Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

Martyn1981

JKenH wrote: »

This is great news and Amazon’s profile is such that it will attract a lot of attention.

I am a late convert to solar. Because of my background I have never been convinced that CO2 is the source of all our global warming. I saw it as a great opportunity for governments to levy extra taxes on motorists while buses chugged round spewing out black clouds and causing congestion. (I am not going to get into an argument about that as I believe everyone is entitled to a view so I won’t be offended or reply if someone calls me a climate change denier).

I think that sounds fair, but it would wrong of me not to point to the important saying that 'whilst you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts'.

There is no counter argument now to the fact that the planet is warming, the warming is due to CO2 levels rising, and that humans are the cause of the higher CO2 levels.

I'm not trying to be difficult, argumentative or pedantic. The facts are simple, human emissions of CO2 from burning FF carbon is the cause of global warming. AGW is real.

The science was solid 60yrs ago, when 60% of scientific papers concluded we would see AGW, and 12% predicted global cooling - but the cooling argument accepted CO2 warming, they just felt that the planetary wide pollution (smog) primarily from sulphur emissions (SOx) would provide enough shade to counter the CO2 levels till they got 'too' high.

Since then the science has become solid, there is the oft touted 97% of scientists in the subject agree, but even that hides the fact that over a shorter period (10-15yrs, rather than 25yrs) the acceptance is now into the mid to high 99%'s.

In fact AGW was not actually challenged in the early years, nor when Margaret Thatcher called on the whole world to act. The only arguments against it arose later when the US FF industries started to fight back against an anticipated loss of revenue.

Next we saw a concerted attempt by those same US interests to promote the claim that 'not all scientists agree', however that has also been shown to be false, though the belief still has significant support/belief in the US.

All alternative reasons/excuses for higher CO2 levels and rising temps have now been discredited fully by science and peer review.

Perhaps the most telling confirmation for AGW has been in the last few years as whistle blowing, FOI requests and legal cases have resulted in the release of the FF industries science carried out in the 80's and 90's. Exxon is an excellent example as their papers confirm that CO2 will lead to global warming and is a result of human activity. These reports were hidden for decades.

As the planet has had a stable CO2 level of approx 260-280ppm for 100's of thousands of years, the simple fact that we have increased the level to over 400ppm since the 1880's also confirms AGW since physics proves that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

As far as I'm aware no respectable science, nor peer reviewed science still supports any other outcome but AGW. So I'm not promoting my opinion but the rather the facts.

zeupater

Hi

... however, considering that the positions held by science & scientists have often needed to be amended over the years, those involved tend to steer away from employing the term 'fact', preferring to use the term 'consensus'.

Currently there is a high degree of consensus within the global scientific community that post industrial emissions have had an effect on the planet's natural temperature change cycle, however, when apportioning the degree of climatic change between natural processes & AGW the level of consensus seems to fall away rapidly due to the complexity involved ..... this is likely the reason behind the relatively simple climate related questions asked of the scientific community that generate the headlines regarding the level of consensus.

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

zeupater wrote: »

Hi

however, when apportioning the degree of climatic change between natural processes & AGW the level of consensus seems to fall away rapidly due to the complexity involved .....

HTH
Z

I believe the general consensus is that humans are responsible for more than all of it.

The pun / play on words based on the fact that the planet is currently in a natural cooling cycle, and should be getting colder very, very, very slowly, but is instead getting warmer rapidly.

Yes, fact is a tricky thing. It's hard to explain or prove gravity, but harder to deny it.

As far as I'm aware, there is no alternative argument nor suggestion to AGW that stands up to review, all have been researched to death.

It's a shame that the FF companies fought AGW so hard, it might take a long time for all the smoke to clear still.


Edit - Another thing I should have pointed out in my first post is also very interesting. There no longer appears to be any denial that AGW is taking place - those with an interest, particularly the industry funded Republican Party now talk about it being less than some scientists think, which is an acknowledgement that it's happening, or that the cost of dealing with it / mitigating it, won't be so bad, which again acknowledges that AGW now exists, or the down right cooky argument that CO2 is 'plant food' so therefore it's a good thing, sadly missing the point that the nutritional value of crops will drop (especially rice), and even raises joke responses as to the lack of plants on Mars and Venus who both have CO2 levels vastly greater than the Earth.

EricMears

Martyn1981 wrote: »

The science was solid 60yrs ago, when 60% of scientific papers concluded we would see AGW, and 12% predicted global cooling

At some point between 1959 & 1960 I took out a subscription to 'New Scientist'. There were many forecasts during that period of an approaching Ice Age ! The subscription lapsed when I changed schools.

Today's CO2 levels are indeed higher that at any time since our species existed - however, we've not yet reached the levels calculated to have existed when dinosaurs were around.

CO2 levels are just one of the factors that influence our climate. Another possible 'culprit' is solar activity which is apparently increasing.

Martyn1981

EricMears wrote: »

At some point between 1959 & 1960 I took out a subscription to 'New Scientist'. There were many forecasts during that period of an approaching Ice Age ! The subscription lapsed when I changed schools.

Today's CO2 levels are indeed higher that at any time since our species existed - however, we've not yet reached the levels calculated to have existed when dinosaurs were around.

CO2 levels are just one of the factors that influence our climate. Another possible 'culprit' is solar activity which is apparently increasing.

Hiya. Yes, some predictions were of cooling, approx 12% of scientific papers, but approx 60% predicted global warming. Since then, as I pointed out earlier, the consensus on AGW has grown to a high 90% and powerstation emissions (pollutants excluding CO2) have been reduced through the introduction of scrubbers, so the cooling from pollution based atmospheric shading predictions have ended. [Note - those predictions were not seen as wrong (as far as I understand), there was a genuine possibility/consideration that pollution based shading might outdo CO2 warming for some time.]

Yes, CO2 levels are nowhere near the levels they have been at times, but at those levels the planet has been much warmer and sea levels much higher (around 200m* higher during the Cretaceous period, but a little lower during the Triassic), also the makeup of the atmosphere was different, not just CO2 levels but also oxygen levels, so that seems to agree with AGW modelling on CO2, temp and sea levels based on the current atmospheric makeup which was relatively stable till the 1880's.

[* Worth pointing out that a 2m rise in sea levels (let alone 200m) would/will be a major issue for humans since most of the large cities around the world have been built around ports (and trading) so will suffer significant impacts from minor sea level rises.]

Yes, other 'culprits' have been researched to death such as differing solar activity levels and CO2 or shading from volcanic activity, but as far as I'm aware they have not been found to be responsible as they average out (sometimes more, sometimes less), so wouldn't explain a 40%-50% increase in CO2 levels in the last 140yrs when levels have been stable (+/- 4%) for 100's of thousands of years.

Edit - I should apologise for the rather ham-handed way in which I'm trying to respond. These issues are staggeringly complex, and I have very, very little understanding of them. I'm simply trying to say that the culmination of research so far, seems to be pretty conclusive now, and has been travelling in the same direction for many decades. Whilst some opinions may still differ, the science now appears solid with little to no opposing arguments other than some marginal claims about scientists not 'all' being in agreement, an argument promoted heavily by the FF industry, despite reality being much different.

silverwhistle

JKenH wrote: »

I just see solar in a totally different light. If you want to make your house look ugly then fine, it is you who has to live with it very time you pull up on your drive or are lounging in the garden. Your neighbours might not be impressed but it doesn’t really affect them. (I am, I should add, not a great fan of solar farms out in the countryside).

You're obviously entitled to an opinion on anything, although if you say you believe the moon is made of blue cheese it might affect my opinion of you.


On the above quote I would just say that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but anyone knocking on my front door wouldn't see them (I've had a few disappointed green canvassers..) and when I'm in my back garden the neat installation on my roof doesn't call attention to itself. My fuel bills are definitely beautiful to behold..:-)

Martyn1981

Couple of articles here both about reducing fuel consumption on ships:

Emissions From Huge Vessels Are About To Get Slashed With The Use Of Rotor Sails — Large Scale Testing Begins

Rolls Royce Electric Debuts SAVe Energy Battery Propulsion System For Ships

pile-o-stone

JKenH wrote: »

I just see solar in a totally different light. If you want to make your house look ugly then fine, it is you who has to live with it very time you pull up on your drive or are lounging in the garden. Your neighbours might not be impressed but it doesn’t really affect them. (I am, I should add, not a great fan of solar farms out in the countryside).

I tend to agree with this, some solar installations look awful. Luckily there are now some more aesthetic installation methods available, not least the solar shingles from Tesla. We installed roof integrated solar on our garage and woodshed:

EricMears

Our solar panels are on the roof but because of the roof's pitch they're completely invisible to anyone in the garden (unless you do as I do when I want to check if they're covered in snow and stand on a stepladder 20 yards away).

GreatApe

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Edit - I should apologise for the rather ham-handed way in which I'm trying to respond. These issues are staggeringly complex, and I have very, very little understanding of them. I'm simply trying to say that the culmination of research so far, seems to be pretty conclusive now, and has been travelling in the same direction for many decades.

The problem with the discussion on climate change isn't if it is happening or not but on the outcome. What is lost in the arguments is if it will be a net bad or a net good. And in what locations will it be a net good and in which locations will it be a net bad. And for what species. And for what time frames etc.

But it is not framed like that, it is framed as a given that it will be a catastrophic and then two idiot groups battle it out to say its real or not.

My view which I think is overwhelmingly the most reasonable is that climate change (in either direction, eg small cooling or small heating) will be roughly a neutral event that is to say a very small net positive/negative. Some animals and plants will benefit from a change in one direction while others will lose out and it will be mostly local gains and losses so while some areas may see a net small negative others will see a net small positive

The two big ones though are sea level rises and ice ages. Ice ages are probably very large net negatives (but then again life will continue and new critters will emerge so we are talking not universally bad for ever but for the period it exists and for the existing lifeforms. For instance were all the previous ice ages bad? Without them the animal and plant world would look very different with many species that exist today never have come into being we ourselves may never have evolved so for a human standpoint every natural disaster/change/etc to this period was good for us not only good but a requirement).

Given the choice I would rather have the climate warming very slowly than cooling. I think we are now at a stage in technology and wealth where we could actually force the climate one way or the other if we so choose to do so. But again that comes back to the problem that there is no agreed perfect global temperature so no reason to aim at artificially setting the worlds global temperature.

I would also detach the debate on energy to the debate on climate the two dont have to be linked. Solar and Wind and here now and they will grow to become a large primary energy source. Even if we had no global warming solar and wind is a good idea to develop and do.

The second question is what is the perfect climate and should we force that? And nobody has an answer to that. The current answer seems to be....well let the climate do what the climate will do 'naturally' and because it is 'natural' that would be good which is of course a stupid answer but then the problem is too complicated to have any other answer that is not stupid or a guess but almost certainly the idea that the climate is at perfection in every way at some given point in the recent past and all human activity is a huge negative is simplistic

Is global warming happening? Probably
Does fossil fuel use force the direction one way? Probably but so does land use and other essential human activities. The fact that humans need land and resources and the planet would look different without us does not mean we are an evil on the contrary we are becoming the custodians of this planet and will secure its future from the true evil of chance and nature.
Is the change a large net negative for most places and most species for most of time? Very unlikely