Newtown

Climate Change Presentation

Are you a climate change sceptic?

U3A presentation 5^th January, 2011

Participants, in alphabetical order:

Jim Barnes, Mike Davies, Nick Platt, Alan Rugman, Paula Scott, Colin Small, Pat Small, Ralph Thomas, Neil Upton

Introduction – Nick

Today members of the Inventions and Discovery Group are going to enact a discussion group posing questions and giving responses in a formal manner on the subject of global warming. We hope this will address some of the questions that may be burning a hole in your consciences.

There are no absolute answers but most of what is said is supported by consensus in the field of climatology and related fields of science. What we will present is just a few snapshots of a very complex subject.

In the last 50 years, we have been bombarded with many scares such as Nuclear Armageddon, Ozone depletion, etc, all of which have evaporated or been engineered out so it’s no wonder that many people are sceptical about the latest worry, climate change.

But we hope to convince you that climate change is different! It could affect us all or more likely, at our age, have serious consequences for our grand children. It’s a 21^st century problem which needs some 21^st century solutions.

Would those who do not think that climate change is an issue for us and our children - please raise their hands?

Ralph - Gaia and Lovelock

The decision to go to the Hay literary festival in 2000 was an arbitrary one – depending on weather and inclination. I had not had a schedule and had no idea who would be discussing their work or book that day. Being rather late after a hurried drive to Hay, we went straight into the booking hall where, in a nearby marquee, James Lovelock was to be onstage in conversation with the Times science correspondent and discuss his autobiographical book, Homage to Gaia.

I was aware that in the late 1960s he was the person who developed the Gaia theory. Within half an hour I was privileged, with many others to be in the mesmeric presence of a gentle human being, elderly now, a person of great, wide-ranging scientific experience, an inventor and in my view a wise man of genius.

His theory, the Gaia theory, says that the organic and inorganic components of our planet, Earth, have evolved together as a single living, self-regulating entity.

It suggests that this living system has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, the salinity of the oceans and other factors that maintain its own habitability. In other words, life maintains conditions for its own survival.

In the late 1950s Lovelock became an independent scientist and set up his own laboratory at Bowerchalk. He worked for many companies, university departments and governmental agencies, often in America. Not least at the Jet Propulsion Laboratories in California where he was invited to operate as an experimenter working on the first lunar mission. Then later he was engaged by NASA in finding ways of analysing the surface of Mars and its atmosphere, if it had one. His researches at NASA led to profound new insights into life on earth. His Gaia theory earned an early supporter in Lynn Margulis, a microbiologist at the U of Massachusetts. The complemented each other, with her biologist’s knowledge putting flesh on the physical chemistry of Lovelock’s earth science.

With Margulis, Lovelock published his first paper on his Gaian philosophy. They collaborated for about 17 years during which time many of the mechanisms by which the earth self-regulates had been identified.

Lovelock’s research and his inventive nature has proved that the existence of greenhouse gases have led to a depletion in the ozone layer and to global warming - and to the knowledge that our plant earth – that has had a self regulating system for supporting life for nearly 4 billion years – is hugely under threat.

Am I a global warming sceptic?  I am afraid that I am not.

Does global warming really exist?

1.1 Question Alan

This winter has been very cold so far. Last winter was also cold. Does that mean there is no global warming?

1.2 Response Colin

Global warming refers to CLIMATE, not weather. Weather is short term, and as we all know has always been variable from year to year, week to week and day to day. Climate is a general average of weather over a long period. There is no doubt that it is getting steadily warmer, and has been ever since detailed records have been kept. Although we were cold in the UK last winter, globally it was one of the warmest on record.

It has been possible, using various scientific techniques, to discover what the climate has been in the distant past. This has shown that temperature was fairly steady until the start of the industrial revolution and then suddenly started to rise.

Is the climate warming?

2.1 Question Pat

Is the climate warming? If this were the case our summers and winter would surely be gradually becoming warmer. Instead of this it seems that our summers are cold and wet and the winters are colder than in previous years. What evidence is there that the climate really is warming?

2.2  

The evidence is there for anyone who wants to review it. The data show an increase in global temperature over the last 100 years of 0.6^oC. The three warmest years on record have all occurred since 1998; 19 of the warmest 20 since 1980.

Global temperatures are now monitored and checked and reviewed by a collection of national and international bodies.

3 Has it happened before?

3.1 There were well known freezes in the 17th century when the Thames froze over and Ice Fairs were held.    We have snow on our Christmas cards because that was the case in Dickens' time.    Crocodile skulls have been found in the Thames valley. Has it happened before?

3.2

YES.

Through most of earth’s history temperatures have been 8 to 15^oC warmer than today.

These were interrupted by glaciations starting at 925, 800, 680, 450, 330, and 2 million years before present.

Climate change in the deep past was mostly driven by levels of CO2.

Volcanic eruptions, common on the early earth, pumped large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, warming the earth through the greenhouse effect.

The continents floating around on the earth, continental drift, also affected climate by causing major periods of volcanic activity.

Eventually the CO₂ was slowly absorbed by the oceans, causing cooling again.

In the last 2 million years, there have been a series of ice ages with relatively large and rapid changes in climate. Cooler periods were 4 to 5^oC colder than today.

These were caused by changes:

in the Earth's orbit, (cycles of 100,000 years) in the Earth's tilt (cycles of 41,000 years) and wobble (whether the Northern hemisphere is pointed toward or away from the sun) (cycles of 19,000 to 23,000 years)

These changes affect the amount of sunlight received on the Earth's surface and drive the ice ages.

4: Why is it different this time?

4.1 Question Neil

We have had shock/horror stories before and nothing has become of them.   In the 1960's there was going to be no more oil left by 1980;  the Millennium bug was going to destroy all our bank accounts; the Ice Ages were going to come back;  our population was going to be decimated by AIDS, PMT, SARS (whatever that was!), mad cow disease and several strains of flu. Why is it different this time?

4.2 Response Paula

Although other temperature rises have occurred in the past, they have happened much more slowly, on a geological time scale. The only explanation for the current rise is the increase in greenhouse gases, which has been happening on a human scale. Since the last ice age, until the mid-18^th century, CO₂ has been fairly constant in the earth’s atmosphere. This equilibrium was upset by the industrial revolution, burning of fossil fuels and destruction of forests. CO₂ has risen by 25% since that time. Other greenhouse gases have also increased as a result of man’s activities.

CO₂ levels destabilised in 150 years

In the last 150 years this rise has been dramatic.

There is no reasonable natural explanation for the current anomalous rise in global temperatures.

5 Why blame human activity?

5.1 Question Nick

So you tell us that the climate has always been changing throughout earth’s history. Why blame human activity for this latest rise?

5.2 Response Alan

Carbon dioxide CO₂ not the only greenhouse gas: others mainly water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. But rising CO₂ is the problem. Levels in atmosphere much higher than historic range from ice core data, when little or no human activity. During 800,000 years before industrial revolution, CO₂ levels between 180 and 300ppm. By mid 19^th Century, about 280ppm, 1960 about 313 ppm, and in 2010 about 389 ppm. Increase of about 24% since 1960 and 39% since around 1850.

Fossil fuel burning Analysis of atmospheric CO₂ confirms fossil fuel burning main source of recent increase. About 66% of increase since 1750 from fossil fuels; remainder from land use change, mainly deforestation for agriculture. Deforestation releases CO₂ and subsequently reduces CO₂ absorption: a double whammy.

Main current world sources of greenhouse gases (Source: Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research)

Power stations                                                      21%

Industrial processes, especially cement                   17%

Transport                                                              14%

Agriculture                                                           12%

Fossil fuel retrieval, processing, distribution           11%

Deforestation/biomass burning                            

Residential & commercial heating,                       

         air conditioning etc                                     10%

IPCC 2007 Recent observed climate change not consistent with natural variability. Sea and atmosphere have warmed when natural factors would probably have caused cooling. Computer models of climate change since 1900, using data on human activity including carbon emissions, match observed changes.

Changes in Arctic sea ice, atmospheric pressure, Atlantic salinity, Antarctic temperature, new rainfall patterns, all consistent with human influence.

Royal Society 2010 Summarised the latest science on climate change. ‘There is strong evidence that changes in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity are the dominant cause of the global warming that has taken place over the last half century’.

6 Can we trust the data?

6.1 Question Ralph

We have heard media reports of all the scientific scandals surrounding the climate debate. Can we believe the scientists who tell us that humans are influencing climate change? Can we trust the data?

6.2 Response Mike

Yes! The overwhelming weight of evidence is clear and all leading scientists and bodies in the field confirm that global warming is a fact and is happening now.

You may have heard the media storm over the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. Emails from this prestigious scientific group were hacked & distributed widely on the web. Sections were taken out of context to support the views of the climate change sceptics who were distributing this correspondence.

Three inquiries were held into the conduct of the scientists involved. They found that:

there was no evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments

there was a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness

and that they were "unhelpful and defensive" when responding to legitimate requests made under freedom of information laws.

Two other reviews in the UK and USA came to similar conclusions that the science had not been compromised but public confidence in the data had been weakened.

Another scandal broke over estimates of the rate of loss of Himalayan glaciers. An IPCC report claimed that these would disappear by 2035. This estimate was apparently based on a speculative comment concerning one particular glacier and was not based on scientific study. The Himalayan glaciers are receding at an alarming rate due to climate change.

The main message is that mistakes have been made and in this field sceptics leap on them to support their message.

Let’s look at motives of climate sceptics:

• commercial interests, especially oil and power generation, with US and China in forefront;
• far right, who see policies to halt climate change as a left-wing conspiracy, or even as collusion among scientists to get research grants;
• economic neoliberals, who fear action on climate change means government intervention and more controls and taxes.
• And many people simply unwilling to make sacrifices now for sake of future generations, so justify their position by trying to deny climate science.

The fact is that the basic scientific findings are correct and indisputable.

7 What happens if we do nothing?

7.1 Question Neil

Can we wait for engineering solutions? Reflective stuff in the sky to cut down the sun's radiation.  Generation of electricity by nuclear fusion.  Some means of taking the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

Impossible you might say, but look at the things achieved by science and technology in the last 10 let alone 50 years, in our lifetimes.

What happens if we do nothing?

7.2 Response Colin

Climate zones will change, some getting hotter, some colder, some getting dryer some wetter, all more extreme.

1. It is a characteristic of humans (and other species), that if food and water supplies at home diminish, the whole population moves in search of better conditions.
2. Europe will probably be among the more desirable areas, but has not got the resources to feed and accommodate many more, so both the indigenous and immigrant populations will starve together. The present ability to feed people depends on the “Green Revolution” of the last half century (Which itself depends on oil and power)
3. People who see themselves short of resources ( food, land and freedom) will fight others for them. The others then have to fight or die.
4. The mass movement is already happening, hence immigration and terrorism.
5. The population of the northern countries is fairly static. That of the southern countries is increasing faster than ever before. The general population movement is northerly. Both sides now have some very nasty weapons, and some are prepared to use them.
6. Power is essential for our current way of life. Americans and some Europeans and others regard power hungry air conditioners as essential. This requires more electricity, coal, oil and nuclear, some of which increase the atmospheric CO2 even further and some have other unpleasant side effects.
7. The polar ice caps are already melting, and the higher temperatures cause the water to expand. Both raise sea levels, inundating islands and farm land, reducing the ability to grow food, and crowding more people into a smaller area
8. >Populations already exceed fresh water supplies in many places . Large amounts of money are spent on desalinating plants and entire river systems are decimated for irrigation of crops. (The Aral Sea has gone and China’s rivers are being decimated)
9. Ocean currents will probably reverse. If this happens to the Gulf Stream Britain will resemble the Yukon, with millions of deaths
10. Storms are already becoming more frequent and violent as the surface water increases in temperature, as demonstrated by recent hurricanes.
11. Much of this is still not 100% certain, but the probability is so high that we cannot afford to ignore it.

8 How does this affect me?

8.1 Question Pat

What will I notice in the future if the climate is changing?

Will I need to make any changes in my lifestyle and will there be things that will gradually become impossible to do.?

Will I notice any changes in the availability of foodstuffs?

How does it affect me?

8.2 Response Nick

Whether you believe climate change or not, it will seriously affect your life in the near future, especially if you are under 80.

Diseases and pests spread.Dengue fever, Japanese encephalitis, yellow fever and other diseases that were once under control are now resurgent. West Nile virus, Lyme disease and Rift Valley fever are expanding their range.

Crops yields crash. Rice yields are plummeting as a result of global warming at twice the rate predicted by climate modelers. They are already down by 10%.

Water. Climate change has already affected the flow of the world’s 200 largest rivers, causing some to flood and others to dry up.

Global warming will make warmer regions of the world uninhabitable. In high humidity even fit and healthy humans can not survive 35C for more than a few hours, even standing naked in front of a fan.This could happen in our children’s lifetime.

Sea level rise. As our population expands, our land is shrinking.The sea is currently rising more than 3 mm/yr. The latest assessments are that an eventual rise of 7 to 13 m is most likely, drowning our most densely populated areas.

9 What should we be doing about it?

9.1 Question Ralph

The climate is warming and it is warming with unprecedented speed as a result of human activity.What should we do about it?

9.2 Alan-precautionary principle

A widely accepted principle since Rio Earth Summit 1992:

‘When an activity threatens to harm human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically’.

Put another way, it means informed prudence. Precautionary steps should be taken in the face of probability and uncertainty. It is not sensible, indeed positively irrational, to do nothing about climate change now, given overwhelming scientific consensus, only to find in 20 or 30 years that the consensus was right. By then, almost certainly too late to prevent catastrophic change.

global warming not small rather unattractive it is big probability of a very bad outcome

9.3 Mike- Government action

All governments are having to accept that climate change exists and that they have a responsibility to respond to this situation. In general, the response has been the minimum that they think they can get away with. Responses from the UK government and Welsh Assembly include:

• Feed in tariffs for electricity produced by householders PV panels.
• Grants for improving energy efficiency in homes.
• Financial s pport for development/implementation of alternative energy.
• Grants towards Solar PV; Solar hot water; Wind turbines;Ground source heat pumps; Small scale hydro-electric; Wood stoves and boilers.
• Bus passes
• Limited time grant to scrap inefficient cars

‘Sticks’

• Higher taxes on fuel
• Taxes on air travel
• Control of traffic entering cities
• Attempts to reduce packaging by legislation
• Tax on energy inefficient appliances & vehicles
• Car sharing lanes on roads
• surcharge on traditional sources energy to encourage use of renewable

Other things they could/should be doing:

• Greatly improve public transport
• Immediately implement legislation on excessive packaging
• Improve recycling, eg reintroduce use of returnable/reusable glass bottles, further increase fees for land fill, combat food waste by supermarkets, etc

9.4 Alan- Global action

A world issue requires a world response. Drastic action needed, but individual governments won’t impose controls, raise taxes, and possibly restrict economic growth, unless certain that other governments will do the same. And governments always fear public reaction to drastic measures, with electoral consequences and loss of power. Australia is a recent example, and the US Congress cramped Obama’s position at Copenhagen summit.

Western governments want to protect economies, especially when being overtaken by Asia; they point to alarming increase in greenhouse emissions in emerging economies (‘BRICs’ – Brazil, Russia, India, China). In turn, BRICs rightly blame west (including UK and US) for causing most of current greenhouse gas levels (emissions since industrial revolution). Won’t sacrifice economies and higher living standards unless west makes at least equal sacrifice and helps fund carbon controls.

serious international dilemma as china main stumbling blocks and eu seems weak uk on own has limited influence

9.5 Nick- International conferences

The Earth Summit, Rio, 1992 established national greenhouse gas emissions, which was used to create the 1990 benchmark level. The Kyoto accord was supposed set mandatory limits but the US never signed it. Delegates fly around the world, meeting annually. These talking shops have so far not resulted in any substantial solutions or binding treaties and probably are not worth the extra CO₂ they generate by flying in from all over the world. The recent Cancun talks underscored this when the “agreement” they pulled out of the hat at the last moment was admitted to be a failure.

9.6 John -Renewable or sustainable energy

Conventional

It is known as the dirty fuel. Lots of waste (thousands of tons dust and ash which has to be disposed of. It is difficult to acquire and transport. When burnt it produces Sulphur dioxide which falls as acid rain destroying trees and plants and huge amounts of CO2. Legislation has been passed over the last few years to try and clean up coal making most of our power stations (and many throughout the world) obsolete. The cost of fitting this equipment makes most plants uneconomic.

Oil A good fuel but very expensive and in diminishing amounts. Also produces SO2(even more than coal)and CO2 (but less. It is unlikely that any new oil fired generating plant will ever be built.

Gas The current favourite.Most of our new generating plant is now gas fired.It is a clean fuel and reasonably easy to transport. Again diminishing supplies make this an increasingly precious commodity. Indeed it is so clean that we should whether we us it in power generation whish at best is only 65% efficient.

However to produce the amounts we need large flows are required. The most common form at present are dams built across large rivers which channel water through large turbines. There are many such installations throughout the world with construction continuing particularly in China. We do not have rivers large enough in this country for this. UK hydro power production is low. 

The other use of water is wave power, which is in development.

Wind The current favourite (among politicians anyway). Wind is notoriously unreliable and we should be very careful about use of wind power. The turbines can only be used within tight limits regarding wind speed and of course are useless in still conditions(in the early part of the year when it was very cold no wind turbines were running because no wind.) Large structures only generate between 1 and 3 MWs. They are so unreliable NGC keep 1 MW of conventional plant on standby for every 1MW wind turbine built. Off shore wind farms are much better.

Biomass Burning vegetable matter This is carbon neutral ie It does not add to the CO2 in the atmosphere because it would be released anyway by decay of the material. Huge quantities of material would be required to replace our existing conventional generating plant.

Solar panel. Produces electricity via photovoltaic effect. The amount produced by each is small so they have to be connected together in arrays, some covering several acres.

Mirrors. Focus the heat of the sun on to pipework carrying water to make steam which is sent to conventional turbines.

Neither of the above work at night so are not available 24 hrs a Day.

Thermal Ground Heat Pumps A few inches below the surface the temperature is very constant. An anti-freeze solution is pumped through a coil buried in the ground picking up heat. This is then passed goes into a heat exchanger to heat water.

If everybody used all or some of these technologies much of our energy issues would be solved.

Nuclear Fission. Most of our current nuclear power stations were designed in the 1960s using Nuclear Fission (which is splitting apart atoms . Fission reactor are clean regarding emissions in to the atmosphere (we think as it is very hard to get detailed information) and the uranium fuel is readily available.

There are still some safety issues and of course the problem of the long term storage of waste is not yet solved. The dismantling and removing these plants when life expired is still work ongoing.

Nuclear Fusion. This is probably the energy source for the future and differs from the current stations by forcing atoms together.  
Experimental work has been going on for about 50 years into this technology and scientists now think it’s time to try and build an industrial scale plant. It is an incredibly complicated scientific and engineering undertaking but it seems worth doing as it is much safer than the fission process producing far less radioactivity and virtually no waste.

9.7 Neil- Engineering solutions

Carbon Sequestration (aka carbon capture and storage) – Injecting excess carbon into geological formations underground. It takes a great deal of energy, is very expensive and has unknown consequences. But it is feasible and has been started in a small way.

Solar shading. Pumping sulphate particles into the atmosphere to reflect the sun’s rays. Also unknown consequences. It would increase acid rain, breakdown the protective ozone layer and we could NEVER stop pumping sulphur or the climate would warm instantly and catastrophically. Sunshades in space to do the same would cost trillions.

Ocean fertilizing. So far the oceans have mopped up about half the extra CO2 humans have generated but this cannot go on indefinitely. Some scientists believe that if we seed the ocean with iron, algae will grow in greater numbers and soak up more carbon. Critics say that new studies show the effect has been overestimated by 50 times and most of the algae encouraged by fertilizing the ocean are toxic.

9.8 Pat- Personal action

A. Reduce consumption of fuel in the home by:-

• Make sure that the house is insulated adequately and take advantage of grants for cavity wall insulation and loft insulation.
• Double glaze windows and draw curtains during hours of darkness to increase window insulation.
• Use draught strips on doors if necessary.
• Avoid open fires in which a large amount of heat is lost up the chimney. A wood or multi fuel burning stove is a possible replacement for an open fire.
• Where practical install solar panels and a heat store for excess hot water.
• Turn lights off when not required.
• Reduce the hours in which the central heating is on.
• Reduce the temperature of the central heating thermostat, wearing more clothes if necessary.
• Use showers instead of baths to reduce hot water consumption.
• Avoid washing several small loads in the washing machine.
• Dry washing outside or under cover instead of using a dryer.
• Boil only what water is required in kettles etc.
• Turn off standby lights on computers and televisions etc.
• Avoid the use of air conditioners.
• Avoid buying vegetables etc that have been imported by air.
• Consider the use of geothermal energy where practical.

B. Avoid waste.

• Buy only what food is required and compost vegetable waste.
• Avoid buying multipacks of food or special offers where some of the items are surplus to requirements.
• Give unwanted clothing etc to charity shops.

C. Recycling.

• Recycle waste paper, plastic, glass and metal and make sure that the instructions on recycling bags are followed to avoid rejection of items.
• Re-use polythene bags.
• Use shopping bags instead of accepting those offered in shops.
• Refuse extra packaging in shops.

D. Transport

• Avoid unnecessary car journeys by walking cycling or using public transport.
• Share car journeys where possible.
• Where practical have a carwith low fuel consumption
• Maintain car correctly so that fuel consumption is maximised.
• Reduce air travel.

E. Water.

• Collect water from the roof for car washing and garden watering.
• Avoid using garden sprinklers or, if these are necessary, reduce the time they are used.
• Avoid using bottled water. (Water from Fiji is exported to Britain)

F. Pets.

• Be aware that pets are a drain on global resources.
• Plant trees and avoid replacing garden hedges with fences.

Conclusions – Nick

The human race is merrily consuming everything in its sight in order to improve its quality of life.

But out there was a wee small voice saying, hang on, you can’t do this.James Lovelock, Lynn Margulis and others were saying look, the earth is not here just for our benefit. It has a life of its own with checks and balances that try to keep the land, sea and atmosphere in balance. Our pollution of the planet is putting the whole system out of balance. Traditional science refuted or ignored these ideas for decades. But now a new branch of science called earth system science has been spawned. Through their persistence, we now look at the world around us in a new light. Our profligacy must be restrained even if this means constraining the economic growth that due to its very nature, cannot accept that human activity is the cause of change. Would those that do not think that climate change is an issue for us and our children, raise their hands?