IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Topic Summary: E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?
Created On: 21 November 2012 10:41 AM
Status: Post and Reply
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
<< 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Previous Next Last unread
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 15 March 2013 11:00 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: clivebrown
The debate needs to move on - accept that we have a mega problem and get solutions working.

What mega changes have/are you making to your life then, in order to deal with this 'mega problem'?

Regards.
 15 March 2013 11:05 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



richwin

Posts: 96
Joined: 25 July 2008

Originally posted by: Ipayyoursalary

Test. I think we may have reached the max number of posts since this thread doesn't seem to be accepting new ones,


The forum does something strange when it adds pages. (IMHO)

-------------------------
Richard Winstone MIET

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)
 16 March 2013 06:18 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: clivebrown

The debate needs to move on - accept that we have a mega problem and get solutions working.


What mega changes have/are you making to your life then, in order to deal with this 'mega problem'?

.




This is getting a bit personal but if you really want to know (& accepting the significant risk of getting shot down in flames!) .....


Reduced car use - currently approx 6000miles p.a.

Increased house insulation - now no coal consumption, instead burning self-gleaned wood; but still have ancient oil fired Rayburn!

Invested in wind energy company

10+ years since I traveled by plane

Holiday within 1 days drive from home

Generally use bike for local travel and, when possible, bus for longer journey (my bus pass is a useful bit of plastic!)

Only occasional red meat consumption

Support some 'green' charities



I don't know the size of my carbon footprint, but it must far exceed that of the majority of humanity; so I certainly can't claim to have solved the problem but I do accept that there is one.

Regards....Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 17 March 2013 02:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: clivebrown
Reduced car use - currently approx 6000miles p.a.
Increased house insulation - now no coal consumption, instead burning self-gleaned wood; but still have ancient oil fired Rayburn!
Invested in wind energy company
10+ years since I traveled by plane
Holiday within 1 days drive from home
Generally use bike for local travel and, when possible, bus for longer journey (my bus pass is a useful bit of plastic!)
Only occasional red meat consumption
Support some 'green' charities
I don't know the size of my carbon footprint, but it must far exceed that of the majority of humanity; so I certainly can't claim to have solved the problem but I do accept that there is one.
Regards....Clive

It is good to see that you have made some changes because it supports the message you are putting accross and shows that you take some personal ownership.

It is however interesting that air travel is on the increase and is predicted to continue increasing. Cars of course are becoming more fuel efficient however nowadays more cars are on the road and this is also predicted to continue increasing.

I accept there is a problem as well, but it is not the climate.

Regards.
 17 March 2013 02:13 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



Ipayyoursalary

Posts: 265
Joined: 21 November 2009

Clive, well done for actually trying to practise what you preach.

That makes you a much better man than 99% of professional man made global warming alarmists. From the multiple-mansion-dwelling, lear-jet flying, private-holiday-island-owning likes of Al Gore, Richard Branson and James Cameron, to the circus of climate scientists and IPCC/gov bureaucrats who spend half their lives flying to climate change conferences in various exotic locations when they could easily skype conference instead.
 17 March 2013 03:08 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

I went with my son to an open day at Man Met University yesterday, he wants to study Geography a proper subject methinks. The politicisation of the presentation was staggering, something not observed at other universities. The Head of Department is a self confessed Guardian is the only true newspaper reader.
He offered a picture of a flooded Shrewsbury as evidence of 'climate change'. The Manchester Poly graduate had missed the point that the recent activities of the River Severn suggested no change.
I'm a Wulfrunian by orgin and know the river and watershed well having fished it for over 40 years.
Scary how academia works. Tell me funding isn't the root of this behaviour.

Edited: 18 March 2013 at 12:01 AM by HazelGroveWolf
 17 March 2013 05:47 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

A question for Westonpa:-

If the problem isn't Climate Change, what is it?

Regards

-------------------------
clivebrown
 17 March 2013 09:02 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



cookers

Posts: 205
Joined: 10 February 2012

You know Geoff and his camp followers may be right, it might be the end of the world, but maybe not.

Looking out of the window everything appears exceedingly normal, UK weather appears depressingly the same as it always has been, which is extremely variable but always disappointing.

I observe the wind turbines only work when its not too cold, not too windy, or not too still, which seems to mean that they don't work most of the time!

There are far too many cars around, most of them appear to be in my way!

But generally people seem to be getting on with their lives, so maybe Geoff and his army should just get on with their lives (there is no second chance).

However how Geoff chooses to live his life is up to him, that is his choice, that is the most precious freedom we have above everything else, that each individual can choose.

Nobody knows what the future will bring, I cannot think of one prediction of the future that has proved to be correct, my crystal ball has become cloudy as I have got older, I generally just try and live my life as best I can.
 23 March 2013 01:12 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: clivebrown
A question for Westonpa:-
If the problem isn't Climate Change, what is it?
Regards

Pessimism.

Regards.
 26 March 2013 10:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



clivebrown

Posts: 21
Joined: 28 October 2001

I've just been reading an interesting article, published last month by James Smith who until fairly recently was chairman of Shell Uk and is now chair of the Carbon Trust; the article is entitled 'Can we do without nuclear?'

The first few paragraphs read:-
"The euphoric phase on low carbon energy is over. There is no solution that is clean and cheap and always on.

Yet we must make major investments in energy. Old coal and nuclear plants will have to close. And climate change has to be tackled or it will result in costly economic damage.

So let's consider the options for investment in low carbon electricity. Over the coming twenty years there are only three options that are relevant - wind, carbon capture and storage (CCS) and nuclear. Each has significant imperfections yet each works. And there is no muddle through option.

Each technology has deeply entrenched opponents. But if all the opponents have their way, we are left with no solution. Or at a minimum there will be a long period of argument, muddle and delay, followed by a rushed, expensive and late period of investment. Isn't that how it is already feeling?

Let's consider the three energy technology options in turn. Each is a different kind of curate's egg."
..........



He then gives a brief but pragmatic assessment of the three, including their pluses & minuses before concluding:-



......."So where does this leave us? There are no emotional highs with any of these technologies. They are hard work and more costly than current technologies.

But, imperfect though they are, these low carbon technologies work. And, though more costly, the cost of climate damage looks likely to be higher. Also, it is clear that at least any two of these technologies will have to be deployed if our energy and carbon reduction targets are to be met. Looking at it another way, diversification makes sense and the weaknesses of each option tend to be compensated by the strengths of another. In short, it is best if we have all three.

But of course we can't write blank cheques on any of these technologies. The focus has fallen on nuclear, particularly with Centrica pulling out of the nuclear joint venture with EDF.

There is a decent case that the consumer, us, takes some of the risk to get the first few nuclear plants going. Let's hope that DECC has enough tools in its negotiating kitbag. They need to get the balance right in creating incentives for EDF to deliver, to shoulder a realistic level of risk but not to earn super profits. Both DECC and EDF know that paying a high price for the first few nuclear plants can only make sense if it represents a credible pathway to lower costs in future.

As consumers we should have two serious worries if nuclear prices itself out of the energy market. Firstly the benefits to innovation and cost control that come from inter technology competition would be much diminished. Secondly a key source of diversification of risk to our energy system would be lost. The outcome could be a more costly and risky energy system. Like the other technologies, nuclear has to prove itself in cost terms. But we should not be thinking of giving up now."




The full article may be read here can we do without nuclear?


Pretty realistic words I think although personally I'm not entirely comfortable with new nuclear - maybe OK for the UK but not world wide; and there could usefully be mention of financially viable energy conservation.


Regards......Clive

-------------------------
clivebrown
 29 March 2013 05:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

A good mix of energy sources seems to be a sensible option for the future.

Regards.
 23 September 2013 11:41 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



rogerbryant

Posts: 874
Joined: 19 July 2002

And so the discussions continue:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24173504

With more new information to explain:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/re...3/09/130918001910.htm

The various astronomical cycles do suggest some of these results. This book, Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes, seems to be the most comprehensive I have found so far.

http://books.google.co.in/book...e#v=onepage&q&f=false

The first chapter give an interesting overview on various time scales of global and local temperature changes. In my view until more work is carried out in these areas the current works on the CO2 influence on climate change are of very limited validity. The IPCC notes these effects in one of their FAQs:

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/e...tsheets/whatcause.pdf

They do not seem to take it further, possibly it's an "Inconvenient Truth"!

Other bodies also note rapid effects, from the State of Utah:

"For example, as Earth was emerging out of the last glacial cycle, the warming trend was interrupted 12,800 years ago when temperatures dropped dramatically in only several decades. A mere 1,300 years later, temperatures locally spiked as much as 20°F (11°C) within just several years. Sudden changes like this occurred at least 24 times during the past 100,000 years. In a relative sense, we are in a time of unusually stable temperatures today - how long will it last?"

http://geology.utah.gov/survey...sked/gladice_ages.htm

I was prompted to write this by a visit to Saas Fee at the weekend (Mostly by hydroelectricity powered train with a bus journey at either end). On one of the information boards on the Glacier Information Trial it noted that between the 14th and 17th centuries the Fee glacier advanced so far down the valley that it threatened the village. In their fear the villagers held religious processions and ceremonies at the foot of the glacier and finally in the 18th century it started to recede again. Maybe global warming is all their fault


Best regards

Roger
 26 February 2014 06:43 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Guys,

It's been a while, but this one got my interest. A series of myths and neatly addressed in a humorous style.

The Myths of Charles Krauthammer: The Drinking Game (Op-Ed)

Unfrozen Caveman Pundit Debates Climate Change
If you want to argue about science, it's helps to know how the scientific method itself works




Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation

Edited: 26 February 2014 at 06:57 AM by geoffbenn
 26 February 2014 06:54 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

An while I'm here, they say a picture paints a thousand words: Climate Graphics by Skeptical Science





-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 26 February 2014 07:56 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

The recent pause in warming
The Met Office Hadley Centre has written three reports that address the recent pause in global warming and seek to answer the following questions:
- What have been the recent trends in other indicators of climate over this period?
- What are the potential drivers of the current pause?
- How does the recent pause affect our projections of future climate?

The first paper shows that a wide range of observed climate indicators continue to show changes that are consistent with a globally warming world, and our understanding of how the climate system works.

The second suggests that it is not possible to explain the recent lack of surface warming solely by reductions in the total energy received by the planet, i.e. the balance between the total solar energy entering the system and the thermal energy leaving it. Changes in the exchange of heat between the upper and deep ocean appear to have caused at least part of the pause in surface warming, and observations suggest that the Pacific Ocean may play a key role.

The final paper shows that the recent pause in global surface temperature rise does not materially alter the risks of substantial warming of the Earth by the end of this century. Nor does it invalidate the fundamental physics of global warming, the scientific basis of climate models and their estimates of climate sensitivity.

Links to each of the three papers are below. Observing changes in the climate system

Paper 1: Observing changes in the climate system (PDF, 2 MB) Recent pause in global warming

Paper 2: Recent pause in global warming (PDF, 1 MB) Implications for projections

Paper 3: Implications for projections (PDF, 663 kB)
(please visit the page to access the links to the papers)

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 26 February 2014 08:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

And in case we thought we could take our time:

NASA satellites see Arctic surface darkening faster
The retreat of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean is diminishing Earth's albedo, or reflectivity, by an amount considerably larger than previously estimated, according to a new study that uses data from instruments that fly aboard several NASA satellites.


Climate change: Unstable Atlantic deep ocean circulation may hasten 'tipping point'
A new study suggests that Atlantic deep water formation may be much more fragile than previously realized.


-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 26 February 2014 10:58 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



HazelGroveWolf

Posts: 93
Joined: 25 July 2008

Geoff,

Have you ever tried doing some physics all by yourself ? Have you ever noticed the importance of heat capacity and latent heat that kick you in the face when considering thermal mass in the earth system. Try telling me that the miniscule amount of human liberated carbon dioxide is capable of bullying this system. Why is that the 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide that might be attributable man out of the 400ppm (or so) is so de-stabilizing in a system dominated by other gases? Note water vapour contributes the best part of 20000ppm to the atmosphere out of the so called green house gases. Life on the planet survived and evolved despite far greater influences, you follow nothing more than a political psuedo-religious meme.
All you guys rely on is failed models, that, you as an engineer should be first to scrutinise. Models are useful but only when you know their limitations and how to refine them. Further, if they cannot be tested they are useless. Anything else is curve fitting if using history to justify prediction based on a prejudice. Do not think for one instance that the human race is significantly more capable of predicting the future than anytime previously? Geo-political happenings of the last 100 years should tell you that.
I had the misfortune to see some GCSE physics questions on the subject recently. Despite angling for a PC set of answers the evidence provided by the examiners actually suggested no correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature on no less than three planets.

Regards

Dave

Edited: 26 February 2014 at 11:23 PM by HazelGroveWolf
 27 February 2014 08:00 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Hi Dave,

Sure we've covered your arguments before WAY above, but briefly, I suggest people take a look at these pages. No apology for using this brilliant site. All of your arguments have been rolled out by people before, and it's such a waste of time re-researching the answers.

How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?
The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
intermediate answer:
The CO2 that nature emits (from the ocean and vegetation) is balanced by natural absorptions (again by the ocean and vegetation). Therefore human emissions upset the natural balance, rising CO2 to levels not seen in at least 800,000 years. In fact, human emit 26 gigatonnes of CO2 per year while CO2 in the atmosphere is rising by only 15 gigatonnes per year - much of human CO2 emissions is being absorbed by natural sinks.


BTW: How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

How reliable are climate models?
Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean.
and the intermediate answer:
While there are uncertainties with climate models, they successfully reproduce the past and have made predictions that have been subsequently confirmed by observations.


Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
 27 February 2014 12:49 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
All of your arguments have been rolled out by people before, and it's such a waste of time re-researching the answers.

I would have thought someone so concerned about what he sees as a major issue, and potential threat to the long term future of his family, would never consider it a waste of time in order to spread the message and covert others to his cause.

I speak a lot with Jehovah Witness's, for example, and I have yet, over 30 odd years, to hear one of them say, even once, that it's a waste of time re quoting from the bible or else re researching answers about god. I guess they really believe they are working for the better good.

Try to engage in dicussions on engineering solutions to the issues you perceive. I personally may not agree with your stance on Climate Change, but I would be more than ok with hearing and discussing your engineering proposals to improve things, with a bit of your own engineering thinking thrown in. This is after all an 'Engineering and Technology' Institution.

Regards.
 27 February 2014 01:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message


Avatar for geoffbenn.
geoffbenn

Posts: 248
Joined: 08 July 2004

Originally posted by: westonpa

Originally posted by: geoffbenn
All of your arguments have been rolled out by people before, and it's such a waste of time re-researching the answers.
I would have thought someone so concerned about what he sees as a major issue, and potential threat to the long term future of his family, would never consider it a waste of time in order to spread the message and covert others to his cause.

I speak a lot with Jehovah Witness's, for example, and I have yet, over 30 odd years, to hear one of them say, even once, that it's a waste of time re quoting from the bible or else re researching answers about god. I guess they really believe they are working for the better good.

Try to engage in dicussions on engineering solutions to the issues you perceive. I personally may not agree with your stance on Climate Change, but I would be more than ok with hearing and discussing your engineering proposals to improve things, with a bit of your own engineering thinking thrown in. This is after all an 'Engineering and Technology' Institution.

Regards.

I am content to make sure that the main stream peer reviewed science features alongside busted myths ;-) People can then make their own minds up...

Regards,
Geoff

-------------------------
Geoff Benn BSc(Hons) CEng MIET
George Washington: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.
skepticalscience.com: getting skeptical about global warming skepticism
sourcewatch.org: exposing public opinion manipulation
IET » Other and general engineering discussions » E&T Magazine - Debate - Is climate change a man-made phenomenon?

<< 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Previous Next Last unread
Topic Tools Topic Tools
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.