who is this guy a corporate shill or a left wing nutter or is he just a very well educated proper scientist, it's all so confusing..
WRT your economic questions:
One reason (IMHO) why governments are not acting more on climate change is that the global economy relies on growth to function. Because of the way that banks can [b]create[/b] money and then lend it out with the expectation of repayment + interest, the only way to service the interest payments is for the economy to grow.
Tackling climate change may well mean moving to a low-growth or no-growth economy, which will basically make the recent credit crunch look like a blip.
So,contrary to what many climate skeptics say (that talk of climate change is all part of some money making scheme), tackling climate change is in fact a massive threat to the economy, not some marvelous opportunity. That's why politicians find it hard to act.
But in the final analysis we might have to choose between economic upheaval now or extinction later 😐
One reason (IMHO) why governments are not acting more on climate change is that the global economy relies on growth to function
maybe it shouldn't then.
Hainey, I havent the time to look into all the people you have posted up (and you said wikkipedia was rubbish) I looked at a few though and most of them are scientists who gained great emminance in other areas and then decided to stick their nose into climate change and have not published any peer reviewed work on the subject. Examples such as Stott from a few pages ago and Grey here. Other examples hold more weight Linzden for example, although he does come accross as a bit of a crank with his view that smoking is only weakly linked with lung cancer.
A 10ft Cock And A Few Hundred Virgins - Premier Membercrankboy - i'll give you that qualified scientist - me.
What are your qualifications in?
must be top secret again then, like hainey's
joolsburger, Mike Hulme was a professor at the University of East Anglia when I was there. As far as am aware he's still there and he has a very good reputation in climatology.
midgebait, when were yout there? I did ecology left in 1995.
Did we get to the bottom of what is considered suitable 'proof' that GHG emissions will have an impact on climate or should we still wait and see what happens?
I'd like to know what happens when we get to 1000ppb CO2e but I don't trust these models!
I'd like to know what happens when we get to 1000ppb CO2e but I don't trust these models!
Don't worry, we run out of easily exploitable hydrocarbons before we hit 500.
Hi a_a, only a year doing the atmospheric sciences MSc from '93.
rprt, oil yes but IIRC a subsequent (most likely desparate) move to coal and coal-derived fuels as an energy source could result in CO2 ending up near to 1000ppb.
But I think lots of coal isn't as recoverable as some people think.
If you look at energy return on energy invested (ERoEI) there is lots of coal down there that is simply unrecoverable.
Anyway, it's a moot point. We're screwed before we find out either way.
Have we all done yet?
Everyone is busy insulating their home, chopping wood, seeking out the best CO2 reduction/£ they can get from investing in alternative energy, planning a move nearer to work so that they can commute by bike, taking bottles to the bottle bank (or to get their pfand back), ripping out the gas central heating and using the pipes/radiators to make heat exchangers... .
Have we all done yet?
Alas, I think we're not even started.
I supose your right but I will say it's been a very illuminating on many levels.
snows melting now. oh no, maybe global warming is true after all! i feel such a fool for doubting it.
That's a shame m_cozzy as I believed the scientific community was close to changing its mind based on your rigourous analysis and incisive comments.
I don't know what to think now?
leaving the CC arguments aside, and going back to the economics debate on the last page, some of you may be interested in reading the prosperity without growth document published by the sustainable development commission last year (i think). its a really interesting paper on how we can continue to prosper without the necessity of growing our economies.
🙂
[url= http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914 ]prosperity without growth[/url]
incidentally partly written by my favorite lecturer 8)
Too much CO2 being emitted here!
Hainey you must be in utter shock that someone can admit they were mistaken or wrong – certainly something we could NOT accuse you of 😀
One incorrect claim hardly means everything else is incorrect.
Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept
1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle
Is this still your view?
I'm waiting for Hainey's top secret WMD mate to turn up at the Chilcot enquiry and set the record straight 🙂
LOL, Junkyard, touched a nerve?
I was just wondering what your thoughts were regarding your high integrity scientists at the IPCC?
😉
Hainey did you read the article or indeed the one in New scientist on this Very point."The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report."
The discrepancy is only as to rate and region refered to. Syed Hasnain's work was confined to one region of the Hymalayas a lasy journalist wrote it up as the hymalias and it then was refrenced in a report when it should not of been . Very bad on the report writers at least it has been corrected by those dodgy climate scientist types .
The Times own agenda should be born in mind when reading any article the create .
"I was just wondering what you're thoughts were regarding your high integrity scientists at the IPCC?" There idiots to shoot themselves in the foot and lay the debate open to sabotage by those who will latch on this as a reason to ignore the reality they don't understand.
Yes, i read the article in the Sunday Times yesterday and was appalled at the deception in trying to mis-lead the public! 😉
The reality, that the glaciers are wasting away, is bad enough. But they are not wasting away at the rate suggested by this speculative remark and the IPCC report.
But the whole point is that the [b]rate[/b] of loss is supposed to correlate with, and has been used as evidence of an unprecedented [b]rate[/b] of temperature increase, which is itself correlated with an unprecedented rate of rise in CO2 - cause and effect.
if the rate of glacier loss is not [i]unprecedented[/i] then it doesn't support the claimed temperature rise.
Zulu-Eleven, as usual a fair point that requires some thought to deal with (hence why i usually leave it to others to challenge you.)
The expected rate is not really established in either the times or the new scientist so that does not really take us any where. The regional point is perhaps an issue as the rate of melt seems to be affected by the black carbon question ie polution landing on the glacier effects it's melt rate. See outside it's always the mucky snow that melts last.
The real questions are what impact did this article and report have on the overall debate if any ? and did it impact on the actual science at all?
hainey I shall answer your question then hopefully you will answer mine
Junkyard, touched a nerve?
Not sure what you mean by that tbh- no change there then though.
If scientists like your good self read the entire report [which has thousands and thousands of claims and data references] and the best "lie" they can find is about the rate of retreat not actual retreat or about global warming then it would tend to suggest that the system of peer review is indeed very robust. Clearly it is not perfect, clearly the error adds a little weight to sceptics like your self , who clutch at straws, but one inaccuracy about the rate of retreat hardly suggests that there is no man made global warming. Clearly it is "better" for your point of view than mine but it is not enough to discredit the entire report.
Your turn
Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept
1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle
Is this still your view?
Junkyard I am not going around in circles with you, i have answered your questions many times before.
I was just interesed in your opinion on the IPCC who you have pretty much confessed to be in love with on here, whether you feel let down by them and how now you blindly accept everything they say as fact?
wow Hainey deep as ever....just some more of your deeply insightful, highly intellectual, unreferenced view coupled with your inability to answer simple questions.
I find wild speculation from both sides unhelpful. We can expect a higher energy atmosphere, gradual warming and the snow line rising. However, a snow line at over 8000m within a few decades would require temperatures higher than anybody is predicting and then the time to melt the existing ice. It doesn't require more than a few seconds thought to debunk the prediction, and yet it made it to press and nobody shot it down.
So how do you use this information hainey? Treat this a evidence stuff from both sides should be treated with caution, or as absolute proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and there will be no climatic change beyond natural cycles.
wow Hainey deep as ever....just some more of your deeply insightful, highly intellectual, unreferenced view coupled with your inability to answer simple questions.
Sorry, was that a yes you are still in love with them or no?
So how do you use this information hainey? Treat this a evidence stuff from both sides should be treated with caution, or as absolute proof that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and there will be no climatic change beyond natural cycles.
The first.
still in love with them? WTF are you on about? I suggested that they know more than you about this subject ...nothing you have posted so far has convinced me otherwise...what was your science qualification again?
Here let me quote myself to you in bold does it help you understand?
[b]
[/b]Clearly it is "better" for your point of view than mine but it is not enough to discredit the entire report.
I think from you point of view that means I still love them
Any chance you can answer my question or are you just flirting with me today? Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept
1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle
Is this still your view?
Junkyard, I have answered these questions for you before, however i will answer again as long as you answer mine....
In answer to your question
Are you still asserting that natural cycles explain everything even though you accept
1. Man is releasing CO2 by burning fossil fuels
2. This never happened before in the natural cycles.
3. The C02 levels are higher than at any time during the natural cycle
Yes, I believe that the primary influence for climate change is due to natural factors that have existed prior to man and in fact what we are experiencing at the moment is in keeping with that.
Now if you would like to answer the following:
What was the course of the historical large rise in CO2 seen periodically every 100,000 years?
Why did this CO2 level always decrease back down to original levels?
Why do the CO2 increases actually lag behind temperature rises historically?
Why do you think that UEA and IPCC are exagerating / manipulating climate change claims?
hainey posts number 666 😉
LOL - I know! I saw that 👿
Pleased someone still has a sense of humour on here 🙂
I believe that the primary influence for climate change is due to natural factors that have existed prior to man and in fact what we are experiencing at the moment is in keeping with that
The burning of fossil fuels and the 450,000 year high are in keeping with the cycle? So we have NEVER seen man made C02 emissions before in any part of the cycle or current levels in any part of the cycle before but these unnatural occurrences are still in keeping with it? You actually think that makes sense don’t you? Please say yes or no to that question
I am going home I will reply to your questions later.
"Copenhagen was a fine illustration of the arrogance of man, to think we can change nature's ways. We must be good stewards, but it is arrogant and naive the say that man overpowers nature.
Earth has seen climate change for eons and will continue to see changes. It is our duty to responsibly develop resources for humankind, and not pollute or destroy."
Sarah Palin.
Maybe she's not as daft as she looks.
I am going home I will reply to your questions later.
I look forward to it!
"Sarah Palin.
Maybe she's not as daft as she looks."
No one could look as daft as she is! and never quote anything writen in her name as her own work.
Have to agree with Crankboy on that one!!
What was the course of the historical large rise in CO2 seen periodically every 100,000 years?
Not sure what you are asking here – what was the course? Do you mean cause? Well as long as it was not man made it has no relevance to this debate – unless you think it was caused by the burning of fossil fuels/industrialisation/deforestation do you? Remember the cycle is your explanation of the past and I am not denying that there has been natural climate change in the past - no one is saying that are they?
Why did this CO2 level always decrease back down to original levels?
When was it back down to original 😯 ? it always looked to be in flux to me – you know like it was in a cycle up and down – surely a scientist like you knows what a cycle is ? Why the large spike at the end? Cycle still look ok as an explanation?
[img]
[/img]Why do the CO2 increases actually lag behind temperature rises historically?
What is the relevance of this to the question of whether man made climate change is occurring now? As this is your model and your explanation I think it is you who should explain it? I prefer to look at what is happening NOW as man made C02 levels increase rather than what happened thousands of years ago when there was no manmade C02- are temperatures actually lagging now?
[img]
[/img]
Why do you think that UEA and IPCC are exaggerating[sic] / manipulating climate change claims?
Is it due to a global conspiracy to generate green taxes for some undisclosed reason 🙄
As I have said if one misrepresented claim about rate of change is the best you can get from all the thousands of claims from the IPCC report then that hardly counters all claims of man made climate change or supports the notion thet are exagerating or manipulating the data
Can you answer this with a yes or no?
The burning of fossil fuels and the 450,000 year high are in keeping with the cycle? So we have NEVER seen man made C02 emissions before in any part of the cycle or current levels in any part of the cycle before but these unnatural occurrences are still in keeping with it?
Does this accurately reflect your view? Yes or no?
