The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[SnowBear]

Delta, you seem to be confusing "accused" with "witness". Just because someone is a witness or evidence giver does not mean they necessarily agree with or even have the same view as the accused. They are called as a witness to give a view to the court on a part of the case which may, or may not have bearing on the result of the case. We do not know how much of Dr Hansens testimony had bearing on the outcome.

[jethro]

Well, in that case of the 'nine errors in An Inconvenient Truth' the plaintiff had Dr Philip Stott as an expert witness. Was that wrong as well?

In that case the dispute did not involve vandalism nor criminal damage.

As previously stated, my views on this have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, natural or otherwise.

Yesterday's verdict officially supported breaking the law so long as the ends justify the means. Which ever way you look at it, if we wish to live in a peaceable society where right and wrong is clearly defined for the greater good, then sanctioning acts of vandalism, criminal damage and quite possible endangering life, is wrong. If the man in the moon or Santa had been an expert witness in support of such actions, I'd still say the same thing.

[Devonian]

In that case the dispute did not involve vandalism nor criminal damage.

As previously stated, my views on this have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, natural or otherwise.

Yesterday's verdict officially supported breaking the law so long as the ends justify the means. Which ever way you look at it, if we wish to live in a peaceable society where right and wrong is clearly defined for the greater good, then sanctioning acts of vandalism, criminal damage and quite possible endangering life, is wrong. If the man in the moon or Santa had been an expert witness in support of such actions, I'd still say the same thing.

I'm not sure. There is such a thing as war and it has to be the greatest act of vandalism there is. War can, often is, be lawful.

So, it's about degree, about deciding if the ends do indeed justify the means. In this case the JURY (not 'Hansen') came down on the side of the defendants. I think I might (don't know for sure) have actually convicted, but I would have listened to the evidence first.

I don't think this case mean the end of civilisation as some would have us believe.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Devonian

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

In that case the dispute did not involve vandalism nor criminal damage.

As previously stated, my views on this have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change, natural or otherwise.

Yesterday's verdict officially supported breaking the law so long as the ends justify the means. Which ever way you look at it, if we wish to live in a peaceable society where right and wrong is clearly defined for the greater good, then sanctioning acts of vandalism, criminal damage and quite possible endangering life, is wrong. If the man in the moon or Santa had been an expert witness in support of such actions, I'd still say the same thing.

Really ??? I would have thought the whole justice system in this country is various shades of grey, where often the outcome of a trial is largely dependent on the amount of money the defendant can spend on defending themselves, or, where the government is concerned, if a judicial ruling goes against them they either simply appeal until they win, or change the law, (e.g. the recent BAE systems Saudi bribes disgraceful carry-on).

[jethro]

Let's face it, this could continue for days going round in ever decreasing circles, some of us disagree with the verdict, others support it. I've said my bit, I'm happy to leave it at that.

Perhaps we should have a poll, anonymously agree or disagree with verdict - then we'd be able to judge whether or not the jury represent the man in the street, as represented by this small cross section of people.

Anyone know how to set one up?

[johnholmes]

sounds a good idea and then perhaps the rest of might read something constructive, pm a mod for help

[Thundery wintry showers]

Fully agree SB.

Freedom of speech is allowed in this country, vandalism is not; hunt saboteurs do and have been convicted for causing vandalism and criminal damage. Sanctioned vandalism, using idealism as justification, is a dangerous road to go down IMO. Law isn't and shouldn't be designed to sympathise with causes, it's purpose is to define what is legally allowed against that which isn't, it should apply to all equally.

...

One is right and allowed, the other isn't and should be punished? Why? Because you support their cause? The Law isn't about choosing which cause to support, it defines guidelines of behaviour which is acceptable and safe for the masses.

I don't agree with the argument as a whole, simply because 1. of the fact that many laws are shades of grey, as PTFD posted above, and 2. what's legal isn't always right and vice versa. Defining what's moral purely on the grounds of legality is a circular argument- it's wrong because it's against the law, and it's against the law because it's wrong.

However, I find it hard to justify this case morally either. There are plenty of alternative ways of protesting against a power station that don't involve causing £35,000 worth of vandalism damage, plus, it doesn't matter if the power station might cause over £35,000 worth of environmental damage, if the protest does nothing other than to create extra work and cost £35,000- time and money that could have been better invested in improving the efficiency of the generator for example.

Average cost of a tyre? £100 for arguments sake, does this mean I can legitimately go out and slash a few hundred of them and walk away scot free?? I'm not harming anyone, I'm merely preventing the cars being used thereby reduced carbon emissions and saving mankind and humanity. Can I expect a world renowned scientist to testify on my behalf? Presumably if I am filmed whilst committing the crime and have a placard on my back saying "fighting to save the world" then I'll be ok. Mmmm, now where's the nearest CCTV, can I rely on all your support?

I've often wondered whether any environmentalists have gone around slashing hundreds of car tyres as a means of "teaching those evil motorists a lesson" or protest or whatever (my "dynamite" example was a more extreme case!) I've heard about mass tyre-slashing going on before, but it was invariably associated with traditional vandals with no agenda other than to wreak havoc.

However these environmental cranks are extremists, they are not representative of how most climate scientists behind the IPCC behave. As I said earlier, the IPCC is primarily a literature review, and yes, it does reference some papers that downplay anthropogenic forcings on some factors.

[jethro]

As I said earlier, the IPCC is primarily a literature review, and yes, it does reference some papers that downplay anthropogenic forcings on some factors.

Didn't get back to you yesterday on that one, apologies. I had intended to but when I read through the thread prior to making a post it struck me we were all just covering old ground again, didn't see much point in perpetuating more circular debate. Some of us will never agree or see eye to eye on much of this subject, it's tedious for all of us participating in it, but I'm sure it's even more tedious for those reading. More and more, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

[SnowBear]

Poll set up, and active. :-)

Perhaps now all discussions should be put there regarding that case and this thread can get "back to normal"...whatever normal is :lol:

[SnowBear]

Wow, its gone like the House of Lords in here...we killed the thread? lol

[jethro]

I'll have a trawl around and see if I can find anything interesting to discuss then....

[Chris Knight]

I have never seen anything in print or elsewhere that suggests that water vapour is not a more effective GG than CO₂, the proposition as I understand it has always been that by changing the level of CO₂ and other GGs we are adding a climate forcing of n W/m2 this in turn will result in numerous feedbacks one of which is increased amounts of water vapour which will also cause a warming - a new equilibrium would then be reached at a temp greater than that which would be caused by the increase in CO₂ equivalent alone..

To suggest that the 'CO₂ school' now admit water vapour is a more effective GG is to suggest that at one point they didn't and that they have now come around to your way of thinking which isn't really the case as I understand it.

Water vapour level changes that are directly caused by us would of course be another forcing on the climate, I guess one difference being that CO₂ increases linger for around a 100 of years (I think) while water vapour emissions would persist for a much lesser time.

With well mixed increased levels of CO₂ in the drier upper regions of the troposphere, it looks like, in the absence of feedbacks (i.e. water vapour) that this is actually leading to increased radiation into space (since the statistical horizon is so much lower), thus cooling the upper atmosphere. Persistence is futile, to paraphrase the Borg.

GGs are a two edged sword.

Water vapour does not need to be persistent, it is constantly renewed near the surface of our water-rich planet, where it has the greatest effect.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Chris Knight

[trevw]

With well mixed increased levels of CO₂ in the drier upper regions of the troposphere, it looks like, in the absence of feedbacks (i.e. water vapour) that this is actually leading to increased radiation into space (since the statistical horizon is so much lower), thus cooling the upper atmosphere. Persistence is futile, to paraphrase the Borg.

I was under the impression the stratospheric cooling was due at least in part to reduced long wave radiation reaching it from the surface due to increased CO₂?

Water vapour does not need to be persistent, it is constantly renewed near the surface of our water-rich planet, where it has the greatest effect.

No argument there, I only meant that with water vapour level changes due to human activities other than emitting GGs If we rectify those changes (where possible) the correction to the water vapour level is very quick as opposed to with CO₂ where the elevated CO2 level lasts circa 100 years (unless CO₂ is scrubbed from the atmosphere and sequestered)

Edited September 12, 2008 by trevw

[Chris Knight]

I was under the impression the stratospheric cooling was due at least in part to reduced long wave radiation reaching it from the surface due to increased CO₂?

No argument there, I only meant that with water vapour level changes due to human activities other than emitting GGs If we rectify those changes (where possible) the correction to the water vapour level is very quick as opposed to with CO₂ where the elevated CO2 level lasts circa 100 years (unless CO₂ is scrubbed from the atmosphere and sequestered)

The stratosphere heats itself, through the absorption of UV, in line with the annual variation in solar irradiance without any contribution from the surface radiation:

The troposphere heats from the surface, out of phase with the TSI, since the bulk of heating comes from the northern continental land masses, during the northern summer, whereas the southern oceans absorb the bulk of southern summer solar radiation, and ocean currents move the captured heat around the globe.

Stratospheric cooling comes from a. LW radiation into space, b. reduction in TSI, for instance due to low solar activity in the UV., and c. Light dependent endothermic reactions in the stratospheric and mesospheric gases which break down ozone and nitrogen oxides as well as other rarer moieties. As carbon dioxide becomes increasingly concentrated in the upper troposphere and stratosphere, it will lead to greater cooling, by LW radiation loss.

Again, the greatest effect of GGs is within the first tens of metres above the surface, and the contribution by carbon dioxide in that zone by direct or second order effects is negligible compared to that of water, unless the air is very dry.

[Android]

So without greenhouse gases does the stratosphere not emit radiation into space? This is how I am seeing it..

[Chris Knight]

So without greenhouse gases does the stratosphere not emit radiation into space? This is how I am seeing it..

Non-GGs like O₂ and N₂ are both transparent to IR and visible light, and are non-radiative. If their kinetic energy is increased by heating the molecules move faster, have more energetic collisions, which is the only way they transfer energy. If the collision is with a GG molecule, then that may be able to radiate away the energy.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Chris Knight

[Android]

Non-GGs like O₂ and N₂ are both transparent to IR and visible light, and are non-radiative. If their kinetic energy is increased by heating the molecules move faster, have more energetic collisions, which is the only way they transfer energy. If the collision is with a GG molecule, then that may be able to radiate away the energy.

Thanks, so I guess in a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere the solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere would have to be passed down to the surface before it could be radiated into space? Doesn't seem anything wrong with that except it's not intuitive.

[Chris Knight]

Thanks, so I guess in a non-greenhouse gas atmosphere the solar energy absorbed in the atmosphere would have to be passed down to the surface before it could be radiated into space? Doesn't seem anything wrong with that except it's not intuitive.

Assuming a sun like ours, in an non-GG atmosphere, the surface would warm due to absorption of radiation of all wavelengths, and would act like a black body radiator, emitting longer wave radiation than the incoming visible light, in a spectrum dependent on the surface temperature. The atmosphere would warm in a thin skin near the heated surface, and the heat would be transferred through the atmosphere by increasing the kinetic energy of the gas, and depending on the surface topology, some convection would take place. Cooling would take place rapidly as the sun went down, but again only a thin skin of atmosphere would be available for cooling. The type of surface rock would be important to define the heating and cooling rates. Winds would occur the night/day and day/night terminator thermodynamic pressure ridges.

The next imponderable is the chemistry of the atmosphere, whether it would have a photothermochemical stratosphere, mesosphere & electrically heated thermosphere which may act as an energy input or as a sink for energy in the atmosphere.

The likely outcome is that the mean temperature would be somewhat higher than if no atmosphere existed at all, but with high temperatures on the sunward side, and much lower temperatures at night.

[shuggee]

Just finished watching episode 2 of Dr Iain Stewart's Earth: The Climate Wars

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

A fascinating insight into what's really happening with this debate and where the facts and evidence are at. Good to see solid science and balanced presentation giving an holistic view of the whole debate

[Gray-Wolf]

Just finished watching episode 2 of Dr Iain Stewart's Earth: The Climate Wars

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00djvq9

A fascinating insight into what's really happening with this debate and where the facts and evidence are at. Good to see solid science and balanced presentation giving an holistic view of the whole debate

My partner switched it on then we'd not miss MOTD2 and I too thought it was a good watch. Next weeks look into the 'forecasts' of the changes so I'm very interested to see that one now.

Funny how all the 'nay sayer/sceptic' issues have reared their heads on here and were presented as if they were new only for the prog to show where the notions came from and ,more importantly, why they do not hold water as theories ( the number of times we still have folk posting , and believing, the 'urban heat island skewing things' myth when it was apparently laid to rest in the mid 90's).

When the last IPCC report was published with a 90%+ surety that the changes where human generated I said that the debate as to our input must surely be over and the 'impacts' were the only area for debate. The main speaker at the sceptics conference (that was shown) seemed to agree.......shame some folk on here are so 'backwards' in accepting our part still......

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

GW

You believe what you believe...I'll think the other...and backward, well seems better than the 'forward' thinking IMO

BFTP

[Mondy]

http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html

[Mondy]

Nah, I ain't an American scientist ;-)

[Roo]

Nah, I ain't an American scientist ;-)

Col: you old so and so! I thought it was you! Well that's the last time I put up aurora pics online for you me old mukka! :o :lol:

Edited September 15, 2008 by Roo

[Mondy]

Pah!!!!

You can see I've calmed down in my old age.

*coughs"

:lol: