More cheery news from climate scientists!
A new study published in Proceedings of the (US) National Academy of Sciences conducts a little thought experiment. What happens if anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gas emissions stop tomorrow? You’d hope that it might be a bit warm for a few decades, and gradually settle down. No such luck, according to this NOAA press release
A new scientific study led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reaches a powerful conclusion about the climate change caused by future increases of carbon dioxide: to a large extent, there’s no going back.
The pioneering study, led by NOAA senior scientist Susan Solomon, shows how changes in surface temperature, rainfall, and sea level are largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are completely stopped. The findings appear during the week of January 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The press release goes on to state that “If CO2 is allowed to peak at 450-600 parts per million, the results would include persistent decreases in dry-season rainfall that are comparable to the 1930s North American Dust Bowl in zones including southern Europe, northern Africa, southwestern North America, southern Africa and western Australia”, and “increases in CO2 that occur in this century “lock in” sea level rise that would slowly follow in the next 1,000 years. Considering just the expansion of warming ocean waters—without melting glaciers and polar ice sheets—the authors find that the irreversible global average sea level rise by the year 3000 would be at least 1.3–3.2 feet (0.4–1.0 meter) if CO2 peaks at 600 parts per million, and double that amount if CO2 peaks at 1,000 parts per million.”
Unfortunately, the paper hasn’t yet appeared on the PNAS website, but it will presumably be put up soon.
If the paper’s conclusions are correct (and one paper isn’t a definitive statement on this kind of thing) there are two clear consequences. In the short term, it further reinforces the point that we are currently in the process of permanently screwing up the climate on which we depend, and we need to stop making things worse right away. The second is that, whatever regulation of greenhouse gas emissions we ultimately achieve, geoengineering – most likely, of the kind that actually takes CO2 out of the biosphere – will almost certainly be necessary on top of it. On that point, this might be an opportune time to mention Barry Brook’s post on the topic.
Leaving aside the workability of Geoengineering solutions, the one thing they would definitely be bad for is democracy. Huge scale, resource intensive mega projects favour the technocratic elites who build them. A Ge project like the orbital sunshade would hand power over the entire planet to the Geo-engineers (whom we surely wouldn’t elect). Of course I for one welcome our new meritocratic overlords . . .
Is this sort of “I told you so” time?
Thanks, Robert. Much appreciated. I suppose its a silly question, but how come people don’t get this?
Tim: and your alternative is?
Paul: the boiling frog. We are actually quite good at reacting to immediate crises. We are really bad at reacting to ones that take place over years, decades, and centuries.
Well, the deniers have achieved their aim: it appears to be too late to do anything about the problem.
The likelihood of humanity embarking on large scale geoengineering projects is even less than humanity making serious efforts to reduce carbon emissions. In other words, less than zero.
The problem moves too slowly. It can always be plausibly denied. There will always be an excuse not to act (e.g. GFC).
Besides, who here believes we could re-engineer the climate with nasty unintended side-effects?
I guess the question is no longer can we adapt fast enough to stop the change, but rather can we adapt fast enough to survive it.
There are always more studies giving evidence for anthropogenic climate change. This, like all the others, won’t affect the Skeptics, I don’t believe.
To be fair DI(NR), if they are right we have been stuffed for ages.
Td@1
You think geo engineering would be bad for democracy? Think about the large scale application of nuclear energy. Whole army battalions in every country would be deployed to protect the installations, a vast security apparatus will also be required, secret police etc etc. To say nothing of the application of the state secrets act or whatever to the reporting of nuclear accidents it goes on and on. Unfortunate;y there are those who while otherwise sensible want this future for us.
Huggy
Robert,
Boiling frog?
I don’t think I’m alone in the experience I’m about to relate. I’ve been living in Armidale for just over 30 years. When I came here the summers were – well, hot and summery, but you could go out in them on long walks without risking heatstroke. Not now. Okay that could, just possibly, be attributed to my age.
But warming winters over the past say, 20 years, no way. Apart from about one month winters are almost (stress almost) pleasant here now. When I first came here they started about May and ended some time in September. And they were cold. Bloody cold.Not any more.
Other LP-ers must have noticed imperceptible CC, that all of a sudden has become noticeable. Respectfully, you’d have to be living in a sensory deprivation bubble not to notice.
Sure. My parents say the same things. And – quite spontaneously – it comes up in conversation with people my parents’ age.
However, we haven’t shown any signs of actually doing anything commensurate with the scale of the problem yet. We haven’t actually hopped out of the pot!
I’m afraid for my children.
Really, really afraid.
To the extent where I sometimes think I shouldn’t have had them.
And I worry that they might not even have the choice.
I’m with you, Helen. Fortunately my children are unlikely to reproduce themselves (two are mildly autistic and one has ADHD – his missus is bipolar as well), but I still feel guilty about the world they’ll live through and have taken to apologising to them.
Helen: I don’t think despair is actually called for here.
Even now, the ability to fix the mess we have created is well within our collective means. It’s just that it’s not – yet – within our collective will.
The upshot is that fixing the problem will take a lot longer, be a lot more expensive, and more damage will be done until it is fixed, than it might have been had we started acting seriously back in about 1995.
Let’s also remember that this is not the first time civilization has faced the prospect of annihilating itself. That first became possible in (arguably) 1945 (you might also pick 1954, when the first deployable “hydrogen bombs” were developed). We’re still here.
Robert Merkel wrote:
Perhaps not despair, but a little forward planning might now be relevent.
Say, think about living somewhere the population is smaller and the water supplies not so dependent on political bargaining over desalination/drinking effluent. Also, think about living somewhere rioting over food won’t be a big deal. Not that you need to panic, but perhaps retirement plans might be centred somewhere other than a big city. Three days walk from a big city should be far enough. Also, learn how to make your own ammo
(sorry – been reading too much survivalist conspiracy nut stuff over the holidays for giggles).
I’ve lived here on the Murray in SA, sort of, for 17 years and have noticed a change in climate over that time.
The amount of rain we get in winter has noticeably decreased significantly and the amount we get in summer has decreased slightly.
Overall rainfall has decreased slightly but the main differencew has been the seasonal change. We know get less in our ‘growing’ season and the ‘evaporation’ season rainfall has become relatively more important albeit less in quantity.
Not good news.
Incidentally my neighbour has kept moderately accurate RF figures for 10 plus years so its not just our perception or anecdotal.
Some time ago Brian put up some climate maps of Australia [from CSIRO or Bur of Met whoever] which showed [from memory] a 20-30% decrease in fainfall over SE and S Australia in recent times.
That should send ripples of fear through millions of Aussies and be a call to action.
Nope.
What annoys me is that, despite the thrust of the OP, there are plenty of things that can be done to change all this.
Simple stuff which doesn’t require massive amounts of machinery, shonky technology, fantasy dream schemes and the like.
The problem is that the simple solutions come slap bang up against the vested interest lobbies and old fashioned mind sets ["What is the answer? Technology of course!!" they say before they know the question].
Want to rehabilitate the Murray? Deal with the irrigators and the Libs and the Nats.
Want to rehabilitate the SE/S of Australia? Deal with the farmers and the Libs and the Nats.
Want to make simple changes that produce immediate measurable improvement [a la Huggy bunny stuff], deal with the entrenched industrial forces that want pie in the sky [literally] stuff and to nuke us.
I have been told by several scientists who deliver reports and recommendations on the Murray that the virtually unanimous response from the pollies and the bureaucrats is patronising condescenion and who, despite being specifically told that they can’t rely on good future rainfall, walk away muttering about ‘Its gotta rain good real soon” carefully depositing the latest report in the ‘must glance at sometime in the future file’.
All too fucking depressing, cos while people talk about you beaut umbrellas in space and the like, the stuff that will line some pockets with gold, I look out my window and see, without the smallest skerrick of exaggeration or hyperbole at all at all, death.
[Want the scientfic reports to back that up?]
“walk away muttering about ‘Its gotta rain good real soon” carefully depositing the latest report in the ‘must glance at sometime in the future file’”
I suspect the ‘must glance at sometime file’ is like the round filing cabinet beside my desk.
Another report that will probably end up in the same file is the latest McKinsey report that claims “TACKLING climate change will be much cheaper than most governments expect”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/global-warming/spend-a-trillion-a-year-to-save-planet-report/2009/01/27/1232818435579.html
Helen: in my opinion, in all places and times, it has always been unwise to have a child. Just the perennial violence and drudgery of human life are enough to make it so. However, I also think it very unlikely that these doomsday climate scenarios will ever get a chance to take place. They require that the world continues to pollute at current levels for decades to come, but solving this particular problem is at the forefront of millions of minds now. Mitigating climate change, turning around the trends, is well on its way to becoming one of the organizing principles of global life. It will keep people busy for at least the next decade. If anything is genuinely going to kill us off, it will be the unpredictable and fast-moving novelties coming out of artificial life and artificial intelligence, and even there I’d say it’s a highly contingent outcome, rather than a sure thing.
Of course I for one welcome our new meritocratic overlords
.
They’re not new and they don;t have much merit.
.
The overlords of the future might not be technocratic geoengineering types. Climate change may just precipitate enough of a food and water shortage to produce and entirely other kind of hierarchy.
No its not literally or actually, mentally yes but in reality they usually put them in the bookshelf. Not quite so crass as the round file on the floor.
One scientist fella I was talking to was in a pollies office recently [since '07] and made reference to certain carefully documented phenomena re the Murray and the polly said “Gee that’s interesting I’d like to know more about that’.
So the scientist walked behind the pollies’ desk and reached into the pollies’ bookshelf and handed him a particular report and told him the page to look at.
Which was a shame cos it looked nice on the shelf and left a litle hole when taken down to be read.
The pollies and the bureaucrats are not deliberately ignorant, well not this current lot anyway, not all of them, they are just so overwhelmed by these issues and so fall back on 2 tried and true answers.
Ignore it and it’ll go away.
Pay attention to the people who control the bums on seats.
There is actually rapidly developing, so I hear, a morale problem with a lot of environmental scientists and academic types.
They got so used to being ignored and even denigrated for more than a decade that when the light appeared on the horizon in ’07 they were flushed with optimism.
Which has been largely a chimera.
So new born hopes have been dashed.
I know at least 4 of these people who have given up and left their jobs sick of bashing their head against the mushy walls of polly bureaucrats and headed for less confronting places where they can do their jobs, collect their pay, keep their heads down and concentrate on life.
One has gone back to studying to be a lawyer.
Sad.
Robert@3
Relax dude – I actually think you mount a persuasive case.
But if we go down the Geo Engineering path we should do so with our eyes open. Politics doesn’t just stand still in these situations. There will still be the question ‘who, whom’ as Lenin put it.
Besides I’m still not sure if the difficulties in getting a Geo solution up and running aren’t just as challenging as converting major polluters to low carbon economics. If we are treating GE as a serious (or the only) option – what is the political strategy for getting it up and running?
Just a general comment to everyone who’s responded to this post – if you haven’t read George Marshall’s Carbon Detox I suggest you grab it from your local library (except for those using Yarra libraries in Melbourne – I’ve got that copy).
Although I’m only half way through, I can highly recommend it. George’s relatively light and conversational tone disguises some well thought out and researched opinions and scenarios – he even provides a better analogy than the old ‘boiling frog’ myth used by RM@3. I’m seriously considering inflicting copies upon friends and family members who are still living in deliberate ignorance of such an important issue for everyone except Andrew Bolt.
My daughter is about to start a degree, Bachelor of Environmental Science’, not sure of her major yet (at UQ). She wants to make a difference. Any suggestions?
I to am fearful for/of our future, but not despairing, yet. We need to change our focus, as a society, so much. From ‘what’s in it for me’, to ‘what can I do to help’. Very difficult while the money makers rule in IMHO.
#23
Couldn’t agree more.
I had 3 scientists here a couple of months ago using my place as a HQ, 2 PhDs and a Masters between them, doing a baseline survey of flora and fauna.
Why, I asked, we know its either dead or dying.
Cos ‘they’ want to be told again was the response.
They had, at that stage, no job security, all were on a mixture of short and medium term [2 years tops] contracts. Total reliable income between the 3 of them well less than $200,000 pa. Hey they are all experienced people around 40 years old, 2 at least with international reputations. Not mugs.
For contrast a few weeks later we had 2 friends stay with us here pre Chrissy, one a used car salesman, his partner a director of party selling stuff, underwear or tupperware something like that.
Combined income over $600,000 pa for the two.
In the past 5 years or so I have been on selection panels, several times, for jobs requiring degrees in environmental sciences and a host of other experience and job skills.
We usually get top people applying, about 30 plus in number for one position at a time that pays about $50,000 per year and a few small perks that add up to less than voluntary costs.
One year at a time contracts, average life in the job averaging over several other employers and my mob less than one year.
I have a niece who has a degree and a diploma in env. sciences and currently has 2 part time jobs, one as an earth scientist the other selling perfumed soaps etc at a retail outlet. The latter job not only pays better but treats her better.
Sorry to be cynical and/or pessimistic.
I wish your daughter well its an admirable and necessary field of study and work, but its a sad fact that our society undervalues it.
hannah’s dad, our society undervalues most if not all scientists, I think. Desperately hoping this will change. Not just for my daughters sake, but for the sake of us all.
Debbieanne, maybe she should join the uq_ec mailing list at Yahoo and ask for ideas there.
Adrien @ 19, I think a better analogy would be the Roman soldier who murdered Archimedes – it’s not like the Romans were significantly more civilised than the Visigoths, they were just (by then) softer.
Well, you could practically melt a climate skeptic on the footpath in Melbourne this week. Hottest spell in 100 years.
I’m not so sure. Geoengineering differs in that it would “create” jobs, in political terms, whereas emission reduction “destroys” jobs, in political terms.
If there is a change to be made, I think it is up to those of us at the bottom of the pecking order with just a smidgen of political/financial leverage to make that (cumulative) difference.
But where to start? How to develop/maintain a sexier (since sizzle sells) gloss to a smaller carbon footprint rather than the current “I’m more sanctimonious than thou” attitude I sometimes feel is used when demonstrating the simple things we could all do to make a difference.
Full of questions, still looking for answers and trying to keep the costs down while I make those changes I’ve found so far.
No one need think about it. There is not much to speculate about – just look around. The large scale deployment of nuclear power is happening. Domestic activities alone (Labor’s policy revision, uranium mining, our stepped up interest in non-proliferation, not vetoing India’s entry into the world of international commercial nuclear trade – to name a few) are evidence of that.
Nuclear projects take a while to get off the ground; yet look at the trend in construction starts [i.e. pouring concrete, not just starting a paper exercise] listed in the PRIS database.
2008 – 10 construction starts
2007 – 8 construction starts
2006 – 3 construction starts
2005 – 3 construction starts
2004 – 2 construction starts
500% increase over 5 years. That may be a trend…
The NRC, America’s nuclear regulator, lists 17 applications filed by American utilities for 26 new nuclear reactors. All submitted between mid 2007 and late 2008.
Similarly, just in the USA, 51 of the 104 operating reactors have received regulatory approval to operate for 20 years beyond their originally conceived lifetime. And more are under review.
That study is consistent with every other forecast that I have read. And it only looks, from your comments, at some of the changes that are to occur.
We have to get our prime minister to give up his “steady as she goes” and ” have a nice day” standard Labour government approach to our future. This is an emergency situation that will run for decades. Rudd runs the risk, here, of going down in history as the guy who fiddled before the county burnt.
Here is a new term for the record….Coal Criminals. Haveing identified that there is a problem with the over use of this resource, a coal criminal is a person who persists with the expansion of its use where there are other alternatives.
Coal is the new asbestos. Only coal will affect everybody’s life.
Hannah’s Dad @ 24: That is so sad. Its stories like this that make me a doomer.
How so? Alternative energy research, development and deployment could create millions of jobs worldwide if we showed the slightest inclination to making some serious investments. As could increasing the energy efficiency of existing housing stock with better insulation, replacing electric heating with gas or solar, etc etc
As Rob points out, its largely a lack of will.
Honestly, watching countries like Canada pick p solar investment ahead of us is just so depresssing. Our national leadership, on both sides, are suffering from a form o politcal autism on these policy settings. Just ricking back and forth, drooling, and mumbling about coal. Losers. We deserve better than this lot.
I see as a form of bipartisna economic vandalism. Hands u who cant see sharply rising demand for hi-value export solar tech over the mid to long term? Seriously – bunch of dunces we’re cursed with as leaders.
huggy wrote “You think geo engineering would be bad for democracy? Think about the large scale application of nuclear energy. Whole army battalions in every country would be deployed to protect the installations, a vast security apparatus will also be required, secret police etc ”
I reckon a huge orbiting shade cloth or reflector, made as thin and light as b***ery to reduce lift-off costs, might be harder to protect from (space) sabotage than terrestrial power plants??
********************
Population growth? Global warming? It seems most blokes are more interested in increasing their own libido, than in increasing the planet’s albedo.
Why would anyone believe that we learn from the past? Sure a small minority appreciate the lessons of history and accept its’ veracity, but most think it’s a wank from the past. It’s not modern so it has no value in the here and now. So nothing will be achieved except the passing to a new modernity where todays truths are forgotten by all but the small minority in their castles of learning. That’s human nature and we are stuck with it.
The question of why most people do not take climate change all that seriously seems simple to me.
Those in leadership positions do not lead by example.
If people see their politicians flying overseas at a drop of a hat, and riding round in limos, do you really think they are going to conclude there is a problem?
If people see their academic leaders jetting off on international sabbaticals and driving cars to work, do you really think they are going to conclude there is a problem?
There is plenty of hypocrisy and self excuse even amongst those who claim to believe. These people give Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair plenty of ammunition.
When you see big Al Gore driving round in huge cars with a huge house all nicely air conditioned, what do you think they will conclude? a) Climate change is real, or b) Climate change is a big scam to make big Al lots of dough?
When over 90% of people live in cities, and 90% of those are within a km of public transport, and yet only about 20% of people use Public Transport, what do you think someone uncommitted is going to think of being harangued about Climate Change by someone who has driven to work? The question that pops up is, “Is the world in that much danger if this bloke couldn’t be bothered to walk one km to get the bus?”
In a world of 6+Bn people do we need more little carbon emitters? I have no kids, so why should I even listen to someone who has produced future generations of consumers?
And then the bleat about how the power companies do not give out enough information! They give out a stack of it, which if implemented could have an impact today. For example, management of ducted aircon. Even common sense steps, most people just ignore once the systems are installed….most people just set at 24. Or how about not putting the system in in the first place? Or buy smaller houses? (You can’t do that, although climate change is the most important issue for the planet, resale value is more important, you know).
So at leadership levels, and at the grass roots, there is such a disconnect between the message, and people’s actions that I am pleasantly surprised that anyone really takes much notice at all.
For the record, I think that given the limited carbon resources we have, that we should be using much less carbon – regardless of climate change.
To be positive, perhaps a blog like this could start up a ‘sticky’ of cute excuses why one cannot possibly use public transport, buy smaller houses, smaller and fewer fridges, have fewer children, use videoconferencing rather than travelling etc etc – since it is these cute excuses across the board that justify our continuing excesses and provide the fodder for Bolt and Blair.
Mark, valid points.
So quick round up of LP posters – who still owns a car, who drives it to work every day, who has air-conditioning in their homes?
(For the record, I don’t own a car, I bus or walk to work, my small rented home has no air-conditioning. It has no insulation or rainwater tank either – grrr).
I am an environmental scientist, currently doing a post doc. My field is chemical risk assessment. I am constantly amazed that people can get hot under the collar over a 1 in a million chance of increased cancer risk, but remain totally blasé about a one in 10 chance of catastrophic climate change. Just wait until the melting permafrost starts releasing all that stored methane. Carbon dioxide? pfft!
Hey Polyquats,
Can you send to bill@keztek.com your email address? I’d like to explore your direction and I have some connections that might be useful.
C’mon folks – we know anecdotal evidence only refers to weather NOT climate and in any event is usually wrongly recollected anyway. Lets keep to verifyable statistics puhleese.
“who still owns a car, who drives it to work every day, who has air-conditioning in their homes?”
I own a car, drive it to work maybe opnce a week, on days when I’m rehearsing after work (bit hard to get a drumset around on the tram!). No aircon – my apartment sits at about 25 degrees on a 40 degree day with no fossil fuel assistance. Who’d have thought double brick and shaded windows would work? Some do-gooders in the 1940s, I guess.
No car, cityrail it every day, no airconditioning at home (double brick unit: snap).
I do however own a motorcycle I wish I had the chance to ride more.
Don’t own a car, don’t have air-conditioning, take relatively short taxi journeys about 3 to 4 times a fortnight.
Two in hand brougham, hand-powered punkah and Dr Sorgel’s Self-Wicking Tropical Undergarments System (Patent pending).
“who still owns a car, who drives it to work every day, who has air-conditioning in their homes?”
There’s three cars at home but only one functional one which is consuming about 20 dollars of petrol a month. I ride to work on a bicycle regardless of weather. After doing that for a few years, I feel out of sorts when I don’t ride.
Yes there’s a reverse cycle air conditioner, but it’s additional heating rather than cooling (cooling not needed much in Armidale). House could use some more insulation for winter though. Our biggest carbon footprint spike is winter by a large margin.
Aha! I see the native bearer has sucessfully delivered my last comment. Could the LP mods give him some ‘dash’ and ensure he returns with the cleft stick. Wouldn’t want to waste them in the current climate.
“Our biggest carbon footprint spike is winter by a large margin.”
With you there. I use the car more, and the Lady Friend is a bit of a cold-wuss.
Well we have a ute, with black dog in the back usually.
But we need that cos there is no public transport and the nearest facilities are 45 kms away.
And we need the ute to cart ‘stuf”, like the boxes of native tree seedlings we plant most years, about 15,000 in the last 15 years, survival rate about 10%.
Our carbon imprint is negative.
Despite the aircon which is on at the moment.
First one we have ever had and with our health at the point it is and the temp outside here currently close to 50 degrees I reckon we can be excused that as well.
We have tried to make the house efficient, low energy lights, insulation, special ‘curtains’ on the windows, we built the verandahs on all sunny sides ourselves with a mate, we installed the extremely efficient wood fire that we cook on and heat water in winter using plantation aged wood we grow ourselves.
We try to grow our own veggies partly using grey water and rain water, we have two 27,500 litre tanks.
So we are in a different sort of category to you city slicker types.
hannah’s dad, lol yeah. Not much we city slickers can ever do to get to a negative footprint. We grow some of our own fruit and vegies using grey water mostly from the front loader washing machine. But it’s a paltry effort really.
We could all whinge or cower in fear. I guess that’s the way it will be until the rising seas roll up Wall street and/or St Kilda Road.
Pressure is needed, serious pressure or we are all fucked, except of course for the gilded elite in their gated communities and their mercenary protectors.
Forget “democracy” it will be Fascism – and the main underpinning will be Gaza style “law and order” for us and nuclear power and big walls for the corporate elite.
Huggy
So quick round up of LP posters – who still owns a car, who drives it to work every day, who has air-conditioning in their homes?
It is not a gig i’d choose polyquats, but if you want to be the Anubis of CO2e emmissions, go for it.
There are two cars, both secondhand, Dr.H uses one for transport to and from work as well as travel to external work sites also the public transport in our area does not cut it when transporting expressed breast milk. i work at home with the recipient of the ebm, well she has grown out of it but there is another due in a tad under three weeks. we use the second car for shopping etc Yes there is A/C and it is on for the third time this summer.
Own several cars, most of which are tarpaulined humps in the orchard, acting as iron rich fertiliser. Commute by motorcycle at an admittedly “could do better” 5l/100km. On occasions I need to move stuff, I’ve got my daft little clockwork Suzuki van which doesn’t get out much. Mrs Bogan similarly motorcycles or uses her four cylinder ute, carpooling when practicable. PT would take approx 2 hours each way for me (35 mins on the bike) and doesn’t run at some of the hours that Mrs Bogan needs to get out and about.
No home aircon. Ripped out an ancient unit when we moved in and haven’t replaced it. Manage with fans and blinds, although I need to get ventilation a bit better worked out as it seems impossible to get air moving at times.
Filled the roof space with insulation and heat with wood, which should, at least, be carbon neutral. We’ll ignore particulates for now
.
Not much electrical gadgetry, although I’ll plead guilty to a big lathe in the shed, and MrsB’s electric kiln which causes intermittent spikes in consumption.
Energy saving bulbs, lp gas water heating and cooking, very limited consumption of processed foods and generally not buying much new “stuff”.
So, not exactly the moral high ground, but frugal enough that, when the “average” electricity cost or petrol bill is mentioned, we tend to feel a bit smug.
A good daily commentary ( with links ) on what is happening on the ‘Green’ front from a skeptics point of view is Greenie Watch.
Love it or hate it ( I imagine the latter here!) it shows just what an uphill battle AGW fans are having getting their message across
Well Huggy @ 51
During WW2 in double short time, the country went to petrol rationing.
That forced all but essential travel onto public transport.
It was done in the face of a crisis, and with very simple ration card technology.
Conclusion: If our pollies and the public really really really really believed climate change was happening, it could be instituted within a month.
If our pollies and the public only really really really believed climate change was happening, it could be instituted over a year or two to allow PT operators to buy more buses/trains.
If our pollies and the public only really really believed climated change was happening, it could be instituted over four or five years, to allow PT operators and Governments to buy more buses and trains and do the earthworks/stations/tunnels for upgraded PT networks as well as vehicles.
If our pollies only really believed climate change was happening, they would at least ACT as if there were a crisis by leading by example.
Guess what, petrol rationing alone would probably get us a long way to a decent target….not by 2020 but by 2014. And it was done in the second world war, so zero excuse for not doing it other than for whatever people say, they actually deep down don’t believe and the pollies are picking up on that loud and clear.
Oh, and how about smart metering and control of individual power supplies to limit amounts of (fossil) power consumed…after a given amount used per day, current is limited to enough to power a (small) fridge and a couple of lights (exceptions for medical needs perhaps)? No techno breakthrough required…implementation within a year, ie 2010 and another step to a deep carbon cut target – no need to spend a squillion $$ on consultants to siphon off money designing trading schemes and then another squillion $$ on bureaucrats to administer it…a circuit breaker goes *pock* once a residence has overdone its limit or they don’t shut off everything except the fridge and a couple of lights. (How about a card based system that allows people to ‘save’ up for parties and concerts and restaurants where they just chip in for extra power)? Also, if there was a card system for everyone, then those who live in small and efficient homes could sell their credits – something that would benefit those with smaller homes rather than those nasty big rich people in their carbon hungry McMansions.
Oh well, pigs are oiled up and ready to fly!!!!
Aaagh.
Forgot the most important point about the power rationing bit.
If there was no limitation on the amount of green power able to be used AND it was sold at market rates (no subsidy and commercial profit) then those who were rich or didn’t want to conserve, would have to pay for green power. That would provide lots of incentive for generators to get into green energy on a long term and genuine (not just a token ‘pilot’ plant here and there) basis.
hannah’s dad @ 49 – just curious as to how you calculate your carbon impact? Is it just fairly direct production -eg cars/electricity or do you include general consumption as well? Eg how much CO2 was used to make your car and your house, the food and clothes you buy, the television shows you watch, etc.
my family carbon footprint is zero tonnes for electricity, gas is 100% offset (but I’m a sceptic), car is only 1 (offset) tonne a year, that leaves food (who knows?? there’s moderate beef and dairy in there), general product consumption (nearly all from China, of course), incidentals like daily train trips, and the nasty one, air travel. Which I swear I will give up, promise, after the next trip to Europe. Sure it’s ‘offset’, but I reckon that’s a crock.
Oh and we plant on average ~100 (successful, long-lived) trees a year.
It’s mostly the hidden stuff that does it. I now know how to make kangaroo ragu/bolognese, and I don’t drink imported beer anymore, for the sake of the environment, but I’m not drinking soy crap instead of milk. And I’ll cry if I have to give up lamb.
“So quick round up of LP posters – who still owns a car, who drives it to work every day, who has air-conditioning in their homes?”
I don’t own a car – never have. I don’t even have a license. I don’t have air con, ‘tho today I wish I did.
I came in on this one late and am even now on borrowed time. I’ll make a few comments, but my full spiel would possibly be better done in another post.
First up by following your first link, Robert, I found the paper. Not sure how long it’s been there.
What becomes manifestly obvious is that the paper is very limited in scope and extremely conservative in the science it uses. So it is assuming an annual growth of 2ppm of CO2 although they give the 2000-2005 figure as >3%. No future increase is assumed.
Next they use models that assume climate sensitivity at 3.2C, setting aside Hansen’s notion that current observations in relation to the paleo record would suggest 6C is nearer the mark.
They focus on only two effects – dry season rainfall, and sea level rise due to thermal expansion alone. So they leave aside everything else including ice sheet behaviour, melting glaciers, changes in severe weather patterns and even ocean acidity as such. They do this because they want to focus on aspects where the science is extremely robust, the physical principles are well understood and the anthropogenic effect is undeniable.
The exercise runs the models out to 1000 years, whereas Matthews and Caldeira (2008) in a similar exercise (see reference 5) ran them out to 500 years.
The exercise is unrealistic in that it assumes moving from a future peak in emissions (much more than now) to zero from anthropogenic sources in one year flat.
You can safely assume that reality will be considerably worse than what they are talking about. But it is an exercise in looking at the enduring effect of what we are doing and as such has value.
In terms of sea level rise, which I have obsessed about a bit last year, I found that it was hard to find any quantification of thermal expansion, but I came to the conclusion that while it is a large part of what is going on now it is almost entirely irrelevant in the long run. So they come up with 0.4 to 1 metre by 2100 with 600ppm. According to Hansen’s stuff 560ppm will give us a temperature rise of about 6C when you could safely assume that the ice sheets would be gone, or go over a period of centuries, perhaps millennia, giving a rise of about 70 metres.
So the thermal expansion story is similar in dimensions to all land-based glaciers and snowpacks (about 0.5m) and is dwarfed by Greenland (7m), West Antarctica (5m) and East Antarctica (from memory about 59m). So what they are focussing on may be solid science, but it is almost entirely irrelevant to reality.
I’ll leave you with Hansen’s estimation that 450ppm, if it stays in the air long enough, is serious indeed. He puts the complete destruction of the ice sheets at 450ppm plus or minus 75.
And almost no-one is seriously thinking about the implications for ocean acidity of 450ppm for any length of time.
It seems from the graphs that if we cap the CO2 at 450ppm and then reduce net emissions to zero the long term effect will be to bring levels back to about 380-400. There is current talk about a 450ppm peak amongst policy makers, but no substantial policies that will come within a bull’s roar of that target.
Sorry, that was 560 words, which should really have gone in another post, but these posts often don’t get any further than my mind.
Chris at #57
There is a site somewhere, actually several I think, where you can enter your household particulars, those items you listed for example, and calculate your carbon footprint.
One site expresses it as so many ‘planets’ ie share of the earth’s resources or carbon output on a per capita basis.
And you can count as a negative figure, against that footprint, so there is a cancelling out process, such things as how many trees you plant, with each tree absorbing so much carbon in a lifetime, I forget the figures.
Anyway because over the last 15 years or so we have brought towards various degrees of maturity, a 100 trees or more per year, we have a healthy balance of accounts.
I forget how I found the sites, if you want to find them try googling key words.
hannah’s dad @ 61 – thanks I’ll have a look around. I’ve seen quite a few before that handle the recurrent type of emissions like electricity and even that make a guess based on your expenditure. But nothing before that consider large capital expenditure.
Re: trees as a carbon sink – if a bush fire comes through in a couple of decades or there is an extended drought are you suddenly deep in carbon deficit?
Not knocking planting trees – revegetation is very important but I think the general validity of trees being sold as carbon credits does need to be properly considered. You basically need to lock up that land and ensure trees stay there *forever*.
This is such a stunningly bad idea it is hard to know where to even begin.
How about a sudden huge increase in ‘medical needs’?
How about a sudden huge increase in stealing power from the grid?
How about a sudden huge increase in the sale of ( relatively ) dirty/inefficient generators?
Not to mention all the new laws to prevent the above and much more. Why not just increase the price and let people figure out the best way to economize?
They [the trees] will be here longer than me.
And we are in extended drought here, the only vegetation that has a chance to cope with that is local natives.
Our propert will be heritage listed when the govt. dept. gets itself into gear.
I have 40-60000 litres, depending on rainfall/water usage, in tanks with powerful pumps and a trailer with 1000 litres and a fire pump for mobility.
Actually thats to protect us not the trees.
Native trees here, and maybe even generally are usually not destroyed by bushfire, probably not even killed.
I don’t want to get into the argument that rages in some circles about fireproofing and fire stick farming and the adaptation of Oz native vegetation to fire.
Suffice it to say I feel safer, partly cos I’m prepared, out here in the donga trying to surround myself with scrub, than when I was living in suburbia.
Peter @ 63
Well if you think it is a stunningly bad idea to ration something that is in short supply, you are entitled to your opinion. However, it is not clear to me how one can logically reconcile a significant reduction in carbon output without rationing it in some way.
Part of the head scratching I indulge in on some days is that people seem to think that in some magical way, they will be able to use the same amount of energy without some form of rationing.
Now, as to your reasons as to why rationing is a bad idea:
How about a sudden huge increase in ‘medical needs’?
Um, then if the medical needs are genuine, guess what, there will be the capacity in the existing infrastructure to deliver it.
How about a sudden huge increase in stealing power from the grid?
Geez and I thought we had a police force charged with catching thieves.
How about a sudden huge increase in the sale of ( relatively ) dirty/inefficient generators?
Um and if as I suggested, petrol/diesel are also rationed, those dirty/inefficient generators will run on…what?
If we want to make the slightest dent in carbon emissions, we are going to need to take serious steps. What I have suggested is something that can be implemented over a very short time frame and would reduce our carbon footprint. It was done during the second world war with paper based technology, so objections as to practicality are just absurd. Political will and real determination that there is a need to do anything serious are, of course quite other matters. I sort of expect that those who wish to carry on their merry way in large airconditioned houses and big cars producing lots of little further carbon emitters will, no doubt, advance all sorts of reasons why they should not have to do anything.
Someone else wants to put up something that will work and has been shown in the past to actually be able to work (petrol rationing fits this bill), would be doing us all a favour by making the suggestion.
I own a car, kinda need it to drive to work, since work is out in the bush, I work in nature conservation. ah, the irony.
I have an air condition that I have never used. I pay the green energy surcharge, even though the way it is billed really gets me riled.
I think carbon offsetting is bollocks. I would really like to see a policy shift away from planting trees as offsetting, and towards threat mitigation in already existing areas of intact native vegetation. [Disclaimer: my work is in landscape restoration, so I kinda have a vested interest in this]. I’ve been learning a bit about the offsetting business, and I have officially become an carbon offset skeptic. It definitely does not reward people preserving intact vegetation, and the potential for it to actually have negative impacts on biodiversity is VERY problematic to me.
This year my wife says she is going to follow the practice of some others she knows and do her supermarket shopping online. It seems Coles will deliver to your door here. Don’t know about Woolies. This will certainly save CO2 emissions as well as time, which is why she is doing it.
Hannah’s dad, the post of mine that you referred to is Open Mind does drought down under from last June. In that post I linked to the BOM Climate change trend maps which still look ugly for rainfall, and Recent rainfall maps(up to 36 months).
If you click on ‘percentages’ and follow the maps for rainfall back over the last 3 years it looks particularly ugly for the SE part of the continent, including South Australia. The only one that is half decent is the 3 months map, which picks up some late season rain last year. The good rain is mainly from Mackay north and where no-one much lives.
What the maps don’t show is the irregularity of the rain that does fall, say in SEQ. We’ve had dry autumns now every year since 1999. March which should be our third wettest month is now one of the driest. We are more likely to get a rain depression in June or August than January of February, which is weird.
I accept that it was dry in the 1890s, in 1900-1910 and in the 1940s, also I think in the 1930s. The view in the bush seems to be that we’ve seen it all before and sure the climate is changing, but it always has and AGW has nothing to do with it. Bolt is flavour of the month, indeed the year. I accept that the current drought might break, it’s just that the pattern looks suspiciously like the climate forecasters have been predicting, but 50 years ahead of time.
I’ve heard enough times for me to believe it to be true that the BOM and the CSIRO still use an average of 15 models for forecasting although they are finding that the average of the 6 most pessimistic models seems to be more accurate. I think that is why we are currently being told we have a 50-70% chance of above average rainfall here while what we are actually getting is less than half average. That discrepancy seems to happen all the time, well nearly all.
No, I said that rationing via your method is a stunningly bad idea. What do you think a market does?
And I put medical needs in quotes because the inevitable result of this idea will be a huge increase in people claiming ‘medical need’ to bypass the system. And a huge bureaucracy to oversee it all.