Climate change- discuss

[Albedo]

The ice cores tell us Co2 follows temperature by hundreds of years, therefore logically the rise in Co2 is a result of warming, not a cause. Tree rings are a circus, I read the climategate emails, we are still waiting for the data for Manns Hockey Stick graph, a good book on the subject is The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, I've yet to see a credible rebuttal. Tree rings can be useful, but not they way the Hockey Team uses them measuring ring widths, there are too many other things effect tree growth besides temperature as most folks here can attest to.

 

Tree rings might be more use if they use isotopes instead, this article from before the science was politicised seems very apt, it was about a science paper from 1979 which predicted the warming, and the cooling off we are now experiencing, it goes on to predict further cooling, which is more of a worry for me as cold is not good for food production, or humans in general, warm is good.

 

Careful when going off on assumptions. I would pass the pepsi challenge with most folks here on carbon footprints, I could loosely be described as an environmentalist, currently studying Regerative Agriculture with the aim of becoming a consultant. Just because I am sceptical of the IPCC science don't think I'm not a tree hugger I know about environmental issues, climate change is not one IMO, soil erosion is by far a more concerning issue, followed by biodiversity/woodland loss, and then pollution, in that order.

 

I am further along the lifestyle path described by Tony Croft above, but that'd be off topic

 

People tend to get too emotional about this subject, I'd say step back a bit, I think it is because the media plays on emotions, that's called propaganda in my book

 

Pumpy

 

 

Best post in this thread yet.

 

 

I've been waiting for someone who's looked into it properly and who can also be arsed to write long posts

 

The lag factor you mention is one of the big sceptic arguments. I'm out of date and don't remember where I was up to on this but well done for raising it.

 

Your last paragraph is kinda where I've been at for a few years.

 

This thread is getting me interested again but I'm gonna have to do some homework.

 

welcome to the thread though pumpy:thumbup1:

 

edit: I guess you know what my arbtalk tag means as well

[likeitorlumpit]

Best post in this thread yet.

 

 

I've been waiting for someone who's looked into it properly and who can also be arsed to write long posts

 

The lag factor you mention is one of the big sceptic arguments. I'm out of date and don't remember where I was up to on this but well done for raising it.

 

Your last paragraph is kinda where I've been at for a few years.

 

This thread is getting me interested again but I'm gonna have to do some homework.

 

welcome to the thread though pumpy:thumbup1:

 

edit: I guess you know what my arbtalk tag means as well

 

Vangelis:confused1:

[HCR]

I find it strange that people find it hard to accept that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will raise global temperatures. CO2 is a greenhouse gas - this is scientific fact and is down to its absorption spectrum. Without it the world would be far less habitable at our UK latitude!

 

There is a clear correlation between CO2 levels and average temperatures, but please make up your own mind which way the cause and effect relationship goes. But we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

Maybe a read of this will help: Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter - environment - 16 May 2007 - New Scientist

 

How can we be sure that human emissions are responsible for the rising CO2 in the atmosphere? There are several lines of evidence. Fossil fuels were formed millions of years ago. They therefore contain virtually no carbon-14, because this unstable carbon isotope, formed when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, has a half-life of around 6000 years. So a dropping concentration of carbon-14 can be explained by the burning of fossil fuels. Studies of tree rings have shown that the proportion of carbon-14 in the atmosphere dropped by about 2% between 1850 and 1954. After this time, atmospheric nuclear bomb tests wrecked this method by releasing large amounts of carbon-14.

[Albedo]

[/b]

 

Vangelis:confused1:

 

nooo'p:sneaky2:

[Albedo]

Message to Pumpy.

 

I was just going back to read the thread again as its been a bit fast, I noticed it was you to whom I answered no,no,yes. etc.

 

I was being a bit dismissive because I thought you hadn't understood your own link. I thought you were some kid on a wind up. I was clearly wrong.

 

I think we were at cross-purposes there so sorry about that:blushing:

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Pumpy, youll be well aware of the nutrient poor nature of our modern crops then?

[teepeeat]

I don't know what but I suspect they gather CO2 % evidence from old ice and growth from fossil wood and somehow relate the two.

Have to say Tony- going off grid isn't going to help if the problem is caused by something else. We need to get rich/ get technical and get able which isn't going to happen if mankind goes down that route.

That isn't to say we shouldn't recycle etc- thats so patently a good idea

Also local food usually tastes better- look at tomatoes

But do you really want to give up pineapples/bananas/mangoes/avacado/dates/figs/the list goes on. Lets face it you will need to go vegan.

Humans want choice- they want interest. They may want to holiday in UK for a year because they think they have to because of the recession but ultimately they want the experience of other cultures and climates- snowboarding in Canada etc etc. Canoe down the Amazon- the list goes on and the more we do of these things the more of these experiences we feel we need just to be happy.

Meanwhile you are stuck in your 50 sq. mile world- you won't be pissed off will you? You are racing away in your head at the moment and that is stimulation enough but will it last. I'm not attacking you but questioning whether it will really make you happy.

Oh the dilemma of the tree hugger..........

 

I think there is enough in the one square mile around my house (or anybody's house for that matter) to stimulate me for the whole of my days on this earth - socially,culturally, scientifically or in any way you can think.

Why do you feel travelling the world and doing all these things is what we should be doing?????? Will they really make you happy???

I have tried that for a bit and found it very unsatisfying and would be happy to stay around home for ever more - if I could and is in fact what I am working towards within this very crazy world we are living in.

Your previous comments regarding capitalism concern me. Our current version of capitalism is hardly a good, democratic one. In fact it is complete pie in the sky. Perpetual growth in a finite world???

It worked sort of OK for a bit when a handful of people benefitted at the expense of the majority, but now that the majority want their share, we realise the problems and this is the biggest logjam in getting things going in the right direction regarding Tony's original topic of climate change.

The current financial crisis is the natural evolution of an unsustainable capitalistic system that has been twisted and turned in every possible way to squeeze a bit more out of it, but there is nothing more to squeeze.

[WorcsWuss]

I'd rather let a hated vegetarian homosexual political scientist explain it himself.

 

Bjorn Lomborg sets global priorities | Video on TED.com

 

Decent engaging speaker but the point made in that talk sort of goes against everything we currently know.

Human nature is to climb over each other to consume.

If we did go out and solve all those problems what would be the single greatest difference from our current situation?

Population growth would spiral even further out of control.

 

I won't bang on any more about it because that's sort of the point made, but there's an interesting quote on that web page picked out from Lomborg's set which suggests our 'greatest problem is that we die'...

 

Surely nature's biggest problem is that we don't die soon enough...?

 

I must hold my hands up and admit my hypocrisy here... I have 3 kids and my wife & sister both survived cancer a couple of years ago thanks to the miracle of modern medicine. Make of that what you will!

[Albedo]

i think most of the points have been covered here.

 

highlights for me; population (the real biggie), dessimation of the oil compaines grip on control, developing nations, scientific model is not definate. the Church of Yogurt Weaving.

 

so my tuppence worth, GW and environmental change is of little concequnce when there are so many people. harsh bottom line is, a lot of heads gotta go, reduces carbon emmissions in so many ways, living responsibly growing ur own etc re. The Church of Yogurt Weaving [TCYW] means people to all a have a lot more fertile space per capita, can we realistically house all the people on their own nice wee croft?

Oil companies; havent thought too much about it till reading this thread but yeah they hold the keys, and they have a very tight grip. what we can honestly do about this i have no clue. putting them out of bussiness by making fossil fuel redundant?... they just let us have the next technology at what ever price the choose, oder?

the developing nations arguement, yes they produce a heap more CO2 than us but what we can do we should, may be it will cause a ripple.

scientific model is not fact, fact. not much more needs to be said, all the arguments for the future are guesses, very well educated and informed guesses maybe, but still guesses.

Church of Yougurt Weaving green is the new religion, i'm pretty sceptical of all religions, but this one sits up with bhuddism, most of the time its not too offensive.

 

and over all, were doomed. we should all just get on with doing our bit, but have fun doing it, drive a V8 landy to do the recycling while you still can, aint no other new motor gonna make that sound. worcswuss says it well. lets just get on with it and the sooner the human race is gone the sooner this eccosystem we enhabit can get back to waiting for the next parasite to attack it.

 

fire at will.

 

Not that I'm the arbitrator ... but another good post this one.... were on fire this evening...think I'll go get another bottle of Carmenere:thumbup1:

[teepeeat]

Pumpy, youll be well aware of the nutrient poor nature of our modern crops then?

 

Tony, this is hardly surprising.

Take a patch of healthy earth, do your best to crank as much growth out of it in an unnaturally short period of time. To compensate, feed it a bit of artificial fertiliser based on current, incomplete scientific knowledge and nutrient deficiency is bound to be the result.

Look at the agricultural revolution in India in the 60's and the fallout and current concerns. This has helped create a huge population who will not be able to be fed when nature shows her hand.

Complete disregard for natural cycles and time scale because we are such a clever bunch arn't we.

As they say, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

I am not saying we should not be learning and experimenting, but the current human preference is for squeezing material wealth out of every scrap of knowledge we gain.