Climate Change

Bags well I like your links and find it reassuring to read the opposite views of disparate scientists.

I have always been sceptical about the "man-made" tag on climate change. I do think climatic variations take place but they always have done. The Romans grew wine in the north of England for example and why was "Greenland" so called by the Vikings? The ice age has already been mentioned on this thread too.

So please carry on posting your links Bags - some of us appreciate them!

Interesting point about the links, jess, and you may be right that people don't like them, though some people have said they do, so I expect it's a bit mixed. The reason I post links is to back up what I say with scientific articles (which people may or may not agree with) which is good scientific practice. Why would you have an arguement with that?

With regard to the suggestion that I'm trying to refute established science, I suggest that you have missed the point – I've never argued against the fact of climate change and neither have any of the arguments in links I've posted, so I'm not sure what you're saying there other than that you don't like my arguments, which we'd already established a long time ago.

You seem to imply by your remarks that there is no research still going on about what we should or shouldn't be doing with regard to climate change. Given the billions of dollars being spent worldwide on research on the subject and related ones all over the globe, I'm slightly at a loss with that implication too. You're kidding yourself if you think climate science is "settled". A few small facts are settled. Scientific understanding of the whole huge, extremely complex subject of our planet's climate is in its infancy. There's a hell of a lot we simply do not know yet. Anyone who says otherwise would appear to be deluded.

bags, seeing as you have made this comment, I have to say, that in my opinion a lot of people, myself included, have been "scared off this thread" by your repeated posting of links putting one side of the "debate".
When members have tried to engage you in debate, your usual response is to post more links.
This is debate that the vast majority of scientists in many, many disciplines do not think is a debate any more, but a fact. Bit like evolution.
Doesn't seem like a great topic for GN does it.

I think a lot of people have been scared off this thread by the doom and gloom alarmism, so I shall post the link to this article "Apocalypse Not" from Wired Science on another thread as well. It is quite illuminating, I think.

Well at least we can agree on your last paragraph flick

I am not sure that climate change was slower or the scale not as vast in the past, remember in the past we have descended into ice ages that took the ice sheet over the whole of Britain. Of course the whole future of the planet could be changed by climate variation, in the cold war we all knew we could be blown to smithereens at short notice, and at times, like during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, it seemed imminent, but the majority of people just got on with their normal lives, despite knowing the imminence of possible Armegedon.

We cannot foresee the future. We may all be wiped out by a killer virus by Christmas, Does that mean that there is no point in planning for Christmas in case it happens? I am aware of what could possibly lie before us but what good will worrying about it do? The best thing is to take actions to reduce your own footprint in the world and live in the present.

I was on my lunch break so didn't have much time to answer fully and was perhaps guilty of being flippant. flicketyB of course the areas I mentioned as being at tipping point are areas that are, "on the edge of viability" but it is these areas that will naturally go first. That is logical and you cannot use that argument to counter mine, as that would be illogical.
Yes, there are examples of areas that have suffered climatic changes in the past. But the difference this time is the speed of change and the scale.

Like carbon I am worried for my grandchildren. I hope you are right and I am wrong. I really do.

Carbon, sorry, 'What is the matter with you all?' The answer is 'nothing', most people now are aware of climate change and most people are taking action domestically to alleviate it, extra insulation in their houses, recycling, using their cars less. Maybe some are doing it purely for financial reasons; fuel prices, including fuel for transport are rocketing. Governments are also doing their bit; the drive for and investment in renewable energy, the need for all coal-fired power stations that can not reduce emissions and CO2 to close by the end of 2015.

You are clearly very driven on this subject and have very strong views, but this does not give you a monopoly on the truth or place you on the moral high ground. Many of the subjects in your initial email are already being discussed elsewhere on Gransnet, except I deduce from your reply to a previous post from me that you only read and post on this thread, my apologies if I misunderstood your reply.

If the thread on climate change dies it doesn't mean people don't care about it, it means they have assimilated the awareness into their normal lives and it just underlies and informs their attitudes so that aspects of it from fuel economy to sustainable living are incorporated to such threads as 'Recycling and growing your own', a recent one on whether our heating was turned on or off and the 56 threads under the overall Environment heading

When they all start migrating north are we going to welcome them with open arms? Also, we now have state borders that people are not allowed to cross so they can't just up sticks and look for a better climate to settle in. Think Africa with all its straight lines - humans and other animals have always crossed these lines for mostly reasons of weather and seasons.

What is the matter with you all? We will never be able to address and cope with climate change if people refuse to accept or just don't undertstand what is happening. I have grandchildren and it is my biggest worry. We have responsibilities to our children and grandchildren - at least I believe we do - but not many perople seem to accept this responsiobility. We also have a responsibility to the human race - I truly belive this and I'm an atheist.

That is why I mostly post on this thread - for reasons of morality.....I don't believe in god but I do believe in morality and responsibility.

I think that is probably in the range of myth, although there are villages and towns in the Domesday Book that are now under the sea. However civilisations destroyed by climate change include the Harrapan (3,000 - 1,000BC), Mayan (250 -900AD), The Akkadian civilisation in Mesopotamia, Egyption Old Kingdom and Early Bronze Age cultures in Palestine, Greece and Crete all declined after 2300BC. In each case the cause was drought.

Atlantis?

Jodi, There will always be change in individual areas - and we should do all we can to help the people there adapt or move to better areas. History and archaeology is littered with examples of civilisations that have flourished and then died when climatic conditions changed. Most of the areas you mention have always been on the edge of viability. In the last 100 years war and genocide has killed far more people than climatic events.

Thank you flicketyB for trying tp be positive and reassuring. But I think the earth is heading for a tipping point. In some parts of the world — the high Himalayas of Nepal, in the desperately poor and hungry parts of sub-Saharan Africa, in the hot and dry patches of the American southwest — a tipping point may have already been reached and passed. The scary thing about a tipping point is that you only know for sure that it exists once you've reached it — and after that, it's too late to go back.

Jodi, Why? Recent statistics suggest that temperatures have been stable for the last 16 years. And humanity through out the eons has adapted to changed conditions as they arise. Malthus in the 19th century saw mass starvation and disease imminent, but since then agricultural production and population has soared and despite the damage to world crops this year, the planet is still capable of providing more than enough food to feed its population.

I am not saying that everything is well in the world, it isnt, population is soaring and it would be better if we had fewer rather than more people, reserves of fossil fuel will, eventually, run out but the reason that from the first few homo sapiens we now have 6 billion, or is it 7, is because of homo sapiens infinite ability to adapt to new circumstances, from hunter gatherer to farmer, to inhabit everywhere from deserts to the frozen north.

We do have many serious problems facing us now, but we are already making enormous efforts to deal with them. Renewable energy sources, research to reduce energy consumption in our homes, industry, transport. I was born during a world war, lived through the cold war, which could have had just a drastic effect on the planet as over-heating. What will life be like for our grandchildren? I have no idea. My Grandmother could not forsee all the dangers of the Cold War when I was born, my parents couldnt forsee the problems of climate change when my children were born. You cannot forcast the future on the basis of what is happening now, it may be the old enemy epidemic disease that kills off millions or billions or it may be something that we havent even thought of. For all we know current climate change could be a precursor to a drop into a new ice age, one is theoretically overdue and all that we are doing to reduce carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could make things worse rather than better. We just do not know. Live in hope, homo sapiens is going to be around for a long while yet.

carbob you've echoed my feelings exactly. I too despair AND it makes me want to weep too. I actually think its too late and things are going to spiral out of control

Carbon, sorry I have upset you, but you have misunderstood almost everything I said.
1) I did not criticise which threads you post to but I merely commented that I only ever see your postings on climate change threads and I would be interested in seeing your views on other subjects. Most Gransnetters post on a variety of subjects even when they clearly have subjects that are dear to their hearts. It paints a picture of a rounded personality and helps a reader to evaluate their contributions on the subjects that are close to them.

2) A wind power company that owns wind turbines and then has diesel generators elsewhere to enable it to produce power to meet its power supply contract with National Grid is not running a hybrid system. A hybrid system is one where the same equipment uses different fuels, coal and biomass for example or, in a different industry a Toyota Prius.

As I understand it the 3000MW plus power station beside these diesel generators is tightly controlled, its emissions of SOX and NOX are monitored continually as are its emissions of particulates and it has to keep these down to very low levels. However the diesel generators because of their size and utilisation pattern are not so closely monitored and their production of SOX etc are not controlled and they produce far more pollution kw for kw than the power station next door. Now, nationally and globally the amount of pollution these diesel genererators produce is very small, but the people living round the site are having to live with very high levels of health-damaging emissions when they are operating and what is the justification for considering an energy source is green when it has to produce highly polluting power as well as green power to meet customer demand?

3) I did not say measurement of extreme weather conditions was due to publicity, but the statistics the YouTube clip were using were a very long series of figures going back 1,000s of years, but, even in the recent past, say 150 to 200 years ago I very much doubt if all extreme weather events in areas such as Central Asia, Central Africa, South America etc are all or any anywhere in the public record. In a recent 'Environmental' thread on the effect of volcanoes on climate forecasts (this is what I mean about the advantages of taking part in other threads) 'Volcanos taken into account in climate forecasts' I referred to a volcano site at: www.volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?faq=06 where this very point is considered when discussing the variability of volcanic activity and its conclusions apply to measuring extreme weather events as well..

Carbon, as I said I am not a climate change denier but both sides of this argument have been marred by poor, partial and politicised science and you do not help your own arguments when you do the same.

Also FlikeityB I can post on whichever threads I want to. To be criticised for which threads I post on it just not on (I think there's thread that deals with this sort of intimidation)

I really do despair....do you really think the people who design and build hybrid power systems are that stupid???????

A hybred system is what it says: a combination of two sorts of energy creation and storage.

HYBRID COMBINATION

I'm just not going to try to explain.

Also its rubbish to say extreme weather is due to publicity. Records are meticulously kept and have been for many years.

I really want to cry.....................

Looked at youtube, but what does it prove beyond the fact that carbon dioxide rates in the atmosphere are rising? There have been major climate change periods in the last 1,000 or so years when we have had exceptionally hot periods and mini ice ages, yet carbon dioxide rates have not risen/fallen at the same time.

Do not get me wrong I am not a climate change denier. I am aware that there are changes in climate world wide and the world weather seems to be getting more extreme, although, like volcanos, that could just be because more extreme events get worldwide publicity. But chucking odd statistics or pretty graphs around but with out any corroborative detail and support does your cause no good at all.

And what do you think of wind power companies using diesel generators to provide back up power when there is no wind. There is no more inefficient and polluting way of producing power, except possibly lignite.

I've supported that nanadogsbody and carboncareful that's very interesting. I really worry about what sort of world my grandchildren will inherit.

If you are really interested in climate change you need to watch this :-

www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbgUE04Y-Xg

Me, neither. I am quite happy to work with climate change, man-made or natural. Whatever the cause there is no point in making the situation worse, but I have deep reservations about the way money is being thrown indiscriminately at any solution that describes itself as green.

One of the main wind turbine operators has just built a small power generating facility near me so that it can provide the National Grid with the power it is contracted to supply when the wind doesnt blow. This facility consists of a bank of small diesel power generators, about the most polluting way of producing power known. They are installed right next to a huge conventional power station that can produce that same extra power for a fraction of the cost and without anything like as much pollution.

I am waiting to see a fully developed plan showing exactly how the UK can have reliable 24/7/365 supply of electricity using only renewables, without nuclear and without some conventional power to bridge the peaks and troughs. I have yet to see it.

Meanwhile I will continue to improve the energy efficiency of my own home, and where possible reduce my reliance on my car.

No thanks!

If there is anyone who feels they would like to suppor this RSPB petition here is a link.

www.rspb.org.uk/climate/what_can_I_do/greenisworking.aspx

Ooh, look! Article in Nature advocating adaptation rather than prevention! Is this progress?

The failure of climate change mitigation through emissions reductions and trading. At present, governments' attempts to limit greenhouse-gas emissions through carbon cap-and-trade schemes and to promote renewable and sustainable energy sources are probably too late to arrest the inevitable trend of global warming. Instead, there are increasingly persuasive arguments that government and institutional focus should be on developing adaption policies that address and help mitigate against the negative outcomes of global warming, rather than carbon trading and cataloguing greenhouse-gas emissions. There are a number of reasons why we take this viewpoint. (1) Earth-system feedbacks are an important component of climate forcing, and therefore addressing greenhouse-gas emissions alone is an insufficient strategy for managing global warming. (2) Different national and disciplinary (that is, from the perspective of soils, forests, oceans and so on) schemes for calculating carbon budgets use different methodologies and assumptions, and have a different mix of natural and disturbed ecosystems and fossil-fuel resources. This means that carbon management schemes are based on poorly constrained data and on budgetary sleights-of-hand that may have little relationship to the real world. (3) The future impacts of global warming on land-surface stability and the sediment fluxes associated with soil erosion, river downcutting and coastal erosion are relevant to sustainability, biodiversity and food security. Monitoring and modelling soil erosion loss, for example, are also means by which to examine problems of carbon and nutrient fluxes, lake eutrophication, pollutant and coliform dispersal, river siltation and other issues. An Earth-systems approach can actively inform on these cognate areas of environmental policy and planning. (4) Earth surface systems' sensitivity to climate forcing is still poorly understood. Measuring this geomorphological sensitivity will identify those systems and environments that are most vulnerable to climatic disturbance, and will enable policymakers and managers to prioritize action in these areas. This is particularly the case in coastal environments, where rocky and sandy coastlines will yield very different responses to climate forcing, and where coastal-zone management plans are usually based on past rather than future climatic patterns.

Entire article here: www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1660.html