Moderator: Peak Moderation
That was one of the main reasons i was at the protest, along with showing solidarity with the local people who are the victims of the most disgusting underhand tactics by BAA.skeptik wrote: In the context of PO, I think the Heathrow protestors are absolutely right. Building more runways and terminals is going to be a massive waste of resources.
This forum is about PO and not CC. If it were called CO2switch then I wouldn't be on here since climate change doesn't interest me regardless of whether it may or may not affect me in the future. If us humans are going to burn all fuels available to us then the CO2 output will rise regardless of what is said on this forum so why bother discussing it, especially, as I've said above, when this is a forum about the peak of oil and gas supply. It seems to me that only TPTB can engineer a real difference by making the necessary changes to transport and power generation as described in Hansen's lecture. What I do will add little to help in the grand scheme of things and that goes for all of us unless we are forced to drive less or buy air powered cars which just isn't going to happen while the oil companies are in charge and Bush remains in power. I'm all for lobbying the government and giving BAA a good kicking which they rightfully deserve but unless the big corporations act then the comman man will not follow. Personally I think real results will only occur when the effects of PO are felt by us all and we'll be forced to reduce our carbon footprint whether we like it or not, although, ironically, TPTB, the managers of big business and the rich (who probably own those businesses) will be less affected.clv101 wrote:Don't understand your logic there, why should that fact affect whether we talk about climate change?Bozzio wrote:As I've said before, why discuss CC on this forum if we accept the remaining oil and gas will be burned anyway?
It's not black and white as you make out. Two aspects - making best use of a finite resource (which probably isn't flying around the UK/Europe on short haul flights) and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.Bozzio wrote:Seems to me that the goal posts are being constantly changed here. One minute we should listen to the Heathrow protestors. The next minute it's all irrelevant.
If we agree that there is a finite amount of gas, the production rates is limited and it's all going to be burnt then sure - turn the heating up and burn it however you like. It won't make any difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. However it will make a difference to your wallet, the national balance of payments and the allocation of gas (there's an equity issue).Bozzio wrote:I think I'll turn up my heating since its impact will be tiny compared with aviation fuel use which is apparently now irrelevant anyway. Besides, I'll be helping to bring on peak gas which in turn will aid the reduction in CO2 output.
Peak oil and climate change are two aspects of the same subject - very broadly sustainability but more specifically energy.Bozzio wrote:This forum is about PO and not CC.
Fair point although I still come back to your assertion that PO will bring with it peak CO2 and therefore CC is subordinate to PO.clv101 wrote:Peak oil and climate change are two aspects of the same subject - very broadly sustainability but more specifically energy.Bozzio wrote:This forum is about PO and not CC.
We all need to be more holistic in our thinking, consider as wider system as we can. Taking a blinkered approach is not helpful. We?ve seen what that does - the Hirsh report only considering peak oil, attempts to keep all the cars on the road by finding alternative liquid fuels from coal, from tar sands and the rest. That isn't the answer. On the other side we have the Stern report that didn't consider depletion at all so based all its economic modelling on there being cheap and abundant oil going forward.
To move the PO debate above a simplistic level it needs to be considered as just one aspect of a far larger and more complex system.
Although the earth's natural sinks - land vegetation and oceans can absorb a lot of this manmade CO2, nevertheless around half or roughly 3 gigatonnes (3 x 1012 kg remains un-sequestered. This excess carbon has been building up since at least the beginning of the Industrial Era meaning with each passing year the accumulated volume that needs to be dealt with becomes greater.Bozzio wrote:Yes, yes, I understand that. The question was more about why Man's 3% CO2 emmission is more significant than the other 97%?SaturnV wrote:There is a finite but tiny quantity of carbon on earth, and a very small proportion of this is constantly being cycled naturally. The rest is locked up, as fossil fuels and in the ocean deep and does not ordinarily enter the carbon cycle. But if we release it into the atmosphere, either as CO2 or methane, then the natural balance within the cycle is upset.Bozzio wrote: Hi Chris,
Could you explain why?
Amazing! "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind once again.skeptik wrote:Damn! Wish I was on the Environment conference circuit. They always have them in such interesting places. Next biennial global warming conference for 'interested parties' is December 3rd in Bali. Lovely.MacG wrote:I cant stop wondering about how much extra carbon dioxide will be emitted as a direct consequence of the Nobel peace prize? Lots and lots of people flying around and eating a fancy dinner to top it off. If the Norwegians really MEANT something with their award, they would have canceled the ceremonies and had some locally produced fish and chips for dinner.
Several thousand people mainly from Europe and North America fly half way round the world to Bali for 10 days to discuss CO2 induced global warming.
Sort of warms the cockles that all these environmental activists, bureacrats, politicians and scientists are so concerned about our future that they are willing to leave their families behind in London, Tokyo, Chigago, etc.. in December and congregate in...Bali. I just cant imagine why they didn't choose Birmingham. Less far to fly for most of the participants. I mean, whats wrong with Birmingham in December? They have a perfectly good international convention center, and you can get to it by train. As it is the participants will have a really long flight to put up with before they can change into their swimming trunks and bikinis. It's tough at the top.
http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-07-20/events.htm
Exploration, investigation and looking for alternatives. I?m doing a talk next month on global warming. The main point being we need to stop doing what we are doing. However, I need to investigate alternative explanations as well as changing what we are doing has no impact if global warming does not have a human cause. At the moment the two best bit of evidence that suggest non-human caused global warming lies with ancient ice ages occurring at a time of higher CO2 than now and Mars warming at the same time as the Earth. The first one isn?t so good as changes in CO2 levels do match ice ages, which suggest that CO2 does effect climate but may not be the only thing that effect climate.biffvernon wrote:
What, Isenhand, is your motivation for such posts?
Some people have argued that they do but from what I see your second point forms a good reason why that might not have significant to Earth. From what I?ve been reading, the arguments against any connection centre around different planets do things differently.biffvernon wrote:OK, but I don't think there's much point in looking at other planets. Firstly because they don't show warming. Secondly their atmospheric processes are just so utterly different to ours that they don't make good models for what happens here, whatever warming or cooling we might find on them.
