Just plunged the plunger on my cafetiere. Smells good 🙂

You're right that poverty is the other serious global issue which needs addressing. It's not one or the other. Without addressing both development and climate change at the same time you'll not address either. Access to clean water and food, the geographical spread of diseases, civil projects etc will all change under a rapidly changing climate.

As for single papers – that's rarely how science works. Could you show me a single peer-reviewed paper which attributes the current warming trend to other factors with a high degree of likihood. However, I'd suggest finding a paper that demonstrates that the common greenhouse gases absorb strongly in the infrared. Then look at the increasing concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere. To examine the impact you'd have to model this plus all the other factors and see how this affects global temperatures. The alternative is to conduct an experiment on an earth-like atmosphere and see what happens over say 20 to 200 years. That's what we're doing.

On a lighter note, GM trees? You're joking right. I believe we emit around 15 to 25Gt (IIRC) of CO2 a year. That's a lot of trees!

Sorry BEE, just saw your last post. If you don't think that Newton's mathematical equations are models then you seriously misunderstand mathematics and what climate models are.

The more you increase the number of variables, the more complex equations become and the more of them you get. Past a certain point it's easier to get a computer to do them.

In fact it's probably a good example as Newton's equations have turned out to be approximations (pretty good ones) but not quite spot on. To calculate the orbits of satellites, planet etc. more exactly we use … guess what … models!

BigEaredBiker

Climate change is a complex system – granted – and I doubt there will ever be a single paper that can say 'hey everyone – look!'. You'd need a review or meta-review for that as there are many things pointing in the same direction, e.g. sea acidity (due to CO2 dissolving to produce carbonic acid) would rise, atmospheric CO2 concentration, temperature gradients in different areas of the globe, ice levels at the poles etc.)

I am of the opinion (as a scientist) that AGW is occurring, however as a scientist if positive proof that it wasn't was placed before me I'd look and see if it stacked up. If it did then I would change my view. And I follow the science as best I can, and not sound-bites from idiots from either side.

So to strong viewed people on both sides of this discussion:

What would it take to change your view?

If it is something like 100% proof that something does or does not exist then you won't get it – scientists don't work in absolutes. And if someone says they are 100% certain either way then they are a charlatan.

I believe we emit around 15 to 25Gt (IIRC) of CO2 a year

…and the rest. Defra data for 2006 states UK emitted about 500Gt of CO2.

I don't know what to believe…convincing arguments come from both camps, whether it be sun spots, solar flares or fossil fuel burning. In the last couple of years global temperatures have decreased. However, none of this is important.

What is important is that we all do our bit to act responsibly. So what if climate change isn't caused by us, we now know how to go about industry and our domestic lives in an environmentally better way. Surely adopting these new technologies can only be a good thing and if it does make a difference to the climate then there's a bonus.

I think that'll be 500MT 😉

ahh, it's friday, and that's still more than 25 😉

Yep, still more than 25 😉

… and yes TFI Friday!

does anyone have a picture of Kylie?

……and what's Dani going to say next………

Good god Madam, they've duped you too.

Humans might be responsible for a change in climate, but we just aren't clever enough to know one way or the other, or what lever of action might rectify the situation if it is indeed required. We're too small to see the bigger picture of the universe, to know and account for every factor which influences our environment. Much like ancient cultures who prayed and made sacrifices to their gods thinking it made the blindest bit of difference to their harvests, we do not understand whats going on, or what will happen in the future. Its pretty arrogant to think we know what will happen to such a complex system in a centuries time (not to mention the fact that we can't even predict next weeks weather with any certainty).

We as a species have noticed the rise in fossil fuel exploitation co-incides with a change in the climate and assume they're linked. We also believe we have identified the process which links these two observations (greenhouse effect). As mentioned in a post above, a theory on the mechanism is not proof by any means.

Commercial factors will bring about a far sharper turn in human behaviour with respect to the use of fossil fuels than any appeal to the conscience will. Renewable sources are becoming more affordable, non-renewables fluctuate but will see a steady upward trend in price. There will be a tipping point, and only then will a large scale change in human behaviour be seen. Tax incentives (as seen on hybrid vehicles in the UK) might speed this process up, but by and large the (relativley short) time required for this to happen will be determined by the rate of change of renewable technology and the rate of consumption of fossil fuels.

In short, sit back and let whatever will happen happen. There aint nothing you can do about it. 🙂

Midgebait/AdamG

Thanks for your more informed replies but the problem is when most of us get our science for the mainstream media and at best National Geographic and New Scientist magazines it is more often media opinion than proper science with which we are equipped to form our own opinions. There is hardly a week goes by without some new report or another making claims or overturning previous claims often backed up with few tangible facts and statistics. It also seems that climate change gets linked to so many media reports even when there is no proven connection – lazy reporters! Don't even get me started on TV adverts for products that tell me they are environmentally friendly as a way to try and get my cash!

Given the expense that combating CO2 emissions costs not to mention the focus it pulls from other global concerns would you not say it is reasonable to expect the burden of proof should come from those who imply it will destroy the world(Gordon Brown)?

As we can't afford to do everything at once I'd sooner the poorer countries of today become self sustaining with a good standard of life tomorrow than be condemned to continue in impoverishment because our fears over AGW mean they are not allowed to modernise or industrialise. I accept your point that we should equip them to do it in a more sustainable way but at the moment it is just too expensive.

Finally I apologise for misusing the definition of a model but Newtons laws are easily demonstrated therefore proving them, the stuff connected to AGW is so heavily disputed and dare I say it political that it makes me sceptical of what anyone says about it.

why is everyone so hung up about change? The global climate has been changing in one way or another since the planet came into existence so many years ago.

Yes 'we' have had an effect on the climate, but then so have large scale eruptions.
Yes oil tankers have vomited oil on our coastline, but then fissures in the rocks and earthquakes do the same.

'We' are a stage in the evolutionary cycle of planet Earth, and as it changes, we have to adapt, just the same as polar bears or pink dolphins & cyano bacteria

There are many ways you can scare yourself upon the inevitability of certain doom and destruction, and most IF NOT ALL are out of the control of the egotistical meanderings of an inherently middle class scientific and politically motivated planet.

There are better things you can do with your time…like riding a bike perhaps?

BEB

I'm not AdamG, I'm AdamW. I've yet to be banned as AdamG apparently has a few times!

If it is to be taken seriously, then stopped the political one liners such as
"we must all re-think our gardens & plant drought tolerant plants" Anyone round here who followed that guidance has dead (drowned) plants.

why is everyone so hung up about change? The global climate has been changing in one way or another since the planet came into existence so many years ago

You really shoudl pay attention. The climate appears to be changing NOW faster than it ever has, due to carbon levels in the atmosphere that have risen massively over the last few hundred years. These things are pretty much observable facts. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know levels are suddenly very high, so odds on something will happen because of it.

You can see for yourself all these fumes being pumped into the air, all this fuel we put in our cars.. where do you think it all goes? The magic fairies take it away? Think about it for a minute, every litre of petrol you put in your car ends up in the air. Same as everyone else's car.. the M3 on a busy day – all that petrol and diesel being pumped into the air all day every day a million times all round the world. So what possible evidence do you have to claim that it'll do nothing at all?

I can't believe that people are ready to believe something on the basis of reading a few articles, when others spend years studying somethhing and believe the contrary. Think about it – it's really because you WANT to believe you can do what you like and everythign will be okay.

When climate changed radically in the past, millions of animals died. Thsi time, it'll be people. THAT's why it's so bad. Clearly. I'd have thought that was quite obvious…

Molgrips,

Your post reads like some of the hyped up media stuff I've been referring to. Can you post links to your sources of information? If it is Al Gore then I'm not going to bother, his film really was overly exaggerated to terrorize us all into action.

Think about it for a minute, every litre of petrol you put in your car ends up in the air.

There is something wrong with a car that does that. In fact I doubt it would even move, a 100% efficient engine would result in just CO2 and H2O as exhaust but since none are much of it must turn into the deposits caught in the cat and engine itself.

Neither H2O or CO2 are toxic and therefore not a pollutant as such and both can readily be absorbed by nature. The only concern is how much of the CO2 can Nature consume and does the stuff it can't really matter? This is what I'd like to get to, the supposed famous hockey stick graph proving cause and effect and used by the IPCC has now been discredited and is in dispute according to (wait for it) the internet…

Hockey Stick

Think about it – it's really because you WANT to believe you can do what you like and everythign will be okay.

Nope. Its because I understand I, and every other creature and form of life, are biological freaks and are liable to act irrationally and selfishly. Maybe even to such an extent that i wipe out my own species.

We're not God.
We do not control everything.
We exist on earth, exploit the resources around us to satisfy animal instincts (hunger, sex, comfort)
We're a blip on the time-line of the universe. We will not exist forever.

Personally I expect the orgy of comfort and excess to end sooner rather than later. I doubt it'll be due to changing climate (war over resources would be my prediction), and hopefully not in my life cos it'd be nasty fo' sure, but it will end without doubt.

Fighting it will only make you more miserable. You'll look like that bird on the news shouting "shame on you" as she's dragged out the BBC; no Nostradamus but a wierd lefty carrot munching lesbian.

Do YOU want to be a wierd lefty carrot munching lesbian??!?!

'ears…

in order to show how 'discredited' the hockey-stick graph is, you link us to a web-page which then describes in fine detail exactly why the hockey stick graph is a credible, accurate, peer-reviewed document. and how every attempt to dicredit it has been met with even more supporting evidence.

?

"In a paper on 9 September 2008, Mann and colleagues published an updated reconstruction of Earth surface temperature for the past two millennia.[63] This reconstruction used a more diverse dataset that was significantly larger than the original tree-ring study. Similarly to the original study, this work found that recent increases in northern hemisphere surface temperature are anomalous relative to at least the past 1300 years, and that this result is robust to the inclusion or exclusion of the tree-ring dataset."

The hockey stick stands.

(Ben, have you been drinking? – i'm off for a pint in the Princess Royal if you fancy?)

ahwiles

It's wikki we all know the 'wierd lefty carrot munching lesbians' have it monitored so it always edited in their favour. I'm sure it did not say that the last time I actually read that page… 😆

The only way bto limit emissions is to reduce the supply of oil before is is burnt and ends up in the atmosphere, now that will not happen as the price would surge and crash the growth driven world economy, so lets face it nothing is going to change.
Climate change also seems to reek of hypocrasy,it seems to have been hyjacked by goverments to milk us all. On one hand we are told to turn of the lights on the other the goverment is pushing for more runways at heathrow and other major airports. A globalised economy with plastic junk exported from China to us in the west and the obsession with growth. No wonder there's some sceptics, I think the problem is population growth but nobody is going to address that so we will have to stick with the wind turbines. Yes I am crap at spelling

All lving things produce toxic waste products and use up their resources and go through "natural" cycles in population size. Humans are the only species capable of realising what they are doing and trying to stop it. I'd rather be unnatural and make attempts to stop it than be natural and watch millions of people suffer.

Madam; Yes, I and Sir Farnsworth have been boozing. Mmmm, Kelham Island Easy Rider 🙂

The problem being with your peer reviewed papers is that you and I both know we could submit papers monthly, have them reviewed, cited and lauded in due course, the problem being you or I both know they're balls.

The idea of science is that we can prove something with no verifiable exceptions. You or I can do just this in manufacturing if we're clever, providing we concentrate on certain factors. For example, the relationship between MRR of titanium and the weather. If we ignore certain factors such as the coolant we're using, the temperature in the shop etc we could make all kinds of wacky connections between two variables. Of course, ultimately, we can't measure everything and i believe this is the shadow MMGW scientists hide behind.

There are loads of scientists applying to get funding through IPCC projects/ projects of a similar nature; the projects are numerous and well paid. If a scientist wants to show a link between climate change and carbon emissions, they can with ease.

Exacerbating this problem, the media and the government can turn fuzzy inconclusive data into concrete evidence all too easily. For example, Britain has a terrible problem with sex trafficking. Apperently its not all its cracked up to be

As far as pub goes, I'm yet to have tea. If i get fed soon then yeah I'll be up.

Amazing how clever we can be about using snake drills to get awkward pockets of oil, putting satellites into space, manufacture microscopic microchips and set up social networking sites so we can communicate instantly around the world.

But ask people to be a little bit responsible about the side effects of what they do, and it's all "nah mate, I'm just basically some dumb monkey. I do what I want don't I. We're just doing what we evolved to do."

America did its bit to combat overpopulation by developing and releasing AIDS into Africa. Got a bit out of control though.

Amazing how clever we can be

Its really not though is it. We use snake drills and make them work because we understand them 99% of the time. We can characterise the Earth's mechanical properties, and they'll be pretty much the same next week (or year, or millennium) as they are now. Every now and again they'll bugger up, and we'll scratch our heads, make a change and they'll work. We assume because we don't for-see something that it won't happen.

We don't understand the climate, its a tricky bugger. There are millions of input factors, some we can predict, some we can't. It'll always be as fantastical as the meaning of life as far as I'm concerned. Since the climate is affected by an unknown number of factors it'll always be subject to uncertainty, unless you know the position, energy state and velocity of each and every piece of mass in the universe?

The idea of science is that we can prove something with no verifiable exceptions

thats proper 100% solid gold bollocks

Yeah, science is just the current best guess.

Ben you are right, the earth is basically **** massive. I doubt we could ever understand it fully, but I never see that as a valid reason to say "**** the consequenses"

It's like the attitude when we throw stuff away. We can recover oil from under the seabed, refine it and produce plastics, co-extrude those various plastics, make lightweight packaging that performs fantastically, and everyone laps it up because it makes them feel modern.

But when we're bored with it, and someone asks "what should we do with it now?" it's been basically – "errr…ummm….dig a big hole?"

Lazy, lazy, lazy thinking. As an engineer I just wonder how we have got away without thinking about it all for so long.

thats proper 100% solid gold bollocks

Haha agreed. What i meant to say is, "not knowing any exceptions, science atempts to explain all known instances". Blame beer.

Agreed, we should have enough material resource to make just about anything we ever need already, assuming the need for more volume of material is proportional to our ability to use material efficiently. Its not though.

We'll always hanker for more than we can have 'cheaply', whether that's affordably or not.

Above I said that we'll not change our ways unless it's an economic decision. I stand by it, I concede that people may suffer (maybe me, who knows) but no real effective change will occur until its a 'no-brainer' choice between fossil fuels or renewable energy financially.

I also maintain that the human race might eliminate itself before that happens because of inherent greed. Not point fighting that though, its just nature.