BBC Muddies the climate change debate waters

[Dos_Box]

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | What happened to global warming?

 

Well, if it means more snow in winter I shall be happy!

 

*A return to 'real' winters!

 

Oh, and here's a graph!

 

http://www.arrse.co.uk/uploads/forums/failedclimatemodelpredictions.jpeg

[localzuk]

Well done to the BBC for taking a small sample of data and trying to extrapolate it over a longer trend! I'll do the same by taking just the summer of 2007 spike and coming to the conclusion that we're all going to die!!!

 

Seriously though, the only way you can take climate change into account is over a long time. ie. over 100 years etc...

Edited October 13, 2009 by localzuk

[broc]

I think climate science is still in its infancy......

 

Meanwhile,

 

My personal view is that it has got to be good for the planet & everyone on it to cut down on pollution and manage the consumption of fossil fuels while looking for energy sources that are clean & sustainable.

 

The problem I continually wrestle with is; does it cost more (in energy & pollution) to switch to using 'green' products rather than continue to use older less 'green' products?

 

For example, my house is well insulated, with cavity wall insulation, about 30cm loft insulation, double glazing, but has a 30 year old central heating boiler, albeit with modern controls such as thermostatic radiator valves, zone valves etc. Would I (and the planet) have been better off if I had changed the boiler every 10 years (life expectancy of modern boiler)? We would be on our 4th boiler now.....

[localzuk]

One thing I forgot to say is this - the term 'global warming' has pretty much been abandoned recently, and the term 'climate change' used more appropriately.

 

Climate change is more appropriate as it covers what is actually happening. Namely the switch from a more gradual seasonal variation of temperature and weather patterns (and with it the rarity of extreme weather) to a more wild and extreme change like we seem to now have. Look at that graph - look at the variation in peaks and troughs. Look at it from a more 'personal' point of view. We seem to have gone straight from summer to winter (we have frost here today, in October). Think of the stronger storms, the increased flooding, the snow etc... These are not traditionally normal weather patterns for the UK.

 

All are climate change examples.

[mortstar]

I think climate science is still in its infancy......

 

Meanwhile,

 

My personal view is that it has got to be good for the planet & everyone on it to cut down on pollution and manage the consumption of fossil fuels while looking for energy sources that are clean & sustainable.

 

The problem I continually wrestle with is; does it cost more (in energy & pollution) to switch to using 'green' products rather than continue to use older less 'green' products?

 

For example, my house is well insulated, with cavity wall insulation, about 30cm loft insulation, double glazing, but has a 30 year old central heating boiler, albeit with modern controls such as thermostatic radiator valves, zone valves etc. Would I (and the planet) have been better off if I had changed the boiler every 10 years (life expectancy of modern boiler)? We would be on our 4th boiler now.....

 

Exactly...!

 

So many times, especially on internet forums, you see debates on Global Warming/Climate Change turn in to a troll-fest with those who evangelically believe in the affect or those who do not (much like any other debate on the internet - though this one is usually more vitriolic).

 

But surely the point is, which ever side of the debate you are on (personally I do believe that man is having a massive affect on the climate), that we should be taking great care with our finite resources and try and find better ways to live that are not so near-sighted as they are now.

[Martin]

Look at that graph - look at the variation in peaks and troughs.

 

...and yet barely an hour ago you called it "a small sample of data "!

 

Typical climate change alarmist methods - picking and choosing data to suit your arguement

 

mb

[localzuk]

...and yet barely an hour ago you called it "a small sample of data "!

 

Typical climate change alarmist methods - picking and choosing data to suit your arguement

 

mb

 

No, I was using it as a random example, not as proof of my statement... I don't have more data at hand, but have seen a much larger representation of the data for the last 60 years, and it is as I said. I'll see if I can find it at some point, if I remember.

 

My point was more down to using what we have experienced as an example instead.

[Theblacksheep]

Seriously though, the only way you can take climate change into account is over a long time. ie. over 100 years etc...

 

Yep, I love the way they ignore all the geological data that doesnt suit the fear of 'global warming', like temp spikes in the 12-1400s... or the 60s when the propaganda was about global cooling.

 

'Climate change' is more appropriate because its a 'catch all', even the natural cycles. People can easily argue 'global warming', who can argue with 'climate change'?

[sparkeh]

Wow interesting.

 

This kind of thing really reinforces my belief that we don't really know whats going on. The whole debate has become entrenched in politics with either side wheeling out 'evidence' to support their claims and I am yet to be convinced by either side.

[Martin]

My point was more down to using what we have experienced as an example instead.

 

Professor Bob Carter uses empirical data (not bogus "models") and somewhat larger timescales (be sure to watch all four parts)...

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI]YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4[/ame]

 

mb

[Dos_Box]

An intersting point that I've seen elsewhere is that whilst we don't have the long term data to really know what is going on, a project has use dthe logs from ships going back 300 years, as most ships had quite accurate thermometers and weather observations and were logged with great accuracy and apparently (I'll have to find the link) there has been no discernable change in that time. I admit though that we do have to find cleaner fuels and alternative power generation methods as we simply cannot go on using limited resources, but I am still a bit sceptical about some elements of climate change. One large volcanic eruption can do far more damage than the human race can, and this happens quite often for example.

[Guest Guest]

I admit though that we do have to find cleaner fuels and alternative power generation methods as we simply cannot go on using limited resources, but I am still a bit sceptical about some elements of climate change. One large volcanic eruption can do far more damage than the human race can, and this happens quite often for example.

 

I must say my thinking is along the same lines. So we've got 60 years of data and atleast 10 of those is in a downwards trend. Not particulaly persusive evidence to me tbh, as lets be right about it 60 years is nothing.

 

 

Regardless it always comes back to the same thing for me; when it comes down to it no-one really wants to be green, and none of these "green initiatives" are actually green.

 

Who wants wind turbines or nuclear power stations in their back garden?

 

If we all turned to electric or hybrid cars where exactly does the electricity come from; Coal and gas power stations, yep very green. And as we all know these "green" cars are massively costly to make (in green terms). And my personal fav; "Everyone get a brand new car every 10 years" coz thats really green.

 

If everyone recycled properly, as in washing out all your bottles and cans before putting them in the bin, how much exactly is it going to cost in water, both heating of and cleaning etc?

 

The most recylced thing in the world, the carrier bag, is now made so thin that it can only be used once, and when carrying bottles you have to double bag it now. Yep, very green again.

 

 

Now im not against being green, i just see all of these schemes as substanceless propergander designed to make the masses feel like they are saving the world when infact all they are doing is making it easy for the government to tax us more.

[localzuk]

Who wants wind turbines or nuclear power stations in their back garden?

 

I do. I want wind turbines.

 

If we all turned to electric or hybrid cars where exactly does the electricity come from; Coal and gas power stations, yep very green. And as we all know these "green" cars are massively costly to make (in green terms). And my personal fav; "Everyone get a brand new car every 10 years" coz thats really green.

 

Electrical energy production is a lot more efficient than local car engines. Most engines manage between 18 and 20% efficiency, with an average steel engine being limited at around 37% efficiency. The average coal power plant manages roughly double that. Not to mention the extra inefficiencies of haulling oil and petrol all around the country to little petrol stations.

 

If everyone recycled properly, as in washing out all your bottles and cans before putting them in the bin, how much exactly is it going to cost in water, both heating of and cleaning etc?

 

Items do not need washing before recycling - this is down to fussy collectors disliking it. Recycling bottles involves melting them - with fire... You think the fire will complain about residue? No.

 

The most recylced thing in the world, the carrier bag, is now made so thin that it can only be used once, and when carrying bottles you have to double bag it now. Yep, very green again.

 

Stop using plastic carrier bags then. Get some of those fairtrade cotton ones which will last years.

 

Now im not against being green, i just see all of these schemes as substanceless propergander designed to make the masses feel like they are saving the world when infact all they are doing is making it easy for the government to tax us more.

 

No, it is pretty obvious you are quite anti-green. You just don't realise it. You see any form of inteference in the way you live your life as the government threatening you. You safely ignored all the positives of the above schemes.

[Guest Guest]

I do. I want wind turbines.

 

And you are in a tiny minority and you know it.

 

 

Electrical energy production is a lot more efficient than local car engines. Most engines manage between 18 and 20% efficiency, with an average steel engine being limited at around 37% efficiency. The average coal power plant manages roughly double that. Not to mention the extra inefficiencies of haulling oil and petrol all around the country to little petrol stations.

 

You conveiniantly forgot about the inefficiencies of transporting electricity.

 

Items do not need washing before recycling - this is down to fussy collectors disliking it. Recycling bottles involves melting them - with fire... You think the fire will complain about residue? No.

 

Who likes it isnt the point, it is supposed to be done as part of the process, but again you know that too.

 

Stop using plastic carrier bags then. Get some of those fairtrade cotton ones which will last years.

 

We do have some thanks but i dont always carry them round in my pocket, and i use carrier bags for rubbish too.

 

No, it is pretty obvious you are quite anti-green. You just don't realise it. You see any form of inteference in the way you live your life as the government threatening you. You safely ignored all the positives of the above schemes.

 

And its pretty obvious you are incapible of having a reasoned debate when it comes to green issues.

[localzuk]

And you are in a tiny minority and you know it.

 

I don't know it, it has not been put to a vote...

 

You conveiniantly forgot about the inefficiencies of transporting electricity.

 

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf

 

So, power stations are still a lot more efficient.

 

Who likes it isnt the point, it is supposed to be done as part of the process, but again you know that too.

 

No, it is not 'supposed' to be done! That was my point. Recycling glass involves melting glass, which burns off stuff still on bottles etc... Same with metals. The only one which needs clean input materials is paper. The cleaning part is simply down to fussy collectors and bureaucrats.

 

We do have some thanks but i dont always carry them round in my pocket, and i use carrier bags for rubbish too.

 

You not carrying them around in your pocket is only 1 person's fault... I would recommend buying recycled bin bags for bin bags instead of carrier bags... Biodegradable ones at that.

 

And its pretty obvious you are incapible of having a reasoned debate when it comes to green issues.

 

No, you came into the debate claiming a lot of spurious things. Most of them simply wrong. I corrected you on them (with actual figures, you can double check them if you wish) and now you have claimed I can't debate.

[Guest Guest]

I don't know it, it has not been put to a vote...

 

 

 

Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf

 

So, power stations are still a lot more efficient.

 

 

 

No, it is not 'supposed' to be done! That was my point. Recycling glass involves melting glass, which burns off stuff still on bottles etc... Same with metals. The only one which needs clean input materials is paper. The cleaning part is simply down to fussy collectors and bureaucrats.

 

 

 

You not carrying them around in your pocket is only 1 person's fault... I would recommend buying recycled bin bags for bin bags instead of carrier bags... Biodegradable ones at that.

 

 

 

No, you came into the debate claiming a lot of spurious things. Most of them simply wrong. I corrected you on them (with actual figures, you can double check them if you wish) and now you have claimed I can't debate.

 

Im sorry but you are just being plain silly now.

[witch]

I do. I want wind turbines.

 

Me too

 

Electrical energy production is a lot more efficient than local car engines. Most engines manage between 18 and 20% efficiency, with an average steel engine being limited at around 37% efficiency. The average coal power plant manages roughly double that. Not to mention the extra inefficiencies of haulling oil and petrol all around the country to little petrol stations.

He does have a point about delivering it though,

 

 

 

Items do not need washing before recycling - this is down to fussy collectors disliking it. Recycling bottles involves melting them - with fire... You think the fire will complain about residue? No.

 

This is true and so we need to re-educate the recyclers

 

 

 

Stop using plastic carrier bags then. Get some of those fairtrade cotton ones which will last years.

 

Absolutely right - these do last a long time and you should carry a couple around at all times - I know it is easier for women - mine's in my handbag - but I also have one or two in the car, and one at work so I can use them if I need to go shopping

 

 

 

No, it is pretty obvious you are quite anti-green. You just don't realise it. You see any form of inteference in the way you live your life as the government threatening you. You safely ignored all the positives of the above schemes.

 

I think that is a bit harsh - he does have some points but also comes over a bit negatively as well.

I am concerned about climate change, but more concerned about using up resources, and more importantly, polluting the planet with waste material of whatever sort

 

PLEASE can we have a debate rather than a childish argument with insults flying from all sides!!!

PLEASE read the posts properly and consider the points - no one is 100% right or wrong, and we could have a proper discussion if everyone conceded some points here and there!

Edited October 13, 2009 by witch

[localzuk]

Im sorry but you are just being plain silly now.

 

I show you that current power infrastructure comes in at around 30% efficiency (being pessimistic), compared to combustion engines being 18% or less (as I don't have the efficiency figures for haulling fuel all over the place), yet you call me silly?

Edited October 13, 2009 by localzuk
removing silly bit

[Guest Guest]

Congratulations on such a well thought out response to more facts and figures. I show you that current power infrastructure comes in at around 30% efficiency (being pessimistic), compared to combustion engines being 18% or less (as I don't have the efficiency figures for haulling fuel all over the place), yet you call me silly?

 

No i call you silly because you are picking and choosing which parts of my post to read, and also claiming that you are only replying with facts, which apart from 1 point in 1 post, is simply not tha case.

 

I don't know it, it has not been put to a vote...

 

See, silly.

[localzuk]

No i call you silly because you are picking and choosing which parts of my post to read, and also claiming that you are only replying with facts, which apart from 1 point in 1 post, is simply not tha case.

 

I replied to every point you made did I not? Please show me any points I missed.

 

See, silly.

 

I'm not going to fall for such trolling, but I will say that that is how things are done in a democracy - voting.

[witch]

Oh for goodness sake!

Why is it any sillier than saying 'you are in a minority, and you know it'

a) you have no data on this

b) why does being in a minority (if he is) make it apparently worth sneering at?

[localzuk]

Be careful when measuring efficiencies vs carbon emissions. Two different power sources may have the same efficiency, but may have different amounts of CO2 emissions.

 

The only fair way to compare petrol vs electric is to compare the CO2 emissions per mile of comparable transports, and this must go back to the generation of the electricity (power stations & fuel burnt, available power after transmission losses), and in the case of the petrol car the CO2 cost of all the exploration, extraction/drilling, refining, transportation, distribution, and the trip to the petrol station.

 

A huge flaw in many arguements is to compare engine efficiency (e.g. Diesel=45%) against the generation losses incurred with charging an electric car. The assumption in many of these comparisons is to compare an already fuelled car vs the losses in generating electricity. I'm thinking Top Gear here, and while it is an entertaining programme, its 'science bits' really do leave a lot to be desired. Clarkson always asks 'where does the electricity come from?', but never asks 'where does the petrol come from?'

 

Personally, I'm on the fence. I cycle whenever I can, but I drive if I need to. I try my best (e.g my car is a 13 year old diesel which I've had for over 10 years and I cycle to work every day) but dig a little and you'll find some contradictions in me.

 

The mind boggles when it comes to how many variables there are in the climate.

If your mind needs additional boggling, look up 'global dimming' and the hypothesis that reduced air travel may make matters worse!

 

Indeed there are issues to look at when comparing efficiencies. But as yet, all the evidence shows that electric cars are more efficient than petrol. For example, this page does some interesting calculations converting power generation co2 emissions to lbs per mile Electric Car Mileage for Chevy Volt from Equivalent Carbon Dioxide Pollution It varies wildly depending on the company producing it, but that's to be expected as some areas have more older power stations than new etc...

 

My view is what is the potential cost of us not doing something which could save us, compared to doing it. It always comes out as more effective to do something for me.

[Martin]

I show you that current power infrastructure comes in at around 30% efficiency (being pessimistic), compared to combustion engines being 18% or less (as I don't have the efficiency figures for haulling fuel all over the place), yet you call me silly?

 

You need to be careful about assuming that the 82% is simply "wasted". In winter the heat generated from an internal combustion engine can be directly used to warm the car. In an electric car, heating has a serious impact on battery life!!

 

Also, one the drawbacks of "grid electricity" is that it cannot (easily) be stored, so you have to have sufficient capacity for the worse case scenario - 20 million people all plugging in their cars overnight is going to draw an awful lot of power. This lack of storage also makes wind power a poor option - you can't just "turn on a gale"!

 

mb

[localzuk]

You need to be careful about assuming that the 82% is simply "wasted". In winter the heat generated from an internal combustion engine can be directly used to warm the car. In an electric car, heating has a serious impact on battery life!!

 

Also, one the drawbacks of "grid electricity" is that it cannot (easily) be stored, so you have to have sufficient capacity for the worse case scenario - 20 million people all plugging in their cars overnight is going to draw an awful lot of power. This lack of storage also makes wind power a poor option - you can't just "turn on a gale"!

 

mb

 

One of the methods now being trialled for large scale storage is through 'thermic energy storage' via molten salt. This is being used successfully now in Spain (which, obviously, has a lot of sun so it is very efficient for them to use solar for it).

 

Other methods involve water movement (ie. 2 reservoirs, energy from solar etc... power pumps which move water up hill, and then when energy is needed, it is recaptured from hydroelectric turbines), flywheel energy storage.

 

True, all these ideas are not that great, but this is improving now that more effort is being put into it.

 

Also, regarding the waste - this is a good point, but I don't think it really negates the efficiency comparisons. If one is more efficient than the other, that means it would also be more efficient at producing the heat for heating in winter. I'd have thought more insulated cars would be better for this though. We insulate houses, why not cars?

[alan-d]

I got bored with this thread very early on as I think the whole issue of climate change and impending doom is just a load of codswallop!

 

As already stated - a large volcanic eruption or stray asteroid could change the worlds climate in a matter of hours.

 

The bottom line is that there are too many scaremongers all trying to make a name for themselves, each trying to produce evidence to outdo the other, and of course they are always right.

 

Reality Check - The human race may well cease to exist due to polution, naturally occuring or otherwise, but the planet will recover and live on as it has done for millions of years!