News editor
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has issued a startling warning of the impacts of climate change on agriculture, health, ecosystems and livelihoods across the world, while advances in the energy sector are up for discussion in London
The IPCC has spoken and their warnings are stark: climate change is impacting all continents, with northern Europe facing the prospect of increased flooding, heat waves and droughts.
In their report, Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) state: ‘Observed impacts of climate change have already affected agriculture, human health, ecosystems on land and in the oceans, water supplies, and some people’s livelihoods.
‘The striking feature of observed impacts is that they are occurring from the tropics to the poles, from small islands to large continents, and from the wealthiest countries to the poorest.’
The report, which can be found here, highlights the opportunities that exist to help mitigate potential effects of rising temperatures with Vicente Barros of the University of Buenos Aires, and co-chair of Working Group II noting: ‘We live in an era of man-made climate change…Part of the reason adaptation is so important is that the world faces a host of risks from climate change already baked into the climate system, due to past emissions and existing infrastructure.’
‘Coping with current threats is actually the first step in preparing for the future. We have good evidence that spending on disaster prevention is much more cost effective than spending on disaster clean up. This is a classic ‘no regrets’ strategy that can improve livelihoods and well being now and in the future,’ said Prof Paul Bates, member of the Royal Society Working Group on Human Resilience to Climate Change and Disasters.
The world’s first legally binding climate change target, as set out in the 2008 Climate Change Act, aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the UK by at least 80 per cent by 2050, a challenging but laudable ambition but a long way into the future for those that need to pay their energy bills now and are looking at shale gas as an attractive energy option.
The US Environmental Protection Agency notes: ‘compared to the average air emissions from coal-fired generation, natural gas produces half as much carbon dioxide, less than a third as much nitrogen oxides, and one per cent as much sulphur oxides’, with the British Geological Survey noting in 2012 that the UK could be sitting on 150bcm of shale gas reserves.
Many commentators have pointed out the potential impact on the on the climate were shale reserves to be realised, but these pale compared to the estimated three to 23 trillion tonnes of coal buried mainly in the North Sea that will be up for discussion today at the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng).
RAEng host Innovation in Energy, an afternoon event that will highlight some of the most recent advances in the energy sector.
Session 3 sees Dr Dermot Roddy, chief technology officer, Five Quarter Energy deliver a talk entitled Unconventional gas from in situ coal.
His company has developed what it calls a Deep Gas Winning process that gasifies coal and associated strata in situ in order to extract ‘high energy values from the rocks and capturing all the resulting C0₂.’
According to yesterday’s Sunday Times, Roddy will use the event to highlight the scale of the deposits and reveal plans to sink the first boreholes using a rig on the coastline around Tynemouth to bore vertically for hundreds of metres. The drill would then be rotated to head horizontally out under the North Sea, seeking the estimated 2bn tonnes of coal lying immediately off that section of coast.
‘We believe there is another way to use coal to generate energy and industrial feedstocks – beyond conventional mining and burning coal for power production, which will otherwise dominate the world’s largest and fastest-growing economies in China, India and elsewhere,’ the company says on its website. ‘The subsequent effects of high carbon emissions on global climate change can no longer be tolerated.’
It isn’t uncommon for commuters to be left standing during their daily grind into work on Britain’s trains but a range of measures set out today aim to alleviate this.
Network Rail today set out its five-year £38bn spending and investment programme, which aims to provide capacity for 170,000 extra peak time seats for commuters, and electrify over 850 miles of railway.
According to Network Rail, the five-year plan will also:
- Shorten journeys and provide for hundreds more daily services in the Northern Hub, which provides services between cities in South and West Yorkshire, Cheshire, Lancashire and Merseyside.
- Transform hundreds of stations around the country including London Bridge, Manchester Victoria, Birmingham New Street and Glasgow Queen Street
- Renewing over 7,000km of track
- 300,000m² worth of station platforms replaced
- Improve train punctuality to 92.5 per cent across the country
- Cut the cost of running the British railway network by 20 per cent making it one of the most efficient in Europe
- Invest in new technology and equipment that will deliver step-changes in productivity and efficiency
Today’s announcement is tempered by reports that Network Rail is likely to be fined £70m by the Office of Rail Regulation for delays suffered by passengers.
Finally, the global civil aerospace industry continues its ascent with new data from ADS Group showing record levels for aircraft deliveries and order backlogs at the end of February 2014.
According to ADS, the data indicates approximately nine years of work in hand, which is due to a backlog of almost 21,000 engines and 11,318 aircraft. The trade body adds that this is an increase of 13 per cent and 15 per cent respectively, compared to the same period last year.
The figures also show that aircraft deliveries were up 10 per cent in January and February this year compared to 2013.
It seems they never bothered to read WG1 wherein they might have discovered that there is little or no climate change effects to be found anywhere just yet beyond Arctic sea ice decrease (which is also debatable because of the somewhat unexpected Antarctic sea ice increase of course).
As such these are only worst case scenarios that rely on inadequate models and pessimistic gut feelings rather than the actual facts that crop yields are still increasing year on year as is global NPP (greening of the planet) according to satellite data and there is no increase in weather extremes in the data. No surprise really because all of history tells us that mild warming is better than cooling for life on earth.
If adaptation is now the ‘in’ thing they’d have done better to just read ‘the skeptical environmentalist’ years ago and not wasted everyones time with the previous and entirely unsubstantiated proclamations of doom based on unvalidated models whose input assumptions are now well refuted.
Jason,
As engineers, we should should be aiming to ‘get it right’. A shame therefore that you have fallen foul of the common ITS apostrophe problem:
“Network Rail today set out it’s five-year £38bn spending and investment programme, which aims to provide capacity for 170,000 extra peak time seats for commuters, and electrify over 850 miles of railway.”
But regarding the news item itself – great news. Fantastic value for money for train-users and the environment compared with HS2!
Rob
JamesG is right on target. Follow the money and it’s purveyor’s and you will see the push for raising the cost of living to two classes of people ~ the haves & have not’s or wealthy and poor saying good bye to the middle class and any attempt for opportunity to reach the freedom current for engineering hopefuls because the majority of the population will struggle to even put food on the table.
If Network Rail is going to achieve all the improvements quoted above within the next five years why is the Government pressing on with HS2. It’s the same old story of vested interests misdirecting politicians so that those parties can make a fast buck. Where are the Government’s independent experienced advisors who can evaluate any proposals put before them?
More self serving Chicken Little cries from the discredited IPCC. I guess they have taken a leaf from Joseph Goebbels manual, it goes, ‘If you tell a lie often enough the people will eventually believe it”
Climate change is real but man made climate change is doubtfull at least to the extent claimed by the politically driven IPCC
Obama was here on the west US coast in Feb touting how global warming had created the drought, including in our area. As of now, here in western Washington State, we’re well above average in snowpack and rain.
The scientific reports were released by a whistleblower last year. They downgraded the risk compared to previous reports.
The Summary report is a political document that exaggerates the conclusions of the scientific reports.
As they have done in the past, they will now rewrite the scientific reports to match the summary report.
Disgraceful!
The main thing with the weather changing the way it is now, is that it is possible to reverse the current rain & harsh weather during the winter. Many of the things responsible can be changed back if something is done now. the problem is that no one is doing anything about it. Everyone just talks about this & that without any action! If they started now we may just get everything back the way it used to be in a 100 years or so!
Does anybody care?
Let’s build some more nuclear reactors and heat up the atmosphere some more, instead of insulating our homes and offices and shops and government buildings and schools.
Alternatively, we might put the offices where the people are and then connect the offices by telephone lines and Internet.
Then people would need to travel less.
The report was leaked a day too early, today would have been appropriate.
That the proponents of AGW believe that the end is nigh is as surprising as the media attention to it – Headlines beat no news.
The Comments above from people who purport to be engineers on the IPCC report are a disgrace. If you have made up your mind that it’s all a conspiracy by self-serving climate scientists then I guess ‘why bother reading the report’. Engineers should at least try to have a scientific approach on these issues not trot out the gospel according to Lord Lawson’s self-serving GWFoundation.
Engineers should be at the vanguard of the low carbon future we need not trotting out conspiracy and ignorant guff like this. Even the editors of D Mail and D Telegraph admit Cl Change is real
@stewart boyle – stewart, with the best will in the world, the IPCC has been discredited many times over. Their computer projections have been found to be wildly overexaggerated with every scientist adding their own interpretation of a factor of safety which rolls up to global disaster……as one would expect.
And I really wouldn’t quote the D Mail and the D telegraph as credible sources of the ‘admission’ on Climate Change, they like selling papers so jump on and off every bandwagon that passes.
Besides, no one is questioning CL, it is inevitable, and far better the Earth heats up than cools down. It’s Anthropogenic Climate Change that is the real question, and quite how any scientist, engineer or politician can prove that man contributes in any meaningful way to CL is quite beyond me. At best, any predictions are pure guesswork wrapped up in scientific technobabble.
The fact is, whether it is natural, or caused by man, we can’t stop it and we are going to have to learn to cope.
Guess that’s where the clever engineers come in. Here comes the gravy train boys and girls.
Well said David. Regrettably people usually do not distinguish between anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and the background noise of long term historical and cyclical climate change. It is unfortunate that the media only quote the alarmists like IPCC and do not give expert sceptics equal time and space.
@ Martin | 31 Mar 2014 11:12 pm
[….“that it is possible to reverse the current rain & harsh weather during the winter…. If they started now we may just get everything back the way it used to be” ]
Really!!
Which page of the Tellytubbys Guide to Climate Change was that on ?? I must have missed it.
We are the result of the climate, NOT the controllers of it, that’s a job for ‘Amun-Ra’… the sun.
Here’s some interesting sets of graphs to compare –
First set is- ‘IPCC climate model projections’ versus ‘Observed climate data’.( Met office data sets).
From – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/31/dataset-of-datasets-shows-no-warming-this-millennium/ 31/3/14
The Second set is- Central England Temperatures; as shown on the Met office website versus what’s really in the Met office data set (from 1659),!!!
From – http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/03/30/cet-and-the-bit-the-met-office-dont-want-you-to-see/
In both sets, study the second graph that has ALL the data, you’ll see the stuff they don’t like to publish !!
They tell a different story from the discredited IPCC – Draw your own conclusions…….but follow the money !!
If we’re following the money, we can’t help but notice that most of it is sloshing around the oil industry, whose executives enjoy significantly higher salaries and more lavish lifestyles than climate scientists, and who have a strong interest in rubbishing climate science that supports climate change from human activity.
@anonymous – And Oil executives are known for not procreating, producing children and grandchildren that will have to survive in a world they destroyed!
What utter rubbish. Typical oversimplified, jealously based logic. The earnings of an individual have absolutely nothing to do with their moral position. Continue with that theme and one could argue that the IPCC scientist’s motives are also questionable as they want to keep their low paid jobs so it’s in their interests to terrorise the world with claims of armageddon.
The fact is, unlike many climate scientists oil executives actually work in the field and have access to real data not fantasy based computer predictions cobbled together by the IPCC.
Editor’s comments | 2 Apr 2014 9:57 am
We weren’t aware of the revival in Ancient Egyptian heliotheism.
The Ancient Egyptians had a better understanding of what drives our climate than most members of the IPCC !!
PS
If you need to have a ‘theism’, then heliotheism has a lot going for it, knocks spots (sun spots? Sorry ) off all the others.
Sun gives us direct & indirect power feeds us, clothes us, controls our climate, is bright and cheery, the driving force of life. What’s not to like ??
I’m a convert; in fact I’ll be the local prophet, (the next Al Gore) please send donations to…..
Predictions based on climate models are worthless.
The 95% certainty of Working Group I of the IPCC boils down to climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause in surface temperature trends (von Storch 2013).
Models are proven failures in predicting rain, drought, storms, humidity and everything else (Taylor 2012). The IPCC gets cloud feedbacks wrong by a factor 19 times larger than the entire effect of increased CO2 (Miller 2012).
Models don’t predict the climate on a local, regional, or continental scale (Anagnostopoulos 2010 and Koutsoyiannis 2008).
They don’t work on the tropical troposphere (Christy 2010, Po-Chedley 2012, Fu 2011, Paltridge 2009). The fingerprints they predicted are 100% missing.
The IPCC admits in the fine print that the models don’t work. Water vapor in the tropics is the most important feedback, yet the models get it wrong. See Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models”:
@Stewart Boyle, I agree with you. Given the sources they use, the false arguments and outright non-sense (repeated with obstinence on this blog), I would say it’s rather amusing to read their intense contribution to a futile debate. There is no scientific debate about climate change and its causes, the only rational debate is about solutions for reversal and mitigation.
Even the oil executives get it, here are some of their actions:
https://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/CDP-Global-500-Climate-Change-Report-2013.pdf
Many of the solutions are technological, so it should be very exciting news that we have such an important role to play in solving a global, vital problem.
I don’t understand why an engineer would refer to any science or scientist in an offensive and dismissive manner, I can only assume that those commentators are not engineers.
Rail transportation, passenger and freight, is one example of low carbon technology. I wish that the new plan for UK will be successful on all objectives, including reducing UK’s carbon footprint. The added bonus of keeping or re-shoring manufacturing in UK is another reason to hope for its success. Localized manufacturing in itself is one solution for climate change reversal.
I am a confirmed “Denier” and have been since the first IPCC report came out because of the obvious subjective nature of the Radiant Forcing Function that is the basis for all the modelling.
I have also become as cynical as most contributors are to the repeated dishonesty regarding ice-extent and the various doom scenarios.
John Davies cited some blogs that are tremendous in showing the evidence against AGW, and I would recommend the Paul Homewood sites to everyone. I also found Brian Leyton’s comments very useful.
I cannot understand the arrogant approach exemplified by MS Leahu-Aleas, as this is the sort of complacency that has allowed the IPCC to cause the massive damage that it has caused.
More on solutions to reduce/prevent the human induced global warming:
1. Using human body heat in HVAC
http://www.symbiocity.org/Templates/Pages/Page.aspx?id=136&epslanguage=en#subpageanchor
2. Choosing the cleanest transportation option
http://www.bahn.com/i/view/GBR/en/services/overview/environmental-mobility-check.shtml
3. Greening commercial buildings
http://www.mallofamerica.com/about/future-expansion/green-initiatives
Sorry this is a bit long.
@ Silvia Leahu-Aluas | 7 Apr 2014 0:06 am
I had a look at your ‘Climate-Change-Report’ link; Another good example of green politico-sales spin (sounds good but inaccurate), for example-
[ Page 4 1st para
[“This year (2013) we passed a significant landmark of 400ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and are rapidly heading towards 450ppm, accepted by many governments as the upper limit to avoid dangerous climate change” ]
1- We are NOT rapidly heading towards 450ppm, we are currently at 399.
2- What the hell do governments know about appropriate CO2 levels ??
They are to busy increasing their salary levels & fiddling expenses.
[Page 4 2nd para
“The unprecedented melting of the Arctic ice” ]
1- Forgive me but doesn’t ‘unprecedented’ mean- never happened before ??
2- What about the Viking farmers in Greenland (there’s a clue in that name)
[ Pg 8 “emissions from the 50 largest emitters have increased by 1.65% since 2009 “
Yet –
1- CO2 levels are static.
2- global temperatures have not increased for 17yrs & now show a modest drop
Maybe nature is doing what nature does in its own timescale.
You may not be aware that according to Met Office records, the Central England Temperature for 2013 was similar to 1666,1676,1686. (For the met office data – http://tinyurl.com/8727btc )
But over 350yrs there have been modest fluctuations above & below
Silvia, you say – [“There is no scientific debate about climate change and its causes”]
I don’t know where you’ve been hiding, but I can assure you there is a vigorous scientific debate…world wide!! Do some research.
You also say –
[ “I don’t understand why an engineer would refer to any science or scientist in an offensive and dismissive manner, I can only assume that those commentators are not engineers.” ]
1- A good engineer or scientist NEVER assumes, ( because it makes an ASS of U & ME ) but looks at the empirical data.
2- Most engineers & scientists find it offensive that policy is driven from the junk ‘science’ & flawed data produced by Mann, Jones, Cook et al.
3- The IPCC chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri, admitted in an interview ( 19 Sept 2013) with the Guardian, – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/19/ipcc-chairman-climate-report – that the IPCC science reports are tailored to meet the political needs of governments.
He said – ( “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products we would be at their beck and call.” ) –
Believe the data, NOT the politics !!
@ Jack Broughton | 8 Apr 2014 3:26 pm
I’m a believer in climate change, it’s been changing for 4 billion + yrs.
The arch ‘denier’ is Michael Mann who denied the Roman & Medieval warm periods & the Little Ice Age….so the data would fit his cr@p model.
@Silvia Leahu-Aluas | 9 Apr 2014 3:14 am
Thanks for the info on energy efficiency.
In the UK we’ve been doing all those things you mention for years.
I worked in buildings in the 1970s that were heated by the AC collecting heat from lighting, occupants & underground car park (lots of kW’s stored in recently driven cars).
But good you flag up energy efficiency, we’ve been too wasteful for too long.
The next instalment of the IPCC political doctrine is being launched to the usual massive media hype. As usual opposition views are rejected as un-scientific / political and worse.
I had a meeting with some eminent University pure scientists last week and was amazed that they all believed all the media hype without question. Even shoeing the evidence that I have gathered from the various web-sites left me appearing to be some sort of eccentric heretic.
What chance has the opposition to the wasteful, future compromising IPCC reports against the Goebbels like press support for them????
No matter how long the list of invalid arguments and how coarse is the language used (which, by the way, I expect to be professional on The Engineer, blog or not) there still is no scientific debate on climate change.
For the curious and/or just for intellectual fun, here are some scientific sources, including by the highly respected climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University, USA.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html#.U0r9bqJ7T4s
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
More on solutions:
1. Science-based target setting for GHG reduction targets
http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghgp/Concept%20Note%20-%20MScienceMGap.pdf
2. Localize manufacturing and sourcing to reduce transportation pollution
http://ecomento.com/2014/04/03/tesla-to-build-all-american-battery-packs-to-cut-pollution/
3. New, less material/energy intensive production processes
http://www.machinery.co.uk/machinery-news/additive-manufacturing-sigma-labs-ge-aviation-process-control-patent-leap-ge9x-3d-printing/60555/
@john davies
Well said that man!
@Silvia Leahu-Aluas
I’m neither an engineer nor a scientist however that doesn’t mean I can’t grasp two sides of an argument. In fact one could argue that it provides me with an objective perspective engineers and scientists may not have. I find your sniffy dismissal of anyone who is not an engineer offensive.
The purpose of any engineer, scientist, or indeed any intelligent individual is to question every ‘accepted’ theory. Your blind acceptance of IPCC conclusions in the face of considerable doubt makes a mockery of any qualifications you may have.
And there is no such thing as an invalid argument, if there is any quantitative substance to an argument, it is valid. It seems you believe everything you are told.
As I said before, it is important to separate GW from AGW and reiterate that it is virtually impossible to determine whether what we are going through in terms of GW is man made or entirely natural.
As for predicting whats going to happens in terms of climate change in 5 or 50 years time, when the Met office admit that predicting what the weathers going to be like beyond a 7 day period is impossible, suggests that someone is trying to be altogether to clever. Particularly when IPCC predictions are almost entirely computer based – there is simply not a computer built yet that can include every eventuality, fact based or otherwise (mostly otherwise in the case of the IPCC) likely over the next year far less the next 50.
The fact is that, as john davies pointed out, the IPCC is a political machine and for that reason alone, consigned to junk science.
The human race will have to adapt, as we have for hundreds of thousands of years and by our very nature, we are inclined to leave that adaptation until there is something to adapt to, which we are doing.
The IPCC is our modern day equivalent of a medicine man, one who terrorises his clan with outrageous predictions for no other reason than to maintain his position in the clan. The more threatened he feels, the more outrageous his predictions become.
@ Silvia Leahu-Aluas | 13 Apr 2014 10:42 pm
You say-
( “the highly respected climate scientist, Dr. Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor” )
Now there’s an oxymoron….this is the Mann who-
-Falsely claimed to be a Nobel Peace Prize winner – see his CV –
[ http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/about/cv/cv_hyper.htm ]
[ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Michael-E.-Mann/e/B001KP3VIW/ref=ntt_dp_epwbk_0 ]
But both IPCC & Nobel committee say NO.
IPCC [ http://tinyurl.com/na3a79u ]
Nobel committee [ http://tinyurl.com/ofjwtqb ]
– Altered & removed data to make his hockey stick work
– Was involved with “Hide the Decline” & ‘climategate’ with Jones, Briffa et al. http://tinyurl.com/neea3hh
– Still refuses to release his calculations for scrutiny/peer review, (not very scientific !!)
Is Mr Mann a cheat & charlatan ? Yes… ‘highly respected’ ‘Distinguished Professor’ ?? NO.
The Mann is a disgrace to the scientific community. ( IMHO )
As you enjoy intellectual fun, you could look up ‘Mr Man’ in the urban dictionary, first 2 lines describe him well !!
From one of your links – ( “The report states: “The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1000 years.” )
BUT according to Met Office records, the Central England Temperature for 2013 was similar to 1666, 1676, 1686. (For the met office data – http://tinyurl.com/8727btc ) so maybe NOT unprecedented.
I understand that there are people who find it advantageous to trumpet the outputs of badly constructed computer models rather than facts, but that kind of blind zealotic belief has no place in science or engineering.
It’s a shame that climate change threads are continually defaced by the trolls pushing the usual rubbish about ‘disgrace’ and ‘failed models’. It shows ignorance about how modelling is conducted. The models actually demonstrate considerable skill in hindcasting and are continuously being improved as demonstrated by Gavin Schmitt’s recent TED talk.
The evidence for AGW is very strong, with carbon isotope changes, O2 concentration changes and analysis of the emissions. That last one just needs a couple of sides of A4 to show that the increase in CO2 concentration is entirely due to human emissions.
The decline in Arctic sea ice is indeed precipitous, last years ‘recovery’ was only a recovery to the mean. This years melt is already tracking below 2012… The gain in Antarctic sea ice is only offsetting about a third of this loss, and that is also due to increasing wind velocities and salinity changes due to land ice melt. Both Greenland and Antartica have a net loss of ice due to melting and a very recent study has shown that the Pine Island Glacier is becoming unstable and that could lead to large sea level rise over the next centuary.
Prof Mann’s work was also been substantiated and refined by a number of studies. most recently by the Marcott study.
The ‘climategate scandal’ (which was only a scandal because of the theft of personal data and IP) was dealt with by no less than seven seperate enquiries on both sides of the Atlantic.
A study of the available scientific evidence clearly shows that AGW is a real effect, obfuscation and delaying tactics by the ill-informed is doing our descendents a dis-service, even more so by those who willfully twist the evidence to suit their political or commercial ends.