Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.

The AECB accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the content of this site. Views given in posts are not necessarily the views of the AECB.



    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007 edited
     
    http://www.ipcc.ch/press/index.htm The IPCC Synthesis Report will be launched at 11 this morning. Live feed from Valencia from http://ipcc.cac.es/.

    Looks like they're spelling things out a bit more clearly this time.

    But Oh Dear! Look what the Grauniad has found:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/nov/17/climatechange.carbonemissions1
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    I clipped a bit out of the report. Clearly there is no evidence or they would quote the reference and would not use the quite remarkable fitst use of word LIKELY!!

    "Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctica) (Figure SPM.4). {2.4}" ---- from IPCC report
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    I did read recently that they thought it 90% certain but now only likely seems less certain than that!
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    Not much to base whole world level decision making on for both economic and political decisions.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    Oh come off it Tony! You are never going to get a clearer, more certain account about anything from scientists. The 90% figure actually originated last spring when the Saudi and Chinese delegation insited on not having a 95% figure that the scientists originally put forward. The change got through because the scientists know that it mokes no difference. That figure is not greatly meaningful.

    Try playing Russian roulette with 9 out of the 10 chambers full.

    The Synthesis Report starts with: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal" and then "Most of the observed increase in globally-averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations."

    What more do you want?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    Proof!
  1.  
    The days of 100% certainty about many things have gone the journey. Statistical probability is the best that can be done. The level of certainty is high amongst scientists around the globe. The climate models that include only natural (non-human) effects show increasingly little correlation with recorded data since about the 1850's. Whilst categorical proof may not be forthcoming once human activity is factored into the various climate models that exist the correlation between measured data and simulation is very high.

    The IPCC's FAQ:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-faqs.pdf

    Mark

    Mark
    •  
      CommentAuthornigel
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    Posted By: tonyProof!


    Wheres the "proof" that its safe to carry on burning.

    Whats wrong with the precautionary pricnciple.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007 edited
     
    Proof is a concept in mathematics and logic. It is not a feature of science.

    Now that the IPCC Synthesis Report has driven home the last nail in the Sceptic’s coffin, it’s time to get on with saving the planet’s ability to support human civilization. Gordon Brown said it was a wake up call – we’ve got to make sure he does wake up, and stays awake.

    Let’s get the priorities straight. Most of what’s left of the fossil fuels has got to stay underground. It’s no good changing a light bulb if the money we save gets spent on other stuff that uses fossil fuels. And changing the behaviour of six billion people is tricky. No, the carbon has got to stay in the ground and there are about 30 key nations that can make that happen. These nations have got to agree just to leave the stuff in the ground. Not easy but persuading 30 national leaders ought to be easier than persuading the six billion.

    With a large part of the coal and oil left in situ, the price of fuels will sky-rocket and the market will sort out efficiency savings and sustainable energy sources. Governments that like the idea of equable distribution may choose rationing other than by price amongst their populations but that’s up to them. The main thing is that 30 nations agree to limit supply. That’s just what they are not doing at present, all the talk being on the demand side.

    If we are going to have any hope of surviving global warming we have to focus on supply side economics not demand side. Time to wake up.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    I dont suppose that you are going to stop producing carbon dioxide by refraining from burning wood then are you?
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 17th 2007
     
    Nope.
  2.  
    Biff, am I reading you right in that its okay for you to burn wood while advocating that six billion others are effectively starved of fuel? Or do you suggest they all burn wood as well? which is of course the first thing they will do, closely followed by anything else they can dig or extract from the ground themselves. I don't like to think about what comes after that.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007
     
    Don't be daft. I'm a joiner. I have a ready supply of seasoned oak offcuts which I burn in my woodstove. I live in Lincolnshire surrounded by barley fields. I have a starwburner and burn barley straw. Transport 0.25 strawmiles.
    There is no one size fits all for 6 billion people, some of whom live in sunnier climes.

    What I'm saying is that the bulk of the fossil fuels have got to stay that way. Fossilised. Tinkering with the demand side economics is not going to achieve that on its own. The supply side has to be tackled. That means empowering the leaders of about 30 nations to forego much of their future lucrative production. Not an easy task but the alternative is just not an option.
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007
     
    How would you feel if someone said to you that you were not allowed to make or sell joinery products any more?
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007 edited
     
    Don't be daft. Why would anybody ever say that? Folks like my windows and doors :)

    But what has that got to do with the political realities post-IPCC Synthesis Report?
    • CommentAuthorandytk
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007
     
    The Chinese govenment is very aware of what it is and isn't capable of.

    Remember the riots we had in this country when thousands of miners were put out of work in the 70's/80's.

    Well imagine that but on a much, much larger scale in China as millions are starved of their livelihoods and millions more are plunged into darkness as the power goes off.

    Playing all high and mighty self-righteousness might play well to people's concious but I would honestly rather take the risk of dealing with the effects of climate change rather than try to abandon/change 90% + of societies power grid.

    If the power goes out in a big way in the next decade then thousands will die as advanced medical care fails and financial systems are unable to function. I myself would not have survived birth if it hadn't been for an electrically powered incubator, so the odds of convincing me that industrialised power systems are a bad thing are damn near nil.

    Nope, I'll take my chances WITH climate change and keep my coal burners thanks very much. I think that the worst thing we could do is try and force inappropriate actions on other nations either by hectoring (which won't work as there are economic advantages to digging up all the coal) or by military force which would be worse.

    The odds of anything meaningful being done about CC is small.

    So I suggest rather than standing about arguing about which is the best methods for reducing our carbon emissions we should be planning for the effects of CC which are coming like it or not. Its time to break out the earthmovers cos we're going to need some levees.

    Andy
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007
     
    Yes Andy, you are right to be cautious of civil unrest, not least in China, and you're right about the earth-movers, a topic near to my heart as I live very near sea level.
    But the IPCC Synopsis Report makes it absolutely clear that you are quite wrong to take your chances with climate change. If you haven't yet, read the Report and read books Pearce and Lynas and all the good folk who run the RealClimate blog.
    The answers are hard to come by, the problems almost overwhelming, but trying to keep buisness as usual by burning the coal is pretty close to suicide for civilization.
  3.  
    Greed just might be the saviour (but leaving coal in the ground is a silver bullet!)

    IMO a credit crunch recession leading into a energy(& food) shortage depression will wipe trillions of dollars off investors balance sheets. The demand for manufactured goods will crash and CO2 burning factories/power plants with them.

    It will sort itself out! but not in a good way (I stole that from another forum)
    • CommentAuthorandytk
    • CommentTimeNov 18th 2007
     
    Biff, I'll take my chances.

    At least I'll have power....

    Andy
    • CommentAuthorLizM
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: tony</cite>How would you feel if someone said to you that you were not allowed to make or sell joinery products any more?</blockquote>

    Tony - how are you going to explain to your children and grandchildren that they can't do the things we did - like travel the world - because all the resources are gone? That we've already stolen their future? That we were greedy and used more than our fare share so that others can't live the lifestyle that we use? That we knew we were causing unnatural climate change but preferred to put off the inevitable because we were too lazy to change?
    • CommentAuthortony
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    I do not think that it is right that we have already used a big slice of the worlds natural resources

    We have been greedy and I want for them a much better future, one without pollution, waste, wars, shortages, scares etc.

    I do not think that we need to travel arround anything like as much as we do

    I do not think that homes in the UK need heating systems or that anyone needs to burn wood. The sun provides plenty of heat all we need to do is store it or use it.



    I do not agree with your statement,"That we knew we were causing unnatural climate change.." we do not know this, some say that it is it is likely..

    I've yet to see proof.

    Until I see proof I will continue to reuse recycle reduce waste and to save energy and resources as well as to encourage others to do the same with or without climate change.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    Liz's statement it true, and whether or not you agree with it, Liz and I know it. You won't get proof because proof is a concept used in mathematics and logic, not science.
    The key question, Tony, is whether all your excellent reducing, reusing and recycling will actually result in fossil fuel being left in the ground and the carbon not entering the atmosphere.
  4.  
    Nice post tony, I agree with every word.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    Mike, I'm surpised you think that 'proof' is a useful concept in science. Did you not read Popper?
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007 edited
     
    Posted By: biffvernon You won't get proof because proof is a concept used in mathematics and logic, not science.


    Biff, I don't understand your thinking - are there not many scientific 'facts' proven by [amongst other things] mathematics?
  5.  
    Posted By: biffvernonMike, I'm surpised you think that 'proof' is a useful concept in science. Did you not read Popper?


    No, did he proove it?:bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthorMike George
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007 edited
     
    Sorry Biff, could'nt resit that! Anyway isn't this just semantics? Could'nt we say that Science is based largely on knowlege? which is in turn based on proof? which may in turn be based on mathematics, or observation for example?

    Here's a useful definition from http://www.sciencemadesimple.com/science-definition.html

    Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
    • CommentAuthorbiffvernon
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    No it's not just semantics. In maths I can proove that 2 = 2 + 4
    In science I can demonstrate that apples fall down every time I try the experiment. I can develop a model of the universe that allows me to expect that apples fall downwards. I can be so sure that apples fall downwards that I can use that expectation as a useful tool during apple harvest time.

    I cannot prove that apples will always, everywhere, fall downwards. Newton's description of gravity was good enough to navigate spacecraft by, but Einstein demonstrated that it was not always, everywhere, quite right.
    Popper showed that proof is not the business of science, though falsifying hypotheses is.

    The point is that we now are so certain about what is happening to our climate system that the only wise course is to change what we do and quickly. It will, however, never be proved.
    • CommentAuthorTerry
    • CommentTimeNov 19th 2007
     
    Science is an accumulation of knowledge based on past observation, experimentation, calculation etc. It is rife with rounding off, assumptions, theorising and many varied fudge factors and is based on what was found out in specific conditions in a specific place at a specific time by specific people.
    Most importantly it does not take into account what we have not yet learned, so science is based on current knowledge, but is proof of nothing.
    Human history is littered with events proving that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing and our decendants will be tut tutting about some of our activities much as we shake our heads at what went on in the middle ages.
  6.  
    <blockquote><cite>Posted By: Terry</cite>
    much as we shake our heads at what went on in the middle ages.</blockquote>

    But we also respond with admiration and wonder at the civilisation and innovation of the ancient Greeks. I'm not sure of the point you're making, but I'd like to go down in history as part of a civilisation/movement that realised its misdemeanors in time and acted to correct them with commitment and ingenuity.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press