Climate change: what to do?

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 23:52
VIEWED: 2699
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

GEEZER

Sunday, February 11, 2007 11:52 PM

Okay. Let's assume that the IPCC's latest report is correct and that things will be warming up in the next 100 years(And they predict it will warm up, pretty much whatever we do.) What do we want to do about it?

Even if we maintain greenhouse emmissions at 2000 levels, we can expect a .6 Deg c increase by 2099. The IPCC's best scenario gives a 1.8c increase and .18 to .38 meter sea level increase. Their worst gives a 4.0c temp increase and a .26 to .59 meter higher sea level. Either the best or worst scenarios are also going to cause changes in rainfall patterns and storm tracks. Here's the IPCC's executive summary.
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it? Consider that China will be the biggest producer of greenhouse gasses by 2009, and has no plans of doing anything serious about it. India is getting right up there, and probably won't put much effort into emissions control. Even if the First World manages to impose harsh restrictions, we're still heading for an increase.

Might it be better to concede that climate change is coming and prepare for it? Encourage movement of populations from coastlines where storms and flooding are likely. Plan to move agriculture to areas that aren't in the new drought zones. People have coped with climate change before. Why not again?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 12, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?

Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

ANTIMASON

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:39 AM

a new article from the London Telegraph, which claims that "Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11
.xml

Quote:
"Cosmic Rays blamed for Global Warming"

Richard Gray
London Telegraph
Sunday, February 11, 2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: "It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years' research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark's results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: "These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds."

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: "Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

"Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man's impa

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

KANEMAN

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:56 AM

Lets take the hairspray out of the hands of New Jersey women.....It may buy us some time. Or we can go back to living in caves and eating worms and sh*t like that. Or we can get rid of cars and planes, who needs them anyway?

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 2:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
So would it be better to try and stop climate change, or spend our time trying to prepare for it?
Can't we do both? Any restraint of emissions is just going to reduce the rise and thus give more time to adjust to a changing climate.

In a world of unlimited resources and money we could. Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get? If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2007 4:38 AM

I've seen this claim before. There are some reasons to think that cosmic rays could affect lower cloud cover, but none to explain why night-time temperatures are ALSO higher. And the cosmic-ray data doesn't apparently show the long-term trend that Henrik Svensmark says it does. Anyway, this is the best explanation that I could find.

www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/10/the_cosmic_climate_connection.php?pa
ge=2

However, there is another part of the explanation which scientists are finally getting around to. I'm surprised it took them this long. Cloud cover COULD be a cooling force but only if it's bright, white cloud cover like clouds formed around sulfuric acid droplets. But we're spewing out hundred and thousands of tons of carbon particles every day, mostly from forest-burning (clearing), wood-burning and dung-burning. That seriously changes cloud (and ice) albedo. Although carbon particles ostensibly cause condensation, they raise the cloud temperature and re-evaporate the water, allowing more visible light past where the cloud layer SHOULD be, and efficiently convert visible light to heat.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

SIGNYM

Monday, February 12, 2007 4:44 AM

The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases. We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The United States is still by far the largest - not per capita, but total- emitter of greenhouse gases.

Not for long, China will take over by 2010-2025, depending on who you ask. Kinda hard to tell, because neither China nor India submit information to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change for inclusion in their reports.

Quote:
We are, compared to other industrialized naitons, profligate in our energy use: car mileage requirements are more stringent everywhere else in the developed world- even China- than here.

True. We produce around 21% of the total man-made greenhouse gasses. http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420r06003.pdf
U.S. transportation produces 27% of that, or 5.7% of the total (almost all CO2). Cars and light trucks make up around 60% of the transportation emissions, or 3.4% of the total. Say we make an instant 25% improvement in fuel economy and emissions, that'd be .85% of the world total.

Also, while China talks a good game on transportation emissions, their record on actually enforcing environmental laws makes ours look absolutely sterling.

Quote:
So, for the most part it would be ridiculously easy for the United States to reduce it's emission of greenhouse gases to less than 1980 levels with no reduction in living standards.

I don't know about "Ridiculously easy" but it could probably be done. My question is, would we be better off spending the time and money getting ready for the climate change that's pretty much inevitable unless everyone gets on board?

Read the scenarios in the IPCC report and pick the one you think most likely. Most would require either world government or every nation passing, and enforcing, tough emissions laws, changing the way electricity is generated and agriculture is carried out, and major redesign in manufacturing. Scrapping SUV's isn't going to do it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CITIZEN

Monday, February 12, 2007 6:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
In a world of unlimited resources and money we could.

Actually I think the arguments against saving resources are more of the unlimited vein.

Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

If you mean switching to new lower polluting technologies then yeah, that costs, but the people bearing those costs, and the people bearing the costs for adapting to climate change aren't the same groups.

Quote:
Given that we have a finite amount to spend, is there a best mix of reduction in change and preparation for the change we'll get?

Governments already spend vast sums of cash on measures protecting the general populace from environmental conditions. What I mean is that it wouldn't be a staggering increase in what is already being done if started early enough, more a redirection of efforts. A lot of the rest is the purview of private citizens and enterprise. From walking more or taking the bus instead of driving to the CEO not flying everywhere. A great many pollution saving measures pay for themselves in short order, so I'm at a loss to explain why a business run by anyone with half a brain or business acumen wouldn't want to adopt them, even given the short term outlay.

Quote:
If we limit the temp increase by 2099 to 2.0c instead of 4.0c, is it going to make that much difference in drought and storm patterns? maybe we'll have to wait for more detail from the IPCC.

4c is 100% more than 2c, if 2c has an impact then 4c is going to have a greater impact. You're argument sounds like "it's only 2c, what difference can it make", the mini ice age of Europe had average temperatures of 1c lower.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

GEEZER

Monday, February 12, 2007 8:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Reducing emissions is mainly about reducing resource usage, not increasing it so I'm at somewhat of a loss to understand why you think doing both would require infinite resources. Most emission curbs are about buying local goods, driving less and avoiding flying if at all possible, so indeed huge curbs could be made without unlimited resources.

The entire world's transportation sector(cars, trains, ships, rail, etc.) generates 14% of greenhouse gasses. The U.S., Canada, and Europe produce a bit less than half of that, say 6%. A 25% decrease in all transport emissions for these regions would lower world totals 1.5%, assuming the rest of the world just holds steady. I've seen projections that China and India are expected to increase their transportation emissions 3.5 to 5.5 TIMES (not percent), easily counteracting any reductions by the "industrialized" nations.

Any effort to control global climate change by reducing emissions is going to require global action and cooperation. The "developing" world, to include China, India, and South America, have pretty much said that they have higher priorities, such as improving the standard of living for their people. If the industrialized nations try to reduce climate change by themselves, by whatever means, I'm not sure they're going to get much result with the rest of the world not playing.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE