I'm a global warming hypocrite
I know that anthropogenic contributions to the levels of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere are almost certainly the majority factor in the warming we have seen since pre-industrial times. I know that the rate of warming is faster than any event ever seen in history. I know that the extremes of weather we've seen recently are likely due to an increase in the energy in the climate system causing swings in the equilibrium as it adjusts to a new level. I know all this.

And yet...
1) I still get a carrier bag every time I go to the supermarket
2) I drive stupidly short distances simply because I'm lazy
3) I happily eat meat even though it takes a lot of energy to produce
4) I rarely willingly recycle
5) I keep my computer on at work because I can't be arsed to switch it on and off
6) I fly places when I could easily take the train because it'll save me 35 minutes

So basically yeah - I'm a complete hypocrite and I love it. Oh, and if you believe global warming isn't happening, you have been terribly, TERRIBLY misinformed by someone who doesn't know what they are talking about. It's whether you CARE that is the crucial thing here ;-)
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:09, 68 replies)

Carrier bags
I reckon we should use more. They take a long time to break down, and are therefore effective carbon sinks.

Just a thought.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:23, closed)

Hmmmmmm
I reckon you're trolling for an argument here.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:26, closed)

Naaah.
Can't be arsed.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:46, closed)

Yeah! And we could bury them
in predetermined locations around the country. Hey, we could even contain our waste products inside them, allowing the waste to by digested by the various bugs and vermin that would surely grow on such a goldmine of useful chemicals. They'd even give off gasses while decomposing that we could burn for power!

Oh, wait. That's what a Landfill is, and they're unfashionable.

Anyone know how much power could be derived from a properly managed landfill powered generator?
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:28, closed)

Have you any idea
how crap the amount of gas you get off a landfill is, or how difficult it is to harvest said gas?

It would be much better to incinerate the lot. The carbon dioxide emissions from combustion are much less harmful than allowing a landfill to produce methane which you then try and catch some of.

Plus, landfills cause problems with groundwater and can pose a risk to nearby houses form migration of explosive gases.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:31, closed)

Never mind "power"
(assuming you mean electricity) - I read a report the other day estimating that if we captured and purified all of the landfill gas, and piped it into the national gas grid, it would cover about half of UK gas demand (and cost about £10 billion, which strikes me as a bargain for a massive step towards energy independence).
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:32, closed)

But it's not possible.
You are talking about extracting gas from a massive pile of shit.

Every time you put in a standpipe to suck out the gas it gets clogged with the shit and fills up with highly toxic water produced when the materials are broken down by anaerobic bugs.

Plus a lot of the gas escapes out of the top and the sides.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:36, closed)

Meh, I'm not an expert on this
so go get it straight from the source: www.nationalgrid.com/NR/rdonlyres/9122AEBA-5E50-43CA-81E5-8FD98C2CA4EC/31630/renewablegasWPfinal.pdf

Given that these are the people that already run the grid, I'd hope that they know what they're on about. Which is a dangerous assumption to make, I know...
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:41, closed)

That actually refers to using bio digesters
for stuff like sewage and compost. Very good idea actually. But nothing to do with catching gas from landfills.

You can catch some gas, and a lot of landfills do, but it doesn't generate much power, it usually runs the landfill site huts and a small amount gets returned to the grid. Plus the point of landfill is stabilising the waste, which means you want it to stop making gas as quickly as possible.

Incineration is a much better idea.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:03, closed)

There's a very small landfill near where I live, out in the woods. There's a generator hooked up to it. No idea how much it's producing, but even a little out of a fill so tiny (seriously, about a football field or so)suggests you'd get some serious power out of a big one.
(Musuko, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:51, closed)

Anthropogenic global warming
is happenning but it's pretty minimal. Actual climate change is because... well, it's a bloody huge system we're a part of.

Yes, we're warming up faster than any other point in history, but that's only because recorded history started a thousand or two years ago- which is bugger all time in geological terms.
Check out the graphs of global temperature from a longer period of time, say a million years (as inferred from ice records or what have you) and you can see there's a pretty cyclical nature to nature.
Over the 65 million years since the dinosaurs died out- a fraction of the time the Earth has existed- the temperature's been up and down more than Paris Hilton's backside.

It's simply egotistical folly to suggest that man could have such a huge effect in such a short time by changing one tiny property by a tiny proportion. We have an effect- fair enough. But the natural cycles of thermal bust-and-boom have to be taken into account before we start beating ourselves up about this environment thing.

Equally, we should increase our use of recycling tech so that we don't run out of materials before it's too late to get us all off this planet.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:25, closed)

It's very niave
to suggest that we are too small to make a difference to the planet. We can, and we have. Also recorded history did not start two thousand years ago. The data for global carbon dioxide temperatures, as you point out, comes form ice core data.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:29, closed)

"Global Carbon Dioxide Temperatures"?
Please tell me you missed the words "levels / " from the middle of that...

And I didn't say we're too small to make a difference to the planet. I said we're not making that much of a difference compared with the massive differences that Nature itself makes.

A quick Google shows us: math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/1.35Myr.small.jpg. Which shows a huge number of heating and cooling cycles. Beware of the scaling...
Disclaimer: I don't know how accurate it is, but it's from a .edu so I'd guess it's probably been at least a little bit researched.

And that graph says we're doing about right.

Also, remember that people keep calling a hundred years "long term effects". That's actually within living memory (well, within one lifespan). Even if something takes a thousand years to sort itself out that's still only HALF the time since Jesus is reputed to have been born- or about 12x the time since the 1st world war ended. Hell, it's only 20x the age of the Mini!

Anyway, the oh-so-evil oil (boo! hiss!) and other hydrocarbons (gasp!) will all be burnt or uneconomical to extract long before it does any incredibly serious damage.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:03, closed)

@uberdeity
very well put

I don't mind people going on about it in the news, it's the focus on CO2 that really pisses me off.

I've seen or heard of no evidence that even comes within spitting distance of proving that CO2 has anything to do with it. The most persuasive bit I saw suggested that an increase in CO2 was caused by increasing temperatures!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:31, closed)

If you are talking about that Channel 4 show
on a while ago, it was somewhat discredited by the fact that it was made by a bunch of climate change deniers in the pocket of the oil industry.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:32, closed)

it wasn't from that
great global warming swindle wasn't it?

that's not where I heard it. Embarrasingly I can't remember where it was though....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:35, closed)

You're an expert on climate then?
"I've seen or heard of no evidence that even comes within spitting distance of proving that CO2 has anything to do with it."

Oh? You've reviewed ALL the evidence then? All data ever published in any academic journal on climate research? No? You have a degree in climate science, though, right? No? Then maybe you should shut up and listen to the people who know what they're talking about*...

* which does NOT include most environmentalists - but at least the sane fringes of the environmental movement are doing just that - listening to the experts.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:37, closed)

I do read about it
I work in coastal and river engineering and climate change plays quite a part in a lot of stuff I do.

I work closely with environmental scientists and frequently read their journals.

For something that such a big fuss is made of, you would think that if someone did have some evidence they would shout it from the rooftops.

Also, a lot of predictions are based on climate models. I work with/on much simpler models on a daily basis, and there is fuck all data to calibrate and verify those, so the assumption that someone can build a global climate model that is for most purposes unverified and uncalibrated as well as making huge assumptions and not containing a large proportion of the variables involved and get meaningful and believable results from it, is laughable.

also, fuck you

also also, what does having a degree in it matter? I know a shitload more about some things that I don't have a degree in than I do about the ones I do.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:49, closed)

Not to get into a mud slinging contest
There are very large numbers of scientists doing lots of research and the majority of them have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming up due to man made effects. However, they get shouted down by a small number of more vocal scientists, a lot of whom (and i'm not saying they all do, but it's still a lot) are funded by oil companies, who have a vested interest in this not being believed by people.

Throw into the mix the fact that politicians look to capitalise on the general ignorance on the subject, and you get a confusing state.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:57, closed)

my original point
was that regardless of whether or not anthropogenic climate change is happening there is an overt focus on one particular sub-issue of a bigger picture.

We should be concentrating on making good use of our resources, alternative methods of energy generation, not being twats etc. for their own sake rather than because of a media-generated terror* of releasing CO2.

I said I haven't seen or heard any evidence of it and I think that if I and the rest of the public are to have it rammed down our throats the way it is, that the people who do have this persuasive evidence might go about releasing it in a way that reaches more than their peers.

*this may be an exaggeration

edit: a sub-point: isn't the antarctic continent cooling down?

further edit: to put what I am trying to say more clearly: over-emphasising the CO2 element is like saying "Hitler must be stopped because he kicked my cat" rather than because of the war and jew-gassing.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:01, closed)

I hate the constant use of the term "carbon"
as a lazy catch all. The way the evidence is distributed isn't down to the scientist who do teh research, it's down to the media, a media which doesn't understand the science and frequently reports things wrongly, as well as media which may well have an interest in discrediting certain fields.

It's naive to expect such a complex issue to be boiled down to a few soundbites. If you really want to have a totally informed opinion it will take a lot of legwork.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:08, closed)

kind of along the lines of my point I think
it is naive to expect the issue to be boiled down you are correct.

what I said however, was that it pissed me off, and then I vented somewhat.

then I got accused of knowing nothing about it. I suspect that the accuser is an exeter uni student however, which means they were almost certainly rejected from Oxford or Cambridge, come from Guildford, wear a "popped" collar and are called Rupert.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:11, closed)

Oh sorry
I didn't notice his comment there.

I just jumped straight into the middle of your post.

Ignore him. Sounds like a tit.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:12, closed)

that's ok
I've discussed this stuff with you before I think, and you do have some interesting stuff to say.

But I don't appreciate some tosser telling me to shut up because I don't know anything about a subject based on a (flawed) assumption.

as we know, assumption is the brother of all fuck-ups
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:18, closed)

You're slightly right.
I am an Exeter Uni student, though I'm not called Rupert, not from Guildford, don't wear collars, and never applied to Oxbridge. But fuck you for that, anyway.

And the point of the accusation of "knowing nothing about it" is that you made a blanket statement of "no evidence". There blatantly is, you may disagree with the interpretation, but there's LOADS of evidence, starting from basic physics suggesting a mechanism for an effect, to various graphs strongly suggesting a link. The details get complicated and I'll grant you a lot of the graphs that get rolled out on a popular science level of understanding are somewhat debatable or could be interpreted either way, but to say there's "NO evidence" does sound stunningly ignorant.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:31, closed)

do you at least agree that the majority of exeter uni students are as I described?
you will find that I said I have seen or heard of no evidence that comes close to proving the CO2 link.

there is a big difference between that and saying there is no evidence.

That comes down to interpretation of what I wrote though, so I'm willing to forgive it.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:37, closed)

Hah, I try to avoid the popped-collar Ruperts.
OK, I'll grant your point was a bit more subtle. I still think we should leave the judgment of how good the evidence is to those who really know their stuff. In the same way that I'm quite happy leaving health (beyond a superficial eat-your-greens approach) to my doctor, and the car to my mechanic, and the boiler to my CORGI registered gas installer. While I focus on understanding in-depth my own research, and maybe a few things I have a private interest in.

The questioning-of-experts aspect is something that annoys (but also interests) me more than it should - the way I see it, it's quite similar to what, say, the creationists are doing. Preferably with added "the scientists lie to keep their funding" conspiracy theory...
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:59, closed)

you do have a point about leaving it to the experts
but I don't get the news or people in the street, or even some of my mates, telling me that there is something wrong with my car or my boiler!

if CO2 left me alone, then I'd leave it alone too!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:06, closed)

Indeed.
Blaming climate scientists for the lack of good climate change reporting (or even calling climate change into doubt because of the shoddy reporting) strikes me as a bit backwards. Are we blaming doctors for the lack of good health reporting? Physicists for all the "Oh Noes! LHC is going to destroy the world!" bollocks? True, most of these groups probably should be trying harder, but *some* of them certainly are - Ben Goldacre in the case of medicine, Brian Cox for physics, and e.g. James Hansen and Stefan Rahmstorf for climate change. All legitimate experts in their fields that are doing a lot of public media work.

By the way Vipros, I sort of agree (or at least sympathize) with your point about CO2 being over-emphasized, at least as far as energy and transport policy goes. There are plenty of reasons to burn less coal and oil, climate change being only one of them (albeit quite an important one).
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:26, closed)

I totally agree with what you are saying here
and the media are responsible for the reporting of this stuff, and let's face it, we know they aren't that bright.

look at the people you were at school with who did media studies....

you have arrived at my original point, in at least semi-agreement, so the slandering can cease!

Intelligent debate, ACTIVATE!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:44, closed)

I think we can leave it at that.
Pub time!
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:03, closed)

yeah, bit late for debate...
I've got band practice to get to....
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:06, closed)

I don't want to get too tangled up in this, but here goes
I agree the degree thing was a bit silly, but my point (as not-a-climate-scientist) is that it annoys the hell out of me when people go round shouting "no evidence, no evidence" and basically rubbishing the work of genuine climate scientists, who are working their arses off trying to get to the bottom of this.

A lot of the detailed predictions are based on models, which are of course problematic, but the basic physics of why CO2 affects the climate is simple enough. And you can calibrate the models - e.g. by taking the (known to pretty good precision) parameters of the atmosphere in, say, 1950, and running the model to "predict" what should be happening now. Which you can argue the models have been tweaked to do, so it doesn't prove much. More impressively, I saw a comparison between temperatures predicted by a model they ran in 1980, compared to what's actually happened since 1980. It fits surprisingly well.
Of course, as I saw it summed up elsewhere, if you don't think human-produced CO2 causes global warming, you need to explain two things: why the climate *is* warming up at the moment, and why the CO2 we're emitting isn't doing it, when basic physics says it should.

And... er, the evidence is kinda shouted from the rooftops. Most of the reporting in the popular media is appalling, as it is for pretty much all science, but that doesn't prove anything.

So, have you told your environmental scientist colleagues to their face, that you think they're wrong about the results of their work?
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:19, closed)

too trusting?
Of course these scientists have no vested in interest in proving the hypothis right (continued funding) or no chance in getting it wrong (ice age predicted in the 70s).
(imp123, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:37, closed)

Just a quick one
the vested interest will apply either way - by that argument, the (oil/coal/car/cattle/pick your preferred evil empire) industry will probably happily give you research grants if your research points the other way. And seriously, even in the mainstream, if you have solid evidence going against the accepted view, it will be noticed and become accepted eventually. And you'll probably be famous for it.

And the 'ice age predicted in the 70s' thing is a bit of a canard, there was never any sort of broad-based agreement on that as there is now on climate change, not to mention that the science has become a lot more mature since then.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:46, closed)

you mention the physics of it
CO2 is a tiny proportion of the earth's atmosphere around 0.04% if what I have read is to be believed.

My knowledge of physics inclines me to think that it can't have that much of an effect.

and yes I have told my environmental scientist colleagues what I think.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:41, closed)

As I saw in a different forum...
... if you think .04% can't have much of an effect, try injecting yourself with a tiny drop of 0.04% solution of Oxyuranus microlepidotus venom (er, whatever that is, apparently it's not very good for you). It's not a very useful analogy really, but the point is that tiny numbers can matter. Perhaps closer to the topic, atmospheric concentrations of CFCs were probably never even close to that, but ask the Australians how their ozone layer is doing...

As Ben Goldacre likes to say, I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that.

So how did your colleagues respond? Not saying this to prod you further, I'm genuinely curious.
(julius, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:51, closed)

a fair point about the tiny amounts and the ozone layer comment is well made!
that is based on chemistry though, rather than physics ;-)

as for what my colleagues say, it's kind of half split between them giving me looks of horror, as if I had sprouted scaly wings and horns, and ambivalence.

I need to reiterate though that I don't disagree that climate change is happening. My quandry is with the magnitude of the effect that humans are having on it.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:56, closed)

Okay, for physics rather than chemistry,
Ozone itself is at a concentration of about 2-8 parts per million (ppm) in the ozone layer. CO2 is about 380ppm in the troposphere. That small amount of ozone blocks almost all the UV energy from the sun. Trace gases, including CO2, have an effect. Fact.
(Stu Moo winner of five nobble piece prizes, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:51, closed)

That's not an appropriate comparison
The venom actively attacks bits of the human body. Continuing with the "ALL CARBON IS EVIL" thing, you'd be talking about Carbon Monoxide. CO2 is relatively benign.

I think bodyfat would be a more appropriate comparison; it's non-toxic- even beneficial- in a certain level.

Increase your bodyfat by whatever proportion we're increasing CO2 in the atmosphere and it's not that impressive a growth. It'll eventually affect your other bodily systems, causing catastrophic screwups. Limiting it is probably a pretty good idea, but only to the point where that limiting isn't having serious repercussions on your financial and mental state.
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:05, closed)

^^
"You have a degree in climate science, though, right? No?"

I don't have a degree in medicine either, but I know if I am sick.
(powervator and NONE SHALL PASS, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:55, closed)

Wait , a degree in Climate Science?
Surely that's only one step up from David Beckham studies?

"Yeah, so we think it's getting warmer, mmkay, but it's going to get colder earlier."

And at exam time
"Question one: Who's the most evil?
(1) The Oil Companies
(2) Those bastard capitalist CORPORATIONS
(3) SUV drivers"

Edit: Or it could be a real course that teaches rational thought about the environment. But that'd be more "don't interfere with nature more than is neccesary, we always screw it up" rather than "down with those rich cunts".
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:06, closed)

I'm in some agreement with you.
I think there's more to it than the simple "the industrial revolution destroyed the planet". And yes, I've read the data before I'm accused not doing so. And I've also studied palaeoecology as part of my first degree. The very fact that I can spell palaeoecology makes me credible. FACT.

More pertinent, however, is that I just don't care. I don't think humans can undo things; nor am I sure that we need to. The earth will be just fine without us, where 'fine' is 'carries on regardless'. I don't particularly think the human race needs saving.

I am hugely annoyed by the green morality that creeps into such arguments. It reeks of "if you're not with us then you're against us", like I'm a lesser person because one time I threw a glass bottle in the bin. That's not why I'm a lesser person. There are much more compelling non-eco reasons than that. Also, I don't have kids and they are a huge fucking drain on the planet. So nyah.

My bottom line is: don't bother saving anything, it isn't worth it.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:00, closed)

I like to save
the remains of your fanny batter on my fingers so I can smell it later.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 16:26, closed)

al,
you say the sweetest things. You can smell your fingers as I'm shoving my GIGANTACOCK down your throat.
( crackhouseceilidhband Fuck off back to Mumsnet, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:10, closed)

Nothing says true love like
Gak! GURGGHHKKK!!! GUKAKKAK! GAahhhhh!

Mmmm Gigantacock.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:12, closed)

Erm,
I'm not quite sure how to respond to this without getting into a flame war. But I'll try.

Yes, we're part of a 'bloody huge system' but to think that we have had little to no effect on the planet is naive at best.

Yes, the planet has been warmer than present many times. But the RATE of change has never been this great. And no, measurement didn't start 2,000 years ago, high-resolution proxy records for temperature stem back millions of years, to the Cretaceous and beyond, and even for the most abrupt changes in temperature (e.g. the PETM, the Oi-1, Mi-1) the rate of change is of the order of tens of thousands of years, not hundreds of years like we are seeing.

I'd love it if we were wrong, I really, really would. But the fact of the matter is that emissions of CO2 and methane have steadily increased in the atmosphere of even remote areas over the last 100 years, and these gases are well known to increase the greenhouse effect. Bearing in mind how little of these gases were present in the atmosphere in pre-industrial times (and relative estimates for warming in times when CO2 was as high as predicted future levels, such as the Eocene), it is a fair assumption to make that they are having a significant effect on the planet. Also considering no logical hypothesis has been put forward that (a) explains why anthropogenic CO2 hasn't caused the expected warming and (b) provides a reasonable natural explanation for this sudden increase in warming that doesn't involve some sort of anthropogenic input, it is not a ridiculous step to say that the majority of this warming is attributed to anthropogenic sources.
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 23:58, closed)

Yeah, I'll go along with that
But also - it's best to ignore newspaper reports about small drops in temperature detected over the Antarctic, or claiming that global temperatures have actually gone down slightly in a given year: unfortunately these are not signs that we're in the clear. The global mean temperature fluctuates by small amounts and awful lot over the course of a year, and, unfortunately for us, the overall trend is still upwards.
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:27, closed)

The simple thing is thus
Neither camp of "nothing's happining!" and "we're all going to die the day after TOMORROW!" are correct, both are full of misinformed, opinionated loud-mouths. And I'm stuck here in the middle with you. Shall we make out?
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Sat 21 Feb 2009, 9:12, closed)

This doesn't make you a hypocrite
unless you go around telling others not to do those things.
( Lumpbucket tekcubpmuL, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:27, closed)

Drop in the ocean stuff, I think...
Even if everyone in Britain was a paragon of energy saving, the waste that's going on in places like China would mean that we're not really making any difference. If it makes you feel happier then do it. But if it also makes you happy to use a plastic bag to carry your duty-free onto the 747 then go for it!
Edit: that's just my opinion, I'm not really wanting to cause an argument about it.
(richardm, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:37, closed)

If it makes you feel any better...
...you can at least stop worrying about the plastic bags. The way I see it, plastic bags are made from petrochemicals. Therefore, all the bags you collect represent Carbon that isn't being released into the atmosphere. So, the next time you hop on a plane, simply shove a few more carrier bags into your kitchen cupboard and call it carbon offsetting. Collect a few bio-polythene bags and you can call it carbon capture!*


*Note: this advice may not actually represent a full and accurate environmental audit.
(silene, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:39, closed)

^^
See my post above.

I expect the royalty cheque's in the post...
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:41, closed)

Damn...
..I was too late!

Oh well, how much do you want?
(silene, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 15:54, closed)

Carbon Dioxide
Seeing as it seems to have caused a bit of a stir here...

Carbon Dioxide is not the 'strongest' greenhouse gas. In fact, one of the most potent is water vapour. The difference, of course, is that we have a direct effect on the levels of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, but our emission of water vapour is negligible.

However, by increasing the amount of CO₂ in the atmosphere, we have probably served to nudge the global average temperature up by a small amount.

What then happens is that the slightly increased temperature leads to increased rates of evaporation from the seas, lakes, etc. With more water vapour in the atmosphere, we get another slight increase in temperature, and thus a little bit more water is evaporated.

Unfortunately - because, as I said, our own direct production of water vapour is minimal - we can't directly control these water vapour levels. The reason governments have to bang on about CO₂ concentrations is because that's one of the few things we can directly influence.

So there is an argument for saying that the CO₂ we've belched out has indirectly exacerbated global warming. Reducing CO₂ emissions may seem like a vain hope to some, but it's one of the few options we've got if we want to try and limit what damage might occur due to rising temperatures. Whether you want to try and reduce your emissions, or whether you just don't give a fuck, I leave entirely up to you. (Just noticed richardm's point about China as well, which does make it seem kind of futile. Oh, well. /clings to energy-saving light bulb and hemp shopping bag)

(The increased CO₂ concentration is quite hard for us to deny - it's shot up from about 280ppm to 380ppm in a geologically negligible timescale; whatever you want to say about the natural vs anthropogenic effects, we have to accept the blame for that raised concentration.)
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 17:59, closed)

Everyone talks about carbon dioxide
because everyone knows what it is.

For me, this is evidence that the layman's science is simply not strong enough, and thus I have stopped listening to anyone who isn't a meteorologist or geologist.
( Digeridude Lord Wellington's Beef Trapeze, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:20, closed)

I'm an atmospheric physicist
Working on the spectroscopy of atmospheric water vapour.

Do I count?
(LongJohnBaldry, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:26, closed)

only barely
and that's because you used subscript 2s on your CO2 :-P
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:30, closed)

What's the code to do that?
_{is it this?}

ooo it is!
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Sat 21 Feb 2009, 9:13, closed)

This is one of the things about planes
that makes their contribution to the whole climate change debate more significant that the 3% of CO₂ emissions that routinely gets trotted out.

When they fly along in the stratosphere, they leave a lot of water vapour up there which hangs around for a long time causing a problem.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 23:00, closed)

Well,
the difference is actually that the percentage of water vapour in the atmosphere is nearer to 5% whereas CO2 is nearer to 0.01%. Therefore the absorption bands of H2O are almost completely saturated whereas the fringe bands of the CO2 have yet to be.
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 0:00, closed)

Well, that and
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe water vapour absorbs over a much larger portion of the infrared spectrum. (The large band between about 2 and 20 microns is thought to be more or less one big continuum, which is a lot wider than the adjacent CO₂ band around 15 microns.)
(LongJohnBaldry, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:23, closed)

Yeah I think that's correct,
it's been too long since I studied all that *gets a book out*
(The Oscillating Gibbon is eating curried squid, Sat 21 Feb 2009, 9:13, closed)

If you want to feel a bit better about those carrier bags; you can fit three million plastic carrier bags into a standard shipping container.

You can only fit 50,000 of those cotton bags into a shipping container.

That means the pollution of shipping 60 containers over from China, PLUS all the pollution and energy use along the production like to grow and harvest the cotton, manufacture the threads, weave the bags, sew them up, etc...

The cotton bags are probably still better, so long as you use them at least 100 times, you're probably doing less harm than using the plastic bags, but it's still best to look beyond the obvious costs.

Like all the lovers of the Prius; what comes out of the exhaust isn't the whole picture, buddy. You've still got the environmental damage of making AND disposing of the bloody thing.

I read an article once that declared the most environmentally friendly vehicle in the world to be...the Landrover Defender. Why? Because 75% of all the Landrover Defenders ever made are still on the road, not getting disposed of, and not being needlessly replaced by newly-manufactured cars.
(Musuko, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 18:49, closed)

...
"...I read an article once that declared the most environmentally friendly vehicle in the world to be...the Landrover Defender..."

Unfortunately bollocks though! (the original article started off with a jeep but was changed for the UK market).

To arrive at this startling conclusion, they made some fairly questionable assumptions, including the rather odd proposition that buying a jeep will make you make you drive twice as far per year as you would have done if you had bought a prius!


The simple fact is that for pretty much all cars, the majority of CO2 emissions come from fuel rather than construction and the longer the car lasts, the truer this becomes.

Basically its the result you would expect if a car company asked a marketing company to conduct the 'study'... which is pretty much what happened here.
(silene, Thu 19 Feb 2009, 19:53, closed)

what?
"So, Mr Ford, thanks for the bribe. What result would you like"

"Well, my dear researcher, I'd like you to tell people NOT to buy new cars."

Yeah, you can totally see that happenning. If it had decided that you should buy new cars "because they're 0.07% greener than last years model, which is good!" then I'd agree with you.

Didn't the Humvee come out pretty well in the TenvironmentalCO stakes too, due to being simple and made of fairly basic materials- and probably crap examples of those materials?
( uberdeity Wondered why Owen Lars knew of the term "hell" on, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 10:21, closed)

No..
..more likely that Mr Ford was getting a bit worried that large American cars were becoming less competitive than hi-tech Japanese models in their traditional heartland.

Anyway, even the company that did the research (after a few fairly critical analyses and reports) repeated their own analysis and came to some very different conclusions.... See here if you're interested cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/107%2008%20Models%20Cost%20Per%20Mile%20From%20Low%20to%20High.xls

EDIT: The basic point is that it's easy to mislead if you aren't explicit about the question that you are asking. In this case they asked the question: "which vehicle use the most energy (per mile) over its lifetime?" and did a fairly good job of answering it. However, a gullible press and public took this as equal to the question: "What car should YOU buy if YOU want to to minimise YOUR energy usage?"

In this case, the difference arises from factoring the driver into what could otherwise have been a comparison of the cars. i.e. it is fairly obvious that Mr Prius driver is worried about his energy use (why else would he buy such an ugly car). It seems odd to think that after reading the report and rushing out to buy his hummer, he would suddenly double his annual mileage in order to spread the manufacturing energy cost over the lifetime milage of the car (as would be required to reproduce the efficiency listed in the report).

Whether there was an intention to mislead is another matter (possibly I was a bit intemperate with my comments above), but this sort of thing irritates me.
(silene, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 11:28, closed)

I can't debate the accuracy of the study, because I don't have that information. You might well be right; the results may be dodgy. But it does start you thinking down a better route, considering the impact of the car's entire life, not just the running of it.

If it leads to just one person thinking about the issue on his own and deciding to keep his current car because the small reduction in pollution of the new model would be offset by the massive increase in pollution through manufacturing a new car to replace one that's still running fine, then it's done okay.
(Musuko, Fri 20 Feb 2009, 13:21, closed)