Louie
SaraJSome light saturday musings
February 17th 2007 02:34
Firstly, huge apologies to my readers. I had a last minute trip to Tasmania and unfortunately couldn’t update the site! There is good news though, Monday and Tuesday last week I attended the Sustainable Cities conference in Sydney and it has given me a lot of exciting insight and new ideas.
At the moment, I am trying to give you all a bit of background so I can start throwing some ideas around regarding emissions trading, and other proposed solutions to the climate crisis. As an aside, if you have not seen the Al Gore film – an inconvenient truth, or the website – climatecrisis.net, then I thoroughly recommend you check them out. The information presented is available in other places (I’m reading “the end of oil” at the moment – but its like reading a text book!). You can not underestimate the importance of presentation! It’s a great, easy way to receive the information in an exciting and digestible way.
Anyway, while in Hobart and having an evening meeting with geologists, state representatives and environmental scientists, I was kind of shocked to hear from the scientists that they didn’t really hold the IPCC fourth assessment as accurate science (this is in my previous blog as being the pre-eminent scientific basis – so I best back that claim up huh). Mainly, they did not believe that it established a link between the anthropogenic effects of emitting GHG's and the current increase in global temperatures. Maybe I am a little naïve, but when there have been over 2500 scientists involved in preparing or peer reviewing a report – I tend not to question it! When I opined this to the boys, they responded that when you think about, the colleagues you work closely with are generally ones with the same opinions as you, or people you respect or look up to (which generally comes from respecting their views), so its not hard to see how the consensus could be a little one sided. A fair point I guess.
However, the scary thing to me about the fourth assessment is the statistics on the increases in gas concentrations measured through Ice-core sampling - which is data:
not a hypothesis. The scariest one I think is Methane – a gas with 21 times the warming potential of Carbon. Since 1750 the concentration of Methane has increased from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1774ppb in 2005! That is such a large increase! Core samples show that in the previous 650,000 years the natural range was between 320 and 790ppm. My point you ask? Well, I guess it comes back to the precautionary principle. Although there are still scientists who are not necessarily convinced at the link between GHG’s and the current rate of change in the climate – without actually knowing the risks associated with increasing the concentrations of these gases in our atmosphere, shouldn’t we exercise some kind of caution and make sure they are regulated in some way?
I hope that gives you all something to think on for the weekend! I will be endeavoring to canvass the Kyoto Protocol next week, and explain the basics of emissions trading.
At the moment, I am trying to give you all a bit of background so I can start throwing some ideas around regarding emissions trading, and other proposed solutions to the climate crisis. As an aside, if you have not seen the Al Gore film – an inconvenient truth, or the website – climatecrisis.net, then I thoroughly recommend you check them out. The information presented is available in other places (I’m reading “the end of oil” at the moment – but its like reading a text book!). You can not underestimate the importance of presentation! It’s a great, easy way to receive the information in an exciting and digestible way.
Anyway, while in Hobart and having an evening meeting with geologists, state representatives and environmental scientists, I was kind of shocked to hear from the scientists that they didn’t really hold the IPCC fourth assessment as accurate science (this is in my previous blog as being the pre-eminent scientific basis – so I best back that claim up huh). Mainly, they did not believe that it established a link between the anthropogenic effects of emitting GHG's and the current increase in global temperatures. Maybe I am a little naïve, but when there have been over 2500 scientists involved in preparing or peer reviewing a report – I tend not to question it! When I opined this to the boys, they responded that when you think about, the colleagues you work closely with are generally ones with the same opinions as you, or people you respect or look up to (which generally comes from respecting their views), so its not hard to see how the consensus could be a little one sided. A fair point I guess.
However, the scary thing to me about the fourth assessment is the statistics on the increases in gas concentrations measured through Ice-core sampling - which is data:
not a hypothesis. The scariest one I think is Methane – a gas with 21 times the warming potential of Carbon. Since 1750 the concentration of Methane has increased from 715 parts per billion (ppb) to 1774ppb in 2005! That is such a large increase! Core samples show that in the previous 650,000 years the natural range was between 320 and 790ppm. My point you ask? Well, I guess it comes back to the precautionary principle. Although there are still scientists who are not necessarily convinced at the link between GHG’s and the current rate of change in the climate – without actually knowing the risks associated with increasing the concentrations of these gases in our atmosphere, shouldn’t we exercise some kind of caution and make sure they are regulated in some way?
I hope that gives you all something to think on for the weekend! I will be endeavoring to canvass the Kyoto Protocol next week, and explain the basics of emissions trading.
| 69 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Ecobel
Bel here in A'dam, studying for my env economics exam and freaking out a bit...sorry I haven't posted any CC musings to keep your musings company, my brain is completely full of economics- argh! And it is so painful, like watching a movie that you appreciate and understand the value of but really wouldn't have made that way yourself. Now ecological economics, that is more my style...
I was perplexed to read that scientists you spoke with don't hold the 4th IPCC report in high regard. I agree that 400 of the most esteemed scientists in the world coming to a consensus is pretty convincing. But then again scientists have two afflictions: an ego and thus they always think they are right. Pretty much the same as any professional I guess, only hard scientists think in fact and they HATE fuzz. Unfortunately human society is one big fuzz. So perhaps they need to stop quibbling with the majority and spend their time trying to work out how to get rid of the excess GHGs up there...
Oh dear I don't know if this made sense. Can I redeem myself by saying something sensible? No. Not today.
Although I love the idea that global warming has been caused largely by the contrails left by airplanes...and it makes sense chronologically- icebergs have been melting faster as people fly so much more...the theory is the contrails- not just the GHGs- hold the heat in, and if we stopped flying so much the temperature would drop back to normal. Apparently it was evident in the US after 9/11. I wish it was so easy- and I like sailing! I could get used to sailing around the world...
xxbel
Comment by Ecobel
In any case, their point is redundant. If we want an equitable world we need to shift to sustainable systems of production and consumption, which means no CO2 emitting fuels...
MUST STUDY
sorry!
Comment by Ecobel
My dam bike