UKC

NEW ARTICLE: Environmentalism and Climbing: An Uneasy Partnership

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC Articles 19 Aug 2009
[The Whitechuck Glacier, Washington, USA, 1973 and again in 2006, 3 kb]Es Tresidder is a regular UKC contributor and an environmental consultant. He has written a thought provoking article on climate change and the relationship between climbing and carbon emissions.

In this article Es interviews several climbing companies and well known climbing figures, such as Yvon Chouinard from Patagonia, as well as making his own case for reducing air travel in Europe.

Read the full in-depth article here.

Read more at http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=2038

 Phil1919 19 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles: Great article. Very inspiring.
 Jon Bracey 19 Aug 2009
Thought provoking stuff Es. A very well researched and put together article! Time to quit easyjet and embrace pedal power!
 Michael Ryan 19 Aug 2009
In reply to Jon Bracey:

Traveling between slideshows Jon. Any plans?

Mick
 tony 19 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Excellent article. Typical Es - very thoughtful, intelligent and measured. Challenging times ahead!
 DannyC 20 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Fantastic article. One of the best I've seen on here.
 vscott 20 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles: Excellent article Es. On the subject of alpine glacial retreat the swiss are re-drawing their borders to account for the melting- http://euobserver.com/9/28567
 Mr Powly 20 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Very good article, brilliant to see.
 Es Tresidder 21 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles: Thanks to everyone for all the feedback and discussion. Sorry I've not had time to come on here and answer the questions that folk have asked. Instead of doing that, which I think would end up dragging on and on, I'm going to do a live Q+A session in a couple of weeks. In this I'll start by answering the questions from the two forum threads then take any questions that come up on the day.

Cheers, Es.
 whistler 21 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:
Pretty cool stuff. But ony thing I don't understand. What is the GOAL of all this? I don't want to engage in any scientific debates as I know nothing on the subject.
Say we succed on reducing CO2 emissions to an acceptable minimum, will this bring everything back to "normal"? (we know there is no normal climate, it constantly changes). What if it goes the other way and glacier start advancing towards our hometowns and Rock Climbing will be long forgotten history ? I'm sure ski tourers and ice climbers are all salivating now
 ClimberEd 21 Aug 2009
In reply to whistler:

To keep the world habitable by our burgeoning population.
 DougG 21 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Superb article.
 tony 21 Aug 2009
In reply to whistler:
> (In reply to UKC Articles)
> Pretty cool stuff. But ony thing I don't understand. What is the GOAL of all this? I don't want to engage in any scientific debates as I know nothing on the subject.
> Say we succed on reducing CO2 emissions to an acceptable minimum, will this bring everything back to "normal"? (we know there is no normal climate, it constantly changes).

The problem is less to do with the absolute level of CO2 in the atmosphere, but more with the rate of change. Before the Industrial Revolution, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 280 parts per million (ppm). With the advent of industrialisation and burning of fossil fuels, that concentration has increased to about 380 ppm - that's an increase of more than 30%, over what is in geological terms, a very short time.

Furthermore, as more countries become industrialised, such as China, India, Brazil and so on, the rate of increase will rise, so we'll have more and more CO2 in the atmosphere.

The climate has a high degree of sensitivity to changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Increasing the amount in the atmosphere will have consequences - we know temperatures will go up, but the amount they will go up will depend on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

If we continue to allow emissions to rise at the current rate, the danger is that climate conditions in many parts of the world will not be able to support their populations - drought, water shortages and seasonal changes will affect the ability to grow sufficient food for local populations. This will lead to significant migrations, placing increasing pressure on those parts of the world that are still able to operate sustainably.

To avoid this, it's important to reduce the amount of change, and to do that, we need to reduce the amount of emissions. The normal, natural range of climate changes you talk about is considerably less than is likely to happen with increasing emissions, so there is much less risk resulting from normal climate variations than there is from global warming arising from our activities in burning fossil fuels.

With regard to bringing things back to 'normal' - you could define normal as the state which existed before we started burning coal and oil in such huge quantities. CO2 lingers in the atmosphere for a long time, so even we stopped all emissions now, we'd be faced with the consequences of high concentrations for at least the rest of the century. It may be possible that the atmosphere will revert to 'normal' pre-industrial levels, but it won't be in my lifetime.
 EZ 21 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles: Seems that there is a lot of repetition of data that is not sourced outside of the international authority that is destined it seems to govern our right to chose. How very one sided.

There are many schools of thought on this and to ascribe our future to one alone and then have it applauded by people on this forum who are just repeating their indoctrinated views about which they have nothing but mainstream media (newspapers, television and radio) rhetoric is a sad state of affairs.

We as a people have lost the ability to investigate for ourselves and form opinions based upon what we discover. We ask the television to download information into our heads every night and believe that that is thinking itself. We ask our media to rationalise for us and just repeat the talking points in the office or on the shop floor the next day. Read Zbigniew Brezinski or Bertrand Russell or Aldous Huxley or ... the list of people who run our world and write about their ideas for it's future is long and enlightening.

If you read nothing else about global warming read "The First Global Revolution" in which two of the founders of The Club Of Rome, Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider wrote this:

“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."

Then after you have read that look at the current membership and associates of The Club Of Rome ( http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html ).

We are sheeple being led from one field to another and one day to our slaughter by a shepherd who claims to be our aide and to watch over us. We acknowledge only the friendly face of our shepherd but he 'will' take us to our slaughter.

It's like Neo said to Morpheus and Trinity about 'The One' after speaking to the Archetect: "I'm sorry but it's just another system of control".
Wrongfoot 21 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Pie in the sky.

I suspect that Es can reduce his carbon outlay from flying with little personal cost because he benefits from the flexible working patters available to a self-employed consultant?

The reality is that most people consider one of the biggest costs of holiday travel to be the time it takes. Unless this cost is outweighed by other costs (financial, social etc.) then flights will continue to be the holiday travel method of choice short-haul or otherwise.

I appreciate that as a climbing focused article Es determined that flying was perhaps climbings greatest impact and that he mentioned other impacts in other areas of our lives in passing while choosing to ignore them for the purposes of the article, but I consider that's a flawed perspective. After all the best way to reduce your carbon footprint from climbing is to stop climbing completely! Clearly not a sacrifice that Es was prepared to countenance...

Which re-inforces the point that we should make the sacrifices that we find acceptable and consider the most productive in terms of reducing our carbon footprint first. Es did just this by continuing to climb but reducing his flying, he drew "chinese walls" around his climbing as a seperate carbon cost center. Others may wish to look at their lifestyle according to other cost centres or even (heresy) as a whole. You can save tonnes of CO2 in other ways and still fly. That's perfectly acceptable!

Reducing your flying is often somewhat like taking your canvas bags to the supermarket - fine as additional measures but questionable in terms of targeted effectiveness. I believe it's referred to as Greenwash in certain circles!
 ClimberEd 21 Aug 2009
In reply to Wrongfoot:

That's why the cost of flying is going to go through the roof and you are going to be screwed. Because you wont take those steps voluntarily.
 EZ 22 Aug 2009
In reply to ClimberEd:
Aldous Huxley said in a lecture a Barkeley in 1961:

"And first let me talk about the, a little bit about the, improvement in the techniques of terrorism. I think there have been improvements. Pavlov after all made some extremely profound observations both on animals and on human beings. And he found among other things that conditioning techniques applied to animals or humans in a state either of psychological or physical stress sank in so to say, very deeply into the mind-body of the creature, and were extremely difficult to get rid of. That they seemed to be embedded more deeply than other forms of conditioning."

He was talking about the ability to get people to "love their servitude" so as to maintain an oligarchy for a greater period than shear terrorism would be able to achieve... and here we are "Because you wont take those steps voluntarily." so as "To keep the world habitable by our burgeoning population."

Would you be the first in line to request self sterelisation? I am reminded of the unemployment fix in Monty Python's The Meaning Of Life when people volunteered to jump off a cliff to make their jobs vacant for another to become employed.

Global warming and climate change are a ruse to get you to accept a global form of taxation that directly affects your ability to act in a free manner. A prisoner who chooses when the door is left open to not walk out is a fool for the day will come when the door is locked and the choice is no longer their own. We are being boiled like a frog that does not realise it is dying as the water temperature gradually rises.

Martin Seligman and Steve Maier ran some experiments in which they discovered the behavioural condition of "learned helplessness". This condition was induced by teaching dogs to accept electric shocks by removing their ability to escape from the shocks. Whilst harnessed they just stood and quivered waiting for the next shock about which they could do nothing. During this section of the experiment the dogs learned to accept their diabolical situation and to expect to be able to do nothing about it so that; this behaviour was again exhibited by two thirds of the same group when they were shocked without harnesses and had an easy means of escape by jumping over a low partition. They had learned to be helpless.

The point I am making is that through scare tactics and repetitive conditioning on the television and in articles like the one being discussed here, we are being taught to lie down and accept whatever draconian measures we are told are appropriate to withstand this thing called climate change.
 augustus trout 24 Aug 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:
I do agree that their are other ways of reducing emissions other than flying. With only 22 % or their abouts of emissions coming from transport it may seem as the response above suggests a case of green wash. but the sheer level of ineffeciency of flight in comparison to rail from one location to another is so great it is one of the easiest ways to reduce our individual carbon footprint.

The choice of not taking a flight is not practically that onerous its possible to get to continental europe in less than a day of travel. London to geneva takes indeed roughly half a day. Considering the number of interchanges that the normal process of flying takes the amount time saved by flying is probably not that much greater.
Making these decisions is on a personal level at the moment(unless of course the privilaged position of tax free fuel is revoked)and I cant see why the decision to make intracontinental journeys by other modes of transport is regarded with such suspicion by the above posters.

While inter continental journeys may require flying to certain locations there are other methods once continental devides are crossed to reduce that segment of a journey as an overall proportion of the journey, If we are travelling to undertake an adventure it seems both shortsited not to make the journey itself part of that adventure, it doesnt have to be by bicycle just anything other than a plane.
 anonymouse 24 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
> (In reply to UKC Articles) Seems that there is a lot of repetition of data that is not sourced outside of the international authority that is destined it seems to govern our right to chose. How very one sided.
etc...

Erm. As interesting as all that is, the relevant science has nothing to do with your dark fantasies about mind control. The world is probably going to get warmer. We need to decide what to do about it.
 anonymouse 24 Aug 2009
In reply to Wrongfoot:
> The reality is that most people consider one of the biggest costs of holiday travel to be the time it takes. Unless this cost is outweighed by other costs (financial, social etc.) then flights will continue to be the holiday travel method of choice short-haul or otherwise.
I suspect this is true. It's certainly been a factor when I've been choosing how to travel for holidays. If my holidays were longer, I would quite enjoy travelling long distances by train or boat. I don't because they end up being more expensive and taking longer than the equivalent flights.

Maybe the solution is to give people longer holidays!
 Silum 24 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
> (In reply to UKC Articles) Seems that there is a lot of repetition of data that is not sourced outside of the international authority that is destined it seems to govern our right to chose. How very one sided.
>
> There are many schools of thought on this and to ascribe our future to one alone and then have it applauded by people on this forum who are just repeating their indoctrinated views about which they have nothing but mainstream media (newspapers, television and radio) rhetoric is a sad state of affairs.
>
> We as a people have lost the ability to investigate for ourselves and form opinions based upon what we discover. We ask the television to download information into our heads every night and believe that that is thinking itself. We ask our media to rationalise for us and just repeat the talking points in the office or on the shop floor the next day. Read Zbigniew Brezinski or Bertrand Russell or Aldous Huxley or ... the list of people who run our world and write about their ideas for it's future is long and enlightening.
>
> If you read nothing else about global warming read "The First Global Revolution" in which two of the founders of The Club Of Rome, Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider wrote this:
>
> “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
>
> Then after you have read that look at the current membership and associates of The Club Of Rome ( http://www.green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html ).
>
> We are sheeple being led from one field to another and one day to our slaughter by a shepherd who claims to be our aide and to watch over us. We acknowledge only the friendly face of our shepherd but he 'will' take us to our slaughter.
>
> It's like Neo said to Morpheus and Trinity about 'The One' after speaking to the Archetect: "I'm sorry but it's just another system of control".

Glad I don't even need to make any points, you made them all for me.
 anonymouse 24 Aug 2009
In reply to Silum:
> Glad I don't even need to make any points, you made them all for me.

lol!
 EZ 24 Aug 2009
In reply to Silum: tyvm
 anonymouse 25 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
I think he was taking the pish. Either that, or he was unaware of the irony in sheepily agreeing with someone who says, we're all sheep.
 Jeff25 25 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:
In reply to UKC Articles:

Interesting Article but I really feel that the 'true cost' (ie the cost that includes the damage to the environment) has to be factored into the price of everything we do before any change in behaviours can come about. - otherwise you are asking people to behave in a way that is not optimal for themsleves which never seems to get mainstream traction.

I used to fly an insane amount (about 7000 miles per week every week!) but my decision to stop was driven by rising prices.

Financial cost is the current language that all understand - especially businesses. If you want to change behaviour you have to make the cost of the activity truly reflect the environmental cost you believe it incurs. Anything else will only influence the very fringes of the population.

My preference would be to tax the hell out of anything that causes damage. From carrier bags, through to jet fuel, and at the same time subsides (give away) public transport, bicycles etc. I was so disappointed to see the huge wave of disaproval about the road tax being based on distance/road used rather than flat fee.

We already do a form of the above my taxing booze and cigarettes so much - as they cost society way more than the cost of production etc. We need to think about doing the same for the environment.

Just my thoughts.
 EZ 25 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:

Being in agreement does not imply that one is following without consideration.

To assume that the mickey was being taken is a somewhat more doubtful attitude than mine. I have faith in human nature, don't you? Also I read some of his other posts and looked at his profile before responding to ascertain whether his general nature was one of sarcasm or not. It appears not to be.
The response stands Silum... tyvm.

And if your approach to debate is anything to go by vis a vis your take (which is very interesting) in the current Creationism in the UK thread on these forums then I am surprised that such a sceptical view was taken and that the ironic implication was assumed.
 anonymouse 25 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
OK. I suppose I didn't see the relevance of your post. The globe is warming. It's very probably got something to do with all that CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere. Your post doesn't really deal with that at all.

The article in the OP does.
 EZ 25 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:

My original post debates whether global warming really exists the way we are being led to believe.

The Club Of Rome is a global, private, invitation only think tank that is staffed and associated to by some of the heaviest weighted people on the planet. What I am suggesting, in what I apologise may have been a difficult to understand way, is that the global warming thing may be an agent for an agenda and not a reality. To back my position I quote "The First Global Revolution" written in the 1991 (ISBN-13: 978-0679738251) in which the authors state that they "came up with the idea" (that is a direct quote) that global warming and other anthropomorphic disastrous scenarios would be a good way to unite the planet. I do not think that a global governance is a good direction to head, but these people who are the highest rollers in politics and banking and social elitism do. Historically, larger institutions and bureaucracies do not work in the favour of their charges. They usually serve to perpetuate only their own existence.

So you know my position and hopefully can see that I am on topic. To directly disagree with Es' stance is fair. I am sorry if I was not clear; I tend to be be heated in thought about this topic and it sometimes doesn't translate to written prose very well.

Google books will give you access to a lot of The First Global Revolution at http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8RNKHGbzUuAC&printsec=frontcover&...

Also worth a look in (but harder to find online copy) is "Limits To Growth" in which The Club Of Rome demonstrates very Malthusian ideas about how to curb the population. That means stop people from breeding, and I bet they don't consider themselves to be worthy of the inhibition.
 kevin stephens 25 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:
> (In reply to EZ)
> OK. I suppose I didn't see the relevance of your post. The globe is warming. It's very probably got something to do with all that CO2 we're putting in the atmosphere. Your post doesn't really deal with that at all.
>
> The article in the OP does.

Not really, it does nothing to mitigate climate change, but just shows how climbers can wash our hands of it and say "it wasn't our fault"

 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to kevin stephens:
I didn't mean that. I meant, it deals with the science of climate change. What we should do about it is something else entirely. The article is one persons attempt at that. You obviously think it's not enough.
 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
> My original post debates whether global warming really exists the way we are being led to believe.
I know. The way to work out if global warming exists or not is by studying the science, not the politics. The science is pretty solid.
 tony 26 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
> (In reply to anonymouse)
>
> My original post debates whether global warming really exists the way we are being led to believe.
>
No, it didn't really debate that at all. To do that, you need to discuss the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, with reference to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the past 100 years or so.

> The Club Of Rome is a global, private, invitation only think tank that is staffed and associated to by some of the heaviest weighted people on the planet. What I am suggesting, in what I apologise may have been a difficult to understand way, is that the global warming thing may be an agent for an agenda and not a reality. To back my position I quote "The First Global Revolution" written in the 1991 (ISBN-13: 978-0679738251) in which the authors state that they "came up with the idea" (that is a direct quote) that global warming and other anthropomorphic disastrous scenarios would be a good way to unite the planet.

They may think that global warming requires global action. They certainly didn't come up with the idea of global warming - the role of greenhouse gases in maintaining the planet's temperature has been known about since the early 19th century, and the idea of increasing concentrations of CO2 with a view to increasing temperatures was first put forward by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century.

Trying to roll global warming into some sinister elite conspiracy doesn't actually deal with the science.

 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to tony:
> Trying to roll global warming into some sinister elite conspiracy doesn't actually deal with the science.
Well said!
 EZ 26 Aug 2009
In reply to tony:
> (In reply to EZ)
> [...]
> No, it didn't really debate that at all.

To debate means to discuss or deliberate not just to argue from an opposite stance. So yes my post does debate. Semantics are dangerous when words are ill-chosen. I choose mine carefully.

> To do that, you need to discuss the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas, with reference to the increase in atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over the past 100 years or so.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
This is a paper submitted to and published by the American Physical Society. Though they note that it is not peer reviewed it should be considered that the peer review process is predominantly an aide to editorial boards not a proving of the science being as it is used to edit out known errant data or methods and not to confirm that given data and methods are correct. In it the IPCC methods and scope are questioned and the consequence of co2 rise is debated.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
In this article it is suggested that: "Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer."
Maybe the cause of a rise in temperature is not greenhouse gases, if one even believes that there is a rise and that the data is not skewed.

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chillingar_Atm_Cooling_due_to_CO2.pdf
This is a peer reviewed (as some people seem to think that that is important) study which uses accepted scientific method to demonstrate that the effect of co2 increase is not a global rise in climate:
"Anthropogenic Impact on the Earth’s Climate
The adiabatic theory allows one to evaluate quantitatively the influence of anthropogenic
emission of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate. The carbon content in the atmosphere
was increasing by approximately 3 billion tons per year at the end of century. The rate
of the total human-induced CO2 emission to the Earth’s atmosphere is currently about
5–7 billion tons per year (Schimel, 1995; Robinson et al., 1998), or about 1.4–1.9 billion
tons of carbon per year. This amount of carbon dioxide slightly increases the atmospheric
pressure.
To evaluate the effect of anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide on global temperature,
one can use the adiabatic model together with the sensitivity analysis (Sorokhtin,
2001; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004). At sea level, if the pressure is measured in
atmospheres, then p D 1 atm and
T  T p (12)
If, for example, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases two times
(from 0.035% to 0.07%), which is expected by the year of 2100, then the atmospheric
pressure will increase by p  1:48  10
.4
atm (Sorokhtin, 2001). After substitution
of T D 288 K, D 0:1905, and p D 1:48  10
.4
atm into Eq. (13), one obtains
T  8:12  10
.3
C. T will be slightly higher at the higher altitudes (Khilyuk
and Chilingar, 2003). Thus, the increase in the surface temperature at sea level caused
by doubling of the present-day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be less than
0.01

C, which is negligible in comparison with natural temporal fluctuations of global
temperature.
From these estimates, one can deduce a very important conclusion that even considerable
increase in anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide does not lead to noticeable
temperature increase. Thus, the hypothesis of current global warming as a result of
increased emission of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere is not true."

-- Please note that there are symbols used in the above quote that do not translate in ascii. You will need to download and read the pdf to see the data correctly. --

> They may think that global warming requires global action. They certainly didn't come up with the idea of global warming

I didn't say they did. They said that they came up with the idea of using it as an agent for global unification.

> the role of greenhouse gases in maintaining the planet's temperature has been known about since the early 19th century, and the idea of increasing concentrations of CO2 with a view to increasing temperatures was first put forward by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in the late 19th century.

No. The role has been posited by some. If I agree to your premise that there is a KNOWN role of greenhouse gases in temperature reglation then I undermine my position. You may agree with this premise but it is only in the realm of theory as to what the causes and effects are.

> Trying to roll global warming into some sinister elite conspiracy doesn't actually deal with the science.

The point I am making in general is that the use of the alleged science to demonstrate global warming is being beaten like a drum. Everywhere that one looks there is some comment about how people are the cancer on the planet and that the earth will never survive if we do not do something about ourselves. This inevitably implies that some will do to others, as we have an unelected global entity called the IPCC who, with other institutions that will play the legislative and policy bearing roles, are being given power of proxy over our lives and it is articles like the one in the original post, in which there is a presupposition that man is the problem, that are enabling them to do it. WE ARE LOSING WHAT FEW RIGHTS WE HAVE LEFT because we have no indignation. We have lost the ability to think clearly for ourselves. Now men in white coats wearing labels like "expert" and "scientist" are the new priests and their religion will enslave us for years.

Just because I didn't agree doesn't mean that I do not have valid points. As I have said to others, if we just keep reading the rags and watching the box we are sure to be buying a bridge sometime soon.
 EZ 26 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:
> (In reply to tony)
> [...]
> Well said!

Sheeple? lol

 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
From Monckton's article:

Globally-averaged land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlyside et al., 2008).

This is a standard sceptic argument. It is not possible to extract a significant trend from such a short stretch of data, or, to turn that around: by judicious choice of start and end points within your seven year sample, one can show just about any trend one desires. Also the analysis picks one surface data set - HadCRUT3 - which shows less warming (and it does show warming, albeit insignificant warming) in the past few years than the NASA and NCDC analyses and one upper air data set UAH. This statement (no warming since 98) also ignores natural variability (1998 was a strong El Nino, 2008 a strong La Nina) and uncertainty on the global average. He goes one step further and plots temperatures for only the past six and a half years. He could have referenced the Met Office's decadal prediction, which states that half of the years after 2010 will be warmer than 1998, as well as Keenlyside, but why ruin a good story and anyway, as it turns out, Monckton doesn't really believe in the models anyway so he's contradicting himself as well :-

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005);

Models do project periods of multidecadal stasis even while the long term trend is strongly positive. He goes on to purposely confuse global warming and regional warming when he refers to Antarctic cooling (which is connected, I believe, with ozone depletion) and cites Soon 2005 to support his contention that there has been no Arctic warming. Soon does not mention this - the paper is about correlations between solar irradiance and Arctic temperature and mentions trends only to note that there has been a general warming of the Arctic since the 19th century - and cites Igor Polyakov's Arctic surface temperature data set. The IPCC report shows that the Arctic has warmed at least twice as fast as the global average.

nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski & Koltermann, 2007);

He cites a paper by Lyman et al. to show that there has been no warming in the oceans since 2003. This paper has since been corrected by the authors as the result was biased by problems with the ARGO floats used to collect the data. He doesn't cite the correction. Gouretski and Koltermann only analyses data up to 1996 so is utterly irrelevant here.
 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse:
The non-italic interspersions are my comments on the text. That's just the first couple of lines. The rest isn't any better. e.g. the next few of lines

nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solanki et al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

There's quite a lot there, which might well be damning if he had made it clear what exactly it was he was trying to damn. Does he mean that we can't predict these events long ahead of time - some we can't, others we can - or that climate models don't produce them at all - actually, they do. What he does appear to be doing is blurring the difference between a weather forecast and a climate projection. For all that, he his keen to cite Keenlyside who use a climate model to do just what he claims they can't.

He states that climate models can't reproduce the medieval warm period, but doesn't mention that actually there is marked uncertainty about the duration, magnitude and spatial coverage of the event. Disappointingly there is no reference given for the 'eerily-continuing' solar minimum.

The Met Office's 30 May 2007 press release on the summer forecast said "Following the trend set throughout 2006 and the first part of 2007, seasonal forecasters say there is a high probability that summer temperature will exceed the 1971-2000 long-term average of 14.1 °C. Current rainfall indications suggest that over the summer as a whole southern parts of the UK are more likely to experience average or below-average rainfall, while the north is more likely to see average or above-average rainfall." Given that this is a probabilistic forecast, it is inaccurate to say that it was wrong. It is also inaccurate to say that the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts and inaccurate to suggest that they might be able to predict extreme events ahead of time.

His final remarks in the paragraph are neatly circular bringing him back to the ill founded opening statement. He notes, correctly that there was a large drop in the global average from January 2007 to May 2008, but doesn't also mention that January 2007 was the peak of an El Nino and May 2008 the nadir of a La Nina. Temperatures have since increased and a recent article (Thompson et al. 2008) has shown that if one removes the effects of El Nino and La Nina then the global 'cold snap' disappears revealing its origin as a temporary natural fluctuation and more or less irrelevant to the long term trends.
 EZ 26 Aug 2009
In reply to anonymouse: I just cannot believe that you have read and written between 17:26 and 17:47. If you did I am impressed, if you didn't then you are quoting someone else's rebuttal of the article or have formulated your views on this specific article prior to this debate in which case you are either very well read on all angles of the argument or have been versed by someone else.

Either way my hat is off to your debating skills.
 anonymouse 26 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
It's not the first time I've read the article. I admire the article for all sorts of reasons, but it's not especially scientific.
 tony 26 Aug 2009
In reply to EZ:
>
> http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
> This is a paper submitted to and published by the American Physical Society. Though they note that it is not peer reviewed it should be considered that the peer review process is predominantly an aide to editorial boards not a proving of the science being as it is used to edit out known errant data or methods and not to confirm that given data and methods are correct. In it the IPCC methods and scope are questioned and the consequence of co2 rise is debated.
>
You you really want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest you steer clear of Christopher Monckton's work, which doesn't really stand up to very much detailed scrutiny. Following the paper you refer to, there was a considerable hoohah, and the APS issued the following statement:
APS Climate Change Statement

APS Position Remains Unchanged

The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate.”

An article at odds with this statement recently appeared in an online newsletter of the APS Forum on Physics and Society, one of 39 units of APS. The header of this newsletter carries the statement that “Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum.” This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed.


> http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
> In this article it is suggested that: "Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer."
> Maybe the cause of a rise in temperature is not greenhouse gases, if one even believes that there is a rise and that the data is not skewed.
>
It's known and acknowledged that there are natural cycles. However, this doesn't mean that there cannot also be other influences, such as the role of greenhouse gases (GHGs, for short). We know how much the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs have increased over the past 100 years, and it's simply not credible that such increases could take place without an accompanying increase in temperature. For that to happen would require some fundamental physics to be breached.

> http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen9/Chillingar_Atm_Cooling_due_to_CO2.pdf
> This is a peer reviewed (as some people seem to think that that is important) study which uses accepted scientific method to demonstrate that the effect of co2 increase is not a global rise in climate:
> "Anthropogenic Impact on the Earth’s Climate
> The adiabatic theory allows one to evaluate quantitatively the influence of anthropogenic
> emission of carbon dioxide on the Earth’s climate. The carbon content in the atmosphere
> was increasing by approximately 3 billion tons per year at the end of century. The rate
> of the total human-induced CO2 emission to the Earth’s atmosphere is currently about
> 5–7 billion tons per year (Schimel, 1995; Robinson et al., 1998), or about 1.4–1.9 billion
> tons of carbon per year. This amount of carbon dioxide slightly increases the atmospheric
> pressure.
> To evaluate the effect of anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide on global temperature,
> one can use the adiabatic model together with the sensitivity analysis (Sorokhtin,
> 2001; Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2003, 2004). At sea level, if the pressure is measured in
> atmospheres, then p D 1 atm and
> T  T p (12)
> If, for example, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases two times
> (from 0.035% to 0.07%), which is expected by the year of 2100, then the atmospheric
> pressure will increase by p  1:48  10
> .4
> atm (Sorokhtin, 2001). After substitution
> of T D 288 K, D 0:1905, and p D 1:48  10
> .4
> atm into Eq. (13), one obtains
> T  8:12  10
> .3
> C. T will be slightly higher at the higher altitudes (Khilyuk
> and Chilingar, 2003). Thus, the increase in the surface temperature at sea level caused
> by doubling of the present-day CO2 concentration in the atmosphere will be less than
> 0.01
> 
> C, which is negligible in comparison with natural temporal fluctuations of global
> temperature.
> From these estimates, one can deduce a very important conclusion that even considerable
> increase in anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide does not lead to noticeable
> temperature increase. Thus, the hypothesis of current global warming as a result of
> increased emission of carbon dioxide (greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere is not true."
>
> -- Please note that there are symbols used in the above quote that do not translate in ascii. You will need to download and read the pdf to see the data correctly. --

The Chillingar paper is flawed, in that they fail to address properly the role of CO2 as a GHG. The only place it features in their discussion is in the coefficient α in equation 12 in the original paper, which they assume will not change if CO2 is added to the atmosphere. The only way they can do this is if they they assume that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. However, simple physics dictates that CO2 is a GHG. Obviously, if CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, adding it to the atmosphere would have a negligible effect on temperatures.

In fact, their model can't tell us how much warming to expect if CO2 is increased, since to estimate α they use the observed warming from the natural greenhouse effect. To get the new value of α you would get with increased CO2, you would have to know how much this warms the planet.

>
> No. The role has been posited by some. If I agree to your premise that there is a KNOWN role of greenhouse gases in temperature reglation then I undermine my position. You may agree with this premise but it is only in the realm of theory as to what the causes and effects are.
>
What do you mean No. You can't say that Fourier and Tyndall didn't work out the greenhouse gas effect in the early 19th century, nor that Arrhenius didn't work out the effects of doubling CO2 concentrations. And so on - there are plenty of papers dating back a long way, well before any Club of Rome conspiracy nonsense.

To overturn the findings of these scientists, you need to explain why, given the emission spectrum of the Earth and the absorption spectrum of GHGs, there shouldn't be a greenhouse effect.

> The point I am making in general is that the use of the alleged science to demonstrate global warming is being beaten like a drum. Everywhere that one looks there is some comment about how people are the cancer on the planet and that the earth will never survive if we do not do something about ourselves. This inevitably implies that some will do to others, as we have an unelected global entity called the IPCC who, with other institutions that will play the legislative and policy bearing roles, are being given power of proxy over our lives and it is articles like the one in the original post, in which there is a presupposition that man is the problem, that are enabling them to do it. WE ARE LOSING WHAT FEW RIGHTS WE HAVE LEFT because we have no indignation. We have lost the ability to think clearly for ourselves. Now men in white coats wearing labels like "expert" and "scientist" are the new priests and their religion will enslave us for years.
>
The fact that you don't like the message doesn't mean the message is wrong.
 tony 26 Aug 2009
In reply to tony:

for clarification, the symbols &#945 represent alpha in the original paper.
 kevin stephens 26 Aug 2009
In reply to tony:

This thread has degenerated from discussing the validity or otherwise of climbers changing their actions in an attempt to mitigate their personal contribution to climate change, to tedious cut and paste tennis rehashing all the pro - anti scientific and pseudo scientific arguments that the internet is already awash with .

Maybe you should take that to another thread and get this one back on topic???
 EZ 26 Aug 2009
In reply to kevin stephens:

Agree. Sorry for the tennis. I just have an opinion that global warming in the guise that it is presented in the article is a falsehood. My reasons are conspiratorial. I think I was valid in opposing the opinion in the original post. Now I think I have been spooked or trolled.

out.
 markryle 28 Aug 2009
A bit of info that doesn't seem well-known, for anyone inspired to take the train on next trip to Chamonix:

On Friday nights there is a sleeper in both directions between Paris Austerlitz and Le Fayet, where you connect with the Mont Blanc Express.

I've only ever travelled light on it, so haven't looked for a luggage car yet, a point worth checking with alpine kit. I assume there is one as this service is well-used by tourists from northern France. Quite civilised really.

Daytimes, you change at Lyon and once more in Haute-Savoie.

Does anyone still use the old-school Eurolines bus? I guess not- we are just spoilt these days and low-coat flights are almost a fundamental human right. Time is money after all. How did Joe Brown get anything done before Easyjet?
 Ed Douglas 31 Aug 2009
Not that I wish to defend the self-indulgent and very recent habit of flying somewhere in Europe to go climbing for the weekend, and acknowledging that climbing is a luxury anyway etc etc But there are plenty of places in the world where climbing and trekking have made a real and largely beneficial impact on local economies, allowing people to escape poverty. Parts of the Himalaya for example, or Africa. Granted that air travel contributes to climate change etc. But if those tourist jobs go, then excess labour will travel to find employment. In the case of the Himalaya this often means flying to the Gulf, thus rather subverting the point of not flying there. And while mountain tourism brings in quite a lot of money one guest worker brings in very little, meaning more of them have to migrate.

Carbon free adventures are cool, I think, because they involve near-total self-reliance, and they should be the goal. They can be inspirational too, in contemplating the scale of environmental damage. But offing the aviation industry could have negative implications for the world's poorest people.

At least Es is talking about this stuff, which is more than many climbers are, other than in a vague, platitudinous, conscience-easing way.

Finally, it worries me that all people talk about in environmental terms is anthropogenic climate change. We're in the middle of the sixth great extinction in Earth's history, the first caused by one species, us, and while some of that is caused by climate change, most of it is caused by habitat loss. Yet this doesn't get the same attention. Why?
 chris wyatt 07 Sep 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thanks Ed for the article and all for the debate on here.

In our game the purer style is always seen the style with less intervention:

Taking a helicopter up to the top of a mountain - == V poor style
Climbing with oxygen
Climbing without oxygen
Climbing with ropes
Ropeless Solo == Very good style

And yet - perversely we use any technology we like to get to our climbing destination.

Perhaps we need to change our ethics a bit to embrace the whole trip - not just the climb itself as an indication of style eg .

Traveling on a plane to the himalayas, hiring a helictopter to deposit us at base camp. Using porters, oxygen and countless fixed ropes = poor style.


Getting on a push bike, cycling to the ben - climbing a route with minimal equipment, cycling home again = very good style

Or taking the summer off, buying a sailing boat, making a passage to greenland, climbing a big wall and sailing home again = very good style.



 Lucy Wallace 10 Sep 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:
Thanks Es for an absolutley brilliant article, tackling issues that I wrestle with. Generally I don't fly, but a year and a half ago we flew to Rjukan for our honeymoon, and I am trying to get my head round the thought that I might not allow myself to ever visit the Himalayas.
As an ML I frequently take people out in the Scottish hills who have flown up from London for the weekend, and this is something I am not comfortable with. Ben Nevis is a particular draw for this type of "experience ticker". Many express a desire to "do Kili next".
On a lighter note, I have joined a social network on Ning for climbers looking to reduce their carbon footprint. Apologies if already mentioned in this thread, too many replies for me to trawl though them all right now. However, other readers may find it of interest. There is a chance to lift share, and the network will work much better the more people join:
http://ecoclimber.ning.com/
 MJH 10 Sep 2009
In reply to The Gibbon: I find myself in the same position as you - lots of far flung places that I would like to visit (plus family that have emigrated to New Zealand), but being increasingly disinclined to fly.

Fortunately the Alps are relatively easy to get to on the Eurostar or SNCF trains....NZ or Nepal might be more of a challenge.
 Lucy Wallace 10 Sep 2009
In reply to Ed Douglas:

Hi Ed, I take your point about the benefits to local people in poor countries from tourism, but would argue that in fact tourism in general has had a detrimental or limited beneficial effect in many of these places if you look at the bigger picture, eg plastic bottles and waste in Goa, loss of land to big developments etc in SouthEast Asia However, I have no figures to back this up so so am afraid this is just a gut instinct....

However, here are some numbers about climate change and the worlds poor: UN think tank the Global Humanitarian Forum estimates that climate change is already causing the deaths of 300,00 people a year- and these are indeed the worlds poorest, in places like India, Nepal etc. Economic losses due to climate change currently amount to 125bn a year, more than the entire world aid budget.

More about these figures here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/29/1

 Michael Ryan 10 Sep 2009
In reply to Ed Douglas:

> Not that I wish to defend the self-indulgent and very recent habit of flying somewhere in Europe to go climbing for the weekend, and acknowledging that climbing is a luxury anyway etc etc But there are plenty of places in the world where climbing and trekking have made a real and largely beneficial impact on local economies, allowing people to escape poverty.

If only that were the case in Llanberis, Fort William and Whitehaven (and nearby townships).....where poverty, drug use and unemployment are rife.

Hundreds of thousands climb Snowdon, Ben Nevis and Scafell Pike, it would be great if these affluent eco-tourists and peak baggers could make 'a real and largely beneficial impact on local economies, allowing people to escape poverty.'

Especially those who organise and run those Three Peak Challenges in 24 hours for charity.

Good to start on your doorstep.


Mick
 Lucy Wallace 10 Sep 2009
In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Yes the 3 peakers really don't spend much time in the towns nearby. At least my guys who fly up from London spend the weekend, stay in a b&b and go to the pub for dinner..... Still wish they would take the train!

My figure above should have read 300,000 deaths a year. Apologies for typo... hopefully my mistake was obvious.
 Ed Douglas 13 Sep 2009
In reply to The Gibbon: In reply to The Gibbon: I sort of agree with you, although when you line tourism up against global industries with similar turnovers -- oil, drugs, arms -- it starts to look a little more positive. Anyway, I was thinking of remote mountain areas. A tiny slice of tourism but taking place in the some of the poorest communities in the world.

Anyway, my wider point has been very successfully argued by E.O. Wilson recently, who's a lot cleverer that what I am, that we should look environmental degradation as a whole, rather than look at anthropogenic climate change as the be-all and end-all.

And Mick, I thought this was a discussion about flying?? How many three-peakers fly? Is it a lot? If it is then that's a little depressing...
 Dan Goodwin 14 Sep 2009
In reply to Ed Douglas:

I have worked on a few of these days over the last few years on the Ben and have decided to never work one again. Sadly a good number do fly to Glasgow and pick up vans and transport. There are many reasons to boycott them they trash the hill and put nothing in to help clean their mess up or repair the paths.
I have also worked overseas and have seen first hand your point that alot is put into the local economy. I recently had a large number of Dutch clients come through they drove but next year may fly but this brings me a large amount of income. Equally I have paid guides and porters overseas which I know has allowed people to eat well and pay for their kids education. Its tricky but a good point to bring up.

Aye Dan
 Lucy Wallace 17 Sep 2009
In reply to Ed Douglas:
Certainly most of the clients I guide on the Ben fly up from the south. I pick them up at Glasgow airport. Pretty depressing really. A few quid from each client gets donated to the Nevis partnership for pathwork as part of their fee. I make a point of explaining how the hill gets trashed by the hundreds of thousands of visitors a year... and encourage them to join the JMT. Not really in a position to chastise the clients for flying though.
 LeeWood 13 Nov 2009
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thats a great read: eco-incursion to the climbing world, and also the witness of those who have reacted. I was feeling the eco-pressure quite a while ago; from a Manchester base, 2hrs by car to the Lakes or Snowdonia began to feel extravegant on consecutive wkds. So I looked for somewhere where it was all on my doorstep, and almost made it. Since 2003 I'm based in the Pyrenean foothills of SW France, but I've worked the local crags thoroughly, and am back to a 2hr trek to access areas of greater interest. But I've quit day trips and aim for longer less frequent trips generally.

And air travel? With all of Spain just over the border and accessible by bus/train cragging at Kalymnos isn't an option. I did one family trip back to the UK by air, and missed take-off by an hour on the return. Cost me 24hrs and 120 Quid so I may as well have been on the train. Which my wife takes 2x annually between Toulouse and Manchester. Up to now its been the sleeper, but she reports that connections on both sides of the channel are getting quicker, and will restrict passage to living hours in the future.

Takes some dedication to ignore cheap air travel, and I wouldn't expect to see any major swing until the government wakes up. Non-taxation of aviation fuel is apparently just too lucrative, to keep the consumer-hamsters turning the wheels of commerce. But, it would be nice to be proved wrong.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...