Frozen Planet

[Ferretfancy]

ahinton

I understand your careful reasoning, and it's certainly true that our understanding of this very complex issue is incomplete. However, it's now possible to measure climate changes with good accuracy over a timescale of millions of years in the past, and there has never been such a rapid increase in global temperature over that period until now. For example, ice ages and interglacials take thousands of years to complete their cycles,with temperatures changing quite slowly There is also the clear fact that our recent temperature increase ties in historically with the rise in industrial output from human activity.

Since politicians are only capable of thinking five years ahead, if that, I'm pessimistic about the future of the planet, but we must plug away, I suppose!

[ahinton]

That sounds remarkably like "I'm alright, Jack." A few more tens of millions will not solve the problem when there are seven thousand million people living on the planet today. Frankly, I'm appalled by Canada's recent pronouncement.

Yes, it does in one sense - but then the person concerned was not seeking to claim that a few tens of millions of people migrating into a no longer permafrosted Canada would solve any problems whatsoever. By "Canada's recent pronouncement" I presume you to men te withdrawal of that country from the Kyoto business and, problematic though that may prove to be, I do think that insufficient care has been devoted to the consequences for Canadians living in the kind of climate that most of them do and that the attitude has accordingly been one of trying to force all participants, including Canada, to cut emissions largely by the burning of far less fossil fuels regardless of the effect upon the citizens of countries whose economies, health and even survival are more dependent upon such fuel use than are others which enjoy warmer climates and are far more densely populated. Of course, as I implied above, had alternative sustainable fuel sources been pressed into service decades ago, Canada would have perceived no need to cut loose from this.

[ahinton]

ahinton

I understand your careful reasoning, and it's certainly true that our understanding of this very complex issue is incomplete. However, it's now possible to measure climate changes with good accuracy over a timescale of millions of years in the past, and there has never been such a rapid increase in global temperature over that period until now. For example, ice ages and interglacials take thousands of years to complete their cycles,with temperatures changing quite slowly.

Yes, that's what's happened so far, but where is the evidence of historical events as a guarantee of like continuation? In other words, just because such cycles have occupied centuries in the past, there's no absolute certainty that they always will; one has only to consider the climate changes in Britain over the last 750 years or so; these have been more drastic in their rapidity than they are thought to have been in earlier times.

There is also the clear fact that our recent temperature increase ties in historically with the rise in industrial output from human activity.

I did state that human activity has exacerbated the changes, but I'm not convinced even that these in countries such as Britain have wreaked as much havoc as some people claim; in days gone by, when industrial units and homes were powered principally by coal, the likely damage done as a consequence would have been at least as great as that done today by less "smoke-stack" industries and dewllings but millions of mainly fossil-fuel-powered motor vehicles. If the world - or at least that part of it up to around 70 degrees N and 70 degrees S - were full of massive solar farms and the demand for oil and coal had accordingly dropped to a tiny fraction of what it is today, I anticipate that the effect on climate change would be relatively modest; that's not to discourage aims towards such construction, however and, if it ever does come about on a sufficiently large scale, the benefits in terms of air pollution will in any case be as obvious as they will be significant and the overall global economic benefits will be unprecedentedly enormous.

Since politicians are only capable of thinking five years ahead, if that, I'm pessimistic about the future of the planet, but we must plug away, I suppose!

It doesn't matter how many years politicians are capable of thinking ahead because the majority of them won't be in office for much longer than that term anyway!

[Serial_Apologist]

Is it not largely the carbon content and distribution in ice cores, and the comparisons which have been made between these, concurrent volcanic episodes, and volcanic episodes pre the Industrial Revolution, that have coalesced the scientific community's consensus on man-made versus cyclic global warming?

Oil dependence motors the un-joined up short termist thinking of Neoliberal economics and politics. If we slowed down or even stopped fossil fuel use, the rush ahead of economic progress, now revealed to all as illusory both in terms of human health, happiness and material wealth as well as unsustainable, would be replaced by environmentally energy producing alternatives. Thence flows the incentive to re-think global trading: imagine as just a start the (sustainable) living standards improvements procurable from solar power-produced electricity exports from tropical desert regions! Solar-powered temperature-controlled greenhouses contributing to world food production? Imagine the positive effects of such improved living standards in mitigating high birth rates, worries about migration etc.

This is the kind of practicable thinking we should be dreaming up and debating, surely?

S-A

[Ferretfancy]

Serial_Apologist,

I agree, but western nations still see everything in terms of economic growth at the expense of the rest. How do governments persuade their people that they need to reduce consumption with the aim of re-distributing resources?

[vinteuil]

Serial_Apologist,

I agree, but western nations still see everything in terms of economic growth at the expense of the rest. How do governments persuade their people that they need to reduce consumption with the aim of re-distributing resources?

... but it is possible to have "growth" which does not entail greater use of "resources" - if one thinks of electronics, in my early years of employment (1977 ish) the "computers" we relied on were mainframe, ginormous beasts in specially airconditioned rooms, using up who knows how much resources - and yet probably with about the same competence as the tiny little PC on which I'm writing this. And my relatively powerful small sophisticated car will have used fewer resources in its construction, and uses less fuel, generates less pollution, than the middle-of-the-road cars my parents drove.

"Clever" growth is what we shd be striving for.

I am completely persuaded that climate change is real, and man made in its current movements. But - or is that And? - I think that humans can/must do a lot to limit its severity and mitigate its consequences.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks for your postings, Vint and Ferret...

Another area which really needs questioning imv is the ridiculous imperative of commercial secrecy operating, motoring uncontrolled speed of growth and resulting in the non-generalisation of technological knowledge between R&D and productive sectors. Selectivity, in terms of directing funds for purposes of sustainable development, is surely the essential requirement; added is the fact, as Vint suggests in pointing out the hugely increased rate of value achieved in today's hi-tech, robotised industrial production units, that costs of scale in terms of subsidy must presumably be far lower than in earlier historical stages of production. Whether or not suggestions of this kind are compatible with the current thrust of so-called growth models is another matter...

[ahinton]

Is it not largely the carbon content and distribution in ice cores, and the comparisons which have been made between these, concurrent volcanic episodes, and volcanic episodes pre the Industrial Revolution, that have coalesced the scientific community's consensus on man-made versus cyclic global warming?

Oil dependence motors the un-joined up short termist thinking of Neoliberal economics and politics. If we slowed down or even stopped fossil fuel use, the rush ahead of economic progress, now revealed to all as illusory both in terms of human health, happiness and material wealth as well as unsustainable, would be replaced by environmentally energy producing alternatives. Thence flows the incentive to re-think global trading: imagine as just a start the (sustainable) living standards improvements procurable from solar power-produced electricity exports from tropical desert regions! Solar-powered temperature-controlled greenhouses contributing to world food production? Imagine the positive effects of such improved living standards in mitigating high birth rates, worries about migration etc.

This is the kind of practicable thinking we should be dreaming up and debating, surely?S-A

I'm absolutely all for this kind of thing - and it is beginning to happen in some areas, albeit painfully slowly. Where it does not fit your argument, however, is that if we could only reduce oil dependency one significant result would be a greater opportunity for a rush ahead of economic progress! We'll never be able to get rid of some oil dependency altogether because there are at present no satisfactory alternatives for people living more than around 70 degrees nroth or south, but much of it could indeed be run down over time, to our immense advantage. For those living beyond those latitudes, however, oil remains a must until and unless they move nearer to the equator.

[ahinton]

... but it is possible to have "growth" which does not entail greater use of "resources" - if one thinks of electronics, in my early years of employment (1977 ish) the "computers" we relied on were mainframe, ginormous beasts in specially airconditioned rooms, using up who knows how much resources - and yet probably with about the same competence as the tiny little PC on which I'm writing this. And my relatively powerful small sophisticated car will have used fewer resources in its construction, and uses less fuel, generates less pollution, than the middle-of-the-road cars my parents drove.

"Clever" growth is what we shd be striving for.

I am completely persuaded that climate change is real, and man made in its current movements. But - or is that And? - I think that humans can/must do a lot to limit its severity and mitigate its consequences.

I agree with all except some of the last bit. Of course climate change is real and of course it is exacerbated by certain specific human activity, but if only a decent proporton of the world's population already depended on solar energy we'd be able to see just how much or how little effect this would have on naturally occurring climate change. As I've stated, however, there are ample other reasons to commend the growth of alternative sustainable energy sources.

[Serial_Apologist]

I agree with all except some of the last bit. Of course climate change is real and of course it is exacerbated by certain specific human activity, but if only a decent proporton of the world's population already depended on solar energy we'd be able to see just how much or how little effect this would have on naturally occurring climate change. As I've stated, however, there are ample other reasons to commend the growth of alternative sustainable energy sources.

The problem of global warming as I understand it is that, were we immediately to halt the putative human causes, it would not immediately halt or reverse. The problem would then be in persuading the doubters of the efficacy of sustainable change, and not going back to the same old same old.

[ahinton]

The problem of global warming as I understand it is that, were we immediately to halt the putative human causes, it would not immediately halt or reverse. The problem would then be in persuading the doubters of the efficacy of sustainable change, and not going back to the same old same old.

I'm sure that you're right here. I still strongly advocate the cutting back of oil dependency and its repacem,ent with workable sustainable altgernative forms of energy as beneficial to swociety and encouring of econominc growth within it, but at the same time I'm well less than convinced that it would do anything significant to affect climate change whilst at the same time being wholly convinced that it would cut environmental pollution immensely.

[MrGongGong]

One of the main problems with Global warming is that despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists believe it is taking place and only 5% believe that human activity isn't a contributing factor we still have "in the interests of fairness" a platform for those who hold some bizarre views.
The desire of "balance" in the media (which was what Clarksons "joke" was about !) means that we sometimes (as with the BNP on Question Time) give undue publicity to those who are often simply wrong. This is not to say that there is some kind of "wisdom" in what most people believe ! after all many people believe in god, homeopathy, alien abduction and Wagner (actually I believe in ONE of those !)

[Serial_Apologist]

One of the main problems with Global warming is that despite the fact that 97% of climate scientists believe it is taking place and only 5% believe that human activity isn't a contributing factor we still have "in the interests of fairness" a platform for those who hold some bizarre views.
The desire of "balance" in the media (which was what Clarksons "joke" was about !) means that we sometimes (as with the BNP on Question Time) give undue publicity to those who are often simply wrong. This is not to say that there is some kind of "wisdom" in what most people believe ! after all many people believe in god, homeopathy, alien abduction and Wagner (actually I believe in ONE of those !)

Alien abduction. Just as I thought...

[MrGongGong]

Alien abduction. Just as I thought...

It explains Simon's absence perfectly

[Serial_Apologist]

It explains Simon's absence perfectly

He's a figment of his own imagination, I've decided.