[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by NikB

You state it as fact that the planet must warm as a result of more CO2. How do you know this?

The only mechanism for a planet to lose heat is by radiation. The rate of radiated heat loss depends upon the temperature. This is AS-level physics.

Increase the CO2 level -> Absorb more heat from the sun -> Increase temperature -> Increase radiation -> Stabilise at new higher temperature.

Is it not possible that there are adaptations that are upscaled to negate the effects of the CO2?

Yes, it's conceivable, but this is not the same question as the above related to temperature rise. The Earth will be warmer as a result of increased CO2 emissions, because there is no way to stop it. It is a 'done deal' unless you want to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

On the other hand, as I and many others keep pointing out, we do not know, and have never claimed to know, what the long-term effects of the temperature rise will be (or even by how much and by how fast it will rise). With hindsight they may be seen to have been good or they may be seen to have been bad. They will not be seen to have been neutral. The concern is that the worst case downside outcome is much more bad than the best case upside is good.

Ecosystems and climate will settle at new levels (though we don't know if we'll like them), after a period of extreme instability. Sea levels, salinity and ice caps will stabilise at new values (we probably won't like them). It is conceivable that feedback mechanisms exist which will neutralise the effects of higher temperatures, but there are no known processes which might do this and we'd be foolish in the extreme to rely on something turning up.

[Miyazaki]

If people want to know what a 10 degrees celcius temperature rise would do to the biodiversity on Earth, I suggest reading up on the Permian mass extinction. 95% of all life became extinct.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

Yes, it's conceivable, but this is not the same question as the above related to temperature rise. The Earth will be warmer as a result of increased CO2 emissions, because there is no way to stop it. It is a 'done deal' unless you want to rewrite the laws of thermodynamics.

That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by GasDad

That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.

More cloud permanently in the skies would certainly help. But there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen, the climate is far too complex to say it will.
'The Scientists' have presented a scenario, backed up by years of coherent, peer reviewed research, which presents the possibility of Global warming at a rate at which mankind's ability to adapt will be stretched way beyond what is possible.
Of course, some will survive. But mankind as a whole may be dealt a huge blow. Which is what they (Governments, GW activists etc etc) want to avoid.
With extreme action sooner rather than later, at best we will come up with a plan that slows the rate of increase, allowing mankind to adapt without us resorting to WW3 to sort out who gets the best land etc.
With extreme action sooner rather than later, at worst we will have spent a lot of money developing technology that reduces our fossil fuel addiction, making the resource last longer. The amount being talked about is 1% of the Global economy being diverted to 'The Cause'. Not exactly bankrupting the planet!
With no action, some people are talking about the human population being 1Bn by the end of this century.
So, is it really worth risking the worst case scenario, for the sake of 1%?

Do you feel lucky?

[GasDad]

I was only correcting a basic point of science.

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

More cloud permanently in the skies would certainly help. But there is absolutely no guarantee that it will happen, the climate is far too complex to say it will.

I didn't say it would. I'm in the slightly skeptical camp but on the whole tend to think that MMGW is a fact. But I don't think the above paragraph actually does 'your' cause much good. After all if cloud cover is too difficult to predict, why should ocean currents, resultant ice thickness, plankton creation rates, etc etc be any easier to predict and hence model.

'The Scientists' have presented a scenario, backed up by years of coherent, peer reviewed research, which presents the possibility of Global warming at a rate at which mankind's ability to adapt will be stretched way beyond what is possible.

I love the phrase 'The Scientists' - science has always had a problem in that views outside of the mainstream are extremely hard to get accepted or indeed published. On the whole I feel the consensus is probably right - but the problems experienced by Lomborg for instance, undermine (at least in my mind) - the process.

With extreme action sooner rather than later, at best we will come up with a plan that slows the rate of increase, allowing mankind to adapt without us resorting to WW3 to sort out who gets the best land etc.

Or we put a sun shade up in orbit between the earth and the sun.

With extreme action sooner rather than later, at worst we will have spent a lot of money developing technology that reduces our fossil fuel addiction, making the resource last longer. The amount being talked about is 1% of the Global economy being diverted to 'The Cause'. Not exactly bankrupting the planet!
With no action, some people are talking about the human population being 1Bn by the end of this century.
So, is it really worth risking the worst case scenario, for the sake of 1%?

Now that I agree with entirely.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by GasDad

That assumes that the same amount of sunlight actually reaches the earth - changes in percentage of cloud cover and hence reflection, will invalidate your statement.

They won't, actually. The increased cloud cover will reflect some light, sure, but don't forget that it's taken extra heat to create the cover. All that will happen is that the higher-temperature stability will be a little lower than it would with clear skies.

Not to mention the lower albedo as a result of melting polar ice.

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

They won't, actually. The increased cloud cover will reflect some light, sure, but don't forget that it's taken extra heat to create the cover. All that will happen is that the higher-temperature stability will be a little lower than it would with clear skies.

I don't really disagree with you - I was just pointing out that your absolute statement can't be that definitive.

Not to mention the lower albedo as a result of melting polar ice.

And we end up with large ice bergs floating in the sea at attitudes closer to the equator than the poles, which results in a higher albedo ..........

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by GasDad

And we end up with large ice bergs floating in the sea at attitudes closer to the equator than the poles, which results in a higher albedo ..........

And these are kept frozen how?

[GasDad]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

And these are kept frozen how?

They're not - but they take a long time to melt - during which time the ice is reflecting a lot more sunlight than it would when closer to the pole.

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by loz

Pity in some respect that the price of oil came down. People may scoff at climate change, but they soon change their habits when it hurts their wallets...

It just makes so much sense to use our resources more efficiently and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (for so many reasons, not just climate)

Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo

[loz]

Originally Posted by arthurdentpc

Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo

No. Eventually it will make you change.
Economically it will be cheaper to do the conversion than carry on using fossil fuels.
Or would you simply like the government to mandate it?

It doesn't matter who 'encouraged' you in the past, who is to blame or not, or whether CG is happening or not, or what causes it. The simple fact is that once the recession is over, then world demand is going to send the price of oil soaring to levels we can't imagine today. Better get used to it....

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by arthurdentpc

Leave aside the yes-it-is no-it-isn't arguments for a moment -let's just assume there IS GW and we as a race ARE responsible. It's the comments like that above which really annoy me.

I live in a part of the UK which is a damn site colder and wetter than the Thames Valley. My house requires heating throughout the Winter months. I have oil heating, and use approx 1000-1200 litres of oil per year, the vast majority of it from late October to early March. This does NOT mean I have an addiction to burning fossil fuels or to destroying the planet. It means I use the current popular system, promoted by governments for years, of heating my home. If someone can show me a way of heating my home which doesn't involve burning some sort of fossil fuel, then for goodness sake please do, because I will change to it in an instant, and very gladly.

There is one other thing though - I have to be able to afford it on an average wage.

In conclusion then - hurting the likes of me in the wallet by high oil prices will only do one thing - make me poorer But giving me a viable, affordable, alternative - bingo

I'd be interested to hear which government, over which years, promoted oil heating over any other kind.

Oil has always been seen as the least attractive and most expensive option, mainly because of delivery costs, and I cannot for the life of me remember when we were advised to use it in preference to gas or electricity.

You want to know how to heat your home without burning fossil fuel? It's easy: renewable and nuclear electricity (though for the time being, any old electricity will use less fossil fuel than your oil system).

We are at the beginning of the end of the stupid waste of burning fossil fuel simply for the heat it give out, and that includes all those of us with gas heating as well. We're all going to have to go electric soon.

You demand an 'affordable' solution. Well, we'd all like that. But nobody has a duty to fit the cost of fuel to your spending habits. You'll have to learn to live with it, as we all will. It pains me to say it, but this for once is not the government's fault. It's nobody's fault, really: it's in our makeup to sleepwalk into crises.

[deckingman]

So you have no sympathy for those who's only income is the state pension for instance, even with the pathetic winter fuel allowance?

Even now, in our so called civilised society, there are elderly people who spend much of the cold winter wrapped in a blanket worrying about whether to put one bar of the fire on or buy food instead (which is also going to become far more costly).

As ever, the wealthy will be able to pay the higher prices of either fossil fuel or reneweable energy, or be able to invest in technologies such as solar panels, heat pumps or whatever. Those less well off, will just have to suffer.

Well I suppose if the elderly and poor are left to freeze or starve to death, then at least this will ease the population burden for the rest of you.

[loz]

Originally Posted by deckingman

So you have no sympathy for those who's only income is the state pension for instance, even with the pathetic winter fuel allowance?

Even now, in our so called civilised society, there are elderly people who spend much of the cold winter wrapped in a blanket worrying about whether to put one bar of the fire on or buy food instead (which is also going to become far more costly).

As ever, the wealthy will be able to pay the higher prices of either fossil fuel or reneweable energy, or be able to invest in technologies such as solar panels, heat pumps or whatever. Those less well off, will just have to suffer.

Well I suppose if the elderly and poor are left to freeze or starve to death, then at least this will ease the population burden for the rest of you.

Don't mix two different problems to try and cloud the issue.

That some members of society receive inadequate support is not a reason to justify the rest of us paying less for carbon-based fuel.

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

I'd I cannot for the life of me remember when we were advised to use it

Where you around in the 80s when North Sea oil was 'discovered' and government advice was to stop burning coal (which was allegedly running out) and move to oil ?

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

You demand an 'affordable' solution. Well, we'd all like that. But nobody has a duty to fit the cost of fuel to your spending habits. You'll have to learn to live with it, as we all will.

It HAS to be an affordable solution. Since the dawn of time man has tried to heat dwellings during colder months. I live in a compartively cold area of the UK, and we need to heat the house for some months of the year, that is inescapable. We heat it as little as possible, but it still needs to be done. You talk about 'spending habits' like I have a choice in this practice ? Do you really think I want to spend up to £500 every year on oil if I didn't have to ?
But to replace that with some sort of renewable source for me - let's say wind power since we get less hours of light in the North and we live in a fairly windy area - do you think I have £12k around to install that ? If the government(s) were serious about renewable energy, then there would be affordable solutions to that problem. Grants (and I don't mean the pathetic current offerings), interest free loans, community power schemes, forcing all new developments to have renewable power, etc. But no.
I would dearly love to change to windpower, I really would. But we can't afford to change now on an average wage, never mind those living on benefits. So we will have to continue to do what we do, until oil becomes so expensive we can't put it on. By that stage using electricity will be even more expensive than it currently is. We will then freeze like so many pensioners are currently doing.

[deckingman]

It's not the Governments fault! Tell that to to the UK hauliers forced out of business because the pump price of our Deisel is more that 80% tax.

What difference has that made to the environment? Absolutely none because the same amount of goods are being transported by their European based competitors who pay far less for the fuel and other taxes.

Who put VAT on domestic gas and electricity?

What has the Government done with £ billions they have received in fuel taxation? Have they invested it all in renewables and research? Arguably, only a tiny proportion.

What effect has raising tax on "Chelsea tractors" had. None save the fact that for a few hill farmers it was the last straw and they have put the 12 bore to the mouth and pulled the trigger. For those people who can afford the £50k plus for these things, a few hundred £ a year extra is not much. So, they continue to buy and run them. For the subsistence farmer who needs a multi-terrain vehicle to go about his daily job, it's an entirely dfferent matter.

If this is a global problem then we need a global solution. What is point of imposing swinging taxes on the UK population (and not investing this money in viable renewables) with emerging economies like India and China building the coal powered power stations at the rate of one a week? Any reduction in CO2 through higher UK taxes is immeasurably small on a Global scale.

[loz]

Originally Posted by arthurdentpc

Where you around in the 80s when North Sea oil was 'discovered' and government advice was to stop burning coal (which was allegedly running out) and move to oil ?

I remember it as "move to gas". That's what we did, and most others I would have though, unless they were nowhere near a gas main.

Of course, gas is now no more sustainable than oil....

[loz]

Originally Posted by deckingman

It's not the Governments fault! Tell that to to the UK hauliers forced out of business because the pump price of our Deisel is more that 80% tax.

What difference has that made to the environment? Absolutely none because the same amount of goods are being transported by their European based competitors who pay far less for the fuel and other taxes.

Who put VAT on domestic gas and electricity?

What has the Government done with £ billions they have received in fuel taxation? Have they invested it all in renewables and research? Arguably, only a tiny proportion.

What effect has raising tax on "Chelsea tractors" had. None save the fact that for a few hill farmers it was the last straw and they have put the 12 bore to the mouth and pulled the trigger. For those people who can afford the £50k plus for these things, a few hundred £ a year extra is not much. So, they continue to buy and run them. For the subsistence farmer who needs a multi-terrain vehicle to go about his daily job, it's an entirely dfferent matter.

If this is a global problem then we need a global solution. What is point of imposing swinging taxes on the UK population (and not investing this money in viable renewables) with emerging economies like India and China building the coal powered power stations at the rate of one a week? Any reduction in CO2 through higher UK taxes is immeasurably small on a Global scale.

Tax is nothing compared to the way the price of oil is going to sore once the recession is over and global demand increases exponentially...

And that will be global, and little to do with the UK governments taxation decisions.

[arthurdentpc]

Originally Posted by loz

I remember it as "move to gas". That's what we did, and most others I would have though, unless they were nowhere near a gas main.

Of course, gas is now no more sustainable than oil....

They closed most, if not all, of piped gas works in Northern Ireland in the 80s - my uncle used to work in our local one.

But you get my point - there are a host of people who don't care, yes - but there also loads like me who would dearly love to do something but because of financial constraint, can't. Increasing oil, petrol, gas & electricity prices are just making things more difficult, not forcing change. Equally bad is the conflicting advice on renewable energy - e.g. the life of solar electricity panels is so short they aren't viable, it costs so much to erect wind turbines they are also unviable, they don't work well most of time, etc, etc. No-one is going to invest £12k on a home wind turbine if the thing isn't going to work, and even more so if they're going to have to get a 2nd mortgage to do it.

The ordinary person who wants to make a difference is reduced to scratching the surface of the problem by keeping heating low, using long-life bulbs and re-using shopping bags. All worthy in their own right - but there is no real change there.

[deckingman]

Originally Posted by loz

I remember it as "move to gas". That's what we did, and most others I would have though, unless they were nowhere near a gas main.

Of course, gas is now no more sustainable than oil....

That's exactly the point. You changed because you had the choice and/or could afford to do so. Thus saving money in the long term. There are still areas of the country where mains gas is simply not available.

Cosetted in the home counties, you have no idea of the hardships others are facing.

You probably live in a modern, well insulated house or have the money to make it so. You can probably afford the latest energy saving appliances and heating devices. Maybe you can afford to move closer to the shops and amentities so you don't need use a car. Maybe you work from home.

Many people simply don't have those choices and with the best will in world, cannot take effective measures to reduce their CO2 or save money (whichever way you look at it).

As for fuel prices rocketting, that will simply put us straight back into another recession.

[analogueaddict]

Hello,

I feel sorry for anyone who is being cornered in this "tax the CO2 users to extinction" mania.

The real problem is the hypocrisy of this government. I will state here and now that I don't believe one word of this man made climate change mantra that the government, much of the media and many on here are chanting, right now there is a lack of solid facts supporting the fact that the climate change which we're seeing would happen with or without man's emissions, much as they have done over the last 4 billion years. I know the climate change lobby love to try and dismiss the last 4 billion years of solid, scientific evidence, but it's there, it's a hard fact and it's credible, certainly more so than the models and the data produce by the IPCC with the support of East Anglia CRU!

Having said all of that, if you present me with a way of replacing my gas powered central heating system and electric in my home with a lower or zero emission system which will give me a measureable saving with an acceptable ROI (24 - 36 months) then I would be interested and I would sincerely investigate further, as I can see clear benefits to me. Now if there was an y genuine sincerity in this (or any governments) commitment to reducing emissions, why are we not seeing more investment if nuclear fusion or hybrid fission/fusion systems. We have test models up and running now which show they can generate power, but need refining to produce sustainable power. If this was done the resulting power would cost a fraction of any current power supply, would deliver massive quanitities of electricity with almost zero emissions, and leave the governments of the World with power for the people at a miniscule cost with very little taxable value. Ahhh, now you can see why they are not investing in this. This country is wasting an unbelievable £30 billion on hosting a sporting event in 2012, is there was ANY sincerity in their belief in man made climate change, surely they would have spent that money on fusion or fission/fusion hybrid reactor research.

In an age where they operation of a nuclear fission power station is a well understood principle and proven to be achievable with a high degree of safety, why should any person in this country have to make the choice of food or heat? I remember when my grandfather was with me he used to worry about the cost of heating the home, fortunately I lived with him so I met all the fuel and food bills to ensure he never had to hesitate, but I feel sorry for those who even have to consider this question.

Dave