Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[--B--]

Touche and also a lot more succint than my post. Even one of the dopiest galahs on the planet, George dubya, who has also been one of the greatest cynics, now concedes the human involvement of humans on CC. For mine, those that are still a decade or two behind in the debate, are probably further down the evolutionary tree than ol' mate George. Speaking of evolution, I wonder what the chances are that --B-- believes evolution is a beat up and that we've only been around for 5-10000 years. Hmm...

lol.. more of the "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" lines that you guys are famous for..

tell me: is 30 years the only trend you guys rely on? can the past 30 years (when we look at the lifetime of the earth) be considered an outlier?

 

[skint]

lol.. more of the "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" lines that you guys are famous for..

tell me: is 30 years the only trend you guys rely on? can the past 30 years (when we look at the lifetime of the earth) be considered an outlier?

Here's a brief article that investigated greenhouse gases over a much longer period. When a lot of research looking into a problem from completely different angles reaches the same conclusion sooner or later, its wise to take notice.


CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'
By Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website


Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).


Epica drills have extracted ice from 3km under the Antarctic surface
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

Stable relationship

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past.

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.


The base at Dome Concordia
But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked.

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two from before this change, four from after.

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation."

Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further back in time.

Water rise

Another study reported in the same journal claims that for the last 150 years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.

Using data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea level record covering the last 100 million years.

They calculate the present rate of rise at 2mm per year.

"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which collates scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by 1-2mm per year over the last century, and will rise by a total of anything up to 88cm during the course of this century.

 

[professor_frink]

<puts on mod hat>

It would be good if this debate doesn't turn into a personal argument between people with conflicting opinions. I know it's hard to do, as it seems to be the standard form of debate going around for this topic the world over presently, but it would be great if it doesn't happen here.

Cheers

<takes off mod hat>

 

[professor_frink]

Rafa, chops,--B--,

Thanks for you comments to my questions earlier

 

[--B--]

oop. image is too big:

it can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

shows a pretty clear trend

 

[--B--]

It would be good if this debate doesn't turn into a personal argument between people with conflicting opinions. I know it's hard to do, as it seems to be the standard form of debate going around for this topic the world over presently, but it would be great if it doesn't happen here.

Cheers

Agreed. Cheers frink.

 

[skint]

Exactly, --B--.
The chances of the current spike in temperature and CO2 levels occuring at exactly the same time as the world industrialises is pretty remote given that it occurs only once every 100000 years or so.

 

[--B--]

what?

the spike seen at year dot fits pretty perfectly into the 100,000 year trend.

 

[chops_a_must]

i asked you a direct question which you could not answer. my posts have only been constructive and i have not used petty insults such as yourself and others.

I did answer it.

 

[wayneL]

In terms of the Kyoto per se (and Al Gore)... they are both a joke.... but where their real value lies is in implanting the principle / thought seed into the minds of business and the gen public.

Because, in the end the problem will ONLY be solved when everyone, esp big business AND the general public, starts considering the CO2 impact when making decision.

The big problem here is one of cynicism.

To paraphrase a comment on another forum: "When I see Al Gore living in a 14 square, energy self sufficient house and driving around in a hybrid/riding a bicycle/etc., I'll start recycling my aluminium cans."

It seems those bleating most about it are doing the least. Observing this, Joe Sixpack thinks - WTF? The Commodore and my dozen beer bottles a week spew out less co2 than Al Gore's (et al) entourage of limousines and first class travel. Add to that the rampant world, fossil fuel dependent economic growth and one cannot blame Mr Sixpack for thinking - Eat, drink & be merry, for tomorrow we die.

What we need is some real leadership on the issue, rather than tricks with stats and numbers... and nonsense.

 

[--B--]

I did answer it.

so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?

 

[skint]

so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?

If you go over the David Attenborough video posted earlier by 2020, it summarises well (although only a summary) that when other events are factored in, it is clearly not just an anomoly. I'm still waiting to hear your response to a question that has been posed to you many times. What about if the scientists are right and you are wrong, in that if we neglect to act now, serious consequences will transpire? A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?

 

[wayneL]

A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?

It's not a point of listening. Lots of folks are listening, and worrying, and preaching... but what are they doing? Nothing! (Unless there's a profit in it)

It's time for action. Stop building Mc-freaking-mansions, stop buying Toorak tractors to drop the kids off at school, chuck on a jumper instead of turning up the heating (or air conditioning as the case may be), think about the products and their packaging we buy in terms of energy expenditure... cripes, even get off our fat freakin' @sses and try walking to the shops or riding the treadly, instead of driving.

Just a few minor ideas that could make a difference. Not hard, and within the scope of everyone.

 

[--B--]

If you go over the David Attenborough video posted earlier by 2020, it summarises well (although only a summary) that when other events are factored in, it is clearly not just an anomoly.

but doesnt the graph i linked above show that we are still clearly traveling within the 100,000 years trend cycle?

I'm still waiting to hear your response to a question that has been posed to you many times. What about if the scientists are right and you are wrong, in that if we neglect to act now, serious consequences will transpire? A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?

firstly, does questioning the validity of an argument or issue put me in the 'against' basket?

secondly, ive not said we shouldnt 'act' now. i dont dispute that moving to cleaner or renewable energies is a great way to go. however until these are proven sources and economically viable i think further research may be required.

all along all i have been doing is questioning the extent to which humans have caused the supposed 'global warming'.

in any case, for the debates sake, what is meant by 'act' now. shutting down coal plants? moving to green energy that are not yet shown to be a fully viable alternative thus forcing energy prices through the roof for many who cannot afford it. denying developing nations cheap energy? paying 'fines' to other polluters and investors? what is it?

 

[2020hindsight]

B - you don't even realise when you contradict yourself , eg

No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.

B, your response :- "sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper."

Don't you think we should at least try?

B, your response :- "try what? to 'fix' the climate? anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise."

ok, Let's take those last couple of sentences,
"anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. I've never said otherwise".

since Kyoto reduces co2 and other pollution
you agree to it I presume.
Or (worst case) you agree with action even if manmade contribution to GW is unproven?

PS I'd be interested in your evidence that we will be paying penalty and hence tax in Aust - ramping is frowned on remember.

PS or were you saying there's a 90% chance that we'd be paying tax
(or 10% chance??)

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne
You say you are a skeptic on manmade global warming
i.e. that man is quite likely not contributing to the problem

yet you then proceed to tell us you are doing all you can to reduce your contribution.

At least you are giving the world (and the scientific argument) "the benefit of the doubt".
(The doubt can be quantified by others - call it 10% doubt ref IPCC)

PS when you turn this into an argument that the "super-haves" are ignoring GW, then why shouldn't "we" - you reinforce the argument that Aus has to avoid being classed with USA and this class of selfish nerds. (agreed?)

 

[--B--]

B - you don't even realise when you contradict yourself , eg

B, your response :- "sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper."

um,,, huh? i suggest you re-read if youre still struggling. its perfectly clear what i was saying 2020.

and in any case, when someone resorts to arguing about semantics its usually a pretty clear indication they have no argument left.

B, your response :- "try what? to 'fix' the climate? anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise."

ok, Let's take those last couple of sentences,
"anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. I've never said otherwise".

since Kyoto reduces co2 and other pollution
you agree to it I presume.

kyoto doesnt 'reduce' co2 and other pollution.

it aims to reduce co2 emissions and 5 other greenhouse gases by enticing countries to commit to targets. if they dont meet these targets they must by 'credits' including extra for penalties.

the fact that many countries are no where near their targets suggests its not exactly achieving its aim.

Or (worst case) you agree with action even if manmade contribution to GW is unproven?

i suppose that depends what the 'action' is.

PS I'd be interested in your evidence that we will be paying penalty and hence tax in Aust - ramping is frowned on remember.

sure, here you are:

"We are currently likely to ... overshoot our Kyoto target by one per cent," Mr Rudd told ABC radio today.

Mr Rudd said the penalty would be set out under the post-Kyoto deal that kicks in after 2012.

It would include a commitment to a further reduction - 60 million tonnes - in carbon emissions plus a 30 per cent penalty added to the subsequent commitment target.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22860017-12377,00.html

60 million tonnes at the current CER cost of around 17 EUR is approx 1.6bn AUD. Thats without adding the 30% penalty.

 

[wayneL]

Wayne
You say you are a skeptic on manmade global warming
i.e. that man is quite likely not contributing to the problem

yet you then proceed to tell us you are doing all you can to reduce your contribution.

At least you are giving the world (and the scientific argument) "the benefit of the doubt".
(The doubt can be quantified by others - call it 10% doubt ref IPCC)

PS when you turn this into an argument that the "super-haves" are ignoring GW, then why shouldn't "we" - you reinforce the argument that Aus has to avoid being classed with USA and this class of selfish nerds. (agreed?)

No.

I'm pointing out human nature... how folks are thinking about this.

I am still a skeptic regarding AGW, but as stated before there is a larger problem of general pollution and environmental rape and pillage. My own actions are primarily conducted with that imperative, with the possibility of AGW as secondary... and ferchrissake, we really don't need all the BS we spend money on.

It's all "Status Anxiety" as per more ancient threads on this site... buying crap we don't really need (hence overconsumption), with money we don't have (hence credit bubble), impress people we don't like (hence general unhappiness in a prosperous first world).

... another thing that is related, I hate critters suffering/going extinct to feed said Anxiety. That's just ****ing criminal.

 

[professor_frink]

......

It's all "Status Anxiety" as per more ancient threads on this site... buying crap we don't really need (hence overconsumption), with money we don't have (hence credit bubble), impress people we don't like (hence general unhappiness in a prosperous first world)..............

:iagree:

well said Wayne

 

[2020hindsight]

So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.

As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines

hey B
that's not proof we'll be paying lol
that's at best only 90% sure
(just using your logic here)