Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

[Blue Peter]

It rather leaves little option but to accept on faith that they know what they're doing.

FWIW, I think that science tends to be very good at the "routine" technical application of knowledge. It seems unlikely to me that anyone not immersed in a field will detect an error in such application (it is more likely that the supposed error will not actually be an error). Whereas, if there is an error, someone in the field will probably spot it.

Where science does struggle is with conceptual problems. If it's got the wrong approach to something, the calculations will be "all right", but they'll just be relatively useless, because the discipline involved has got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

On a large scale, one can probably think about these things in terms of Kuhnian paradigms (normal science versus paradigm change). On a small scale, the debate over CO2 ir saturation perhaps provides a small example.


My impression is that climate science is involved with a lot of routine applications of known techniques, not with conceptual problems (the physics and chemistry underlying what is going on is well-known), and so it's probably best to trust the climate scientists. That's not to say that they can't be totally wrong about things, or that they won't be wrong about certain details. However, you're unlikely to be able to change an appropriate paradigm in the former case; and, in the latter case, you're unlikely to be able to spot the errors without dedicating a decade plus to climate science, though it's likely that someone else will spot something wrong.


Peter (who could be wrong, of course).

[JohnB]

If there's nothing in it, why are governments world wide making any effort to deal with it? I know they're doing it in a half hearted, totally incompetent way, but why are they doing anything at all? It would be much easier for them, and us, if they did nothing, if there isn't a problem. There's plenty of other things they could be dealing with instead that wouldn't cause them as much hassle.

[snow hope]

John, as you know the United States has not been making an effort!

Some people hold the view that (global warming) climate change is a proxy for Peak Oil. In other words we must cut our fossil fuel use because.........

[emordnilap]

OK, I give in.

Burning 30 billion barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and three trillion cubic metres of gas a year won't make a scrap of difference to the biosphere.

There. Argument settled. No science required.

[JohnB]

OK, I give in.

Burning 30 billion barrels of oil, billions of tons of coal and three trillion cubic metres of gas a year won't make a scrap of difference to the biosphere.

There. Argument settled. No science required.

Of course there is the pollution it causes, like acid rain and stuff. And I seem to remember reading that 10,000 people a year die prematurely because of traffic fumes in Britain.

[Andy Hunt]

It's funny, our finance department seems to think climate change is happening, because in the past few years its maintenance bill for storm damage and flooding has gone through the roof, quite literally!

And because every year they end up with a bigger overspend, they are now looking to have it included as standard in a 'climate change contingency budget'!

Last year a storm ripped the entire roof off a depot building, it landed on the opposite side of a main road from the depot!! Good job nobody had been driving along the road at that moment in time . . .

Unless we are all hallucinating, things do seem to be hotting up where we are, anyway. Although we do seem to be having something approaching a proper winter for a change this year.

[JohnB]

This latest EU agreement is that emissions will be cut by 20% from 1990 levels. As it's now 2008 and presumably emissions are higher than 1990, what is the actual cut agreed?

[MacG]

It's funny, our finance department seems to think climate change is happening, because in the past few years its maintenance bill for storm damage and flooding has gone through the roof, quite literally!

And because every year they end up with a bigger overspend, they are now looking to have it included as standard in a 'climate change contingency budget'!

Last year a storm ripped the entire roof off a depot building, it landed on the opposite side of a main road from the depot!! Good job nobody had been driving along the road at that moment in time . . .

Unless we are all hallucinating, things do seem to be hotting up where we are, anyway. Although we do seem to be having something approaching a proper winter for a change this year.

Have I got this right? You take increased government spending as a strong indication that human activities are heating the atmosphere? Hmm...

[ziggy12345]

a 20% cut is a reduction of 20% from where they are expected to be in 2008. If they have gone up by 30% then a 10% increase is actually a 20% cut.

Another way at looking at a 20% cut is a 1/5th reduction in growth. so a growth of 24% is a 20% reduction

I should work for the gov statistics office...

[JohnB]

a 20% cut is a reduction of 20% from where they are expected to be in 2008. If they have gone up by 30% then a 10% increase is actually a 20% cut.

Another way at looking at a 20% cut is a 1/5th reduction in growth. so a growth of 24% is a 20% reduction

I should work for the gov statistics office...

That was as clear as mud, so you probably should.

On the Today programme this morning Miliband was talking about a 20% cut without mentioning 1990 levels. So let's assume that emissions have increased by 20% since 1990. To get a reduction of 20% from 1990 levels we actually need a 33.3% reduction. So what is the agreed cut, and why all this stuff about 1990?

[Andy Hunt]

It's funny, our finance department seems to think climate change is happening, because in the past few years its maintenance bill for storm damage and flooding has gone through the roof, quite literally!

And because every year they end up with a bigger overspend, they are now looking to have it included as standard in a 'climate change contingency budget'!

Last year a storm ripped the entire roof off a depot building, it landed on the opposite side of a main road from the depot!! Good job nobody had been driving along the road at that moment in time . . .

Unless we are all hallucinating, things do seem to be hotting up where we are, anyway. Although we do seem to be having something approaching a proper winter for a change this year.

Have I got this right? You take increased government spending as a strong indication that human activities are heating the atmosphere? Hmm...

I take increasing storm damage costs as a sign that the weather is getting worse!!

[emordnilap]

It's funny, our finance department seems to think climate change is happening, because in the past few years its maintenance bill for storm damage and flooding has gone through the roof, quite literally!

And because every year they end up with a bigger overspend, they are now looking to have it included as standard in a 'climate change contingency budget'!

Last year a storm ripped the entire roof off a depot building, it landed on the opposite side of a main road from the depot!! Good job nobody had been driving along the road at that moment in time . . .

Unless we are all hallucinating, things do seem to be hotting up where we are, anyway. Although we do seem to be having something approaching a proper winter for a change this year.

Have I got this right? You take increased government spending as a strong indication that human activities are heating the atmosphere? Hmm...

I take increasing storm damage costs as a sign that the weather is getting worse!!

Shame you have to repeat yourself, Andy, isn't it?

[MacG]

It's funny, our finance department seems to think climate change is happening, because in the past few years its maintenance bill for storm damage and flooding has gone through the roof, quite literally!

And because every year they end up with a bigger overspend, they are now looking to have it included as standard in a 'climate change contingency budget'!

Last year a storm ripped the entire roof off a depot building, it landed on the opposite side of a main road from the depot!! Good job nobody had been driving along the road at that moment in time . . .

Unless we are all hallucinating, things do seem to be hotting up where we are, anyway. Although we do seem to be having something approaching a proper winter for a change this year.

Have I got this right? You take increased government spending as a strong indication that human activities are heating the atmosphere? Hmm...

I take increasing storm damage costs as a sign that the weather is getting worse!!

How was it about the mantra about "weather" and "climate"?

[Andy Hunt]

Have I got this right? You take increased government spending as a strong indication that human activities are heating the atmosphere? Hmm...

I take increasing storm damage costs as a sign that the weather is getting worse!!

How was it about the mantra about "weather" and "climate"?

It was unrelated to those posts - otherwise I would have quoted one of them. It was just a general observation.

[biffvernon]

So what is the agreed cut, and why all this stuff about 1990?

I think the idea is a 20% cut from 1990 level emission across the EU. Each nation has it's own target number. Had it not been so there would be some strange effects. Ireland, for example, has seen a great deal of growth since 1990 so to get to 1990 -20% would mean cutting more than half their current emissions.

The climate accord orders Europe to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. This is to be achieved through national reduction targets which vary among the 27 countries and through a Europe-wide carbon trading scheme in which industries and power plants buy permits to pollute from 2013.

The rules for the emissions trading scheme (ETS), however, were relaxed under German pressure to exempt most companies in the processing industries, such as steel and cement, from paying for the permits and power stations in central Europe, mostly coal-fired, were awarded large discounts on the price of carbon.

"To address the specific concerns of some countries, we had to accept some changes," said Jose Manuel Barroso, president of the European commission whose draft legislation on the package was much stiffer than that agreed yesterday.

The decisions, to be turned into law by the European parliament next week, also cut CO2 emissions from cars by 19% by 2015, set binding national targets for renewable energy to total 20% of the European energy mix by 2020, encourage the use of "sustainable" biofuels, and order 20% greater energy efficiency by 2020.

Gordon Brown said: "This is a major advance. Europe, after these decisions, remains the leader on climate change."

But critics complained that the package was too little too late, that EU leaders had capitulated to fierce lobbying from European industry, that the loopholes in the system and the awarding of pollution permits free to most non-energy firms in the scheme would trigger a bonanza in windfall corporate profits.

"Industry has to do next to nothing," said Claude Turmes, a Green MEP from Luxembourg who helped draft part of the legislation. "If they are honest, these leaders know they haven't agreed something really ambitious."

Robin Webster, climate campaigner for Friends of the Earth, said: "This could have been one of Europe's finest moments. But huge loopholes allow big energy-users to carry on polluting."

Barroso admitted that the terms of the deal could bring windfall profits for industry, reversing the logic of the polluter pays principle that is supposed to underpin the carbon trading scheme.

But he and others stressed that these concessions did not affect the overall targets. The accord was the first such agreement in the world and put Europe in a strong position to strike a broader pact with the incoming Obama administration in the US ahead of the effort to reach a worldwide global warming agreement in Copenhagen a year from now, Barroso said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... atechange1

Hopefully, the recession will succeed where politicians fail. It seems to be doing a good job at shutting down cement, brick and steel production. Now we just need the politicians to find an equable way of sharing the pain, though I don't suppose they'll even manage that.