Views on climate change.

[RobNute]

Hi everyone, it's probably been done before on here but I thought it might be intersting to have a thread where people can state their thoughts on climate change as lots of other threads seem to end up on that subject anyway and its unclear to me where people stand on this issue. As we are all interested in RE to varying degrees and experience then I guess most of us either have a view on climate change or (like myself) are trying to establish one.

It would seem that this forum probably has a few different camps on this issue,

1. People interested in renewables as a way of extending our current ability to live comfortably during the end of the oil age.

2. The above but who also feel that climate change is a relavant part of their reasoning.

3. People who are simply trying to be less reliant on service providers and large bussiness etc.

4. A mixture of all the above.

Last week I visited an old gold stamper battery in NZ that was run by a geologist, his first statement was that he had no time for all this climate change nonsence as we humans are simply to small a problem when compared to volcanoes and he then went into a very knowledgable and convincing talk explaining a lot about the worlds make up and systems and their effect on the climate throughout geological history and like he says we are just lucky to have had the stability that we have had for long enough for us to get smart enough to worry about the fact that things change, its a rare thing for the planet to stay stable for long and we need to accept the fact that regardless of our actions it has and always will change.

Anyway this made me realise that I really have no real knowledge or fixed opinion on this and have always thought that its obvious that we are simply "between ice ages", humans have lived through a few before and I guess we will have to live through some more so should we just do what we have always done and survive instead of pretending that we can alter the course of nature. That is not to say that I feel we should all burn rubber tyres and drive v8's, quite the opposite, the one thing I do have an opinion on is that there is no secret alternative to the vast quantities of energy found in oil and gas so we must use what we have wisely and sparingly.
One thing I can vouch for however is the effect of the thinning ozone layer, you would not believe the strength of the sun out here in NZ and I am comparing it to the sun in Australia, it get damn hot in Oz but the sun is nowhere near as fearce as it is here in NZ, it will burn deep in no time. I think we are responsible for that one.

So who wants to go first - tell us what you think is happening and why.


 

[rt29781]

These are facts:

CO2 is the major cause of AGW.

The effects cannot be reversed quickly.

We are already too far down the road of AGW to avoid large changes in climate with rising frequency of adverse weather.

Renewable energy is the best long term option to slow the rise in global CO2 levels.

We need to reduce the impact of CO2 from carbon based fuels by sequestering CO2 and/or reducing it to containable fuels (Syngas, methanol, methane).

Oil will run out soon enough so we need to prepare for that.

These are my opinions:

Nuclear power is far too dangerous to be considered as a viable option for the UK not least because of the high population density in the SE England.

It is likely that we will have to change the way we live in order to maintain or reduce current CO2 levels.

There are no technical barriers to addressing these issues only political ones.

We need a more democratic approach and mass education to make the changes required to avoid disaster.  This is a big ask.  Look at unlock democracy and 38 degrees for ways to obtain democracy in the UK.

In the mean time we are experiencing the coldest weather in living memory in SW France.  Seems adverse weather is upon us.

I hope that helps Rob?

[M]

Don't profess to being any expert on this however, it seems to me that during the last 5 years, the arguments have almost disappeared (in the scientific community) and it is now agreed (even by America) that AGW is changing the planet faster than it normally changes/adapts, even between ice ages.

I think the only ones left arguing are the political lobbyists working for the FF companies (previously employed by big Tobacco).

CO2 is now recognised as the culprit (is that a fair statement?) and we need to slow down it's rise, and then hopefully, reduce it somewhat! Simples, that's all we have to do - I'll leave that last little bit to the rest of you. 

Martyn.

[rondurrans]

M I think your comments make a lot of sense - what I am more interested in is the 'Modelling' (models) that are being and have been generated in an attempt to establish the full implication of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)!   Can we really model the many many variables that will dictate the outcome of man's overconsumption and all the implications associated with that?

[smegal]

Me:
1. People interested in renewables as a way of extending our current ability to live comfortably during the end of the oil age.
2. The above but who also feel that climate change is a relevant part of their reasoning.

[desperate]

I feel that the body of evidence in support of AGW is compelling, in fact the IPCC models even understate the effects we are observing, as to where it leads us thats less clear. One thing I do fervently believe is that even at the lowest forcast warming rates global warming is by far the biggest threat to our existence and I mean by orders of magnitude greater than anything else. Relatively small shifts in weather patterns could easily wipe out half our food production in weeks, and on a much smaller scale, events like last years flooding in Pakistan and Bangladesh, or the floods in New Orleans, and as I type drought in the Sahel, will become more common. CO2 emissions have been ignored for far too long while we've messed around with DDT, smoke, CFCs,radiation, silly little oil spills, while unseen CO2 has been disabling the planets life support system.

Now at last we have woken up it's way too late to stop truly horrible things happening, hold on to your hat, bend over, and kiss your ass goodbye

Desp

edit to add italicised bit, or something ish, you know what I mean

[JohnS]

Help please.

What does the A of AGW stand for?

John

[desperate]

Anthropogenic, as in man made.

Cheers
Desp

[JohnS]

Thanks.

It is always a bad sign when proponents insist on using abbreviations, jargon and little used or understood words to bolster their arguments.

Bit like an own goal.

I am not a sceptic.  I don't like the term global warming as too many people would say that they would welcome a bit of warming right now.  Climate change is a much better term.

[rt29781]

Thanks.

It is always a bad sign when proponents insist on using abbreviations, jargon and little used or understood words to bolster their arguments.

Bit like an own goal.

I am not a sceptic.  I don't like the term global warming as too many people would say that they would welcome a bit of warming right now.  Climate change is a much better term.

I think AGW is more precise than climate change as it states that the planet is "warming" and that it is "man made".  Climate change does not really help people to understand that we are responsible and that the climate is warming.  Lets not confuse weather and climate.  As we can see the weather is cold at the moment for some people :-).

try using Google to clarify terms  e.g. Google AGW definition

[RobNute]

Great stuff guys, keep it coming.

[guydewdney]

These are facts:

CO2 is the major cause of AGW.

is it? there is some debate if co2 is the baddy, or water vapour. But carbon is nasty dark dirty stuff, so is easily demonised.... water less so....

[RobNute]

mmm, this is one of the things that I thought would come up, the geologist dude said that CO2 is not a climate change gas which is what got me thinking about the whole carbon emmisions concern. Can someone explain in simple terms both sides of this issue? Water vapour, lets not get rid of that, what would hydro have to work on!

So, so far we have some concensous that the term AGW is the best term to use as we are separating the natural cycle of climate change from that of our own making and then we can state our position on how much of this part of the change we are responsible for or have any chance of changing. How do we know which direction global temperatures would be going at this point if we were not here, are we pulling against a cooling climate enough to make it heat up or are we adding to an already rising climate? I think its the latter, but how do we know?

I know I could probably google all of these things but its interesting to see where people agree or disagree, also I think that we all share a similar overall viewpoint but represent many different lifestyles, locations and stages of learning which may show a good mix of views from the bloke down the pub to the more scientifically minded.

Rob

[SteveH]

 We have the planet we live on today, because a a lot of things got buried (Think Limestone, coal, oil, etc) We only have oxygen because of blue-green algae!

 Keep diging it up & burning it & we can have a nice new pre Cambrian world....

[GavinA]

These are facts:

CO2 is the major cause of AGW.

is it? there is some debate if co2 is the baddy, or water vapour. But carbon is nasty dark dirty stuff, so is easily demonised.... water less so....

increased water vapour in the atmosphere as a feedback mechanism from warmer temperatures is a major feed back mechanism the impact of which is part of the issue with the accuracy of the models.

Carbon is the initial main driver though. If you're hinting at the amount of water vapour directly added to the atmosphere by human activities being a major issue you're barking up the wrong tree though I'm afraid, as it's so short lived, in such good dynamic equilibrium and with such high concentrations already that direct human released water vapour represents a miniscule increase in overal water vapour concentrations on a global scale.