Sammy Wilson’s climate scepticism
Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, is quoted in this morning’s Newsletter on the flooding of the Broadway underpass. He claims, erroneously, that the flash floods contradict scientific climate change predictions of warming in the northern hemisphere. Wilson’s comments are not supported by the most recent findings. For example, Jonathan Cowie’s Climate Change: Biological and Human Impacts (2007), concludes that increased major floods could well happen in the summer despite European summers becoming drier. Seemingly paradoxically, computer models predict an increase in intense summer rainfall with global warming. Instead of the less rain being spread across summer months, there will a tendency for this precipitation to clump into extreme weather events (Christensen and Christensen, 2002). The climate blogger, Climate Progress, also cites scientific findings that undermine the Minister’s position. Mr Wilson is not moved by any of the science. Instead, he has informed the Irish News that ‘he is not going to engage in a frivolous sideshow argument on climate change.’
So, Ireland is going to get warmer and sunnier. Sammy and certain others will probably like that; more nude sunbathing days to look forward to.
I do find it amusing that scientists who cannot tell you what the weather will be next week with any sort of assurance, let alone provide a reliable track for a given storm, are taken at face value when they tell you what the weather is going to be over the next couple decades…
But, then, global warming has its desperate moves, equating those who have skepticism in their “science” — consensus is not science — Holocaust deniers.
I have to say Turgon, I would have thought it more important to get proper sanitation and clean water in place, ahead of installing the electrical infrastructure that would be required to allow everyone to have fridges.
cynic
[i]““The ice-caps are melting at a faster rate than ever.”
I think you will find they melted a bit more at the end of the ice age but who knows. Men weren’t around then. [b] We have only known of their existence for about 400 years so how do you justify that? [/b] You are looking at a very small window of evidence in planetary terms…. perhaps only 150 yrs of reliable data”[/i]
The ice holds plenty of evidence about how screwed we are. In an earlier post I stated that “the warmest 10 years on record in the last 100,000 years have happened in the past 15 years” How do I know this? How do I know that CO2 levels, for instance, are currently the highest they have ever been in that time period too? Scientists are able to gather climatic data, from long periods ago by drilling 100s of metres into the Antarctic ice sheet, which accumulates a new layer of ice, and therefore a new layer of valuable information associated with it, every year over the past 100,000 years.
[i]First oil isn’t running out. We have at least 80 years of proven supplies and are almost certain to find more. [/i]
Are you for real? No significantly large oil field (i.e. Saudi Arabia like) has been found, or has been deemed economical to extract oil from in the past 20 years. The largest oil field in the world, Ghawaz, which also happens to be the largest oil field ever found, is set to hit peak oil production in the next few years. Some scientists even believe that this peak oil period has already passed. Once that happens the yearly supply from that field will dwindle, year on year, just as world demand is steadily increasing.
If you really don’t believe that oil is running out then I suggest you read this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/0871138883/ref=cm_lmf_tit_3
I’ve read it. Now I will admit it can be a little bit melodramatic at times but the message is pretty clear I believe.
The problem we face is that any oil, which has already been extracted was the easy stuff to get at. Any new fields will require more energy to be used in extracting the oil from it because they are found in deeper and deeper pockets of the Earth’s crust. The law of diminishing returns will eventually set in – i.e. are you wasting more oil by extracting, refining and transporting new resources than what you will get in return?
[i]“The inhabitants of some Papuan New Guinean islands have been evacuated permanently due to rising sea levels flooding their homeland. “
Haven’t heard this one before so i would like to see the evidence.[/i]
They are the Carteret Islands to be precise: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article759319.ece
[i]I have no doubt that you are genuine in your belief on all this. Its just that you have been sold a pup. [/i]
This is where I take real issue with you. Where exactly are your credentials to criticise my views? I get my views on this subject from scientific research and fact, not Jeremy Clarkson. I haven’t been sold a pup, just an education. A 1st class Masters degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering, at the risk of sounding pompous, to be exact. I currently work in the field too, have done so for a number of years and regularly read journals surrounding this particular issue too, so I think I’m pretty damn qualified to express an opinion here.
[i]There are over 1 billion people in China. They want the living standard we have. How do you say no to them?[/i]
I’m afraid that is what is going to have to happen. In fact there is more like 1.4 billion folk in China and we are seeing the emergence of India (1 billion people) and Brazil (a few 100 million) as economic powerhouses. The really scary thing here is that we in the West have had it good for so long that we cannot face the fact that our living standards have been so high, only because we have had to subjugate the rest of the world in order to achieve these levels of personal wealth. If the Chinese all want a more comfortable existence, then I’m afraid me and you will have to suffer as a consequence. The economics of opportunity cost come into play here, we can’t all have our demands sated because there are not enough resources available for that to be possible.
Comrade,
It is all needed and it all takes energy. There is a certain dilemma there but I think we in the West need to look aggressively at out own emissions, develop clean technologies and not preach to the Developing World. Maybe they can be persuaded to adopt some of these clean technologies such as carbon capture but they are interested in developing and developing rapidly and we are in no place to lecture them about the dangers of that. As I said if children are dying then the climate becomes a rather abstract concern. Of course if children stopped dying and then family size fell, then people in the developing world might start to be able to worry about their energy use. At the moment, however, I do feel that lecturing them about it is extremely trite. Saying that they are going to be the first ones to suffer from climate change does not really cut it either since they are already facing disasters like infant mortality.
Of course another low carbon technology which they might develop would be nuclear but I do not see anyone either in the Green lobby or from Western governments proposing that (somewhat unsurprisingly).
I guess at one level one might regard the whole thing as hopeless. However, I do not think that we can morally in any way impede or slow poor countries’ development.
Comrade
[i]The plant efficiency is a problem I see being addressed by nuclear power, although one principal selling point with electric cars is that you leave them on charge overnight. If this happened on a large scale this would improve energy efficiency at the power plants. Isn’t that what they essentially try to achieve with economy 7 ?[/i]
As an electrical engineer I too believe that nuclear is the only medium term option going forward, but that ship has sailed. The Labour government has procrastinated to a point that we are going to see most of the UK’s current batch of nuclear power stations shut down over the next 15 years. It takes approximately 15 years to build a new one! This is a national disgrace IMO of the highest order.
The UK is going to be held to ransom by Russia for natural gas – currently over 40% of the UK’s energy is generated from gas turbine power plants, this trend will continue well into the future because we have not planned adequately enough for the future. Wind is also a non-starter. Where is the most wind potential in the UK? And where is the most sparsely populated region of the UK – both questions have the same answer: the NW of Scotland. It is precisely because no people live there that the electrical power grid in that area is very low grade, so in order to tap all of that potential wind energy we are going to have to dramatically reinforce the infrastructure in that area – something which is estimated to cost in the region of a few £100 billion (I kid you not) if we are to reach the admirable target of providing 10% of our energy from renewable sources.
Nuclear is not without its problems either. There are the obvious problems of toxic waste and terrorism but there’s also the question about how much energy is needed to extract uranium from the ground (most probably in Australia), to transport it to these shores (in shielded containers) and to enrich it so it is of reactor quality. I’m merely trying to demonstrate how there is no such thing as a free lunch here.
You talk about charging an electric car overnight. How efficient is that? How much energy will escape in heat alone from charging any battery? When it comes down to it electric cars are little better, in efficiency terms, than a normal car and you can’t even go as fast. The only difference you get is that all that pollution is created somewhere else – at the power plant, rather than in the city centre traffic jams. This does nothing to allay the problems of global warming.
[i]Rebuild the cities and build railway lines everywhere ? That’ll be cheap.[/i]
The point I’m trying to convey is that no option is cheap. I never said to build railway lines everywhere, but if more people were to use public transport, bicycles or their feet to move themselves from one place to another i.e. exercised a little bit of personal responsibility, then we might not be in such a pickle.
Turgon,
I just thought it was a strange thing to say. I mean there can’t be many people who think the solution to Africa’s problems is more fridges.
But what do I know? I haven’t worked there. And clearly those Europeans who have been there must know what they’re doing.
After all, if it wasn’t for European intervention, I’m sure Africa would be in a terrible mess.
if it wasn’t for European intervention, I’m sure Africa would be in a terrible mess.
You might want to think a little more deeply about that. They are in a mess and how did they get there?
The Belfast Telegraph reported this today:
“Victims of Saturday’s freak downpours were last night praying that more rain would not bring further flooding misery.
“Weather experts last night forecast more heavy rain to fall across the province before the completion of a massive clean-up operation to deal with thousands of households affected by flash flooding.”
Proving conclusively that God doesn’t heed prayers from Ulster people. I wonder if Sammy Wilson has a theory about why that is.
You might want to think a little more deeply about that. They are in a mess and how did they get there?
I was being sarcastic.