[Corey USA]

here is an example of why relying on technology is a sure fire way to do more damage to our environment than simply reducing the amount we consume

bazil just gave the initial permission to dam the amazon! in its tempt to use technology to meet its carbon foot print.
http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0710-madeira.html

economic growth = exponential consumption increase.......= more damage to planet in shorter period of time.

[Pecker]

I disagree.

The government announced a few months ago that it wanted to build a string of wind turbines around the country to supply the equivalent of all our domestic energy needs.

Now that may not manage it, or there may be problems, but let's take it at face value. Firstly, it's definitely do-able. Secondly, if they do it, then we'll see a massive reduction in our carbon footprint.

If we don't do it and rely on 'cutting back', where will it get us. To meet our targets we need to reduce consumption to c.40% of current levels. A BBC News reporter and his family tried it out to see what sort of change was needed. No cars. No holidays involving a flight. No hi-fi, tv, etc.

Listen, in case anyone was in any doubt, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I mean I'm not happy with the situation, but I'm not going back to the middle ages just to save the government an eminently affordable amount of money.

And it's definitely not going to happen when the government could reduce this by not 40% but 100% by investing in wind farms - the public simply won't wear it. BTW, the government's plan for wind power was going to cost c.£22 billion. They announced a few days ago that we were going to have to spend over £70 billion on decommissioning nuclear stations.

Steve W

[eric pisch]

wind farms, great till theres no wind ...

[Pecker]

There are all sorts of alternative ways of storing energy.

Just for starters - in Wales they have this big lake. They pump the water to the top with 'unused' electricity when the demand is low, then release it through turbines when demand is high - sort of like a big battery.

Ultimately, how we do it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you give Joe Public the choice between giving up a large part of his western lifestyle or flooding the Amazon, he'll flood the Amazon.

You might not like it, I might not like it, but there'll always be an option to giving things up, and that's the option the voters will opt for.

The OP talks about damaging the environment. Modern man couldn't care less about the environment unless it immediately impacts on him. Kill a few wading birds in Norfolk? No worries! Damage a view in the Lake District? Fair enough!

What on earth makes anyone think otherwise? Tell modern man that he'll be underwater, and he might care, because that impacts on him directly. But he'll always take the easy way out.

If environmentalists keep offering 'hair-shirt' as the only alternative he'll go nuclear, so I'd be very, very careful about insisting that cutting back is the only way out.

Steve W

[ad47uk]

Originally Posted by eric pisch

wind farms, great till theres no wind ...

Correct and since the power stations have to be ready to take over when the wind drops, I doubt the energy saved will really justify the noise and the unpleasant loss of views caused by these wind farms. Then there is the cost.

These people who thinks these wind farms are a good idea should live close to one.

[splatz]

You are absolutely right - no one is going to take a step backwards and give up things they enjoy.

On a brighter note I do think that technology will eventually find a way.

After all when mankind first started generating power it was through burning wood. This changed to burning coal, which then led to burning oil followed by burning gas. Now we can harness the power of the atom, but also harness wind, wave, sun and water to various degrees of efficiency.

Technology has refined each of these energy sources over time. Take oil as an example. The first use of oil was derived from coal (very yucky) but technology eventually discovered natural oil and developed how to refine the raw crude into all the variants we know today.

In the past 100 years mankind has invented many amazing things that we take for granted today that would astound anyone living 100 years ago. Take the computer as an example - from the size of a house to the size of a microchip.

So things that would astound us today could be taken for granted 100 years from now. Miniature nuclear fission reactors to power you home or mobile anyone?

We use carbon scrubbers in space and in submarines, etc., and a recent report suggested we could develop land based carbon scrubbers albeit we would need them on a very large scale with some means to store the captured carbon http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7429562.stm

So I believe that technology will eventually find away - it just takes the will and lots of money - something governments don't seem to have, which surprises me given the voracity of statements coming from government telling me about how bad things are.

Originally Posted by Pecker

I disagree.

The government announced a few months ago that it wanted to build a string of wind turbines around the country to supply the equivalent of all our domestic energy needs.

Now that may not manage it, or there may be problems, but let's take it at face value. Firstly, it's definitely do-able. Secondly, if they do it, then we'll see a massive reduction in our carbon footprint.

If we don't do it and rely on 'cutting back', where will it get us. To meet our targets we need to reduce consumption to c.40% of current levels. A BBC News reporter and his family tried it out to see what sort of change was needed. No cars. No holidays involving a flight. No hi-fi, tv, etc.

Listen, in case anyone was in any doubt, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I mean I'm not happy with the situation, but I'm not going back to the middle ages just to save the government an eminently affordable amount of money.

And it's definitely not going to happen when the government could reduce this by not 40% but 100% by investing in wind farms - the public simply won't wear it. BTW, the government's plan for wind power was going to cost c.£22 billion. They announced a few days ago that we were going to have to spend over £70 billion on decommissioning nuclear stations.

Steve W

[johntheexpat]

Is it really that hard to address the equation that Corey gave us in the OP?


economic growth = exponential consumption increase.......= more damage to planet in shorter period of time.

Why does economic growth result in exponential consumption increase?

Break that cycle and the problem becomes solvable. But it may involve a perceived loss in personal freedom.

Q: How do you reduce by half the amount of petrol used when driving to work?
A: Car share.

Q: How do you reduce by half the amount of energy used to heat your home?
A: Spend money on insulation.

Q: How do you reduce the amount of fossil fuel used by aircraft?
A: Well the French have done it! Air France announced recently that they are closing their Paris-Lyon route because they can't compete (on any level, speed, cost, efficiency) with modern TGVs. Which are electric. And French electric = nuclear.

Q: How can society reduce the amount of energy used at work?
A: More efficient buildings. LA and San Fransico seem to be in a race as to whom can corner the technology in low energy buildings. At the moment, most new build is constructed with only the construction cost as a consideration, the on-going running costs are not considered. Change that so that there are tax breaks given to efficient building construction.

Its actually easy to massively reduce consumption. But you may have to give up the freedom of your choice of music on the journey to work, or the freedom to get blathered on Friday night because you spent the money on insulation. The freedom of setting off from Paris to Lyon by air, which would be a real pain if you have just flown in from London. Or you pension fund may have slightly reduced returns from its building companies portfolio, because they have to spend a bit more on building decent buildings, which reduces their profits by a small margin.

Small but significant nibbles at your freedom in return for a large reduction in consumption. But I guess it is still too much for most people.

[Corey USA]

High technology is the consumption of resources which increases with the more exotic technology. Usually the more exotic tech requires rare elements WHICH IS NOT RENEWABLE.

I am not saying get rid of all tech Keep the necessities its the luxury thats has to go because it is where we can spare getting rid of it. The areas where we can't do without like heating cooling and such which are necessity to a degree is where technology can really play a role.

Pecker those wind turbines need concrete and steel and other exotic materials which turn out to do a lot more damage in there production than originally thought by those proposed those plans in the first place. reality is we don't have the right technology and we don't have the time to actually develop it in time to save us. We as a species are too Dumb to play GOD, which is exactly what we are trying to do by modifying our environment with the use of technology so we can keep are conveniences and luxuries .

To add to john's comment more people = less freedom, Less people = more freedom.
because there is more resources per person with fewer people to share it with. Since that is not the case we must do with less per person in order to find the sustainable level that earth's eco system can support.

[Corey USA]

Originally Posted by splatz

You are absolutely right - no one is going to take a step backwards and give up things they enjoy.

On a brighter note I do think that technology will eventually find a way.

After all when mankind first started generating power it was through burning wood. This changed to burning coal, which then led to burning oil followed by burning gas. Now we can harness the power of the atom, but also harness wind, wave, sun and water to various degrees of efficiency.

Technology has refined each of these energy sources over time. Take oil as an example. The first use of oil was derived from coal (very yucky) but technology eventually discovered natural oil and developed how to refine the raw crude into all the variants we know today.

In the past 100 years mankind has invented many amazing things that we take for granted today that would astound anyone living 100 years ago. Take the computer as an example - from the size of a house to the size of a microchip.

So things that would astound us today could be taken for granted 100 years from now. Miniature nuclear fission reactors to power you home or mobile anyone?

We use carbon scrubbers in space and in submarines, etc., and a recent report suggested we could develop land based carbon scrubbers albeit we would need them on a very large scale with some means to store the captured carbon http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7429562.stm

So I believe that technology will eventually find away - it just takes the will and lots of money - something governments don't seem to have, which surprises me given the voracity of statements coming from government telling me about how bad things are.

NO one? I have given up things I enjoy for the better of the whole....

We do not have the means to turn gas co2 into solid co2 which is the only way it would work.

There is only ONE sure fire way to remove CO2 that is DO NOT PUT IT THERE TO BEGIN WITH. Which means Till that tech comes along we have to stop putting it into the air in the first place to let the research catch up with reality. The tech we need is not going to be here for another 50-100years. It takes 10-25 years of researching and planning, 5-25 years to develop another 25 years to get the tech mainstream. That is if the eco system doesn't change or the world economy doesn't collapse or we don't have a world war for dwindling resources such as water and food which is looking more possible within the next 2-10 years.

[y2k]

There should be a lot more underwater tidal turbines in the U.K. because we are surrounded by water. The worlds largest underwater turbine was installed in strangford lough in N.I. a couple of months ago .

[splatz]

Originally Posted by Corey USA

reality is we don't have the right technology and we don't have the time to actually develop it in time to save us.

That is the sort of emotional statement that sensationalises the issue because it is not based on science or scientific principle.

The current climate models used by the IPCC, documented in their 4th Assessment, vary based on the variables used and assumptions made. Even so, the IPCC best estimate predicts a global mean projected temperature increase of between 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

So only a few degrees over a period of nearly 100 years. Ignoring the unscientific temperature used as the benchmarch to measure and project against (the mythical "global mean") a few degrees increase over a long period of time is hardly something we need to be saved from.

To put this in context, the average temperature in southern Spain is about 8 degrees Celcius higher than the UK but the Spanish do not need to be saved. So that temperature difference is twice that of the IPCC projected temperature for the end of the century - the Spanish are doing alright and brits flock there every year.

[splatz]

Actually we do have the means to turn CO2 gas into solid - just not the means yet to do it in the volumes required. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7429562.stm

There is plenty of active interesting, reasearch going on looking into ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere:

http://technology.newscientist.com/a...into-fuel.html

A lot can happen in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years. No one can imagine how much. I am sure you can name 10 things you have today that you take for granted that you could not have envisioned just 10 years ago.

Originally Posted by Corey USA

NO one? I have given up things I enjoy for the better of the whole....

We do not have the means to turn gas co2 into solid co2 which is the only way it would work.

There is only ONE sure fire way to remove CO2 that is DO NOT PUT IT THERE TO BEGIN WITH. Which means Till that tech comes along we have to stop putting it into the air in the first place to let the research catch up with reality. The tech we need is not going to be here for another 50-100years. It takes 10-25 years of researching and planning, 5-25 years to develop another 25 years to get the tech mainstream. That is if the eco system doesn't change or the world economy doesn't collapse or we don't have a world war for dwindling resources such as water and food which is looking more possible within the next 2-10 years.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

That is the sort of emotional statement that sensationalises the issue because it is not based on science or scientific principle.

The current climate models used by the IPCC, documented in their 4th Assessment, vary based on the variables used and assumptions made. Even so, the IPCC best estimate predicts a global mean projected temperature increase of between 1.8 to 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

So only a few degrees over a period of nearly 100 years. Ignoring the unscientific temperature used as the benchmarch to measure and project against (the mythical "global mean") a few degrees increase over a long period of time is hardly something we need to be saved from.

To put this in context, the average temperature in southern Spain is about 8 degrees Celcius higher than the UK but the Spanish do not need to be saved. So that temperature difference is twice that of the IPCC projected temperature for the end of the century - the Spanish are doing alright and brits flock there every year.

You have misunderstood the problem. The problem is not that the average temperature will be 1.8 to 4.0 deg C higher per se.

The problem is that the climate will change significantly, and in ways we cannot always predict terribly well. We do know that quite minor changes in climate can be very expensive ("wrong kind of snow" and so on).

[Sonic67]

"wrong kind of snow" had nothing to do with global warming.

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

There's lots of different types of snow. Some is icy, some is powdery. This snow happened to be soft and powdery. Other days it wasn't. For that matter two sunny days or two rainy days aren't the same either. Are you basing your GW opinions on stuff like this?

[splatz]

The problem isn't about misunderstanding, the problem is about the 'problem' - no one can define it.

The climate is a chaotic system so cannot be modelled, therefore variables have to created and assumptions have to be made to make the models produce some kind of output that produces numbers to be interpreted. Too many people confuse chaotic with complex. You can modal complex but not chaos (and yes I know about chaos theory).

There is the famous Drake equation from the 1960s to estimate the number of advanced civilizations in the galaxy.

N=N*fp ne fl fi fc fL

Where N is the number of stars in the Milky Way galaxy; fp is the fraction with planets; ne is the number of planets per star capable of supporting life; fl is the fraction of planets where life evolves; fi is the fraction where intelligent life evolves; and fc is the fraction that communicates; and fL is the fraction of the planet’s life during which the communicating civilizations live.

The problem with this equation is that none of the terms can be known. As a result, the Drake equation can have any value from “billions and billions” to zero. An expression that can mean anything means nothing.

Climate modelling suffers from a similar problem - you cannot model chaos. The variables and assumptions in the climate models are based on order and structure, and at their heart are the simplistic theories that more people will produce more CO2 and more CO2 = higher temperatures. But the atmosphere and our climate is far from simple. If it was simple, weather forecasters would get it right 100% of the time (and yes I know that the weather is different to climate).

Don't get me wrong though - I absolutely believe that reducing our reliance on fossils fuels is a great idea. Firstly, pollution is terrible, secondly the cost of petrol at the moment is just the tip of the iceberg (assuming icebergs haven't all melted) - this planet still has plenty of oil to extract, but you can guarantee that when reserves do significantly dry up you can expect the price to rocket much higher, and thirdly there will be a world of trouble as nations do everything they can to secure the remaining reserves. Just look at China's investment in African nations - the western world doesn't get a look in. Of course China is securing a slice of Africa's oil reserves. Then we have the US/UK involvement in the middle east - obviously oil was a driver for the invasions. So when oil dries up the risk of more wars will go up.

Also I absolutely want to reduce my reliance on fossil fuels - it costs me too much so I do everything I can to not waste it (home fully insulation, double glazing, energy efficient appliances, nothing left on standby, solar water heating, etc)

I also believe that we have a warmer climate in the UK now than we did 20 years ago - but I haven't seen anything to convince me that this is all due to our increasing production of CO2.

There is plenty of data to review but sorting the chaff from the wheat is becoming increasingly more difficult mainly because of media obsession and simplification.

I would be nice for one of these models to make a prediction for 10 years time but not reveal it, just to see how close their prediction was.

Originally Posted by andykn

You have misunderstood the problem. The problem is not that the average temperature will be 1.8 to 4.0 deg C higher per se.

The problem is that the climate will change significantly, and in ways we cannot always predict terribly well. We do know that quite minor changes in climate can be very expensive ("wrong kind of snow" and so on).

[johntheexpat]

You have summed up the conundrum nicely. The science is breathtakingly complex. And some of it may well be shown to be flawed. But....
Not only is the science complex, the concerns about GW come from a broad range of starting points. And together they point to a problem.
If we wait for another 50 years to see if the science is right, it may be too late to slow it down.
If we start doing something soon, then the effects on the global economy will not be much, but will make a difference to the future.
And if the investment is made and GW is shown to be wrong, then how big a problem is investing in efficiency (which is basically what we are being asked to do)?
The problem is persuading people to cut consumption. Oil prices double and western countries reduce their consumption by how much? Not a lot. So what will it take?

[splatz]

One of the excuses governments make for not investing much money is that it is not in the interests of the economy. Yet I remember a report that was released a little while ago that suggested by investing money now, it will be a lot cheaper than investing money in the future. The problem was the investment being suggested now was still a huge amount of money so no government has made much of an effort.

Even the IPCC is powerless - it is not a scientific organisation, it is a political organisation that listens to scientist and then haggles with governments over the wording, tone of language and targets in the reports. Because of this, there are very few commitments from member countries.

What I find most frustrating is our government says one thing but doesn't really do anything. Take the whole carbon trading system for example - what a complete waste of time. Companies can produce as much CO2 as they like as long as they pay for it. The scheme doesn't encourage businesses to reduce emissions. Businesses are in the business of making money for now not saving money for the future. It is an abhorrent attitude because when oil starts to run out these businesses will cease to exist but not before they have radically increased prices to us consumers (prime example is the gas and electricity power companies who supply us with energy - they still make massive profits because they fleece us unchecked).

What needs to happen is huge amounts of investment in alternate energy sources so we are not held hostage to the oil markets. There are only a small handful of examples where governments say they are going to do something, irrespective of the cost and then deliver - one of those was the moon landings in the late 60s and 70s.

Imagine what would happen if a cheap and readily available energy source was invented that made fossil fuels redundant. The oil industry would collapse almost over night and certain countries who have benefited from oil will have no market. This is why Dubai has started to invest huge amounts of money into tourism - even they can see that when oil runs out they will have no income, so they are investing in an alternate income.

So, yes a very complex subject. If governments don't do something now they will do it later, and if they do something later they will force us to pay for it.

I can't answer your last question "what will it take?". I am hoping technology will find a way - the sooner the better.

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

You have summed up the conundrum nicely. The science is breathtakingly complex. And some of it may well be shown to be flawed. But....
Not only is the science complex, the concerns about GW come from a broad range of starting points. And together they point to a problem.
If we wait for another 50 years to see if the science is right, it may be too late to slow it down.
If we start doing something soon, then the effects on the global economy will not be much, but will make a difference to the future.
And if the investment is made and GW is shown to be wrong, then how big a problem is investing in efficiency (which is basically what we are being asked to do)?
The problem is persuading people to cut consumption. Oil prices double and western countries reduce their consumption by how much? Not a lot. So what will it take?

[Stephen Wilde]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

You have summed up the conundrum nicely. The science is breathtakingly complex. And some of it may well be shown to be flawed. But....
Not only is the science complex, the concerns about GW come from a broad range of starting points. And together they point to a problem.
If we wait for another 50 years to see if the science is right, it may be too late to slow it down.
If we start doing something soon, then the effects on the global economy will not be much, but will make a difference to the future.
And if the investment is made and GW is shown to be wrong, then how big a problem is investing in efficiency (which is basically what we are being asked to do)?
The problem is persuading people to cut consumption. Oil prices double and western countries reduce their consumption by how much? Not a lot. So what will it take?

Investing in efficiency and research into additional energy sources can only be good. Likewise anything that reduces pollution.

None of those issues has anything to do with CO2 or climate change.

We are being asked to submit to worldwide energy rationing on the basis of a falsehood about CO2.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

The problem isn't about misunderstanding, the problem is about the 'problem' - no one can define it.

I can.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to be warmer than it would otherwise be by about 30 deg C,

Man is adding to that CO2.

That causes the planet to be hotter than it would normally be if we weren't adding the CO2.

That will change the climate and our western economies will struggle to cope with the changed climate.

What we can't do very well is quantify the change, but we can be sure enough that it will change and that the change will be expensive.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Stephen Wilde

We are being asked to submit to worldwide energy rationing on the basis of a falsehood about CO2.

...on the basis of, in your opinion, a falsehood about CO2.

[splatz]

Now I agree with you that man is adding more CO2. I just don't agree that this is causing the planet to be warmer right now - although in time it make a difference assuming that CO2 was the only thing that would cause a warming.

I would be more worried by water vapour because there is so much more of it (between 1 and 4% of the atmosphere) that has a much bigger, much more efficient and effective way of controlling the temperature of the planet.

I would also be more worried by methane as this is generally agreed by scientists to be a more potent greenhouse gas.

The atmosphere contains 0.03% CO2 or 383ppmv (parts per million by volume) and man made contribution (anthropogenic) is unknown. Yes - unknown (surprised me too). Scientist do know mankind is producing more CO2 but there is lots of (healthy and not so healthy) debate as to what this might mean. Depending on which report you read the figure for the anthropogenic contribution varies wildly. On the web you will see figures that range from 1.1% to 50% (even quoted by the IPCC). That is a huge margin of error.

So why is it unknown? Because the only thing that we can measure is the concentration actually in the atmosphere. We can take a good guess about how much CO2 man generates, but we cannot measure how much CO2 is absorbed or taken out of the atmosphere which is why all of the reports you will see have to make assumptions and guesses. To illustrate this, lets say man produces 50% of the CO2, which in turn 40% is absorbed or removed from the atmosphere by natural processes (assuming you can measure the removal) - then the net addition would be 10%.

Now I made the removal figure up so don't take that seriously - but it illustrates the point.

So if science generally accepts they still know little (even though they are learning more), how can any of us be so sure right now?

The only thing we can be sure about is things change all the time - there is no such thing as a natural balance and there never will. The world we live in has been changing all the time ever since it was first created - and man wasn't around then to influence it, so why is mankind so arrogant to think it is causing change right now and that mankind can reverse that change? Turning it on its head, if an ice age came along, would we blame this on our activities and would be have the capability to prevent it?

Originally Posted by andykn

I can.

CO2 in the atmosphere causes the planet to be warmer than it would otherwise be by about 30 deg C,

Man is adding to that CO2.

That causes the planet to be hotter than it would normally be if we weren't adding the CO2.

That will change the climate and our western economies will struggle to cope with the changed climate.

What we can't do very well is quantify the change, but we can be sure enough that it will change and that the change will be expensive.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

Now I agree with you that man is adding more CO2. I just don't agree that this is causing the planet to be warmer right now - although in time it make a difference assuming that CO2 was the only thing that would cause a warming.

I would be more worried by water vapour because there is so much more of it (between 1 and 4% of the atmosphere) that has a much bigger, much more efficient and effective way of controlling the temperature of the planet.

I would also be more worried by methane as this is generally agreed by scientists to be a more potent greenhouse gas.

The atmosphere contains 0.03% CO2 or 383ppmv (parts per million by volume) and man made contribution (anthropogenic) is unknown. Yes - unknown (surprised me too). Scientist do know mankind is producing more CO2 but there is lots of (healthy and not so healthy) debate as to what this might mean. Depending on which report you read the figure for the anthropogenic contribution varies wildly. On the web you will see figures that range from 1.1% to 50% (even quoted by the IPCC). That is a huge margin of error.

So why is it unknown? Because the only thing that we can measure is the concentration actually in the atmosphere. We can take a good guess about how much CO2 man generates, but we cannot measure how much CO2 is absorbed or taken out of the atmosphere which is why all of the reports you will see have to make assumptions and guesses. To illustrate this, lets say man produces 50% of the CO2, which in turn 40% is absorbed or removed from the atmosphere by natural processes (assuming you can measure the removal) - then the net addition would be 10%.

Now I made the removal figure up so don't take that seriously - but it illustrates the point.

So if science generally accepts they still know little (even though they are learning more), how can any of us be so sure right now?

The only thing we can be sure about is things change all the time - there is no such thing as a natural balance and there never will. The world we live in has been changing all the time ever since it was first created - and man wasn't around then to influence it, so why is mankind so arrogant to think it is causing change right now and that mankind can reverse that change? Turning it on its head, if an ice age came along, would we blame this on our activities and would be have the capability to prevent it?

We know how much CO2 we produce, we know how much is in the atmosphere and we know how quickly the amount in the atmosphere is growing. To suggest that some, as yet unknown, mechanism will reverse that rise whilst we still add CO2 to the atmosphere is not reasonable.

As far as I am aware, man does not produce enough water vapour to make a significant difference to that which is already in the atmosphere. That's the big difference with CO2, with CO2 the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere we know makes a significant difference to the amount that is already there. I don't recognise either your 1.1% or 50% - I suspect you have taken the wrong figures out of context.

Something is causing the panet to be warmer now, there's no significant correlation with solar activity, nor any other mechanism we know about, except CO2 levels, where there is a correlation.

Other things may contribute, the seasons cause temperature changes, but there is still and underlying rise that has to come from our CO2. I have seen no figures for man made methane that show it is a significant contributor.

[splatz]

We don't know how much CO2 man produces - we have a rough idea how much we produce. Although this may seem like a semantic issue, the distinction is important.

Calculating figures for calculating the amount of CO2 figures are extrapolated in the same way broadcasting figures for Eastenders are extrapolated. You take a sample set of data, manipulate the data using statistical techniques to remove anomalies, then scale up to produce a representative figure.

And yes scientist do have a good idea about how fast the CO2 levels have increase - around 80 ppmv over the last 200 years or so. It is not lot when compared to the volume of atmosphere it is diluted in. A simple analogy is putting one drop of red ink in the ocean - it is not going to turn the ocean red.

What scientist are struggling to show is how a minute change to the concentration of the atmosphere can have a profound change to global temperatures.

As to unknown mechanisms to reverse the rise: Trying to understand the processes is a very important area of research - CO2 levels have ebbed and flowed many times over time (based on ice core data). Scientists can only guess and theorize as to why. The one thing scientist do know is that when it went up in the past it eventually came down - and man had nothing to do with it back then.

There is a lot more about our planet and how it "works" that scientist still have little or no understanding of. It is only in our recent history that scientists are learning more about the effect of the major oceanic currents.

Take plate tectonics for example, everyone knows about this and takes it for granted. But did you know that this is a relatively new theory developed in the late 20th century? In the 1960 the theory of the time was Sea Floor Spreading and in the early part of the 20th Century the theory was Continental Drift. Prior to that no one had a clue.

So while you say Solar activity doesn't make a significant contribution we do not know for sure yet - there are as many studies for as there are against. Only time will tell as we move from solar minimum (now) to the next solar maximum in 2011. You can be sure scientists will be watching closely so there will be more data to analyse. If it was already a done deal (i.e little or no impact) then there wouldn't be such an interest in this as there is.

As for my figures, a simple google search for "anthropogenic contribution of CO2". Many figures are quoted in the search results - some vary depending on whether water vapour is factored in. It is worth mentioning that the IPCC isn't specific about it either - they simply provide illustrations of varying amounts and then pick one that they think is most likely.

And while man doesn't contribute to water vapour, water vapour has a massive influence over our climate than CO2 would ever do.

In my opinion, the oceanic research is the most interesting and is more likely to help us understand how our climate works - after all earth is 5/7 water so must have some major contribution.

The planet is a very complex, chaotic place and fixating on CO2 could quite easily obscure some other process. Something caused CO2 to reduce in our past and mankind wasn't around then.

Originally Posted by andykn

We know how much CO2 we produce, we know how much is in the atmosphere and we know how quickly the amount in the atmosphere is growing. To suggest that some, as yet unknown, mechanism will reverse that rise whilst we still add CO2 to the atmosphere is not reasonable.

As far as I am aware, man does not produce enough water vapour to make a significant difference to that which is already in the atmosphere. That's the big difference with CO2, with CO2 the amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere we know makes a significant difference to the amount that is already there. I don't recognise either your 1.1% or 50% - I suspect you have taken the wrong figures out of context.

Something is causing the planet to be warmer now, there's no significant correlation with solar activity, nor any other mechanism we know about, except CO2 levels, where there is a correlation.

Other things may contribute, the seasons cause temperature changes, but there is still and underlying rise that has to come from our CO2. I have seen no figures for man made methane that show it is a significant contributor.

[andykn]

Executive summary

You are as wrong about climate change as a whole as you are about pretty much all of your points below.

Originally Posted by splatz

We don't know how much CO2 man produces - we have a rough idea how much we produce. Although this may seem like a semantic issue, the distinction is important.

Calculating figures for calculating the amount of CO2 figures are extrapolated in the same way broadcasting figures for Eastenders are extrapolated. You take a sample set of data, manipulate the data using statistical techniques to remove anomalies, then scale up to produce a representative figure.

Your analogy is completely wrong, because the precise amount of CO2 we produce is not anything like as important as the fact that we have a very good idea of the rough quantity and it's enough to make a significant difference to the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Just measuring the amount of oil we use annually gives us a goods idea to start.

And yes scientist do have a good idea about how fast the CO2 levels have increase - around 80 ppmv over the last 200 years or so. It is not lot when compared to the volume of atmosphere it is diluted in. A simple analogy is putting one drop of red ink in the ocean - it is not going to turn the ocean red.

There are many magnitudes of difference between your analogy and that of CO2. Around 80 ppmv can sound like a small amount to those who know absolutely nothing about this subject. Those who have any understanding of the underlying science know that the CO2 we had to start with was around 300 to 350 ppmv, so another 80 on top is a significant difference by any reasonable estimation.

What scientist are struggling to show is how a minute change to the concentration of the atmosphere can have a profound change to global temperatures.

No they aren't. Becasue it was shown many years ago thatr the CO2 we had at the time was responsible for about 30 deg C of warming, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that an 80/350 rise, i.e greater than 20% is going to make a difference.

As to unknown mechanisms to reverse the rise: Trying to understand the processes is a very important area of research - CO2 levels have ebbed and flowed many times over time (based on ice core data). Scientists can only guess and theorize as to why. The one thing scientist do know is that when it went up in the past it eventually came down - and man had nothing to do with it back then.

Wrong again. We know that, as the planet warms naturally, as it has done many times before, CO2 in the atmosphere goes up.

Two great misconceptions of those whose ewmotional need not to believe greatly exceeds their scientific understanding:

1/ Because warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 can't cause warming.
2/ Becasue the planet has been hotter before in prehistory then it must bve natural. This igores the fact that the rate of rise we are experiencing is not natural.

There is a lot more about our planet and how it "works" that scientist still have little or no understanding of. It is only in our recent history that scientists are learning more about the effect of the major oceanic currents.

Take plate tectonics for example, everyone knows about this and takes it for granted. But did you know that this is a relatively new theory developed in the late 20th century? In the 1960 the theory of the time was Sea Floor Spreading and in the early part of the 20th Century the theory was Continental Drift. Prior to that no one had a clue.

So while you say Solar activity doesn't make a significant contribution we do not know for sure yet - there are as many studies for as there are against. Only time will tell as we move from solar minimum (now) to the next solar maximum in 2011. You can be sure scientists will be watching closely so there will be more data to analyse. If it was already a done deal (i.e little or no impact) then there wouldn't be such an interest in this as there is.

Wrong again. We know a lot about historic levels of solar activity and their contribution to climate. We can see historic solar activityy levels and see that they do not correlate with global temerature changes. CO2 levels do.

As for my figures, a simple google search for "anthropogenic contribution of CO2". Many figures are quoted in the search results - some vary depending on whether water vapour is factored in. It is worth mentioning that the IPCC isn't specific about it either - they simply provide illustrations of varying amounts and then pick one that they think is most likely.

And while man doesn't contribute to water vapour, water vapour has a massive influence over our climate than CO2 would ever do.

As does solar activity. Doesn't mean that the contribution of CO2 isn't significant.

In my opinion, the oceanic research is the most interesting and is more likely to help us understand how our climate works - after all earth is 5/7 water so must have some major contribution.

The planet is a very complex, chaotic place and fixating on CO2 could quite easily obscure some other process. Something caused CO2 to reduce in our past and mankind wasn't around then.

Our economies can't wait for CO2 to reduce in level at prehistoric speeds. We don't have millenia to wait.

[splatz]

We can beg to differ - I enjoy the healthy debate

I agree with many of your points. The science of climate change asks more questions than it answers and there is still so much science doesn't understand.

Of course we have data on previous solar maximums - the observed cycle isn't that long - what we don't know is whether the cycle we we have observed is not part of a much longer cycle. My point was scientists still haven't discounted it having some impact out of hand.

Of course we can get a good idea - when you cannot measure something directly you have to come up with something. Knowing how much oil we produce can give you a starting point.

And yes the analogy was not very good - I should have called it an illustration of dillution. My point still stands although I accept I didn't articulate it very well. The behavour of gases in the atmosphere is very complicated and while science has a good understanding of the dynamics on small scale the understanding on a global scale isn't so well understood due to the huge magnitude of scale. Science does know that there are different concentrations of gases depending on altitude.

So yes there are many things science knows and understands about our world, but there are also many things science does not know - obviously we have no way of knowing how many things we currently don't know (I think you get what I mean).

Have to come back to the "CO2 we had at the time was responsible for 30 deg C" bit - didn't understand what this figure was supposed to represent. Is this the gobal average temperature?

Very interesting topic

Originally Posted by andykn

Executive summary

You are as wrong about climate change as a whole as you are about pretty much all of your points below.


Your analogy is completely wrong, because the precise amount of CO2 we produce is not anything like as important as the fact that we have a very good idea of the rough quantity and it's enough to make a significant difference to the amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere.

Just measuring the amount of oil we use annually gives us a goods idea to start.

There are many magnitudes of difference between your analogy and that of CO2. Around 80 ppmv can sound like a small amount to those who know absolutely nothing about this subject. Those who have any understanding of the underlying science know that the CO2 we had to start with was around 300 to 350 ppmv, so another 80 on top is a significant difference by any reasonable estimation.

No they aren't. Becasue it was shown many years ago thatr the CO2 we had at the time was responsible for about 30 deg C of warming, so it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that an 80/350 rise, i.e greater than 20% is going to make a difference.

Wrong again. We know that, as the planet warms naturally, as it has done many times before, CO2 in the atmosphere goes up.

Two great misconceptions of those whose ewmotional need not to believe greatly exceeds their scientific understanding:

1/ Because warming causes more CO2 in the atmosphere, more CO2 can't cause warming.
2/ Becasue the planet has been hotter before in prehistory then it must bve natural. This igores the fact that the rate of rise we are experiencing is not natural.

Wrong again. We know a lot about historic levels of solar activity and their contribution to climate. We can see historic solar activityy levels and see that they do not correlate with global temerature changes. CO2 levels do.

As does solar activity. Doesn't mean that the contribution of CO2 isn't significant.


Our economies can't wait for CO2 to reduce in level at prehistoric speeds. We don't have millenia to wait.

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

Have to come back to the "CO2 we had at the time was responsible for 30 deg C" bit - didn't understand what this figure was supposed to represent. Is this the gobal average temperature?

Very interesting topic

Sorry, should have explained it better. I believe that it was shown, many years ago, that the CO2 we have in the atmosphere is responsible for Earth being about 30 degrees Celsuis warmer than it would be without.

Hence the worry that more CO2 = more warming. Whilst there can be much more refinement of "how much", "whether" is not in doubt amongst most scientists.

I'm afraid I can't track down the original research that did this.

[Pecker]

Haven't we drifted off topic a little to far here.

There have been plenty of threads about how much man is/isn't to blame.

The real question is, can technology help us replace the burning of fossil fuels.

For me, even if there's no global warming, or even if there is but man has nothing to do with it, I'd still like to cut our reliance on this resource.

Firstly, it's definitely non-renewable, and will run out one day. Secondly, it leaves us largely at the mercy of countries who's societies who have largely different social and cultural values to ours.

Steve W

[splatz]

Sorry about the slight drift - it happens!

My own point of view is cutting our reliance on fossil is probably the most important thing we can do - but don't do it for GW (irresrespective of your point of view as to whether man is to blame) cut it for the health of our economies, our wallets, our lungs and the lives of our troops who will undoubtably be involved in the global disputes than will ensue when oil reserves are on their last legs.

If we can develop a viable alternative to make fossil fuels redundant then many of the worlds problems would not only evaporate over night but the environment would be better for it.

The current record breaking oil price is in the news right now, but these prices will pale into insignificance as supplies dwindle. Oil companies won't lose out as reserves dry up and they will continue to make stupendous profits right up untill all the oil has run out.

I firmly believe technology will find a way - it could find it quicker if massively more money was ploughed into research. Unfortuantely oil dominates everything, and governments will not do what is required - they prefer to invest in weak ideas which amounts to nothing more than a sticky plaster.

Originally Posted by Pecker

Haven't we drifted off topic a little to far here.

There have been plenty of threads about how much man is/isn't to blame.

The real question is, can technology help us replace the burning of fossil fuels.

For me, even if there's no global warming, or even if there is but man has nothing to do with it, I'd still like to cut our reliance on this resource.

Firstly, it's definitely non-renewable, and will run out one day. Secondly, it leaves us largely at the mercy of countries who's societies who have largely different social and cultural values to ours.

Steve W

[andykn]

Originally Posted by splatz

Sorry about the slight drift - it happens!

My own point of view is cutting our reliance on fossil is probably the most important thing we can do - but don't do it for GW (irresrespective of your point of view as to whether man is to blame) cut it for the health of our economies, our wallets, our lungs and the lives of our troops who will undoubtably be involved in the global disputes than will ensue when oil reserves are on their last legs.

If we can develop a viable alternative to make fossil fuels redundant then many of the worlds problems would not only evaporate over night but the environment would be better for it.

The current record breaking oil price is in the news right now, but these prices will pale into insignificance as supplies dwindle. Oil companies won't lose out as reserves dry up and they will continue to make stupendous profits right up untill all the oil has run out.

I firmly believe technology will find a way - it could find it quicker if massively more money was ploughed into research. Unfortuantely oil dominates everything, and governments will not do what is required - they prefer to invest in weak ideas which amounts to nothing more than a sticky plaster.

Yes, even if we invented a cheap device that could absorb all our CO2 ("a tree"), oil still pollutes in other ways and is likeley to cause lots of political and economic grief too.

[splatz]

Originally Posted by andykn

Yes, even if we invented a cheap device that could absorb all our CO2 ("a tree"), oil still pollutes in other ways and is likeley to cause lots of political and economic grief too.

Which is why we must find a viable alternative to oil (well, all fossil fuels really) and find it fast. Not sure it will happen in my lifetime, but then who can tell with the speed that technology advances given the money and political will. If they can stick a man on the moon they can do anything . . .