Will Anyone Notice A Difference?
News1 min ago
Where does all this extra water come from?
Many countries like Britain are now deluged with enormous amounts of rainfall yet we still talk about rising sea levels. Admittedly some rainfall is redistributed back into our rivers but the land areas are massive so absorbing much of the rest. Extra global water cannot be created so does this mean its natures way of creating equilibrium so that the melting of the ice caps does not raise the sea levels?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by pdq1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Even if you are correct, jake (and I will accept, just for the purposes of this question, that you are) please explain to me how turning off the UK's motorway lights, installing wind turbines (just about the most ineffective way of producing electricity you could devise), making people use unsuitable and dangerous light bulbs, or, if you like, ceasing all human activity in the UK or even Europe as a whole, will have any significant effect whatsoever on the global situation.
Despite all the summits, all the agreeable dinners (hosted at enormous costs in terms of carbon emissions), all the protocols, all the undertakings, global carbon emissions are increasing at an enormous rate. Global emissions are up 50% since 1992 when the first of these "summits" took place. China's figure is up 240%. They are now responsible for a quarter of all emissions and they have absolutely no intention of cutting that rate of increase. Countless other nations - some large some small - show increases well into three figures.
Meantime the EU, responsible for less than half of China's total, showed an increase of 1% despite all its efforts. The UK, responsible for just 2% of the global total, manages a reduction of about 8% mainly through draconian measures and a huge (hidden) "green" levy on energy bills. Peeing in the wind does not adequately describe it.
It's about time that European nations and the UK in particular faced up to the fact that the matter - whatever the causes and whatever the effects - is outside of their control. The alternative is for industries in those nations to be left standing and the economic slump to simply deepen.
I think I've hijacked pdq's question far too much!
Despite all the summits, all the agreeable dinners (hosted at enormous costs in terms of carbon emissions), all the protocols, all the undertakings, global carbon emissions are increasing at an enormous rate. Global emissions are up 50% since 1992 when the first of these "summits" took place. China's figure is up 240%. They are now responsible for a quarter of all emissions and they have absolutely no intention of cutting that rate of increase. Countless other nations - some large some small - show increases well into three figures.
Meantime the EU, responsible for less than half of China's total, showed an increase of 1% despite all its efforts. The UK, responsible for just 2% of the global total, manages a reduction of about 8% mainly through draconian measures and a huge (hidden) "green" levy on energy bills. Peeing in the wind does not adequately describe it.
It's about time that European nations and the UK in particular faced up to the fact that the matter - whatever the causes and whatever the effects - is outside of their control. The alternative is for industries in those nations to be left standing and the economic slump to simply deepen.
I think I've hijacked pdq's question far too much!
Firstly it is a hysterical overreaction. Observations of the progress of the effects of Global Warming are confirming that the problem is at the worst end of the scientific projections an finding an increasing number previously unaccounted aspects.
Yes, some nations do have large increases in carbon pollution. It is because they start at a very low level because they are developing nations. The UK is actually one of the highest all time carbon polluters due to early industrialisation with very inefficient technologies.Pointing the finger at others does not absolve the responsibility of your country for its very dirty past.
Moreover the UK is one of the greatest colonial plunderers of the planet, build much of its wealth on the misery of the poor countries of the world. It is time you contributed back to the world and started paying your way.
While China's emissions are growing they actually have a massive program of efficiency. One of the reasons they open so many new coal fired power plants (no longer one a week) is they have replaced old inefficient plants with the latest technology.
In fact China has huge solar and wind programs. China's photovoltaic manufacturing capacity is so huge that plants in other countries are struggling to be competitive. They were largely responsible for the 75 percent reduction in manufactured cost over the past four years. People in the industry tell me that their suppliers have indicated a further 35 percent reduction in prices will be coming on early next year.
This is the kind of effect that is supposed to happen by the measures designed to level the playing field between renewable energy and fossil fuels and it is working well. Subsidies are now being removed and the industry is still powering.
Meanwhile taxpayers still subsidise the fossil fuel industry after 200 years. Indeed if renewable and fossil fuels were started together nobody would invest in fossil fuels.
Yes, some nations do have large increases in carbon pollution. It is because they start at a very low level because they are developing nations. The UK is actually one of the highest all time carbon polluters due to early industrialisation with very inefficient technologies.Pointing the finger at others does not absolve the responsibility of your country for its very dirty past.
Moreover the UK is one of the greatest colonial plunderers of the planet, build much of its wealth on the misery of the poor countries of the world. It is time you contributed back to the world and started paying your way.
While China's emissions are growing they actually have a massive program of efficiency. One of the reasons they open so many new coal fired power plants (no longer one a week) is they have replaced old inefficient plants with the latest technology.
In fact China has huge solar and wind programs. China's photovoltaic manufacturing capacity is so huge that plants in other countries are struggling to be competitive. They were largely responsible for the 75 percent reduction in manufactured cost over the past four years. People in the industry tell me that their suppliers have indicated a further 35 percent reduction in prices will be coming on early next year.
This is the kind of effect that is supposed to happen by the measures designed to level the playing field between renewable energy and fossil fuels and it is working well. Subsidies are now being removed and the industry is still powering.
Meanwhile taxpayers still subsidise the fossil fuel industry after 200 years. Indeed if renewable and fossil fuels were started together nobody would invest in fossil fuels.
Skeptics first denied warming was happening. Then they denied the cause. Then they denied it was a problem. Having been proved wrong on all counts they now deny that anything can be done.
Grow up and and let the world get on with it.
Do be sure to tell your children how you helped stand in the way so they will remember you as one of the ludites who contributed to the massive size of the problem they face.
Grow up and and let the world get on with it.
Do be sure to tell your children how you helped stand in the way so they will remember you as one of the ludites who contributed to the massive size of the problem they face.
-- answer removed --
I am passionate about the need to act on changing our technologies. Global Warming is the biggest environmental disaster since the Chixilub Impact.
I am sick and tired of the ignorant naysayers who pretend the science is wrong.
Yes we are all contributors to the problem but some much more than others. Those who deliberately attempt to undermine public policy are the worst.
I do much to offset my carbon emissions. Our home is powered by solar. We buy the highest efficiency appliances. Our main vehicle does 60 over miles per gallon of diesel.
We have 80 acres of young forest which we actively improve with weed eradication to promote growth of trees. In fact I would say we are net sequesterers.
What are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint? Or are you one of those who will buy the cheapest alternative and settle your conscience by pretending there isn't a problem?
I am sick and tired of the ignorant naysayers who pretend the science is wrong.
Yes we are all contributors to the problem but some much more than others. Those who deliberately attempt to undermine public policy are the worst.
I do much to offset my carbon emissions. Our home is powered by solar. We buy the highest efficiency appliances. Our main vehicle does 60 over miles per gallon of diesel.
We have 80 acres of young forest which we actively improve with weed eradication to promote growth of trees. In fact I would say we are net sequesterers.
What are you doing to reduce your carbon footprint? Or are you one of those who will buy the cheapest alternative and settle your conscience by pretending there isn't a problem?
I’d undertaken not to get further involved with this question, beso. I’m afraid your credibility was somewhat diminished when you mentioned an “hysterical over-reaction”. Quite who was being hysterical was not quite clear. But if it was supposed to be me, I think you should examine my stance. Throughout I have advocated little or no reaction at all to this alleged problem - certainly not of the order that many European governments including that of the UK have seen fit to adopt. Whilst I am not advocating wilful and wholesale destruction of the planet I have no intention of sitting in the cold and dark in order to mitigate some problem that may or may not rear its head many years hence. My view is that future generations will have to deal with the environment that they encounter just as this and previous ones have. And when you went on to describe the UK as “…one of the greatest colonial plunderers of the planet, build much of its wealth on the misery of the poor countries of the world” in a debate on Global Warming I started giving myself fifty lashes, so guilt-ridden was I. Or maybe not, I’ll let you guess.
But your description of your efforts to reduce your “carbon footprint” set me off again. It demonstrates to me, as suggested by birdie, that you have embraced the issue wholeheartedly. Of course you are fortunate to have eighty acres in which to plant your forest (though I do not quite see the need to eradicate what you term as “weeds”) and I note the efficiency of your “main” vehicle (though you clearly have more than one and you do not mention what damaging effects the others might have). Anyway, good for you and I applaud the efforts your conscience determines you should make.
Where I part company with you is when I consider your almost pathological hatred for anybody who dares to disagree with your viewpoint. Among your constructive suggestions you hinted that I should “grow up and let the world get on with it”. I’m more than willing to let anybody get on with it. I just wish they’d let me do the same without insult. As for me being a Luddite (two ‘Ds” incidentally) you may do well to remember where the term originated. Although now used to describe people who refuse to embrace new technology (a description, incidentally, certainly not applicable to me) the original Luddites were a group of workers who, in the early 19th century, destroyed new labour saving powered weaving machinery. They believed it would destroy their employment prospects by replacing the hand-operated devices they were paid to use. Now I would have thought that such a group would be right up your street. How better to reduce carbon footprints that to do away with all powered machinery and revert to manual labour? I’m not too sure how long it would take for a manpowered tanker to transport your diesel from the middle east, but I’m sure it’s not an insurmountable problem!
What do I do to settle my conscience? Absolutely nothing for the simple reason that I suffer no more guilt when I switch on a light or travel 5,000 miles by air than I have about Britain's colonial past. I run a very small car which I do by choice because I don't drive very much. But I also have a half share of a vintage London bus which does 9mpg if we're lucky and is very "dirty". I also travel abroad at least 3 times a year for pleasure. This year I have flown some 18,000 miles in all and I expect to do roughly the same next year. So it really is all about letting people "get on with it". I promise not to moan about you killing the "weeds" (poor things, but I suppose something must be sacrificed on the altar of sustainability) if you promise not to castigate me for flying "too much".
That really is all from me on this one as it is fast developing into a slanging match and that’s not my barrel.
But your description of your efforts to reduce your “carbon footprint” set me off again. It demonstrates to me, as suggested by birdie, that you have embraced the issue wholeheartedly. Of course you are fortunate to have eighty acres in which to plant your forest (though I do not quite see the need to eradicate what you term as “weeds”) and I note the efficiency of your “main” vehicle (though you clearly have more than one and you do not mention what damaging effects the others might have). Anyway, good for you and I applaud the efforts your conscience determines you should make.
Where I part company with you is when I consider your almost pathological hatred for anybody who dares to disagree with your viewpoint. Among your constructive suggestions you hinted that I should “grow up and let the world get on with it”. I’m more than willing to let anybody get on with it. I just wish they’d let me do the same without insult. As for me being a Luddite (two ‘Ds” incidentally) you may do well to remember where the term originated. Although now used to describe people who refuse to embrace new technology (a description, incidentally, certainly not applicable to me) the original Luddites were a group of workers who, in the early 19th century, destroyed new labour saving powered weaving machinery. They believed it would destroy their employment prospects by replacing the hand-operated devices they were paid to use. Now I would have thought that such a group would be right up your street. How better to reduce carbon footprints that to do away with all powered machinery and revert to manual labour? I’m not too sure how long it would take for a manpowered tanker to transport your diesel from the middle east, but I’m sure it’s not an insurmountable problem!
What do I do to settle my conscience? Absolutely nothing for the simple reason that I suffer no more guilt when I switch on a light or travel 5,000 miles by air than I have about Britain's colonial past. I run a very small car which I do by choice because I don't drive very much. But I also have a half share of a vintage London bus which does 9mpg if we're lucky and is very "dirty". I also travel abroad at least 3 times a year for pleasure. This year I have flown some 18,000 miles in all and I expect to do roughly the same next year. So it really is all about letting people "get on with it". I promise not to moan about you killing the "weeds" (poor things, but I suppose something must be sacrificed on the altar of sustainability) if you promise not to castigate me for flying "too much".
That really is all from me on this one as it is fast developing into a slanging match and that’s not my barrel.
If climate change is a problem I cannot understand why the British government is throwing £bns at it by using inefficient methods to create the power we need such as windmills. Our influence with China is almost zilch as they are still ploughing ahead with coal fired power stations.
Surely the answer is to accept the inevitable and protect ourselves from climate change by increasing our flood defences. This government is actually reducing the money is spends out and we wonder why our homes are now getting flooded every year.
Surely the answer is to accept the inevitable and protect ourselves from climate change by increasing our flood defences. This government is actually reducing the money is spends out and we wonder why our homes are now getting flooded every year.
Where did I mention an hysterical overreaction?
I have no intrinsic objection to those who take the position that global warming is not a problem. What I do find appalling is those who take that position in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence and go around repeating the rubbish published by professional denialists.
"Sitting in the cold and dark"? The notion that industrialised society would collapse by reducing our dependence of fossil fuels is also a ridiculous argument.
Measures taken are intended to adjust economic balance to kickstart the clean energy industries which would otherwise not be able to compete against the long established fossil fuel industry. Those measures are working as we have seen with the plummeting cost of solar power.
Countries that have embraced change are experiencing a huge economic boost as the new industries are developed. Check out Germany's renewable energy industry. Has it destroyed their economy?
Your stance that our children and grandchildren just have to deal with what they get is indeed sickening. You obviously have no idea of the extent of the problem they will inherit if we don't change now.
Likewise the naivety of pdq1 is evident in thinking we just need to put up some more defences against flooding. Economists have compared the cost of mitigation against the cost of prevention and the choice is clear.
Unfortunately those like NewJudge are happy to leave the massive costs to future generations so he can continue to gluttonously indulge on the planet's resources.
I have no intrinsic objection to those who take the position that global warming is not a problem. What I do find appalling is those who take that position in the face of the overwhelming scientific evidence and go around repeating the rubbish published by professional denialists.
"Sitting in the cold and dark"? The notion that industrialised society would collapse by reducing our dependence of fossil fuels is also a ridiculous argument.
Measures taken are intended to adjust economic balance to kickstart the clean energy industries which would otherwise not be able to compete against the long established fossil fuel industry. Those measures are working as we have seen with the plummeting cost of solar power.
Countries that have embraced change are experiencing a huge economic boost as the new industries are developed. Check out Germany's renewable energy industry. Has it destroyed their economy?
Your stance that our children and grandchildren just have to deal with what they get is indeed sickening. You obviously have no idea of the extent of the problem they will inherit if we don't change now.
Likewise the naivety of pdq1 is evident in thinking we just need to put up some more defences against flooding. Economists have compared the cost of mitigation against the cost of prevention and the choice is clear.
Unfortunately those like NewJudge are happy to leave the massive costs to future generations so he can continue to gluttonously indulge on the planet's resources.
I wonder if some of the owners who houses have been flooded Beso would call it nieve to spend more on flood defences. Just look at the facts
///Currently, flooding and flood management, cost the UK around £2.2 billion each year: we currently spend around £800 million per annum on flood and coastal defences, but even with existing defences, we experience an average of £1400 million of damage. More needs to be spent.///
///Currently, flooding and flood management, cost the UK around £2.2 billion each year: we currently spend around £800 million per annum on flood and coastal defences, but even with existing defences, we experience an average of £1400 million of damage. More needs to be spent.///
Just a small point of order.
"Where did I mention an hysterical overreaction? "
20:48 Wed 28th Nov 2012: "Firstly it is a hysterical overreaction"
I'm still not sure what "it" is, nor am I sure who over-reacted. But you did mention it. Do try and kep up, beso.
No, I really have no idea of the extent of the problem they will inherit if we don't change now. And neither have you. Good luck with your forest.
"Where did I mention an hysterical overreaction? "
20:48 Wed 28th Nov 2012: "Firstly it is a hysterical overreaction"
I'm still not sure what "it" is, nor am I sure who over-reacted. But you did mention it. Do try and kep up, beso.
No, I really have no idea of the extent of the problem they will inherit if we don't change now. And neither have you. Good luck with your forest.
@NJ
.From your 16:59 Thurs 29th November post, you had this to say -
"I’d undertaken not to get further involved with this question, beso. I’m afraid your credibility was somewhat diminished when you mentioned an “hysterical over-reaction”. Quite who was being hysterical was not quite clear."
So you believe that the credibility of Besos post was diminished because of the use of that phrase?
Well actually, when he used it, it was because he was quoting your phrase -one you had used at 13:42 Wed 28th November. Beso lifted the phrase in a reply of their own to frame their response.
I take it from your comments therefore that you would accept that your own credibility is diminished, since it was you that orginated the phrase?
.From your 16:59 Thurs 29th November post, you had this to say -
"I’d undertaken not to get further involved with this question, beso. I’m afraid your credibility was somewhat diminished when you mentioned an “hysterical over-reaction”. Quite who was being hysterical was not quite clear."
So you believe that the credibility of Besos post was diminished because of the use of that phrase?
Well actually, when he used it, it was because he was quoting your phrase -one you had used at 13:42 Wed 28th November. Beso lifted the phrase in a reply of their own to frame their response.
I take it from your comments therefore that you would accept that your own credibility is diminished, since it was you that orginated the phrase?
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
birdie. You don't understand computer models.
They are calibrated by attempting to match historical conditions. They do so reasonably well and are being improved all the time.
However modern observations are consistently showing that all climate models are underestimating the severity. This is because all the positive feedback mechanisms have not yet been factored.
They are calibrated by attempting to match historical conditions. They do so reasonably well and are being improved all the time.
However modern observations are consistently showing that all climate models are underestimating the severity. This is because all the positive feedback mechanisms have not yet been factored.
One of the main causes of the record flooding is prolonged weather patterns staying in the same place.
This is being contributed to by loops forming in the jet stream because it has slowed appreciably. These loops also allow tropical weather systems to come further north and arctic systems to come further south. That is why we see record cold spells and hot spells at unprecedented latitudes and massive systems where hurricanes meet cold weather as recently experienced in the USA.
The jet stream is driven by the difference in temperature between the poles and the tropics. Winds blow from the cold to the hot but are diverted around the planet by Coriolis forces.
The reduction in the temperature differential caused by the polar regions rapid rise in temperature has slowed the winds.
Climate models predicted this change at the planet warms so you had better get used to extreme weather.
This is being contributed to by loops forming in the jet stream because it has slowed appreciably. These loops also allow tropical weather systems to come further north and arctic systems to come further south. That is why we see record cold spells and hot spells at unprecedented latitudes and massive systems where hurricanes meet cold weather as recently experienced in the USA.
The jet stream is driven by the difference in temperature between the poles and the tropics. Winds blow from the cold to the hot but are diverted around the planet by Coriolis forces.
The reduction in the temperature differential caused by the polar regions rapid rise in temperature has slowed the winds.
Climate models predicted this change at the planet warms so you had better get used to extreme weather.
Latest Posts
Food & Drink1 min ago
News2 mins ago
Crosswords5 mins ago
Film, Media & TV11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.