Posted - 05/12/2009 : 15:02
I saw the news item the other day about the water shortage in some areas of Peru that rely on glaciel melt for their water. Problem is there is no glacier left on the mountain. The report showed photographic evidence from what the glacier looked like 20 years ago and wht is left of it now, (hardly visible). The misery is compounded by the fact that the population is increasing putting an even higher demand on dwindling supplies. Not good news.
How any one can refute the increasing number of pointers beggars belief, it makes me wonder what my newly born grandchildren will have to face during their lifetimes.
Posted - 05/12/2009 : 18:34
I agree Ian. Glaciers are melting worldwide and this will lead to drought in summer and floods in winter. The glaciers normally act as a reservoir, or buffer, holding back water in winter and releasing it at a constant rate throughout the year. There is an article in The Times today about the Himalayan glaciers receding fast. A Times journalist went with the Indian glaciologist and his team on a gruelling trek to a glacier to measure the change. It was twice what even they had expected. Yet the Indian government is claiming that the glaciers are not receding even though their Environment ministry people are showing that they are (so they don't have to concede so much at Copenhagen).
Although people might have some concerns about the `email' trouble in the UK there are hundreds of climate scientists aorund the world who have similar data all showing human-caused global warming. At the very least we should all be agreeing that global warming is taking place and something urgently needs doing about it.
Surprise, surprise! For once I have to take my hat off to Godron Brown. From Google News: World leaders heading to UN climate talks next week must not be distracted by "flat-earth" sceptics who deny humans are to blame for global warming, Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Saturday. "With only days to go before Copenhagen, we mustn't be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics," Brown told The Guardian newspaper ahead of the landmark UN summit in the Danish capital. "We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the five-billion-tonne gap. That will seal the deal."
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 06:38
I heard that as well Peter. Problem is that he is probably firing at the wrong target. They key to getting agreement on action is to convince the other players that there is money in it. The really vicious opponents are the ones with private agendas where income will be damaged by action. We are seeing glimmers of this already, manufacturing realising that developing technology to combat the results of climate change could be a new and profitable market. Note that this scenario doesn't depend on the change being man-made, I think that's the wrong argument. Assume it is happening and act on Worst Case scenario. Very difficult to see how that can be wrong.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
Posted - 06/12/2009 : 11:29
"They key to getting agreement on action is to convince the other players that there is money in it".
I know why you say that but we have to beware of getting into the same hole as we did with biofuel - money and subsidies driving the issue, no matter whether it is driving it in the wrong direction (in the that case, towards destruction of rainforests to make way for biofuel crops). Also, there is the danger of climate sceptics arguing that "it is being done for the money".
There are some interesting TV programmes on or related to climate change coming up.
Channel 4, 9.00pm, Monday, 7 December. `Man on Earth', The first of 4 programmes presented by Tony Robinson looking at how past climate change has shaped human history worldwide. Some sceptics will say "Look, this shows how we have had climate change before" - but take note of the time scales involved, compared to the present rate of change.
BBC 1, 10.45pm, Wednesday, 9 December, `Hot Planet', global warming covered in one programme by an excellent geologist with great presentation skills. Iain Stewart is Professor of Geosciences Communication at the University of Plymouth; he started out as as a specialist on volcanoes but has shifted to climate change and presented other very good TV programmes. It's a shame this programme is on so late in the evening when Stewart is an ideal presenter to get children interested - he's a bundle of energy and noise, so prepare for plenty of action! (record it for the kids if they are in bed!)
BBC 2, 9.00pm, Wednesday, 9 December, `Horizon: How many people can live on planet Earth?'. Not climate change as such but inevitably related to it. David Attenborough considers how to avert a crisis caused by over-population - the world's population has risen from 2.5 billion in 1950 to nearly 7 billion today and is projected to reach 9 billion by 2050.
Posted - 12/12/2009 : 11:45
Clive James writes and presents a `Point of View' each week on Radio 4 at the moment on Fridays and repeated on Sunday morning at about 8.45am. This week's article is on climate change and it is also on the BBC web site.
There is a link in the article to an earlier one he wrote too. Sceptics may enjoy the articles and `believers' won't be too offended by them! I like his irreverence about things in general and his wish for reasoned debate. He got one thing a bit skew wiff though in his previous article when he said it was wrong to claim there was a consensus among scientists in favour of the climate change hypothesis. `Consensus' means `general or widespread agreement' - 97% of scientists agree on climate change and that's as good a consensus as you'll ever get among scientists. Usually there is a lot less agreement than that!
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 12:08In brief, there is a vast amount of scientific evidence that "global warming" (increase in the earth's average surface temperature) is increasing at a dangerous rate (dangerous to humans), that we are a major cause of that increase (probably the major cause), and that we can do something about it by using less energy and by changing our sources of energy. - Tizer
Apart from the recent disclosures of emails from the University of East Anglia, suggesting that scientists are distorting the truth, I have watched the documentary "THe Great Global Warming Swindle". It was screened on UKTV some months ago and it is available on Youtube in nine 10 minute sections.
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 17:19
Pete, a few scientists don't go along with the vast amount of evidence but they are in a tiny minority. Some of those who appeared on this programme even objected afterwards and said they were misrepresented. The programme is misleading and uses false arguments. It's writer and director admits he set out to discredit scientists, saying "Legitimate scientists - people with qualifications - are the bad guys.". Before you place much trust in the programme have a closer look at the responses from, e.g. the Royal Society.
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 18:23...In fact, as is well-known, the absence of a global rise in temperature between 1945-75 is explained by the release of large amounts of industrial pollutants, called sulphate aerosols, into the atmosphere. These particles have a braking effect on global warming, known as “global dimming”. By shielding some of the incoming solar energy, sulphate aerosols mask the underlying warming effect generated by rising levels of CO2. By the 1980s, however, stronger warming had exceeded this masking effect and global temperature has since continued to rise. As Real Climate notes, by failing to explain the science behind this phenomenon the programme makers were guilty of “lying to us by omission.”
"By shielding some of the incoming solar energy". In other words, solar energy is driving global warming. This part of the article you've given me agrees with the scientists in the 'swindle' claim.
There is no evidence that carbon dioxide has any effect on global temperature. None at all. not from the 'swindle' film nor from any scientific data.
There is, however, evidence that water vapour is a much more prolific 'greenhouse gas' and this occurs naturally, just as CO2 occurs naturally.
A few years ago, you may remember that there was much excitement about a 'hole' in the ozone layer. The theory was that this hole would get bigger and allow more cosmic rays to reach the surface of the earth and cause global warming.
Now the theory is that carbon dioxide is causing a problem.
I'm sorry Tizer, I think I shall remain on the side of the argument that insists that global warming is an entirely natural process generated primarily by the sun, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and that the current climate of fear is being driven by political activists with their own agenda.
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 18:53
if climate change is relativly new thing then why many moons ago did we have an ice age if our landscape now was created by glaciers and such what warmed the world up then to create the thaw ?
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 20:29
Swifty, nobody says climate change is new - the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years so there's been lots of climate change. But it happened slowly over geological time scales of thousands of years. Anyway, it doesn't matter whether it's new or not, it's happening now and not on a geological time scale and if we don't do something we're in deep trouble.
Pete, you are repeating mantras. Solar energy isn't "driving global warming" to any significant extent if by global warming we are talking about the increase in global surface temperature which is what the scientists are worried about. The sun has piled heat into the earth every day for that 4.5 billion years, even in the ice ages. And the heat gets radiated back out into space, during the day but especially at night. The water vapour and natural CO2 in the atmosphere prevent it all escaping, otherwise we would freeze solid. This leaves us with a relatively constant surface temperature that allows life to exist on earth. If it wasn't for that balance of input versus output there wouldn't be life on earth, or certainly not human life. But now the balance is being lost and the overall surface temperature on the earth is rising, and the evidence from thousands of scientists and hundreds of studies worldwide over the last 20 or so years are massively in favour of the hypothesis that we humans are causing it.
The water vapour story is another mantra. I've explained it in detail on here before. It's similar to the solar heat story and I've already mentioned water vapour. Vast amounts of water evaporate into the atmosphere from the oceans all the time and protect us from global cooling. The water returns to the oceans as rain, down rivers. Another balanced system. But water vapour does not account for the present rise in temperature.
The ozone hole was a danger primarily because the ozone layer is our protection from the sun's ultra-violet radiation. It was due to increasing levels of CFCs - we cut back on CFCs and solved that problem.
I can agree with your comment that the "current climate of fear is being driven by political activists with their own agenda" but I would argue that these political activists and their agenda are mainly people with a lot of money at stake in companies and the like. Like the US climate coalition made up of representatives of big companies in oil, coal, cars, who lied to Congress about their activities.
Going back to the TV programme, look up more on Martin Durkin who runs the company that made the programme. And if you think the scientists are the only ones to send dodgy emails take a look at Durkin's: http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/durkinemails.htm
(For anyone who might be offended by the language in Durkin's emails, I apologise!)
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 21:01
Just seen the BBC correspondent standing in the falling snow outside the global warming conference. Must be a message in there somwhere.
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 21:23Pete, you are repeating mantras. - Tizer
How do you know that they are mantras rather than facts, Tizer? It seems to me that it is the shrill voices of those who are basing their campaign on the pseudo-science of human-induced climate change that is turning it into some kind of religion, with those of us who are more inclined to weigh all of the evidence, rather than just part of it, being considered heretics.
I can agree with your comment that the "current climate of fear is being driven by political activists with their own agenda" but I would argue that these political activists and their agenda are mainly people with a lot of money at stake in companies and the like. Like the US climate coalition made up of representatives of big companies in oil, coal, cars, who lied to Congress about their activities.
Representatives of big companies in oil, coal and cars are more likely to be those who are arguing against the current 'climate of fear' rather than in favour of it. Yet there is little evidence of it. There is, however, evidence that billions of pounds of taxpayers' money is funding the ever growing body of representatives in solar panels, wind turbines and other gadgets whose usefulness against climate change still remains to be proven.
Jobs might be lost if anyone manages to convince a naiive society that the strident claims of the human-induced global warming fraternity are substantially false. People may stop buying these expensive toys and questioning the 'environmental' taxes levied against them by a morally corupt government. And that would never do.
I accept that global warming is happening. I agree that there is a need to reduce pollution and improve our stewardship of the planet. I strongly disagree that global warming is influenced either way by carbon dioxide and certainly not by the tiny fraction of it contributed by humans.
Posted - 15/12/2009 : 21:26Just seen the BBC correspondent standing in the falling snow outside the global warming conference. Must be a message in there somwhere. - Tripps
Posted - 16/12/2009 : 07:24
Nobody has a monopoly on truth or certainty and the best scientists will admit that. However, over years evidence builds and a balance has to be taken for or against. Everyone is entitled to their own view and if they express it they should be prepared to be assessed and perhaps even criticised. Anyone who can't admit to the possibility that releasing trillions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere carries at least the possibility of ill-effects is, at the very least, disingenuous.
I believe that the balance of probability is that such an effect does exist and that the most sensible course is to assume worst case and take whatever steps are possible to retrieve the situation. Whatever the truth of the matter, doing nothing is not an option.
There is one consequence of increased CO2 which it is impossible to explain away. Acidification of the oceans. This has reached the stage now where corals are dying, the bottom of the food chain is suffering and this will gradually affect the larger organisms at the top of the food chain. If pollution can affect a system as massive as the oceans it can affect the atmosphere as well.
Stanley Challenger Graham
Barlick View stanley at barnoldswick.freeserve.co.uk
CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING
How do you know that they are mantras rather than facts, Tizer? It seems to me that it is the shrill voices of those who are basing their campaign on the pseudo-science of human-induced climate change that is turning it into some kind of religion, with those of us who are more inclined to weigh all of the evidence, rather than just part of it, being considered heretics.
