Planet Earth under Threat - The Future
- 15 Jan 07, 08:14 AM
This is the last programme in the series and we take on many of your views expressed on this blog. Listen at 21.02 GMT on 主播大秀 Radio 4 FM or LW, or streamed on the Radio 4 website - And available on this blog there after. We also repeat the whole series from next week at 11.02 GMT on Radio 4. Today, join Gabrielle and Howard - with studio guests , and.
And an announcement today. What does plan to have a carbon neutral operation say about British, European and North American society, where M&S have markets?
Update:
Comments Post your comment
How on earth would M&S monitor and enforce such a policy? Depending of course upon scope - anyone can have a carbon neutral policy within a tiny restricted scope, but this would be fairly meaningless.
We have to differentiate between politically correct manoeuvring and truly useful initiatives. Unfortunately, as 'pretend conservation' has become a politically hot item, we shall struggle increasingly with this distinction.
Lets see some factual and independently verifiable data, against defined objectives, instead of vague press releases.
Complain about this post
What does the very idea of 'carbon neutral' have to say about the gullibility of those who wish to find any magical spell which will allow us to consume forever?
Maybe as a young scientist I was too strongly indoctrinated in the First Law of Thermodynamics, but it seems to me that such ideas are close kin to perpetual motion machines, Free Lunches, and the like.
ed
15/01/2007 at 16:03:41 GMT
Complain about this post
I don't object to the 主播大秀 stirring up debate about this topic so long as they also admit that their obsessive crusade for "Digital" requires the disposal of millions of perfectly good FM radios, and the manufacture of millions of new sets that use 10 times as much energy to run.
Complain about this post
Ever Decreasing Carbon Circles.
Global Warming, is it really that surprising? Why do we expect everything to remain exactly the same, surely it鈥檚 the one thing that will never happen.
The climate has continually changed since the dawn of time and the planet and its species have adapted with it. If it wasn鈥檛 for climate change mankind might not exist.
If the scientific community spent less time rolling their eyes and praying to the "Great Carbon God" and more time researching practical steps to protect no-urban environments and non-human species we might actually make something happen.
The so called pressure groups and their ad-men seem content only to present governments with new taxation opportunities backed with outrageously shallow and at times downright dishonest "scientific" research. Net result? The ad-man chalks up yet another performance target hit and examines that bank statement. Knighthoods are awarded and the research that comes up with the desired conclusions has its funding renewed.
So why don鈥檛 we do proper research? Why don鈥檛 pressure groups say it as it really is? And why don鈥檛 governments act backed by a tsunami of public support?
Could it be that the real answer is so vile, so heinous that it may not be uttered? "TOO MANY PEOPLE".
Has anyone of the large brained scientific variety ever considered that fossil fuels are not the only finite recourse at hand? If the current explosion in the human population continues unchecked no amount of fiddling in other areas will be of any consequence at all.
Global Warming might be a nice big stick for the adman to beat the unbelievers with, but it鈥檚 not the real problem.
So what鈥檚 your limit 7 billion people? 10 billion, 50, 100? Left to its natural course somewhere down the line this eco system we all live should crack, the human population should nose dive, but there鈥檚 the rub, man and his machines are remarkably resilient, they can tolerate the most extreme changes in environment and climate. Man could just generate his own wasteland.
Mankind鈥檚 ever increasing numbers are having an ever increasing effect on the planet and its changing, that鈥檚 what eco systems do. So while nine out of ten cats said that their scientist washed whiter we do nothing, not a sausage. Not one single imitative on human population numbers.
These Government chaps have their own admen, they can cope with your adman quite nicely thank you. Your getting nowhere, so stop looking lovingly into that adman麓s eyes and get your fingers out please.
Do something now oh great profits of the carbon god or give up and do media studies instead.
PS. Please vote for me in this years Nobel prize "Carbon Neutral My Arse" category.
Complain about this post
Hi Martin,
"Global Warming might be a nice big stick for the adman to beat the unbelievers with, but it鈥檚 not the real problem."
But GW is one of the most likely mechanisms by which the Earth System, Gaia if you will, will reduce the population which is stressing it.
You're right that the main problem can be stated as "too many people", but reducing the "third world" population would have less than a quarter the effect of an equivalent reduction in the population of the 'developed' world, but we are reluctant even to see our population growth drop to zero, never mind contemplate an actual reduction.
Here is an to contemplate. We, the developed world, are the chief culprits in exceeding , and thus we are best placed to make a difference by reducing the demand placed on the system by our perceived needs.
We can't expect others, particularly less well-informed others to act if we're unwilling to do so.
ed
Tuesday January 16, 2007 at 15:16:35 GMT
Complain about this post
A hopeful note among the gloom:
Nature article: Putting the carbon back "Black is the new green":
or, for those without a Nature subscription:
Maybe it isn't as dark as we fear?
xx
ed
Complain about this post
Hi Ed,
"Global Warming might be a nice big stick for the adman to beat the unbelievers with, but it鈥檚 not the real problem."
You might be suprised to know that I mostly agreee with you. With the exception that mankind (developed mankind) is quite capable of withstanding GW until the biter end. It麓s the third world that will be on the receiving end of GW as with most other things.
Looked at the graphic, seen it before, its one of my favourites, I spent 18 years twisting and perverting raw data for the military.
I can smell at statistical rat from a promotion away.(Adman in Uniform?)
If you want to know how to make the same data say the complete opposite email me at petedog@hotmail.com I will show you how its done and how the entire scientific world has gone native. Its a real eye opener. (this really is the world of Sgt Bilko but without the laughs).
One thousand years ago mankind developed the theory of husbandry.
Simple, effective, in step with the natural rhythm of things and above all achievable.(Try looking up london plane tree). Problem is it dont turn a fast buck and therefore it麓s not hip and not policy.
Lets drop the corrupt high science, the stats, the politics and the media game and do something workable, NOW!!.
I had a look at your website, You and I could not be more different. But I for one am willing to admit that while committed individuals such as you exist mankind might just turn it round, providing they dont get caught up in their own governments GW game. its rigged, it麓s a game only they can win, its a gold plated, copper bottomed, TRAP.
The whole point was that the world of science has deserted its post in favour of the financial comfort of the adman, let them run it and they will run it into the ground.
PS. would really be interested in hearing from you, if you have the time.
惭补谤迟铆苍.
Complain about this post
I read at the weekend that methane has a 21 times more harmful effect on global warming than CO2 so why doesn't the 'green lobby' bang on about methane reduction 21 times more than it does about CO2 reduction? Not so much scope for extra taxes on cows maybe?
Complain about this post
I read at the weekend that methane has a 21 times more harmful effect on global warming than CO2 so why doesn't the 'green lobby' bang on about methane reduction 21 times more than it does about CO2 reduction? Not so much scope for extra taxes on cows maybe?
Complain about this post
After seeing the photo, I have concluded that humans in the majority want to kill themselves by pollution. Regardless, PEuT has done its best to alert us unless future generations want to criticize us for leaving the Earth in the same state as Venus [if we survive].
Complain about this post
Your two programmes on carbon and the dangers of global warming were both interesting and important, but I notice the tendency is always to stress losses to the environment, but never to make the point that there are corresponding gains e.g. loss of tundra in Sweden, snd of icecap in Greenland, but never of gain in the areas of forest, and of icfree coastal land around the icecap. My main concern is not that however, but is that in all this discussion between intelligent people nobody but nobody mentioned the enormous growth in the world's human population, on the figures I have of about 800 millions in each of the ten year periods 1980 - 90 and 1990 - 2000. (It may be slowing a little since, but not very significantly). This is behind all the environmental concerns we have, but there seems a complete refusal to even mention it.Unless and until this growth can be contained, and perhaps later reversed, we are running to stand still or to go backwards in our attempts to limit the human impact on our finite planet.Yes, it could lead to some quite unacceptable policies by unbalanced governments or individuals, but facts are facts and need to be faced.
Complain about this post
Global Warming
Even if we go back to the stone age level of CO2 production we may not be able to alter the Earth鈥檚 climate significantly (numerous geological records show higher temperature than those predicted even if we do nothing).
Human contribution may be significant but it is not only one. By far the greatest amount of CO2 is released by the world鈥檚 oceans; they are also the largest absorbers. The release of CO2 is not, but its absorption is affected by the Sun. Since 1900 there has been an increase in solar activity.The culprits are UV and gamma radiations reaching the oceans鈥 surface during periods of high sunspot activity. Increased solar activity results in an increase of the harmful radiation, reducing bio-mass of the oceans鈥 surface phytoplankton through process of sterilisation by irradiation. Result of this is reduced uptake of CO2 from the atmosphere and rising in the 鈥榞reen-house鈥 effect. There are already quantifiable evaluations of reduction in the efficiency of phytoplankton. Reverse process takes place during reductions in the solar activity causing global cooling end may even trigger onset of ice age (eg. solar activity was at a minimum between 1650-1710 and for decades was considerable cooling known as 'Little Ice Age').
As global temperature rises methane (which is about 20 times more 鈥榞reen-house鈥 effective than CO2) is released from the huge areas of semi-permafrost of North Canada and Siberia (soil is defrosted for longer periods in subsequent years) so its concentration in the atmosphere rises year by year and so on.
Whole process once triggered is self 鈥榝uelling鈥 and exponential in nature, this is reason why we now see the temperature changes much more rapid than predicted. We hope, as there are already some indications, that solar activity will be on the wane over next 80-120 or so years, but might take a 2-3 decades for the equilibrium to be established and the process eventually reversed.
Therefore it is more than likely that all our efforts to reduce the CO2 emissions may be pointless as far as arresting of the global warming is concerned.
Complain about this post
WHAT ARE THE TEN MOST IMPORTANT CHANGES WE COULD MAKE TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE?
Could these be two of them:
1. Lobby and persuade the Roman Catholic church to promote contraception.
2. Explain clearly to people how they could lead reasonable daily lives without adding to climate change.
Complain about this post
Hello Vukcevic.
With regards your theory. The "competing theory" of Anthropogenic Global Warming explains the following:
*The observed reduction of the ratio of Carbon13 to Carbon12. Just one of the ways we know for certain that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human activities, mainly fossil fuel burning.
*The Acidification of the oceans. Showing that they are net absorbers of CO2, i.e. they are not the source.
*The observed cooling of the stratosphere. As predicted by basic enhanced greenhouse gas theory. Interestingly a warming driven by an increase in solar activity would actually warm the stratosphere.
*The observed Winter warming trends in the Northern Hemisphere. As predicted by basic enhanced greenhouse gas theory.
Does your theory explain these points?
Methane is a likely secondary emission from the warming due to our CO2 emissions. But since the 1990s the rate of increase seems to have levelled off globally, yet the rate of warming persists at an increasing rate.
Complain about this post
What on Earth?
Well its here, the latest re-hash of that computer model, (not again?, oh no!, groan!!) Yes youre right, "son of computer model rides again", direct descendant of the one that predicted armahgedon in the 1970's, 80麓s & 90麓s. A model with more plugs and patches than a rusting bucket. Re-packaged for that Great, Moronic, "Unwashed mass鈥 the general public. (That鈥檚 us guys).
Staring....
Unpublished (presumably Top Secret) Raw data (that will just get buried where is not easily found ie. well off the website).
Unnamed experts.(just in case somebody twigs they got it wrong last time).
Ignored counter theory. (just in case it spoils the desired rusult).
Science Fiction presented as Science Fact. (saves on all that tedious research, much, much! quicker)
Certain Knowledge of the certainly unknowable. (Trust me, I鈥檓 a scientist)
And above all, huge leaps of the imagination thinly disguised as sound scientific predictions.
But never mind eh, its lovely, its glossy, it鈥檚.... colour coordinated. And if you鈥檙e a committed ecologist and naturalist, as we all are on this page, then, don麓t worry, there is hope, perhaps this will indeed brainwash that "Unwashed mass" into thinking like us, and after all the first rule of PR is to say something so many times it starts to become accepted as fact. Well anyway, serves them right, swine鈥檚, they were asking for it. Maybe we could sell them some soap powder at the same time?
I would love to know if the glossy presentation at the pre-production meeting already had the results pencilled in, (guess we will never know). Run that model and it will say the same thing every time, it cant do anything else, no matter how many computers you run it on. It鈥檚 a computer model that鈥檚 what computer models do. Worst of all it has less chance of accurately predicting regional climate variations 70 years into the future than my dog has of mastering the harmonium before Monday lunchtime.
But lets be realistic you can just put those predictions in anyway, who will ever know?. Certainly not that 鈥渦nwashed mass鈥, there to busy driving their SUV麓s out of town to buy all that lovely soap powder, and as every top TV exec knows, they will only ever read the headline... and remember the words of Lord Nelson "I see no experiments".
Take that eye patch off the good eye 主播大秀,I expect better, try reading your own blog, the unwashed mass have started to twig it. There is more informed oppinion on this blog than in the whole of that unmetionable "other" 主播大秀 web page.
PS. Programming suggestion, new show, "NAME THAT EXPERIMENT" 鈥淚鈥檒l name that result in one鈥. snappy I think? Must be a winner?, Next graphic please!!!
PPS. I have let Sir David off as he is in my opinion an God and might just pull it off.
Complain about this post
I've got to come clean. I've just got back from a tour of hospitals in India. The areas (around Kerala), I visited are some of the most populated on the planet. 'Marketing' is the current buzz word and things are taking off. As pointed out to me by a local doctor there is a massive polarisation of wealth (and diabetes!)- from the good people in luxury 5 star hotels to the sight (although not many) of a few walking skeletons. An overriding feature of the country is the ability for the people to live hand in glove with the environment. The country is like one big silvan city and it is often difficult to spot the housing for the trees. This massive population is sustained by the abundance of fresh water from the mountains behind, the fertility of the soil and fish from the Indian Ocean (although pretty well everyone is vegetarian). In the circs, if you have a small piece of land or a few ducks - you are basically self-sufficient. The most striking thing - is just how happy everyone seems to be.
Our green partners are also there in force and I was encouraged to see the highly visible pressure being placed on local government. The angle was; development is inevitable - therefore look at the sustainable options.
Two other notable things:
1. Gordon Brown was there (presumably not promoting anything other than the economy).
2. I heard reports that English people in Bombay were being attacked because of somebody called Jade saying something on a TV programme.
That's the power of the media for you. If you feed people's heads with sh--, what are you likely to end up with?
Anyway, while I've been away - am delighted to see the whole emphasis of this blog shifting to the issue of overpopulation. I think Norman Furnell has started something in blog 14, and I think we need to build on it. Here's my contribution, how about:
One child families.
Complain about this post
For anyone interested in a discussion of the ethical problems generated by population growth, the concise summary in the form of a review of "", by Garrett Hardin is worth a read.
Enjoy it and return to discuss....
xx
ed
On the morning after the Tsunami, there were than on the morning before, and since that violent day, the average daily increase has grown from 204,000 to 213,000 - not an encouraging trend.
Complain about this post
All aboard the global-a-go-round
All aboard the global-a-go-round.
It seems that the Woods Hole Oceanographic chaps and MIT have gone all Global.
They have bucked the trend, spurned the 鈥Global Warming鈥 gravy train and had a bash at something else instead. It seems that our ice ages are a bit on the squint side, 鈥渁h!鈥 I hear you cry 鈥渋t鈥檚 that carbon monster at work again鈥 but no, you would be wrong, it鈥檚 not the cold bits that are missing, it鈥檚 the thaw in the middle, you know? the hot bit, the bit when it gets warmer.
The theory goes that this planet of ours, isn鈥檛 upright, its got a tilt, and if that wasn鈥檛 bad enough on a Friday afternoon, God knocked of early and created a wobble as well 鈥淎nd he saw it wasn鈥檛 good鈥, but hoped the media would say nothing. The tilt is what causes the seasons, but its not constant, it gets bigger and then smaller again in 40,000 year cycles, that鈥檚 what causes the ice ages and the hot bits in the middle. The wobble then sticks its oar in and 鈥淗ey presto鈥 chaos, down to 20,000 year cycles now. Well it now seems that glacier period (cold bit) has got longer in the last million years because the Earth has gotten colder (Arggh, just when I was getting the hang of it!!) the result is that every once in a while the hot bit goes AWOL.
We only recently started losing these hot bits, a chance for the planet to let off a bit steam and melt some of those pesky ice caps. Sound reasonable?, I should point out that they don鈥檛 as yet have any hard evidence that this 鈥渨alkabout鈥 type behaviour by the hot bits is due to an overall cooling of the planet, but the evidence that the planet has cooled is irrefutable.
10,000 years ago we had our last hot bit, which means? 鈥淚t鈥檚 ice age time鈥 , scheduled to start at a cinema near you any millennia soon, so book those tickets now or you鈥檙e gonna end up sitting in the cheap seats with the 鈥Global Warming鈥 boys and will have to wear a pointy hat with 鈥淒鈥 on it. (Or maybe that should be a 鈥淐鈥?)
Now what about that 鈥渃arbon monster?鈥 could it rise Godzilla like (No relation to the head honcho in the sky) from the ashes of that rainforest and save the world?
Well, you guessed it, apparently not, (Awww shucks) its another disaster, the carbon boys have now got a theory that 鈥Global Warming鈥 makes the earth get colder, that鈥檚 the 鈥Global Chill鈥 theory. Is anyone keeping score here? I鈥檓 losing track of my 鈥骋濒辞产补濒麓蝉鈥
So until MIT and WHOI have saved up their pocket money for a shiny new computer model 鈥Global Cooling鈥 (Sorry) will probably be bringing up the rear just behind 鈥Global Dimming鈥 (Awww 鈥 another one!)
The earth鈥檚 core is apparently slowing down as well, getting colder, (magnetic field thingy), that is why the atmosphere stays at home, so I am told鈥. 鈥Global Coring鈥 ? (Doh!) and those naughty problems with the earth鈥檚 orbit 鈥淕lobal Orbiting?鈥 (Ouch!). There is of course, also the effect of solar activity, 鈥Global Sunning?鈥 (Ok, I promise, that鈥檚 definitely the last one).
This climate change thing might be a bit more complicated than I thought, oh well, me and the 7 billion other boys are off to hack down a few trees and roast a couple of million endangered animals for tea. What harm can that do? It鈥檚 the Gobal麓s fault (Steady now). Anyway, all this thinking makes us hungry, and as we all agree about absolutely everything, I鈥檓 sure we can sort things out tonight over a gorilla kebab and chips, then watch the sun set majestically over a G8 anti Globalisation demo (Sorry!, couldn鈥檛 resist it, I may need treatment fast!) at least we will know in our hearts that the world is in safe OUR hands, all 14 billion of them & counting.
Nite nite all. Sweet dreams. And remember, as long as we鈥檝e got enough 鈥骋濒辞产补濒麓蝉鈥 the furry critters can 鈥淪leep safely in those rainforests tonight!鈥
PS. Look it up yourselves, its complex stuff, I might have got bits wrong.
Don鈥檛 just take my word for it, You never know, I might be a scientist or even worse, a 骋濒辞产补濒麓蝉 scientist with pet computer model and a tame TV show.
Complain about this post
Martin, thanks for the essential global summary. Clearly the variables will make the modelling challenging, as well as provide opportunities to those with vested interests in further resource exploitation room for manoeuvre to obfuscate. However, we do not need a sophisticated computer model (or a crystal ball)to read the all too obvious signs.
The time has come to seek viable solutions. Do you have any?
Complain about this post
Hi bob,
Well solutions, umm... only got the one really...DO SOMETHING!
I wouldn鈥檛 pretend to know any of the answers, all I can say for sure is that at the moment we麓re not even asking the questions.
Gut feeling is:
1. Practical eco husbandry measures sort of like a big hedgerow if you want. sounds silly but its do-able
2. Major "ethical" education projects and assitance for developing nations. (not one without the other)
3. Hanging for any scientist caught telling fibs in public. Whatever the motive.
4. Financial incentives for the populations of the developed counties for things like, solar power or better insulation depending on where in the world they live, just like we did with outside toilets, not taxes.
If we can reduce the worlds population, nurture and protect what little natural habitat remains or maybe even enlarge it, reduce our impact, industrial and otherwise, then maybe with less human pressure the increased flora might just eat the some of the carbon for us. We need a balance.
Problem is expansion makes the world go round, all those lovely new consumers in developing countries, very difficult to tell a chap in Africa or China he cant have a 4x4 because some bloke in Europe bought the last one in the shop. Even more dificult to tell the European shopkeeper he can鈥檛 sell it.
Very tricky, its those babies again, very cute, the purpose of life for us and the other species. I have never seen a politician kissing a seal pup in an election campaign, then again I鈥檝e never seen a seal in poling station.
In short, tackle the problems logically, use that so called "big brain", there must be one out there somewhere. If we are really superior to the animals then let鈥檚 prove it. Engineer a solution not theorise it.
We are doing nothing at all, if were not careful in 100 years time the then population will probably just say that all we did in the 21st century was sit and watch the telly while the world burned.
You will notice I haven鈥檛 used the "sustainable" word once, it gives me a headache.
Complain about this post
Thanks Martin
I take your point about use of the word 'sustainable' and have personally challenged London developers to explain what they mean by use of the word in their promo materials. Their response is wholly inadequate.
Living on a farm myself - I like the sound of operation 'big hedgerow'. It's needed -
"I think unless the Benson bills fall,
There'll be no Hedges left atall"
(with apologies to Ogden Nash).
However, this Government is trying its utmost to reverse the "logical" process with the lifting of planning restrictions in the Green Belt!!
I think another point arising generally from this blog is that, providing the science is honest, solutions should be logic-centered and we cannot trust politicians with overseeing the task of bringing about the necessary change. Not because politicians are necessarily dishonest, but because they will be blinded by other more historical priorities - including the economy.
Change ain't going to happen without the politics - so how can scientists and politicians join to act now? So far, all we have had is endless global committees - with no real implementation. I'm pleased that Blair recognises that the environment is the number political priority. However, am also glad that he hasn't repeated himself 3 times, otherwise, like standards of 'education' in this country - we'd be really stuffed.
Complain about this post
Hello Martin,
Are you talking about the theory that GW could reduce or stop the current warming and start an ice age?
I've not read anything on the WHOI site where they dismiss the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. The IPCC projections don't indicate a reduction in Thermo-haline circulation with any certainty. Note the great divergence of future results in the graph, that shows the uncertainty. As far as I know there is no current evidence for a THC slowdown.
We are actually still in the interglacial that started some 10,000 years ago.For exapmple,
I remain to be convinced that we face a cooling for any reason. I'm expecting much more warming to come.
I finally watched An Inconvenient Truth yesterday. Interesting but in my opinion overly hopeful. That said, every bit we can cut off the global 25Gtonne of CO2 emissions, and any solution to reduce stress on places like the Amazon cannot hurt. The best we can do now is try to take the edge off the process and limit it's speed of progression.
However the environment might now be responding in such a way that it'll act against reductions in emissions. Last year's CO2 increase:
It looks like things are speeding up, but nobody really knows why. and Peter Cox of the Hadley Centre said "Over the past few years carbon dioxide has been going up faster than we would expect based on the rate that emissions are increasing," Could we be reaching a point where the Oceans reduce the amount of emissions that they soak up?
I don't know, but this worries me.
Complain about this post
Too good to be true? It seems "The West" has actually cut down on oil use for the first time in more than twenty years.
From The :
A small start, but in the right direction. Now if we could turn the birthrate negative....
xx
ed
Complain about this post
I have been listening to your wonderfull radio station for some time and am very interested in programmes about the threat to our planet, A couple of years ago i had my deisel vehichle converted to run on vegitable oil which cost me less than fifty pounds my vehichle now produces a fraction of the emmissions that it once did and i dont understand why more isnt being done to encourage poeple to use renewable fuales such as this! I think this subject should be researched and would love to hear a programme related to it theres loads of subjevct matter on the net on this subject! did you know that when mr deisel invented his engine it was designed to run on peanut oil? and not fossil fuels? please lets here some research on straight veg oil use as a fuel and lets make a difference!
Complain about this post
A message from the mountains to the seas?
This important and realistically complex story demonstrates how
change in one region of the world forces change in another region.
Excellent graphics including photos.
Anyone interested in understanding how global warming will matter on
a regional level should be interested in the connection.
vaya con Gaia
ed
Complain about this post
Hi again bob, the answers s a bit long I鈥檓 afraid,
I agree with you, the answer is a political answer, and that comes from an old soldier, old soldiers usually think that all solutions involve 鈥渟hotin somethin鈥. The longer you spend watching silly sods blowing each other up and then standing in the same supermarket checkout queues, examining the small print on the additives, the more you come to realise that you might have to shoot an awful lot of people to top what the adman can do with a flip chart..
In the 1970麓s, when I was manfully resisting the totalitarian foe, and maintaining NATO麓s 5 to 1 superiority in shiny shoes. Strange blokes with beards and woolly hats saved things, scruffy girls in flared jeans manacled themselves to the nearest tree and cried a lot, the scientists wore ludicrous clothes and comfortable shoes from a world not touched by hip, but they did have scientific credibility and our trust.
From the cosseted life of the military all that seemed a long way away. But I think now, with hindsight that they had it mostly right, committed, non-violent, and at times performing highly amusing and even courageous stunts to publicise the cause. Even the military had a sneaking admiration for this scruffy lot, not for the fashion statements being made or the perfect dental work of today, but because of what they actually DID!
In the world of science 骋濒辞产补濒麓蝉 are fine, in the world of politics (people) we are going to have to localise things. The 鈥淪ingle Theory of People鈥 isn鈥檛 going to be found.
We need to get the politicians and their admen as far way from the scientists as humanly possible, despite my slating of the current crop of scientific boffins, all they really need to do is get out of the TV studio and back into the lab. The whole scientific argument has become tainted and mistrusted by the sort of research you might find behind a dog food commercial or put in a manifesto, largely due to who paid for it.
The current, beautifully presented attempt at out corrupting the kings of corruption is more flawed than those climate models. As communism found out, human nature is a 鈥渇unny old thing鈥 So who鈥檚 in charge at Greenpeace now? An ecologist? or a politician and his pet Adman? Just ask the public, they may be wrong, but they think its Joey Stalin. Who ever it is I think he鈥檚 been talking to that adman.
At the moment the world loves babies, it鈥檚 in us all, were pre-programmed, the purpose of life! If we didn鈥檛 spend half our time 鈥減ervin鈥 on the internet and the adman didn鈥檛 con the sex industry into spamming our inboxes, the internet might collapse. That鈥檚 why those naughty politicians will fait us with allowances, money etc. the miracle of life, SEX & BABIES! And as the adman will point out, the best policy is to kiss a baby, as long as there鈥檚 a camera around. When they start kissing trees, we鈥檙e on our way.
All we need to do is get those people to love this scabby old world as well, thanks to the efforts of the 70麓s and 80麓s were are half way there already. All we are doing at the moment is slowly convincing the world that we are actually politicians, corrupt and untrustworthy. Just like Ed麓s graphic says 20% of the people consume 80% of the worlds resource鈥檚 and watch MTV. Just like the politicians were going to get caught with our pants down and the battle will be lost. If that 20% believes, the Adman will follow and the slobbering politicians will walk along behind like faithful old Labrador鈥檚, lets use them not join them, its suicide.
I am retired now, but I have news for the world, this old soldier in not for just fading away. I draw the line at long hair and beards, but I have reconnoitred, a nice wholly hat.
So blokes with beards, tuck in that middle age spread, don that wholly hat and get out of that lounge bar, Girls dig out those flares, chain yourselves to something, immediately!.
I鈥檓 a civilian now, and the shackles are off, I鈥檓 spoiling for a good clean fight only to find that you鈥檙e all wearing 鈥淐arbon Neutral鈥 from M&S and watching the TV.
Scientists, do that science (properly this time please).
Adman, amuse yourself with fizzy drink campaigns.
Politicians, carry on as normal (not to many wars please, it鈥檚 getting boring).
Journalists, get a life, before someone pop鈥檚 off a couple of rounds in your direction. (鈥淚 haven鈥檛 missed anything since 1978鈥 beware!).
Eco Warriors forward鈥harge!
Ps. To鈥 follow soon鈥, just why a climate model doesn鈥檛 work and the proof..
Complain about this post
March on soldier.
For interest only - I am increasingly witnessing the demise of the advertising agencies as they get replaced by something far more insidious and sophisticated - the Spin mob. Further, it is not usually the scientists, but the PR people who tweak the story. In turn, it is very much the job of the editor to ensure that the spin is removed. However, how thoroughly this job is done depends mostly on the importance of the client and advertising spend. You would therefore, expect that the 主播大秀 would be unaffected by these kinds of commercial pressures - this is the essence of what makes aunty trustworthy. Unfortunately though, even she has her price and I am often left wondering at the blatant plugging (please let me know if you would like a list of examples).
On a slightly different tack - do you not think it intersting that the 主播大秀 do not do programmes on overpopulation?
We all agree that it is the single most important issue, but the 主播大秀 just aren't doing it. Beggars belief.
Complain about this post
Bob,
As noted in Hardin's papers, the taboo is two-layered, at least. It is not only a taboo, but it is taboo to mention the existence of the taboo.
Attenborough did mention population growth in last night's programme on the shared-computer exercise, but only in passing...the fact that there are billions out there who (understandably) aspire to our profligate lifestyle.
ed
22/01/2007 at 17:59:57 GMT
Complain about this post
Ed
Thanks, all the evidence points at Hardin being spot on (he clearly didn't write the most quoted scientific paper for nothing). It's a classic 800lb (thanks Cobbly), psychological condition. Even Attenborough would appear to be in denial, or maybe his hands are tied? What pressure is being exerted on the 主播大秀? How can we help Aunty to get better?
Complain about this post
This is a test lad's, a bit of fun, The clues are in the italic text, I tried to keep them as simple as possible, the answer is there, I promise. These are not my thoughts; they are the known and accepted laws of physics and the current state of journalism. Maybe one you could post the answer as to why a climate model can鈥檛 work, which of the laws of physics the 主播大秀 has rewritten and perhaps better still why?
听
Verner Karl Heisenberg 1901 -1976
听
A Eulogy
听
I shall now read from the Book of Fools Ch.1:5
听
鈥淎nd seeing the multitude he turned his back and went up into a studio, when he was set, his disciples came unto him, and he opened his mouth and taught them, saying: ..."
"'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of television. Blessed are they that mourn the planet, they shall be comforted. Blessed are the Geeks, for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after publicity, for they shall be filled. Blessed are the wrong results, for they may be placed in the Bin, Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall be used as front men. Blessed are the model makers, for they shall be called the assassins of Quantum Theory. Blessed are they which are persecuted for inaccuracy' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are ye, when men shall say all manner of evil against you justly, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in funding and honours, for so persecuted they the prophets of doom which were before you. 'Blessed are they who keep thine own council on uncertainty, for they may utter the sacred words, 鈥渂eamest me up Scottie麓"
Ignoring results that prove the model is flawed and then simply manipulating the source data until it produces the desired answers is not science.听 Computer modelling is a useful engineering tool, it is not designed do this type of work.
听
The practice of evading the established laws of physics, just because they spoil the plot makes good TV drama and saves on props, but it has no place in scientific study.
听
Those who cannot resist the temptations of 鈥渃heating鈥 should take up Solitaire instead, it will cause less damage and at least no one will be watching.
听
All we can hope is that Verner and dear old Uncle Albert are Resting in Peace and not turning in their graves. Sorry about the Biblical reference but this really is 鈥渂lind faith鈥.
听
鈥淐ome back Cosmological Constant all is forgiven, no one will agonise over you now鈥.
听
Ps. Yes bob, would love to see that stuff on 主播大秀 (petedog@hotmail.com), I have couple of radio 5 live faux par鈥檚 I can send you as well, 鈥淛ournalist caught reading out a totally false PR handout on air, as scientific fact, without checking it at all, and an aspiring Jeremy Paxman making a complete fool of herself, the only one in studio that didn鈥檛 realise it.鈥.
听
PPS, Ed, I do hope you realise that if I applied these same laws of physics to Gaia they would tie up quite nicely,,, ummmm (poetic quantum theory?.) Try a bit of Newton (law鈥檚 of motion) sounded a lot like Gaia, when I studied it..
Complain about this post
So, we all (or some) agree the global (sorry) population cannot continue to grow at its present rate?
Or perhaps we also agree that the numbers are already too high and the population must become smaller?
That's the easy bit. Now the hard bit:
Ideas please, on where, when, who, & how.
for dummies.
ed
23/01/2007 at 00:32:53 GMT
Complain about this post
New Page 1
Yesterdays quiz.
听
The producers of Star Trek were forced to invent a fictional device (Heisenberg compensator) to get round the problem that the laws of physics said that the transporter cannot possibly work. (They desperately needed it for budget reasons) Computer modelling of the future climate has the same problem the only way you can make it work is to discard the results that don鈥檛 support the theory, invent fictional devices and keep your fingers crossed.
听
Albert Einstein was forced to invent a fictional device to achieve a 鈥渟tationary universe鈥 as part of his general theory of relativity the 鈥渃osmological constant鈥, but was uneasy that it was a cheat and spent the rest of his life trying to prove himself wrong. Hubble came along and it was abandoned. Cosmic acceleration came into fashion and with Albert dead and buried, yes you guessed it, it鈥檚 back again.
听
The answer: Either the 主播大秀 has a Heisenberg compensator tucked away in the props department or someone at Oxford University is being less honest than Einstein was.
听
Quote for the day 鈥淎 good theory is not one that is right, its one that can鈥檛 easily be proved wrong鈥 Stephen Hawking.
听
I would just love to know his thoughts on all this 主播大秀, go on; ask him, I dare you. You might try Phillip Stott at the same time they are both great on the telly, think of the ratings!
听
PS. Nice post Ed, not a single other post for a whole day, it鈥檚 got the 鈥渉ow鈥 word in it (That鈥檚 below the belt) it鈥檚 a 鈥淩ipper!鈥 I am going to try and post the answer but at the moment its 26 pages long full of rude words and complete B**!!**s, (see what I mean) my spell checker is in meltdown.
Complain about this post
Yesterdays quiz.
听
The producers of Star Trek were forced to invent a fictional device (Heisenberg compensator) to get round the problem that the laws of physics said that the transporter cannot possibly work. (They desperately needed it for budget reasons) Computer modelling of the future climate has the same problem the only way you can make it work is to discard the results that don鈥檛 support the theory, invent fictional devices and keep your fingers crossed.
听
Albert Einstein was forced to invent a fictional device to achieve a 鈥渟tationary universe鈥 as part of his general theory of relativity the 鈥渃osmological constant鈥, but was uneasy that it was a cheat and spent the rest of his life trying to prove himself wrong. Hubble came along and it was abandoned. Cosmic acceleration came into fashion and with Albert dead and buried, yes you guessed it, it鈥檚 back again.
听
The answer: Either the 主播大秀 has a Heisenberg compensator tucked away in the props department or someone at Oxford University is being less honest than Einstein was.
听
Quote for the day 鈥淎 good theory is not one that is right, its one that can鈥檛 easily be proved wrong鈥 Stephen Hawking.
听
I would just love to know his thoughts on all this 主播大秀, go on; ask him, I dare you. You might try Phillip Stott at the same time they are both great on the telly, think of the ratings!
听
PS. Nice post Ed, not a single other post for a whole day, it鈥檚 got the 鈥渉ow鈥 word in it (That鈥檚 below the belt) it鈥檚 a 鈥淩ipper!鈥 I am going to try and post the answer but at the moment its 26 pages long full of rude words and complete B**!!**s, (see what I mean) my spell checker is in meltdown.
Complain about this post
Hello Martin,
"Ignoring results that prove the model is flawed and then simply manipulating the source data until it produces the desired answers is not science."
I'm interested in your evidence for this statement. I'm aware of flaws being accepted, but not that they challenge the broad model results (that increasing CO2 levels will increase global average temperature, and that warming will be about 3degC equilibrium rise for a doubling of CO2 over pre-industrial levels).
Granted you cannot predict something like climate. But the evidence seems clear to me that you can project how various changes will affect the planet in a broad sense. e.g. So for example even a simple radiative model can show that the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere cool with an enhanced greenouse effect, whereas for an increase of solar radiation both the tropo and strato will warm.
The key is in using the right model for the job. And the main problem with the models is not so much the principle, more the available theoretical knowledge that sets the paramatised environment of the model.
I don't think the models give us a map, just the general direction. I continue to be concerned that rapid changes that are not projected now may actually mean things are worse than projected. But I think the models have proven excellent ability at hindcasting and attribution of broad globally average metrics. As we're moving into uncharted territory, which has no paleological analogue to test against, that doesn't mean what will happen will track the projections. Although I keep in mind that Hansen's 1988 projection has so far proven to be remarkably accurate.
Stephen Hawking:
""As scientists, we understand the dangers of nuclear weapons and their devastating effects, and we are learning how human activities and technologies are affecting climate systems in ways that may forever change life on Earth. "
And Hawking is a signatory to the following statement by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:
"The dangers posed by climate change are nearly as dire as those posed by nuclear weapons.... The effects may be less dramatic in the short term than the destruction that could be wrought by nuclear explosions, but over the next three to four decades climate change could cause irremediable harm to the habitats upon which human societies depend for survival.鈥
Phillip Stott? LOL. You might want to try Heinz Hug or Khabibullo Abdusamatov, for a bit of a change. ;)
Complain about this post
Hi Cobblyworlds,
It鈥檚 nice to know that Stephen Hawing shares the same concerns as us on the future of the environment; I wouldn鈥檛 have expected anything less.
Computer Models can only perform math, the only advantages being that they can cope with huge amounts of it and at breakneck speed.
The computations are only as accurate as the availability of 3 things:
1, Accurate and complete source data (we do not have it).
2, A valid equation to apply to the data (if we don鈥檛 know it, neither does the model).
3. The absence of unproven assumptions. (We can鈥檛 resist them there call theories)
The probability of any of the computer climate modelling performed so far, producing any accurate interpretations of future climactic conditions on a regional basis is zero. And what鈥檚 more there is not a single sane person would claim that they can. So why are we doing just that?
They will only ever reflect the suspicions, ambitions and intuition of the humans that assembled them.
If Karl Marx had run his social theories on a computer model the model would have said that they were accurate, because its knowledge was only as good as Marx, run again 100 or so years later an updated model with better data and more accurate equations would say that he was wrong. Why? Marx would have programmed the model to support his theories. The later model would have been programmed to reflect what actually happened, and not accepted as valid until it did. The Marx model would have had a 50% chance of being right, yet it would have got it 100% wrong because it was told to predict the results of a flawed theory. The later model had a 100% chance of getting it right because we already knew the answer. A computer model is a wonderful tool to help explain why things happen as they do, even the behaviour of complex and chaotic systems, because they only have to produce a result that is already known and that can be observed. Running the model beyond the point of observation and into the unknown looking for the unknowable is wishful thinking, fantasy and according to the laws of physics impossible.
I personally subscribe to the current climate theory, but only as a matter of intuition, I have not stopped asking the original question because I may be wrong. Nether have I used a computer model to predict pestilence, disaster and plague in every corner of the globe. I rather fear that the modellers have forgotten the question. They believe they have the answer and will now prove it. With every new model comes new data and with every new parameter comes a new fudge to make the models predictions fit the theories.
And what about those Hawking quotes then? They have been used to support your argument, but they don鈥檛 even mention any part of it, do they? This is straight out of the Junior PR handbook. You are using these models in an entirely inappropriate way just like the quotes to prove you are correct, when they do nothing of the sort. I think that we should drop the climate models and just have ventriloquists鈥 dummies instead; they would be just as effective.
So what about asking those senior scientists about all this as I suggested? Don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 will happen mate; a truthful answer will be mighty inconvenient, now we have misled the public, and just what are we going to say next? and who will believe us?
My own theory says that the human population does not need protecting, it can look after itself, it鈥檚 the one thing that we are actually any good at and all agree on 鈥渓ook after number 1鈥 and a bit of climate change might be just what we need to stop mankind in his tracks. Then again it might not because while we are chasing our carbon dreams that ever increasing human population is going to poison every ocean, cut down every tree and slaughter every last animal on the planet that it can鈥檛 domesticate and eat. Protect what we have from mankind鈥檚 avarice and let the climate and mankind sort themselves out.
I maybe right or I maybe wrong, however I will not be running that through a computer model because without my intervention it cannot possibly substantiate anything, I might then unreasonably start to believe and start worshiping the one true theory god.
We are applying PR tactics to a scientific question and were doing it because it works for the politicians who have all the power, and we desire that power to change things. Be very careful, politicians come a cropper every time they get caught with their pants down (lying) and are replaced by yet more politicians who do the same thing, that鈥檚 why they never achieve anything and neither will we if we continue to lie to ourselves. Ask Karl Marx, good idea, missed a variable (human nature). Ooopps.
Complain about this post
Hi Martin and the 主播大秀
Various people have asked about what to do and mentioned scientific experiment.
I suggest the following simple experiment on the TV several times in different ways until those not understanding realise the cushioning effect of the floating ice which has been melting, absorbing latent heat and adding nothing to sea levels.
Then explain clearly that the Arctic ice shrank to about half its depth in 30 years and in 30 years more (or before)the land ice starts to rush into the sea adding to sea levels.
Resulting accelerated warming puts Greenland ice into the sea as well as lots from the Antarctic and could be more than 7 metres rise of sea within the century (NASA figure 12 metres?) causing inundation of lots of East Anglia and British Coast, eventually adding more than 70 metres to sea levels. Which would flood London and large areas of the southeast of England (look at your OS map).
What to do?
Look at the global economy that has driven the rise in consumption of fossil fuels and the unsustainability of it all. Given what's happened before now and the future prospects with india and China adding to the problem. WE drive those economies to a large extent with our purchases.
To have an effect on this unsustainable growth put in place the STEERglobal Environmental Tax (ETI)on Imports published by the Stern Review January 2006. (STEERglobal.org)
HOW to achieve this?
1. Amend the Stern Review figure for sea level rise based on the basic science shown above.
2. Get the ETI levy for energy conservation and renewables/sustainable transport in place, fast-track the projects short-circuiting all bureacratic waste.
3. Return a just 50% share of the levy to the producer nations which in many cases would be completely unable to afford any investment against climate change. This might be a smuch as $500 billion and just about enough to invest in the energy, sea barriers and thereby..
Thereby save the Planet!
Thanks for the chance to input this and please email back for some charts
Regards to the viewers
Ian Greenwood
Complain about this post
Hi Ed, it鈥檚 long! But the rude words have gone. I recommend a cup of tea, a rest and a bit of telly at the end of section 3.
听
Ok mate, I threatened to do it and here it is Chairman Martin鈥檚 little 鈥淩ed Book鈥 the problems of the world explained and solved instantly (dream on).
听
1.听听听听听 Climate Change.
听
Is there climate change? Definitely, is it man made? Probably, can man reverse that trend and carry on as normal? Possibly.
听
But are those the right questions? I think not. The geological record shows us that this planet and its flora and fauna have endured huge changes in global temperature and what to us are catastrophic climactic conditions, they make the current climate change predictions look like a wet Wednesday in Manchester.
听
Ice ages have come and gone, comets have impacted, and the temperature has gone up and down like a good championship side with no cash. There are those mass extinctions as well; the likely cause, a sudden change in the environment, whatever the trigger mechanism.
听
The only benefit of preserving the climate in the same state as it is in now is the continued production of more people, preserving our own habitat, so we can go on destroying all the others.
听
2.听听听 The real questions.
听
Just what was it that caused the last round of mass extinctions? The Mega Beasts. Well I鈥檓 sorry to report 主播大秀 that is was not climate change alone, that much is certain. It is very likely that it was a much more powerful and quicker acting phenomenon, egged on by a bit of a thaw, Mankind. It is true that some species are more vulnerable to a sudden change in the environment than others and they will be unable to endure and thus be no more. It is my contention that the woolly mammoth did not die out from heatstrokeits habitat still exists today, it got a spear up the trunk of life. I.e. it was (a) eaten out, and (b) had its habitat taken over. Primitive man did not poison the mammoth with CO2 and he did not need to destroy its habitat, he merely needed to occupy that habitat and have lunch. Nothing short of nuclear Armageddon that can change an environment as fast as a human population and it鈥檚 even responsible for the possibility of that.
听
By the time you have read this far, if I haven鈥檛 put you all to sleep by now, there will be another 2000 people on this planet and they are all planning on eating out. The Giant Panda and the White Rhino however will not be faring so well, so why is that? They are in the ideal habitat, they have thrived in it for millennia, it鈥檚 even protected and global warming has had very little effect on them so far at all. The answer is so simple that I don鈥檛 know why I should even explain it. 鈥淭hose habitats have people in them鈥
Millions of them and there not all armed with AK47麓s and chainsaws.
听
If you look on a map of the UK and see an area marked 鈥淢ilitary firing range鈥 at first glance it looks like an Eco disaster, on closer inspection you will find that because the public has been excluded on the grounds that they may get their heads shot off, the diversity of wildlife is amongst the richest in Europe. The wildlife may have to dodge the odd 20mm canon round but there are no fertilisers, no pesticides, no human monocultures and above all no people. It copes quite nicely all by itself. The same applies to railway lines and motorways; I would wager that there are more birds of prey on the M1 than in all the parks in London, however picturesque, (NO PEOPLE).
听
3. The solutions. (This bit could be 100 pages long so I鈥檝e cut it down)
听
Consign those climate change worries to the 鈥渧ery interesting鈥 folder.
听
Invest our time, effort, funding and media campaigns in educating the world, and that means everyone in all countries and all climates. Sensible local projects.
听
Set aside areas, in all countries that are 鈥減eople free鈥 (You may need army for that one; I can just imagine what the locals will say to that, especially in the developed world).
听
Continue with the symbiotic park ideas, like the ones that exist in Africa, we have to be practical about this and do what works locally for the benefit of all the creatures including the Humans. They are the only ones that will make anything work.
听
Pay counties more, to grow more trees than it pays them to chop them down, to have more Rhinos rather than less, and to have less people than rather than more. That鈥檚 all countries, developed or otherwise.
听
Continue with the attempts to reduce our industrial impact on the environment, and yes that does include CO2 emissions, but not to the exclusion of all the other problems.
听
Why not give the world鈥檚 Eco problems to Mikhail Kalashnikov, he鈥檚 still with us, inventor of the simplest, most effective, no nonsense, easy to make, easy to use, indestructible device known to modern man. No gadgets, no high science no PR. Gets my vote for the greatest engineer of the 20th century any day. Use him and his like for something useful. (And make sure the product doesn鈥檛 go bang)
听
4. The Evidence.
听
I will also come as clean as Bob (if that鈥檚 possible, lol), I am British, I did serve half of my life (so far) in the British forces and am still joined at the hip with the 主播大秀, I saw a lot (that鈥檚 observations) and I learnt even more (that鈥檚 Study). I have also endured temperatures as high as 50C and as low as -25C, I recommend sun block or furry boots (artificial fur of course) and don鈥檛 get it the wrong way round or it wont work.
听
.I now live in Andalucia, this is olive country, the most massive monoculture I have personally ever seen, it stretches as far as the eye can see, even form 20,000ft up in an aeroplane! Pesticides, fertilisers, the works.
听
It does however have one very curious quality; it seems have come to an arrangement with the wildlife. While the olives are seen as a source of income the local population delights in planting all sorts of other things along the roads and in their gardens, in the towns the terraces and patio鈥檚 are awash with plant and animal life. People still keep and slaughter livestock, even my own town has more chickens than cats. Dogs are favourite, they roam the streets by day; and even have road sense, and they mingle with the shoppers and are 100% tolerated and respected, even by the road traffic, they are not cosseted like children, they are accepted as partners. I can watch the eagles and hawks hunting without a care, patrolling just above the hunters with their guns on a Sunday all looking for the same sort of prey but not the slightest bit interested in each other.
听
So what is it that they have got so right here? After all this is the land of the Bullfight, a dastardly cruel act perpetrated against animal lovers, answer, they haven鈥檛 lost touch with the land or with reality. We don鈥檛 have droughts even though it鈥檚 hotter and more arid here than the UK would be in 2080 according to the 主播大秀 why? We have some very nice reservoirs and a water distribution and drainage system that even the Romans would have been proud of (that can also cope with 10 million tourists and their swimming pools). We all have cars, electricity (my house has a 1.1Kw supply, 3.3Kw is more normal, in the UK your shower is probably 10Kw), big extended families, the internet, TV, the lot, this is not hick country; it鈥檚 a developed, educated western culture with all the trappings of wealth.
听
And me? I鈥檓 busy trying to hook up my solar water panel to an insulated tank, which powers my Sterling engine, which charges my batteries, which runs the inverter, which will power most of my house, so I can see my plants and wildlife at night, without burning anything at all, including money. I might even keep chickens and try and teach them a little close order drill, my tiny townhouse actually does have the facilities for keeping animals even though it occupies a quarter of the space that my Victorian 3 bed mid terraced in the UK did! What鈥檚 more the council and the neighbour鈥檚 would not complain in the slightest.
听
We do however have the joker in the pack. 鈥淎 low population density鈥, we may be crammed into the towns like termites but all those olives take up an awful lot of room and will only support so many people, I just hope it can last out against the bribery of human economic progress without, outside help.
听
5. The Mistakes.
听
As for that curious graphic of Ed麓s which says 鈥20% of the population consume 80% of the worlds resources鈥 has no one ever considered that it also says that 鈥100% of the population consume 100% of the worlds resources鈥 not much left for those critters, they didn鈥檛 even make the graphic.. Just too many people boys, the only way you will change that is to educate them and maybe give them the reward of a better existence, taxing their backsides off and then letting the governments of the world spend the cash on economic inducements at the next election is just stupid. Come on Beckam鈥檚, fingers out please, David buy a Gucci woolly hat, Vicky wear those Armani flares, 2 people who have been that successful cannot be thick, they should be on our side.
听
Have you noticed that this little diatribe could also be used to support the carbon lobby and its quest for climate stability? Ummmm?.(Well at least I am honest). Personally I would rather that they ignored it, because while they are promising us a green and pleasant land full of leaping doe eyed animals by 2099, we will have eaten them all.
听
Sorry computer modellers, just drawing a little bit on the end of the graph that reflects a trend that we already know is waste of everybody鈥檚 time, my 3 year old niece could do that, it might be in pink crayon but at least you might get a nice picture of a house at the same time. Try plotting the growth of the human population on the same graph and see what the trend is.
听
The green lobby started out well enough and achieved things, largely the education of people like me (and remember I鈥檓 one of that 20%), it then lost its way and has embarked on a pointless, ill conceived, Global ridden, geopolitical, unscientific, PR ego trip-come junket. Which at very best will just give us a stable climate and a more efficient way of getting the industrial world to populate the planet with even more unthinking diners, and at worst, on its own and with the real problems un-tackled, it may prove to be the instrument of our own demise.
听
PS. Ian mate, my research says that the worlds sea level has risen by 0.8mm per year for 25 years and is holding steady, that鈥檚 20mm now and another 24mm in the 30years time not 7m, or 12m its called a trend, another not observed observation, another meaningless graphic, another day at the office in the wonderful world of computer modelling PR style, has anyone ever considered that a lot of that ice might end up in the hotter atmosphere? Believe the models and take the doom merchants at face value and we will just end up chasing our own tails, and as for East Anglia do you not think that they might just move inland and carry on as normal or throw themselves into the sea lemming style.
Complain about this post
Hello Martin,
From the internal view of the model the date is not relevant. The model does not know whether the forcings data it is provided with are from the past or from the future.
For example:
Meehl et al (Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate, J. Climate Vol 17) demonstrate the ability of models to reproduce 20th century global average temperate.
Soden et al (Global Cooling After the Eruption of Mount Pinatubo: A Test of Climate Feedback by Water Vapor, Science 296 26/4/02) This shows that models are able to replicate the changes in total column water vapour due to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo. This is an important test of the models because water vapour levels are generated by the model, they aren't pre-set, but are an outcome of the parametised physics in the model. And water vapour feedback is what gives us the warming expected, without that it would be much less than projected.
Furthermore see Hansen 1988, e.g. Prof Eli Rabbett and Hansen himself This is an example of a model accurately projecting what happened afterwards, and there has been a LOT of developement in the field since then (That model was an early version).
So as the model doesn't know what date it is when it is fed data, and it's basic physics parameters are not trimmed during the course of a hindcast (i.e. running over past data). Then if the forcings are correctly chosen for the future, the projection will likely be what will come. If the forcings are not what actually happens then that is not a fault in the model, it's the selection of forcings.
It has to be accepted that what the models give are projections based on assumtions. They are not predictions! That is one flaw in some media presentation. But it is important not to throw the baby out with the bath water, the basic message of climate change is global warming, the actual local impacts are more difficult to be sure of. In short we'll find out. But given the scale of what we are doing and the likelihood that if we hit a 'sticky patch' we'll not be able to do anything about it then. So action now is crucial - even though personally I remain to be convinced about whether we will actually do anything substantive about it. However those who feel we might act probably feel justified in sounding more certain about impacts than the science strictly allows.
I didn't cite Hawking a-propo of any specific argument. It was merely because you raised Hawking and seemed to suggest he'd have a similar take to Prof Stott. I simply cannot take Stott seriously.
Anyway, you'll be spared my long posts because when the IPCC 4th Assesment Scientific Basis report is out on Friday ( ) I'll either be hibernating and reading the whole thing, or dropping studying climate change. I've gone way beyond addressing my scepticism, which is what I set out to do in 2005.
Complain about this post
Ok Ed mate, I threatened to do it and here it is Chairman Martin鈥檚 little 鈥淩ed Book鈥 the problems of the world explained and solved instantly (dream on).
听
1.听听听听听 Climate Change.
听
Is there climate change? Definitely, is it man made? Probably, can man reverse that trend and carry on as normal? Possibly.
听
But are those the right questions? I think not. The geological record shows us that this planet and its flora and fauna have endured huge changes in global temperature and what to us are catastrophic climactic conditions, they make the current climate change predictions look like a wet Wednesday in Manchester.
听
Ice ages have come and gone, comets have impacted, and the temperature has gone up and down like a good championship side with no cash. There are those mass extinctions as well; the likely cause, a sudden change in the environment, whatever the trigger mechanism.
听
The only benefit of preserving the climate in the same state as it is in now is the continued production of more people, preserving our own habitat, so we can go on destroying all the others.
听
2.听听听 The real questions.
听
Just what was it that caused the last round of mass extinctions? The Mega Beasts. Well I鈥檓 sorry to report 主播大秀 that is was not climate change alone, that much is certain. It is very likely that it was a much more powerful and quicker acting phenomenon, egged on by a bit of a thaw, Mankind. It is true that some species are more vulnerable to a sudden change in the environment than others and they will be unable to endure and thus be no more. It is my contention that the woolly mammoth did not die out from heatstroke its habitat still exists today, it got a spear up the trunk of life. I.e. it was (a) eaten out, and (b) had its habitat taken over. Primitive man did not poison the mammoth with CO2 and he did not need to destroy its habitat, he merely needed to occupy that habitat and have lunch.
听
By the time you have read this far, if I haven鈥檛 put you all to sleep by now, there will be another 2000 people on this planet and they are all planning on eating out. The Giant Panda and the White Rhino however will not be faring so well, so why is that? They are in the ideal habitat, they have thrived in it for millennia, it鈥檚 even protected and global warming has had very little effect on them so far at all. The answer is so simple that I don鈥檛 know why I should even explain it. 鈥淭hose habitats have people in them鈥 Millions of them and there not all armed with AK47麓s and chainsaws.
听
3. The solutions. (This bit could be 100 pages long so I鈥檝e cut it down)
听
Consign those climate change worries to the 鈥渧ery interesting鈥 folder.
听
Invest our time, effort, funding and media campaigns in educating the world, and that means everyone in all countries and all climates. Sensible local projects.
听
Set aside areas, in all countries that are 鈥減eople free鈥 (You may need an rmy for that one; I can just imagine what the locals will say to that, especially in the developed world).
听
Continue with the symbiotic park ideas, like the ones that exist in Africa, we have to be practical about this and do what works locally for the benefit of all the creatures including the Humans. They are the only ones that will make anything work.
听
Pay counties more, to grow more trees than it pays them to chop them down, to have more Rhinos rather than less, and to have less people rather than more. That鈥檚 all countries, developed or otherwise.
听
Continue with the attempts to reduce our industrial impact on the environment, and yes that does include CO2 emissions, but not to the exclusion of all the other problems.
听
4. The Evidence.
听
I will also come as clean as Bob (if that鈥檚 possible, lol), I am British, I did serve half of my life (so far) in the British forces and am still joined at the hip with the 主播大秀, I saw a lot and I learnt even more. I have also endured temperatures as high as 50C and as low as -25C, I recommend sun block or furry boots (artificial fur of course) and don鈥檛 get it the wrong way round or it wont work.
听
I now live in Andalucia, this is olive country, the most massive monoculture I have personally ever seen, it stretches as far as the eye can see, even form 20,000ft up in an aeroplane! Pesticides, fertilisers, the works.
听
It does however have one very curious quality; it seems have come to an arrangement with the wildlife. While the olives are seen as a source of income the local population delights in planting all sorts of other things along the roads and in their gardens, in the towns the terraces and patio鈥檚 are awash with plant and animal life. People still keep and slaughter livestock, even my own town has more chickens than cats. Dogs are favourite, they roam the streets by day; and even have road sense, and they mingle with the shoppers and are 100% tolerated and respected, even by the road traffic, they are not cosseted like children, they are accepted as partners.
听
So what is it that they have got so right here? After all this is the land of the Bullfight, a dastardly cruel act perpetrated against animal lovers, answer, they haven鈥檛 lost touch with the land or with reality. We don鈥檛 have droughts even though it鈥檚 hotter and more arid here than the UK would be in 2080 according to the 主播大秀 why? We have some very nice reservoirs and a water distribution and drainage system that even the Romans would have been proud of (that is what humans do confronted with a bit of climate). We all have cars, electricity (my house has a 1.1Kw supply, 3.3Kw is more normal, in the UK your shower is probably 10Kw), big extended families, the internet, TV, the lot, this is not hick country; it鈥檚 a developed, educated western culture with all the trappings of wealth.
听
We do however have the joker in the pack. 鈥淎 low population density鈥, we may be crammed into the towns like termites but all those olives take up an awful lot of room and will only support so many people, I just hope it can last out against the bribery of human economic progress without, outside help.
听
5. The Mistakes.
听
As for that curious graphic of Ed麓s which says 鈥20% of the population consume 80% of the worlds resources鈥 has no one ever considered that it also says that 鈥100% of the population consume 100% of the worlds resources鈥 not much left for those animals, they didn鈥檛 even make the graphic.. Just too many people boys, the only way you will change that is to educate them and maybe give them the reward of a better existence, taxing their backsides off and then letting the governments of the world spend the cash on economic inducements at the next election is just stupid.
听
Have you noticed that this little diatribe could also be used to support the carbon lobby and its quest for climate stability? Ummmm?. (Well at least I am honest). Personally I would rather that they ignored it, because while they are promising us a green and pleasant world full of leaping doe eyed animals by 2099, we will have eaten them all.
听
Sorry computer modellers, just drawing a little bit on the end of the graph that reflects a trend that we already know is waste of everybody鈥檚 time, my 3 year old niece could do that, it might be in pink crayon but at least you might get a nice picture of a house at the same time. Try plotting the growth of the human population on the same graph and see what the trend is.
听
The green lobby started out well enough and achieved things, largely the education of people like me (and remember I鈥檓 one of that 20%), it then lost its way and has embarked on a pointless, ill conceived, Global ridden, geopolitical, unscientific, PR ego trip-come junket. Which at very best will just give us a stable climate and a more efficient way of getting the industrial world to populate the planet with even more unthinking diners, at worst, on its own and with the real problems un-tackled, it may prove to be the instrument the demise of the planets wildlife, not ours though, we will just roll with the punches, after all we aren't "Top Predator" for nothing.
Complain about this post
Julian & the PEUT Team,
Thanks for hosting these discussions & for the programme.
Martin,
1) My education, a degree in Electronics, and my understanding of physics probably bias me. But I really do not think you have grounds to dismiss modelling as drawing a bit on the curve. Combining physics models in this way is something I have used in modelling circuits. I'm quite used to seeing the utility of maths in considering quantitative problems in the real world.
It is the physics basis that makes modelling far more subtle and worthy of attention than any extrapolative technique.
2) The main problem is not where we're headed, but the transition period through which we (and the next few generations) will live. We can reach an equilibrium with a stable environment, but a rapidly changing one is likely to prove problematic.
Although the models show a smooth warming globally enough is known ("known unkowns") to suspect that we could expect unforseen rapid step changes. The problem with this risk is that even if we decide now to cease emissions, we will still be comitted to further warming and the Sea will outgas CO2 tempering the resultant atmospheric reduction. The further we go the longer will be the further period of change we are committed to, even if we did stop.
3) Climate Change has the power to undermine the local efforts we can make to mitigate our other impacts. What good is vaccinating dogs to protect the predators of the African Savannah, when there's an impending change in climate?
Correction:
After posting earlier yesterday I did some digging and came up with the IPCC press notice:
The Summary for Policy Makers is due out this Friday, but the actual "Scientific Basis" Working Group 1 report is out in the Summer.
Anyway I've started re-reading the WG1 science report from 2001. So I am definitely butting out now.
Complain about this post
Hi Cobblyworlds,
Hope I have caught you before the big event, perhaps you could report back to us with a considered opinion, sifting though the twisted and sensationalised press reports to find out what is actually going on is very time consuming and not always possible.
I will see if I can clarify my assertions on computer modelling of the climate. It鈥檚 a very rough guide but I think you will agree it has the basics, if not the sophistication and complexity of a modern model. I also have a question for you.
1. The model is given an historical data set; this data set is the perceived observable mean temperature and the climactic conditions associated with it on a given date or dates in the past, say for the sake of argument the year of 1800.
2. The model is also given the combined knowledge of human kind on how the climate is affected by various factors.
3. The model is then instructed to complete it鈥檚 calculation up to a point in time say 1960, so that the results can be compared with the observed climactic conditions to ensure that they are correct.
4. Once the model is found to be accurate it is run on to say the year 2100 to predict the future climate and the mean temperature armed only with assumptions, the theory and the historical record.
Steps 1 to 3 are perfectly acceptable and an example of how a model is best used by science to establish trends and explain the processes that caused the observed changes in the observed climate.
Step 4 has a number of serious flaws.
1. Oxford University in conducting the 主播大秀 experiment, discarded runs that did not reflect the observed known climate on a given date as in step 3. (As is current accepted practice) this is explained away as ensuring that the model is realistic. It does however have the very convenient effect of narrowing the models findings mathematically to fit the theories of the modellers, (editing the results to keep them within the known trend).
2. If one run of the model is capable of being wrong in 1960 another run is capable of being wrong in 2008, 2010, 2020 and so on. Those runs were then taken as gospel, because their findings could not be disproved by any known observations.
3. The true findings of this model were not as published, the wrong 1960麓s to 80麓s results should have been left in, they are part and parcel of the model and vital in establishing its ability to project a trend and its accuracy.
4. If you run that model past step 3 it ceases to be a realistic mathematical tool.
5. If that model had been left to its own devices it would have given an honest answer 鈥淪orry chaps not enough data鈥 with the 鈥渆rroneous鈥 runs left in the results the graph may have shot off at 90 degrees in both directions.
6. The results of pervious models are being presented in a similar fashion to the way that an astrologer would justify the perceived results of a horoscope. They were only close because the results had been tampered with, to fit within the trends that we can already observe and that we can reasonably expect to predict.
It鈥檚 not the models or the modellers that are wrong, it鈥檚 the way they are being used to present theory as fact. In short step 4 produces 鈥渦ncertainty鈥 just as the laws of physics say that it will. If the theory was certain it would not be a theory it would be fact and not worth theorising over. Have a look at the graphs; we鈥檙e just extending the trend over time because that鈥檚 what we think that an accurate model should do.
In my opinion, which you might have noticed is much in evidence at the moment and not necessarily the path to true righteousness, I think that we should use these models to check our theory鈥檚 and keep the score, without fear of the results being contaminated by our own shortcomings, let the only computational device know to mankind that has the capability to make assumptions and attempt predictions, do its thing, the Human Brain. It can imagine, and can therefore operate outside the laws of physics, a mathematical computer model cannot, and it鈥檚 being asked to do just that, and when it doesn鈥檛 cooperate we fix the results, invent devices of our own imagination to get round errors and then present the findings as a mathematical certainty.
That imagination is our best asset and our worst shortcoming, let the models help us and guide us, act as that conscience of ours which often goes missing a vital moments. The model can only do that if it is left unmolested and remains a simple producer of unbiased, unaltered mathematical results. The interpretation of those results is our job, bad unsatisfactory answers and all.
A theory which only works some of the time needs more work. If the model doesn鈥檛 work consistently we should take a deep breath, have a think, and start again. Not create fudges and very definitely not give up and let those fudges take the strain.
And that question cobblyworlds,
Can you justify the removal of unsatisfactory findings from a result without casting doubt over the manner in which that result was obtained?
If anyone鈥檚 interested in just who is manipulating those findings, that faceless entity that we can never pin anything on or even know even what their names the are, the ones doing the twisting, and turning, and the ducking and diving in shadows of the wonderful world of Eco one-up-man-ship. I suggest you look at the following link and ask yourself the following question, 鈥淲ould I buy a second had climate model from this man?鈥
The scientific world should be issued with a photo of an adman, a white feather and the inscription 鈥渢his is your enemy鈥. They are offering you stardom, gathering up all your hard work and all your research, then using it to justify the acts of their political masters with your consent, don鈥檛 give them the ammunition or it will be the planets wildlife that ends up against the wall being shot. This is not the French Foreign Legion and there鈥檚 no one around to break your sword over their knee and cut all you buttons off. Criticise those PR fops publicly or we are all going to suffer the consequences..
And while were on the subject, how about this comment from the open university actually linked on the 主播大秀 climate experiment page, It is supportive of established theory and methodology, but it is at least balanced, well written, informative and honest, I found it a compulsive read. Well done 主播大秀, a tick and a gold star are in order I think, have that scientist shackled so he can鈥檛 escape and go to the top of the class.
If it鈥檚 any consolation Cobblyworlds, I started out a sceptic, it was the bad science that convinced me this was all a PR stunt, I just started 25 years earlier than you, and saw the machinations of the early models at first hand. But I studied hard just like you. I then found that I too was a proponent of climate change and I still am despite the hype not because of it. I haven鈥檛 stopped studying though that would be foolish and unscientific.
My latest studies have now taken me down a slightly different track, I have given up studying the climate full time as it makes my brain hurt and inspires me to rant on weblogs. First indications are that my new studies have some very interesting findings and that they may even prove to be correct; maybe we could get together and suggest some ways of testing my theories in a model, ethically, and in a PR proof room.
Complain about this post
Well the grease paint and the script have been put away ready for use in another series and the back patting is no doubt in full swing at the 主播大秀.
So while no one is looking because the series has finished, I have the whole blog to myself.
The last programme. Planet Earth under threat 鈥 The Future
Lara Kueppers University of California
Lara seems to be working on a theory that a hotter earth and climate causes arid dry conditions across the whole planet, why didn鈥檛 you press her on that one 主播大秀? That鈥檚 a sitter and cannot be defended. Or was she quoted out of context? She also seems to be in denial (did you like that buzz word there?) of Darwin and distinctly gave the impression that more trees would actually contribute to more CO2 (Missed another one 主播大秀 or was that the idea?) and did not mention human population growth once. (Maybe you don鈥檛 get Junipers in the Rockys yet? Try California)
Tony (Parrot Fashion) Juniper. Fiends of the Earth. Opps typo, that鈥檚 Friends of the Earth.
Totally dismissed any attempt to do anything unless he said it as futile
Advocates the building of more electrical appliances not less.
Promised: new, more and better if we do as he says.
Promised: the apocalypse if we don鈥檛.
Gave the impression that he knew everything absolutely definitely.
Gave the impression that all FOE representatives attend international conferences and other 6 course bouts of eye rolling by bicycle, not by aeroplane.
Attributed all loss of habitat and the decline of every species so far (presumably with the exception of Spix麓s Macaw) to climate change.
Continually presented theory as fact, over and over again, quoted iffy stats as if they were found in a geological substratum, and yes, did not mention human population growth once.
In the PR mans 鈥淰entriloquist dummy stakes鈥 鈥淎 glittering performance of rare perception鈥 (Unchallenged 主播大秀, totally unchallenged and given a tacit 主播大秀 stamp of approval) Maybe he could write the script for the next series? He used to be quite good at that. Great book Tony, just stick to the factual stuff it was good and it was truthful. This sounded more like a party political to me. Good light bulb ideas though.
Jacquie McGlade. European Environment Agency.
Seems to be pursuing policies that the University of California don鈥檛 recommend, even if they do make sense (You didn鈥檛 spot that did you 主播大秀?)
Did make the point that Minster鈥檚 on a junket prefer Nairobi to Carlisle.
Jacquie is however of the opinion that we should save the world so we can have more children. After a promising start, did not mention human population growth once
Edward Wilson Bio-diversity Expert
Says the USA is 鈥渘on eco鈥 (sorry Ed almost every aspect of the Eco movement was 鈥淏orn in the USA鈥 politicians don鈥檛 count) and that we can have unlimited growth if we are good boys and girls, and not only that it will be 鈥渁 paradise鈥 on Earth (his words not mine) only mentioned climate change. Seemed to suggest the public should only be told so much for their own good, or did I imagine that? Seemingly not aware of any human population growth either didn鈥檛 even mention it; maybe they don鈥檛 have children in the USA?
Rowan Williams. C of E Arch Bishop (and amateur cosmologist?)
Well he theologised a lot but that鈥檚 what Arch Bishes do for a living, I can鈥檛 criticise him for that. He also put his faith in more children and then just for good measure, he did it again opps and again. (CofE and RC getting closer on that one I think) I wouldn鈥檛 expect him to mention human population growth; you would have to live in the real world to even start thinking of things like that, perhaps an expert or a journalist might have done better? Or then again maybe not? He did however know what rain was, I suggest he has a word with the University of California.
M Sanjayan. Nature Conservancy
Pointed out that looking for a 鈥淪ilver bullet鈥 was wishful thinking.
Made some sound, reasoned, if generalised points.
Didn鈥檛 lecture or patronise.
Did admit that the cause is being popularised, but did not say how or by whom, now that might have been really interesting.
Very good, but did not mention human population growth at all, presumably not a popular subject, especially at the EEA and Lambeth Palace by all accounts.
Gabrielle Walker. Program Presenter.
Mentioned 鈥淲e as Human Beings鈥 and alluded to the practice of 鈥淪aving ourselves鈥 (Last one in the Carbon lifeboat is on his own with the wildlife maybe?), twice mentioned this blog and how its contributions had shaped the program and the questions that were put to the experts and the panel.
Gabrielle did not however, put one question raised on the blog to anyone, or mention any of the subjects that had been discussed on the blog. The only point alluded to I couldn鈥檛 find on the blog?, it wasn鈥檛 answered satisfactorily either, Well that鈥檚 not really fair; Gabrielle is after all, only a front man (person, woman, reporter, (oh give up)). One of the pure of sprit maybe? (Post no 31). And I suspect that the series was 鈥淚n the bag鈥 before the blog even got started. Ummm? If it was 主播大秀 you are 鈥減ushing it鈥 big style.
The overriding consensus of opinion of the Blog was that it was the size of the Human population and its growth that was one of the main threats to Planet Earth, its wildlife and their habitats. Funny how not one of the experts, passing clergy or one time authors thought of that? Perhaps it wasn鈥檛 in the handouts they were reciting?
In 39 separate posts (allowing for duplicates) by my quick reckoning:
Human population growth was sighted 15 times
Carbon Emissions and PR dishonesty worries 7 times each
Bad Scientific technique and GW scepticism 6 times each
Pointless Political (PR) Manoeuvring 5 times
And the 主播大秀 or the program criticised, (lost count read the blog).
Out of the 14 contributors **
5 sighted human population growth as the main threat.
7 expressed worries over the science or sighted other possible scientific reasons, answers or predictions.
3 contributors sighted the accepted carbon theory as the only threat or cure, in full or in part.
1 complained about the 主播大秀麓s digital transmissions causing an unnecessary waste of analogue sets.
The others were of a more general nature and made no particular or obvious points
Try that on a flip chart, it makes a great presentation.
**(contributors can post more than once, some posts made more than one point, it鈥檚 not easy to count, read the blog)
Well 主播大秀 what are you going to do about that? Make a 9th programme to redress the balance in the interests of ethical public service broadcasting or take your chances with the regulator.
I should point out in case anyone who hasn鈥檛 read the blog reads this, (can鈥檛 imagine how that might happen?) that as far as I could see. All contributors were committed ecologists or genuinely concerned individuals and more often than not accepted in part all the points raised as significant, including carbon emissions, population growth, solar activity, obit anomaly鈥檚, axis wobbles, the existence of climate change, the twisting of scientific statements by interested parties, and many other topics, and were in broad agreement on the major points and advocated action on all of them not just one.
Did I think that any of the scientific research was wrong? No, just the way it was woven together to create the illusion of doom, gloom, disaster, pestilence and plague, half a message that us idiots in the public might understand and be terrified into action by. I just hope that the public is that thick and that they don鈥檛 twig it before we have finished coning them into all the other problems, because I have an awful feeling that鈥檚 what鈥檚 going to happen, after all they will have saved the planet, all the wildlife and all the habitat鈥檚 just by reducing carbon emissions and stabilising the climate, we promised them that on the 主播大秀 didn鈥檛 we..
Good series I enjoyed it and learnt some interesting things, pity about the final programme either it was hijacked or it was going that way anyway. Someone please tell me who was doing the driving, their licence needs endorsing.
Post that if you dare.
PS. Don鈥檛 bother pulling the blog, or the burning the script鈥︹ I have the negatives.
Complain about this post
NATURE'S PAST EXPERIMENT
An experiment of nature on the effect of intense global warming has already occurred in the Eocene 38-55 million yrs. ago.(1) There were no massive extinctions comparative to that of the Cretaceous-Tertiary (K-T) period defining the Mezozoic/Cenazocic eras at 65Myrs. At the Paleocene-Eocene divide, paleo-stratigraphic results show that there was deep water benthic foraminifera mass extinction associated with the increased temperature and hence dysoxic (less oxygenated) waters.(1) But most of the marine and terrestrial extinctions occurred with the cooling at the end of the Eocene, and into the Oligocene epoch.(1) The conseqences of the present warming are unknown in regards to extinctions. However nature already has conducted one experiment in regards to intense global warming, with seeming not overwhelming catatrophic results.
1. Hallam Tony, Catastrophes and Lesser Calamities Oxford Univ Press, 2004, and references therein.
Other sources consulted.
2. Raup David M., Extinction: Bad Genes or bad Luck?, W.W. Norton, 1991, and references therein.
3. Stanley Steven M., Extinction, Scientific American Books, 1987, and references therein
Complain about this post
Complain about this post
Hi Martin
Thanks for the recent summary and the auto-biography you gave on or about the 28th Jan 2007. Thats how you come to be a free thinker with time to do the blog. I thank you for your interest which brought many a smile to us. You and I must be rarities, even if I obviously have somewhat less time than you(since it took me 1.5 months to reply).
What I said is not to be doom and gloom it is to offer solutions (did you look at the website www.STEERglobal.org ? It could be decried as naive by you i am sure. But I do not hear many practical solutions by anyone else on the entire planet. Mostly as you say they are in it for the money. ie "academic" research. My background is practical building, solving problems civ/struct engineering/agriculture and various other businesses.
To answer your main points:
1. Yes slowing the population rise is important as you say, but then the hope is, more education of the right kind the more you get population tending towards the 2 child family which is roughly stable. This has been proven in some places.
2. The cushioning effect explains why you get low levels of sea rise until most of the floating ice in Arctic areas has melted. So given another 30 years, you get lots more water in the sea. It happens this way: the climate cells put most of the summer sun energy in Northern Hemisphere and keeps it there, until distributed by the oceans, that is why I forecast the high rate of melting of Greenland ice, much higher than seemed to be predicted by the 主播大秀 when they interviewed biologists on greenland. In other words, they said the glaciers are 3 times faster into the sea, but they could not get their heads round an explanation of how fast Greenland will melt! Because they are working like you said in your reply on the past sea level rise. This will obviously accelerate when the floating ice has finished melting (see also the Uni Bham stuff on my website).
[last time I was in Spain in 1991 the dams used were 7/10 empty and there was great concern. Have they filled up since then? Is that why you don't seem to share my concern? Or Is it just that I am enthusiastic that people get some real science and engineering understanding to be able to back some rapid deployment of moderate amounts of tax at an international level and you are happy in your place in the sun, knowing that the rat race continues for most people?]
Kind regards and keep up the good research work.
Incidentally can you or any other contacts prove how fast the greenland ice will be melting in 30 years time? My bet is based on the statistic published by Earth from the Air, 1800mm decrease in thickness measured on the Arctic floating ice (6/7 submerged?)over about 30 years and that is about 3 times bigger surface area than Greenland. Therefore about 130 mm per year greenland ice thickness if all the latent heat previously absorbed by the floating part of the cap went into greenland ice. Or it could be 6 times more than that if the 6/7 figure of ice thickness submerged (indicating 6 times more melting) is used? What do you think?
Ian Greenwood +44 121 449 0278
Complain about this post
THE SPRINGWATCH PROGRAM IS THE BEST. AND SHOULD BE ON TV 24hrs a day all year
Complain about this post