Global warming fanaticism

Global warming fanaticism

Here in the UK we are having our political leaers and "experts" going bananas about global warming, carbon, etc. The future targets as one tv reporter pointed out would mean reducing or having no lighting, heating, cooking gadgets, car, etc and still not reach it. We must set an example to the world we are being brainwashed. Can I remind that the UK only produces 2% and if everyone was at that level that would be good. So the problem does not lie with us. Everyone is assuming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming and we take it as Gospel choosing to ignore other scientists who are more wary - including Dr David Bellamy. Even this link I provide states that Britain's temperatue is only 1% different from the time of the Doomsday Book!

It's gettig so out of hand and today I read that a leading crisp (potato chip to US readers?) is going to detail the carbon displaced in producing the crisps! It's getting out of hand. The same scientists who maintain this "surge" warning that their will be no polar caps also tell us elsehere that eons ago there was no ice in the same regions. Similarily, when I was younger I was worried about the Ice Age we were being told would descend on us.

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/ten_facts_about_global_warming.htm

You should be terrified of global warming. Absolutely petrified. More than anyone else on the planet, you should be doing everything in your power to prevent it.....if the seas rise and southern England is swallowed, the number of Glaswegians in Glasgow will be less than 0.1% of the total population...you'll be an ethnic minority!

There is a <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=176947">thread on this topic already</a> (actually <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/search.dml?term=global+warming&submit=+search+&id=57&datemodifier=newer&limitdate=60">a few</a>), and it seems somewhat better informed than your TV programme.

The UK may contribute 2% of the climate gases, but has less than 1% of the population, so if everyone did like the Britons we would be considerably worse off. You also seem to assume that the UK is the only country starting to consider to be doing some action. As mentioned in the other thread, as this is a global concern it will ultimately fail if the US (and further in the future China, as well as India if <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=176598">following prognosis</a>) aren't participating. Notoriously the US federal government is not, but many state governments are. We'll see how that plays out.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

The future targets as one tv reporter pointed out would mean reducing or having no lighting, heating, cooking gadgets, car, etc and still not reach it.

There might be a <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1933215">switch of light bulbs, like in Australia</a>, but this is a minor change (especially in Europe with a colder climate). The cars will have to be more fuel-efficient and/or more effectively used and/or there would have to be less cars around, as today's cars is a major part of the problem. As is high-carbon power generation. We'd either have to save energy, lose less in transmission and storage, or find ways to generate power with less emissions. Finding a way to reduce the risks and costs of global warming with minimal cost is the challenge, but it wouldn't involve going paleolithic.

Originally posted by garydenness:

if the seas rise and southern England is swallowed, the number of Glaswegians in Glasgow will be less than 0.1% of the total population...you'll be an ethnic minority!

You should be more careful with your numbers. Even if half of England migrated to Glasgow, the current Glaswegians would still make up more than 6% of the new British capital Glasgow (assuming they moved to the metropolitan area and not just the city centre).

I wonder how much of the alarmism is based on actual FACT and not on "The sky is falling" nonsense which is quite possibly designed to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Here in the States we have a bit of a scandal involving Al Gore. As many of you know, he's written a book and there's a movie based on his book about global warming, in which he sells his doomsday scenario that will happen in about ten years or so unless we all go back to living in caves and painting our faces blue, or some such as that. Well, it turns out he lives in a mansion that uses TEN TIMES as much power as most average houses. He gets away with having such a large "carbon footprint" by trading with an outfit that bargains in this kind of stuff.

What's that??? Whoa, it turns out the company he trades with is owned by--- Al Gore?!?!

Hey, I can accomlish the same kind of thing. Let me take twenty dollars out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket. Now, that's so much better.

Seriously folks, this kind of thing makes me wonder if the whole business isn't some kind of fraud designed to make us panic into doing the worst things possible, with only a hndful benefitting by it and the rest of us being hurt.

A rotten messenger does not make for a rotten message.

95% of environmental scientists now agree there is global warming thanks to us. The 5% who don't, when looked at are found to be University professors who get very nice corporate grants from companies that have a financial incentive to ignore this. The same type who swore on a stack of bibles in the 50's that smoking is not adverse to your health.

Ordinarily I'm usually in favor of waiting before implementing such a major change.

The problem with waiting and being wrong is that the results may just do us all in. Or do people really believe God will intervene? Tell that to the black plague victims of the middle ages.

Originally posted by jax:

You should be more careful with your numbers. Even if half of England migrated to Glasgow, the current Glaswegians would still make up more than 6% of the new British capital Glasgow (assuming they moved to the metropolitan area and not just the city centre).

I was just being facetious! And my calculation was based on the entire non Scottish population of the UK moving there (look, any theory on migration of this sort is going to be a little wild and speculative!) and I guessed about 0.1%

I'm quite impressed with myself...it's 0.9090909090909%!

While I see nothing wrong in putting your money where your mouth is, it does put you in danger of a conflict of interest, which should be declared as a politician in decision-making position affecting your own company, and which may weaken your message as a propagandist as it leaves you open to the charge that you're only in it for the money. Doing a half-hearted attempt to follow those money I came to an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_Investment_Management">investment fund</a>, not a carbons emission trader.

Carbon trading is controversial, particularly among puritans. Of course one alternative would be to give everyone a personal carbon emission quota (which I would likely exceed due to frequent flying), this would cut rich kids like Mr Gore down to size and put polluting companies out of business completely. If you don't like rich people or polluting business that sounds fine. However this would have a great economical impact, and in theory trading in pollution, allowing people to buy parts of others' pollution quota, would be much more efficient. Not necessarily in practice as setting up a working market is tricky.

Assuming Gore also owned such an outfit, would him buying carbon offsets through it render it meaningless? No. A trader is part of the inefficiency of a market, they facilitate contact between a buyer and a seller, and siphons off a percentage in return. After expenses what is returned is profit, which belongs to the owner. In other words he would get back a percentage of the fees he paid to trade. As long as at least as much carbon dioxide is taken out of the atmosphere as is put into it the system works.

Is he hypocritical? If he was a puritan, claiming "we [must] all go back to living in caves and painting our faces blue", sure. As far as I know (which isn't particularly far) he has claimed nothing of that sort, though it is convenient to caricature any position to be such, and based on his actions it seems pretty evident that he's squarely in the green capitalist camp. He wasn't obliged to buy carbon offsets, so doing this (fairly minor) expenditure is symbolic, indeed tokenistic as having single households paricipating in this market is impracticable.

There is money to be had in greenery, not oil company level money, but still a nice living. I don't begrudge them that, the environmental externalities need to be incorporated into our economic activity (you pollute, you pay, you clean up, you get rewarded). <a href="http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=1910759">As mentioned</a> in the other thread: as long as the risks are quantifiable ("known unknowns") the system will be able to handle that.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

So the problem does not lie with us.

Besides the fact of US, etc. and Industrial arrogance... that is always the problem, ain't it? That it is not us that is the problem.... sigh...

Originally posted by garydenness:

my calculation was based on the entire non Scottish population of the UK moving there (look, any theory on migration of this sort is going to be a little wild and speculative!) and I guessed about 0.1% I'm quite impressed with myself...it's 0.9090909090909%!

Of course all of Britain secretly wants to move to Glasgow so there is nothing wild and speculative about that. Being wrong with a factor of nine isn't too impressive, it is the difference between having all of Britain move into Glasgow and having the rest of EU following suit too.

Your ratio of 1:110 asserts the population to be half a million, and a Non-Scottish population of Britain at fifty-five (we agree that the rest of Scotland would be disinclined to move into Glasgow, especially with the hordes of Englishmen having moved in there). That indicates that you only consider the city proper. But that is not a realistic assumption. Such an influx would likely spread to the whole metropolitan area. Since there is no clear boundary for a metropolitan area anywhere, I used the Wikipedia <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasgow">estimate</a> at 1.75 millions. Now you can say that people outside the city limits aren't proper Glaswegians, and I can give you that, but as a proportion I assume that the newcomers will follow the current population pattern, come the flood.

Originally posted by BernG:

95% of environmental scientists now agree there is global warming thanks to us.

I'd be interested to know precisely where that figure came from. Has every single scientist in the world been asked about this? I'd imagine that there are many more than 2,000 of them out there!

Another thought: There is some talk that Mars is warming a bit too. The polar caps there seem to be shrinking a bit. Now, last time I checked there aren't great hordes of Martians roaming around driving huge SUVs, further I have doubt that the roamers we have up there are capable of producing enough pollutants to make a difference there. So, some scientists conjecture that the Sun may actually be warming up a bit.

That's not so far fetched, as it happens. We know from observation that the Sun goes through spot cycles, the numbers rise and fall according to an approximately 11 year cycle last I heard. It may be that it goes through periodic heating and cooling cycles as well.

I admit this is pure wild speculation, but so much of this strikes me that way anyway. Just suppose the Sun did heat up a few thousand degrees or so, that might explain a few things.

Incidental note to BernG: I've been here a few decades. Long enough, at any rate, to remember being told that a very large percentage of scientists were convinced we were going into an ice age, and that we could do something about it. One report is that the suggestion was made that we should put carbon on the ice sheets to melt them--- that's right, melt them--- so they wouldn't reflect so much sunlight back into space. This was all back in the mid 1970s. So, being told that a high percentage of scientists agree on this doesn't necessarily mean a whole lot. Especially where political/environmental agendas are concerned.

If you want some interesting information on the global warming controversey, you should check out Wikipedia. They have a very informative article on this, and many other aspects of global warming.

For a quick summary of the two viewpoints on global warming, you can read the Assertions by supporters and opponents section near the bottom of the article.

Well someone has reminded me that in Britain in the Roman period is was so warm we could grow grapes here. In another time at 1690 during the Glorious revolution it was there worst freeze for decades with rivers freezing up etc. The Earth has been hotting up and freezing for always and I still say that everyone is going overboard on this matter. Once more, if the biggest culprits to emissions took the existing British state of afairs and had 2% ( note this please, China, India, USA, etc). Cars are probably amongst the worst for carbon but everyone is content to see millions of cars with only 1 or two in them polluting. Here in Britain it is going to get even worse with the numbers of cars increasing and everyone wanting someone else to give up.In 20 years time it will be one big traffic top - alternatively due to this selfishness we could tar over the whole country and put the cities on stilts.

I accept that carbon is being produced but the present mad rush to simply lay all the blame on the human race is still open to debate. Now I'm off to deliberately eat that packet of crisps along with my Irn Bru (carbon issue not known).

The high estimate for man-made carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is still 4%. The forcing caused by this is a controversial subject...as is the political/economic power needed/possible to counter it.

I well remember when most of the continent's communists became Greens. Made sense then; makes sense now. That is the crux of the matter, I think. Still.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Cars are probably amongst the worst for carbon but everyone is content to see millions of cars with only 1 or two in them polluting. Here in Britain it is going to get even worse with the numbers of cars increasing and everyone wanting someone else to give up.In 20 years time it will be one big traffic top - alternatively due to this selfishness we could tar over the whole country and put the cities on stilts.

They are indeed the worst (a ~1.000 kg object to transport one of ~70 kg?). Though CO₂ by itself doesn't appear to me as important an issue as particle matter from combustion. The average reduction in lifespan due to health damage from air pollution (long cancer, asthma and bronchitis especially) is already nine months in Europe, and thirteen in this region, which is not the case with carbon dioxide (in its gaseous form).

Originally posted by andy_england:

Originally posted by BernG:

95% of environmental scientists now agree there is global warming thanks to us.

I'd be interested to know precisely where that figure came from. Has every single scientist in the world been asked about this? I'd imagine that there are many more than 2,000 of them out there!

Well, there are numerous scientific organizations around the world, each made up of many scientists, which agree that global warming is real, caused by mankind, and we need to do something about it. Studies of the scientific literature on the subject also show overwhelming support (in some cases 100%) for those points. See:

Wikipedia: Scientific opinion on climate change
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Meanwhile, Wikipedia only lists 27 scientists that disagree:

Wikipedia: Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus

If anything, BernG was being generous when he said 5% disagree. The actual number appears to be less than 1% that disagree with the scientific consensus on this matter.

This debate would be a lot more productive if peole stopped using the straw man technique and stopped doing the balack and white thing. People who believe the sun spot activity has caused a rise in earth temperature should open to their minds to the the idea that CO2 emissions may have had an effect also. Likewise those who beleive CO2 emissions have caused the warming should look at the effects of sun spot activity. Both camps seem to me to agree warming is happening. We cannot predict what is going to happen and plan for it without taking all factors into account.

Take this as a plea for dialogue and mutual respect and for listening to what the other side says.

Best

Piliph

very strange! people want to keep their central heating/cooling-ON ! but if an Indian is having a hot water bath or enjoying a cube of ice on a glass of lime water is objected to. you drive an AC car and me riding a a moped in the 45degC sun, and you blame me fo global warming? please mind your amperes first!

Agreed, but at some point in the future a billion Indians are going to matter a lot more than 60 million Britons.

Originally posted by jax:

Agreed, but at some point in the future a billion Indians are going to matter a lot more than 60 million Britons.

Right, and then throw in a billion-plus Chinese... at some point, the China-India combo will overtake the US as global-warming "heavies".

dear sir, that will not solve the problem, for-it matters what you are doing today and even more that you have been doing since the last 50 years or even more, we just got infected since last decade or so,why my comfort is so uncomfortable to these people?

Originally posted by yagyik:

dear sir, that will not solve the problem, for-it matters what you are doing today and even more that you have been doing since the last 50 years or even more, we just got infected since last decade or so,why my comfort is so uncomfortable to these people?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. It's a fact though that increasing development (at least by present standards) means more fuel gluttony, followed by more global warming.

I believe global warming is natural. The hole in the ozone layer opens and closes as it needs to release the polutants in the air. Their are many scientists who have written about global warming being a natural happening. However, less polutants in the air is never a bad thing, right? Thatnks for the "crisp" explination rjhowie, I love hearing and learning the different terms. Very cool.

The world through the centries has heated and cooled.

I wonder---- is it just possible that we have a religeous debate going on here and we just don't realise that because it's wearing a "science" cloak? It sure begins to sound like it, complete with hard-headed unchangeable notions in the participants. The notion that your favorite scientific position is infallible is a classic religeous idea, and if we were talking ID versus Evolution most of you would have no trouble identifying "infallible" notions as "unscientific".

The Earth does appear to be going through a warming trend at the moment. The only real question appears to be whether this is part of the normal heating/cooling cycles this planet has always gone through or if it's in some way unusual-- and if it IS unusual, did humans have something to do with it and is there anything we can do about it? How do we REALLY measure it? How can we be sure that Humans are at the bottom of it? Could we have a significant impact even if we wanted to?

Originally posted by timfife:

I believe global warming is natural.

Then please explain the strong correlation between the present rise in man-made greenhouse gasses and global temperatures. Clearly a part of global warming is natural, but the evidence suggests that it is only a small part.

Originally posted by timfife:

The hole in the ozone layer opens and closes as it needs to release the polutants in the air.

Huh? A hole in the ozone layer doesn't "release the pollutants," it lets in dangerous levels of ultraviolet radiation that increase cancer risks. Some kinds of atmospheric pollution, primarily chlorine based chemicals, cause the hole in the ozone layer by breaking down the protective layer of ozone. Please see:

Wikipedia: Ozone layer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_layer

Basically, a hole in the ozone layer is a sign that the atmosphere is being polluted, but it in no way helps the situation, it actually makes things worse.

Originally posted by timfife:

Their are many scientists who have written about global warming being a natural happening.

Not recently. Currently only a handful still believe that. The vast majority agree with the International Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) assessment that it's more than 90% likely that global warming is real and caused by mankind, and that it's less than 5% likely that global warming is caused by natural processes alone.

Originally posted by timfife:

However, less polutants in the air is never a bad thing, right?

Actually, it might be. Particulate matter in the atmosphere reflects back sunlight, causing global cooling, which may be helping to counter the present global warming trend. One potential method suggested for temporarily dealing with global warming is seeding the atmosphere with particulates that would reflect back more sunlight and help counter global warming, however there are several potential dangers in that plan, such as increasing health problems like asthma. The point is, we might be even worse off without some types of pollutants in the air. For more on this see:

Wikipedia: Global dimming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

Originally posted by timfife:

The world through the centries has heated and cooled.

Yes, it has, but that alone is not evidence that it is natural this time. Water may flow or stop in a river for natural reasons, but if we put a dam up then it would be silly to deny the dam's effect on water flow by saying that the river had flowed and stopped at various times in the past for natural reasons, so we're not the reason it stopped this time. We have ample evidence that we are causing the changes in global temperature we are seeing today.

those of you who say its entirely natural should learn some chemistry however I happen to agree with the people who have been talking at a conference this week who said that being so alarmist about it (referencing an increase in forest fires and very hot winters as hard evidence) could well be harming the credibility of the real hard scientific facts. the simple fact of the matter is we don't know what will happen thanks to global warming, and CO2 is not the main contributor anyway. (ya know there's resevoirs of methane under the oceans that if released would cause catastrophic global warming, i forget exactly how much but something in the region of 1000% of what we currently see I think)

But... is it not safer to assume it will be catastrophic and act now rather than take a risk and pay later? Until someone can build a simulation model capable of factoring in all aspects of the worlds climate - including the effects of solar flares and, dare i mention it, the gulf stream and north atlantic current, we can't know for sure what global warming will do, but the chances even the worlds most powerful supercomputer could factor everything in and accurately show us what could happen before it does... have to be very slim.
I just think even sceptics would have to be very very stupid to just assume that we have nothing to do with it or use small doubts in order to justify doing nothing... it's an insane risk to take imo.

my 2c

Originally posted by jax:

Agreed, but at some point in the future a billion Indians are going to matter a lot more than 60 million Britons.

Obviously the actions large groups make a larger effect than small groups, however everyone contributes to the problem, so everyone needs to contribute to the solution.

Any one individual may not make much of a difference no matter where they live, but if every individual thinks that way then we're never going to be able to deal with this problem. The fact that you're a small group doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your group's part.

I think the fuss is that one camp says they have a "solution" to "climate change", while the other camp says ignore it because it's "natural", and anyway there's nothing to be done about it .... most everyone seems to agree things are changing, but what's really a scientific question and a sociological problem has drifted into the usual human political polaraties

the problem I see is regardless of what's really driving change the most, it's not likely humanity can affect the natural system enough to reverse the change, or even prevent further change .... the question is, how can we best adapt to the changes, which are already having an effect on populations in some areas and on our production of food, and particularly on the makeup of our economies

just think - if the Brits start growing enough grapes to make their own wine, what happens to all the wine they previously imported?

Bill

I agree that yagyikis rather shortsighted and particularily missing the point. If India and China were to be like Gt Britain and we could be assured they would keep to our present situaion of 2% that would be more positive.

With our situation in mind i reall have to wonder about our own politicians setting impossible targets for us here in 20 years. IThey are just not practical unless we are going to dispense with even the norms of daily life! This is wy i am rather sceptical when all the parties jumpt on this green bandwagon and try to outdo each other. Perhaps they might say how we are going to go down even further belwow the 2% without switching on a light or heating a meal? Their figures are crassly stupid.

Originally posted by yagyik:

dear sir, that will not solve the problem, for-it matters what you are doing today and even more that you have been doing since the last 50 years or even more, we just got infected since last decade or so,why my comfort is so uncomfortable to these people?

That is true too, the current excess carbon in the atmosphere can be blamed on the West, and an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita">average (US) American</a> causes the same emissions as 2 Britons, 6 Chinese, or 17 Indians. However India and China together compose almost half the world population, and as they are not poor and uneducated any longer they can't be remain ignored. With a greater presence in the world follows a greater responsibility, and indeed India and China together <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_emissions_by_country">cause 20% of the carbon emissions</a>.

Now, the good news is that it isn't consumption as such that causes these emissions. China (in particular) is dirty because smokestack industries have moved there due to cheaper labour and easier environmental regulations (and more recently a domestic market). For instance an unfiltered coal power plant causes a tremendous amount of pollution. A side-effect of upgrading these industries, which China and India will have to do, is that the local environment will improve too.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

I agree that yagyikis rather shortsighted and particularily missing the point. If India and China were to be like Gt Britain and we could be assured they would keep to our present situaion of 2% that would be more positive.

Those 2.3% are way over budget too, the UK has 1% of the world's population and we are already emitting too much.

There is another way or working out "entitlement" to pollution. (strange phrase that!)

I'm far to lazy to work it out but to illustrate the point.

Suppose all the cars in the world were manufactured in Luxembourg. The pollution of Luxembourg would then far outstrip any "budget" allocated because of Luxembourg's population.

Yet Luxembourg would be making things for the whole World and therefore on that basis should have a pollution entitlement that took that into account.

The same would be true of services and other activities which served the World Community.

A nightmare of a calculation!

When one uses a telephoto lens, it limits one's field of view.
yagyik refuses to own a car,is happy with a 4stroke,(catalytic convertor fitted)-two wheeler. consumes little electricity(<300 units for jan&feb,for a family of three) and lives in quite a green place. and there are many like him,their count outnumbers...,.(u can fill in the blank space with your choice and continue with the good thoughts)

A lot of people have jumped on the study that showed that global warming is the result of changes in solar activity. But according to this article the study (& other subsequent studies) has been rebuked:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/

Either way I think the point is moot. Saying that global warming is affected by changes in solar activity bares no influence on whether human activity affects global warming. Just because the sun may (or may not see previous link) be a factor does not mean we can sit back & carry on polluting to heart's delight. Global warming is one of many negative impacts of pollution.

Talk of 'but we'd all have to live in caves' is sensationalist rubbish. All we need to do is stop being so wasteful. I've read that by 2020 there will be more TVs in Britain than people to watch them. Patio heaters try & heat up the night sky, escalators for people too lazy to walk up a flight of steps, automatic doors, central heating (I have now gone a whole year without putting the heating on once, I know that my Southern England climate is warmer than Scotland RJHowie but I was at a festival in Perth during April 2005 & much of it was spent outside & even the heat fanatical Spaniards had their tops off), running machines, leaf blowers (is there anything more futile? /Shatner), shops that keep their displays illuminated throughout the night, electric kitchen knives, juicers, whisks & toothbrushes, fairy lights, the entire fashion industry, open freezers in supermarkets, disposable carrier bags, disposable nappies, motorised golf trolleys, shopping channels, remote controls. Energy use would not be a problem if we all weren't so lazy!

In the future there will be old timers telling kids about how everyone had their own car, the streets were lit up at night, you could get on a plane & fly 50 miles down the road etc.

All the kids will get very pissed off at being told how much fun it was to wreck their future.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I wonder how much of the alarmism is based on actual FACT and not on "The sky is falling" nonsense which is quite possibly designed to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Here in the States we have a bit of a scandal involving Al Gore. As many of you know, he's written a book and there's a movie based on his book about global warming, in which he sells his doomsday scenario that will happen in about ten years or so unless we all go back to living in caves and painting our faces blue, or some such as that. Well, it turns out he lives in a mansion that uses TEN TIMES as much power as most average houses. He gets away with having such a large "carbon footprint" by trading with an outfit that bargains in this kind of stuff.

What's that??? Whoa, it turns out the company he trades with is owned by--- Al Gore?!?!

Hey, I can accomlish the same kind of thing. Let me take twenty dollars out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket. Now, that's so much better.

Seriously folks, this kind of thing makes me wonder if the whole business isn't some kind of fraud designed to make us panic into doing the worst things possible, with only a hndful benefitting by it and the rest of us being hurt.

Just as you don't believe in global warming as explained by Al Gore, I don't believe a word you wrote about Al Gore.

Originally posted by piliph:

People who believe the sun spot activity has caused a rise in earth temperature should open to their minds to the the idea that CO2 emissions may have had an effect also.

All scientists (who have/can say anything about climate/dynamic system/etc) I know don't disagree to other influences and natural variances/cycles (Hey, no one is questioning warm and cold times changing, iceages, plate-tectonics and distribution of continents to climate, ENSO-cycle since ~125ka (closing of the panama-street) as climate factor, Milankovitch cycles, short-term environmental hazards like major volcanic eruptions, etc. etc. Thouse natural interdynamical/evolving factors and observable palaeocycles in climate compared to the data since industral age are another Pro-argument for the human influence, they support the theorie (wich means it ain't no hyptohesis anymore) that the drastic and fast changes happening now are beyond the scope of any natural occurance, there clearly is a human introduced trend upon the natural one).

Going back to the opening post by rjh, I believe he is right about the central message, that the Global Warming concern is becoming fanatical.

Before I get jumped upon by all and sundry, I would like to remark that so far I am convinced that we must do something about our carbon emissions and am concerned that it may already be too late. I am convinced about this not because of my own knowledge but by the often repeated opinion that "most scientists now conclude that Mankind's production of Carbon dioxide is responsible for Global Warming, then end result of which will have devastating effects on life on this planet". I respect the opinion of "most scientists".

But in that opinion I rely on hearsay. In fact most of us here, I suspect, rely totally on hearsay, or other's work, to form our own opinions.

The danger is, as rjh points out, is that we become so obsessed with this conclusion that we fail to look at the big picture and maybe miss something which could change the conclusion (not necessarily reverse it totally, but change it). So a little caution and willingness to consider the contrary arguments is right and proper.

At any rate up to now I have also been inclined to dismiss the "anti Global warming camp" as being blinded by what they want to be the truth and being unwilling to take the pain that reducing our carbon emissions would need.

However ....

Recently I became more aware of an argument that could have some validity. Basically the scenarios this (stringing a lot of facts, or perhaps assumptions together): In what follows I am not quoting anybody, I am merely putting the argument in italics:

Carbon dioxide does produce global warming, by reducing the radiation of thermal energy to space, but is only one contributor to it, the major contributor being the amount of energy which is delivered to the Earth by the Sun. The heat retained by the Earth is the resulting balance of received radiation and emitted radiation. However if the Sun's radiation goes up, then that balance will be achieved at a higher temperature. Since the fluctuations of energy received from the sun are large, that is the major cause of changes in the Earth's average temperature.

With regard to the Carbon Dioxide emissions by Man - these are very small compared with the emissions given off by the oceans due to them being warmed by the Sun's rays in times of increased solar activity (relevance to sunspots here).

Now for the killer argument:

It is claimed (by the anti global warming faction) that monitoring the total amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere shows that it lags the temperature. Since it lags the temperature it is a consequence, but not a cause, of the temperature increase and thus not a initiator of Global Warming but a symptom of it. Increased heat merely increases the emission of carbon dioxide from the oceans and decrease of temperature, all caused by fluctuations in the Sun's radiation, causes the oceans to re-adsorb carbon dioxide.


When I heard that argument I immediately looked for a report which showed how these variations were linked. I was only partially successful, but did find this data. In that link you will find a plot of temperature against time and Carbon dioxide content against time.

The plot shows that there is lag when there is a cooling cycle, but then one would expect that since it takes time for carbon dioxide to be re-adsorbed. But the data is not clear enough to show if the temperature rise is before the increase in CO2 or after it.

I believe that to be a crucial bit of data.

Can anyone find any better data?


edit: one other thing, the temperature change is clearly cyclic, according to that link, regardless of Man's influence. Bearing the nature of the linked report, I need corroboration.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

. Everyone is assuming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming

ARRRRRGH! Where the hell do people get that asinine idea??? Who are the assholes who keep spreading it??? Nobody thinks that humanity is the sole cause of global warming!

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I wonder---- is it just possible that we have a religeous debate going on here and we just don't realise that because it's wearing a "science" cloak?

Not likely.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

Could we have a significant impact even if we wanted to?

Some things are in considerable doubt, but that is not. To start with; there is no such thing as a living organism that has no effect on its environment.

For a few of the more obvious examples of our massive affects, see the Sahara desert (overgrazing), Australia (centuries of burning the grasslands), and various places that have been deforested.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Everyone is assuming that humanity is the sole cause of global warming and we take it as Gospel choosing to ignore other scientists who are more wary - including Dr David Bellamy.

Oh yes, for the benefit of anyone not familiar with David Bellamy, he was once a very popular TV personality & wildlife conservationist here in the UK. His letter arguing against climate change caused a bit of a stir - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/ , although to his credit he has admitted that his figures on glaciers were simply wrong - http://environment.newscientist.com/article/mg18625033.300.html.

Methinks a cost/benifit study would be appropriate.

Oh, wait. I linked to an interesting one months ago... String, the carbon dioxide addition due to man can't practically be mitigated or lessened substantially without severe disruption of the world's major economies. So, learning more, and preparing to make the best of what comes seems reasonable. In the short run.

In the long run, nuclear power needs supply our electricity. Yeah, it's dangerous in more ways than one. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. (Unless you are willing to repeatedly steal someone else's...)

Originally posted by string:

It is claimed (by the anti global warming faction) that monitoring the total amount of Carbon Dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere shows that it lags the temperature. Since it lags the temperature it is a consequence, but not a cause, of the temperature increase and thus not a initiator of Global Warming but a symptom of it. Increased heat merely increases the emission of carbon dioxide from the oceans and decrease of temperature, all caused by fluctuations in the Sun's radiation, causes the oceans to re-adsorb carbon dioxide.

When I heard that argument I immediately looked for a report which showed how these variations were linked. I was only partially successful, but did find this data. In that link you will find a plot of temperature against time and Carbon dioxide content against time.

The plot shows that there is lag when there is a cooling cycle, but then one would expect that since it takes time for carbon dioxide to be re-adsorbed. But the data is not clear enough to show if the temperature rise is before the increase in CO2 or after it.

Both, according to the article:

The drops in CO₂ concentration do not always begin until after a cooling period has begun. Then, as an ice age is ending, the concentrations may remain low for some time into the warming period. This means that the CO₂ changes can not be the driving force in initiating these major climate shifts. But as the climate cools, the concentration of CO2 drops and this has a further cooling effect. And as the climate is warming, more CO₂ is released into the atmosphere, further increasing global temperatures.

Total biomass (dry weight, includes non-carbon) is ~1,877 billion ton, while there's ~1,400,000,000 billion ton water on Earth, containing, at the moment, ~0.0028% carbon (or ~39,200 billion ton / 21x gross biomass), which can only form CO₂ when in contact with O₂ molecules and mainly when both are in gaseous form and heat or radiation provides the means. As you know, the frequency of interactions is of nigh-singular importance when considering thermal and chemical exchange reactions; gas (atmosphere) reacts fastest, liquid (oceans) next, solid (earth) least. And, as mentioned before, the temperature level is crucial for all phases: higher means more, lower means fewer reactions. Further, surface-atmosphere interaction is the interface for all possible molecules released into or absorbed from the atmosphere (both H₂O as well as CO₂). So one aspect at least is easy: as Earth's temperature rises so does (immediately) the number of interactions in the atmosphere and oceans, all the more if the extra input (either solar, volcanic or human instigated combustion or nuclear detonation) is also accompanied with a degradation of the ozone layer since radiation (light) is both essential for reactions as well as a source of heating in itself.

There is something else to note: the denser a planet's blanket (atmosphere), the more net heat it will retain from the emitting body (our own, or the sun). An increase in CO₂ is like 'stuffing' the blanket with more material: a warmer planet; no blanket, no external heat retained. And the relative effect of the sun's input (vis-à-vis the atmosphere's) is reduced when its input increases: there will be a relatively higher release of energy back into space while the frequency of interactions increases (and cool off faster early on, and at a slower rate later, just for the concept).

Considering that carbon deposits are comparatively negligible to the total amount of free carbon contained in oceans and are mainly solid (until we burn them, of course), and considering the interesting (cyclical) data in the article, e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g points to one extremely important mediator, the penultimate heat sink and atmosphere buffer: the oceans and its conveyor belt.

Now, while we do not have the long-term data on the sun's internal cycle / "sunspots" (let alone its effect on other planets in our solar system), Yet we do know our own conveyor belt, which usually (but not always!), has kept and keeps most oceans, and Europe, habitable:

Removal of the oceanic heat transport due to the thermohaline circulation means also that the redistribution of the fresh water is blocked which in the real world would lead to accumulation of fresh water at the high latitudes. The lack of the thermohaline circulation intensifies freshening because no salt is transported northwards. The fresh water accumulation will eventually build an extensive sea ice cover north of 40°N and influence the seasonal uptake of heat in the ocean. This is consistent with the paleorecords showing that periods of extensive ice cover over the high latitude ocean, and over the European and North American continents, were associated with weak production of North Atlantic deep water (Boyle and Keigwin, 1982; 1987) and thus a weak thermohaline circulation. So in fact during the height of the last ice age, the maritime effect was reduced to a minimum, and the temperature gradient across the Atlantic vanished.

Originally posted by gerrysaint:

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

I wonder how much of the alarmism is based on actual FACT and not on "The sky is falling" nonsense which is quite possibly designed to benefit a few at the expense of many.

Here in the States we have a bit of a scandal involving Al Gore. As many of you know, he's written a book and there's a movie based on his book about global warming, in which he sells his doomsday scenario that will happen in about ten years or so unless we all go back to living in caves and painting our faces blue, or some such as that. Well, it turns out he lives in a mansion that uses TEN TIMES as much power as most average houses. He gets away with having such a large "carbon footprint" by trading with an outfit that bargains in this kind of stuff.

What's that??? Whoa, it turns out the company he trades with is owned by--- Al Gore?!?!

Hey, I can accomlish the same kind of thing. Let me take twenty dollars out of my left pocket and put it in my right pocket. Now, that's so much better.

Seriously folks, this kind of thing makes me wonder if the whole business isn't some kind of fraud designed to make us panic into doing the worst things possible, with only a hndful benefitting by it and the rest of us being hurt.

Just as you don't believe in global warming as explained by Al Gore, I don't believe a word you wrote about Al Gore.

I'm not surprised by that. Believe it or not, I'm not bothered by that either. On this subject (global warming and its possible causes) everybody seems to be convinced each of his or her own erroneous conclusions. Believe what you like, somewhere along the way we're probably all wrong on various points. Ah, yes, one other thing: I got my info about dear old Al from sources you probably wouldn't approve of or agree with anyway. So, again, believe what you like.

There was a recent article that Mars appears to be experiencing global warming as well, so we can't claim that all of Earth's warming is due to man - or even to cows in Argentina, destruction of the rain forest or whatever. Apparently the level of energy actually reaching the earth (and Mars) has risen. There would seem to be very little we could do about that ... unless you want to intentionally create a "nuclear winter".

No, I haven't seen an analysis of how much global warming may be due to greenhouse gases and other human effects. One would have to guess that the effect witnessed on Mars is a (relatively) short-term variation in the sun's total energy output - but "short-term" for the sun could be thousands of years. Or not, we just don't know that much about it yet.

No one can really deny that the last couple of years have been the hottest on record - but records only go back a few hundred years. And for that matter, "global warming" is supposed to be slow - none of the models based on human impact alone can explain what we've seen. And if you can't explain it, then how do you know that your "solution" is going to do anything?

In that sense, I'm with mjmsport50 - we really need to figure out how to survive it, whatever the cause(s) may be. Likewise, Al Gore is part of the problem and not part of the solution. Reducing carbon emissions is not in itself going to fix things.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Once more, if the biggest culprits to emissions took the existing British state of afairs and had 2% ( note this please, China, India, USA, etc)

So you are suggesting that a Chinese person be allowed only 0.06 of what a Brit consumes?

Originally posted by OakdaleFTL:

Methinks a cost/benifit study would be appropriate.Oh, wait. I linked to an interesting one months ago... String, the carbon dioxide addition due to man can't practically be mitigated or lessened substantially without severe disruption of the world's major economies. So, learning more, and preparing to make the best of what comes seems reasonable. In the short run.In the long run, nuclear power needs supply our electricity. Yeah, it's dangerous in more ways than one. But you can't have your cake and eat it too. (Unless you are willing to repeatedly steal someone else's...)

We need to make sure the cost isn't the planet's future as far as human habitability is concerned!

Short term, the changes needed, if needed, aren't achievable. But a difference can be made.

Personally, I believe that it is becoming less feasible to argue that humans aren't changing the climate. But I recognise that we are dealing with future prediction and therefore it is unlikely that anyone capable of shouting loud enough to be heard, will actually get it right.

I do know this. Inland seas are disappearing, forests are disappearing, and the air is becoming unbreathable in places and drinking water is on the short side supply wise. I can't help but feel that I'm currently living in an environment that most of you will experience in the future, and that there must be a better way.

Originally posted by sgunhouse:

In that sense, I'm with mjmsport50 - we really need to figure out how to survive it, whatever the cause(s) may be.

I'm with that sentiment too, although I think it wise to continue reducing our carbon emissions reflects the present consensus so we should do that while not being blind to other explanations for the warming. There is danger of not believing things just because they make life uncomfortable.

@Niddhogg: Yes I read that sentence "The drops in CO2 concentration do not always begin until after a cooling period has begun". When I came to look at the data however much I squinted I could not see the evidence that carbon dioxide increase was after temperature rise. For the cooling down it was clear, although not absolutely consistently so. Bearing in mind that the article was putting the case for the anti-global-warming-as-a-result-of-carbon-dioxide lobby, I can't take the above statement as truth until I find real evidence of it and I've not found it yet. If it is there I would find the argument compelling.

You mention several things in your note, reflecting the complexity of the processes at work. There is certainly a positive feedback, as the reports show, where increase in temperature adds more carbon dioxide which increased the temperature further. Humanities emissions on top of that would add to the temperature rise but whether this is the determining factor or, alternatively, is the "last straw that takes the temperature beyond comfortable limits, is not clear and obviously a complex, if not impossible calculation.

So I keep looking for better data.

Originally posted by aefields:

ARRRRRGH! Where the hell do people get that asinine idea??? Who are the assholes who keep spreading it??? Nobody thinks that humanity is the sole cause of global warming!

Tsk, tsk, AE; remember you're reading RJ...cut some RJ slack.
Does this mean that I can continue to use my lighter?

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Does this mean that I can continue to use my lighter?

No problem, provided that you don't light anything with it.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Maybe mankind's contribution to global warming is less then we think, but it sure as hell won't hurt to reduce emissions. This has as much to do with people developing self-awareness as it has to do with global warming. The prospect of extinction does that to people.

Originally posted by EivindFS:

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. Maybe mankind's contribution to global warming is less then we think, but it sure as hell won't hurt to reduce emissions. This has as much to do with people developing self-awareness as it has to do with global warming. The prospect of extinction does that to people.

There is a danger of simply posting mother-hood statements here, but still:

I certainly agree with reducing emissions for the reasons you give, although whether extinction is involved is questionable, although it will come eventually presumably - and this applies to all sorts not just the carbon business - we need to keep our planet healthy, and, as I've stated, in the interest of caution I think we need to take action on the carbon thing.

But supporting on side or the other does not mean that we should turn off our brains. IF (and it is an IF) Mankind is not the major driver in the global Warming that seems to be happening then our drive to be good Earthlings should not be at fever pitch so that it distorts our main attribute which is technological development. (I distinguish between technological development and economic development although there is a strong link between them).

Originally posted by string:

Originally posted by Jaybro:

Does this mean that I can continue to use my lighter?

No problem, provided that you don't light anything with it.

Just like my Mom! "Don't play with those matches in the barn!"