According to this BBC report, those of us that live in Western Europe are in no imminent danger of an Ice Age as predicted in the film "The Day After Tomorrow".
The movie is based on the assumption that if the Gulf Stream should fail (Due to climate change), the northern hemisphere would be plunged into an immediate Ice Age. Whilst there is a grain of truth in the 'science' used in the film, it is grossly over-exagerrated.
The Gulf Stream (a warm current that passes up from the Gulf of Mexico) is responsible for keeping the temperature in Western Europe up 6 degrees centigrade above what it would normally be. Some scientists say that the current could break down if the salinity of the North Atlantic were to decrease substantially. This may come about if, say, the Greenland Ice Sheet or the polar ice were to start melting at a faster rate.
However, even if it did fail, it would be unlikely to start a new Ice Age - we'd just end up with a climate more like Canada - and certainly not within days (As the film suggests), months or even a few years.
Anyway, the first signs of such a break down would be that the Gulf Stream would start slowing up. Thankfully, this study has seen no sign of this over the last 8 years. Oddly though, the speed of the current varies quite a bit (between 4 and 35 million tonnes of water per second), which may have given rise to the belief it may have been slowing.
Phew! That's a relief.
Monday, 29 March 2010
Sunday, 28 March 2010
China To The Rescue?
It's well known that China are building coal-fired power stations at the rate of one a week just to keep up with their economic growth. As a consequence, they threaten to undermine the fight against climate change. Indeed, many people like to use them as a handy excuse for not joining the fight themselves: What's the point they say, the Chinese are undoing everything anyway.
However, it's less well known that the Chinese are deeply concerned about climate change. After all, it would have dire effects for their agriculture amongst other things. What they plan to do about this is unclear to me. I think economic growth is their priorty but they'll be working hard on cleaner energy behind the scenes.
One sign of this approach is in this recent BBC report. It seems that China invested almost double what the US did during 2009. Not only are they expanding their domestic wind and solar energy capacity but, more interestingly, they seem set to become the world leaders in exporting the technology. If the US doesn't watch out, they'll be left behind.
To me, that sounds like the beginning of just the sort of competition that could benefit to us all: There is a multi-billion Pound market at stake here, one to rival even the oil industry in the long term. The Americans aren't going to let the Chinese grab it all for themselves. The resulting competition will drive prices down, making the technology more affordable, and accelerate it's spread.
So, ironically, the Chinese may end up being the climate change heroes.
Friday, 19 March 2010
Nissan's Electric Car
Nissan are going to be manufacturing their new electric car - The Leaf - in Sunderland, UK starting 2013. They plan on making 200,000 worldwide annually. More details here.
The car is a 5 seater hatchback and they go on sale here in the UK at the end of 2010 (Shipped in from Japan or the U.S. presumably, their other plants). They claim that it will be the first affordable, mass produced electric car in the world.
Early buyers in this country will be able to make use of the government's subsidy that they will make available from the beginning of 2011 for all electric vehicles (EVs) and plug in hybrids. The subsidy is 25% of the price of the EV up to £5000.
In my view, Nissan's entry into the affordable end of the market is essential to get the EV ball rolling. It's a name people know and trust, they have showrooms all over the country, and they've designed something that looks as good as any standard petrol car.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Simple Guide To Climate Change
What is climate change?
Climate change, as the name suggests, is where the weather changes (e.g. Getting hotter) over long periods of time ranging from tens to millions of years. It has been happening from time to time since before life first began on Earth and will continue long into the future.
The best known climate change was the so-called Ice Age, which finished only a few thousand years ago. At the other end of the temperature scale was the Cretaceous period, 65+ million years ago, famous for the T. Rex and Tricerotops. This was when it was so warm that there were no permenant polar ices caps and sea levels were 100 metres or more higher than they were today!
Is it the same as global warming?
Not quite. Climate change includes global cooling (Such as the Ice Age) as well as global warming (like the Cretaceous).
What is the difference between weather & climate?
Weather is what you get over short periods of time ranging from minutes to a few years. Climate is what happens over longer periods. Whilst weather can vary dramatically, even to the point of extreme events like hurricanes and floods, in the long run it generally evens out (= climate). When it doesn't, then climate change may be going on.
What is the greenhouse effect and how does it relate to climate change?
This is where the Earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse and traps heat, preventing it radiating out into Space. We depend on this effect because, if it weren't there, the global temperature would be 30 degrees centigrade cooler!
The reason heat is trapped is because of so-called greenhouse gases (or GHGs). These include water vapour, CO2, methane, Nitrous Oxide, and even ozone. These are all known to absorb and radiate heat and together they form a kind of blanket around our world.
So what's all the fuss about?
Whilst the greenhouse effect is of huge benefit to us all, perhaps even to life itself, it can also have a sinister side: If, for some reason, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere were to start growing, the greenhouse effect could get out of hand and overheat the planet. An extreme version of this has happened on Venus where the thick blanket of GHGs has raised the temperature there to around 480 degrees C, way above what it should be even though it's closer to the Sun.
Thankfully, we're not going to turn into Venus anytime soon, but climate scientists are nonetheless concerned. This is where the current climate change controversy comes in: On the one hand climatologists are saying global warming has started and is "very likely" due to us; on the other, you have the sceptics who say that either warming isn't happening, or the warming isn't due to us.
More about GHGs here.
More about the greenhouse effect here.
So who's right?
I might be considered biased here, but I have made a point of finding out about both sides of the argument.
Sceptics who say climate change isn't happening, base their views on the claims that a) ground based temperature measurements are flawed, or b) the data has been manipulated to give the results scientists want.
a) The flawed temperature measurement argument goes like this: Many of the weather stations taking these temperatures have been swallowed up by cities and are therefore subject to the urban heat island effect , which would tend to make things seem warmer. However, these claims have been looked into and shown to be wrong. Most of the urban stations are still found in open areas like parks so they aren't effected. And when urban station readings are compared with rural ones, they show the same rise in temperature. Then there are sea-surface temperatures, marine air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, surface humidity, ocean heat content, spring snow cover, sea-level and others which all show a consistent warming world picture.
b) In the face of all these different ways of showing that the climate is warming, the claim that the many different groups of scientists are somehow manipulating this mass of data, seems odd to say the least. It also assumes that somehow hundreds of scientists are conspiring to mislead the public, the media, and governments alike. I don't think so.
Sceptics who say that humans aren't causing the warming say that it is part of a natural cycle, that CO2 is too insignificant, and that our contribution to GHGs is too small to make a difference.
The Earth's climate is subject to numerous cycles, the most well known of which is El Nino, but current rapid rise in temperature is like nothing we've seen for thousands of years. Furthermore, none of the known, natural ways of increasing the temperature seem responsible. The only dramatic changes that are known to be going on are down to us.
The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small (a tiny fraction of 1%) and is still small when compared to other GHGs. However, it's effect is comparatively great: Between 9 - 26% of the total greenhouse effect. When you consider that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is known to have increased by more than 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, you can see why it's being seen as the 'smoking gun'.
So is this increase in CO2 due to human activity (e.g. cutting down forests, and burning oil, gas, and coal)? Well, natural sources of CO2 are 20 times what we produce. However, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the environment had found a balance, taking out as much CO2 from the system as was being put in. Now, however, it seems we may have over-loaded the system, as only around 50% of our contribution is being removed. The rest is added to the atmosphere.
It is that apparently minor, extra contribution that is making all the difference. Glaciers are receeding, polar ice caps are thinning, sea levels are rising, and temperature records are being beaten. That's all down to us and it's time we did something about it.
Climate change, as the name suggests, is where the weather changes (e.g. Getting hotter) over long periods of time ranging from tens to millions of years. It has been happening from time to time since before life first began on Earth and will continue long into the future.
The best known climate change was the so-called Ice Age, which finished only a few thousand years ago. At the other end of the temperature scale was the Cretaceous period, 65+ million years ago, famous for the T. Rex and Tricerotops. This was when it was so warm that there were no permenant polar ices caps and sea levels were 100 metres or more higher than they were today! Is it the same as global warming?
Not quite. Climate change includes global cooling (Such as the Ice Age) as well as global warming (like the Cretaceous).
What is the difference between weather & climate?
Weather is what you get over short periods of time ranging from minutes to a few years. Climate is what happens over longer periods. Whilst weather can vary dramatically, even to the point of extreme events like hurricanes and floods, in the long run it generally evens out (= climate). When it doesn't, then climate change may be going on.
What is the greenhouse effect and how does it relate to climate change?
This is where the Earth's atmosphere acts like a greenhouse and traps heat, preventing it radiating out into Space. We depend on this effect because, if it weren't there, the global temperature would be 30 degrees centigrade cooler!
The reason heat is trapped is because of so-called greenhouse gases (or GHGs). These include water vapour, CO2, methane, Nitrous Oxide, and even ozone. These are all known to absorb and radiate heat and together they form a kind of blanket around our world.
So what's all the fuss about?
Whilst the greenhouse effect is of huge benefit to us all, perhaps even to life itself, it can also have a sinister side: If, for some reason, the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere were to start growing, the greenhouse effect could get out of hand and overheat the planet. An extreme version of this has happened on Venus where the thick blanket of GHGs has raised the temperature there to around 480 degrees C, way above what it should be even though it's closer to the Sun.
Thankfully, we're not going to turn into Venus anytime soon, but climate scientists are nonetheless concerned. This is where the current climate change controversy comes in: On the one hand climatologists are saying global warming has started and is "very likely" due to us; on the other, you have the sceptics who say that either warming isn't happening, or the warming isn't due to us.
More about GHGs here.
More about the greenhouse effect here.
So who's right?
I might be considered biased here, but I have made a point of finding out about both sides of the argument.
Sceptics who say climate change isn't happening, base their views on the claims that a) ground based temperature measurements are flawed, or b) the data has been manipulated to give the results scientists want.
a) The flawed temperature measurement argument goes like this: Many of the weather stations taking these temperatures have been swallowed up by cities and are therefore subject to the urban heat island effect , which would tend to make things seem warmer. However, these claims have been looked into and shown to be wrong. Most of the urban stations are still found in open areas like parks so they aren't effected. And when urban station readings are compared with rural ones, they show the same rise in temperature. Then there are sea-surface temperatures, marine air temperatures, tropospheric temperatures, surface humidity, ocean heat content, spring snow cover, sea-level and others which all show a consistent warming world picture.
b) In the face of all these different ways of showing that the climate is warming, the claim that the many different groups of scientists are somehow manipulating this mass of data, seems odd to say the least. It also assumes that somehow hundreds of scientists are conspiring to mislead the public, the media, and governments alike. I don't think so.
Sceptics who say that humans aren't causing the warming say that it is part of a natural cycle, that CO2 is too insignificant, and that our contribution to GHGs is too small to make a difference.
The Earth's climate is subject to numerous cycles, the most well known of which is El Nino, but current rapid rise in temperature is like nothing we've seen for thousands of years. Furthermore, none of the known, natural ways of increasing the temperature seem responsible. The only dramatic changes that are known to be going on are down to us.
The proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is very small (a tiny fraction of 1%) and is still small when compared to other GHGs. However, it's effect is comparatively great: Between 9 - 26% of the total greenhouse effect. When you consider that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is known to have increased by more than 30% since the start of the Industrial Revolution, you can see why it's being seen as the 'smoking gun'.
So is this increase in CO2 due to human activity (e.g. cutting down forests, and burning oil, gas, and coal)? Well, natural sources of CO2 are 20 times what we produce. However, prior to the Industrial Revolution, the environment had found a balance, taking out as much CO2 from the system as was being put in. Now, however, it seems we may have over-loaded the system, as only around 50% of our contribution is being removed. The rest is added to the atmosphere.
It is that apparently minor, extra contribution that is making all the difference. Glaciers are receeding, polar ice caps are thinning, sea levels are rising, and temperature records are being beaten. That's all down to us and it's time we did something about it.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
UK Government unveils 'green loan' energy plan for homes
Many people consider installing things like solar panels, wind turbines, and solid wall insulation but are put off by the sheer cost. Oh, for sure, the things will cut your heating and electric bills but, frankly, it'll take years for them to pay back the original cost, if at all!
So, at present, you have to be seriously commited to reducing your emissions AND have large amounts of money sloshing about to do it at all.
Now though, it appears the government is planning on bringing in a loan scheme which allows home owners to install these things then pay for it over a number of years. Nothing new there, you might say, people have always been able to get home improvement loans. However, where this scheme would differ is that the loan would be associated with the home not the person taking it out. This means that, should you move house, the loan doesn't follow you!
So, while you own the home, you get the savings on your bills from your improvement, which should easily outweigh the loan repayments. When you come to sell the property, the improvements make it more saleable, the new owners get instant benefits from reduced costs, and you're not left paying for an improvement you're no longer getting benefit from! It's a win-win scenario.
Incidently, this also benefits the government in these cash-strapped times. They will no longer have to put up grants to help people with the cost. To be honest, these grants have never been big enough to be useful to most people. So the loans would be a massive boost for the government AND to the take-up of solar panels etc.
The only issues left to contend with are the 'cowboy' installers, and unscrupulous loan companies. The government needs to regulate big time in these areas or it could strangle the scheme.
More details on the proposed scheme here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)