The reality is that the climate is now rapidly destabilizing, and thats not a prediction about the future, thats a remark about 2008. Despite all of the claptrap (and thats what it is) from people who essentially don't know what they are on about. I think most people are starting to realize that something is going horribly wrong, but still simply cannot bring themselves to admit that there has been a massive campaign of misinformation from the industrial lobby to cloud the issue, and that they have been misled. The issue is that, basically, the enormous amount of CO2 we have put into the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution is heating the planet up, end of story. Now, finally, we have a few years left to attempt to begin to do something about it, however painful people may feel it is, to have to lose one or two percent off GDP in order to try and prevent a general climatic catastrophe.
If there is a future for humanity, (and I am starting to think that this is a big "if") (and historians around to write in it), they will speak of this era as one of the most foolish in human history. The magnitude of the folly we are currently engaged in as a species is breathtaking. The lies that have been spun to cover up the truth would do Joseph Gobbels proud, and the massive and sustained attack upon the scientific community, (and the scientific method itself), by the "business as usual" lobby makes me increasingly depressed about our future. Just because people don't like the message, that doesn't mean that its not valid.
Its my opinion that we are currently running toward the edge of an environmental abyss, while concurrently engaged in arguing about the speed at which we are running. Unlike almost everyone else here, I am actually a professional scientist, and my qualifications are in this very area, I know what I am talking about. What the scientists are telling you are not lies, and the results being presented across the world are not "junk science", the junk science is that which comes from idiotic creationists and their associated fundamentalist religious, science-hating, bretheren, as well as energy companies, fossil fuel producers, and industrial corporations, desperate to avoid and economic, social, and political repercussions for their blatant disregard for the consequences of their part in what we are doing collectively as a species.
Scientists have no economic agenda, they are not politically powerful or even part of the mainstream political establishment (unlike corporate lawyers, organized religion, economists, oil companies, and right-wing media barons), the only thing that they have is scientific objectivity, and unfortunately what they are finding out about the climate is becoming increasingly alarming, and it makes no difference what kind of sophisticated arguments you construct to deny the fact that we are utterly wrecking our climate, as you cannot argue with the ocean or the wind. One day soon, that will become very apparent. Of course by then it will be too late.
Death by Environmentalism
Death by Environmentalism
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death by Environmentalism
Jester;907989 wrote: Gal I respect you, and what you say regularly, and coming from you this holds more water than most, and I almost believe you with the way that you plea the case. but I can't bring myself to accept that what you say is true.
I agree we have some unusual weather patterns, I agree that ther eis climate shift going on in some areas, but I do not belive it is due to C02 levels, nor is it man made, possibly man contributes some, but not enough to 'shift' the weather.
If just the scientists alone (such as yourself) were saying this stuff I'd give it more serious thought, but the radical socialist environmentalists drive the global warming machine, and its they who control what hits the media, you shoudl be equally upset at the disstortion of the scintific data than the folks liek me who refuse to buy the mainline agenda of global doom.
Jester, if that's your opinion then that is your right, it depresses me to be honest, but there isn't much I can do about it. Sure, there are a lot of tree-huggers out there, but this isn't a tree-hugger issue. Though I admit certain people's attempt to use this problem as an opportunity to indulge in sanctimony about other people on the basis that they are not environmental enough is self-defeating and has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with people wanting to feel holier than thou.
To me its an issue of basic survival, it doesn't matter whether you drive a Chevy Suburban, or a Prius, if you are a Republican or a Green if mean temperatures rise more than 2 degrees, if CO2 goes higher than 450 ppm, if the Greenland icesheet melts, if harvests fail in North America, Europe, or Southern and Central Asia, or the North Atlantic ocean conveyor system breaks down, if the Siberian permafrost melts, then its likely that you will either starve, bake, or drown, and so will your family, no matter how many light bulbs you change to CFLs. All the things that seem really important now like credit crunches and peak oil will be thought of fondly as things from a happier time, when humanity still had some choice about the direction of the species.
That's the actual reality of what this could mean for a whole lot of people living on planet Earth right now. So I don't come at it from that angle of berate people for supposedly morally dubious choices at all, its got nothing to do with morality, christian or otherwise. But I readily admit I am quite "doom and gloomy" on this issue, and particularly since the last UN IPCC lecture I attended, which I have to admit I found very disturbing indeed. Perhaps this reflects my background, or the fact that I have the unfortunate job of having to think about these things for a living.
I think all I can say is that I will give you 24 months, let things play out a bit more, and come back to you on it.
I agree we have some unusual weather patterns, I agree that ther eis climate shift going on in some areas, but I do not belive it is due to C02 levels, nor is it man made, possibly man contributes some, but not enough to 'shift' the weather.
If just the scientists alone (such as yourself) were saying this stuff I'd give it more serious thought, but the radical socialist environmentalists drive the global warming machine, and its they who control what hits the media, you shoudl be equally upset at the disstortion of the scintific data than the folks liek me who refuse to buy the mainline agenda of global doom.
Jester, if that's your opinion then that is your right, it depresses me to be honest, but there isn't much I can do about it. Sure, there are a lot of tree-huggers out there, but this isn't a tree-hugger issue. Though I admit certain people's attempt to use this problem as an opportunity to indulge in sanctimony about other people on the basis that they are not environmental enough is self-defeating and has nothing to do with science, but everything to do with people wanting to feel holier than thou.
To me its an issue of basic survival, it doesn't matter whether you drive a Chevy Suburban, or a Prius, if you are a Republican or a Green if mean temperatures rise more than 2 degrees, if CO2 goes higher than 450 ppm, if the Greenland icesheet melts, if harvests fail in North America, Europe, or Southern and Central Asia, or the North Atlantic ocean conveyor system breaks down, if the Siberian permafrost melts, then its likely that you will either starve, bake, or drown, and so will your family, no matter how many light bulbs you change to CFLs. All the things that seem really important now like credit crunches and peak oil will be thought of fondly as things from a happier time, when humanity still had some choice about the direction of the species.
That's the actual reality of what this could mean for a whole lot of people living on planet Earth right now. So I don't come at it from that angle of berate people for supposedly morally dubious choices at all, its got nothing to do with morality, christian or otherwise. But I readily admit I am quite "doom and gloomy" on this issue, and particularly since the last UN IPCC lecture I attended, which I have to admit I found very disturbing indeed. Perhaps this reflects my background, or the fact that I have the unfortunate job of having to think about these things for a living.
I think all I can say is that I will give you 24 months, let things play out a bit more, and come back to you on it.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death by Environmentalism
Jester;908071 wrote: Gal if that is the case and we'll know in 24 months them Im willing to wait that out under the stance I'm currently in.
The world will end one day of that I am certain, but until then we will just improvise and adjust as best as we can which is what humans have been doing through every climate change we've seen so far. Life dies out naturally in all sorts of ways. If what the scientist say is true then there's no stopping it anyway, so we better just adjust and get used to it.
I set you on my calander 2 years out.
I think we will certainly know a lot more things for certain by the end of this decade, 2010. So let's agree to discuss this thread again then. Though we can talk away on it in the interim if you wish.
The world will end one day of that I am certain, but until then we will just improvise and adjust as best as we can which is what humans have been doing through every climate change we've seen so far. Life dies out naturally in all sorts of ways. If what the scientist say is true then there's no stopping it anyway, so we better just adjust and get used to it.
I set you on my calander 2 years out.
I think we will certainly know a lot more things for certain by the end of this decade, 2010. So let's agree to discuss this thread again then. Though we can talk away on it in the interim if you wish.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
ThankyouMoneypenny
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:49 am
Death by Environmentalism
Hello All. This is my first post (apart from tests). I have recently found this forum site and have enjoyed reading the discussion. I hope you don’t mind an input from someone who considers himself an ordinary bloke with an interest in seeking the truth without dogma.
Maybe I could start by asking a few questions:
Why is there so much ‘doom and gloom’ about climate change? It strikes me that mankind seems to be spending an awful lot of money (trillions of dollars) trying to fight a change in something which has been in a state of flux for billions of years. It also appears that the anti-AGW movement is now stealthily ‘moving the goalposts’ and using the term ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’. Might this be because the global temperature is not increasing as rapidly as the initial IPCC forecasts predicted?
Why do the textbooks still state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 0.038%? If the amount of CO2 has doubled – and I have no reason to doubt that it has – surely this should be 0.076%? If so, what has it replaced?
What is the problem with an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees C? It seems to me that the deserts will get a bit hotter (so what?), the poles will get a bit hotter (but will still be bloody cold), and the temperate regions will get a pleasant increase in ambient temperature which will allow for better harvests and a reduction in most people’s heating and clothing bills!
Why does it seem impossible for the computer models used by the IPCC etc to predict the current state of the climate? For a computer model to be effective, surely it should be able to use input from historical data and predict the actual climate we have now? The fact that this does not seem to be possible leads me to think that the modellers have not been able to input all the factors in what is essentially an open system, which means they won’t be able to correctly predict the climate accurately. Still, I suppose it all makes for editorially-interesting ‘scientific’ articles and future funding… meanwhile, ordinary people like me end up paying extra ‘environmental’ taxes because I’ve been such a bad person that I am going to destroy the planet. (Why would the planet give a toss? The planet will recover – it will be mankind that has the problem, not the planet.)
What are the facts about AGW? Forget models. Has the (global) temperature risen drastically? Has the (global) sea level risen drastically? Has Kyoto achieved anything apart from wasting valuable funds that could have been spent on improving the lot of the average person living in Canada, Estonia, Sierra Leone or Australia? Are the governments of the world more interested in scaring the populace into paying for a non-problem than sorting out their own inept financial management?
I consider myself a budding environmentalist. Yes, global warming is happening and yes, mankind is contributing to it (so Naomis Oreskes can add me to her statistics). But am I concerned about it? No. Do I think there may be reasons other than anthropogenic for the recent (slight) rise in temperature? Yes. Do I think there is a true and balanced scientific consensus on this issue? No. Do I think we should all adopt policies which reduce the amount of energy we are using? Yes – most certainly – but we should be doing it to STOP WASTING PLANETARY RESOURCES, not for some hyped alarmist views by people with a vested interest. We should be efficient, not scared.
Thanks for listening. You can wake up now!:)
“The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.†Albert Camus
“The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for witâ€. W Somerset Maugham
Maybe I could start by asking a few questions:
Why is there so much ‘doom and gloom’ about climate change? It strikes me that mankind seems to be spending an awful lot of money (trillions of dollars) trying to fight a change in something which has been in a state of flux for billions of years. It also appears that the anti-AGW movement is now stealthily ‘moving the goalposts’ and using the term ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’. Might this be because the global temperature is not increasing as rapidly as the initial IPCC forecasts predicted?
Why do the textbooks still state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 0.038%? If the amount of CO2 has doubled – and I have no reason to doubt that it has – surely this should be 0.076%? If so, what has it replaced?
What is the problem with an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees C? It seems to me that the deserts will get a bit hotter (so what?), the poles will get a bit hotter (but will still be bloody cold), and the temperate regions will get a pleasant increase in ambient temperature which will allow for better harvests and a reduction in most people’s heating and clothing bills!
Why does it seem impossible for the computer models used by the IPCC etc to predict the current state of the climate? For a computer model to be effective, surely it should be able to use input from historical data and predict the actual climate we have now? The fact that this does not seem to be possible leads me to think that the modellers have not been able to input all the factors in what is essentially an open system, which means they won’t be able to correctly predict the climate accurately. Still, I suppose it all makes for editorially-interesting ‘scientific’ articles and future funding… meanwhile, ordinary people like me end up paying extra ‘environmental’ taxes because I’ve been such a bad person that I am going to destroy the planet. (Why would the planet give a toss? The planet will recover – it will be mankind that has the problem, not the planet.)
What are the facts about AGW? Forget models. Has the (global) temperature risen drastically? Has the (global) sea level risen drastically? Has Kyoto achieved anything apart from wasting valuable funds that could have been spent on improving the lot of the average person living in Canada, Estonia, Sierra Leone or Australia? Are the governments of the world more interested in scaring the populace into paying for a non-problem than sorting out their own inept financial management?
I consider myself a budding environmentalist. Yes, global warming is happening and yes, mankind is contributing to it (so Naomis Oreskes can add me to her statistics). But am I concerned about it? No. Do I think there may be reasons other than anthropogenic for the recent (slight) rise in temperature? Yes. Do I think there is a true and balanced scientific consensus on this issue? No. Do I think we should all adopt policies which reduce the amount of energy we are using? Yes – most certainly – but we should be doing it to STOP WASTING PLANETARY RESOURCES, not for some hyped alarmist views by people with a vested interest. We should be efficient, not scared.
Thanks for listening. You can wake up now!:)
“The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.†Albert Camus
“The ability to quote is a serviceable substitute for witâ€. W Somerset Maugham
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Death by Environmentalism
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Hello All. This is my first post (apart from tests). I have recently found this forum site and have enjoyed reading the discussion. I hope you don’t mind an input from someone who considers himself an ordinary bloke with an interest in seeking the truth without dogma.
A good basis for getting at what is true without the money and politics involved in this issue is to look at what the scientific organisations are saying.
It has been noted by the Authors of this wiki page that there are about 35 organisations of international standing that have released statements supporting the basis of AGW.
It is also noted that since the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
This is a good aspect by which to calibrate your critical thinking. If you are reading something that makes it difficult to understand why nearly no scientists deny global warming, then you should start to question the reliability of what you are reading.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Maybe I could start by asking a few questions:
Why is there so much ‘doom and gloom’ about climate change?
Because the situation is very serious. There has already been a 25-30 drop in biodiversity over the past 35 years. Global warming threatens something of a similar number by 2050.
We are already looking at loosing the northern summer sea ice, and we have about 0.6°C degrees of warming in the post if we stop all emissions this evening.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: It strikes me that mankind seems to be spending an awful lot of money (trillions of dollars) trying to fight a change in something which has been in a state of flux for billions of years.
The economics of the situation appears to be that the cheapest thing to do is act to reduce emissions, and the earlier we act, the significantly cheaper it is.
Bearing the costs of global warming is about an order of magnitude more expensive.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: It also appears that the anti-AGW movement is now stealthily ‘moving the goalposts’ and using the term ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’. Might this be because the global temperature is not increasing as rapidly as the initial IPCC forecasts predicted?
No "Climate Change" has been in vogue since 1990. The idea of it is it conveys the higher storms and higher winds as well as expected disturbances to the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the North African monsoon, The Indian Monsoon, the floods, the droughts, and the movement of mean precipitation, as well as the warming, (and in some places cooling) that are all driven by global warming.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Why do the textbooks still state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 0.038%? If the amount of CO2 has doubled – and I have no reason to doubt that it has – surely this should be 0.076%? If so, what has it replaced?
By mass CO2 is about 385ppm or 0.0385%, globally and annually averaged.
This is not yet a doubling from the natural value of around 275-280ppm:
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: What is the problem with an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees C? It seems to me that the deserts will get a bit hotter (so what?), the poles will get a bit hotter (but will still be bloody cold), and the temperate regions will get a pleasant increase in ambient temperature which will allow for better harvests and a reduction in most people’s heating and clothing bills!
In terms of biological systems, the main problem is the rate of change. This warming is about twenty times the (very rapid) warming that occurs at the end of and ice age. These warmings are already associated with a drop in biodiversity. This one will be devastating. The other thing is that this is warming from the top of the interglacial, so it is taking the climate to warmer places than it has been for the past few million years. This means that many ecological communities that have existed these past few million years have not faced the new climate that we are making, and many of them show signs that they will not survive them.
Add this to acidification of the ocean, by carbonic acid, and you have a disaster big enough to threaten most of the food web.
But there are human consequences too. Warming means that rain and not snow is falling at certain altitude ranges in the Himalayas. This means that you get flash floods downstream, which has been killing many on the subcontinent, and will kill many in China. The flip side of that is that there is less melt to keep up supplies of water for the rest of the time, so there is increasing water stress in Asia and the subcontinent. This affects diseased spread but also agricultural production in an area of the world that is already at starvation risk.
North Africa is also seeing lower rainfall, but increased flooding, which decimates agricultural production in an area where famine and war (and HIV, and Kala Azar) are already an effective barrier to what little development there might have been.
Warming is also increasing the range of Malaria, Dengue fever, and other parasite-born diseases.
The WHO estimates that each year there are 150,000 deaths attributable to the change in climate over the past 30 years. (And avoiding climate change is a cheap way to save those lives compared to the emergency aid that we give now).
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Why does it seem impossible for the computer models used by the IPCC etc to predict the current state of the climate?
It shouldn't. "Models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support." (BBC)
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: For a computer model to be effective, surely it should be able to use input from historical data and predict the actual climate we have now?
Yes, the current and previous generation of model have been tested in hindcasts of 1000 years.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: The fact that this does not seem to be possible leads me to think that the modellers have not been able to input all the factors in what is essentially an open system, which means they won’t be able to correctly predict the climate accurately.
No, they're pretty reliable now. It is possible that they may need recalibration when the climate flicks to a new state, since they only can be tested against climate data that we have seen.
But models are one tool in the science. There are plenty of other lines of evidence that the warming is anthropogenic. Models are useful for predicting specific regional effects, which preparing for will save money and lives.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Still, I suppose it all makes for editorially-interesting ‘scientific’ articles and future funding… meanwhile, ordinary people like me end up paying extra ‘environmental’ taxes because I’ve been such a bad person that I am going to destroy the planet.
The idea is that you get taxed on emissions so that you choose not to make them, so you don't get taxed.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: (Why would the planet give a toss? The planet will recover – it will be mankind that has the problem, not the planet.)
No, mankind will outsurvive most ecosystems. But we should try to save mankind to, and it turns out that those that are already wearing the casualties are those that most need out aid.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: What are the facts about AGW? Forget models. Has the (global) temperature risen drastically?
Yes. This is the fastest climate change not caused by in estraterrestrial impact in the ice core record.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Has the (global) sea level risen drastically?
It is rising, and as the greenland and west antarcitc ice sheet collapse, this will increase in a non-linear way. When is difficult to predict.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Has Kyoto achieved anything apart from wasting valuable funds that could have been spent on improving the lot of the average person living in Canada, Estonia, Sierra Leone or Australia?
Yes. Kyoto has laid the diplomatic foundation for an international agreement on limiting greenhosue emissions. This is critical and valuable, because if the world is not in on this together, any nation that does not decrease emissions saves money for itself, which sharing the cost with the whole world (especially north africa, south east asia, and the subcontinent.)
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Are the governments of the world more interested in scaring the populace into paying for a non-problem than sorting out their own inept financial management?
Not at all. In particular the US, Chinese, and Saudi Arabian governments have been working hard in conjuction with fossil fuel interests to hide the science from their people.
European governments have been a little bit better, but none have made any moves to control the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves that they have.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: I consider myself a budding environmentalist. Yes, global warming is happening and yes, mankind is contributing to it (so Naomis Oreskes can add me to her statistics). But am I concerned about it? No.
You may be being a bit kind on yourself there.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think there may be reasons other than anthropogenic for the recent (slight) rise in temperature? Yes.
Well, there's no science to back you there. the recent warming is due to the increase athropogenic greenhouse effect. That's what we know.
And the rise might be slight in whether you need to bring a sweater tomorrow, but it is killing 150,000 people per year and is expected to commit (a further) about 35% of the world's species to extinction by 2050.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think there is a true and balanced scientific consensus on this issue? No.
Again, you should look at the science. There is a lot of misinformation out there, but if you can't provide a scienfic argument for why the science that we have to date is wrong (and there's lots of it), then you can't provide an argument for why the science that we have to date is wrong.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think we should all adopt policies which reduce the amount of energy we are using? Yes – most certainly – but we should be doing it to STOP WASTING PLANETARY RESOURCES, not for some hyped alarmist views by people with a vested interest.
You have this the wrong way around. It is the alarmist views that are backed by the science. The denialist views are the ones that have the vested interest.
A good basis for getting at what is true without the money and politics involved in this issue is to look at what the scientific organisations are saying.
It has been noted by the Authors of this wiki page that there are about 35 organisations of international standing that have released statements supporting the basis of AGW.
It is also noted that since the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.
This is a good aspect by which to calibrate your critical thinking. If you are reading something that makes it difficult to understand why nearly no scientists deny global warming, then you should start to question the reliability of what you are reading.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Maybe I could start by asking a few questions:
Why is there so much ‘doom and gloom’ about climate change?
Because the situation is very serious. There has already been a 25-30 drop in biodiversity over the past 35 years. Global warming threatens something of a similar number by 2050.
We are already looking at loosing the northern summer sea ice, and we have about 0.6°C degrees of warming in the post if we stop all emissions this evening.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: It strikes me that mankind seems to be spending an awful lot of money (trillions of dollars) trying to fight a change in something which has been in a state of flux for billions of years.
The economics of the situation appears to be that the cheapest thing to do is act to reduce emissions, and the earlier we act, the significantly cheaper it is.
Bearing the costs of global warming is about an order of magnitude more expensive.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: It also appears that the anti-AGW movement is now stealthily ‘moving the goalposts’ and using the term ‘climate change’ rather than ‘global warming’. Might this be because the global temperature is not increasing as rapidly as the initial IPCC forecasts predicted?
No "Climate Change" has been in vogue since 1990. The idea of it is it conveys the higher storms and higher winds as well as expected disturbances to the El Nino Southern Oscillation, the North African monsoon, The Indian Monsoon, the floods, the droughts, and the movement of mean precipitation, as well as the warming, (and in some places cooling) that are all driven by global warming.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Why do the textbooks still state that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is around 0.038%? If the amount of CO2 has doubled – and I have no reason to doubt that it has – surely this should be 0.076%? If so, what has it replaced?
By mass CO2 is about 385ppm or 0.0385%, globally and annually averaged.
This is not yet a doubling from the natural value of around 275-280ppm:
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: What is the problem with an increase in global temperature of 2 degrees C? It seems to me that the deserts will get a bit hotter (so what?), the poles will get a bit hotter (but will still be bloody cold), and the temperate regions will get a pleasant increase in ambient temperature which will allow for better harvests and a reduction in most people’s heating and clothing bills!
In terms of biological systems, the main problem is the rate of change. This warming is about twenty times the (very rapid) warming that occurs at the end of and ice age. These warmings are already associated with a drop in biodiversity. This one will be devastating. The other thing is that this is warming from the top of the interglacial, so it is taking the climate to warmer places than it has been for the past few million years. This means that many ecological communities that have existed these past few million years have not faced the new climate that we are making, and many of them show signs that they will not survive them.
Add this to acidification of the ocean, by carbonic acid, and you have a disaster big enough to threaten most of the food web.
But there are human consequences too. Warming means that rain and not snow is falling at certain altitude ranges in the Himalayas. This means that you get flash floods downstream, which has been killing many on the subcontinent, and will kill many in China. The flip side of that is that there is less melt to keep up supplies of water for the rest of the time, so there is increasing water stress in Asia and the subcontinent. This affects diseased spread but also agricultural production in an area of the world that is already at starvation risk.
North Africa is also seeing lower rainfall, but increased flooding, which decimates agricultural production in an area where famine and war (and HIV, and Kala Azar) are already an effective barrier to what little development there might have been.
Warming is also increasing the range of Malaria, Dengue fever, and other parasite-born diseases.
The WHO estimates that each year there are 150,000 deaths attributable to the change in climate over the past 30 years. (And avoiding climate change is a cheap way to save those lives compared to the emergency aid that we give now).
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Why does it seem impossible for the computer models used by the IPCC etc to predict the current state of the climate?
It shouldn't. "Models are tested and validated against all sorts of data. Over the last 20 years they have become able to simulate more physical, chemical and biological processes, and work on smaller spatial scales. The 2007 IPCC report produced regional climate projections in detail that would have been impossible in its 2001 assessment. All of the robust results from modelling have both theoretical and observational support." (BBC)
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: For a computer model to be effective, surely it should be able to use input from historical data and predict the actual climate we have now?
Yes, the current and previous generation of model have been tested in hindcasts of 1000 years.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: The fact that this does not seem to be possible leads me to think that the modellers have not been able to input all the factors in what is essentially an open system, which means they won’t be able to correctly predict the climate accurately.
No, they're pretty reliable now. It is possible that they may need recalibration when the climate flicks to a new state, since they only can be tested against climate data that we have seen.
But models are one tool in the science. There are plenty of other lines of evidence that the warming is anthropogenic. Models are useful for predicting specific regional effects, which preparing for will save money and lives.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Still, I suppose it all makes for editorially-interesting ‘scientific’ articles and future funding… meanwhile, ordinary people like me end up paying extra ‘environmental’ taxes because I’ve been such a bad person that I am going to destroy the planet.
The idea is that you get taxed on emissions so that you choose not to make them, so you don't get taxed.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: (Why would the planet give a toss? The planet will recover – it will be mankind that has the problem, not the planet.)
No, mankind will outsurvive most ecosystems. But we should try to save mankind to, and it turns out that those that are already wearing the casualties are those that most need out aid.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: What are the facts about AGW? Forget models. Has the (global) temperature risen drastically?
Yes. This is the fastest climate change not caused by in estraterrestrial impact in the ice core record.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Has the (global) sea level risen drastically?
It is rising, and as the greenland and west antarcitc ice sheet collapse, this will increase in a non-linear way. When is difficult to predict.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Has Kyoto achieved anything apart from wasting valuable funds that could have been spent on improving the lot of the average person living in Canada, Estonia, Sierra Leone or Australia?
Yes. Kyoto has laid the diplomatic foundation for an international agreement on limiting greenhosue emissions. This is critical and valuable, because if the world is not in on this together, any nation that does not decrease emissions saves money for itself, which sharing the cost with the whole world (especially north africa, south east asia, and the subcontinent.)
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Are the governments of the world more interested in scaring the populace into paying for a non-problem than sorting out their own inept financial management?
Not at all. In particular the US, Chinese, and Saudi Arabian governments have been working hard in conjuction with fossil fuel interests to hide the science from their people.
European governments have been a little bit better, but none have made any moves to control the exploitation of fossil fuel reserves that they have.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: I consider myself a budding environmentalist. Yes, global warming is happening and yes, mankind is contributing to it (so Naomis Oreskes can add me to her statistics). But am I concerned about it? No.
You may be being a bit kind on yourself there.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think there may be reasons other than anthropogenic for the recent (slight) rise in temperature? Yes.
Well, there's no science to back you there. the recent warming is due to the increase athropogenic greenhouse effect. That's what we know.
And the rise might be slight in whether you need to bring a sweater tomorrow, but it is killing 150,000 people per year and is expected to commit (a further) about 35% of the world's species to extinction by 2050.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think there is a true and balanced scientific consensus on this issue? No.
Again, you should look at the science. There is a lot of misinformation out there, but if you can't provide a scienfic argument for why the science that we have to date is wrong (and there's lots of it), then you can't provide an argument for why the science that we have to date is wrong.
ThankyouMoneypenny;910607 wrote: Do I think we should all adopt policies which reduce the amount of energy we are using? Yes – most certainly – but we should be doing it to STOP WASTING PLANETARY RESOURCES, not for some hyped alarmist views by people with a vested interest.
You have this the wrong way around. It is the alarmist views that are backed by the science. The denialist views are the ones that have the vested interest.
-
ThankyouMoneypenny
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2008 7:49 am
Death by Environmentalism
Bored Wombat.
You and I are engaged in a fairly hefty discussion on another forum site and so I am not prepared to duplicate our debate.
For the benefit of anyone who may read this (and this forum does not seem to be widely read), I am happy to take an opposing stance on pretty much all of the points listed by BW above.
The alarmist view would have us all believe that science is on their side. I believe that fact is on my side. If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines. The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling. Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence. Words like 'devastating' and 'disaster' are thrown around the media like confetti at a wedding.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998. Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches. The Maldives have seen no appreciable rise. Maybe no need to panic just yet?
Please note I do not deny GW has taken place. I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW. However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate. Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
Just my opinion.
You and I are engaged in a fairly hefty discussion on another forum site and so I am not prepared to duplicate our debate.
For the benefit of anyone who may read this (and this forum does not seem to be widely read), I am happy to take an opposing stance on pretty much all of the points listed by BW above.
The alarmist view would have us all believe that science is on their side. I believe that fact is on my side. If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines. The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling. Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence. Words like 'devastating' and 'disaster' are thrown around the media like confetti at a wedding.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998. Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches. The Maldives have seen no appreciable rise. Maybe no need to panic just yet?
Please note I do not deny GW has taken place. I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW. However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate. Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
Just my opinion.
Death by Environmentalism
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Bored Wombat.
You and I are engaged in a fairly hefty discussion on another forum site and so I am not prepared to duplicate our debate.
For the benefit of anyone who may read this (and this forum does not seem to be widely read), I am happy to take an opposing stance on pretty much all of the points listed by BW above.
The alarmist view would have us all believe that science is on their side. I believe that fact is on my side. If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines. The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling. Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence. Words like 'devastating' and 'disaster' are thrown around the media like confetti at a wedding.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998. Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches. The Maldives have seen no appreciable rise. Maybe no need to panic just yet?
Please note I do not deny GW has taken place. I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW. However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate. Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
Just my opinion.
It is indeed just your opinion and not supported by any reputable journal.
Would you care to show sources for the likes of :-
To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998.
You and I are engaged in a fairly hefty discussion on another forum site and so I am not prepared to duplicate our debate.
For the benefit of anyone who may read this (and this forum does not seem to be widely read), I am happy to take an opposing stance on pretty much all of the points listed by BW above.
The alarmist view would have us all believe that science is on their side. I believe that fact is on my side. If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines. The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling. Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence. Words like 'devastating' and 'disaster' are thrown around the media like confetti at a wedding.
Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998. Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches. The Maldives have seen no appreciable rise. Maybe no need to panic just yet?
Please note I do not deny GW has taken place. I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW. However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate. Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
Just my opinion.
It is indeed just your opinion and not supported by any reputable journal.
Would you care to show sources for the likes of :-
To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise. Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998.
-
Bored_Wombat
- Posts: 377
- Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 5:33 am
Death by Environmentalism
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: The alarmist view would have us all believe that science is on their side. I believe that fact is on my side.
That's crazy.
Produce one scientific organisation that denies AGW to balance these that support it:
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association
Or produce some peer reviewed research that backs the denialist position.
I don't understand how you can think that science is on your side when there is neither any respected group of scientists nor any scientific research that backs your side, whereas there are thirty to forty national academies and international scientific organisations that that back the scientific side.
Nor when although there have been 2000 or so papers published in the last 15 years with the ISI keywords keywords "global climate change" alone, you can't produce even one that backs the denialist position.
No research backing you, and no scientific oganisations.
None.
At all.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines.
Why on earth would there be that headline? When was the last time there was any serious question that we were wrong? Not in the last 15 years at least. (see: Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower)
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling.
Last I heard, the increase in the airborne fraction of greenhouse gasses is faster than predicted, the loss of the northern summer sea ice was proceeding more than 50 years earlier than predicted by the IPCC, and those scientists studying the sub Antarctic and the tundra are watching the rapid destruction of these beautiful and unique ecosystems by invasion by temperate species and loss of habitat respectively.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence.
Oh, the irony.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998.
1998 was very hot because of the El-Nino. The levelling is a result of cherry picking the warmest year in history as the starting point. However, the Hadley Centre's decadal predction system predicts that 2009 to 2015 will be even as warm as 1998, and at least than half of those years are expected to exceed the current record of 1998.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches.
Projected, not predicted. The break up of the greenland ice sheet and the west antarctic ice sheet will occur non-linearly. At some time there will be rapid growth in the rate of sea level rise. It is difficult to know how this will progress, but rough-as-guts ballpark estimates are a lot harsher than the IPCC's politically softened projections.
But because of the large unknowns this very real risk does not make it into their reports. (see: Scientific reticence and sea level rise)
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Please note I do not deny GW has taken place.
Good.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW.
Good.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate.
Best estimate, all of it since 1950:
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
275ppm to 385ppm is a 40% increase, not a 5% increase. But the natural greenhouse effect is worth 33°C. Humans have contributed 100% of the increase in greenhouse gasses above that.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Just my opinion.
It still wouldn't hurt you to try to find some scientific backing for your opinion.
That's crazy.
Produce one scientific organisation that denies AGW to balance these that support it:
1.1 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
1.2 InterAcademy Council
1.3 Joint science academies' statement 2008
1.4 Joint science academies’ statement 2007
1.5 Joint science academies’ statement 2005
1.6 Joint science academies’ statement 2001
1.7 International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
1.8 European Academy of Sciences and Arts
1.9 Network of African Science Academies
1.10 National Research Council (US)
1.11 European Science Foundation
1.12 American Association for the Advancement of Science
1.13 Federation of American Scientists
1.14 World Meteorological Organization
1.15 American Meteorological Society
1.16 Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
1.17 Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.18 Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
1.19 Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
1.20 International Union for Quaternary Research
1.21 American Quaternary Association
1.22 Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
1.23 International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
1.24 International Union of Geological Sciences
1.25 European Geosciences Union
1.26 Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
1.27 Geological Society of America
1.28 American Geophysical Union
1.29 American Astronomical Society
1.30 American Institute of Physics
1.31 American Physical Society
1.32 American Chemical Society
1.33 Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
1.34 Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
1.35 American Statistical Association
Or produce some peer reviewed research that backs the denialist position.
I don't understand how you can think that science is on your side when there is neither any respected group of scientists nor any scientific research that backs your side, whereas there are thirty to forty national academies and international scientific organisations that that back the scientific side.
Nor when although there have been 2000 or so papers published in the last 15 years with the ISI keywords keywords "global climate change" alone, you can't produce even one that backs the denialist position.
No research backing you, and no scientific oganisations.
None.
At all.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: If the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) brigade really had some facts to back up their apocalyptic forecasts, the rest of the world (ie, Joe Public) would be inundated by "you see, we were right all along..." headlines.
Why on earth would there be that headline? When was the last time there was any serious question that we were wrong? Not in the last 15 years at least. (see: Oreskes, Beyond the Ivory Tower)
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: The fact that the AGW press (including scientific journals) are not doing cartwheels of excitement and, increasingly, are not finding any correlation with their catastrophic prophecies leads me to deduce that they are wriggling.
Last I heard, the increase in the airborne fraction of greenhouse gasses is faster than predicted, the loss of the northern summer sea ice was proceeding more than 50 years earlier than predicted by the IPCC, and those scientists studying the sub Antarctic and the tundra are watching the rapid destruction of these beautiful and unique ecosystems by invasion by temperate species and loss of habitat respectively.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Theoretical science is all very well but, at some point, it needs to be backed up with evidence.
Oh, the irony.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Don't take my word for it. Do your own research. To date, there has been no dramatic global temperature rise or dramatic sea-level rise.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Global temperatures rose between 1900 and 1998 by about 1.3 deg C and have levelled or slightly dropped since 1998.
1998 was very hot because of the El-Nino. The levelling is a result of cherry picking the warmest year in history as the starting point. However, the Hadley Centre's decadal predction system predicts that 2009 to 2015 will be even as warm as 1998, and at least than half of those years are expected to exceed the current record of 1998.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Although a rise in global sea-level has been noted, the rise in the past century has been about 9 inches and the rise predicted (using the slightly accelerated rate seen lately) over the next century is about 14 inches.
Projected, not predicted. The break up of the greenland ice sheet and the west antarctic ice sheet will occur non-linearly. At some time there will be rapid growth in the rate of sea level rise. It is difficult to know how this will progress, but rough-as-guts ballpark estimates are a lot harsher than the IPCC's politically softened projections.
But because of the large unknowns this very real risk does not make it into their reports. (see: Scientific reticence and sea level rise)
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Please note I do not deny GW has taken place.
Good.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: I also do not deny that mankind has made a contribution to the observed GW.
Good.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: However, the size of that contribution is very much open to debate.
Best estimate, all of it since 1950:
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Of course mankind can have an impact on the environment but to blame mankind for climate change is overstating the effect our 5% contribution to global CO2 levels (CO2=0.038% of the atmosphere) is having.
275ppm to 385ppm is a 40% increase, not a 5% increase. But the natural greenhouse effect is worth 33°C. Humans have contributed 100% of the increase in greenhouse gasses above that.
ThankyouMoneypenny;936033 wrote: Just my opinion.
It still wouldn't hurt you to try to find some scientific backing for your opinion.