight. Fundamentally my instinct says mankinds desire to believe we have conquered mother nature and are now over-riding it smacks of meglomania gone mad however...there is, I agree too much evidence to the contrary to ignore it entirely. In today's Telegraph there is an interesting article debating the Stern report and debunking much of the science used. I'd say without exception all the people on here have a much greater understanding of the climate issues than myself and wondered if there is any truth in the Telegraph report or is it again just a load of hyped twaddle? Any thoughts?

p.s If I've posted this in the wrong section, I apologise, please be gentle, it's my first time

p.p.s Is this now in the right place????

[parmenides3]

Hi Folks, I've been a lurker for a couple of years but never posted before. Being a professional gardener, the weather impacts my daily life, for good or bad. When it comes to climate change issues, I admit it confuses the hell out of me, so many differing opinions and arguements from both sides of the fence, it's often difficult to gain any insight. Fundamentally my instinct says mankinds desire to believe we have conquered mother nature and are now over-riding it smacks of meglomania gone mad however...there is, I agree too much evidence to the contrary to ignore it entirely. In today's Telegraph there is an interesting article debating the Stern report and debunking much of the science used. I'd say without exception all the people on here have a much greater understanding of the climate issues than myself and wondered if there is any truth in the Telegraph report or is it again just a load of hyped twaddle? Any thoughts?

p.s If I've posted this in the wrong section, I apologise, please be gentle, it's my first time

p.p.s Is this now in the right place????

A new voice is always welcome: hello, Jethro. I'd suggest you have a look at the pinned topic at the top of the environment change forum for some of the basics; it'll give you a head start in many of the threads on the subject here.

Haven't read the Telegraph piece, but I'd find it hard to believe that a 700 page report produced over 15 months didn't have decent science in it. Whether or not the report has used that science well is another issue. It seems that there are reasons to be cautious about it, but my feeling is that it would be less about the science than about Stern's own conclusions about what the science means.

In the meantime, I'm about to start a new thread on a great article on the Beeb from one of the Tyndall people; you may enjoy that, too. In the meantime, if you don't understand, ask questions.

PS: it isn't megalomania which allows us to believe we are having an impact on our environment; this is not the same as saying we have 'conquered' nature. This kind of thinking should have gone out at the end of the nineteenth century, when it was apparent that we had no innate right to 'manage' the world on God's behalf, and instead needed to understand it. But you know, as a gardener, that judicious planting, watering and feritilising can 'change' the health of the plants in your care; all that climate science is saying is that we have been 'changing' the world's natural environment by adding elements to the atmosphere that would not have appeared there naturally.

:)P

[jethro]

Hi P3

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well...What concerns me the most is some very large, important decisions are being made by governments with regard to climate change, the latest of which is the Stern Report. The Telegraph article I referred to questions the level of impact that we as a species have caused. I do understand the theories behind GW and have spent many, many hours reading reputable scientific papers and research, many of which are extremely conflicting. Perhaps due to my lack of knowledge or experience, I have been looking in the wrong place; but there appears to be an overwhelming bias in the level of research towards the problem being man-made rather than a natural cyclical phenomena. Magalomania: the belief that you are much more important and powerful than you really are. I merely question, is this appropriate? So often I read articles in the general press, the scientific community and indeed on this forum which "shout down" any impact that say for arguments sake the Solar cycle has on our climate. I would argue that our lack of understanding or ability to correlate the data does not mean it has no significance. You are correct in that my being a gardener I do know my actions have an impact upon plants and a garden in general, I also can equate that to mankinds impact upon the globe but being an outdoors person I also know that no matter what I do, Mother Nature wins out and year on year there are cycles. Scale it up to global proportions and I still believe too little attention is being paid to natural causes. The climate is changing, that is indisputable but our lack of understanding and the innate fear this generates in a species who are used to being in control, is, I believe giving us tunnel vision. The issues of GW and problems it may cause may be just around the corner or they may be years away but already the publicity and rising panic is impacting upon decisions I have to make. As part of my working life I manage two grade 11 listed estates, one of 17 acres, the other of 69 acres all of which are covered by blanket Tree Preservation orders, no tree can be planted or cut down without the consent of the powers that be. One of the estates is approached via a half mile long drive flanked either side with mature beech trees - circa 1650, I want to plant in between the trees another avenue which will supercede the present one as it reaches the end of it's life. Thus maintaining the historical integrity of the estate and ensuring my grandchildren, their grandchildren etc will experience the beauty that our generation has seen. English Heritage veto the planting of any Beech trees on the basis that being shallow rooted they will not survive the impending climate disaster. This in turn has a knock on effect in the food chain with the loss of habitat of that particular species. I'm sure in the grand scheme of things, it's of little importance but the landscape which surrounds us including the countryside didn't happen by accident, it was planted. In a couple of hundred years time I would like future generations to have the diversity of plant and animal life that we all enjoy. Trying to decipher the realistic from the overblown hysteria in all the publicity and scientific papers around is my only aim, any input would be welcomed.

[Mr Sleet]

Hi P3

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well...What concerns me the most is some very large, important decisions are being made by governments with regard to climate change, the latest of which is the Stern Report. The Telegraph article I referred to questions the level of impact that we as a species have caused. I do understand the theories behind GW and have spent many, many hours reading reputable scientific papers and research, many of which are extremely conflicting. Perhaps due to my lack of knowledge or experience, I have been looking in the wrong place; but there appears to be an overwhelming bias in the level of research towards the problem being man-made rather than a natural cyclical phenomena. Magalomania: the belief that you are much more important and powerful than you really are. I merely question, is this appropriate? So often I read articles in the general press, the scientific community and indeed on this forum which "shout down" any impact that say for arguments sake the Solar cycle has on our climate. I would argue that our lack of understanding or ability to correlate the data does not mean it has no significance. You are correct in that my being a gardener I do know my actions have an impact upon plants and a garden in general, I also can equate that to mankinds impact upon the globe but being an outdoors person I also know that no matter what I do, Mother Nature wins out and year on year there are cycles. Scale it up to global proportions and I still believe too little attention is being paid to natural causes. The climate is changing, that is indisputable but our lack of understanding and the innate fear this generates in a species who are used to being in control, is, I believe giving us tunnel vision. The issues of GW and problems it may cause may be just around the corner or they may be years away but already the publicity and rising panic is impacting upon decisions I have to make. As part of my working life I manage two grade 11 listed estates, one of 17 acres, the other of 69 acres all of which are covered by blanket Tree Preservation orders, no tree can be planted or cut down without the consent of the powers that be. One of the estates is approached via a half mile long drive flanked either side with mature beech trees - circa 1650, I want to plant in between the trees another avenue which will supercede the present one as it reaches the end of it's life. Thus maintaining the historical integrity of the estate and ensuring my grandchildren, their grandchildren etc will experience the beauty that our generation has seen. English Heritage veto the planting of any Beech trees on the basis that being shallow rooted they will not survive the impending climate disaster. This in turn has a knock on effect in the food chain with the loss of habitat of that particular species. I'm sure in the grand scheme of things, it's of little importance but the landscape which surrounds us including the countryside didn't happen by accident, it was planted. In a couple of hundred years time I would like future generations to have the diversity of plant and animal life that we all enjoy. Trying to decipher the realistic from the overblown hysteria in all the publicity and scientific papers around is my only aim, any input would be welcomed.

Welcome Jethro. I must say that as a bit of a sceptic myself about man-made GW it does make my blood boil when I read about the sorts of things that English Heritage are doing wrt the beech trees. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophecy !

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Devonian]

Hi P3

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps I didn't explain myself very well...What concerns me the most is some very large, important decisions are being made by governments with regard to climate change, the latest of which is the Stern Report. The Telegraph article I referred to questions the level of impact that we as a species have caused. I do understand the theories behind GW and have spent many, many hours reading reputable scientific papers and research, many of which are extremely conflicting. Perhaps due to my lack of knowledge or experience, I have been looking in the wrong place; but there appears to be an overwhelming bias in the level of research towards the problem being man-made rather than a natural cyclical phenomena. Magalomania: the belief that you are much more important and powerful than you really are. I merely question, is this appropriate? So often I read articles in the general press, the scientific community and indeed on this forum which "shout down" any impact that say for arguments sake the Solar cycle has on our climate. I would argue that our lack of understanding or ability to correlate the data does not mean it has no significance. You are correct in that my being a gardener I do know my actions have an impact upon plants and a garden in general, I also can equate that to mankinds impact upon the globe but being an outdoors person I also know that no matter what I do, Mother Nature wins out and year on year there are cycles. Scale it up to global proportions and I still believe too little attention is being paid to natural causes. The climate is changing, that is indisputable but our lack of understanding and the innate fear this generates in a species who are used to being in control, is, I believe giving us tunnel vision. The issues of GW and problems it may cause may be just around the corner or they may be years away but already the publicity and rising panic is impacting upon decisions I have to make. As part of my working life I manage two grade 11 listed estates, one of 17 acres, the other of 69 acres all of which are covered by blanket Tree Preservation orders, no tree can be planted or cut down without the consent of the powers that be. One of the estates is approached via a half mile long drive flanked either side with mature beech trees - circa 1650, I want to plant in between the trees another avenue which will supercede the present one as it reaches the end of it's life. Thus maintaining the historical integrity of the estate and ensuring my grandchildren, their grandchildren etc will experience the beauty that our generation has seen. English Heritage veto the planting of any Beech trees on the basis that being shallow rooted they will not survive the impending climate disaster. This in turn has a knock on effect in the food chain with the loss of habitat of that particular species. I'm sure in the grand scheme of things, it's of little importance but the landscape which surrounds us including the countryside didn't happen by accident, it was planted. In a couple of hundred years time I would like future generations to have the diversity of plant and animal life that we all enjoy. Trying to decipher the realistic from the overblown hysteria in all the publicity and scientific papers around is my only aim, any input would be welcomed.

It's difficult. Those of us who've followed this debate for many years and think the consensus science is right see a lot that is wrong with the sceptic view. We see the same names all the time, indeed the same few science papers. The Monckton report is no different. It quotes Steve McIntyre - one of the very few sceptics producing peer reviewed science (or at least peer reviewed critiques of other science) there are. Is there any recent new original peer reviewed sceptic science? None I know of. yes, there is 'internet science', but peer reviewed?

So, how to reply. Well, are you open to the possibilty we might see a warming of several degrees? If you are you will probably know that is a lot of warming. Several degrees would mean hard times for beeches (heck, many beeches in Devon are finding it tough in recent hot dry spells - and we're below 1C warming at the moment). Would I plant beeches? I'm not sure I would - but, this is ash country.

Would you accept any problems I point out with the Monckton report, or would you dismiss my criticisms as bias? Do you for instance think Monckton's view that the Chinese explored the Arctic in the 1400's credible as he does or, as I think, nonsense of Von Danikel proportions?

Would you accept discussion of what probability in climate science means? That what's happening is the climate dice are now loaded, but that nothing is certain (just as with loaded dice, if the loading in minimal it's difficult to tell from normal, only as it increases does it become more obvious). But climate isn't dice, we can't check the dice, there will never be proof, just probability - a anthropogenic 'weighting' of the climate that, to most climate scientists, seems more and more obvious. Do you require proof? Then, sorry, no climate scientist can give that.

Would you accpet that science shows that the sun can't be shown to account for the warming unless a human input is there - or do you side with the sceptics who I think make the facts fit their view of solar input? Do you think our climate has warmed? Or do you think it's all something else - UHI, or a way to get us to pay more tax and that infact the planet isn't warming? Is the science about glaciers melt right or wrong?

Those are some of the questions.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Devonian

[Guest Mike W]

Steve Milloy of Junkscience has just satrted an open challenge on his website to catastrophic AGW advocates to 'check the numbers [calcualtions] to see for yourselves' : http://www.junkscience.com/ Here is the first part of it: "Look up Stefan's Constant or just use 5.67 x 10-8 (close enough for our purpose but look it up to be sure). Now use it to check the assertion: "Global climate forcing was about 6 1/2 Wm2 less than in the current interglacial period. This forcing maintains a global temperature difference of 5 °C, implying a climate sensitivity of 3/4 ± 1/4 °C per Wm2." Either consult your texts for Earth's temperature in Kelvin and any other numbers you need or see the numbers we've used here. Off you go -- we'll wait." I'm not as sceptical as Steve Milloy is myself BTW.

Edited November 6, 2006 by Mike W

[Devonian]

Steve Milloy of Junkscience has just satrted an open challenge on his website to catastrophic AGW advocates to 'check the numbers [calcualtions] to see for yourselves' : http://www.junkscience.com/ Here is the first part of it: "Look up Stefan's Constant or just use 5.67 x 10-8 (close enough for our purpose but look it up to be sure). Now use it to check the assertion: "Global climate forcing was about 6 1/2 Wm2 less than in the current interglacial period. This forcing maintains a global temperature difference of 5 °C, implying a climate sensitivity of 3/4 ± 1/4 °C per Wm2." Either consult your texts for Earth's temperature in Kelvin and any other numbers you need or see the numbers we've used here. Off you go -- we'll wait." I'm not as sceptical as Steve Milloy is myself BTW.

Bit like someone writing a page saying 'We've show pi to be 3.2 - now come on, prove us wrong'. Life's too short...

Edited November 6, 2006 by Devonian

[jethro]

Those are some of the questions.

[Gray-Wolf]

Taking any tree off a proposed planting schedule with nationwide boundaries will impact dramatically upon not only the landscape but the eco system as a whole. Would you accept that careful consideration of every side of the argument and the validity of reports should be sought before making such sweeping changes to our own environment?

If only you'd been around 8,500yrs ago (but a twinkling in our climates age) to moot that ! Again it seems to me like telling the 3rd world what to do with it's forests after we've decimated ours. If you could show me what nature intended for our country then I'd be tempted to agree. To make a fuss about manicuring whats left of our ecosystem sounds a little like the click of the bolt on the stable door long after our equine friend had departed.

[Devonian]

Those are some of the questions.

I would accept any and all of the above if it gave me a clearer insight, I side with no one. There are no certains in life so I wouldn't expect any in this matter. Proof? If only, all our lives would be a great deal easier.

I agree there is overwhelming evidence within the scientific community to support the fact the climate is changing, we are warming, but....there is a great deal less research into natural climate variation and this concerns me. Yes. we are to blame. Common sense alone should dictate we cannot pollute ad infinitum without there being a penalty. My questions/doubts arise when it is measured against what appears to be an unknown; we pollute, the world gets warmer, ergo it's all down to us. But is it? How reliable are those measurements? That's all I'm asking. I manage less than a hundred acres, drop in the ocean but add up the total of our little island which ultimately comes under the jurisdiction of local government/national bodies re: Tree preservation orders and it's a fair proportion. What I do today will be visible in 2, 3, even 400 years, so it has to be right, or at the very least, well informed. Taking any tree off a proposed planting schedule with nationwide boundaries will impact dramatically upon not only the landscape but the eco system as a whole. Would you accept that careful consideration of every side of the argument and the validity of reports should be sought before making such sweeping changes to our own environment?

Yes, absolutely I would. Why would you think those making decisions wouldn't any more than you or I would? This AGW business has been going on for decades (I've followed it for two) it's come under serious attack all that time from those sceptical. It's still the best theory in town becuase it explains what is going on.

Funnily enough the world shows no signs of cooling How much will it warm? How much are the dice weighted, how much weight is yet to be added. Feeling lucky?

As an aside, I wonder how much warming, how hot and dry a series of summers, beech trees can stand? I dunno - do you? :ph34r:

Edited November 6, 2006 by Devonian