|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
JonahMan wrote, "Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable[]."
Now your starting to upset the apple cart. Technical and economic progress can largely be tied to increases in mobility, communications, and energy production. Before you start to limit these, you had better have a replacement for them.
No, forcing people wait in long socialist lines and take days to travel across a large country is not going to win friends.
Instead of trying to solve this problem by limiting people, why don't we try empowering them. Nuclear energy is roughly one million times as efficient as burning carbon.
Yet the same type of people who said "No Nukes" are the type saying "Global Warming". The U.S. largely abandoned nuclear power in the '70s on the fears of a few possible future deaths and small amounts of radiation.
Now, with thousands of dead people due to burning coal, they say that burning coal could kill us all. They have cried wolf once to often.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Noiseboy wrote "[M]aybe he is right, but the vast majority of scientists do not apparently think so."
It's been my experience that the universe doesn't care what the vast majority of scientists think.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Wikipedia wrote, "One of the main activities of the IPCC is to publish special reports on topics where it supports the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)[.]"
Please note: The IPCC operates to support a political policy that has already been made. Their research (review) and conclusions are not independent.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell wrote, quote:
"You really need to have a look at a bit of basic philosophy of science. Because you're statement there makes no sense at all. No theory is 'proved', much less 'becomes fact'. And, if a theory is contradicted it is, by definition, not a good theory. A good theory fits and explains known data, and makes testable predictions for new measurements."
There is no single "global warming theory". There is a compilation of models.
Suppose; before Columbus: - Scientist A claims the world is round.
- Scientist B claims the world is flat.
Can we conclude that the world is pear shaped because it's the average of the two models?
We didn't have the "real" answer until we put satellites in orbit and found out... Oops this argument doesn't work so well does it. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif) Yes the world is pear shaped.
p.s. Sorry for the multiple posts, but I just found this thread and am struggling to catch up.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Noiseboy wrote, quote:
"Again, Myrrh has ignored the central and most crucial question of why we - the humble laypeople - should believe the analysis of someone who starting looking into this subject a week ago rather than the thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to studying the science."
Show me these people who have "dedicated their lives". Did they take a vow of celibacy? University professors are (well) paid to present a certain world view.
The ones paid to dispute global warming do so, as do the ones paid to support it.
The people whose technical opinions I trust support both sides. I can see the press and the data being manipulated by both sides. My head is about to explode. ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Myrrh wrote, "[About IPCC studies] that is not objective science, but manipulative deceit."
Myrrh, I think your being unfair. The IPCC is clearly a political organization. It's review of literature was specified by UN law to only cover information in support of policy.
This is not deceit, just nativity on the part of those who believe it is unbiased.
Chris Landsea , having studied the data, came to another conclusion and could no longer tow the party line. That doesn't mean Chris is right or wrong; just that Chris is honest.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
1 in 5 people in the UK do NOT believe that man is responsible for global warming.
We are suspicious of the claims, cynical about the money spent to combat climate change and angry that OUR money will be taken and our salaries taxed higher for a cause we don't believe in.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
On the BBC news this evening a scientist was interviewed and he explained that following the discovery of evidence of some ancient forest on Greenland and by applying whatever it is scientists apply in these situations, the 'feeling' (his word) now among scientists (generally or within this study group, I am not sure) is that Greenland's ice is not as unstable as was apparently thought. It is now unlikely that Greenland's ice will melt as fast as originally predicted (he did not give an alternative timescale). It would appear that scientists are investigating other sites, for example the South Pole, to re-examine their stability as the conclusion is that if Greenland is not unstable then somewhere else should be.
Obviously, not being a scientist, I did not get to grips at all with the steps taken between discovering this ancient forest and the conclusion that Greenland's ice is not actually unstable when it previously was considered to be so. However, I was left with the thought that it is changes like this which leave me remaining skeptical. This may or may not be a small adjustment in the broader scheme of things but it is the principle behind it which stop me from simply accepting whatever science is saying at any given time. What else might scientists be wrong about?
I tried finding this item on the BBC's website but it doesn't feature as of this evening, at least not in a way that means I can find it!
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
JonahMan wrote, "Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable[]."
Now your starting to upset the apple cart. Technical and economic progress can largely be tied to increases in mobility, communications, and energy production. Before you start to limit these, you had better have a replacement for them.
No, forcing people wait in long socialist lines and take days to travel across a large country is not going to win friends.
Hi DmplnJeff, and welcome to the never-ending climate change thread!
JonahMan's quote only mentioned air travel - not limiting communications or wanting people to wait in long socialist lines. Air traffic is a problem because of the rate at which it's growing, and because there aren't any realistic alternatives to fossil fuels.
However, this is very much the exception. In most other cases alternatives exist, and we could improve efficiency dramatically without excessive cost. In the UK, building insulation is probably the biggest and easiest target, but there's lots of others.
quote:
Instead of trying to solve this problem by limiting people, why don't we try empowering them. Nuclear energy is roughly one million times as efficient as burning carbon.
Yet the same type of people who said "No Nukes" are the type saying "Global Warming". The U.S. largely abandoned nuclear power in the '70s on the fears of a few possible future deaths and small amounts of radiation.
Now, with thousands of dead people due to burning coal, they say that burning coal could kill us all. They have cried wolf once to often.
From media coverage it's understandable why that view is so common - it's those damn hippy treehuggers, obviously.
The trouble is, it isn't really true. Most mainstream scientists are very concerned with CO2, and these aren't people generally given to panic. On this thread one of the people most passionate about global warming is Alan Cresswell, who can't really be described as "anti-nuke". (He's a nuclear physicist.)
I've been indifferent towards nuclear power most of my life...it seemed like the dangers of meltdown were exaggerated, even if long term waste disposal wasn't addressed well. But now it's clear these risks are vastly outweighed by the potential damage from climate change, and I'd love to see environmental organisations do a u-turn on the issue. James Lovelock is an example of a very prominent (and contraversial) environmentalist who advocates nuclear energy.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Hiro's Leap wrote, "[E]ven if long term waste disposal wasn't addressed well."
The problem may not have been addressed well politically, but technically it's solved. I know of at least two methods to get rid of waste "permanently".
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One is vitrification of waste and long term deep storage. What's the other?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell wrote, "One is vitrification of waste and long term deep storage. What's the other?"
That's both of them. I just have two methods of deep storage. One involves a really deep, expensive hole.
The other is to sink an old ship full of the (vitrified) stuff in a subduction zone, then bury it in concrete/mud.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Actually fast trains cost abotu the same as air travel and take up not much mroe than a tenth of the fuel. So no need for long queues.
The hassle is getting it together to build the tracks. Once there its cheaper.
(International trains currenlty more expensive to end user than planes in UL cos planes get more subsudies - the railways are supposed to pay back the cost of the infrastructure but the airlines do not pay for the airports nor the roads to them - also airlines don't pay tax on fuel, railway companies do)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Thanks Littlelady, I hadn't responded before because there were too many ways your summary could be read. Mainly "Greenland's ice is not as unstable as was apparently thought" requires some understanding of how stable others thought the ice sheet is - which ranges from the IPCC (who base their sea-level rise estimates on an assumption of stable ice-sheets that melt slowly - for the simple reason that ice-sheet break up is a very complex process that they had insufficient data to conclude it was likely to happen) to some scientists claiming that the whole Greenland ice-sheet could break apart and melt in a matter of decades. If this research is correct then the IPCC position is bolstered and the worst-case scenarios regarding the future of the ice-sheets is less likely.
The bit in the article I didn't understand where the numbers came from was this statement. quote:
Studies suggest that even during the last interglacial (116,000-130,000 years ago), when temperatures were thought to be 5C warmer than today, the ice persevered, keeping the delicate samples entombed and free from contamination and decay.
I'd not seen any reference to the last interglacial being warmer than today, let alone by as much as 5°C. Though having just looked back at the IPCC report, it does seem there was a temperature peak in Antarctica near the start of the last interglacial warmer than today - though there are big questions about how an Antarctic record relates to the globe generally, that's one reason why they're drilling Greenland to see if the same pattern appears in the northern hemisphere. They should have temperature records for the core corresponding to the levels with the pollen and insects, though it's possible those samples are still being processed.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This is telling:
"Research by Australian scientists has suggested that a 3C rise in global temperatures would be enough to trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."
So, there needs to be a 3% rise BEFORE the melting is even triggered? Not before then?
Hmmm, seeing that the average temperature has risen by .74 degrees in 100 years, that statistic is slightly less alarmist than what my 12 year old said his geography teacher was spouting at school only last week, namely that in 2030 London will be under water!!
Did anyone hear Al Gore's evangelsitic rally speech last night! And I thought Benny Hinn, Reinhard Bonnke and Morris Cerullo had the market all sown up! Send your cheques to me, Al Gore, so that we can save the world before next Friday or we'll all BURN ON EARTH by the following Tuesday afternoon!
Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.
I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.
[ 08. July 2007, 11:54: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
This is telling:
"Research by Australian scientists has suggested that a 3C rise in global temperatures would be enough to trigger the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."
So, there needs to be a 3% rise BEFORE the melting is even triggered? Not before then?
The article is discussing the break up (ie: very rapid melting) of the ice-sheet. At the moment, like all ice sheets, the surface melts slightly in the spring and summer as temperatures rise above freezing. And, in winter as temperatures fall again the ice reaccumulates as snow falls. As temperatures rise the period of time when melting occurs gets longer, and the time for snow to replace melted ice gets shorter. Meaning that the amount of ice slowly decreases, except that warmer seas produce more water vapour and hence more snow when it does actually snow resulting in a thickening of ice inland even though the edges (which are exposed to the warmer air from the sea) are melting. Which makes for a confusing picture, but at the moment it seems that the melt rate is marginally exceeding the build up rate (on average for all ice sheets - though some will be melting much faster and others building up). The warmer it gets the greater that differential will be.
But, there's a second mechanism that can affect ice-sheet melting other than the gradual melting of the surfaces when exposed to air above 0°C. That is ice sheets move. If they start to move faster two things will tend to happen. One is that the amount of ice in contact with the sea will increase, increasing melting rates at that interface. Second, faster moving bits of ice will tend to break away from slower moving bits creating more and larger crevasses, and hence more surface area in contact with the warmer air. Crevasses also provide a conduit for melt water to flow down, getting under the ice and accelerating the ice flow (it acts as a lubricant), and hence accelerating the fracturing process.
It's this second effect that's under discussion in the article Littlelady linked to. The research seems to be showing that for southern Greenland, the ice sheets seem to be stable and not prone to accelerated motion as their surfaces melt. Hence, for these ice sheets, we can expect that they'll remain stable and melt at a predictable rate for a while yet, the research suggesting an extra 3°C which at current rates of warming would be about 300 years (but as the evidence suggests that the rate of temperature increase is accelerating it'll be considerably less than that if we don't do something to reduce our input to that accelerating global warming).
Whether the findings hold true for other ice sheets remains to be seen. Probably it won't be true for many, we know some Antarctic ice-sheets are unstable because large chunks routinely break off, and have done so regularly for many decades when the temperature was lower.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.
Well, I'd be in that 56%. Though I'm convinced human activity is a large factor in global warming, I do think the apocalyptic greens are going to far with their dire warnings of the end of human civilisation.
But, I still believe that global warming is going to seriously affect the lives of billions of people, to their detriment. Most of whom will not be in any position to help themselves out of the problems climate change will throw at them. And, I also believe that changes in human behaviour (especially in the industrialised countries) can slow the rate of global warming allowing time for people to adapt, and maybe even stabilise the climate at a not-too unreasonable state. And, that many of the changes required are inexpensive and practical, and even those that cost a lot are going to be cheap compared with dealing with the effects of global warming.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.
I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.
I do get frustrated by attitudes like this. The science is proven - increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more solar radiation, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the main cause for the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels and removal of carbon sinks.
And yet, because we've had a crap summer and London hasn't disappeared underwater, it's all a big lie designed to part us from our hard-earned cash.
It's not all or nothing. It's a question of degrees (in some cases, literally). How much of a contribution are we making? What are the effects going to be? Are there natural cycles that will damp or accelerate or even negate the effects?
In the end, it's the excuse to do nothing, not to care about the Earth or our neighbour, not to let it bother us in any way that might cost us something.
Just because 56% of people don't understand something or hope it will go away will only make what they don't want to happen more likely. Sort of a reverse Pascal's wager.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
though there are big questions about how an Antarctic record relates to the globe generally, that's one reason why they're drilling Greenland to see if the same pattern appears in the northern hemisphere.
If I remember correctly from the interview, the scientist commented along the lines that now this new insight into the situation on Greenland has been obtained, similar specific research is going to be undertaken on ice sheets elsewhere around the globe to ascertain whether melting is happening faster in other areas. The impression I gained when listening to the interview (which I just happened upon) was that the conclusion drawn concerning the effects of warming on Greenland's ice sheet was almost incidental: the study appeared to be primarily concerned with something else. Perhaps I got the wrong end of the stick since I hadn't been watching from the outset of the interview, but that was certainly the impression I got. I don't think that would necessarily be a new phenomenon in science though would it? Looking for one thing but finding something else either instead of or during the process of conducting the original research?
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The science is proven
Which bit?
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, I also believe that changes in human behaviour (especially in the industrialised countries) can slow the rate of global warming allowing time for people to adapt
I was having a chat with my parents (both retired) about green issues just last week and we got on to the kind of things that had changed in daily life between their youth and today. During the chat I realised that my parents' generation were, in some ways, greener than now. Ok, so industrialisation was pounding away at a major rate at that time, but in terms of ordinary family life they recycled and reused almost everything in some way or another.
Just take milk for example. We routinely go to the supermarket and buy plastic containers of milk which is transported from who knows where. In my parents' day, locally produced milk was driven by the slowest possible vehicle to their doorstep every morning, just enough for their needs, and it came in glass bottles which, apparently, were reused up to ten times (and today could be recycled). Why don't we go back to using glass bottles for milk? A small thing, but when I then went on to reflect just how many plastic bottles I use each week because I consider milk to be a necessary food (and can’t find anyone selling it in glass bottles), how much crap would not be either pumped into the atmosphere or buried in landfill (given that plastic recycling is not available in my area) if even just milk was packaged differently? I don't actually know the answer to that but if I multiply it by all the households in my town (pop 180,000) who routinely buy milk, surely that change alone could make a difference?
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The science is proven
Which bit?
The bit you glossed.
quote:
increased CO2 in the atmosphere traps more solar radiation, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, and the main cause for the rise in atmospheric CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels and removal of carbon sinks.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Talk about brainwashing millions of gullible people. It's the old adage that if you shout loud enough and say it often enough everyone will believe it.
I'm glad to say that in the UK over half of the population (56%) do NOT believe that global warming is man made or nearly as bad as the apocalyptic greens are telling us.
Countless scientists have been studying this for decades. They have literally put in tens of thousands of man-years work into researching, debating, attending conferences, and general bickering. It's probably the most examined scientific question ever. And the result?
quote:
American Meteorological Society:
Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases [which will cause] significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.
quote:
Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias (Brazil), Académie des Sciences (France), Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Russian Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Sciences (USA), Royal Society of Canada, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany), Science Council of Japan, Academy of Science of South Africa, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Indian National Science Academy, Academia Mexicana de Ciencias (Mexico), Royal Society (UK):
The problem is not yet insoluble, but becomes more difficult with each passing day ... even [with urgent action] warming would be likely to have some severe impacts.
quote:
American Geophysical Union:
Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. ... A particular concern is that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large extraterrestrial objects. ... Moreover, research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. [...These] constitute a real basis for concern."
quote:
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London:
Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development – and even survival - of humanity. ... We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling.
I could include similar quotes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Union of Concerned Scientists (representing its 200,000 members), the American Academy for Advancement of Sciences, National Research Council, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society...and so on. No major scientific body disputes that we are causing it, except (possibly) the Society of Petroleum Engineers.
These are bright people, and it's their job to study this stuff. Thousands of them. For years and years.
And yes, they MIGHT be wrong, as most would acknowledge. Climate is complicated. But you sound extremely confident that they're virtually all wrong and it's not a significant problem. Where do you get that certainty from? And if you're not 100% certain, then how sure are you? Personally, I don't think playing Russian roulette is bright, especially when the gun is pointed at our descendents and the vulnerable, and at least five out of six chambers are loaded.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Thanks for the Greenland link Littlelady - it was interesting stuff. I find the idea of drilling a 2km or 3km deep bore hole in the middle of somewhere as inhospitable as Greenland pretty impressive!
You're right about older generations being greener than us in lots of ways. It's a symptom of how cheap energy is nowadays - the real cost of things like car ownership and domestic heating has fallen markedly, so our expectations are much higher and we don't think twice about using them the whole time.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Littlelady:
The impression I gained when listening to the interview (which I just happened upon) was that the conclusion drawn concerning the effects of warming on Greenland's ice sheet was almost incidental: the study appeared to be primarily concerned with something else.
The primary study would almost certainly be paleoclimatic - studying air bubbles trapped in the ice allows one to determine the temperature when the ice was deposited via the ratios of abundances of different oxygen isotopes, along with other data such as CO2 concentrations. There are cores being drilled through practically every ice sheet on the planet to get such data, which is vital to better understanding the past climate - which in turn further constrains the models used to understand current climate forcing and predict future changes.
quote:
I don't think that would necessarily be a new phenomenon in science though would it? Looking for one thing but finding something else either instead of or during the process of conducting the original research?
No, it certainly wouldn't be unusual. It's safe to say that in many areas of science collecting data is a labourious and expensive process. That means that scientists are going to try and get whatever they can from the data they collect. As an example, I recently developed a new visualisation technique for the sort of data I collect, and have gone through old data to try it out and get some examples for a paper I'm putting together. The data wasn't collected for that, but using old data means I can do the work without applying for any additional funding in spare time - if I was to collect new data to demonstrate it I'd need to get someone to pay about £20k.
When collecting samples (eg: the ice cores) it's usual to collect, if possible, a far larger sample than is actually needed for the immediate project. It doesn't actually cost much more to do that, and then you've got spare material to repeat an analysis if something unexpected comes up, you have material for different labs to work on (ensuring any analytical problems at one lab don't ruin the data), and you have material to do additional work that wasn't conceived of when the sample was taken. The article implied that the last of these happened here - someone had a bright idea of seeing if pollen was trapped in the ice and what that would add to the understanding of the local environment when the ice was deposited. They convinced whoever had collected the core to let them have some of it for a study of the potential of such analysis, which they then did "on the cheap" (ie: without going to the expense of drilling a core for that purpose) without jeapordising the primary research the core was collected for. Having proved they can do it, they're presumably now seeking funds to continue the work on other cores collected elsewhere.
quote:
I was having a chat with my parents (both retired) about green issues just last week and we got on to the kind of things that had changed in daily life between their youth and today. During the chat I realised that my parents' generation were, in some ways, greener than now.
There was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about reducing waste. It was written primarily about the loss of weekly rubbish collection, and how to make a bin last two weeks, rather than specifically about climate change and reducing carbon footprints but it would apply to that. They had a little box of "top tips", included in that were to get hold of house-keeping books from the 1940s when rationing was still inforce, or even produced as recently as the 1970s, because they were stuffed full of ways to make the most of limited resources.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
I'm still undecided on human global warming, but I do know this:
Burning fossil fuels is insane. From an engineering point of view, the things we can make from fossil fuels are far more valuable than the energy.
Nuclear energy is (physically, not politically) much cheaper and more abundant.
I support a steadily increasing tax structure on burning hydrocarbons, along with the massive development of nuclear power.
This will give free markets both the time and incentive to change.
An exception might be made for necessary air travel where fast, cheap alternatives are impossible.
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
I'm still undecided on human global warming
That's quite understandable, especially considering all the conflicting media coverage we're bombarded with.
I can't follow detailed climate debates...it gets horribly technical very quickly. For me, the key point is that the thousands of people who have studied this are decided. They might be wrong, but at the present time they're the best source of information we've got. And once you admit that there's at least a reasonable chance they're right, not acting is criminally irresponsible. Drunk driving at 100mph is a bad idea even if by luck you don't kill anyone.
If we ignore the scientists' advice, and they're right, the future will be irrevocably different. People will look back at our generation in disbelief and disgust. (Strong words, I know.)
quote:
I support a steadily increasing tax structure on burning hydrocarbons, along with the massive development of nuclear power.
This will give free markets both the time and incentive to change.
An exception might be made for necessary air travel where fast, cheap alternatives are impossible.
All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. "Tax pollution, not work."
Carbon taxes/carbon caps are the free market solution, rather than tinkering around with endless individual subsidies and regulations. George Monbiot commented that regulation ultimately leads to the absurd idea of inspectors creeping around houses at night to make sure all the lights are turned off and rechargers unplugged.
That said, there's still a place for legislation to tackle the big areas - e.g. building heating and transport. But for the fiddly stuff, let carbon taxes/caps sort it out.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Alan,
Here's Al Gore's latest
quote:
The seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming:
I pledge
1. To demand that my country join an international treaty within the next two years that cuts global warming pollution by 90 percent in developed countries and by more than half worldwide in time for the next generation to inherit a healthy earth;
2. To take personal action to help solve the climate crises by reducing my own C02 pollution as much as I can and offsetting the rest to become ''carbon neutral'';
3. To fight for a moratorium on the construction of any new generating facility that burns coal without the capacity to safely trap and store the C02;
4. To work for a dramatic increase in the energy efficiency of my home, workplace, school, place of worship, and means of transportation;
5. To fight for laws and policies that expand the use of renewable energy sources and reduce dependence on oil and coal;
6. To plant new trees and to join with others in preserving and protecting forests; and,
7. To buy from businesses and support leaders who share my commitment to solving the climate crises and building a sustainable, just and prosperous world for the 21st century.
It makes me curious again: have scientists been able to determine precisely how much human activity is contributing to climate change?
And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?
(BTW - thanks for your response to my solar cycles question.)
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766
|
Posted
Hiro's leap wrote, "All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. 'Tax pollution, not work.'"
I'm sorry, I meant a punitive tax. The idea was to eliminate wasting a valuable resource, not to make money. Ideally, few would pay the tax, so it wouldn't generate much income.
Encouraging nuclear energy is even more important than the tax. Raising taxes without providing an alternative would be suicidal. (I could posit a scenario where the human race could die out from this.)
Alternative energy sources will not get the job done. The only reason they exist is subsidies. If they really worked, everyone with a backyard would be using them.
With nuclear power, the U.S. military industrial complex, using the threat of nuclear weapons, is limiting development of the resource. Many countries have tried and are trying to develop nuclear power. They are blocked by the nuclear "haves".
Oh, and caps are just taxes with cheating and corruption added in. If they worked honestly, the fuel would be sold with the tradable part attached as an added tax. But with a little bookkeeping magic...
--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon
Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
[Snipped the seven-point pledge announced by Al Gore to rally support against global warming.]
It makes me curious again: have scientists been able to determine precisely how much human activity is contributing to climate change?
And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?
I know this was addressed to Alan, but until he turns up...
Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?
For the first point, the science is fairly clear and aside from a few minor quibbles Al Gore represents it well. Global warming so far has been due to a combination of natural causes - including fluctuating solar activity - and man-made CO2 emissions. The natural effects can be used to model temperature well until 1970-ish but they can't explain rapid late 20th century warming adequately.
CO2 stays in the atmosphere for a long time (decades) compared to most other gases and particulates, and so the level keeps rising. (There's no real doubt that CO2 levels are rising, and that this increase is down to human emissions.) This means that as the 21st century continues, the man-made part of the warming will overwhelm the natural variations. Again, there's no question about this - the disagreement is how rapidly it'll happen, and what the effects will be.
The Rough Guide to Climate Change provides a non-partisan and balanced overview of the scientific consensus, and it reached the final six shortlist for the Royal Society's 2007 best science book. It's well worth reading.
As to Gore's seven points, I agree with them all, except:
- Carbon offsetting is a bit of a con.
- Planting trees at an individual level won't do much.
- Carbon capture is a long way off, with very uncertain long-term effects.
- We're going to need nuclear power until renewables can fully replace carbon.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by DmplnJeff:
Hiro's leap wrote, "All excellent ideas, although I'd probably prefer carbon cap-and-trade. If we went for taxes, we should gradually reduce income tax as carbon taxes were phased in. 'Tax pollution, not work.'"
I'm sorry, I meant a punitive tax. The idea was to eliminate wasting a valuable resource, not to make money. Ideally, few would pay the tax, so it wouldn't generate much income.
A carbon tax would need to be quite high to alter behaviour, and people will quite naturally resent this. To make it clear that the scheme isn't just another "stealth tax", any revenue can be passed directly back as a reduction in income tax. (Particularly to lower and mid-income families, who spend a greater proportion of their money on energy.)
The idea is to keep the overall tax burden the same, but reward carbon saving behaviour from individuals and companies.
quote:
Encouraging nuclear energy is even more important than the tax. [...]
Alternative energy sources will not get the job done. The only reason they exist is subsidies. If they really worked, everyone with a backyard would be using them.
Alternative energy can fill part of the gap, and aren't THAT expensive. Solar PV technology is expensive, but the cost steadily falling. Wave/wind/tidal power is cheaper, although they suffer from high capital costs (especially tidal).
The oil and gas industries have some huge subsidies, including hidden ones...how much is spent on the military to keep pipelines secure?
quote:
Oh, and caps are just taxes with cheating and corruption added in. If they worked honestly, the fuel would be sold with the tradable part attached as an added tax. But with a little bookkeeping magic... [/QB]
Not sure what you mean by the last part? Caps have the big advantage in that the emissions are...well...capped. It's vague as to exactly how much tax you'd need to levy to reduce fossil fuel use by the required amount, but a cap is much clearer. Then people can bid for the rights, and the price will find its own level. Corruption etc depends on the system that is introduced, which is admittedly tricky.
[ 09. July 2007, 20:11: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?
I want someone to say exactly (or as close as you can get given our current knowledge) how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural or cyclical because the second question hinges on the first.
Is 'largely' the answer? Does the science 'prove' it?
And nothing personal but IME Alan is about as even-handed as anyone I've read on the topic: he doesn't have any vested interest other than honesty and a scientist's predilection for sticking to what's demonstrated.
tyop
[ 09. July 2007, 20:12: Message edited by: 206 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
And IYO is Al fairly representing the science?
The science only really comes into the first pledge. The Working Group III report from the IPCC covered "Mitigation of Climate Change". That report has a set of targets politicians may wish to aim for (remember, the role of the IPCC is to provide policy makers with the information such as "if we do this, this is likely to happen" or "what will we need to do to get that to happen?" rather than tell policy makers what to do) and what emissions targets will be needed. To reach an equilibrium mean global temperature less than 3°C warmer than 2000 CO2(equivalent) emissions would need to be cut by 50% or more by 2050. A 3°C rise in temperature would still impact many people considerably, but is still less than most predictions of catastrophe.
So, the pledge to cut CO2 emissions by 50% this generation is in line with the IPCC assessment of what's needed to avoid >3°C temperature rises. And, it's only reasonable that the historic big polluters take a lead in that, so the 90% for the developed countries is OK by me too.
The other points are really expansions on the first. The commitment is to cut CO2, these are specifics towards that goal. On those I'd agree with Hiro's Leap that carbon offsetting is a bit of a con (as I've said before) - but if all steps are taken to reduce CO2 emissions then over-offsetting (ie: buy more offsetting than the supposed actaul offset, because most offsetting won't offset as much as forecast) the rest seems fine, afterall many steps won't be practical all at once and while you're cutting back offsetting is an approach to do some good.
Trees are good, renewables are good, carbon capture is in its infancy and isn't proven to work (or, not proven to work as well as it's sometimes claimed) and carbon storage may just be leaving a legacy for our children as it starts to leak back to the atmosphere, and supporting green and ethical businesses adds consumer power and market forces to the fight. I'd definitely want more nuclear rather than "clean coal", and a radical rethink about transport - there's no way we can do 90% cuts with our current transport models, even with increased efficiency; there's simply too many private cars and too many airline flights.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
quote:
Are you asking whether or not Al Gore is right in saying AGW is largely man-made, or asking if his seven point plan is going to be any use at addressing climate change?
I want someone to say exactly (or as close as you can get given our current knowledge) how much is anthropogenic and how much is natural or cyclical because the second question hinges on the first.
Is 'largely' the answer? Does the science 'prove' it?
Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.
So, I'm going to estimate. If you look at the figure on the top of page 253 of the IPCC WGI report there's a plot of historical temperature records. If my memory of the data I can't find is correct, and temperature rises until about 50 years ago can be modelled without anthropogenic input, then the 150 year average temperature increase of 0.045±0.012°C per decade would be close to the natural contribution. With recent temperature rises at 0.177±0.052°C per decade, that gives an anthropogenic input of 0.132±0.053°C per decade - approximately three times the natural contribution. Or, put another way, with natural processes alone current mean global temperatures would be 14.2°C rather than the 14.6°C they are.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Hi 206,
There's almost 100% agreement amongst scientists that:
(a) The earth is warming.
(b) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
(c) This CO2 increase is mostly due to human industry (fossil fuels plus de-deforestation).
(d) Without major changes CO2 levels will continue to rise, as will temperatures, until CO2 dominates any natural variations.
Where there ISN'T such strong agreement is:
(e) What is a 'safe' level of CO2?
(f) How rapid will the warming be? (The IPCC reports probably play it safe...they explicitly exclude positive feedbacks when the science is too uncertain.)
And expanding on Alan's point about 90% carbon reduction...
This figure represents a "contract and convergence" approach. The idea is that everyone on the planet has fundamentally the same right to emit carbon, and so the developed nations will need to cut back much more to reach the global target of 50% reduction.
This isn't a scientific question, it's about value judgements: if we do decide carbon must be limited, what's a fair way to do so? What is politically feasible?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.
Is this the page?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Somewhere I've seen plots of model results for the last couple of centuries compared to measurements, which match almost perfectly until 50 years ago without any anthropogenic input, but significantly underestimate the temperature rises of the last 50 years. These have already been mentioned, but I can't find the plots.
Is this the page?
It shows what I was saying. Though the what I've seen recently was a set of plots for each continent plus the oceans, rather than global mean, shown on a map of the earth. But, that was at a seminar rather than online, so it may not even be online (though it was a cool graphic). ... aha, found it. It was at the SAGES launch, in the "Centre for Earth System Dynamics" presentation (there's a Powerpoint file from the link at the bottom of the page).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Yep, that's the one. Why couldn't I find that in the full report? I think I'll put it down to not enough time to look last night ...
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
That is a cool graphic.
It's interesting that it shows the post-WWII drop in temperature as being most dramatic in the USA and Europe...i.e. the most industrialised areas. Does that support the idea that the temperature fall was due to pollution causing a global dimming effect?
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
This worries me:
here
and
here
Is this the real motive behind Al Gore's Messianic and Apocalyptic diatribes?
[ 10. July 2007, 18:29: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) Ah, now I see it: environmentalism is how the pagans will destroy Christinity. I'll get the tin foil. OliviaG.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
This isn't a scientific question, it's about value judgements: if we do decide carbon must be limited, what's a fair way to do so? What is politically feasible?
I hear you. If I followed Alan's estimate and it's accurate we're responsible for roughly 3/4 of global warming.
It remains my concern that industrialized nations aren't going to adequately reduce emissions until they're forced to either by running out of oil or something approaching police states. Gore's 90% is IMO wildly optimistic.
It's going to be very interesting to see how all this ends up in a few decades.
[Mudfrog - do you just enjoy painting a target on your forehead?]
[ 10. July 2007, 18:57: Message edited by: 206 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
You're right about older generations being greener than us in lots of ways. It's a symptom of how cheap energy is nowadays - the real cost of things like car ownership and domestic heating has fallen markedly, so our expectations are much higher and we don't think twice about using them the whole time.
I think the introduction of plastics has also played a major part. Plastic has been so abundant, its use so pervasive and its waste so unrecyclable that a kind of throw-away culture has evolved which causes problems at many levels.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
There was an article in the paper a few weeks ago about reducing waste. It was written primarily about the loss of weekly rubbish collection, and how to make a bin last two weeks, rather than specifically about climate change and reducing carbon footprints but it would apply to that. They had a little box of "top tips", included in that were to get hold of house-keeping books from the 1940s when rationing was still inforce, or even produced as recently as the 1970s, because they were stuffed full of ways to make the most of limited resources.
I think this is sad, in a 'look what it's come to' kind of way. But on the other hand I think the only way forward it to go backwards in some respects. I'm not sure fortnightly rubbish collections is the answer though. I certainly hope they aren't introduced where I live. I can imagine what will happen if they are: rubbish dumped on the pavements, possibly set alight, and people stealing wheelie bins so as to have two for themselves.
I still can't do all this with climate change in mind as I'm still not convinced of the degree of influence we have on the climate directly, but I've been raised recycling/reusing where possible and making savings on energy use, and I can do more of that if I just consider the environment generally, as I always have done, as that approach offers a tangible goal rather than effecting change at a climate level, which is way too abstract and 'out there' for me (whatever the science may or may not say!).
--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe
Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
paganism and ecology.
Not true?
Refute it then.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
One word. Stewardship.
"The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it an take care of it." All very pagan ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
paganism and ecology.
Not true?
Refute it then.
Even if we assume that Al Gore is a pagan ecologist, it doesn't make the science wrong.
Unfortunately, I've encountered Mudfrog's attitude before. Creation is a dirty word, and those who try to care for it are heathens and heretics. Someone I know argues that recycling and saving energy is pointless because he knows Jesus is coming soon - even to the point that he considers the time it takes to sort the paper from the tins wasted evangelism time.
Part of me wants to reason with him, but another part wants to beat him with the clue stick.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633
|
Posted
Presumably he lives as though there is almost no future left for us on Earth then.
Has he given up work so he can evangelise for his (and our) final few days. No point in starting to read a book as he'll never get to the end. Why take the time to look after his house, car, his body?
And I assume no savings, no pension, no insurance, no subscriptions to anything, no memberships. Why bother when it all ends so soon? Does he bother shaving, cleaning his teeth and having a shower?
Surely we have to assume there's some future or everything would be pointless and society would collapse.
Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by 206:
It remains my concern that industrialized nations aren't going to adequately reduce emissions until they're forced to either by running out of oil or something approaching police states. Gore's 90% is IMO wildly optimistic.
I think 90% is a good target, but it does assume everyone on the planet ends up with the same carbon allowance. Fair, but as you say, unlikely. Allowing rich countries to buy some carbon from poorer countries is one alternative that might be more acceptable. Some people think that's a cop-out, but as far as I can see...
- It'd avoid massive immediate infrastructure changes in industrial countries, while still providing a disincentive to use fossil fuels.
- There'd be a major flow of money into the Third World (some of which could be earmarked for renewable power projects or adaptation to climate problems).
- Overall CO2 emissions would still be limited.
Allowances could be based on a county's population at a certain date - say 2008. That way there's an incentive for countries to try and limit population growth...otherwise it'll reduce their allowance per capita.
quote:
It's going to be very interesting to see how all this ends up in a few decades.
In the sense of "May you live in interesting times"? But yes, it's grimly fascinating what'll happen.
The situation reminds me of Pharaoh's dreams about the seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. Right now, we're living in a time of unparalleled wealth and resources: it'd be a big project to switch to renewables/nuclear and efficient design, but it's very feasible. The longer we wait the harder that'll become. And within a few decades (at most) the traditional oil will start to run out, which is going to complicate things.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
Has he given up work so he can evangelise for his (and our) final few days. No point in starting to read a book as he'll never get to the end. Why take the time to look after his house, car, his body?
And I assume no savings, no pension, no insurance, no subscriptions to anything, no memberships. Why bother when it all ends so soon? Does he bother shaving, cleaning his teeth and having a shower?
As far as I can tell, no.
It's the environmental issues that he sees no reason to attend to - either he genuinely believes he's living in the End Times and environmentalism is all a pagan plot (pace Mudfrog), or he's dressing up his can't-be-bothered attitude in a theology shirt.
The second choice here is actually preferable. Which is scary.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
Doc Tor, tell your acquaitance to read Revelation 11:18 . Jesus is coming back, and he's going to destroy those who destroyed the earth.
I too have dealt with this attitude among evangelical Christians and find it frankly scary and disturbing. The above verse is useful as it puts the matter into terms they can relate well to.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
