recognising reality

[biffvernon]

That’s a great post Lewis (I don’t usually read posts that are more than half a dozen lines long!). He must speak for himself but I doubt whether Chris disagrees with much of what you've written. The key issue, it seems, is whether humanity collectively, through the member states of the UN or elsehow, will come together to make the grand change of direction. History suggests it won’t but there are plenty of examples where the past has been a poor guide to the future and that’s what gives me a glimmer of hope that humanity will survive. It’s only a faint glimmer, but we work to keep it alive.

I’d put in a warming on the numbers. Unbeknownst to most folk, the global climate models don’t actually work. Numbers like “4.4C” and “68 years” are more precise than the science supports. We know from the basic physics that adding greenhouse gasses will increase temperatures but we don’t know by how much and how quickly. All we know for sure is that adding these gasses is a damn fool action, we must stop doing it now and go on what amounts to a war footing to get the CO2 out of the air again. If we do all that it still might not work but all we can do is try, and then keep fingers crossed.

Meanwhile, we do now have to consider life in a 4°C warmer world.

I’m not sure how helpful it is to blame individually named people or corporations. All who use, or promote the use of, fossil-fuel burning derived goods and services must share some part of the blame, thee and me included. For sure the oil corporations are totally evil, but on the other hand their executives have a legal obligation to maximise shareholder value – they’re just doing the job that the wider society has given them. Obama is, in effect, heading a minority government. Without majorities in both Houses his powers are very limited and he is in the business of ducking and diving to survive. He’s only just managed that.

In the UK we have a several people who benefit directly from, for example, shale gas, who are in, or closely associated with, government. But even they would probably switch sides if they saw an opportunity for profit in the organic spaghetti cultivation industry. I've experienced the extraordinary lengths that global warming denying and anti windfarm people in local government and local public life go to to silence people like me. It’s not rational, but when has that ever stopped anyone?

[RenewableCandy]

I must admit the China thing seems a logical explanation for several Observables (the last few years' USA media dissing of AGW, the fact many firms want Gov action but Gov does nothing, the fact that well-over 1/2 the USA population are worried but Gov does nothing, etc).

It was bound to backfire though: a "war of attrition" against China is about the most futile enterprise on the International level that I can imagine. Don't these guys learn any History? Or Geography??

[biffvernon]

Nope.

[Catweazle]

I've tried to tell people about global warming, but they all think it's a tax gathering scam by the Government. If people in other countries feel the same, and given the recent financial scandals I expect they will, how can we hope to convince them before it's too late ?

[extractorfan]

I've tried to tell people about global warming, but they all think it's a tax gathering scam by the Government. If people in other countries feel the same, and given the recent financial scandals I expect they will, how can we hope to convince them before it's too late ?

Stick to the far easier to grasp problem of peak oil / resources. It brings an immediacy to the problem of fossil fuel consumption.

[emordnilap]

I've tried to tell people about global warming, but they all think it's a tax gathering scam by the Government.

Unsurprisingly, given the amount of ordinary peoples' money collected solely to hand up to rich bastards, this is a common thought in this country too. It's probably something to do with transferred/denied responsibility as well.

An alarming number of seemingly intelligent people deny that tens of billions of tons of CO2e added to the atmosphere every year for decades and continuing is somehow of no consequence.

[clv101]

For over a fortnight I’ve refrained from responding to Chris’s article, "Recognizing Reality,"...

Thank-you for your considered response. It was good to read and I agree with pretty much everything you say. My article was short, written within the terms of reference of those still discussing avoiding +2C and didn't include the nuances you bring up.

The response to this piece has been three-fold, a few (otherwise well educated) people have responded by denying the existence or signification of climate change, a few say we've known for years and it's worse than you think and the rest (especially other climate change scientists) responded with indifference while fully engaged with high energy lifestyles.

I haven't come across USA/China geopolitic explanation of US government inaction. I'll need more evidence before being convinced of its substance however I am on the page saying relative geopolitical positioning is seen as more important than absolute wealth.

I have no doubt it is technically possible for 7-9bn people to maintain fair well-being and for environmental damage to be limited, geo-engineering can mitigate most climate change related impacts (we do a lot of geo-engineering research in my department). Whilst recognising the technical possibility, I have virtually no hope that 'we' are able to cut through the political and economic shackles we've build for ourselves or overcome the psychological momentum.

[Blue Peter]

geo-engineering can mitigate most climate change related impacts (we do a lot of geo-engineering research in my department). Whilst recognising the technical possibility, I have virtually no hope that 'we' are able to cut through the political and economic shackles we've build for ourselves or overcome the psychological momentum.

What geo-engineering are you talking about?


Peter.

[clv101]

Solar radiation management primarily through stratospheric sulfate aerosols is affordable, technically viable, fast acting and could be used to avoid tipping points in the short to medium term to buy time (decades-several centuries) for CO2 removal (biochar, biofuel with CCS, ocean nourishment and carbon air capture).

[Blue Peter]

Solar radiation management primarily through stratospheric sulfate aerosols is affordable, technically viable, fast acting and could be used to avoid tipping points in the short to medium term to buy time (decades-several centuries) for CO2 removal (biochar, biofuel with CCS, ocean nourishment and carbon air capture).

I must confess to being very skeptical of such things. Are there any side-effects of stratospheric sulphate aerosols?


Peter.

[emordnilap]

I must confess to being very skeptical of such things.

You're not the only one.

http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... highlight=

[biffvernon]

The response to this piece has been three-fold, a few (otherwise well educated) people have responded by denying the existence or signification of climate change, a few say we've known for years and it's worse than you think and the rest (especially other climate change scientists) responded with indifference while fully engaged with high energy lifestyles.

Forget class, nationality, sex etc, you've just hit upon a better way of dividing the human race.

The Deniers, the Doomers and the Don't Cares.

[clv101]

Solar radiation management primarily through stratospheric sulfate aerosols is affordable, technically viable, fast acting and could be used to avoid tipping points in the short to medium term to buy time (decades-several centuries) for CO2 removal (biochar, biofuel with CCS, ocean nourishment and carbon air capture).

I must confess to being very skeptical of such things. Are there any side-effects of stratospheric sulphate aerosols?

Sure, there's always side effects. It makes ocean acidification worse, it may 'reset' global average temperature but some places will still be hotter, and some colder, precipitation patterns change, ozone depletion, solar panels won't work quite as well and the sky won't look as blue.

It's all a balance - if we really thought that without it a tipping point would be passed pushing temps up high enough to kill all but a few insects we might accept those side effects.

[Little John]

Solar radiation management primarily through stratospheric sulfate aerosols is affordable, technically viable, fast acting and could be used to avoid tipping points in the short to medium term to buy time (decades-several centuries) for CO2 removal (biochar, biofuel with CCS, ocean nourishment and carbon air capture).

I must confess to being very skeptical of such things. Are there any side-effects of stratospheric sulphate aerosols?

Sure, there's always side effects. It makes ocean acidification worse, it may 'reset' global average temperature but some places will still be hotter, and some colder, precipitation patterns change, ozone depletion, solar panels won't work quite as well and the sky won't look as blue....

Oh well, when you put it like that, it all sounds really quite plausible and not in the least full of un-knowable un-known consequences.......

Jesus wept

[peaceful_life]

http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/872/1/


Trees!!