IPCC Report on Climate Change

[bedouin]

There's just been a programme about climate change with David Attenborough on TV and it made frightening viewing - even the very small changes we've had over the last 30 years are putting great strain on huge ecosystems such as the Amazon rain forest and the great barrier reef.

Note that driving a bi-fuel car does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions since the electricity you use to charge it was itself generated by burning fossil fuels.

The only way to fix the problem is for the planet to move away from burning fossil fuels for energy - which really means nuclear (preferable fusion) seems to be the only realistic way out.

In 100 years time people are going to look back in amazement at our generation for thinking that nuclear power somehow poses a greater threat to the environment than coal and gas

 

[Lakesailor]

[ QUOTE ]
Doh! Wake up you lazy greedy sods

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that is justifed. Just because we don't agree with you or subscribe to the populist view.

Oh! Must go.....Top Gear is on.

 

[jenku]

[ QUOTE ]


I bet you dream in full technicolour and Dolby surround sound! Is that really the story being sold where you live?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh yes it is. At least it is a start and far better than doing nothing. If everyone does a little (and yes this includes the Americans and Chinese) the problem is probably solveable. And if not we would have tried at lest.

 

[Anonymous]

I've been reducing my environmental impact for well over a decade, reducing fuel usage and choosing fuel that is more environmentally friendly, where possible. I no longer own a car and I try to sail or walk or cycle before using transport so I don't need sweeping generalisations such as yours!!

What I would like is for some of the scientists to tell me what they suggest we actually DO ABOUT IT. I know there is a problem and I am doing what I can, personally, but what should we be doing? The IPCC report forgot to tell us.

 

[jenku]

[ QUOTE ]

Note that driving a bi-fuel car does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions since the electricity you use to charge it was itself generated by burning fossil fuels.

The only way to fix the problem is for the planet to move away from burning fossil fuels for energy - which really means nuclear (preferable fusion) seems to be the only realistic way out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that depends, if you look at Norway, their electricity is 100% water power stations from dams and rivers. In Sweden you can now chose electricity distributors that exclusively do not use fossile fuel generated power. (Not cheaper yet though).

As for fossil fuels, as posted above, they will run out anyway, so alternatives have to be found. I happily realised today at the gas station that E85 (ethanol fuel) now is cheaper than ordinary petrol. A tax thing I guess, but again, it is a start. Stockholm buses have operated on ethanol fuel for more than a decade!

The bottom line is, just tax fossil fuels to death and the industry will find alternatives. You do remember they were very sure no car could run on unleaded fuel, eh? Of course they can, but you have to force them, then will never change voluntarily.

 

[Guest]

Jenku, what you're saying is only common sense but unfortunately while it may work in Sweden, it doesn't appeal to the cynical, commercial, selfish culture that unfortunately is so prevalent in the UK.

 

[jenku]

You know what the funny thing is? Up here the UK is praised for being a forerunner in those questions! After all the Stern report is British! This is partly why I am so shocked reading all these comments!
But then again most in this forum seem not to like Tony Blair so maybe it is all politics in the end, which of course is a pity.

 

[Guest]

Maybe there's hope then /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Or maybe that means there's no hope /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[LostinFrance]

Good for you, unfortunately until I know everyone personally here and their habits, savoury or unsavoury, I can only make sweeping generalisations. If anybody is offended, then tough titty. Bruised feeleings count little against the projected loss of my childrens future (and mine assuming I live to my alloted lifespan).

Why DO you need someone to tell you what to do, you are doing it already. What I find incredible is peoples willingness to take a chance on such an important issue.

 

[LostinFrance]

[ QUOTE ]
Just the sort of reasoned, logical sort of argument we all need. Not really.

[/ QUOTE ]

What sort of argument do you want then? I can see you are using English, but I can't see what your getting at. Try expanding your reply a bit.

 

[jenku]

There is always hope for us who have a boat. Now does anyone have the drawings for this cat of Kevin Costner's in Waterworld. We may need it. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

 

[vivace]

Mariposa

well done for raising this.

Some of the replies seem to illustrate two things.

First, when you don't like what you're being told, pick up anything, no matter how vague (medieval warm period for example) that might cats doubt, and beleive that instead.

Second, blame it on politics. "Don't like Blair so if he believes it, it must be false!"

The science is clear, and I for one think we pay too little for our energy and treat this planet like an open sewer.

So last year, I decided to stop flying for holidays and bought a boat (30 years old) instead. I now take holidays by wind power.

Oh, and for those who still won't believe it becuase Blair does, guess who's father in law owns land with planning approval for a wind farm? David Cameron.

 

[Anonymous]

[ QUOTE ]
Why DO you need someone to tell you what to do, you are doing it already. What I find incredible is peoples willingness to take a chance on such an important issue.

[/ QUOTE ]Listen. Stop being Mr Angry for five minutes and listen. The IPCC report is practically meaningless to anyone but a climatologist. Nobody can visualise what these figures mean in practice nor what we - individually or collectively - can do about it. The IPCC report is a dreadful, useless document that has done far more harm than good simply because it is meaningless to everyone who matters. To be of any use to anyone it needed to make recommendations.

 

[Guest]

[ QUOTE ]
To be of any use to anyone it needed to make recommendations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that its problem was that it is trying to be too precise. It is a collation of analysis by scientists, and is therefore trying to form some kind of unified scientific view on what has been happening, and projections as to what will happen. That's a pretty colossal task.

As we know some scientists have been accused of taking a scaremongering view of what has been happening. Telling us, and the governments represented in the United Nations under whose auspices they operated, what to do, is a different scale of task. Reports indicated that even as it was they had to tone down the conclusion that they were 'virtually certain' that climate change is caused by man because of indirect pressure from the Chinese government. Decisions of what to do about it involves many political, economic considerations, and difficult matters of international relations etc. quite apart from pure science.

Rather than decrying what it doesn't do, it is more constructive to focus on what it does achieve.

 

[BrendanS]

I've pretty much given up taking part in global warming discussions on the ybw forums, as any time any one tries to introduce some facts, the naysayers just come out with obfuscation without any real debate about the facts

However, on this occassion I feel I have to jump in as no one seems to understand the IPPC reporting. What everyone is referring to, is a summary document from working group 1, which is purely about where the Physical Science understanding of the reality of global warming is currently, and which was released just a few days ago at the meeting of the working group in Paris.

If you want recommendations, then you need to read the results of working party III, of which this is the proposed format.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg3outlines.pdf

Working party III convene early May, and their document will be released at the end of that meeting.

 

[Anonymous]

Thanks for explaining that, Brendan. It is a shame that they don't write things in a language that non-specialists can understand. This is what Working Party III is supposed to be getting up to....

1. Introduction
· Article 2 of the Convention and mitigation
· Past, present, future, including previous IPCC reports
· Time scales
· Structure of the report, the rationale behind it, the role of Cross Cutting Themes and framing issues
2. Framing issues
· The scope of the global climate change problem
· Climate change mitigation and sustainable development
· Mitigation, vulnerability and adaptation relationships
· Regional dimensions
· Technology research, development, deployment, diffusion and transfer
· Risk and uncertainty
· Distributional and equity aspects
· Cost and benefits concepts
· Decision making and implementation

They don't try to make it easier for non-scientists to understand any of this. It is hardly surprising that the public and press fail to understand what it is all about. Given the vital importance of the work, it's nothing short of a scandal.

 

[BrendanS]

their remit for these series of reports is not for non scientists. If they have to phrase the reports in baby language for the press, then they are not doing their actual job. It all makes sense for the people it's aimed at.

It's for others to put it all in to baby language, but then the details will be lost.

 

[Robin]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yes it is. At least it is a start and far better than doing nothing. If everyone does a little (and yes this includes the Americans and Chinese) the problem is probably solveable. And if not we would have tried at lest.


[/ QUOTE ]

Jenku if you really believe CO2 emissions are the main or only culprit in global warming then the solution is very clear, reduce greenhouse gases (C02 is not the only one) to zero or to let's say 19th century levels. Now if you think that is really achievable by changing to bi-fuel cars and turning off a few lights then the Swedish school system had some very poor mathematics teachers! To achieve that would require NO further industrial expansion by any country, anywhere PLUS existing ones will need to revert to 3rd world industrial outputs, if you think realistically that is possible then dream on. The UK is apparently reponsible for 2% of CO2 worldwide, even if we ceased 100% totally overnight that saving would be taken up by Chinese growth within weeks.

Personally I am not convinced that CO2 is the only problem, just that it is one contributory factor added to long term cyclical changes. However that is irrelevant against the reality of what can be done because slowing the rise in CO2 isn't going to do zilch, only reducing it dramatically would help. Voluntarily destroying economies and driving couintries into the biggest recessions known to mankind will never happen, even if it were perceived as being a good cause.

So, by all means reduce waste, our family have done it for years because I'm mean and would rather spend on the boat than home heating. However the real challenge is to stay one step ahead of the effects of climate change and plan to live with and adapt to it.

 

[BrendanS]

[ QUOTE ]
The UK is apparently reponsible for 2% of CO2 worldwide, even if we ceased 100% totally overnight that saving would be taken up by Chinese growth within weeks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Weeks? Upon which calculations is this statement of fact based? Total rubbish, as is often spouted in these kinds of debates.

 

[bedouin]

It's not quite that bad - all we have to do is to stop relying on fossil fuel as our main source of energy (and stop cutting down the rain forest).

That is technically achievable (and it will happen eventually anyway when the fossil fuel runs out).

Then all we have to do is to work out a way of taking Carbon back out of the carbon cycle /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif