Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Special K]

Putting to one side the argument about whether or not the earth is getting warmer, can i ask posters what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint?

[dune]

I like Lord Moncktons approach

 

[video=youtube;QYvbibO-SlI]

 

 

UKIP = The way forward. FACT.

[dune]

Putting to one side the argument about whether or not the earth is getting warmer, can i ask posters what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint?

 

Nothing at all.

[alpine_saint]

Putting to one side the argument about whether or not the earth is getting warmer, can i ask posters what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint?

 

I control the carbon footprint of 5 people in a population of 7billion, 2 billion of which live in countries that dont give a flying f**k about carbon footprints. We also live in a nation with one of the smallest carbon footprints in the developed world because our main source of electricity is hydroelectric.

 

What do u expect me to do ?

[buctootim]

Its nothing to do with big business and profit margin, and everything to do with people in the West being unwilling to go back to Dark Ages standards of living, and people in the East not willing to have lower standards of living than the West on the basis of a scientific theory still completely unproven.

 

I note my comments about cows and volcanoes remain unanswered............

 

All ruminants produce methane. Ruminants need to eat plants. Growing plants take up CO2. Cows digesting the plants release it again. Arguably the nett effect is zero (depending on what you think the natrual population of ruminants would be and what the pasture would be used for otherwise.

 

Volcanoes do produce large amounts of carbon. They also emit large amounts of ash and particles in the upper atmosphere which blocks sunlight and therefore heat. The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 and the subsequent 'year without summer' is worth reading about.

[Thedelldays]

I like Lord Moncktons approach

 

[video=youtube;QYvbibO-SlI]

 

if what he says is true then....eerr, makes you wonder how "informed" many of these protestors are..

 

my view.....man does have an effect on the climate...but one that will bring us to the end....do me a favour

[Minty]

I note my comments about cows and volcanoes remain unanswered............

 

There is 200x more CO2 in the atmosphere than Methane, and the amount of warming Methane contributes is 28% of the warming that CO2 contributes. It is important to moderate ALL 'greenhouse gases' but it's also important to say that the main reason that any methane emissions from animals would increase is because of the industrialisation of meat production and the need for an unsustainable increase in meat farming... which was caused by humans.

 

As for volcanoes, they emit around 0.3 billion tonnes of CO2 per year, Human CO2 emissions are believed to be around 29 billion tonnes per year. Again, it should be monitored but it is ultimately very small in comparison.

[alpine_saint]

All ruminants produce methane. Ruminants need to eat plants. Growing plants take up CO2. Cows digesting the plants release it again. Arguably the nett effect is zero (depending on what you think the natrual population of ruminants would be and what the pasture would be used for otherwise.

 

Volcanoes do produce large amounts of carbon. They also emit large amounts of ash and particles in the upper atmosphere which blocks sunlight and therefore heat. The Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 and the subsequent 'year without summer' is worth reading about.

 

These are interesting and plausible arguments; but the question is PROOF; you will not get billions of people to agree to change their lives (in a negative way) without incontrivertible proof. Thats how it is, unfortunately.........

[Special K]

I control the carbon footprint of 5 people in a population of 7billion, 2 billion of which live in countries that dont give a flying f**k about carbon footprints. We also live in a nation with one of the smallest carbon footprints in the developed world because our main source of electricity is hydroelectric.

 

What do u expect me to do ?

 

Crikey, you're a spiky one aren't you? I was merely enquiring as to what people do to offset their carbon footprint - i think this is the correct catch all term for assessing how environmentally conscientious one is.

 

I ask the question, because i am interested to see what is done by those who are unwavering in their conviction the world (or more correctly, the human race) will end through global warming or climate change. Allbeit through my own anecdotal research, i have been unsuprised to find that there are a great many people out there who are unwilling to sacrifice part, if not all, of their comfortable lifestyles for the good of the environment. This started off when i was lectured over dinner at a friends house, because of my choice of "gas guzzler" car. When i pointed out that the new mahogany sideboard had probably been procured from a few great specimens of Amazonian hardwood and the tiger prawns i was eating were specially flown all the way from Ecuador, it caused a slightly uncomfortable moment. However, it did inspire me to find out further how committed the more green amongst us are and how far they will go to save the planet. So far i have not found anyone who is willing to have a wholesale lifestyle change. Some make more effort to recycle, some have even jacked in one of the 2/3 cars they own, although this is probably more to do with current economic conditions. Pretty much everyone i have spoken to see's it as the duty of Government and big business to act, not the individual. It so easy for one to get upset about something one does not see as being responsible for, but isn't that just the way of things these days?

[Minty]

These are interesting and plausible arguments; but the question is PROOF; you will not get billions of people to agree to change their lives (in a negative way) without incontrivertible proof. Thats how it is, unfortunately.........

Interesting point that one... why the assumption that lives must be affected in a negative way? 'Green' industries are growing and if governments would actually invest in them, we could see increases in living standards as well as economic growth on the back of technological advances, all whilst moderating our influence on the climate (not to mention addressing resource issues, such as peak oil and food security). That's for another thread, but in short, lives do not have to be changed in a negative way.

 

Also, is the threat to human life not a negative thing? If climate change potentially limits our own existence, then the options are (simplistically) change and allow our race to exist for longer, or don't change and possibly wave goodbye?

[Baj]

And you will love to know, the planet hasn't been 'warming', infact the tempature has gone down slightly in the last 10 years.

And it's true because you said it?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8400905.stm

"The first decade of this century is "by far" the warmest since instrumental records began, say the UK Met Office and World Meteorological Organization."

[alpine_saint]

Interesting point that one... why the assumption that lives must be affected in a negative way? 'Green' industries are growing and if governments would actually invest in them, we could see increases in living standards as well as economic growth on the back of technological advances, all whilst moderating our influence on the climate (not to mention addressing resource issues, such as peak oil and food security). That's for another thread, but in short, lives do not have to be changed in a negative way.

 

 

Sorry, dont buy that one. You cannot compensate for a few hundred million years of fossil fuel generation. It takes so much effort out of the bigger equation. Conervation of Energy is one of the basic principles of science.

 

Also, is the threat to human life not a negative thing? If climate change potentially limits our own existence, then the options are (simplistically) change and allow our race to exist for longer, or don't change and possibly wave goodbye?

 

Climate change will eventually lead to a drop in world population, which is not a bad thing. I am a firm believer in Mother Natures ability to compensate.

[Whitey Grandad]

The sun is the heating system in the house. The carbon is the insulation. Both are important.

 

Indeed. But as far as I can tell, none of the present climate models take any account of the cosmic activity of the sun, and for very understandable reasons. Until now there has been no science concerning this interaction and so it could not be included, but more importantly nobody can predict what the sun is going to do anyway.

[buctootim]

These are interesting and plausible arguments; but the question is PROOF; you will not get billions of people to agree to change their lives (in a negative way) without incontrivertible proof. Thats how it is, unfortunately.........

 

Thats the crux of it though. Adair Turner (Former Chief Economist at World Bank and DG of the CBI) reckons the nett cost to GDP of moving to a low carbon economy would be 0.9% over 40 years - ie as a result of cutting emissions by 80% we would be just as rich by April 2051 as we would otherwise have been by January 2051 doing nothing.

 

Insulating houses well is a no-brainer - they are much more comfortable to live in. Hydrogen to power cars might be more expensive to produce than petrol at current oil prices - but the erratic price per barrel of oil and ther duty on petrol has much more impact on the price than the costs of production.

[pedg]

Putting to one side the argument about whether or not the earth is getting warmer, can i ask posters what they are doing to reduce their carbon footprint?

 

Personally:

 

Installed solar panel

New energy efficient boiler with special external temperature sensor for improved efficiency

Just finished adding 200mm to loft insulation (really dirt cheap subsidised rolls at B&Q at the moment)

Reduced car use and cycle when possible

Double glazing installed

 

(can't do cavity insulation as old house so no cavity)

[Minty]

I ask the question, because i am interested to see what is done by those who are unwavering in their conviction the world (or more correctly, the human race) will end through global warming or climate change.

A pet subject of mine this, but perhaps for slightly different reasons than you might expect.

 

Allbeit through my own anecdotal research, i have been unsuprised to find that there are a great many people out there who are unwilling to sacrifice part, if not all, of their comfortable lifestyles for the good of the environment.

Absolutely, and it's no surprise. Humans are creatures of habit, and we all know how difficult it can be to change a habit, especially a long standing one. None of us are any different in this respect, most things we do we had to learn and get used to over a long period of time. Even simple recycling, for whatever reason people do it, takes time to embed into daily life.

 

This started off when i was lectured over dinner at a friends house, because of my choice of "gas guzzler" car. When i pointed out that the new mahogany sideboard had probably been procured from a few great specimens of Amazonian hardwood and the tiger prawns i was eating were specially flown all the way from Ecuador, it caused a slightly uncomfortable moment.

I have friends who often apologise for things because they think I'm going to judge them for it. I make it clear, and this is the basis for my opinion on the subject overall, that we are all individuals who have choices to make, and we cannot and should not judge ourselves against a blanket criteria or impression of 'The Perfect Human'. If however, we learn about something that makes us want to change our habits, then it is a gradual process and we should encourage others to make gradual changes over time, and not judge them for failing to do so overnight.

 

However, it did inspire me to find out further how committed the more green amongst us are and how far they will go to save the planet. So far i have not found anyone who is willing to have a wholesale lifestyle change. Some make more effort to recycle, some have even jacked in one of the 2/3 cars they own, although this is probably more to do with current economic conditions.

Yes, that will be a part of it, but as I said above, people cannot and will not change habits overnight, but if they are making efforts to do so then it will gradually become easier to do so for other things in the future. I don't have a car now, but it took a long time to break the habit and there are times when I really struggle without one. I don't always remember to do certain things that I encourage others to do, but that's because I'm human and I'm not perfect.

 

Overall, IMO we need to foster a culture of education and encouragement. Criticising others for what they're not doing will not encourage them to continue the things they are. It's like stopping smoking... it takes time and encouragement or it's easy to slip back. And no matter where you start, any improvement should be welcomed. If you smoked 40 a day and halve that, that deserves just as much credit as the person reducing from 5 a day to 3, even though they are still smoking far more.

 

Pretty much everyone i have spoken to see's it as the duty of Government and big business to act, not the individual. It so easy for one to get upset about something one does not see as being responsible for, but isn't that just the way of things these days?

Sadly yes, I agree, and I think it will be our downfall. Personal responsibility is a concept seemingly lost nowadays, from money to the environment to watching your feet when walking down the street... trip over something and it's 'who can I sue?'.

 

Individually it is hard to make a difference, but if i can influence 100 people, and they can each influence 100 etc, etc, who knows?

Edited 21 October, 2011 by Minty

[buctootim]

Indeed. But as far as I can tell, none of the present climate models take any account of the cosmic activity of the sun, and for very understandable reasons. Until now there has been no science concerning this interaction and so it could not be included, but more importantly nobody can predict what the sun is going to do anyway.

 

Indeed. So given that we don't know what the sun is going to do but we do know we are adding more insulation to the house and that the temperature is going up uncomfortably, is it not wise to stop insulating?

[Minty]

Climate change will eventually lead to a drop in world population, which is not a bad thing. I am a firm believer in Mother Natures ability to compensate.

Absolutely. But we're talking about the human race's ability to deal with it, not mother nature. She'll be fine, with or without us.

[alpine_saint]

Absolutely. But we're talking about the human race's ability to deal with it, not mother nature. She'll be fine, with or without us.

 

Minty, Planet Earth is a remarkable creation. Look at the geographical and biological diversity, when one considers by galactic scale, the planet isnt even particularly big.

 

I will never, ever forget Hugo Weaving's line in The Matrix - "Humanity is a virus". Whoever wrote that was spot f**king on. What do we do with a virus when we catch it ? We try to kill it. Sooner or later Mother Nature is going to have a serious allergic reaction to us. And maybe its not such a bad thing....

[dune]

Minty, Planet Earth is a remarkable creation. Look at the geographical and biological diversity, when one considers by galactic scale, the planet isnt even particularly big.

 

I will never, ever forget Hugo Weaving's line in The Matrix - "Humanity is a virus". Whoever wrote that was spot f**king on. What do we do with a virus when we catch it ? We try to kill it. Sooner or later Mother Nature is going to have a serious allergic reaction to us. And maybe its not such a bad thing....

 

This is why i'm ideologically against international aid. When growing carrots you thin out the plants so those remaining can grow stronger. Giving medicines and vacines to people in Africa is ridiculous as what is the point of increasing the life expectancy of people in areas where they cannot feed population growth? We are effectively messing with nature and throwing the balance out of kilter. That said Rhodesia was a model African state wth comercial farms and therefore the African problem is solveable in the right hands.

[Whitey Grandad]

Indeed. So given that we don't know what the sun is going to do but we do know we are adding more insulation to the house and that the temperature is going up uncomfortably, is it not wise to stop insulating?

 

My house has had loft and cavity insulation since it was built 30 years ago, and all the windows have been replaced with modern double-glazed units so there's not much improvement to be made.

 

(I think you have a double-negative in there somewhere?)

[pedg]

My house has had loft and cavity insulation since it was built 30 years ago, and all the windows have been replaced with modern double-glazed units so there's not much improvement to be made.

 

(I think you have a double-negative in there somewhere?)

 

Actually the recommended depth for loft insulation has gone up considerably over the years so you could possibly do with adding some. This stuff at B&Q is subsidised so is only £3 a roll and most houses only need 5 or 6 so does not take long to pay back.

 

http://www.diy.com/diy/jsp/bq/nav.jsp?action=detail&fh_secondid=11127503&fh_location=//catalog01/en_GB/categories%3C{9372016}/categories%3C{9372050}/categories%3C{9372230}/specificationsProductType=triple_roll

 

[pedg]

Indeed. But as far as I can tell, none of the present climate models take any account of the cosmic activity of the sun, and for very understandable reasons. Until now there has been no science concerning this interaction and so it could not be included, but more importantly nobody can predict what the sun is going to do anyway.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

[aintforever]

Only a complete fool would ignore what the scientists are saying, the more you read on the subject the more you get an idea of what extraordinary detail these guys go into.

 

"the climate has always changed" and "it's cold outside so can't be happening" are the arguments of the ignorant.

[dune]

A question for climate change nutjobs; would you sooner have global cooling?

[pedg]

A question for climate change nutjobs; would you sooner have global cooling?

 

You appear to be the climate change nutjob here but in answer to your question the answer is yes till we get back to where we would have been without man's interference and then global temperature stability once there.

[dune]

You appear to be the climate change nutjob here but in answer to your question the answer is yes till we get back to where we would have been without man's interference and then global temperature stability once there.

 

There never has been stability you fool.

[pedg]

There never has been stability you fool.

 

name calling is always the first line of defence for some when they are losing an argument I find.

 

To clarify I would like the earths climate to return to what it would be had humans not pumped billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. I am not implying that the temperature of the earth should remain constant but it would be good to get the line of temperature against solar power back to how it was before the 1980's (see the graph I posted above).

[Minty]

dune, are you physically able to discuss this without resorting to ridiculous insults?

[Saint_Jonny]

wooooo double post

[Saint_Jonny]

dune, are you physically able to discuss this without resorting to ridiculous insults?

 

Don't even try. The guy is CLEARLY more intelligent than everyone else. In fact, I think this be my first case of falling in love with someone on a message board. I LOVE YOU DUNE! I REALLY REALLY DO.

[dune]

Don't even try. The guy is CLEARLY more intelligent than everyone else. In fact, I think this be my first case of falling in love with someone on a message board. I LOVE YOU DUNE! I REALLY REALLY DO.

 

Thanks xxxx.

[Saint_Jonny]

Thanks xxxx.

 

Your welcome babe xOx

[dune]

Your welcome babe xOx

 

ASL

 

Do you cam?

[Jonnyboy]

This is why i'm ideologically against international aid. When growing carrots you thin out the plants so those remaining can grow stronger. Giving medicines and vacines to people in Africa is ridiculous as what is the point of increasing the life expectancy of people in areas where they cannot feed population growth? We are effectively messing with nature and throwing the balance out of kilter. That said Rhodesia was a model African state wth comercial farms and therefore the African problem is solveable in the right hands.

 

Its a shame they gave you any vaccines too, yet another mouth to feed.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming.htm

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

 

Lots of interesting debates in their. Personally I'm with the former hypothesis.

[scotty]

Some lovely comments above which perfectly highlight my point. Why take time to read the evidence when you can call people 'idiot tree-huggers' and dismiss all scientists as 'dishonest'... lovely?

 

And just to back up buctootim's point, as I've said before, it's all about the precautionary principle:

 

We don't drive around a blind bend at 90mph because there could be something coming the other way. We did it with the Ozone layer and it proved important. So why shouldn't it apply here? We simply do not know, 100%, quite how much impact human's are having on our climate, and we'll probably never truly know, but given the weight of verified, peer-reviewed scientific evidence at this moment in time, would it not be prudent to be precautionary and moderate our impact.

 

For my kid's sake, and theirs, I think it's entirely the right thing to do.

 

This.

 

Most climate-change scientists appear to be more or less unanimous, and nobody on here should claim to be better informed than people who have spent their working lives studying the issue. I wouldnt know, but I also wouldnt expect anyone to tell me how to do my (fairly specialised) job, and I know that I'm far better equipped to pass judgement on any issue relating to it than Joe Public as I've been involved in the field all my adult life. And I wouldnt tell my mechanic how to fix my car.

 

More to the point, what always seems to get missed in these arguments is the simple fact that the climate-change deniers' insistence that climate-change scientists provide absolute proof that it IS happening and caused by mankind. They dont need to. There only needs to be a tiny chance of that being the case, imo less than 1 percent, for that to be enough to trigger a response. We arent gambling with something we can get back, if we f*ck up the climate then its game over for us. I've got no direct personal interest in this, I'm pretty sure the planet will outlive me and I have no children, but it should be addressed for the sake of future generations.

[Saintandy666]

The Greenhouse effect is fact, proven fact. We know it is right. We know that the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere(especially those that have bonds that absorb in the frequencies of the infrared window, though we dealt with CFC's quite nicely) , the more infrared that is absorbed and so the more heat that doesn't escape earth and so the more earth warms. It's fact, and the more people ignore it and try to put short-term issues over the earth's long term future, the more ****ed we are.

[aintforever]

Whilst it is obvious that we are contributing to climate change, and the effects are potentially disastrous - I think we, as a country, should be more concerned with adapting to change rather than futile attempts of trying to stop it.

 

The rate at which China is developing along with other emerging economies means that whatever we do in the UK is completely pointless. Accept that it's going to happen, try to predict the effects and adapt.

 

It's important to develop new sources of energy, green or not, because oil and gas is running out. It makes sense to be more efficient for the same reason but there is little point in going round planting trees or using a bag for life when China is using 9million barrels of oil a day and burning 3 billion tons of coal a year.

[TopGun]

As some will know, I work in the energy infrastructure industry and I have frankly given up trying to persuade sceptics about climate change.

 

However, what is important to most people is energy security and energy bills. The simple facts are that if we continue to rely on fossil fuels that we have to import increasingly then we are all in trouble.

 

That is why it is important that we develop renewables such as onshore and offshore wind that is now commercially viable, as well as continuing to develop technology that will bring less intermittent resources such as wave and tidal to economic scale. We have the opportunity to be world leaders and create a huge export industry with job skills.

 

I know the usual comments will be raised so I'll head them off:

 

* New nuke is possible but has three drawbacks - 1) Huge cost of construction (£ billions), 2) Still no way of disposing of nuke waste effectively, 3) A new nuke will take 10 years to build after the planning arguments so first one would be 2025. That said, I am in favour of new nuke as part of a needed mixed portfolio of energy generation.

 

* Wind power does not need like-for-like capacity back up from fossil fuels if organised correctly. The answer is to develop more wind and other renewables than is required and link it to a smarter and better grid distribution network. Then gas and coal become a smaller baseload and an effective back up ready to go when required. And export the renewable energy surplus to other less blessed countries when we have a surfeit of power.

 

* We have about one third of our current generating capacity due to go offline between 2015 and 2020 made up of older coal-fired power stations and nukes. Those need to be replaced fast. Governments have failed to act responsibly in this area because all scared off by local objectors to new plants or wind farms.

 

* Green subsidies as continually raised in the press. The subsidies (known as ROCs) are paid to generators when they produce electricity. There are no subsidies to build new power sources, that is all market risk. The subsidies are a product of the privatised electricity industry and a necessary incentive to get developers building new generating apparatus. Those new plants will ultimately make us less dependent on imported fossil fuels and allow us to remain masters of our own destiny meaning in the long term lower energy bills than otherwise. In previous times nuke and north sea gas received development subsidies and, like them, renewable subsidies will be reduced once the train gets motoring.

 

You can argue climate change until the cows come home but what will really focus attention is power cuts, failing industry, cold homes and no TV/playstations.

 

We need a mixed portfolio of energy generation that covers all the bases made up of renewables where possible supported by nuke in the longer term with gas and coal as the convenient fallbacks.

 

Said my piece!

Edited 22 October, 2011 by TopGun

[Saintandy666]

Good post TopGun.

 

We can argue over the science and facts and cost, but at the end of the day if we don't do anything it'll be a hell of a lot more expensive than if we spend the initial investment now.

[Jonnyboy]

And I read that just as solar panels are taking off in the residential sector, the government is cutting the feed-in tarifs next march so that it will become a lot less attractive.

[dune]

And I read that just as solar panels are taking off in the residential sector, the government is cutting the feed-in tarifs next march so that it will become a lot less attractive.

 

There will be uproar in Islington and Notting Hill.

[pedg]

And I read that just as solar panels are taking off in the residential sector, the government is cutting the feed-in tarifs next march so that it will become a lot less attractive.

 

To be honest the current deal is really too generous. Point me at another investment that can return 15% tax free per annum guaranteed for 25 years? As the cost of the components comes down that figure will increase so not really surprised that it will be cut.

[Minty]

There will be uproar in Islington and Notting Hill.

And Coxford and Shirley and Thornhill and Lordshill and all the other places I've seen solar panels...

[Whitey Grandad]

To be honest the current deal is really too generous. Point me at another investment that can return 15% tax free per annum guaranteed for 25 years? As the cost of the components comes down that figure will increase so not really surprised that it will be cut.

 

Too generous, it's true, but don't forget that you cannot get your initial investment back.

[Jonnyboy]

To be honest the current deal is really too generous. Point me at another investment that can return 15% tax free per annum guaranteed for 25 years? As the cost of the components comes down that figure will increase so not really surprised that it will be cut.

 

I think Germany has had generous schemes going for about 10 years now which is why its so huge there. As said above the nuclear, gas and coal industries have always had massive susidies to keep them going so why not green ones?

[Special K]

And I read that just as solar panels are taking off in the residential sector, the government is cutting the feed-in tarifs next march so that it will become a lot less attractive.

 

New build housing over the next few years will see increased use of PV panels as well as a whole range of other measures to achieve what is called "zero carbon" housing by 2016. For those that are interested, the building regs have recently changed to embrace the old Code for Sustainable Homes ratings and are set to enhance these again within a very short space of time. The same will also apply to commercial buildings, but the timeframe is slightly longer. The housebuilding industry is trying to emcompass the changes, but ultimately it will mean more cost which will either be added onto the price of a new home or a reduction in the land values.

 

We are currently building 11 new homes that have to comply with the new Part L regulations, meaning a 25% improvement of thermal efficiency from the "old" regs. this is set to increase to 44% improvement in two years time, with zero carbon in 2016. Estimates suggest that 30 to 40k could be added to the cost of a new house (all things being equal). Would posters be prepared to pay this for a zero carbon home?

[Thedelldays]

. Estimates suggest that 30 to 40k could be added to the cost of a new house (all things being equal). Would posters be prepared to pay this for a zero carbon home?

that is great news....its so easy to buy and sell as it is....

 

 

:-/

[Minty]

It is undoubtedly a major cost issue for new homes but the net balance is more than likely to result in savings in the long term, especially with energy prices continuing to rise. Of course, it's hard to factor that in at the beginning, but it is worth it overall.