Climate change- discuss

[Pumpy]

You gotta remember no-one is going to be able to prove or disprove CAGW in a few blog posts, it's futile really.

 

On the other hand it is up to the proponents of the CAGW theory, (edit: sorry I mean hypothesis, it ain't a proven theory) to prove it beyond reasonable doubt before we do anything about it.

 

The IPCC wrote an irking great big book in their attempt to prove it, if an hairy arsed ex matlot like me can punch so many holes in it that it starts to look like Swiss cheese, should we really be using it to justify taxing the global population, or to justify world government? (see UN agenda 21 if you doubt that world government thing)

 

I think not!

[Albedo]

I haven't given up yet mate, just acknowledging the quality of the opposition.

 

I must go bang out a quick nine holes of golf just now.

 

'pon my return I may have a slightly new angle of attack. Its in my head at the mo'...hope it doesn't distract me from the golf:001_smile:

[b101uk]

Take near where I live, it was once tropical forest, it was once under the sea, it was once sand dunes, it was once marsh, it became forest agene, it’s been under glacial ice more than once, and in the grand scheme of things it is acknowledged by almost all scientists that WE the earth are approximately half way between glacial ice ages so surprise surprise it getting towards the crest in temperature highs.

 

As for the CO2 levels, there have been periods in history it has been lower & higher than now, scientists are split as to if CO2 levels lead or lag temperature rise and when they show graphs of supposed data the sampling points are so far apart that it’s easy to massage data to get what your trying to find, try plotting 10000000 years at 2000DPI on a printer, your paper would only have to be 416ft long yet most glossy magazine are printed in only <600DPI, take a 1900 pixel wide monitor you would need 5263 monitors wide which if ~20” wide (~24” diagonally) you would need 1.66 miles of monitors side by side, or if you want to show it all on the full screen of the same monitor your sample points would be 5263 years apart which is a fair few times larger than even the largest proposed CO2 rise leading temperature rise!

 

The biggest greenhouse gas known on earth is water vapour, it’s also the method by which cooling takes place but unfortunately you won’t find it in bubbles glacial ice cores because surprisingly its froze to the inside of the bubble wall and is indistinguishable from the glacier!

[HCR]

Take near where I live, it was once tropical forest, it was once under the sea, it was once sand dunes, it was once marsh, it became forest agene...

 

Don't forget that Shropshire has been at more than one latitude over the last few billion years - not all of those things happened 12 degrees south of the arctic circle!

[Albedo]

OK Pumpy so lets approach this from a different angle.

 

You’ve put forward your 800 yr lag thing on temp rise and some science that says that C02 is not a significant enough factor to cause the predicted change.

Also some stuff on the old ice ages natural cycles chestnut. All of which have arguments for and against which can’t be agreed.

 

You do accept however that the atmosphere contains what it contains and that it is chugging along in the ways that you describe.

 

I referred earlier to C02x as you may know this is shorthand for all greenhouse gasses including methane and water vapour. Anthropogenic methane emissions are just as important if not more so than C02 as methane is a far more important player in the atmosphere. Anyone seriously debating climate change theory will use C02x as a basis for all arguments as the other gases need to be included.

 

What I’m getting at is that I’m spotting common ground here. The earths temperature would be a lot lower without these gases in the atmosphere, nobody disputes that. Neither do they dispute the mechanism by which these gases warm our atmosphere.

 

The science of the ozone hole which is of award winning brilliance and provable by empirical data gained using stratospheric jets proves to the uninitiated that gases affect our atmosphere and climate.

 

Your argument as a sceptic has to be that man made emissions can’t affect climate. Mine has to be that they can.

 

Nobodys mentioned Milancovitch cycles, or sunspots this time around but these things are all covered in previous debates and are included in both theories for and against. Basically they don’t have the clout to cause ice ages or anything else, you need other feedback loops and forcings acting together. C02 is one of these other forcings that’s all, C02x makes it a bigger forcing.

 

I would also point out that if the sceptics are right then there is no problem. Just keep on emmiting what you like. If Climate Change Theory is right, then we have a really big problem because whats done can’t be undone.

 

That’s it.. that’s my latest argument, hope you’re not disappointed. I’m doing all this from memory by the way…. no links:001_smile:

[Albedo]

Wow. Highly informative thread, and I feel like I've learnt a lot.

 

I'm pleased that there is at least one person out there who is finding this thing useful. I think you made a couple of good points yourself, I'd like to say so every time someone makes a good point for or against but it ain't my thread and I'm in here too much already:thumbup1:

[Albedo]

Good comments Will

An unfortunate human trait is that we make a decision about any particular issue based on 'facts' or whatever and then defend that point of view regardless of any new information.

We need to remember that science has only learned so much and there is a lot more to learn before we know how everything works, so we need to be adaptable in our views.

Human history is littered with the fall out of arrogant humans making decisions based on scanty information.

Human learning is like trying to get to the top of a mountain and just when we think we are getting to the peak we realise it is just another ridge with a good few more to the top. As we tackle each ridge it consumes us, it is all we can see and we lose sight of the bigger picture.

As things get more and more complicated we tend to get more easily lost in the limited detail and lose sight of the bigger picture and grasp at any handy 'facts' to steady ourselves.

I don't think our conscious minds are able or even designed to cope with it all. There is a lot more going on between our lug holes than many would like to admit (not enough facts about it probably ) and we need to harness intuition or what ever it is to guide us rather than a very limited set of facts.

 

As I said a few days ago, we are along for the ride and nature will decide what is going to happen to us while we are still arguing about it all.

 

Here's just one of those good points and quite a significant one at that.... Both myself and Pumpy could do worse than to read this one twice

[HCR]

I'm pleased that there is at least one person out there who is finding this thing useful. I think you made a couple of good points yourself, I'd like to say so every time someone makes a good point for or against but it ain't my thread and I'm in here too much already:thumbup1:

 

I've mainly been a believer in human induced climate change, though I have swung back and forth a few times. I'm certainly not a climate scientist, though I am scientifically trained and base my views on evidence, not favour.

 

One thing we can be fairly sure of is that we will continue to use fossil fuels (a) unless and until something cheaper comes along, or (b) they run out. Note that as (b) gets closer, (a) gets more feasible.

 

I would also be very surprised if the oil companies don't have a trick or two up their sleeves. Ten years ago the UK parliament heard (and accepted) evidence that oil was expected to last for a further 42 years. Presumably that figure has increased, but one day it will run out. Do you really think their strategy is to hang their hats up and go home when this happens?

[Marko]

An earlier post has been bothering me for the last couple.... it talked of BP preventing emerging technologies by buying up patents and I can remember similar stories going back to when I was at school.

 

So whilst everyone is being polite to each other.... The bit that is puzzling me is that IF it is true that those with an interest in fossil fuels buy up patents for cleaner / alternative energies that would not stop a country who has little or no respect for patents just getting on with it.

 

Surely over the last 40 years someone would have said sod you and made these technologies work for them. A patent infringement is not much of a threat compared to a country achieving energy independence so can we really believe they exist. If so where is the evidence that they really do exist and that they really are being suppressed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels?.

 

I suspect I may have missed something so don't mind getting flamed if it is obvious!

[HCR]

An earlier post has been bothering me for the last couple.... it talked of BP preventing emerging technologies by buying up patents and I can remember similar stories going back to when I was at school.

 

So whilst everyone is being polite to each other.... The bit that is puzzling me is that IF it is true that those with an interest in fossil fuels buy up patents for cleaner / alternative energies that would not stop a country who has little or no respect for patents just getting on with it.

 

Surely over the last 40 years someone would have said sod you and made these technologies work for them. A patent infringement is not much of a threat compared to a country achieving energy independence so can we really believe they exist. If so where is the evidence that they really do exist and that they really are being suppressed by those with a vested interest in fossil fuels?.

 

I suspect I may have missed something so don't mind getting flamed if it is obvious!

 

Valid point - however, one of my uni lecturers came with a catalytic hydrogenation process 9 or 10 years ago. Haven't heard much about it lately...

 

On a slightly more serious note, whatever technology is theoretically available, it's highly unlikely to be cheaper than something that pours out of the ground. Yet.