Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Pat]

if its a valid reason then of course not. my point was in response to the comments made in the article above regarding Australia sending a message to the rest of the world. its absolutely preposterous.

Fair enough, but I believe all this... call it crap, that the govt is doing is all part of the change process. From the posts i've read (not neccesarily yours) these suggested changes are simply dismissed by some because we cannot prove humans are contributing to GW, or, we cannot prove GW. Perhaps specific regions are changing from warm to cold, as per Wayne's post a few pages back, but it would seem a larger number of regions are warming. The message is in the fact we are trying to change, and debating the fact. Any sustainable change will set an example, and the rest of the world will pay close attention.

"must" is the key word there Pat. thats why this debate is so interesting and is still raging on.

"Must" is just a play on words. Is there such thing as 'must' do something? I can safely say we must change our ways if we continue to live in a sustainable society. Seen the movie Water World?

because the answer, as any scientist will tell you, is ZERO.

Not sure on this, any scientist will say it never too late.

this can all be done without the "we must act now or perish" lies being perpetrated by the misleading green agenda.

Agree, but It's politics, they're pushing a point.
How can they say it in a way that would make you feel different on the subject?

 

[Pat]

This thread is similar to the one on Religion. Either you believe or you don't.
However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy. But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.

Julia, I don't think you need to be a 'fanatic' to agree with the possibility of AGW. Nor do I think you need to be a 'fanatic' to see that the required changes to solve the 'possible' issues are all needed for the future of civilization. We don't need to stuff the economy, we have had it too easy for too long, soon we will HAVE to step up and take it on the chin, not for rising sea levels, but an energy crisis. Imagine 8 billion people walking the earth in the next 20 yrs.

What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.

What we do on our planet affects us, not the planet. So we may muck up the atmosphere for a few thousand years of global warming or so forth, this is actually just a little blip. However it is a very important blip to mankind, not to planetary evolution.

In the words of John Lennon (sorta) "All we are saying, is give GW a chance". LOL!

 

[Pat]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if natural gas was specifically excluded as a means of reducing emissions. With the peak oil situation, we'll need all the gas we can get for transport. Phase out gas-fired power, don't increase it.

If we go down the gas track then what happens in 20 years when we're stuck with predominantly gas-fired power, peak gas and haven't developed a large renewables industry because gas was easier? Answer - we do just what every other country facing declining gas production has done, go straight back to coal.

And what the hell do we do for transport once we've got rid of all the gas? Electric heavy trucks won't be here anytime soon.

The other great danger is geopolitical. Russian and Middle East dominance of gas reserves makes Iraq's oil seem trivial. Now think about that for a moment. A developed world dependent not only on Middle East oil for transport, but on declining supplies of oil & gas for electric power and industry as well.

It's a frightening scenario when you think about it. Energy has long lead to conflict of various sorts and with so few holding ALL the cards it just doesn't bear thinking about. They're already signalling their intentions pretty loudly in my view and we'd be outright fools to take the bait.

Good post Smurf, It's massaging my mind.
I for one would love to see the electric car make a come back. I truely believe that technology in electric motors would increase 10 fold due to the demand placed on an 'infant' industry. There is no hope for electric heavy transport without investing in light transport first.

Though trains are electric, even the diesel kind.


H2 cars are a silly silly idea IMO. H2 is harder to produce and much more scarce than oil/gas... for the time being. But the sun, well its everywhere.
From what i've seen (on TV ) they have made some vast improvements on solar powered power stations. Apparently they need 1/5th of the govt land in Nevada USA to provide the whole country with solar energy. And they've seem to of solved the issue with no sun at night. Can't remember the name of the substance, but it retains heat around 500c for 36 hrs or so, only problem is if it cools below 250c it turns to a solid... Still, they are trying.

 

[2020hindsight]

Julia, I don't think you need to be a 'fanatic' to agree with the possibility of AGW. ... .

be aware Pat that Julia is prepared to argue some strange positions -
even when Wayne agrees that he has changed his mind on this, Julia thinks he hasn't.

"All we are saying, is give (action on) GW a chance".

good one

 

[ghotib]

Actually the animals that creates the most methane by a LoOOOOOng way are...

...ants!

Hi Wayne,

Source please.

I can find information online about methane emissions by termites, but not ants. The IPCC report says termites are the 2nd highest natural source of methane, and that total human activities (which include raising animals for meat) are a higher source than natural activities. "much" looks like about 50% higher from the graphics in the IPCC FAQ, which is all I've looked at since reading your post. There's a US EPA report online which says that termite emissions are 11% of natural sources, but doesn't put numbers on the ratio between natural and anthropogenic sources and only refers to the US anyway.

FWIW, given that every nutritionist in the Western world seems to think Westerners eat too much meat, it probably wouldn't do us any harm at all to lose one meat meal a week and it would do us the world <ahem> of good if none of our meat was feedlot.

Cheers,

Ghoti

WHOOOP!!!! Hold everything. Just found a Wikipedia article which shows Termites as 3% and Ruminants as 19% of global Methane emission sources. The article cites one of the working papers for the 2001 IPCC report and is dated 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane

 

[Julia]

J
What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.

Pat, if you have evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, please post it.

In the meantime, I simply disagree with your view.

If I am therefore judged by you to be naive and ignorant, then I think I can live with that.
Might be good to argue the position with more clarity before resorting to personal insults.

 

[wayneL]

You will find heaps of my views have changed over time. I don't stubbornly hold to any position.

I admit to have slightly succumbed to the fear tactics of the AGW gravy train. Now I know more and am no longer concerned about co2.

Just to clarify: I've never "believed" in AGW but had a "just in case" attitude. Now I am convinced that there is minuscule anthropogenic influence in climatic variation.

 

[wayneL]

Hi Wayne,

Source please.

It was on the Beeb, which is well known as the accepted repository of all pedantry.

But then again, the Beeb thinks Crash Gordon was a good Chancellor.

 

[--B--]

What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.

Pat, youve admitted yourself youre not a scientist yet apparently youre that convined of AGW that anyone woh dare question it are naive or ignorant?

reminds me of the old "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" line

perhaps you can say the same to these reputable scientists?

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.”

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.”

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.”

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.”

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.”

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.”

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.”

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.”

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.”

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.”

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

http://astore.amazon.com/global_warming_hoax-20/detail/0980076315/103-9600080-7374228

 

[derty]

Just to clarify: I've never "believed" in AGW but had a "just in case" attitude. Now I am convinced that there is minuscule anthropogenic influence in climatic variation.

So you are tentatively dipping your toe into the AGW bucket? Or do I read that wrong?

 

[wayneL]

So you are tentatively dipping your toe into the AGW bucket? Or do I read that wrong?

No

The IPCC model is completely unable to predict climate trends. Therefore, AGW does not even qualify as a theory and remains a hypothesis only.

Interestingly, the AGW sk(c)eptics have been more successful.

It should be a matter of disgust that this "hypothesis" is being regarded as fact. The IPCC and their disciples and believers are therefore analogous to young earth creationists.

 

[--B--]

It should be a matter of disgust that this "hypothesis" is being regarded as fact. The IPCC and their disciples and believers are therefore analogous to young earth creationists.

100% agree and yet time and time again we hear horror stories of "the cost of not acting" which are based entirely on the IPCC's "models" worst case scenario of a 6 deg temp increase in 100 years.

if joe public took the time to consider the fact that these models are simply guestimates and in actual fact much remains unknown about our climate then perhaps we woulnt see so many jump so readily on the bandwagon.

 

[--B--]

this from the head of the IPCC:

Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001320pachauri_on_recent_c.html

gee so the head of the whiz bang IPCC which basically drive the worlds fear of AGW doesnt understand what is happening with global temperatures?

shocking???

 

[2020hindsight]

gee so the head of the whiz bang IPCC which basically drive the worlds fear of AGW doesnt understand what is happening with global temperatures?

on the contrary, he's saying there could be natural factors compensating.

eg the decline in solar activity. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities

I'd like to say "Lets review this in 4 or 5 years." Trouble is, you can't change your mind back again. The cost of "not being cautious" goes up astronomically both in dollar terms, and also in tempting Fate and the Point-Of-No-(short-term-foreseeable)-Return.

 

[Pat]

Pat, if you have evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, please post it.

Like wise for the debate against GW. It is illogical to simply dismiss the argument for lack of evidence.

If I am therefore judged by you to be naive and ignorant, then I think I can live with that.
Might be good to argue the position with more clarity before resorting to personal insults.

Only on the subject of GW. Please do not take offence. I meant it in the nicest possible way.

 

[--B--]

on the contrary, he's saying there could be natural factors compensating.

exactly my point 2020. here is the guy who leads the IPCC, the supposed authority on climate and climate change, and it is clear for all to see that he cant explain the temperature plateau. obviously the 'models' were simply set for big scary increases and impending death?

for goodness sake, this is an organisation wielding such an amount of power, whom governments all over the world are quoting for their own studies, if this organisation can predict climate 100 years into the future why on earth cant they explain what is happening right now??

I'd like to say "Lets review this in 4 or 5 years." Trouble is, you can't change your mind back again. The cost of "not being cautious" goes up astronomically both in dollar terms, and also in tempting Fate and the Point-Of-No-(short-term-foreseeable)-Return.

oh of course.. that little gem.

 

[Pat]

Pat, youve admitted yourself youre not a scientist yet apparently youre that convined of AGW that anyone woh dare question it are naive or ignorant?

No you may question it as you like, this is human/scientific evolution... Though arguments for and against are most certainly logical in there own respects, some of the logic is flawed.
I believe to dismiss the possibility of AGW, and to suggest "some" action is not needed is naive and ignorant... The basis of most arguments against is money. Alas, I am posting on a stock forum . LOL!

I for one am still not convinced we are causing it, but am convinced we are contributing to GW If only 1%. It is time for a green revolution, the sooner, and greener the better.
Humans have a large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, and small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. Is it unfathomable to think we could take it to a global level?

Most solutions that have been put forward will solve many issues that face society and the environment today, not just potential climate warming. It is the implementation of the solutions that should be the focus of argument, "How can we do this in the most efficient way?" would be the ultimate question.

The fact is there will never be proof, we don't have another planet to compare, and our closed system is extremely dynamic. But again - Humans have the large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. In the last 50 yrs technology has advanced in ways that 100 yrs ago we could not comprehend, yet we are not using this technology in an efficient way.

 

[Julia]

Pat, the general tenor of your post (and I'm not talking about the actual argument for or against AGW in this case) is what annoys me and a lot of other people, i.e. the insistent, relentless self-flagellation thing that human beings are so careless and selfish.

Human beings have created much that is good, and are for the most part well intentioned. I, for one, just decline to feel guilty about something which quite possibly is happening as a normal part of the climate cycle, and I frankly object to other people telling me that I should.

 

[Pat]

Pat, the general tenor of your post (and I'm not talking about the actual argument for or against AGW in this case) is what annoys me and a lot of other people, i.e. the insistent, relentless self-flagellation thing that human beings are so careless and selfish.

Human beings have created much that is good, and are for the most part well intentioned. I, for one, just decline to feel guilty about something which quite possibly is happening as a normal part of the climate cycle, and I frankly object to other people telling me that I should.

It's a little like the film clip to the Louis Armstrong song "What a wonderful world".
Forgive me for my cynicism, but some might say 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Call my "insistent, relentless self-flagellation", the yin, and my desired outcome, the yang

 

[wayneL]

I for one am still not convinced we are causing it, but am convinced we are contributing to GW If only 1%. It is time for a green revolution, the sooner, and greener the better.
Humans have a large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, and small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. Is it unfathomable to think we could take it to a global level?

Most solutions that have been put forward will solve many issues that face society and the environment today, not just potential climate warming. It is the implementation of the solutions that should be the focus of argument, "How can we do this in the most efficient way?" would be the ultimate question.

Pat.

The exclusive focus on co2 means that all manner of other evils are ignored. I don't agree that co2 "solutions" will solve anything unless the focus is more holistic.

Nuclear power for instance opens up a whole new can of worms. Tidal power generation I read slows down the planet's rotation - This potentially could create real, measurable and devastating climate change in time.

The oceans are simultaneously being used as a tip and a food source; fishing methods are destrying the marine ecosystems. Potentially much more disastrous than anything to do with CC.

I could go on, but as ever, my position is that the IPCC is drawing attention and great mountains of cash away from "real" problems, to feed a noxious gravy train that is designed as a covert commercial endeavour.