The alternative Global Warming opinions

silverharp

An article I came across last month, I don't know enough to say if I agree with him or not but feel free to point out any errors on fact that you can see.






http://www.321energy.com/editorials/bloom/bloom101607.html
IPCC Model is flawed

Brian Bloom
brian@redrocktrading.com.au
October 16, 2007



Al Gore and the IPCC were awarded the Nobel Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change."
A High Court judge in the UK highlighted "nine scientific errors" in Al Gore's documentary.
Doug Bancroft, director of the Canadian Ice Service, made the following statement: "If you look at what happened in the last three years, it closely resembles the absolutely worst-case scenario, but about 20, 25 years ahead of schedule," He was referring to models created by international teams of scientists to predict the impact of global warming on the north. They had forecast the Arctic could be free of summer ice as early as 2050.
There is no question that Mr. Gore’s efforts have alerted the world to the existence of Climate Change. There is also increasing evidence to support the conclusion that Climate Change is not "man-made", and that the IPCC computer model is flawed – just as Professor Edward Wegman of George Mason University said it was. (See bio at http://www.galaxy.gmu.edu/stats/faculty/wegman.html )

By a simple application of common sense: If the IPCC computer model on global warming (which links CO2 to Global Warming, and treats CO2 as the independent causation variable) was accurate, then the "worst case" scenario that it was forecasting to occur in 2050 would have occurred in 2050. The hard fact is that the model got it wrong by 25 years.

This is not a "trivial" mistake. It is a mistake that is so serious that it challenges the credibility of the model at its very core.

The most significant flaw in the logic of the climate scientists, as far as this layman has been able to ascertain, is that the importance of water vapour as a greenhouse gas has been seriously underestimated. There is no question now that the world’s atmosphere is more humid than it was (say) 30 years ago. However, whilst the scientists have determined "before and after" levels of other atmospheric components (see table below reproduced from the Sydney Sun Herald Newspaper, on Sunday July 15, 2007) they have failed to focus on the water vapour levels until very recently.



Glaringly absent from this table are the "before and after" numbers relating to atmospheric humidity – i.e. Water vapour. It happens that water vapour is a far more potent a Greenhouse Gas than CO2. (Something like two to three times as potent)

Climatologists now appear to be arguing that the increase in water vapour in our atmosphere over the past couple of decades was the result of rising CO2 levels. In layman’s language, the warming atmosphere, warmed by rising CO2 levels, warmed the oceans and caused the ocean’s surfaces to evaporate at a faster rate.

For the sake of discussion, let’s ignore the fact that we don’t seem to have any idea what the water vapour levels in the Earth’s atmosphere were in the year 1770. Let’s just focus on the past 20-30 years where we can agree that the level of water vapour has increased. What really caused this to happen?

It needs to be borne in mind that a given volume of sea water requires 3,512 X as much heat energy to be warmed by one degree Celsius, than is required to warm the same volume of air by the same amount. To argue that the warming ambient temperature of our atmosphere caused our oceans to evaporate is nothing short of facile.

Furthermore, under normal circumstances, increased humidity in the atmosphere would give rise to increased precipitation. There would be higher levels of rainfall.

But the rainfall has not been increasing, as can be seen from the following quote from a report published on October 11th 2007:

The latest U.S. Drought Monitor survey released today shows the drought is getting worse. Basically, the eastern half of Alabama remains under the worst drought conditions on the scale -- that's approximately 58 percent of the state under D-4 condition. All the state is under D-1 status or worse.

61 percent of Tennessee is under D-4 or exceptional condition. In Georgia, 27 percent of that state is under the worse category. Other states under D-4 classification includes parts of Kentucky, North and South Carolina and Virginia. (Source: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/14320447/detail.html)

As far as this layman has been able to ascertain, the reason that the higher levels of humidity have not given rise to higher levels of precipitation (rainfall) is that the formation of cloud cover has been inhibited by increased solar flare activity. This increase in sunspot activity has had a twofold impact:


It has heated the earth’s surface (which heating has been exacerbated – as opposed to ‘caused’ - by greenhouse gases) and has added to the rate at which our oceans have been evaporating at their surfaces
The increased level of sunspot activity has blocked the arrival of cosmic irradiation of specific wavelengths to the Earth’s outer atmosphere. This cosmic irradiation is required to give rise to cloud formation. Its absence has inhibited cloud formation. (This explanation is my understanding of the work of Henrik Svensmark – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark )
Conclusions

Both CO2 levels and Water Vapour are Greenhouse Gases
The ultimate cause of Global Warming has been increased sunspot activity
This warming has been exacerbated by, amongst other things, raised levels of greenhouse gases. (Note: It appears to have been further exacerbated by the increasing albedo effect, as the reflective ice surfaces have been shrinking)
Raised levels of greenhouse gases have not been the cause of global warming.
Discussion
Why is this level of pedantry so important? If our climate is warming then it’s warming. So what?

The answer lies in our reaction to the cause of global warming. If the cause of global warming is the fact that sunspot activity has been on the rise, then this begs the questions, "Why?", and "What might we do about it?"". Further, will this raised level of sunspot activity continue unabated, or will it wane over time? If it wanes over time, what will be the impact of this waning?

The work of Khabibullo Ismailovich Abdusamatov needs to be taken very seriously. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khabibullo_Abdusamatov ). The work of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research needs to be taken very seriously. Both conclude that the unusual sunspot activity will continue unabated until 2012, following which it will begin to abate.

Abdusamatov believes that we are headed for a mini Ice Age similar to the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages.

Overall Conclusion
If Abdusamatov is correct then it is becoming critically important to humanity’s survival that we become less dependent on fossil fuels. Apart from the fact that demand for heating will rise exponentially – thereby placing extraordinary demands on the overhead power line grid structure – the likelihood that these power grids will become dysfunctional will be extraordinarily high if ambient temperatures fall by up to 10 degrees C.

The reader’s attention is drawn to the attached Internet Activity map, which demonstrates visually that 88% - 90% of the world’s population is located between 30 degrees and 60 degrees N latitude. If overhead power grids become dysfunctional in the Northern Hemisphere, 88% - 90% of the world’s population will be at high risk.

http://www.flapdoodle.org/chrish/worlddotblack.jpg

AngryHippie

Its not Global warming per say, that is going to be the direct problem, it is the change in climate, and climate patterns and weather patterns that have been pretty much reliable for most of recorded human history (since gilgamesh)

Unfortunately, these changes have massive impacts on flora and fauna, for instance, the weather being 1 degree warmer than usual 1 week earlier in spring, could result in a species hatching to early or too late to pollinate a certain species of plant, resulting in a die off of that plant.
Drought has reared its ugly head on many many occasions in human history, and inevitably leads to famine and human suffering. If the rest of the world is in a situation where it does not have any excess to support those areas suffering from droughts, there will be civil unrest, mass starvation and much much worse, and these phenomena will spread as resentment rises.

It has been said, I'm not certain whom I am quoting here, but Every democracy is 3 meals from a revolution, So when you look at western societies reliance on currency, supermarkets, central purchasing, oil supplies and law and order just to feed the population, can you imagine how quickly the situation will spiral out of control ?

Sea level rising is not the biggest problem. Flash floods are not the biggest problem. Natural disasters are not the biggest problem, as all of these are localised calamities, that tend to unite humans in assisting each other as best as possible. The big problem is when everyone is too busy trying to forage enough for themselves to be able to share, then civilization breaks down, and hope is lost.

Thats my big worry arising from it. Anything other than that is just displacement of people, and that is something that humans are well adapted to.:eek:

bonkey

I don't have time to go through it all in detail right now, but my first observations are this:

1) No-one has ever claimed teh IPCC models are 100% accurate, merely that they're the best we have. Thus, pointing out that they are inaccurate, and that scientists are trying to figure out why is hardly damning. Rather, it should show that climate-focussed scientists take their science seriously. When a theory fails to match observation, you find out why and refine the theory.

2) The layman's conclusion that rainfall levels are not rising would appear to be aupported by 2 references, both of which refer to local effects in areas of the US. A quick google produced some links to say tha trainfall levels are increasing in other parts of the world. The levels that would matter are global, not local.

3) The author dismisses the idea that increased atmospheric temperature would lead to increased evaporation as "facile", on the grounds that water takes more energy to heat than air. This reasoning is broken. The so-called triple-point of water is just above 0 deg. C and is the lowest temperature at which water evaporates. Every increase in temperature beween the triple-point and boiling will lead to more and more evaporation. It may be reasonable to argue that the amount of the increase does not match with the increase predicted from temp rise....but such an argument would not be facile. It would, rather, involve quite a bit of science and mathematics. Which brings us nicely to ....

4) THe entire argument can be summed up like this: "There is a complex model which isn't 100% accurate, nor was ever claimed to be. We believe that because of its inaccuracy, it is not only inaccurate, but fundamentally wrong, and present an alternate hypothesis but have no model and cannot meaningfully show that it is more accurate."

5) I'm always suspicious of work which stresses how important it is to take work seriously when it is in agreement with them, and dismisses inconvenient arguments as "facile". Science does not work by appeal to emotion.

AngryHippie

Models accurate or not,
Warming is happening, icecaps are melting
How long it will take ? don't know
How long will the warming last ? don't know
How warm will it get ? don't know
Will it get cold again ? don't know
Will it change our "normal" climate patterns ? Yes
How will it change our climate patterns ? Don't know

jawlie

I think what interests me about climate change is not the is-it-isn't-it arguments, but what solution is being put forward?

If one accepts the arguments if the IPCC, then how do we solve the problem?

It seems evident that if we leave it up to individuals, then it is not going to change as we all still want central heating, cheap flights, power showers and 3.0 litre coupés and mangé tout beans from Guatemala in our supermarkets.

If we decide we all have to stop and reverse our spending patterns, and stop using central heating etc etc then the Chinese, Indians, African's and south americans will cry foul, that they want to attain our standards of living also and are not prepared to halt what they see as economic development for themselves.

It simply isn't good enough to blame individual hate targets such as SUV's or cheap air travel (air travel is currently 2% of CO2 emmissions worldwide), as the elimination of all air travel is not going to matter a jot.

The real problem is overpopulation of the world and its hard to see how we can square that circle. World population is set to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion between now and 2050. All these people will want central heating, cheap clights etc etc and its hard to see how we can reduce CO2 emissions without a dictatorship backed up by a armed militia.

silverharp

jawlie wrote: »

The real problem is overpopulation of the world and its hard to see how we can square that circle. World population is set to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion between now and 2050. All these people will want central heating, cheap clights etc etc and its hard to see how we can reduce CO2 emissions without a dictatorship backed up by a armed militia.

maybe this could answer your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulxe1ie-vEY

lordgoat

AngryHippie wrote: »

Its not Global warming per say, that is going to be the direct problem, it is the change in climate, and climate patterns and weather patterns that have been pretty much reliable for most of recorded human history (since gilgamesh)

If anyone needs to take anything regarding global warming from this thread, these few lines sum up things very easily.

A time of change is approaching, we're too far down the road to stop it, but what we (globally) decide to do over the next 10-15 years will have a major impact on the quality of life for future generations. If we do enough now we can limit the damage and that is the best we can hope for.

AngryHippie

Don't mean to be too old school, but I'm thinking, maybe an Ark, noah style.

fictionaire

I think a post on another thread is very relevant to this discussion

I think people might be surprised about what it contains. Especially the UN bit.

jawlie

silverharp wrote: »

maybe this could answer your question
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulxe1ie-vEY

No, a cartoon on video supposed to be about Peak Oil does not answer my question.

lordgoat wrote: »

If anyone needs to take anything regarding global warming from this thread, these few lines sum up things very easily.

A time of change is approaching, we're too far down the road to stop it, but what we (globally) decide to do over the next 10-15 years will have a major impact on the quality of life for future generations. If we do enough now we can limit the damage and that is the best we can hope for.

I think we are all agreed that it’s a problem, but simply by stating that it’s a problem doesn’t really help to find a solution.

Has anyone got a solution? And, please, don’t be silly and come back and tell su we should ban SUV’s etc.

Personally, I don’t think the solution is to be found in hoping we will all recycle plastic bags or turn off lights at home. The only sensible solution seems to be to cut emissions at the power stations across the world which would could make an impact of 40% or more to global CO2 emissions.

I mean, its easier to just keep restating that we have a problem, but not so easy to put forward a sensible solution, and the guys who say its all the fault of the airline industry or SUV’s are merely repeating fashionable arguments which are not backed up with evidence.

silverharp

jawlie wrote: »

No, a cartoon on video supposed to be about Peak Oil does not answer my question.

Put simply, as oil and then gas decline, emissions will drop faster then any regeime pointing guns at its people to reduce emissions. The average decline rate expected is at least 2-3% per year, this is well in excess of anything that could be agreed at state level

ivanthehunter

You chaps are already doing something.. we talk and we understand and reach an agreement. population is the truly the prob in 1941 i believe it was only some 1.5bil, in 1962 it hit 3bil and it 2x by 2002 to 6bil..

All these humans have requirements and thats a hard fact.
When you look at how those humans acquire those necessities a deeper meaning on co2 emissions is clear..
All of us work! and we do so to buy houses and cars and life's necessities and some luxuries but the price that we pay does not reflect a balance in labour(hours) ie we'll work 25ys to pay for the house and lets say 50% of the income goes on servicing the mortgage so from this we can see that 12.5ys is spent to acquiring our home but how many man hours did it take in total to build that house?? some how i cant even imagine the worst of us DIY'ers taking any more than 2 years alone! (I like to think that I'd manage it in 18months).. after you take materials(without vat) and land cost(in terms of farmers profits for the next 75ys (at something like E250 per acre/yr?)) we are still being riped off. the extra hours that we spend working to service such bills and expenditure greatly increases our consumption of the finite resource pool and hence adds to emissions. We have to change the way in which we live--- we are truly our own worst enemy..

What ever the reason behind G.W we should act with caution!! What harm can it do????????????

One way to cut co2 would would be to turn all traffic lights to flashing amber at night ie After 730pm to allow free flow of traffic and avoid unnecessary engine idling and increase mph/kph
THIS COULD BE DONE QUICKLY AND EASLY....

Our government is set on providing a public transport system that cripples the car. this attitude is madness as roads will be needed until we develop space craft or at the very least a proper 1st world public transportation system which would involve finding space to build such a network..Where? They can put it where they should have put the luas... UNDERGROUND government idiots

Look! they build BUS lanes, (not such a bad idea) but you think the fools would build bus stops that allowed the bus to pull in of the road (ie. out of the bus lane) and allow for the smooth flow of traffic behind.. kiss

When it comes to these issues the government are walking around on eggshells and won't make any truly hard calls.. f**k it pull down 300 or 3000 houses and build a good road there or a rail station..etc..

We need engineers and scientists in government and not money grabbing idiots and their follow up sons.. Take the money out of politics and with that their guaranteed 50% pensions and make it that only people who have worked in the real world for 20 years can hold a post on their pre political wage (inflation linked of course) and we'll soon have the type of country that we need.. get the AK-47 out now before its all too late..

In terms of ice melt at the poles has any body heard that to change ice at 0degC to water with no temp increase (still at 0degC) takes 80% of the energy which is required to bring water at 0 degC to 100degC?/?
If this is the case we are truly in danger when the ice caps disappear this will be a massive amount of energy released in to the system. Where will it go?
And would i be right in saying that as the ice melts is surface areas get smaller when compared to its volume and this will lead to increase in rate of melt even if temps are held at their current highs?? Do any of ye know of that rising sea levels will lead to increased planetary surface area and hence to increased heat energy capture...a feed abck loop (TAYLOR). I'm not a scientist but i want our leaders to take instruction from such qualified persons---- do i ask too much

AngryHippie

ivanthehunter wrote: »

You chaps are already doing something.. we talk and we understand and reach an agreement. population is the truly the prob in 1941 i believe it was only some 1.5bil, in 1962 it hit 3bil and it 2x by 2002 to 6bil..

So Food, drinking water and shelter are going to be the major problems that global warming present. In densely populated areas, with no means of growing food or access to clean water, Lotsa peoples gonna die. This means cities, meanwhile rural areas will be decimated by starving city dwellers pilfering whatever they can to feed their families. Wheres your AK now ??? I call it anarchy, and its a generation or two away. But I can't prove it.
Watch Rob Newmans history of oil. Its a much more entertaining way of embracing the human apocalypse than yours.

ivanthehunter

something is going to give and all creatures have their day(maybe maybe not) but for any real change we need real politicians will life skill in Eng and science

AngryHippie

ivanthehunter wrote: »

for any real change we need real politicians will life skill in Eng and science

We're screwed, nobody with that skillset has any interest in wasting their time tryin to save the ignorant majority, when they could be buying farms on high ground, building walls, growin thorny hedges and stocking up on guns and ammo..

Or spending 2-3 hours a day commuting to their **** job in the hope that their kids will be well-educated, wealthy and Healthy, instead of hungry, broke and ignorant.

So screwed....

ivanthehunter

i,m trying to be optimistic here but reading your words i can feel the realism and my hearts a dropping fast.. sounds like you be up for for that bit of land yourself and then welding the gate shut and then you'd be tending ur veg and greasing you rifle

AngryHippie

Unfortunately, I'll probably be chewin a turnip and using my rifle, But thats my bleak vision of my old age, yah. In the meantime, I'm gonna drink, be merry, get ****ed up write a book about how much craic the golden age of humans was and leave the rest up to history.

ivanthehunter

its not such a bad way of life (eat turnips and such) the place would be a lot greener if people could produce some food stuff them self.. just leave the parsnips and standard mushrooms for the mother in law as the are carinagenic if take as a large % of the diet..

the prom is you have to kill some one to get a bit of land these day and by the time you earn enough cash to do it --- well by then you'd better have your coffin built out of yew for u..
life wares u down and you(i) give up.............
may god save the polar bears and have mercy on katy french and all that sailed on her..................

AngryHippie

I'm one of the lucky ones, My name is on a bit, not much, but enough, I'm a dropout engineer, frustrated at the futility of most human activity, so I know how to plan, read scientific documents etc. Gifted at maths (im sure itll be usefull sometime) and I fcuking love living in the country, Its clean for a start, What the city needs is some muck, to clean it up.
Oh, and I plan on being cremated, The only benefit of having a coffin is locking up some c02 for a while.Oh deadly, scarface is on n2,
SWEEET

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

why can't they just find whatever plant uses the most c02, and then plants *loads* of it wherever we can?

AngryHippie

cos its weed

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

yeah, that's what I thought

ivanthehunter

sure they going to pump the c02 back into the ground to, guess what? Get the rest of the oil out.. seriously they think if they can extract it from the air they'll make it a RICHER WORLD AND GREENER (HA) by carbon sequestration

AngryHippie

I'd be convinced that an american came up with that plan, If I didn't know that they had already a plan to bring democracy to the atmosphere. You know what that means.:D

ivanthehunter

sure the yanks issued a white paper that basically said no other country was allowed stand in there way and that includes the UK.. they said that the us could not allow any country amass a force (that in a world short of oil) could
pose a threat to their national security.. you know the back of the dollar bill and the pyramid--- well the freakiest add on TV for Xmas is the garmin and its a cross between got to get a gatto gota get gatto cake and the omen watch out for the music and that little triangular symbol of the Illuminati

AngryHippie

The funny part is that their vast army won't be enough to stop their country descending into anarchy first, because the country is full of nutters with guns, and as soon as they get hungry, It'll be the alamo meets little bighorn, with a final overture of hiroshima or cambodia. Hopefully it'll have live coverage on CNN. I particularly wanna watch texas killin itself. That place is chock full of armed hicks and religious lunatics. It'd make great tv.

ivanthehunter

it already makes for great tv. i suppose that at least you wouldn't be force to watch re-runs

piraka

Looks like the polar bear survived in much warmer climates in the past.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7132220.stm

AngryHippie

Dog the bounty hunter.


What a guy
What a show

ivanthehunter

THAT FACT ARE(I THINK THAT) THE RATE OF CHANGE IS KEY TO THE DANGER IN TERMS OF WARMING EFFECTING WILD LIFE. 100K YEARS AGO THE CHANGE WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH SLOWER THEREFORE ALLOWING LAND AREAS SUCH AS THIS TO PROB HAVE 3 OR 4 DIFFERENT ECO-SYSTEMS LIKE THE UK( ENGLISH COUNTRY SIDE Vs SCOTTISH ARCTIC ) WHICH PHASED IN AND OUT OF SYNC WITH ONE ANOTHER.
NOW THEIR SEEMS TO BE ONLY 2 FOR SURE ICE PACK(SEASONAL) AND HARD ARCTIC TUNDRA. THE JAW EXAMINED IS POSITIVE NEWS FOR OPTIMISTIC PEOPLE BUT THE ONE JAW DOES NOT GIVE THE WHOLE PICTURE.. DO THE LAB BOYS KNOW IF IT WAS A POLAR REGIONS BEAR WHICH HAD THE FIBER OPTIC HAIR OF THE PRESENT CREATURES-- YOU KNOW THAT IN EVOLUTION THAT SLOWEST THING TO CHANGE IN AN ANIMAL IS THE TEETH FOLLOWED BY THE JAW..

fictionaire

Humans have been designated (by whom I hear you ask?) the problem and the enemy since we exhale CO2

So my light headed solution is to hold your breath for 30 seconds each waking hour.

If everybody in Ireland did this then we would reduce are "Carbon Footprint" by a few cubic tonnes and save a couple of polar bears.

All joking aside - has anybody noticed how much of a farce this is?

jawlie

ivanthehunter wrote: »

You chaps are already doing something.. we talk and we understand and reach an agreement. population is the truly the prob in 1941 i believe it was only some 1.5bil, in 1962 it hit 3bil and it 2x by 2002 to 6bil...

One way to cut co2 would would be to turn all traffic lights to flashing amber at night ie After 730pm to allow free flow of traffic and avoid unnecessary engine idling and increase mph/kph
THIS COULD BE DONE QUICKLY AND EASLY....

Our government is set on providing a public transport system that cripples the car. this attitude is madness as roads will be needed until we develop space craft or at the very least a proper 1st world public transportation system which would involve finding space to build such a network..Where? They can put it where they should have put the luas... UNDERGROUND government idiots

Look! they build BUS lanes, (not such a bad idea) but you think the fools would build bus stops that allowed the bus to pull in of the road (ie. out of the bus lane) and allow for the smooth flow of traffic behind.. kiss

When it comes to these issues the government are walking around on eggshells and won't make any truly hard calls.. f**k it pull down 300 or 3000 houses and build a good road there or a rail station..etc..

Do you really think the projected 9 billion people teh earth will contain by 2050 will be solved by the irish government making changes to bus lanes and traffic light signals?

bonkey

jawlie wrote: »

I think we are all agreed that it’s a problem, but simply by stating that it’s a problem doesn’t really help to find a solution.

We're not all agreed that its a problem. There are no shortage of people still out there who refuse to accept same, or simply don't care or don't believe they should need to care.

Has anyone got a solution? And, please, don’t be silly and come back and tell su we should ban SUV’s etc.

Personally, I don’t think the solution is to be found in hoping we will all recycle plastic bags or turn off lights at home.

And hence, you portray such suggestions as "silly", despite the fact that they're good ideas in and of themselves, will help, and were never proposed as complete solutions at al.

There is no single solution. There is no one thnig that if we do it, all our troubles are solved for all time. And thats a problem, because not everyone seems to accept it.

I remember Tom Clancy in some of his bokos making a comment about the US budget. "A billion here, a billion there, and soon you're talking about real money". Maybe if we looked at it the same way, we'd be better off.

The only sensible solution seems to be to cut emissions at the power stations across the world which would could make an impact of 40% or more to global CO2 emissions.

Do you have a cost-effective method to remove all of those emissions? Does anyone? If not, then its not a sensible solution - its wishful thinking.

And lets say you're right. Lets say we could do that. Why not do the other stuff as well and cut emissions by more than 40%???

I mean, its easier to just keep restating that we have a problem, but not so easy to put forward a sensible solution, and the guys who say its all the fault of the airline industry or SUV’s are merely repeating fashionable arguments which are not backed up with evidence.

I'd agree. I'd rank them up there with the guys saying its all the fault of the power stations.

My suggestion is that we aggressively persue every possibility that offers a reduction in emissions. Rather than insisting that any given interim measure is insufficient because we should hold out for some perfectly-clean option thats not possible, we take what we can, and we continue looking for more to take.

Its a game of inches. We take every inch we can, and soon we're talking real distance.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

My suggestion is that we aggressively persue every possibility that offers a reduction in emissions. Rather than insisting that any given interim measure is insufficient because we should hold out for some perfectly-clean option thats not possible, we take what we can, and we continue looking for more to take.

Its a game of inches. We take every inch we can, and soon we're talking real distance.

I think the problem is that I am not convinced a political solutions will be found. Cutting emissions contradicts so many in built human biases that I simply don’t believe that that limp wrist politicians will attack this problem in a way that will make a meaningful change. If the magic number is that emissions have to be cut by 50% in the next 20 years and the public begin to see that realistically the measures may cut by say 20% over 30 years then at that point it doesn’t matter, Unlike other political issues like cutting crime where every incremental % brings a meaningful benefit to society the same cannot be said about emission reduction.
When I listen to Minister Gormley says that Ireland needs to cut its emissions my eyes start to roll up, if on the other hand he said Ireland needs to focus on energy security and to undo the worst excesses of car dependency due to the negative effects on society in general I would be motivated to listen as the steps proposed would improve the lives of people in Ireland even if targets set were not met.

AngryHippie

silverharp wrote: »

I think the problem is that I am not convinced a political solutions will be found. [QUOTE/]
I agree, In fact I'm almost certain they wont.

if on the other hand he said Ireland needs to focus on energy security and to undo the worst excesses of car dependency due to the negative effects on society in general I would be motivated to listen as the steps proposed would improve the lives of people in Ireland even if targets set were not met.

That would be a realistic sensible approach. But what are the chances???

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

Unlike other political issues like cutting crime where every incremental % brings a meaningful benefit to society the same cannot be said about emission reduction.

Global warming, or climate change, or whatever people want to call it this week is not problem with only two outcomes. Its not the case that if we are over some chosen level, we're screwed, but if we're below it that nothing will happen.

I'm not sure how you can conclude that emission reduction brings nothing, unless you believe there's no problem with emissions at all.

...I would be motivated to listen as the steps proposed would improve the lives of people in Ireland...

Irish have to benefit from Irish sacrifices, or those sacrifices aren't worthwhile?

I could have sworn it was global climate change that was the problem, not irish climate change.

silverharp

Bonkey - Global warming, or climate change, or whatever people want to call it this week is not problem with only two outcomes. Its not the case that if we are over some chosen level, we're screwed, but if we're below it that nothing will happen.
True but within very wide bands incremental reductions don’t matter. Does it matter to anyone if the effects can be delayed for 3 weeks, 6 months or 5 years even. Not really

Bonkey - Irish have to benefit from Irish sacrifices, or those sacrifices aren't worthwhile?
I could have sworn it was global climate change that was the problem, not irish climate change.

To turn that around I would say that Irish sacrifices are meaningless if other societies benefit. For example Gormley’s incentives to switch to diesel cars in global terms has a 0 effect. Ireland cuts it’s petrol consumption thus freeing up additional petrol to be burned in China, to the extent that Irelands diesel consumption rises, I’m guessing at the margin some hospitals in Africa have to reduce the time they keep their diesel generators on. Politicians have little track record in judging cause and effect correctly and for people in Ireland if they are to “sacrifice” for the global good then there needs to be a clear cause and effect that would even make sense to a 5 year old.

ivanthehunter

jawlie wrote: »

Do you really think the projected 9 billion people teh earth will contain by 2050 will be solved by the irish government making changes to bus lanes and traffic light signals?

No not really, but should i just give up. The power of one starts with yourself and what you think is worth saving.. this power soon becomes the power of 6bil or maybe 8.5bil...

silverharp

ivanthehunter wrote: »

The power of one starts with yourself and what you think is worth saving.. this power soon becomes the power of 6bil or maybe 8.5bil...

Although his is a nice sentiment it has more in common with a religious statement which lets be honest at ony one time will only be taken seriously by less then 10% of the population. This is not good enough as a hook to hang policy on

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

Bonkey - Global warming, or climate change, or whatever people want to call it this week is not problem with only two outcomes. Its not the case that if we are over some chosen level, we're screwed, but if we're below it that nothing will happen.
True but within very wide bands incremental reductions don’t matter. Does it matter to anyone if the effects can be delayed for 3 weeks, 6 months or 5 years even. Not really

I look at it slightly differently. We've been given targets that need to be reached by 2050. Those targets, however, aren't the end-game. Like Kyoto, they are the next step. Like Kyoto, they won't fix the problem. They will slow down its onset, and reduce damage caused.

By your logic, that automatically makes them worthless. THey'll only delay things, so therefore what use are they...right? Exactly what the Americans said about Kyoto too....it's not enough to fix things, ergo its not worth doing.

Of course, the other perspective is that to get from A to B, you have to pass through the intermediate points, so sooner or later we have to meet Kyoto targets, adn sooner or later we have to meet current targets. If we meet current targets by 2050, so much the better. If we don't, then we want to meet them as soon after 2050 as we can.

Look at it from a different perspective. Imagine there's a car coming towards you at 60km/h. You know that it cannot brake in time to avoid hitting you. Would you rather that it brakes as much as it can, and hits you at perhaps 5 or 10 km/h, that it doesn't bother hitting the brakes and hits you at 60 km/h, or that it stomps on the accelerator and hits you at 100 km/h??? The sooner it brakes, the longer it delays hitting you....and your reasoning says that this is worthless cause you're going to get hit anyway. My reasoning says that the sooner it brakes, the less impact it hits me with, the less damage is done even though we can't avoid the impact.

Bonkey - Irish have to benefit from Irish sacrifices, or those sacrifices aren't worthwhile?
I could have sworn it was global climate change that was the problem, not irish climate change.

To turn that around I would say that Irish sacrifices are meaningless if other societies benefit. For example Gormley’s incentives to switch to diesel cars in global terms has a 0 effect. Ireland cuts it’s petrol consumption thus freeing up additional petrol to be burned in China, to the extent that Irelands diesel consumption rises, I’m guessing at the margin some hospitals in Africa have to reduce the time they keep their diesel generators on.

While I'm skeptical of the move to diesel, I'm even more skeptical of the reasoning you offer here.

Firstly, what will teh Chinese use instead of this petrol that they need but can't get? If they're clever....they'll use the diesel that we'll switch to. If they can't afford that, they can't afford the petrol we'll free up either. Alternately, if you want to argue that for some reason they won't get their hands on the diesel that we want to get our hands on....that leaves them with coal.

So, we have the option of us usign petrol and the chinese using coal....or us using diesel and the chinese using petrol. Its a trade of coal-usage for diesel-usage....and your logic advocates the coal usage, or assumes that the Chinese will just go "damn, there's no petrol so we can't do anything".

Secondly, the reality that you are recognising is that demand is currently greater than supply. The situation we want to get to is that demand falls to the point where supply also falls. To do that, we either need someone who can drop their demand by more than all the excess demand on teh planet, or we have to accept that to get below 100% first involves passing through situations where someone freeing up demand will not decrease usage.

So yes...if we free up petrol, it will be bought by someone else. That doesn't necessarily and automatically make it a bad idea.

Politicians have little track record in judging cause and effect correctly and for people in Ireland if they are to “sacrifice” for the global good then there needs to be a clear cause and effect that would even make sense to a 5 year old.

Sense to a 5-year old isn't needed. People will readily accept any change which saves them money with no extra effort on their part. When's the last time you saw someone, for example, complain about the cost of the insulation on their new house? When did you see someone longing for a return to the day when boilers were not insulated as standard, because they begrudge the cost of said insulation? When did you last see someone wishing their car drank fuel a bit quicker?

People moan about change. Offer them insulation for their uninsulated boiler, and they'll complain, or ignore you. Do you remember the ads on TV encouragnig just that (in the 80s)? Make it illegal to sell a house with an uninsulated boiler, and over time, more-or-less everyone will end up with an insulated boiler...with no complaints.

But I do agree that politicians have a terrible track record. The reason they have a terrible track record is because they're more inclined to worry about what Joe Bloggs will think, rather than what the experts of the relevant field(s) are telling them is the right thing to do.

And there's the rub. If we want to know where to go next....we should say to the relevant experts that we accept the existence of the problem so they can start concentrating on the solution. Then, when they present their best solution, we don't play the same ****ing guessing game again, where Joe Q Public who can barely spell the various sciences involved thinks that his opinion on what is right carries as much if not more weight than these experts.

But of course...the public won't do that...and we'll blame the scientists and politicians just like is being done today.

jawlie

bonkey wrote: »

We're not

It’s a game of inches. We take every inch we can, and soon we're talking real distance.

Who is the “we” to whom you refer?

And how do we force those who don’t agree with you and refuse to comply?

What do we do it those who refuse to comply are whole countries, like the USA, or India, Or China or Zimbabwe, and so on? Taxing SUV’s out of Dublin 4 really will make no impact on global emissions, however much it might be a fashionable idea.

bonkey wrote: »

I look at it slightly differently. We've been given targets that need to be reached by 2050.

2050 is, coincidentally, the year by which the world population is set to increate to 9 000 000 000, from the current 6 500 000 000. What will that increase do to emissions?

Unilateral action by Ireland is simply pissing in the wind, to use an unfortunate, but illuminating, analogy.

bonkey

jawlie wrote: »

Who is the “we” to whom you refer?

Mankind. I refer you back to my comments previously in this thread that part of the problem is that people won't stop looking at this as a series of national problems.

And how do we force those who don’t agree with you and refuse to comply?

I'm in favour of doing nothing, letting it all go to hell, and letting future generations (and potentially our own generation) suffer down the road. At least we can say it was the fault of those we thought we couldn't convince, rather than our own refusal to even make the attempt.

What about you? Do you think we should just give up, or are you optimistic/crazy enough to think its worth even looking for a solution?

2050 is, coincidentally, the year by which the world population is set to increate to 9 000 000 000, from the current 6 500 000 000. What will that increase do to emissions?

The targets set were relative to the total emissions in 1990, not the per capita emissions.

Given your level of interest in the problem, I'm frankly amazed that you either didn't know that, or couldn't figure out the implications.

Unilateral action by Ireland is simply pissing in the wind, to use an unfortunate, but illuminating, analogy.

I refer you once again to my comment that part of the problem is that people won't stop looking at this as a series of national problems.

Then again...given that the world is only just getting over the denial that the problem exists, its hardly susprising that the effort this far has been going towards gaining acceptance of the existence of the problem.

If, in 2005, we had the mindset that you seem to be holding today, where would we be? We'd have decided that we can't force people into believing in Global Warming, and concluded that there's no point in trying.

Today, we're almost at the point where acceptance of the reality of the problem is widespread enough. Maybe we should allow some time where people start looking for a solution before bemoaning the lack of one.

AngryHippie

Absolutely.

I'll be wathcin Rob Newman, oiling my AK and waiting for this miracle of which you speak

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

I look at it slightly differently. We've been given targets that need to be reached by 2050. Those targets, however, aren't the end-game. Like Kyoto, they are the next step. Like Kyoto, they won't fix the problem. They will slow down its onset, and reduce damage caused.

I got a bit lost when you brought coal into the argument but can we agree the of the 85mbd of oil produced the products are fairly fixed in terms of diesel, petrol etc. and that for a country to switch between petrol and diesel does not change global CO2 even if on paper it makes Irelands emissions look lower. In the developing world there can be substitution between oil and coal for electricity depending on price and infrastructure, but there are also shortages, power cuts and petrol riots as seen in China
That the goal has to be reducing consumption of oil and coal to the point that oil and coal fields would be left untapped or produced at lower rates then technically feasible. For his to work it would either mean that the price would be very low due to lack of demand or that taxes would be high to reduce demand. One question I have is, what developing country in Africa or South America is not going to use cheap oil to try and raise it’s standard of living? As long as there are a couple of billion people with below average consumption they are going to soak up any savings made in the west. You may end up with a situation where in global terms we efficiently use any maximum level of output of oil which is great for everyone but does not solve CO2 emissions

I agree and support any measure that is along the lines of invest now and enjoy the savings going forward for instance there is no reason why the average house in Ireland could not be built to Swedish standards where the heating system can be a toaster left on for half an hour a day.

bonkey

silverharp wrote: »

One question I have is, what developing country in Africa or South America is not going to use cheap oil to try and raise it’s standard of living?

Once again, I will reiterate the point about thinking nationally being part of the problem.

Lets say you were the supreme ruler of suich a country. You have a number of choices:

1) Burn wood and dung. This, after all, was a necessary step for developed nations to have historically passed through.
2) Burn coal. This, after all, was a necessary step for developed nations to have historically passed through
3) Avail of the incentives today's developed nations are offering you to not burn coal. This was a step not available for today's developed nations when they were at your stage, but is possible today.

So...would you burn coal and get no international funding? Or would you agree to allow funding, injections of aid, subsidised development of clean energy so that you weren't burning coal?

If its a problem we want to solve, we can solve it in such a way that these nations you refer to would have to willingly choose to reject the best option available in order to burn coal. This would fly in the face of their reasons for using coal in the first place.

As long as there are a couple of billion people with below average consumption they are going to soak up any savings made in the west.

No, they're not. If they're below-average consumption, then there's a clearly-defined limit of what they can afford to soak up.

But again...this ties back into the basic principle that if we want people to stop using dirty fuels, we need to give them an incentive. We need to make it more attractive for them to do something else than to soak up the slack.

The problem is that up to now, no-ones interested in doing such things. We're too busy being greedy.

Ultimately, the problem with Global Warming is that developed society is too short-term greedy to want to solve the problem. We want someone else to pay for the mess we created....so we can reap the benefits. Meanwhile, when presented with the option to pay to avoid someone else creating more of the same mess, we're unwilling to do that either.

silverharp

bonkey wrote: »

So...would you burn coal and get no international funding? Or would you agree to allow funding, injections of aid, subsidised development of clean energy so that you weren't burning coal?

If its a problem we want to solve, we can solve it in such a way that these nations you refer to would have to willingly choose to reject the best option available in order to burn coal. This would fly in the face of their reasons for using coal in the first place.

I am skeptical that there will be enough transfer of wealth from rich to poor to make this work

bonkey wrote: »

No, they're not. If they're below-average consumption, then there's a clearly-defined limit of what they can afford to soak up.

I would expect Chindia alone to soak up any surpluses if present trends continue,

bonkey wrote: »

But again...this ties back into the basic principle that if we want people to stop using dirty fuels, we need to give them an incentive. We need to make it more attractive for them to do something else than to soak up the slack.

The problem is that up to now, no-ones interested in doing such things. We're too busy being greedy.

Ultimately, the problem with Global Warming is that developed society is too short-term greedy to want to solve the problem. We want someone else to pay for the mess we created....so we can reap the benefits. Meanwhile, when presented with the option to pay to avoid someone else creating more of the same mess, we're unwilling to do that either.

you can incentivise more sustainable behavior but the world is just too complicated to come up with a generational solution. say for instance oil triples in price over the next decade, national interests would dictate that countries would develop tar sand oil, coal to oil etc. or switch to coal from oil.

jawlie

bonkey wrote: »

Mankind. I refer you back to my comments previously in this thread that part of the problem is that people won't stop looking at this as a series of national problems.



I'm in favour of doing nothing, letting it all go to hell, and letting future generations (and potentially our own generation) suffer down the road. At least we can say it was the fault of those we thought we couldn't convince, rather than our own refusal to even make the attempt.

What about you? Do you think we should just give up, or are you optimistic/crazy enough to think its worth even looking for a solution?

I’m in favour of looking for a solution, although I am a pragmatist and know that good intentions are not enough. I notice you don’t offer a solution, but merely suggest we remain optimistic and look for one.

I agree that it is more than a series of national problems, although it’s a bit of a leap to expect individual government to look at the problem in terms outside their competence. Certainly, it seems difficult, without a world government, to see how it is going to be solved without the cooperation of national governments.

The problem, as we have seen over the last two weeks in Bali, is that it seems impossible to reach agreement on anything specific, as national governments (they are the ones who can make decisions) simply can’t agree to anything apart from issuing platitudes and statements of good intentions.

bonkey wrote: »

The targets set were relative to the total emissions in 1990, not the per capita emissions.

Given your level of interest in the problem, I'm frankly amazed that you either didn't know that, or couldn't figure out the implications.
.

The targets were, indeed, set as total emissions, and your frank amazement is misplaced.
My point is that the problem of CO2 is caused largely by human consumption, and with the world population set to increase from 6 billion to 9 billion, then that’s half as many people again who want to consume and eat meat and drive cars and fly abroad on holidays and build houses and turn up the central heating etc etc etc etc etc.

Of course one way of stopping them doing that is by keeping them in abject poverty in China & India & Africa and Asia & South America. The problem is, their governments all want to develop their economies to imitate ours – its happening already. What is that going to do for total emissions?

silverharp

jawlie wrote: »

Of course one way of stopping them doing that is by keeping them in abject poverty in China & India & Africa and Asia & South America. The problem is, their governments all want to develop their economies to imitate ours – its happening already. What is that going to do for total emissions?

there is a limit to growth set by nature which will play into this, the main question for the next 30 years is how the coming resource wars will play out. I actually think it is less then probable that the planet will reach 9bn

jawlie

silverharp wrote: »

there is a limit to growth set by nature which will play into this, the main question for the next 30 years is how the coming resource wars will play out. I actually think it is less then probable that the planet will reach 9bn

Thats interesting that you think we will not reach 9 billion. How many do you think we will reach and what do you think will happen to stop us getting to 9 billion by 2050 , and beyond?

AngryHippie

If this issue is boiling down to resource/population problem, rather than C02 directly, then Stop all child benenfits for 3rd and subsequent children as and from now, make contraception free. Make Preventative surgery after 2nd child free.
Demographics sorted.
Population curbed.
Education problem sorted.
This is just and idea, spurred by the book freakonomics, and the chapter on the falling crime levels in the US after the abortion legalization.

Mike 1972

Getting back to the water vapour thing isint wind a big factor in evaporation

global warming = more wind/storms = more water vapor ?????