Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[maure 1]

Oh, we should establish the Cav Awards, definitely.

Ok, I know the idea is to keep the long replies point by point. I usually love to ramble in my kilometric posts. But, in all honesty, you keep distorting whatever I said in such amount that it will obviously end up being useless. There's a mix of half finished sarcasms there ("you don't know if it exists but you are sure of your consequences?" I don't know if a cure for cancer exists, but I am sure it will bring relief to many ill persons.). You keep mixing up purposedly the differences between global trends and single ocurrences. You keep purposedly hinting at some kind of fundamental linguistical flaw on whether it is a hypothesis or a theory, without giving an explanation for a layman like me on what is the difference or why would it affect our position on such an event.

Hinting that anti GW are "against me" is both projecting your own confrontationist method to my own way of discussing things and misleading. If I am defending the idea that GW should be studied and preemptive measures taken, I am of course "against" people who thinks the opposite, whithin the confines of this debate. The level of aggression/sarcasm is only a reactive response to your own.

I'm afraid not, my friend. You are not "reacting", you are acting. It is built in the very proposition that the GW movement maintains, namely, everyone else is wrong because we are certain.

What else?

The difference between theory and hypothesis is not a linguistic issue. Look into it if the GW matter actually interests you.

Simplifying global weather to a "single occurrence" is absurd. Do you understand this or is this an example of the "distorsion" you spoke of?

The new analogy regarding "I don't know if a cure for cancer exists, but I am sure it will bring relief to many ill persons" is only apt if you forget that: one, in the case of GW, there is a claim regarding knowledge of the cause and, second, in anticipation of the existence of "whatever", you are proposing planet-wide measures. How is that responsible?

But it speaks again about the problem you have rationalizing the GW sociopolitical movement (see? neither theory nor hypothesis). As per your "cancer" analogy, you want preventive measures in anticipation of a cure you don't know exists or what form will take if it ever exists. No one will build specialized centers for the treament of cancer to accomodate for the hypothetical existence of a cure.

And, this is the problem with analogies. If they apply to begin with, their purpose is simply _illustrative_ (never explanatory) and, my friend, if they illustrate how you explain the matter to yourself...

I think I know where Maure is coming from here. Yes I know weather does not = climate, blah, blah, blah... However, if we cannot accurately predict even a week ahead, what hope do we have in looking forward 100 years? Of course the climate is more complex, but the same factors that make predicting the occurence, severity and direction of hurricanes difficult are also shaping longer term weather patterns and make than 1 million times more complex. And it is this conviction that GW supporters have that scientists do understand that make me highly sceptical.

Actually, all I am doing is to recreate the pursuit of specialized knowledge any one of us needs to follow in order to advance one's understanding of things, namely, as one looks closer, more variables pop up, more complicated things get.

It is not even an issue of big or small. It happens no matter what subject you look into.

And so, I brought up the behavior of the sun because as you try to explain Earth's climate, it is a huge variable. And so, I brought up weather prediction because as you try to predict climate, it is a huge variable.

And other posters brought other variables up... why? Because this is a very, very complex problem that cannot be simplified, no matter how much anyone insists.

Thus, my amusement. Any "debate' that starts by simplifying the subject matter, by claiming knowledge of enormous achievements as prediction and explanation, is anything but a real debate. If we are not able to move beyond this fundamental premise, it is _certain_ we'll get nowhere.

[Quiet One 15]

I think I know where Maure is coming from here. Yes I know weather does not = climate, blah, blah, blah... However, if we cannot accurately predict even a week ahead, what hope do we have in looking forward 100 years? Of course the climate is more complex, but the same factors that make predicting the occurence, severity and direction of hurricanes difficult are also shaping longer term weather patterns and make than 1 million times more complex. And it is this conviction that GW supporters have that scientists do understand that make me highly sceptical.

Precisely because they are talking about a global trend, not a local situation. GW postulates are in the line of "a rise of 2

[Quiet One 15]

Muzza, it's weird to be in the same field as you!

BTW I agree with everything you say. I am not an eco friendly freak, nor a GW activist. But here we are!

[pabloh20 1]

To be honest, it sounds to me like the main protagonists of the thread actually agree, but not necessarily in the same way

[Quiet One 15]

To be honest, it sounds to me like the main protagonists of the thread actually agree, but not necessarily in the same way

I think so, too. But hey, we weren't having an interesting discussion in years. So kudos to whoever started this thread (I think it was Meanie Weenie)

I thought about starting a therad on "White vs Brown Eggs" but I don't think it would have raise as much controversy

[Medilloni 6]

To be honest, it sounds to me like the main protagonists of the thread actually agree, but not necessarily in the same way

Quite. The best, most succinct load of sensible bollocks so far

[Oli 1]

Muzza/Oli you are still playing the "my scientist is cleverer than yours" game. I am not a climate specialist so don't have the detailed knowledge but I, like you can use Google and could almost certainly find yet another study which refutes yours and you would then come back at me with another refuting mine and so we go on.

Kind of a weak argument. In my last set of posts I wasn't citing any scientists- just explaining my own views and questioning your theories on human adaptibility and the impact on you personally. Since you haven't addressed any of that we'll stick to the IPCC report.

And so instead, I will ask the question again (which you still have not answered) - what exactly are we trying to prevent? What is the evil thing that GW is supposed to do? Why are we doing all this?

OK. Well let's have a little look - the IPCC bases GW impact on five main headings, below:

1) Water: over the course of the 20th Century there has been a 3% increase in water flowing down the world's rivers and furthermore plants growing in an increased CO2 environment use less water. (Source: Hadley Centre). The biggest impact on water is our growing population 50% increase estimated by end of the century (UN) - water shortages are going to be a fact of life and any impact that CO2 has on this is marginal.

In the developing world that is true. But in the developed world- North America, Central and Southern Europe etc, that isn't the case (all regions the report singles out as being likely to be affected by increased water shortage).

2) Ecosystem: IPCC claims that 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5C - 2.5C (medium confidence) (the italics are IPCC's assessment - their official statement of medium confidence is a 50:50 chance). Bear in mind that the biggest threats to most species are not CO2, but loss of ecosystems, hunting, etc anyone basing the call for action on a 50:50 change that some animals and plants might be affected would be doing so on flimsy grounds.

Furthermore historic evidence has shown that the World has been warmer before and animals/plants have survived. Populations of polar bears actually increased over the last 40 years (the biggest threat to them is hunting) and have survived multiple warming events.

Unless it can be shown how this would affect the human race, I'm not hugely bothered by this in principle either. I think at the moment the impact of this would be impossible to guess anyway, since we don't know how the animals and plants might adapt.

3) Food: not widely reported but the IPCC report states that globally the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1C - 3C. (IPCC's projection is 3C rise by end of the century)

At mid-to-high latitudes crop production is projected to increase slightly over the range you are talking about, then decline for temperature increases over that. At low latitudes the production will decline with even small temperature increases. Globally there would be a modest potential increase, assuming farming practices could be modified to take advantage of it, but this would likely decline over and above a 2 degree rise.

Historically farmers have adapted to climate change without the need for Government intervention and don't forget that there are many innovations taking place in farming, such as genetic modification, giving possibilities of improved crop yields and pest-resistance.

Agreed, but you're still limited by the available suitable land space for farming. Not only that but the developing world will be a lot worse off than the developed world in such a scenario. The more technology required the worse off your average rural farmer in the developing world will be.

4) Coasts: IPCC was concerned about melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and warming expanding ocean volumes.

Sea levels have been rising generally since records began and no sign of acceleration. The most recent study suggests that the average annual rise may have been slightly less in the second half of the 20th Century to the first half (1.5mm compared to 2.0mm)

As for the Pacific islands - sea levels in Maldives have actually been falling over the past 30 years. Tuvalu (which Al Gore said was suffering a depopulation due to sea-rises) registered a 0.7mm p.a. rise since 1978, but when Flinders University in Australia put in a more accurate gauge, after a decade of monitoring, no significant rise was detected and the project was recently abandoned.

Perhas true, but unfortunately sea-level change is not uniform- some areas will rise more than others, depending on many factors such as ocean density etc. Therefore looking at one set of islands is not particularly useful. The basic physical model (if earth heats up, ice sheets melt, sea levels rise) is basic physics rather than projection from any particular climate model.

IPCC predicts a possible rise of 1.8 to 5.9mm p.a. depending on the level of warming (a far cry from Al Gore's 20 feet rise) - 18 to 59cm by 2100. That is less than a quarter of an inch per annum - very gradual increase and over such a timescale that humans could and would adapt.

What it also says is "Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s. Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable." It also says Australia and New Zealand, Much of North America, South America and Asia are at risk. Read section C of the executive summary of the "Impacts" report for more details.

You haven't addressed any of my points on exactly how humans would adapt and what the cost would be.

If you project forward based upon this worst of worst case scenarios, and for arguments sake take GDP impacts of 3% for developed countries and 10% in undeveloped, in a hundred years time, our great grandchildren in the developed world will be only 2.6 times as well off as today, instead of 2.7 times and our contemporaries in the undeveloped world will be "only" 8.5 times better off as they are today, instead of 9.5 times. (Source: An Appeal to Reason: N.Lawson)

Well, the crucial part of that is where he says "for arguments sake". He's just made a figure up then extrapolated it . Nor does it compare the economic impact of GW with the economic impact of doing something about it, which makes it utterly meaningless.

Frankly if this is the worst that we have to face, there are more important things to worry about. This is just a case of intellectual masturbation mixed in with scaremongering

For what purpose?

[maure 1]

Now we hear that understanding weather to the extent of being able to predict it would not help to even _being_ to understand climate. This is crazy.

Assumptions and conclusions are one and the same thing.

From symptoms that may not exist, to a condition that may not account for these symptoms, to a cause that may not explain this condition,... to a treatment devised according to a cause that may not explain a condition that may not account for symptoms that may not exist.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

I think so, too. But hey, we weren't having an interesting discussion in years. So kudos to whoever started this thread (I think it was Meanie Weenie)

Yep it was me.

Andres, I do agree that more time needs to be spent researching this.

The thing is whilst in principal you are right - surely we should mitigate in case it could be damaging the world, some of the decisions being made now ostensibly to deal with the demon CO2 have implications:

• 70%+ of the cost of fuel in UK is now tax (most of which has been levied in the name of CO2 mitigation) - the figures for France and Italy are not dissimilar. This is suppressing our economies, affects the costs of all goods and services andunfairly biases against those in poverty. This is contributing to the current predicted recession.
  
• Taxation on fuel has favoured a switch to diesel - which burns "cleaner" (less CO2) - er no actually, burning Diesel produces soot, carcinogens and other noxious gases which combined have in studies been shown to increase risks of asthma, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects and strokes. This does not affect just humans...
  
• In a bid to reduce rising fuel costs, airlines are trying to fly their planes higher, where there is less drag increasing the risk of damage to the upper atmosphere
  
• The UK and other governments are using this as an excuse to hurry through expanded nuclear programmes. The nuclear industry is not exactly covered in glory when it comes to its effect on the environment and whilst people will say - oh its safe, look at the French.... it only takes one accident. Chernobyl killed an estimated 2,000 people both immediately and shortly after with increased cancer, there have been an estimated 5,000 deaths among new born children as a result and 10,000 deformities and there are estimates that the long term death rate from premature cancers will be from 30,000 - 60,000. Again - if we are playing the percentage game over 100 years, what is more likely - a similar number of deaths from a nuclear accident or deaths from GW? The odds on nuclear accidents are far more predictable as there have been precedents. The odds of an accident are 1 in 10,000 operating years. MIT and the IAEA predict that 1,500 - 2,000 new nuclear reactors would have to be built to make a meaningful dent in CO2 levels (4-5 times the current number). If they were to replace existing fossil fueled stations, CO2 emissions would drop 20%, but if added as well, CO2 levels would rise as a result of the mining, refining and post-processing of nuclear material. And 2,000 new reactors means an accident every 5 years!!!
  
• Even on a micro-level, there has been a lot of press lately about how wind farms kill passing bats through pressure changes on their internal organs (which birds are more immune to)...
  

My point with the examples above is that by following the lead chanted by eminent scientists both we and are government are making decisions now without their implications being considered.

If you also read my previous posting above, there is some evidence that global warming may actually have benefits!!! By acting now we could halt beneficial impacts upon society as a whole.

Right, here is some more science for all of you.

99.72%

That ^ is the percentage of greenhouse effect that is due to natural causes. Human contribution is only 0.28%.

Only 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect derives from CO2, the vast majority is from water vapour, the most potent greenhouse gas.

96.775% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

In other words, only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity!!!

Source and all the maths here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

....we'll stick to the IPCC report.

OK Oli..... <rolls up sleeves>

In the developing world that is true. But in the developed world- North America, Central and Southern Europe etc, that isn't the case (all regions the report singles out as being likely to be affected by increased water shortage).

All of which face water shortage problems, anyway because of population growth, so GW (if true) is one (probably minor) factor in a pre-existing problem.

Unless it can be shown how this would affect the human race, I'm not hugely bothered by this in principle either. I think at the moment the impact of this would be impossible to guess anyway, since we don't know how the animals and plants might adapt.

That's a bit of a human-centric viewpoint, eh? OK we'll ignore this one and say you agree with me that this is not a major issue

At mid-to-high latitudes crop production is projected to increase slightly over the range you are talking about, then decline for temperature increases over that. At low latitudes the production will decline with even small temperature increases. Globally there would be a modest potential increase, assuming farming practices could be modified to take advantage of it, but this would likely decline over and above a 2 degree rise.

2 degrees is the mid-point of IPCC's projections, so we are agreed that overall there will be more food..

Agreed, but you're still limited by the available suitable land space for farming. Not only that but the developing world will be a lot worse off than the developed world in such a scenario. The more technology required the worse off your average rural farmer in the developing world will be.

Ah OK, the so called "Dumb Farmer" scenario pushed heavily in the 2001 IPCC report. This assumes that there is no change in farming practices, technologies, etc. Well in this scenario of course farmers will be in trouble, but this takes no account of human ingenuity or technological development. Bear in mind, that economic projections are that even with no change, developing countries will become wealthier and better equipped. In the 1940s in the UK, some of our key agricultural belts were still farmed by horse and cart and by manually intensive processes. Farms would employ dozens of labourers. The introduction of tractors doubled production overnight and today the same grain fields can be farmed by a single person with massively increased yields. Yes the poor will still be poor, but one major failing of the IPCC report is that it does not take account of human adaptability and technological progression.

Perhas true, but unfortunately sea-level change is not uniform- some areas will rise more than others, depending on many factors such as ocean density etc. Therefore looking at one set of islands is not particularly useful. The basic physical model (if earth heats up, ice sheets melt, sea levels rise) is basic physics rather than projection from any particular climate model.

1) These are the islands that many pro GW campaigners quote (dear old Al Gore said the population of Tuvalu was emigrating to New Zealand as a result of sea rises... hmmmm)

2) Some of these trends are global as a result of interglacial warming - sea levels have risen 300 feet since the last ice age.

3) The basic model you quote is too simplistic. If this was the case, we would have seen a parallel decrease in ice that correlates directly to temperature increases and this is not happening - Antarctic ice is growing!!!!

What it also says is "Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s. Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk. The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable." It also says Australia and New Zealand, Much of North America, South America and Asia are at risk. Read section C of the executive summary of the "Impacts" report for more details.

As you point out the areas most at risk are countries like Bangladesh which already have flooding problems!!! So again, CO2 is playing a minor role in an existing problem.

I would argue that the more developed areas that you mention are better equipped to handle change like this and over the space of 100 years could cope. Half an inch a year!!!

18cm to 59cm over a hundred years is not a lot, is it? Two feet rise in the worst case scenario???!!! Is that all this boils down to?

And isn't it jolly nice of us to be so kind to these low lying countries.... Why have we developed a social conscience for them now when they have been flooded for centuries? Why don't we invest the money being ploughed into wind-farms, GW research and tax billions into providing longer term solutions for them rather than stifling economic growth and perpetuating poverty.

You haven't addressed any of my points on exactly how humans would adapt and what the cost would be.

I will - suffering from posting fatigue

Well, the crucial part of that is where he says "for arguments sake". He's just made a figure up then extrapolated it . Nor does it compare the economic impact of GW with the economic impact of doing something about it, which makes it utterly meaningless.

He didn't say that, I paraphrased him badly. Lawson is an economist remember and in fact went into a lot of detail about how he calculated the figures. Those "for arguments sake" are double the projected GDP impacts from IPCC (I can provide maths if you really want). They are not meaningless as the IPCC highlights the impact of GW on GDP and what Lawson demonstrates, rather importantly is that IPCC have ignored the underlying growth in GDP, so what they headline as a drop in GDP is actually less spectacular growth rather than a drop from the current level.

For what purpose?

Search me.

A mix I would imagine of control, ability to raise taxes to pay for expensive foreign wars, a genuine desire to get people to economise (as they were being inefficient and I certainly do support people saving energy) - supported by a "stick" rather than a carrot, an excuse to build more nuclear power stations (= more nuclear material for nuclear bombies)...., wins votes from green people.....

But overall I would imagine its more a case of "ooh here's a worthy cause that everyone else is following" lets jump on the bandwagon.

[Oli 1]

[*]70%+ of the cost of fuel in UK is now tax (most of which has been levied in the name of CO2 mitigation) - the figures for France and Italy are not dissimilar. This is suppressing our economies, affects the costs of all goods and services andunfairly biases against those in poverty. This is contributing to the current predicted recession.

I'd certainly agree the fuel tax in the UK is outrageous, but I don't think a significant amount of that money is actually spent on combating global warming- it just goes into a tax pot. Thus you have a government who is using the GW banner (although they are also attempting to decrease pollution and congestion I would guess) to tax the crap out of you. As a result they will almost certainly lose the election. Nevertheless that money is being spent- not on anti-GW efforts but on public services and so forth. Thus it's disingenuous to blame the science- after all the tax burden has gone up in every area in which it's levied- my council tax went up 50% (not-so-coincidentally I left the UK three months later).

If you disagree with high taxation then vote for another government. Fuel tax in the UK has always been much higher than in America though, so I don't think it will make an enormous difference.

[*]The UK and other governments are using this as an excuse to hurry through expanded nuclear programmes. The nuclear industry is not exactly covered in glory when it comes to its effect on the environment and whilst people will say - oh its safe, look at the French.... it only takes one accident. Chernobyl killed an estimated 2,000 people both immediately and shortly after with increased cancer, there have been an estimated 5,000 deaths among new born children as a result and 10,000 deformities and there are estimates that the long term death rate from premature cancers will be from 30,000 - 60,000. Again - if we are playing the percentage game over 100 years, what is more likely - a similar number of deaths from a nuclear accident or deaths from GW? The odds on nuclear accidents are far more predictable as there have been precedents. The odds of an accident are 1 in 10,000 operating years. MIT and the IAEA predict that 1,500 - 2,000 new nuclear reactors would have to be built to make a meaningful dent in CO2 levels (4-5 times the current number). If they were to replace existing fossil fueled stations, CO2 emissions would drop 20%, but if added as well, CO2 levels would rise as a result of the mining, refining and post-processing of nuclear material. And 2,000 new reactors means an accident every 5 years!!!

This assumes 1986 levels of technologies, safeguards, and the assumption that all reactors will be as crappily designed and incompetently staffed as Chernobyl was. But I take your point- we should approach with caution regarding nuclear power until we can be sure the risk is basically nil. I don't know if that's currently the case or not, but that's a case for another thread.

[*]Even on a micro-level, there has been a lot of press lately about how wind farms kill passing bats through pressure changes on their internal organs (which birds are more immune to)...

I can live with that

My point with the examples above is that by following the lead chanted by eminent scientists both we and are government are making decisions now without their implications being considered.

I agree wholeheartedly that our reaction should be considered rather than knee-jerk- if you had had this position from the start I would have agreed with you. I do think the UK government in particular has enacted many questionable policies on the back of GW, but for their own ends rather than to actually do something about GW. Criticise the government's response as much as you like, but it doesn't disprove that global warming is taking place.

If you also read my previous posting above, there is some evidence that global warming may actually have benefits!!! By acting now we could halt beneficial impacts upon society as a whole.

Other than slightly increased food production in the developed world (which we don't need since we are hardly short of food- the places which are will be the areas who will be hit hard by even a modest temperature increase), I'm not sure what we're going to get out of it.

[Oli 1]

I will - suffering from posting fatigue

I know what you mean! Interesting debate though, isn't it?

Will reply to your previous post a bit later. I need to get out of the house for a bit and enjoy the GW induced sunshine .

[Quiet One 15]

• 70%+ of the cost of fuel in UK is now tax (most of which has been levied in the name of CO2 mitigation) - the figures for France and Italy are not dissimilar. This is suppressing our economies, affects the costs of all goods and services andunfairly biases against those in poverty. This is contributing to the current predicted recession.

How much of your tax load is due to GW theories? How much is due to, for example, defense expenditures? If taxes affect low class people the most, then it means we are talking about a regressive tax system. Such systems (which emphazise tax on expenditures rather than wealth) are the root of your problems (we have the same problem here). If tax load is too high and unfair, then that should be changed. It does not affect the possibility of GW existing or not.

Taxation on fuel has favoured a switch to diesel - which burns "cleaner" (less CO2) - er no actually, burning Diesel produces soot, carcinogens and other noxious gases which combined have in studies been shown to increase risks of asthma, heart attacks, cancer, birth defects and strokes. This does not affect just humans...

I have no idea about the effects of diesel vs gasoline regarding health and enviroment. However, I will take your word on it. If so, then it is stupid to switch to diesel and governments should stop speculating with oil and start investing heavily on non fossil fuel alternatives. The solution isn't more gasaloine, less diesel. If biodiesel is crap too, then look for something else for George's sake! We knew for decades that oil was running out and that it was less than ideal as a fuel. Yet oil companies became all powerful and only a few excentrics made a couple of cars running on solar power at a whopping 2 miles per decade. And nobody care. Now we are trying to solve it with oil at almost 200 USD per barrel. An example of humanity being unable to foresee even the most obvious of man made crisis.

In a bid to reduce rising fuel costs, airlines are trying to fly their planes higher, where there is less drag increasing the risk of damage to the upper atmosphere

Then planes should not travel so high. Again, we are talking about a wrong corrective measure, not a wrong theory.

The UK and other governments are using this as an excuse to hurry through expanded nuclear programmes. The nuclear industry is not exactly covered in glory when it comes to its effect on the environment and whilst people will say - oh its safe, look at the French.... it only takes one accident. Chernobyl killed an estimated 2,000 people both immediately and shortly after with increased cancer, there have been an estimated 5,000 deaths among new born children as a result and 10,000 deformities and there are estimates that the long term death rate from premature cancers will be from 30,000 - 60,000. Again - if we are playing the percentage game over 100 years, what is more likely - a similar number of deaths from a nuclear accident or deaths from GW? The odds on nuclear accidents are far more predictable as there have been precedents. The odds of an accident are 1 in 10,000 operating years. MIT and the IAEA predict that 1,500 - 2,000 new nuclear reactors would have to be built to make a meaningful dent in CO2 levels (4-5 times the current number). If they were to replace existing fossil fueled stations, CO2 emissions would drop 20%, but if added as well, CO2 levels would rise as a result of the mining, refining and post-processing of nuclear material. And 2,000 new reactors means an accident every 5 years!!!

Ditto. I don't think nuclear power is a solution.

Even on a micro-level, there has been a lot of press lately about how wind farms kill passing bats through pressure changes on their internal organs (which birds are more immune to)...

Well, that can't be good if you are a bat. I give you that. Is that problem enough to seriously put at risk the enviroment? Is it worth keeping highly contaminant industries to save the bats that go close to wind farms?

My point with the examples above is that by following the lead chanted by eminent scientists both we and are government are making decisions now without their implications being considered.

If you also read my previous posting above, there is some evidence that global warming may actually have benefits!!! By acting now we could halt beneficial impacts upon society as a whole.

Your examples show that politicians are rather idiotic when it comes to solve problems beyond their own re election. And that is a thesys i wholeheartedly agree with

See? You are talking about bad solutions. That does not disprove the issue of GW.

As for GW being beneficial. I also said it would be by mere chance and obviously in some very limited sense. I don't mind whether the earth is getting cooler or warmer if it really is for our benefit. But after all the posts on impredictability of climate, and unknown consequences of meddling with it, would you risk creating a new Venus here? Contaminants are not something we use in a rational way to improve the enviroment. Is something we pump with no care whatsoever for their effects. If somebody found some benefit, it was not something the contaminating parties wanted to do. And it won't be something they will want to control.

Right, here is some more science for all of you.

99.72%

That ^ is the percentage of greenhouse effect that is due to natural causes. Human contribution is only 0.28%.

Only 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect derives from CO2, the vast majority is from water vapour, the most potent greenhouse gas.

96.775% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is natural.

In other words, only 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity!!!

Source and all the maths here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Sorry, I went to the source. Lots of maths and boring numbers and I don't even understand 1% of them

It made me a little suspicious that the site didn't look too "academic" at all. So I just tried some of the other sources quoted there. The closing phrase was from a guy that according to my google search seems to be a real expert on climatic change. Impressive. I wanted to know in which context did he say that phrase, because per se it did not actually negates GW. Only 5 results came up at google for that phrase. All from anti GW places and none of them quoted the whole text but that single phrase. Odd.

The second thing I did was to go to the first source referenced. It was from USA's EPA. Now that would make for an interesting rebuttal. Much to my surprise, the whole document (although sounded a lot like chinese to me in its more technical parts) does not negates GW. It doesn't even negate the influence of CO2 of human origin. Actually, it just quotes the findings of a past IPCC report and add their own observations which are not in contradiction with IPCC.

The vapor thing that your site loves so much is just a mention that yes, vapor is the most influential. But it also says that vapor concentration can be affected by Co2 concentration.

And that vapor is not taken in consideration because of its short life in the atmosphere. You see, water molecules travel too fast from one state to another around the globe to create on their own a GW effect. An increase in vapor is more a consequence of other contaminants (for example, CO2) which stay in the atmosphere longer than vapor. These may lead to an increase in vapor and thus a higher GW effect.

That's what the EPA had to say in that work, according to my understanding.

Hardly a rebuttal.

[Max Mosley 2]

Muzza, it's weird to be in the same field as you!

Yes, I'm considering jumping ship. Arrrgggg no! Maure is on that side. Must....find.....third.....way.....

Now we hear that understanding weather to the extent of being able to predict it would not help to even _being_ to understand climate. This is crazy.

Actually there might well be very little connection between the two. I never realised how confusing this might be for people. I'll try explaining it one more time. When you predict climate changes you don't just take a bog standard computer model of the weather and run it for bit longer so you get the weather for June 3rd, 2089, and then see whether it's going to be rainy or sunny. Instead you have a completely different computer model, involving quite different equations and physical processes. If people can't understand that then it shows how hard it is going to be for them to look at the science involved.

From symptoms that may not exist, to a condition that may not account for these symptoms, to a cause that may not explain this condition,... to a treatment devised according to a cause that may not explain a condition that may not account for symptoms that may not exist.

Once upon a time I was quite like you Maure: academically minded and well on the way to a glittering career. But one sunny day a few years ago things took a turn for the worse. Wandering through the town I marvelled at nature doing its thing: the birds were chirping, the bees buzzing and the squirrels chasing tail - when suddenly I noticed how much the flies were enjoying some juicy dog s##t on the pavement. Looking closer I thought to myself how much cheaper and easier that would be than buying food, plus it's natural and has a low carbon footprint. Gingerly I got close enough to lick it, at which point my friends freaked out and pulled me away.

Well anyway, the next day I thought how silly it was that I allowed myself to be so easily swayed by mere lay people, so I went to the library to do a scientific literature search. After a lot of searching I found 928 peer reviewed papers warning of potential dangers and precisely none saying it was fit for human consumption. But the flies seemed healthy enough to me. After a whole month of this diet I began to feel slightly ill, so I went to the doctor and he told me I wasn't getting enough fruit and veg. However when pressed he said he didn't really know the vitamin content of dog s##t, and was completely lost for words when I brought in a fly to prove it was healthy.

Coming back to the present day, as you know I now have severe mental problems and I have often asked doctors whether it could be related to my dog s##t diet. They all pretend to know it is - but I know better than to trust a bunch of jobsworths. After all, if they've seen the research I have, they'll want the dog s##t for themselves and there's only so much to go around. In fact where I live now is full of people in white coats who simply won't let me get near a turd. I might be mad but I always tell myself: at least I'm not the jealous one.

One of these selfish b#####ds once even tried to show me on a computer screen how much better I'd be eating greens, but as per usual his fancy new model (a Dell Inspiron, I think) completely failed to account for the high levels of protein and fibre in dog s##t. In fact he said he didn't even include the dog s##t in his models. Honestly, and they say I'm the crazy one?

Source and all the maths here: http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Is this a serious link? It's nonsense and I'm sure you know it. The earth's climate is a delicate balance and adding a small amount of CO2 can disturb that balance.

A separate way in which your calculation is wrong is that water vapour and CO2 levels are in fact linked. A little warming caused by extra CO2 might lead to more water vapour forming.

I don't think your comments on nuclear are fair either. Safety will have improved enormously since Chernobyl, and I seem to remember reading that even back then those problems were avoidable.

[maure 1]

Actually there might well be very little connection between the two. I never realised how confusing this might be for people. I'll try explaining it one more time. When you predict climate changes you don't just take a bog standard computer model of the weather and run it for bit longer so you get the weather for June 3rd, 2089, and then see whether it's going to be rainy or sunny. Instead you have a completely different computer model, involving quite different equations and physical processes. If people can't understand that then it shows how hard it is going to be for them to look at the science involved.

And when this was just getting repetitive (it was never going anywhere), you come up with THIS and have me cracking up again.

Buddy, it is _you_ in your nonexistent understanding of the problem, of science really, who thinks in such a way.

Please do elaborate on those "computer models". Provide details, please. Tell us how GW models exist to discredit the "anti-GW" ones...

It's hilarious what you come up with.

The earth's climate is a delicate balance and adding a small amount of CO2 can disturb that balance.

After telling us how the Earth's climate is not even affected by the sun, you come up with this "delicate balance".

You are priceless, buddy.

[Rainmaster 7]

I have no idea about the effects of diesel vs gasoline regarding health and enviroment. However, I will take your word on it. If so, then it is stupid to switch to diesel and governments should stop speculating with oil and start investing heavily on non fossil fuel alternatives. The solution isn't more gasaloine, less diesel. If biodiesel is crap too, then look for something else for George's sake! We knew for decades that oil was running out and that it was less than ideal as a fuel. Yet oil companies became all powerful and only a few excentrics made a couple of cars running on solar power at a whopping 2 miles per decade. And nobody care. Now we are trying to solve it with oil at almost 200 USD per barrel. An example of humanity being unable to foresee even the most obvious of man made crisis.

I agree, for my sake let's do something about this GW thing people, I hate hot weather.

[pabloh20 1]

I agree, for my sake let's do something about this GW thing people, I hate hot weather.

Where have you seen any in the UK??

[pabloh20 1]

Actually there might well be very little connection between the two. I never realised how confusing this might be for people. I'll try explaining it one more time. When you predict climate changes you don't just take a bog standard computer model of the weather and run it for bit longer so you get the weather for June 3rd, 2089, and then see whether it's going to be rainy or sunny. Instead you have a completely different computer model, involving quite different equations and physical processes. If people can't understand that then it shows how hard it is going to be for them to look at the science involved.

I think you may be getting a tad confused there, Muzza. The only difference between weather and climate is time. I'll let you work out the rest for yourself

[Max Mosley 2]

After telling us how the Earth's climate is not even affected by the sun, you come up with this "delicate balance".

Every single post of yours is an attempt to evade the issue and mislead people. You can find the details of the models online as easily as I can. In any case, I freely admit I'm not an expert. But your repeated posts that deliberately confused weather forecasting and climate modelling have just been refuted, so you dodge the issue and attack another straw man.

Regarding the Sun, yes of course it can affect the climate, and I've already said it was probably the main cause of warming/cooling before 1970. But I've given links already to papers showing the Sun is quite unlikely to be the cause of warming since 1970.

[Max Mosley 2]

I think you may be getting a tad confused there, Muzza. The only difference between weather and climate is time. I'll let you work out the rest for yourself

I've been trying to think about it. Is it a joke?

[pabloh20 1]

I've been trying to think about it. Is it a joke?

No, not at all!

Climate is just the average weather over a specified period of time, so really the only difference between them is the timescales they are measured in.

[Max Mosley 2]

No, not at all!

Climate is just the average weather over a specified period of time, so really the only difference between them is the timescales they are measured in.

*Weary sigh emoticon*

The models used to predict weather and climate are completely different. The physics of predicting them is quite different. This kind of misunderstanding is why people should trust the experts!

[pabloh20 1]

*Weary sigh emoticon*

The models used to predict weather and climate are completely different. The physics of predicting them is quite different. This kind of misunderstanding is why people should trust the experts!

Obviously not you

[Rainmaster 7]

Where have you seen any in the UK??

I've seen holiday adverts on tv with it, I don't want the UK to be like that, so that's why we need to tackle GW before it's too late

[pabloh20 1]

I've seen holiday adverts on tv with it, I don't want the UK to be like that, so that's why we need to tackle GW before it's too late

No, we're fine here. GW will cause us to become colder, so I believe. So really you should be advocating GW