New Research

[keithlucky]

http://www.sciencedi...921818112001658 Interesting article.

[jethro]

My interpretation of GWs post, which seems to have generated some interest here, was that it was more to do with the political will of the people, and the lack of acceptance that we are having a largely negative impact on our planet, which will begin to affect ordinary sooner than many think. When we have things like the sea ice dwindling to record lows, yet the likes of Christy, Watts and Goddard making any excuses they can to say it's not actually happening, has happened before or is due to the storm in August, any and every excuse but to accept it's part of a longer term decline, largely caused by human activity.

I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life.

The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo.

But by the same token, whether or not you believe in AGW shouldn't be used as a measure of whether people do live an eco-friendly life, as it so often is.

The likes of Christy, Watts and Goddard have zero influence in government policy. They have a voice which is contrary to official policy and contrary to much of the accepted science. I personally wouldn't want them silenced. It comes down to the old saying of 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. IMO it will be a very sad day indeed if people are denied the right to question and criticise, especially in the world of science where questioning, criticising and trying to disprove theory is a fundamental part of the process.

The bottom line is that there are now more of us than at any time before. There are dwindling resources and within a few years there won't be enough to go round. Regardless of AGW, governments need to address that issue. We absolutely need to develop alternative energy sources and a by product of that will be a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead of governments trying to get people to cut their consumption, they should focus upon developing alternatives. Currently we have wind farms promoted on the basis that it's greener energy, they will save the planet. The instinctive reaction of most people is one of fine, but not in my backyard. If they re-packaged wind farms, Severn barriers and Nuclear power (and all other alternative energy) as necessary because we're running out of fossil fuels, they may get a better response from the population. If they also added that we haven't got a lot of fossil fuels of our own, the largest stocks are held by nations we don't particularly get on with and that we may need to send our troops around the world in order to fight to get our share, they may get an even better response from folk.

GW-

As for history judging us, I can hold my hand up and say I couldn't live a greener lifestyle, I'm doing my bit, I've always done my bit. I personally don't feel any guilt for the impact I may have on the planet.

[BornFromTheVoid]

But by the same token, whether or not you believe in AGW shouldn't be used as a measure of whether people do live an eco-friendly life, as it so often is.

Agree with the part in bold, the rest I haven't seen much of.

The likes of Christy, Watts and Goddard have zero influence in government policy. They have a voice which is contrary to official policy and contrary to much of the accepted science. I personally wouldn't want them silenced. It comes down to the old saying of 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. IMO it will be a very sad day indeed if people are denied the right to question and criticise, especially in the world of science where questioning, criticising and trying to disprove theory is a fundamental part of the process.

Don't agree. Christy has spoken in front of the US congress several times. The other two influence a lot of people which affects the political will of the general populations.

I think genuine skepticism is great, it's what drives progress in science. Goddard and Watts are out to turn people against the actual science by attacking the scientists and science, which very little genuine scientifically sceptical questioning as far as I can tell.

The bottom line is that there are now more of us than at any time before. There are dwindling resources and within a few years there won't be enough to go round. Regardless of AGW, governments need to address that issue. We absolutely need to develop alternative energy sources and a by product of that will be a reduction in carbon emissions. Instead of governments trying to get people to cut their consumption, they should focus upon developing alternatives. Currently we have wind farms promoted on the basis that it's greener energy, they will save the planet. The instinctive reaction of most people is one of fine, but not in my backyard. If they re-packaged wind farms, Severn barriers and Nuclear power (and all other alternative energy) as necessary because we're running out of fossil fuels, they may get a better response from the population. If they also added that we haven't got a lot of fossil fuels of our own, the largest stocks are held by nations we don't particularly get on with and that we may need to send our troops around the world in order to fight to get our share, they may get an even better response from folk.

I agree with much of that. At the same time governments aren't much willing to do anything that makes them widely unpopular, and while people are being tricked into thinking AGW is a scam and we need constant oil to prevent slipping back into the stone age, unfortunately, many governments won't have the balls to make any big changes.

[Gray-Wolf]

There's the Rub, any high cost endeavor not showing fruits in the term of 1 govt.s lifetime is deemed negative in terms of votes. The opposition will haul it up as 'squandered money' and if you are not able to show 'gain' from the cost then you are on a political loser.

Under the present climate of confusion would a party take the lead and then educate the people or will they play Politics' and only move when the people have educated themselves and the clamor for change is irresistible , no matter what colour banner you fly?

[jethro]

Agree with the part in bold, the rest I haven't seen much of.

Don't agree. Christy has spoken in front of the US congress several times. The other two influence a lot of people which affects the political will of the general populations.

I think genuine skepticism is great, it's what drives progress in science. Goddard and Watts are out to turn people against the actual science by attacking the scientists and science, which very little genuine scientifically sceptical questioning as far as I can tell.

I agree with much of that. At the same time governments aren't much willing to do anything that makes them widely unpopular, and while people are being tricked into thinking AGW is a scam and we need constant oil to prevent slipping back into the stone age, unfortunately, many governments won't have the balls to make any big changes.

I think you're in danger of thinking that because a lot of your life is focussed upon climate change, and the science and discussion which surrounds it, then other people must be as aware as you. I think you're wrong. The average Joe Public will never even have heard of Watts, Christy etc and those that may have picked up on the odd news article will quickly have forgotten it. In general, the public don't pay much heed to all this climate discussion.

As for government taking decisions which make them unpopular - they took us into war at the behest of Bush, hardly a popular decision. All those poor repatriated dead soldiers, all the popularity of Help for Hero's makes me think if the government was more honest and said in order to prevent fighting over future energy resources we need to develop our own, they'd get a far more sympathetic response from the public than 'Let's Save the Planet'. End result, cleaner, greener energy and reduced emissions. That's a win win situation IMO.

[laserguy]

..... if the government was more honest and said in order to prevent fighting over future energy resources we need to develop our own, they'd get a far more sympathetic response from the public than 'Let's Save the Planet'. End result, cleaner, greener energy and reduced emissions. That's a win win situation IMO.

Ye - time to drop the rather more palatable ( and false ) catastrophic climate change smokescreen and tell it how it is. Like I've said all along. Time to do a remake of Mad Max but set in England!

[Gray-Wolf]

Just because they're re-running Mr M's wild survival progs on Dave doesn't mean the nasties are now born survivors? First bout of disentry and they'll all be caught with their pants down!

I'd agree with J' that it is in the national interest to become self sufficient in energy (at least). As long as we're stuck with the tory favoured 'wind power' (their way of pushing the Nuke option by showing how carp renewables are.....bad backfire from 74') we don't stand much of a chance though! I did see news of some geothermal wells being sunk though and that's more like it! When you think of the 'hot' batholiths under Cornwall/Derbyshire/Lakes we do have the 'Iceland option' in some areas?

[knocker]

! When you think of the 'hot' batholiths under Cornwall/Derbyshire/Lakes we do have the 'Iceland option' in some areas?

Sorry GW, what Cornwall lakes? It's more the 'hot rocks' issue in these parts and that didn't really come to fruition the last time. There are a number of small scale operations working at the moment.

[Rainy]

Interesting comments on this thread yesterday.

The public will wake up soon when the costs of this dreadful summer have an impact. Food prices will rocket over the next few months. And as we all know -- things that go up in price, rarely come down. Take the price of a bag of flour for instance.

Even if we can import from abroad, it will add to the balance of payments crisis.

And then, what about the costs to housing and infrastructure caused by the deluges and constant wetness (in Lancs anyway!). We still have potholes unrepaired from the recent hard winters. Buildings in this region have a sad look with all the rain damage and green mould.

Throw in another harsh winter and the heating bills will hit home to add to the misery.

Climate the same as Newfoundland -- we are gettiing there.

Now the question is -- who is going to get us out of this mess and how?

[Gray-Wolf]

Sorry GW, what Cornwall lakes? It's more the 'hot rocks' issue in these parts and that didn't really come to fruition the last time. There are a number of small scale operations working at the moment.

If you tap into the shap granite batholith then you still have a tremendous amount of heat the same below Cornwall (this is the type of 'geothermal' I'm thinking of? Deep drilled and water heated?) If we can get results from 3m depth heat exchange pumps then think of the heat at depth without any pluton being available? Some of the deep shaft mines re pretty hot at the deeper levels so just run of the mill depth/pressure could be utilised if only for local hot water for heating/household use?

We have made a start in cutting waste with our insulation/lightbulb/double glazing drives but what losses are there due to long haul electricity distribution? Any way to reduce theneed for those losses must be a win/ win? Local power suited to the local area with minimal transport?

[knocker]

If you tap into the shap granite batholith then you still have a tremendous amount of heat the same below Cornwall (this is the type of 'geothermal' I'm thinking of? Deep drilled and water heated?) If we can get results from 3m depth heat exchange pumps then think of the heat at depth without any pluton being available? Some of the deep shaft mines re pretty hot at the deeper levels so just run of the mill depth/pressure could be utilised if only for local hot water for heating/household use?

They did extensive trials of this starting in 1977 at Rosemanowes Quarry but the depth required is quite substantial,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemanowes_Quarry

[laserguy]

I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life.

The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo.

All those who accept CO2-inspired AGW as real and are concerned about it, should lead the greenest of green lifestyles. Otherwise,they have all the credibility of a 60-a day Woodbine-smoking doctor telling his hapless patient that smoking isn't good for him and should stop immediately.

Rainy - there ain't nuthin' we can do except try to anticipate and adapt to change. Never mind tinkering around the edges, does anyone seriously think that the abolition of all motor vehicles from the face of the Earth right now would cause a sudden change to a stable and benign climate? Hmm hold on, we've already got that.

[Gray-Wolf]

They did extensive trials of this starting in 1977 at Rosemanowes Quarry but the depth required is quite substantial,

http://en.wikipedia....emanowes_Quarry

I'm sure that 'drill technology' has come on leaps and bounds since then though? When I studied petrology you certainly didn't turn corners the way they do today? anyhows ,t'wa just a thought? To geothermal seems the least troublesome of all the technologies I favour (tidal barrage...dredge out sediments 'caught 'by barrage, Wave..long distance transmission, local wind/solar...technology not providing the yields yet?).

Let's just hope we're nearly there with commercial Fussion?

[knocker]

I'm sure that 'drill technology' has come on leaps and bounds since then though? When I studied petrology you certainly didn't turn corners the way they do today? anyhows ,t'wa just a thought? To geothermal seems the least troublesome of all the technologies I favour (tidal barrage...dredge out sediments 'caught 'by barrage, Wave..long distance transmission, local wind/solar...technology not providing the yields yet?).

Let's just hope we're nearly there with commercial Fussion?

Not disagreeing with you GW. The operation I mentioned above moved to France where I believe they now have a 'Hot Rock' power plant. It appears to disappeared off the agenda over here.

http://www.bine.info...l_Internetx.pdf

In this part of the world there have been two recent proposals for large solar cell projects. And I mean large. These have met with the predictable local opposition, not all unfounded, as the proposals do take up a large amount of land. The exact figures escape me at the moment.

Edited September 2, 2012 by knocker

[Gray-Wolf]

Makes you wonder if they lifted the cells 3 or 4 metres whether the shade could be useful in allowing crop growth below?

When you look at farming in the tropics, with large trees used to 'moderate' the local climate below, then maybe a decent look at the micro climate you'd produce under a a solar cell brolly, including solar still technology, might make them more appealing to the locals?

[Interitus]

If you tap into the shap granite batholith then you still have a tremendous amount of heat the same below Cornwall (this is the type of 'geothermal' I'm thinking of? Deep drilled and water heated?) If we can get results from 3m depth heat exchange pumps then think of the heat at depth without any pluton being available? Some of the deep shaft mines re pretty hot at the deeper levels so just run of the mill depth/pressure could be utilised if only for local hot water for heating/household use?

We have made a start in cutting waste with our insulation/lightbulb/double glazing drives but what losses are there due to long haul electricity distribution? Any way to reduce theneed for those losses must be a win/ win? Local power suited to the local area with minimal transport?

It's a common perception but geothermal energy doesn't require granite or igneous rocks, here is an example of a scheme in Manchester following on from others in Southampton and Newcastle http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-18920893

Regarding cutting waste, lots more investment should be directed in this area but our energy industries are all focused on maintaining consumption and investing in infrastructure.

[knocker]

It's a common perception but geothermal energy doesn't require granite or igneous rocks, here is an example of a scheme in Manchester following on from others in Southampton and Newcastle http://www.bbc.co.uk...hester-18920893

Regarding cutting waste, lots more investment should be directed in this area but our energy industries are all focused on maintaining consumption and investing in infrastructure.

I'm not sure it's a common perception as the Southampton scheme has been going for years. The Glasgow study is also quite interesting.

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/research/energy/geothermal/heatEnergyGlasgow.html

[laserguy]

Went to the East coast last weekend and all I could see in the North sea was dozens of wind turbines. Bloody eyesore they are. And they weren't turning....

[Gray-Wolf]

Got to agree with you there L.G. A few , in motion, are a far better sight than a line of pylons but a huge conflagration of them is not too grand. After the messin' the Tories did in 74' with the 'energy crisis' look into alternatives (11 out of 13 scientist had links to UKAEA!!) where decimal points were lost and misplaced in both the failure rate of cables (from wave/tidal power turbines) and energy produced oddly left nuclear as the most 'useful ' option.

when this proved to be unpopular they pushed 'wind' , my guess was it being most annoying?, as the only 'renewable' they would subsidise.

The ones that worked best were ignored and they chose the one most likely to have a public outcry from the plebs (you excused of course)and it's done quite well for them making nuclear again a 'favored ' get out of jail free card.

Politics eh?

[Rainy]

Went to the East coast last weekend and all I could see in the North sea was dozens of wind turbines. Bloody eyesore they are. And they weren't turning....

West Lancs, in particular the Fylde, was once upon a time festooned with hundreds of windmills. There's now plans afoot to industrialise that rich agricultural region, turning it into a gasfield with associated new infrastructure -- new roads, pipelines etc.. Unconventional long lateral hydraulic fracturing (fracking off horizontal well pipes) will riddle and smash deep shale strata under fields, under homes, as the licensed gas exploration company (part Australian, part Chinese, part US) scrapes the barrel. Drilling pads are expected be 2 miles apart with up to 8 wells on each pad. 400 wells initially, but could go to 800. Horizontal drilling will go up to a mile or two from each well.

Now do a few windmills out at sea seem so bad?

There's wind generation and conventional gas production already out in the Irish Sea of course. Lancastrians are used to that.

Earthquakes and planning have slowed the fracking developments on land But today Osborne states he plans to relax planning rules and speed us towards big new schemes. The opposition probably think the same. Lie down Lancs and take it.

[BornFromTheVoid]

All those who accept CO2-inspired AGW as real and are concerned about it, should lead the greenest of green lifestyles. Otherwise,they have all the credibility of a 60-a day Woodbine-smoking doctor telling his hapless patient that smoking isn't good for him and should stop immediately.

Rainy - there ain't nuthin' we can do except try to anticipate and adapt to change. Never mind tinkering around the edges, does anyone seriously think that the abolition of all motor vehicles from the face of the Earth right now would cause a sudden change to a stable and benign climate? Hmm hold on, we've already got that.

I disagree. Accepting CO2 is causing warming and a problem is down to understanding at least some the science behind it and picking scientific consensus over conspiracy theories. Rather than it being a political position or personal choice, as so many try to make it.

Thing is, in your example, the doctor still has the education and experience to be able to inform others of the risks of smoking, even if he hasn't the will power to stop himself. His smoking doesn't diminish his knowledge and expertise. Just like climate scientists flying to a conference.

But to be honest, I think that's just another example of the mindset difference between the likes of you and me!

As for the actions of governments. I can presume nobody here looked into political psychology much then!

There is no way a population would support it's government when starting a war based on the premise that "they have stuff we want, so we're going to kill them 'till we get it".

You will only get the support of people for war if you make it a moral issue, people won't support senseless murder to expand the nations greed. Almost every war is twisted into a good and evil type scenario. Liberating the people of Iraq and saving the world from Saddam's WMDs, yeah right!

Anyway, most governments are heavily influenced by hydrocarbon cash, and are very much against taking a strong stance on climate change. There are so many reasons that can be given for promoting greener and more localised energy sources, but NIMBYism is an issue everywhere.

I've mentioned on here a few times before, that I don't think we are going to reduce emissions in any meaningful way. For me, the best hope lies in carbon capture, sequestration and geo-engineering. As wrought with risks and difficulties as they are, I think the hydrocarbon industry has become too powerful to allow a reduction in exploration and exploitation. Developing nations have every right to use the cheapest power sources available to them, so even if western nations slowly begin to move toward renewables like Germany, there will still be India, China, Brazil, etc growing quickly and demanding the cheapest and easiest energy sources to fuel their growth.

A crappy situation, but that's how it seems to be!

[jethro]

I disagree. Accepting CO2 is causing warming and a problem is down to understanding at least some the science behind it and picking scientific consensus over conspiracy theories. Rather than it being a political position or personal choice, as so many try to make it.

Thing is, in your example, the doctor still has the education and experience to be able to inform others of the risks of smoking, even if he hasn't the will power to stop himself. His smoking doesn't diminish his knowledge and expertise. Just like climate scientists flying to a conference.

But to be honest, I think that's just another example of the mindset difference between the likes of you and me!

As for the actions of governments. I can presume nobody here looked into political psychology much then!

There is no way a population would support it's government when starting a war based on the premise that "they have stuff we want, so we're going to kill them 'till we get it".

You will only get the support of people for war if you make it a moral issue, people won't support senseless murder to expand the nations greed. Almost every war is twisted into a good and evil type scenario. Liberating the people of Iraq and saving the world from Saddam's WMDs, yeah right!

Anyway, most governments are heavily influenced by hydrocarbon cash, and are very much against taking a strong stance on climate change. There are so many reasons that can be given for promoting greener and more localised energy sources, but NIMBYism is an issue everywhere.

I've mentioned on here a few times before, that I don't think we are going to reduce emissions in any meaningful way. For me, the best hope lies in carbon capture, sequestration and geo-engineering. As wrought with risks and difficulties as they are, I think the hydrocarbon industry has become too powerful to allow a reduction in exploration and exploitation. Developing nations have every right to use the cheapest power sources available to them, so even if western nations slowly begin to move toward renewables like Germany, there will still be India, China, Brazil, etc growing quickly and demanding the cheapest and easiest energy sources to fuel their growth.

A crappy situation, but that's how it seems to be!

I'm afraid I agree with Laser, those who are concerned about climate change should lead by example when it comes to living a sustainable lifestyle. If you are concerned about the climate but are unwilling to change the way you live, or want the option to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle in the hope that the government or science will come up with a way to minimise your own personal impact, then it (IMO) undermines your stance and argument. Not only that, but it begs the question that if you don't live sustainably and are concerned about the environment, are you off-loading the guilt this may induce and berating people who don't share your concerns/conviction in the AGW debate as a result?

As for war, it's packaged to achieve the aims of those governments who wish to indulge in it. The same can be said of all aspects of life. If wind farms/fracking/nuclear power/Severn barrier were packaged in way to infer that future warfare may be necessary in order to secure future energy sources, those greener energy supplies may be welcomed with less of a nimby attitude. Of course, the government will still keep all their options open, why else have we clung onto the Faulkland Islands if not to have mineral rights in the South Atlantic?

Carbon capture and sequestration.....yes, if it can be achieved, affordably and safely. Geo-engineering.....I certainly hope not. We have no idea of the possible consequences. We have no way of measuring the impact. What happens if we tip the balance too far and we end up with drastic cooling? Cold climate kills far more people than a warm one. IMO, we've done enough damage already with the stuff we've done to the planet, let's not deliberately do more.

As for the developing nations like China and India, yes they're rapidly expanding and I don't think we have the right to say they can't but they're also leading the way in developing green energy; China in particular is making massive headway.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jackperkowski/2012/07/27/china-leads-the-world-in-renewable-energy-investment/

[laserguy]

I'm afraid I agree with Laser, those who are concerned about climate change should lead by example when it comes to living a sustainable lifestyle. If you are concerned about the climate but are unwilling to change the way you live, or want the option to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle in the hope that the government or science will come up with a way to minimise your own personal impact, then it (IMO) undermines your stance and argument. Not only that, but it begs the question that if you don't live sustainably and are concerned about the environment, are you off-loading the guilt this may induce and berating people who don't share your concerns/conviction in the AGW debate as a result?

Nuthin' to be afraid or ashamed of,J! Nicely put btw....

[Devonian]

All those who accept CO2-inspired AGW as real and are concerned about it, should lead the greenest of green lifestyles. Otherwise,they have all the credibility of a 60-a day Woodbine-smoking doctor telling his hapless patient that smoking isn't good for him and should stop immediately.

Off the top of my head, I: haven't flown in a aeroplane since 1991, I ride to work (which is less than a mile), my car is little used, my wife's car does 60mpg, our house has solar panels and a woodburner, I grow my own spuds, my wife has an allotment, we are signed up to a 'green' energy supplier, we buy milk from a local farm, I am a member of several organisations that share my aims and I don't eat meat unless it was at the very least outdoor reared (not a fan of organics though, fwiw).

Now, does that make you more likely to agree with my POV? I suspect the answer is not at all? Or does me practicing what I 'preach' mean you now agree with my views wrt AGW?

Sadly, experience teaches that such admissions generally get jeered as being a greenie tree hugger or summat ...

Edit: btw, smoking is bad for heath, whether you doctor smokes like a train or not.

Rainy - there ain't nuthin' we can do except try to anticipate and adapt to change. Never mind tinkering around the edges, does anyone seriously think that the abolition of all motor vehicles from the face of the Earth right now would cause a sudden change to a stable and benign climate? Hmm hold on, we've already got that.

I'm pretty sure how much CO2 is pumped out by automobiles could be worked out. A substantial proportion of the total I'd guess but not the whole story?

Edited September 3, 2012 by Devonian

[keithlucky]

I disagree. Accepting CO2 is causing warming and a problem is down to understanding at least some the science behind it and picking scientific consensus over conspiracy theories. Rather than it being a political position or personal choice, as so many try to make it.

Thing is, in your example, the doctor still has the education and experience to be able to inform others of the risks of smoking, even if he hasn't the will power to stop himself. His smoking doesn't diminish his knowledge and expertise. Just like climate scientists flying to a conference.

But to be honest, I think that's just another example of the mindset difference between the likes of you and me!

As for the actions of governments. I can presume nobody here looked into political psychology much then!

There is no way a population would support it's government when starting a war based on the premise that "they have stuff we want, so we're going to kill them 'till we get it".

You will only get the support of people for war if you make it a moral issue, people won't support senseless murder to expand the nations greed. Almost every war is twisted into a good and evil type scenario. Liberating the people of Iraq and saving the world from Saddam's WMDs, yeah right!

Anyway, most governments are heavily influenced by hydrocarbon cash, and are very much against taking a strong stance on climate change. There are so many reasons that can be given for promoting greener and more localised energy sources, but NIMBYism is an issue everywhere.

I've mentioned on here a few times before, that I don't think we are going to reduce emissions in any meaningful way. For me, the best hope lies in carbon capture, sequestration and geo-engineering. As wrought with risks and difficulties as they are, I think the hydrocarbon industry has become too powerful to allow a reduction in exploration and exploitation. Developing nations have every right to use the cheapest power sources available to them, so even if western nations slowly begin to move toward renewables like Germany, there will still be India, China, Brazil, etc growing quickly and demanding the cheapest and easiest energy sources to fuel their growth.

A crappy situation, but that's how it seems to be!

Trouble is that its all corrupt, the main problem that whatever green option the government backs you need to look further ,for example the wind turbines which are planned for the seven barrage scheme and are up all over Wales They have on the board 2 high profile conservatives John selwyn gummer and Tim Yeo on Forewind limited company.Unless we can get cross party agreement on a energy policy we cannot get a unbiased way forward.