[Closed] Global warming update!

1. How releasing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere doesn't cause the atmosphere to warm.

You go first with some proof that even the smaller than "expected" warming we're seeing is directly attributable to atmospheric CO2.

What if it is all BOLLOCKS?[b] What if caron dioxide isn't responsible for global temp changes?[/b] what if all the job killing, environmentally destructive measures we've taken have been a spectacular waste of money?

Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture. No idea what you are going to call environmentally destructive measures but it will be amusing to see your list so indulge me.

As for carbon dioxide there is no debate about whether it causes warming and whether it is a greenhouse gas - if there is a question and its a big IF as no mechanism has been given yet - it is how does the earth reduce this effect- what is the feedback method - With reference to the laws of thermodynamics please.
No offence but I dont expect you to even understand what is being asked

I saw the Met Office climb down yesterday

You saw something different from me I saw a change in prediction rate- has GO done a climb down yet when he changed his predictions?. I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions - Oh the irony

Ps the climb down was described thus - sourced not from the daily mail

The Met Office has been responding to claims that warming has stopped all week, explaining that the forecast in question only relates to short term fluctuations in the climate - and certainly doesn't mean warming has stopped.

Your better than this THM follow the data - its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class 😕

The new model indicates that the average temperature is likely to rise by 0.43 degrees Celsius above the average for the period 1971 to 2000 by 2017, rather than 0.54 degrees, as an earlier forecast had suggested. For more on the new forecast, read our blog here.

Smith explains that fluctuations in global temperature in the next few years are expected due to natural variability, but that [b]they have no sustained impact on long term warming[/b]. What's more, Smith explains that the slightly lower prediction in the new forecast is still within the bounds of the previous prediction. He says:

"The latest experimental decadal prediction provided by the Met Office issued in December 2012 suggests that global temperatures over the next five years are likely to be a little lower than prediction from the previous prediction issued in December 2011, but still near record levels. While they are different, the range of temperatures in the 2012 prediction overlap with the range from the previous prediction provided in December 2011."

Its bobbins as using from Delingpole - now if you want to get science from an English lit graduate with an agenda then dont let me stop you. Personally I will listen to the experts in that area and what they say but you can have your polemicist, untrained journalist
from 2:40 ish for context and 3:50 to o see how good he does with a scientist

Well we will just have made a sustainable future for no point- as covered more than one with the picture.

Unless of course we'd be better spending all the money which is being spent on futile attempts at reducing atmospheric CO2 on something else which might be more beneficial to the environment. Don't get me wrong - I'm all for reducing consumption and all sorts of other things which are undeniably good for the environment and have no obvious downside. Just sceptical about all the emphasis being simply on reducing CO2 emissions, when there is no hard evidence at all that any of the large measures which are being taken to do that, and on which lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I'm fairly sure I'm in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make 😉 ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the "bogey man in the woods" is exactly what leads to that situation.

What if polluting the planet has stopped us entering a new ice age?

Good or bad?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/January2012/10012012-ice-age-delayed

Yay to pollution! Now our children won't starve in a frozen wasteland!

Now we've just got to learn how much we need to pollute to keep the earth at a stable temperature! Practice our terraforming skillzz before we go to mars.

lots of money is being spent are likely to improve things in any significant way. Meanwhile all sorts of other things which could improve things a lot for much less money are being ignored.

Its a debate worth having

I dont think the endless debate with non scientists about AGW is in anyway beneficial. If they were after understanding then fine but its just about ranting in a way that shows they dont actually understand the subject.

FWIW I noted that 9/11 attracts left wing conspiracist and global warming seems to be the preserve of right wing conspiracist [ probably feel the car industry and the oil companies are being bullied by solar panel makers or something to stealth green tax us ] - see lawsons group for example- no idea what any of that means but i did notice it.

I fully agree with you, but I like many others feel aggrieved that we have had this shoved down our necks, had our holiday flights taxed to the hilt (and beyond) in addition to having to listen to barmy scientists witter on relentlessly.........only to find out its all BOLLOX!

And......don't get me started on carbon footprints!!

Poor ickle youse. Did you hav to pay too much taxes? Oh noes!

How about these guys?

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/05/bangladesh/flooding-interactive

One good example of the way such thinking leads is vast amounts being spent on onshore wind farms, the effectiveness of which even at achieving their claimed aims is dubious. Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes, which would actually reduce consumption by a far larger amount than the contribution wind power makes to our energy supply. I'm fairly sure I'm in accordance with most right thinking environmentalists on that issue (it was certainly a point TJ also liked to make ), however they do seem to miss the point that an overemphasis on the "bogey man in the woods" is exactly what leads to that situation.

Yeah, this is what happens to good ideas when you let politicians and their mates in XYZ industry near them. It would of course be better to use less in the first place

environmentally destructive measures

Isn't this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

Knocking up 50 humongous wind turbines has it's costs. As does buying a loaf of bread or a Google search.

It would of course be better to use less in the first place

I think you are not discriminating between impact and destructive.

For example taking some wood from the forest floor to make a fire will have an impact, Burning the entire wood down will be destructive

Has the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation kicked off into a cooling phase yet?

Guess that depends on whether you consider the carbon cost of energy production for a Google search to be destructive or an impact.

Isn't this pretty much anything and everything humans do, to varying degrees.

Next time you look out across beautiful rolling English countryside, bear in mind it's already been destroyed, 1500 odd years ago.

Instead of spending far lower amounts on insulating homes

Aren't they also spending money on insulating homes?

Of course what we do here in the UK is a drop in the ocean .... worlds biggest polluters (china, India, USA, brazil etc)

It's a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room... population.

That's the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren't exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

Junkyard - Big Hitter
I also find it most amusing to read an economist berating an area of science for its inability to do accurate long term predictions - Oh the irony....Your better than this THM follow the data - its a reduced rate of warming due to better measurement/models it is in no sense a climb down by anyone standards. Poor, see me after class

For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up. Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "[i]is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance.[/i]" This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

In the meantime, I will agree with the idea that science should be approached with caution given "its inability to do accurate predictions" and be thankful that the Met Office now has better equipment and models (oh no) to do its job better than in the past. If only scientific economists could do the same!

It's a bit more complicated than that. Why is India etc polluting so much? Cos they are making stuff for us to buy, or spending money we gave them for said stuff. Our hands are a lot dirtier than you think.

neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven

Back to the back of the class for you.

We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

Now then, what was 2+2?

Well yes.

However, we can't change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!

Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that - was it a climb down then - was it - you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.

FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up.

What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions - you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance." This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).

I could say that about anything, evolution for example - do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive - what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points - that is not an ad hom either

Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

The Elephant (well, one of them) in the room... population.

That's the bit that frightens me, I can live with the idea of rising sea levels and warmer temps.

But feeding the billions is the scary bit. We aren't exactly doing a perfect job as it is.

Oh feeding 7 billion is easy if we got our shit together.

The problem is western levels of consumption.

We know that CO2, CH4, and N2O are products of industrialisation (i.e. MM)

We also know that these are three gases that indeed cause GW.

Care to provide a reference which proves that statement?

If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced? Second, if the Met says that the absolute temperature in 2012 was below the average of the last decade (and wording suggests that this is an absolute measure) what does that say?

Firstly look up standard deviation and variance - all scientific data varies in small degree's that cannot be predicted. Chemisty lab results show slightly different values no matter how many times you repeat them. What matters is, is if the variation is statistically significant and not caused by another variable that you have not studied or a deviation from your test protocols. To put it simply for artist scum like yourself, scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends. The variation is within the observed normal range.

Long term predictions are relatively easy to make. It's high likely that it's going to get hotter, there's no two ways round it.

Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

aracer I dont understand why folk try to make a point with a question [ beyond the philosophical trick that it is easy to just keep asking questions - If you have a point why not make it 💡

Any of the IPCC reports cover them all in some detail as will various other papers - try a search engine or wiki or a basic climate book

He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

Which are you doubting - we dont pollute or that those gases dont cause warming via the greenhouse effect?

He gave you two premises neither of which can be questioned.

Really? The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where's the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing? (apologies for the use of a question - if that really bothers you I could make it more awkward by rephrasing as a statement that there is no proof of that)

All I think you'll find in any IPCC report is some vaguely worded correlations.

Junkyard - Big Hitter
For a guy who likes to throw accusations of ad hominem and straw men about, you do have an remarkable propensity to fall victim to the same accusations. Now that is irony!
Not seeing either an ad hom or a straw man tbh

What you want to say your account was a good analysis of what has happened and my critique of it was nothing but personal? Good luck with that - was it a climb down then - was it - you make no mention of this nor defend your view I note.
FWIW (and thats not much) I totally agree with you about economics - indeed my Masters was in an Arts faculty as opposed to a Science one - so the unnecessary jibe doesn't really hold up.
What jibe ?is it your view that economists are good at making predictions - you may not like the style of it but the truth [ that economist are not good at doing predictions]is self evidently correct,

Scientists including some economics are extremely keen to tell us what we know. The problem with that, as Bertrand Russell used to teach, "is what we know is very little, and if we forget how much we cannot know we become insensitive to many things of very great importance." This comment is particularly apt to the science (sic) of climate change (and, for those who view it as a science, economics).
I could say that about anything, evolution for example - do you have some actual evidence beyond this? the fact you out disparaging comment sin parenthesis is rather sad tbh and shows you are not even interested in debate as you are just so dismissive - what a shame you have yet to present any actual data or evidence to support your view
You are never in a strong position when in a debate of science you are making philosophical points - that is not an ad hom either
Now from the back of the class (apparently) I need some help, especially as I am an Artist not a Scientist. If the temperature in 2017 is predicted to deviate from the long term average (yea, right!) by the same amount as in 1998, does that mean that warming has not happened or just that the rate of change has reduced?

I would answer this but the Yea right - lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on - makes me think you wont listen
Studying geography in the 1970s the majority of experts were force feeding me with the idea that we were facing a threat of global cooling (and naysayers were attacked) when in hindsight it appears that the opposite was happening. My children are now growing up being force fed the threat of MMGW (and naysayers are attacked) when neither aspect (MM or GW) is proven. Now, again, that is irony!

No idea what you require for proof here I suspect you are just setting it so high that nothing science says is proven.
Again I refer you to my point that in a debate about science when you make philosophical point rather than discuss data or evidence it is most likely your viewpoint lacks evidence

CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV, CtrlC, CtrlV

Stop taking teh interwebz so seriously! 🙂

Apparently, wind turbines should be painted purple to reduce the number of bats and birds killed.

Just thought I'd throw that factoid in.....

Care to provide a reference, Aracer? If you don't know right from left you're going to have trouble discussing which side of the road it's best to drive on. If you're totally clueless about a subject it's usually best not to go out of your way to demonstrate you'd be better reading than contributing.

Do you really think someone needs a reference to justify CO2 etc. being greenhouse gases or are you trolling? Don't answer, I know you're trolling because I've seen you on enough climatic change threads to know you've seen dozens of links to research demonstrating how greenhouse gases work.

Edit: out of idle interest I pasted "CO2, CH4, and N2O" into Google, the result was pages of results on "gas à effet de serre" or "greenhouse gases".

Junkyard - Big Hitter
Not seeing either an ad hom...

My point exactly! But one thing:

I would answer this but the Yea right - lazy unevidenceed slur again- there is one in every paragraph from now on - makes me think you wont listen

Well, given that many geographical phenomena including climate change occur over very long periods of time, the Met Office's description of the period 1971-2000 as "long-term" seems to be verging on the ridiculous....hence the "yea right" comment. But that's enough. We can normally debate pleasantly but not on this topic, so I will leave it there.

bwaarp - Member
To put it simply [b]for artist scum like yourself[/b], scientists do not think the latest variations in warming are significant in the light of historical long term trends.

{To be consistent with previous posting], I would point out that I find calling people scum offensive. I would normally break a habit and report that, but the rest of the abuse was so funny that I changed my mind.

Now go back to splashing paint/monkey shit on canvas and selling it to Kensington yuppies or whatever it is you like to do.

I think we have different notion of artist. But thanks for the extra insult anyway.

The greenhouse effect due to certain gases is a generally accepted effect, but where's the proof that GW is being caused by the concentrations changing?

Right so we know the gases cause the greenhouse effect

So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc - do you need a link to this

I suspect you know all this so i dont know why you said them that way

for example

The RF due to changes in CH4 mixing ratio is calculated with the simplified yet still valid expression for CH4 given in Ramaswamy et al. (2001). The change in the CH4 mixing ratio from 715 ppb in 1750 to 1,774 ppb (the average mixing ratio from the AGAGE and GMD networks) in 2005 gives an RF of +0.48 ± 0.05 W m–2, ranking CH4 as the second highest RF of the LLGHGs after CO2 (Table 2.1).

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_and_data_reports.shtml#.UO8_Om91GSo

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2.html
Have fun

Care to provide a reference, Aracer?

A reference for what? I'm not the one making claims here.

If it's so obvious, it won't be any trouble at all for you to provide a reference that proves that increases in global temperature are directly related to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere and prove me wrong. You see the thing is, the way science works isn't by stating that something is obvious and providing no evidence. I note that there's a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - something I'm perfectly happy to accept.

That would be so much better a response than a load of ad-hom...

So increasing the concentrations [why did you say changing?] of the gases that cause the greenhouse effect will ?

Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation. BTW I thought "changing" was simply a more neutral word to use - far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

The IPPC is detailed to the point of telling you the additional watts [radiative forcing]for each gas so not sure why you were so dismissive re correlation etc - do you need a link to this

Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we're seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere. It's all conjecture - there's no direct evidential link.

My point exactly! But one thing:

I was rather hoping you would highlight where I either did an ad hom or a straw man as I reject it - rejecting it hardly proves it - that's not even logical enough to be fallacy 😉

[img] [/img]

No trouble at all, ignore it at your peril.

Exactly what is that graph supposed to prove, edu? Though maybe I'll take back my acceptance of a correlation between CO2 and global temperature given that evidence.

That were enjoying a particularly cool period in geolical history, a very nice time to be on the planet for us humans as we've evolved in it and are adapted to it, a period comparable with the late carboniferous. When CO2 levels rose in the permian the average temperature went up dramatically resulting in extreme climatic change and the "permian extinctions". Google that and you'll understand why 330ppm is not good, 500ppm is defintely bad and 1000ppm puts an end to life on earth as we know it.

Sleep on it, good night all.

Edit: [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event ]first Google result[/url], note how all but the meterite explanation include greenhouse gases. Given the gradual nature of the extinctions I favour the chemical/climatic explanations which are better supported by the geological record

However, we can't change what China do but we CAN change what we do.

who's willing to gamble with THE EFFING EARTH? oh, everyone.

the earth is fine, the most we'll do is make it uninhabitable for humans. the planet is dynamic system and will recover anyway. well over 90% of the life forms that have ever existed are extinct, that's the joy of life. We'll be gone the blink of an eye in the lifetime of planet and no matter much we arrogantly think we'll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack. We are nothing and will leave no mark until the sun supernovas and it's all gone.

life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep.

I note that there's a big difference between proving that and proving that CO2 has a greenhouse effect - something I'm perfectly happy to accept.

So you accept it is a greenhouse gas but dont accept that changes to its level will affect the greenhouse effect.

Have a far more complex effect on the global system than can be determined by a simple formula relating how the gases interact with radiation.

BTW I thought "changing" was simply a more neutral word to use - far too much deliberate use of inflammatory terminology in this debate.

Probably because none of the evidence they provide is proof that any GW effects we're seeing are directly related to concentrations of gas in the atmosphere.

It's all conjecture - there's no direct evidential link.

As above - what do you mean by no direct evidential link?

Are you claiming its all just correlation and coincidence?
Sorry for the questions given what I said above bit tbh I dont really know what your point is or what you require when you say "proof" and " evidence"

life is too short to worry about stuff that is so far out of our control, just enjoy your little microcosm before you go to the big sleep

That's the problem with humans, I want all the things now, I don't care if that means everything's naff for my grandchildren (never mind the millions of other species we share the planet with). Has to end badly doesn't it?

As for arguing about atmospheric/climate science I've had too many arguments to be bothered. Don't feed the ignorant trolls. Go read some science and have a wee think.

no matter much we arrogantly think we'll leave any mark of significance behind either positive or negative is just so much egotistical cack

I don't think you quite understand why people are concerned. It's not really about egotism, it's the fact that we don't want people to die needlessly.

Well we may not be able to predict every last effect but what we are trying to do is establish if we get warmer when we store more radiation [ energy]. I dont think its that hard to do and you have some links to follow.

The trouble is, none of the modelling they do based on that is at all able to provide an accurate prediction of the changes in temperature relative to the changes in concentration of gas in the atmosphere. Which suggests it's really not all that direct a link in real life.

its not neutral its inaccurate

Jeez - does "changing" not include "increasing" in your dictionary? The concentrations of gases are changing, hence I don't see what's at all inaccurate about using that word.

t's not really about egotism, it's the fact that we don't want people to die needlessly.

it'll happen anyway as a species we're gone, like all the others before us, everything we see around us now....will become extinct to. There is no need or needless there is just the endless charge to oblivion. we can't cure death, we can't make the world a happy utopia pickled in aspic with just the right number of people and the species we like, so that there is no famine, so that natural disasters don't happen.

even if there were no humans at all, ever, all the species now on the planet will become extinct over geological time and replaced and on and on

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

Care to provide a reference which proves that statement?

Part 1 - basic high school chemistry:

a) Combustion of petrolium: 2 C8H18 + 25 O2 = 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

b) Anaerobic degradation of organic materials in landfill: CH3COOH = CH4 + CO2

c) Oxidation of atmospheric dinitrogen in an internal combustion engine: 2 N2 + O2 + heat = 2 N2O (g)

Part 2 - High school geography / environmental science

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-10-2.html

Happy, Aracer?

it'll happen anyway

Oh, ok then. Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

its not neutral its inaccurate
Jeez - does "changing" not include "increasing" in your dictionary? The concentrations of gases are changing, hence I don't see what's at all inaccurate about using that word.

Well of course it does but, as all three gases were increasing ait looked like an attempt to avoid saying increasing. Technically the gas levels will always be changing as its not a constant but lets not get bogged down on this.

I am still none the wiser as to what you want as proof,

none of the modelling they do based on that is at all able to provide an accurate prediction of the changes in temperature

I think we can all accept models have a degree of inaccuracy but that does not mean AGW is false just that it is complicated and we lack complete knowledge about the exact effects - which is true of everything

For example not everyone who smokes gets cancer so the model cannot tell us who will get cancer from a group of smokers. i would not use this to conclude the message that smoking causes cancer [ increases you risk if getting cance rif we are getting pedantic] is untrue just because they cannot quantify which smoker or how many cigs need to be smoked.

Why haven't you killed yourself yet?

funnily enough is you see the good bits and the bad bits of the year thread you'll see that was a serious option. Not related to the fate of a spinning piece of rock with some monkeys on it though. Cock end.

and yet all the inaccurate models predict rise and we do indeed have rises.

Correlation, not causation. Lots of other stuff going on - far too much to suggest that the rises are definitely caused by the changes in the gas concentrations. Not when we have historic data showing decreasing global temperature with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations and vice versa.

I think we can all accept models have a degree of inaccuracy but that does not mean AGW is false just that it is complicated and we lack complete knowledge about the exact effects - which is true of everything

Let's leave this debate on a point we agree on. The point I'm making here is that the impression the AGW fundamentalists often try to give is that we can tell exactly what will happen and that increasing the emissions by X will result in an increase of Y in the temperature. By extension that the most important thing to do is to limit the increase as much as possible, or try to decrease the emissions, and that they can predict what effect such a change will have. Where it might make more sense to devote our limited resources on ameliorating the effects of a change in climate which we can't actually do anything meaningful to control.

Correlation, not causation

It has to be correlative. To carry out a causative study, we'd need several replicates of earth, changing only one variable at a time.

It would be good if you had a grasp of how scientific data is generated before you started criticising it.

Oh, and do you understand my chemistry lesson, or do I need more references?

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

[img] [/img]

funnily enough is you see the good bits and the bad bits of the year thread you'll see that was a serious option

Fair enough, my post was not intended to offend as I am unaware of the state of mind of most STW posters. This is a thread about AGW after all.

MOST people who make the 'we're all inconsequential' argument aren't suicidal, so I'm trying to point out that whilst saying 'let everyone die, it's only natural' is a valid academic standpoint, it isn't particularly palatable for most people.

It doesn't matter - just live life and stop worrying about global warming

Extinction level events occur every few million years and we can't prevent that. 65 million years ago approx 70% of plant and animal life was believed to be wiped out at the end of Cretaceous period by some event. Life carried on and the earth recovered.

Global warming if it is even happening is just one of many things that could have an impact on human and other life on earth. Humans need to put more effort into space exploration rather than pissing around trying to 'save the earth'

Live long and prosper

Live long and prosper at the expense of many other less fortunate or privileged people in developing nations

I think that's what you meant to say.

70% of plant and animal life was believed to be wiped out at the end of Cretaceous period by some event. Life carried on and the earth recovered.

Yes, but.

The rate of extinction we're experiencing now is pretty much as we'd expect from a massive event like that which is scary considering many people aren't even aware of it.

And it's not due to some massive force of nature, it's us being selfish and terribly inefficient. I don't like the idea of just brushing off mass extinction of hundreds of thousands of species as being par for the course of me getting steak every week or having my lovely new Ipad.

we make no difference at all. in the slightest. whatsoever.

In terms of the time we've been around, and the tiny, tiny time since say 1300, we've had a mahoosive effect. Species can adapt to the odd meteorite, ice age or super volcano but not a complete removal and degradation of their physical habitat on a global scale.

Humans need to put more effort into space exploration rather than pissing around trying to 'save the earth'

You ain't going faster (or anywhere near) the speed of light so it's completely pointless. And if we could, every time you went on a journey you'd end up hundreds of years away from when you started so you're family, friends etc would be dead. Also, you'd be well behind with the gossip/latest niche.
Also, the cost of doing that - in order to go to completely inhosptibale planets with nothing of any use or interest would be umpteen times greater than just sorting our sh** out and living within our limits - there's loads of cheap potential for reducing impacts.

Erm no

I'm an advocate of doing what the **** I like as something bigger and badder will get us all in the end and it wont give a monkeys if we are 'developed' or not.

Besides most developing nations are the worst polluters.

Honestly don't get your knickers in a twist about pollution and green issues. In a few million years it won't matter.

Mafiafish. Lots of good points there.
But when a super volcano goes off there isn't much you me or bambi can do about it.

Mega, that's true but if cavemen can get through it we should be alright shouldn't we? Of course if it upsets agriculture it'll be a right pain in the arse for millions of people.

As for worrying about green issues.. I just see it as common sense, yes it's an added expense but it means we can keep on supporting a growing population without it catching us out in a big way at some point. e.g. if we were all veggies we could support c.20-32bn people, so plenty of potential there. In the end we just use too much stuff, if 7bn of us lives like a US citizen we'd need 5 planets, like a UK citizen 3ish, global average is 1.6 and a Bangladeshi is 0.3. So from that we can see the massive potential for developing countries to increase consumption so long as we sort ourselves out. (Considering the USA and Europe will skew that 1.6 from a lower figure in a big way) Rockström et al 2009 did a really good paper on this type of stuff - places where we're well within limits and those where we;re exceeding them - identifying where efforts are best placed and where we can let ourselves go a bit to compensate. Summarised [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries ]here[/url]

Ta will take a read of that.

thing is there are a small number of very selfish people, unfortunately they have disproportionate power and influence- only by running the world to benefit , not exploit, can these issues be addressed-- trotsky was right , only a worldwide revolution can save humanity ...nos da

mega - Member

I'm an advocate of doing what the * I like as something bigger and badder will get us all in the end and it wont give a monkeys if we are 'developed' or not.

Honestly don't get your knickers in a twist about pollution and green issues. In a few million years it won't matter.

We owe everything we have to the people that went before us. What sort of *s do we have to be to leave less to our kids?

nihilistic crap from mega man-- not sure he really thinks much-if he does then there is a problem,but yep , the concious will always carry the torch of enlightenment..

fluck --i'm sounding like an old hippy 😯

Honestly don't get your knickers in a twist about pollution and green issues. In a few million years it won't matter.

No, but in 30 or 40 it might. I have kids, I don't want everything to be shit for them. Hells bells, I'll still be alive then. I don't want to see millions plunged into suffering and everything I love trashed.

Doing whatever you feel like is selfish. Most human beings consider that to be a bad thing.

I'll still be alive then.

mystic moley --you been sneaking a peep into the future--naughty boy..

Erm no

I'm an advocate of doing what the **** I like as something bigger and badder will get us all in the end and it wont give a monkeys if we are 'developed' or not.

Excellent - please take a walk to the middle of Afghanistan and start writing some graffiti about prophets. Take a video camera too so it will give us all a giggle.

Besides most developing nations are the worst polluters.

I think the plane has gone so far over your head you didn't see it. 1) They do our pollution for us by making crap we buy. 2) developed nations could quite easily help developing nations skip the dirty step of industrialisation - it just takes political will

Honestly don't get your knickers in a twist about pollution and green issues. In a few million years it won't matter.

With a few less people who share your selfish attitudes around, and it won't matter much sooner either.

But when a super volcano goes off there isn't much you me or bambi can do about it.

Just a thought. How about you don't worry about that then, but try a little harder about considering the consequences of things we can control. Pollution and destruction of habitat being obvious examples.

The ban hammer has been used to curb some posters' lack of control during this debate. If you can't contribute without losing your temper and throwing insults about then please go away.

Well the sun came up this morning and most of us are still here. Nice to be able to express an opinion without personal insults being thrown which is why STW is an interesting place

mega-- your 'comments' were designed to provoke i hope, not really your 'thoughts' ??

I'm still here (wonders who got banned), the sun is indeed up and shining through the windows, who needs central heating eh?

developed nations could quite easily help developing nations skip the dirty step of industrialisation - it just takes political will

Indeed - and this is exactly the sort of thing which gets forgotten in the rush to build more windmills in order to try and limit our direct CO2 emissions.

Correlation, not causation. Lots of other stuff going on - far too much to suggest that the rises are definitely caused by the changes in the gas concentrations

The point I'm making here is that the impression the AGW fundamentalists often try to give is that we can tell exactly what will happen and that increasing the emissions by X will result in an increase of Y in the temperature

They dont what they face is a powerful and politically motivated lobby group who go all out to misrepresent , befuddle and confuse the public abut what the scientists are saying. As for AGW fundamentalist when we are into the realms of using lazy slurs like that for the consensus view of the scientific community [ no credible scientific organisation disputes AGW] then I stop debating.

Its not me who is a fundamentalist here - I am simply following the evidence . if you can shwo how the increased greenhouse gas concentrations dont lead to forcing then i am happy to see your evidence and I suspect you will get a noble prize to boot.
Good luck

Nihilism gets us nowhere.

Why bother because in a 100 years none of us will be alive to worry about it.
Why bother because in a million years our species will probably be extinct
Why bother becuse in a billion years the Sun will have boiled the world oceans
etc etc.

The fact is we are probably the first generation of humans who are [i]knowingly[/i] making the world worse. And lots of us want to carry on ignoring this fact and pretend everything will be okay.

Exactly richmtb
Seize the day and live for now.

Regardless of what we do or don't do it won't be ok in the long run for our species so enjoy life now. Dont go out of your way to pollute.

How about kids? ive got two, am i allowed any more or will they use up too much of earths resources?

drivel

Dont go out of your way to pollute.

So we agree after all

Zokes, indeed we do and probably always have done despite all the noise that tries to prevent us. So:

Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect are necessary and natural conditions for human survival - accepted
Current levels may/may not be at optimum level - accepted, I believe
There is a relationship between temperature and CO2 - accepted
it's a re-enforcing system rather than a simple causation one - accepted by some?
CO2 rises lag temperature rises - debated
CO2 rises them amplify temperature change and increase its diffusion - debated
Hence, majority of GW (the variance) occurs after CO2 rises - accepted
Increases in CO2 levels are caused by natural (release from oceans etc) and man-made reasons - accepted
Relative importance of natural versus man made factors - debated
The latest Met Office release indicates that cooling natural forces are countering warming man made ones - accepted?
The Met Office stresses that man made activities are still having a warming effect - accepted?

[b]So attempts to reduce man-made effects are important - accepted.[/b] Are they the principal factor behind LT average weather trends - not accepted. To what extent do they affect the variance - the current debate!

The interesting thing about the Met Office stuff is that it focuses on surface warming measurements when the bulk of warming takes place in the oceans. To which they indicate that a lot more further work is required to aid our understanding and hence, by their own admission, scientific knowledge lags as our understanding of the oceans remains very limited. So scientists bring me neatly back to Bertrand Russell and a rejection of dogmatic force feeding of causes of GW - debated!!!! 😉

One thing not many people truly understand the concept of is the various "step" events, that we don't know the true trigger points for. In particular methane release from permafrost and the oceans that will be caused by temperature rises. The trouble is, we don't quite know how much the temperature needs to rise to trigger these events, or how bad (ranging from bad though very bad all the way to catastrophic). Consequently it's not much of a surprise that models aren't perfectly accurate, as the extent to which these step events will be triggered by what temperature is very much up for debate

the interesting thing about the Met Office stuff is that it focuses on surface warming measurements when the bulk of warming takes place in the oceans.

The worry is that as we don't really understand the effect the oceans are having, we could be stumbling towards a cliff edge we don't know is there.

The oceans are currently a carbon sink - the biggest one in fact. We know this because we know how much carbon is going into the atmosphere and we know how much atmospheric CO2 is increasing by.

The figure don't match, CO2 levels are actually rising much slower than they should as the oceans are absorbing a lot of it.

If this stops happening or if the oceans become a source of carbon then we are well and truly ****ed. The trouble is we have no real idea of when or if this will happen.

I haven't got time to read all of this. Has anyone produced any evidence that disagrees with all the scientists? Or, should I continue believing all of the peer-reviewed studies?

I haven't got time to read all of this. Has anyone produced any evidence that disagrees with all the scientists? Or, should I continue believing all of the peer

Nope. Mega doesn't give a deck about anyone but himself, thm is a sceptic, rather than a denier, aracer didn't do chemistry at school. I think that's just about got it covered

And lots of us want to carry on ignoring this fact and pretend everything will be okay.

Actually, most of us want other people to solve the problem so we can carry on as we are.

It's this marvellous age of no accountability we're living in - everything is someone elses fault or someone elses job to sort out 😀

Thanks, that's what I thought 🙂