IPCC Report on Climate Change

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. I am technical and understand most of it but the scientists must learn to communicate in plain language so they can tell ordinary people what is happening and what needs to be done. If you leave it to journalists looking for sound bites you will get all sorts of confusion and garbage reported.

Don't denigrate plain language by calling it 'baby language'. It is, after all, the 'babies' who pay the scientists, who do the polluting and whose cooperation is needed to solve the problem!

[/ QUOTE ]
I think there is a need for both. As I understand it this conference was primarily a scientific meeting. 2500 thousand "experts" in the field meeting to review the research and agree a scientific consensus. This surely is the equivalent of publishing in a scientific journal - that is scientists writting rigourously for peers.

Only once that understanding is reached can others start interpreting the information.

Note also that as soon as you get to interpretation you may begin to lose the unanimity - that is a lot more subjective than the statement of "facts"

 

[Conachair]

[ QUOTE ]

I believe climate change is upon us. I also believe there is bugger all we can do about it as it's too late. Whether it's a good thing or a bad thing will depend very much on where you, and your children's children, live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I´m with you on this one. And John Gray (http://www.granta.com/shop/product?usca_p=t&product_id=979) and James Lovelock (http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/lovebioen.htm). Ifr you are over forty years old then the earths population has doubled in your lifetime. Unsustainable. And the answer? Haven´t got one so I bought a boat and sailed off to the sun to have some fun before I get too old.

 

[jenku]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

This assumes there is no technological development of any kind. All through history humans have made things more efficient, producing more with less effort. This will of course continue. As I said, if you make something too expensive for the industry (i e oil), they will develop alternatives. Additionally the first who develops a good alternative will get immensely rich, which does help the human brain working faster.

So of course we can have industrial expansion and lower CO2 outputs at the same time. Again, it is not about going back to the stone age, it is about developing for the future and making environmentally friendly technologies cheaper than the old, dirty ones.

 

[Robin]

[ QUOTE ]
This assumes there is no technological development of any kind. All through history humans have made things more efficient, producing more with less effort. This will of course continue. As I said, if you make something too expensive for the industry (i e oil), they will develop alternatives. Additionally the first who develops a good alternative will get immensely rich, which does help the human brain working faster.

So of course we can have industrial expansion and lower CO2 outputs at the same time. Again, it is not about going back to the stone age, it is about developing for the future and making environmentally friendly technologies cheaper than the old, dirty ones.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that the computer models being used to generate the predictions on CO2 actually take account of some technological improvements, because otherwise the predictions are incorrect are they not? In one set of graphs I saw recently it seemed that the USA was still the biggest outputter of CO2 but the rate of growth was not really increasing. By contrast China produced less CO2 (but a very significant amount nontheless) but still had a rapid growth in it's emissions. There is some hope therefore that technology IS having an effect in the USA if not yet in China where rapid growth rules.

The recent comments from Bush that the USA will seek to reduce it's use of oil also lends hope BUT note that Bush expected that to be done by technology and increased use of bio fuels, not by taxing the average Joe off the roads or out of the air or by killing off it's industries. I cannot stand Dubya but at least I'm with him on that, even if his REAL motive is not environmental but to reduce America's reliance on imported oil.

 

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]
I am assuming, possibly incorrectly, that the computer models being used to generate the predictions on CO2 actually take account of some technological improvements, because otherwise the predictions are incorrect are they not? In one set of graphs I saw recently it seemed that the USA was still the biggest outputter of CO2 but the rate of growth was not really increasing. By contrast China produced less CO2 (but a very significant amount nontheless) but still had a rapid growth in it's emissions. There is some hope therefore that technology IS having an effect in the USA if not yet in China where rapid growth rules.

The recent comments from Bush that the USA will seek to reduce it's use of oil also lends hope BUT note that Bush expected that to be done by technology and increased use of bio fuels, not by taxing the average Joe off the roads or out of the air or by killing off it's industries. I cannot stand Dubya but at least I'm with him on that, even if his REAL motive is not environmental but to reduce America's reliance on imported oil.

[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever the motivation any reduction of the use of fossil fuel is to be welcomed.

As far as the predictions are concerned I believe they ran the models using a wide range of assumptions for the future level of CO2 production - from unchecked increase to a realistic decrease - hence the very wide range of results (from about 1.8 to 6.5 deg C rise this century IIRC)

 

[jenku]

[ QUOTE ]
BUT note that Bush expected that to be done by technology and increased use of bio fuels, not by taxing the average Joe off the roads or out of the air or by killing off it's industries.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how is he going to do it? He won't make the dirty stuff more expensive so why would anyone try to find something better? State funded research and development? Not very American is it?

I won't comment the killing of part as is is purely rhetoric. It won't happen.

 

[2Tizwoz]

France is one of the largest nuclear based electricity generators

Despite which they emit a great deal of CO2

Unfortunately the sustainable carbon footprint is according to this site roughly 1tonne per annum

India comes in at 1.2 tonne Tanzania at 0.1 tonne whilst the UK average is 9.4 tonne.

Are we ready for an Indian life style? Mr Blair is not. His footprint is 17.9 tonne apparently. Everyone can work out their own position from the information on the site.

I assume that we will have to export quite a bit of the population from this heavily populated island before it is sustainable. But that is going in the opposite direction also despite falling birth rates. Halting immigration might be politically popular. Reducing carbon consumption tenfold is not.

Which of our mighty leaders will we follow down that path? /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[jenku]

Why should I empty the cat litter box more often than my wife? And by the way it is me doing the dishes all the time - and the hoovering, so I should not need to do it at all!

Comparing countries or individuals is not the point. They will all have to decrease their emissions. And it is not about lifestyle either.

 

[bedouin]

The BBC give the UK at 11 tonnes, with sustainable levels at 2.5 - but it's much the same really. The only way that is achievable without going back to the pre-industrial days is to move away from coal and gas to generate electricity - which for the UK means nuclear is the only genuine choice

If any party is serious about combatting global warming they should immediately announce a new generation of fission stations plus more investment in fusion research

 

[Robin]

[ QUOTE ]
Then how is he going to do it? He won't make the dirty stuff more expensive so why would anyone try to find something better? State funded research and development? Not very American is it?


[/ QUOTE ]

You should be a politician, their answer to everything is more tax more tax more tax.

As it happens I think the Americans have very good reasons other than cost to cut their usage of oil, namely they do not want to be held to ransom by the oil exporting countries. That is especially true now that Americans have much less appetite for more conflicts and loss of more American lives.

Out of interest I did the carbon survey from the links in another post HERE my figure came out not too bad at 4636kgs.

As an aside, I also compared my new 4x4 with my annual mileage versus driving a Toyota Prius tree hugger over average annual mileage and find my 4x4 to emit only 76% of the CO2 of the Toyota. Now since the Toyota has a very high carbon footprint for ir's manufacture to scrap life compared to mine, that makes me really quite green.

Doubling what I pay in tax will not make me greener, just angrier!

 

[jenku]

[ QUOTE ]


You should be a politician, their answer to everything is more tax more tax more tax.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, now why should this be the only way? You can make oil more expensive by exempting the green stuff from tax as well. Same tax for you, no tax for me. What do you say now?

As for your car, I won't suggest anyone should scrap their cars and get green ones at once. But there should be really no new cars allowed to be built that can not go on alternative fuels as well.

 

[bedouin]

[ QUOTE ]
As an aside, I also compared my new 4x4 with my annual mileage versus driving a Toyota Prius tree hugger over average annual mileage and find my 4x4 to emit only 76% of the CO2 of the Toyota. Now since the Toyota has a very high carbon footprint for ir's manufacture to scrap life compared to mine, that makes me really quite green.
!

[/ QUOTE ]
It's a common misconception that cars like the Prius have a reduced Carbon footprint - but that is nonsense - at least in the UK where the majority of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuel - however I don't think the official figures take that into account

 

[2Tizwoz]

I think it may be difficult to persuade other nations to stay poor whilst we live in the profligate lap of luxury, enjoying longer healthier, comfortable lives burdened by the threat of obesity and demand that they pollute no more so that they may not join the party.

When the leader of the country shows by example that he gives scant regard for the problem it is unlikely that his guidance will carry much weight.

 

[jenku]

Of course they don't have to stay poor. Getting rich needed burning coal in the 19th century, oil in the 20th century and alternative fuels in the future. Why should those countries build an industry based on oil when oil won't last more than 50 years anyway? This is really not very smart, is it? Much better to find an energy source that is renewable/will last a trifle longer!

I kind of fear that they will get rich on something new, while we slowly get poorer defending something old and hopeless.

 

[Neddie_Seagoon]

[ QUOTE ]
The report you are referring to has no political allegiances, and is reporting purely on antartic survey data, by the British Antarctic Survey scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen a scientific paper in recent years that hasn't been politically skewed. Private sector science is there to prove a point. Public sector science is likewise specified and commissioned with expectations as to what the conclusions will be. And to complicate the matter scientists are not immune to politics or working out of pure altruism, so they may stamp their own agendas into their interpretations of facts.

As far as I'm concerned I have seen so many examples of distortion and inexplicable misinterpretation in recent years by noted UK scientists that I really couldn't accept any of their conclusions without cross-examination and extensive peer review. One even has to mistrust "facts", because so many seem to think it is acceptable to eliminate "spurious" measurements and readings a mean is no longer a mean etc.

No disrespect to the British Antarctic Survey people, some of whom I used to know when I lived in Cambridge, because I'm not commenting on this report but on the overall industry of science in the UK. Inconvenient facts get ignored, convenient ones get over exposed, not only by politicians, but by front line scientists publishing or talking about their own original research.

Such is life - not many people pay for research without anticipating the results, so most science has some allegiance to influences other than pure objectivity. Even if the facts are correct (the planet is currently getting warmer) the interpretation of those facts is open to so much manipulation as to be close to worthless.

The problem is no different to the interpretation of intelligence that gave us "certainty" about WMD. Objective intelligence was gathered, then cherry picked and reinforced to give the desired conclusion even though the intelligence didn't merit it.

Sad but true.

 

[Robin]

[ QUOTE ]



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You should be a politician, their answer to everything is more tax more tax more tax.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Well, now why should this be the only way? You can make oil more expensive by exempting the green stuff from tax as well. Same tax for you, no tax for me. What do you say now?

As for your car, I won't suggest anyone should scrap their cars and get green ones at once. But there should be really no new cars allowed to be built that can not go on alternative fuels as well.



[/ QUOTE ]

Well, like I said TAX TAX TAX. See HERE"]http://www.ybw.com/auto/newsdesk/20070106102535mbmnews.html]HERE[/url][/url] for the latest re biofuel tax hike

 

[Abigail]

I too find much of this discussion depressing and frightening.

At it's most minimal level, every individual decision makes a small difference. Whether I reuse/reduce/recycle my rubbish, whether I cycle to work even once a week (or stay at home/get the bus/car share), where I buy my electricity and gas, buying local food - we ALL make those decisions every day and if we ALL started to seek to reduce our impact we begin to make a difference.

Yes, we need the big decisions, the examples, the understandable science. But the basic facts are in our faces. That is the crucial message of the scientific unananimity around this week's report.

Waiting for 'them' - british politicians, americans, chinese, scientists - to turn into 'our language' or 'set an example' or whatever else is a pathetic excuse for personal irresponsbility. It is up to all of us to make a difference.