'Naysayers Guide to Global Warming.

[Devonian]

Yes (there you go, you have it) the climate is warming, gradually. It's hardly BIG TIME and to see people squeeling " If this continues, we're doomed", is bullDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of met, and i think even you will agree with that.

...

Mondy, my understanding of the science leads me to think serious anthro climate change by 2100 (say 2C+) is likely, indeed I think it could be up to 4C by then.

So, if my view of the science is 2-4C warming is likely by 2100 am I 'squealing bulls*it'?

[VillagePlank]

So, you have to dismiss many, many decades of science and the 90% likely conclusion . . . .

"Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong"

From Here

[Mondy]

Hi Monds; promise not to spoil. Just a quick question; whatever the cause, if it turns out that it continues to get warmer slightly for a few more years, do you think that there is an increase (real or projected) that would count as serious to you? 3C? 5C? More? You should know me well enough to know that this isn't a loaded question, it's genuine curiosity; what to you, personally, would count as 'dangerous' climate change? (And whatever your answer, it needn't depend on any argument about where the warnth/cold comes from).

Regards,

:)P

Hi P3. I'll answer your question honestly. Anything over 5C would make me jolt.

Devonian. You've used the word "likely". Being a sceptic, i take that as not cast-iron.

And, no you're not screaming bullDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of met. I'm able to see you're putting your POV across in a proper manner. The improper manner is when the media outlet,and you must agree, surely, start squeeling to a naive public, who inturn squeel louder.

So, with the amount of crap we dispose of into the environment, surely we are having an effect.

Read the cattle link recently put up on the sceptic link thread!

[Devonian]

"Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong"

From Here

Indeed, same applies to the Korean scientists, and the reversal of thought about ulcers. My conclusion? Bad science is pretty soon found out. AGW HAS stood the test of time. Indeed, as the years go by, and it gets warmer globally, I think, tbh, that my confidence in it increases, not that I find that a happy thought .

Edited February 26, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Thanks for your honest answer. Any particular timeframe for that 5C? Would 200 years bother you? (again, I'm not leading...)

:)P

[Mondy]

Thanks for your honest answer. Any particular timeframe for that 5C? Would 200 years bother you? (again, I'm not leading...)

:)P

Again, in truth, there are already projected timeframes for such a temp hike. And some of those projectures are considerably less than 200 years.

You realise i'm challenging the view of that, so would be naughty of me to give you a timescale, as i 'm not in the camp that believes such a temp increase will occur within the given scale. If a 5C temp increase were to occur in the next couple of years, even this sceptic would admit to being doomed! But it won't!

[Devonian]

Read the cattle link recently put up on the sceptic link thread!

But, it doesn't support the sceptic view

You disagree with any thought we might be having a serious effect and then post something accepting we have an effect, but that it includes cattle not just cars, as if it's some kind of vindication for your view? It's not, it's standard climate science. Cattle emit ghg emissions, so does agriculture as a whole. No one denies that, they're part of the problem...

[Mondy]

But, it doesn't support the sceptic view

You disagree with any thought we might be having a serious effect and then post something accepting we have an effect, but that it includes cattle not just cars, as if it's some kind of vindication for your view? It's not, it's standard climate science. Cattle emit ghg emissions, so does agriculture as a whole. No one denies that, they're part of the problem...

The "tut,tut" part after the link indicated i was p!sstaking. I do however know a few people outside this forum who own cattle and staunchly believe in GW. I also know they read threads like this! I should've made that clearer on the pinned thread, but now you've flagged it, at least you know why. I'll add a smilie after it, so you definetly know!

Edited February 26, 2007 by Mondy

[Devonian]

Again, in truth, there are already projected timeframes for such a temp hike. And some of those projectures are considerably less than 200 years.

You realise i'm challenging the view of that, so would be naughty of me to give you a timescale, as i 'm not in the camp that believes such a temp increase will occur within the given scale. If a 5C temp increase were to occur in the next couple of years, even this sceptic would admit to being doomed! But it won't!

Nice strawman, no, it's a classic strawman B) . I honestly can't think of anyone who's ever claimed it's going to warm by 5C in the next couple of years

[Admiral_Bobski]

I find it intriguing that people take the view that methane emissions from cattle constitute man-made greenhouse gases. The argument is that cattle are bred for agriculture, therefore they are part of man's "unnatural cycle". (I'm sure most people have read the articles in newspapers where certain parties are talking about changing cattle feed to limit emissions - crazy! Why not just use a cork?!)

How is it that cattle are somehow different from any other animal on the face of the planet. Before the industrial Revolution in America there were herds of Buffalo that roamed the prairies, and each herd numbered in the thousands - I guarantee that they made a lot of methane! The Buffalo were wild - nobody bred them, no human herded them, yet there they were, creating methane all the while. Now we have cows and sheep and pigs which we do breed and herd, and they create methane. But now that methane's our fault?

I think Mondy's point (forgive me, or correct me, if I'm putting words into your mouth, Mondy) is that no matter what humans do, we always seem to get the blame. Condemning some human activities is fair enough (even noble) I suppose, but condemning all human activities is a tad over-the top!

Weird!

B)

C-Bob

[Devonian]

I find it intriguing that people take the view that methane emissions from cattle constitute man-made greenhouse gases. The argument is that cattle are bred for agriculture, therefore they are part of man's "unnatural cycle". (I'm sure most people have read the articles in newspapers where certain parties are talking about changing cattle feed to limit emissions - crazy! Why not just use a cork?!)

How is it that cattle are somehow different from any other animal on the face of the planet. Before the industrial Revolution in America there were herds of Buffalo that roamed the prairies, and each herd numbered in the thousands - I guarantee that they made a lot of methane! The Buffalo were wild - nobody bred them, no human herded them, yet there they were, creating methane all the while. Now we have cows and sheep and pigs which we do breed and herd, and they create methane. But now that methane's our fault?

I think Mondy's point (forgive me, or correct me, if I'm putting words into your mouth, Mondy) is that no matter what humans do, we always seem to get the blame. Condemning some human activities is fair enough (even noble) I suppose, but condemning all human activities is a tad over-the top!

Weird!

B)

C-Bob

Erm, yes, I agree if the amount of 'cattle' is the same then one would expect the same amount of emissions. But, there are an awful lot of us, eating an awful lot of meat, produced with the aid of a lot of fossil fuel (as fuel or as used to produce fertiliser which take astonshing amounts of energy i think?). I don't think it can be simply dismissed.

[VillagePlank]

Erm, yes, I agree if the amount of 'cattle' is the same then one would expect the same amount of emissions. But, there are an awful lot of us, eating an awful lot of meat, produced with the aid of a lot of fossil fuel (as fuel or as used to produce fertiliser which take astonshing amounts of energy i think?). I don't think it can be simply dismissed.

Well that'll be easy then. Estimate cattle counts now, and 400 years ago. Then compare.

(A similar argument is, of course, that before we turned up vast tracts of forest used to burn quite naturally. These days, we put the fires out - I wonder what the carbon equivalent is/was?)

Edited February 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Mondy]

Nice strawman, no, it's a classic strawman . I honestly can't think of anyone who's ever claimed it's going to warm by 5C in the next couple of years

Devonian, mate. To quote a well known political party,"Let's get back to basics", on this thread.

It's so tempting again to just pull out altogether from these debates. I'm finding it difficult to do that, however. It's equally ruining the fun i have on here.

The thread was started primarily, infact exclusively for sceptics to have a looksie and add their tuppenceworth. Like SF said yesterday - he afforded himself a wry smile or something - not many sceptics have come forward. That i dunno why (?). I'm finding it a little strange too, considering many on the model/general weather threads have opposing views to your goodself, SF and the like. My main thinking is that they are afraid to for fear of being ridiculed or belittled. Let's face it, it happens on many a thread, with many the same "players" involved. It's not difficult to spot.

Anyway, we're now on page 6 here and if i were to be a pedant, how many of the posts have been off-topic to the original starter post, which if you remember correctly was aimed at fellow sceptics simply because there were so many more pro-GW threads still open for debate, and when a sceptic such as myself stuck his oar in, i was politetly told go boil your head.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Erm, yes, I agree if the amount of 'cattle' is the same then one would expect the same amount of emissions. But, there are an awful lot of us, eating an awful lot of meat, produced with the aid of a lot of fossil fuel (as fuel or as used to produce fertiliser which take astonshing amounts of energy i think?). I don't think it can be simply dismissed.

And yet there's nothing like the same degree of backlash over farming of vegetables, which similarly need fertiliser, plus pesticides, and all the tilling, sowing and harvesting tends to be done by machine, the veggies are packed in factories and shipped out by truck...and so on and so on...

But cows...well, cows emit methane, too!

It's a bit of a biased argument, really.

C-Bob

PS - I don't suppose anyone knows where to find historic cattle numbers, do they? It could be interesting to check. I've already had the "Forest Fire" debate on another thread a couple of months ago, VP The results of the debate were inconclusive (to me, at any rate!).

EDIT - Mondy, I didn't post in this thread at first because I guess I'm more of a "counter-argument" kind of guy. If I read something pro-AGW which I disagree with then I make a comment, and sometimes end up debating. I just wasn't sure what to contribute to this thread

Edited February 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Devonian, mate. To quote a well known political party,"Let's get back to basics", on this thread.

It's so tempting again to just pull out altogether from these debates. I'm finding it difficult to do that, however. It's equally ruining the fun i have on here.

The thread was started primarily, infact exclusively for sceptics to have a looksie and add their tuppenceworth. Like SF said yesterday - he afforded himself a wry smile or something - not many sceptics have come forward. That i dunno why (?). I'm finding it a little strange too, considering many on the model/general weather threads have opposing views to your goodself, SF and the like. My main thinking is that they are afraid to for fear of being ridiculed or belittled. Let's face it, it happens on many a thread, with many the same "players" involved. It's not difficult to spot.

Anyway, we're now on page 6 here and if i were to be a pedant, how many of the posts have been off-topic to the original starter post, which if you remember correctly was aimed at fellow sceptics simply because there were so many more pro-GW threads still open for debate, and when a sceptic such as myself stuck his oar in, i was politetly told go boil your head.

That's a tad unfair. You've now got you own dedicated pinned thread. I wont be posting to it.

[Essan]

Well that'll be easy then. Estimate cattle counts now, and 400 years ago. Then compare.

One has to compare all animals, not just domestic ones - how many cattle equal to one elephant. Or indeed to one wild auroch or even to a dodo?

(A similar argument is, of course, that before we turned up vast tracts of forest used to burn quite naturally. These days, we put the fires out - I wonder what the carbon equivalent is/was?)

I suspect the area burned in the past 20 years is similar to what would normally be expected to burn in 500 or more years. And of course, today the forests don't get a chance to grow back as they used to.

Remember, Indonesia contributes 10% of all anthropogenic carbon emissions - and it's ain't from cars or power stations ....

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Hi P3. I'll answer your question honestly. Anything over 5C would make me jolt.

Devonian. You've used the word "likely". Being a sceptic, i take that as not cast-iron.

And, no you're not screaming bullsh!t. I'm able to see you're putting your POV across in a proper manner. The improper manner is when the media outlet,and you must agree, surely, start squeeling to a naive public, who inturn squeel louder.

Why are the public naive? What's naive about thinking about measures to stop something which could be harmful, which if found to be unnecessary are ultimately inconsequential?

[Devonian]

One has to compare all animals, not just domestic ones - how many cattle equal to one elephant. Or indeed to one wild auroch or even to a dodo?

Thinking about it, I wonder if you also need to include the seas, 70% and all that. Major changes to fauna going on there atm due to us.

[Essan]

Thinking about it, I wonder if you also need to include the seas, 70% and all that. Major changes to fauna going on there atm due to us.

Good point! Is there more or less plankton these days? And do fish produce methane? How many cod to a sheep?

[VillagePlank]

Thinking about it, I wonder if you also need to include the seas, 70% and all that. Major changes to fauna going on there atm due to us.

[edit]self-edited; for use at a later date[/edit]

Edited February 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[parmenides3]

Cows use about six time the resources per calorie as a foodstuff than vegetables. Pigs are less of a problem, sheep and goats even less still. There is a direct connection between changes in global eating habits (esp. the consumption of beef) and land use changes, water management problems, and agricultural methane production.

Rice is a much more calorifically efficient resource, but paddies consume a lot of water and also, through rotting matter, methane, but on the other hand absorb some CO2.

There is abundant evidence of increased phytoplankton production in the oceans, but problems relating to other matter, such as algal blooms, and higher order stock (crustaceans, fish), but the research on this is a bit thinner on the ground.

Forest clearance is a major contributor to greenhouse gases, as Andy pointed out.

And guess what; all of this is well researched, monitored, and taken into account in climate modelling and, more particularly, environmental monitoring. Also, note, I did do the research on this a while back, but I'd have to start all over again to find the links.

A worldwide reevaluation of diet wouldn't do any harm, but there is a direct relation between demand for beef and GDP (does this sound familiar?); the richer we get, the more we consume. It's as likely to be changed as the increasing consumption of fossil fuels.

There is a huge document about all of this somewhere; if I can find it, I'll link to it.

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

...

I think we're stepping blind fold into a road. A road we have a good picture of.

...

I wouldn't say we're stepping blindfold; it's more akin, perhaps, to crossing a moderately busy motorway on a foggy day. Some of us hear a noise which might be a distant tractor or an overhead plane, but might also be a car, and suggest caution crossing the road. Others are taking the view that simply because it cannot be seen there can be no car, even if there are possible indicators (distant and growing noise), lots of other things might also be causing that; therefore, cross with impunity.

Again, in truth, there are already projected timeframes for such a temp hike. And some of those projectures are considerably less than 200 years.

You realise i'm challenging the view of that, so would be naughty of me to give you a timescale, as i 'm not in the camp that believes such a temp increase will occur within the given scale. If a 5C temp increase were to occur in the next couple of years, even this sceptic would admit to being doomed! But it won't!

Out of interest Mondy, say we reached a point where pretty much the entire scientific community agreed that man was a factor in global warming, would you then change your mind or would you continue to hold out?

[HighPressure]

I make this point in answer to some above who seem to suggest that a sceptic has to provide an alternative scientific argument. This is not true of any sceptic in any argument, the onus is on them that believe to convince by their arguments those that do not or those who believe as I do in something in the middle. It is for those who seek changes in the behaviour of the many to place and win their argument for it is them that wish to alter the status quo.

Whether those who whole hearted believe in every word of the IPCC report think I or people like me are total idiots is irrelevant as there are enough desenters to make their voices important, simply you cannot do it without us. No amount of challeging or banging fists on tables is going to make that any different, you will have to go back and come up with better arguments won't you?

[Mondy]

Out of interest Mondy, say we reached a point where pretty much the entire scientific community agreed that man was a factor in global warming, would you then change your mind or would you continue to hold out?

To be brief.

Continue to hold out. Science is not the be all or end all. Mother Nature is, IMHO, and fine well you know my opinion.

But, i am getting your question; riseable or not.

[Stratos Ferric]

SF. You don't take issue with some of my arguments. You take issue with all of them. Equally, you don't find fault with some contents, you find fault with every sceptical content.

...

There is no reason to make me look as stupid as you think i am. Yes (there you go, you have it) the climate is warming, gradually. It's hardly BIG TIME and to see people squeeling " If this continues, we're doomed", is bullDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of met, and i think even you will agree with that.

This is where we differ hugely. What is the cause of the slight warming? You, being a firm believer of all things GW are not inclined to my way of thinking with the Mother Nature cycle,of which i've posted plenty about before.

That's it in a nutshell.

Anything different and it might now be construed as being personal.

Bit harsh Mondy, on both you and I, and as ever a twist of the facts. Did I pull up all nine of your points on Sunday (read this with a jaunty, jocular, and warm tone of voice if you will)?

Also, I don't think you're stupid, and if at all then certainly not as stupid as you think I do. I may think you're pigheaded and closed-minded, but that's not the sae as being stupid.

I firmly believe in GW because, fact, we are warming. It's impossible to look at a plot of global temperature and say anything else unless you're looking through a curvy mirror. There is hardly a sane person out there who denies we're warming. And of those many, there are very few who attribute all the warming to man.

I have stated time and over why I am no longer inclined to the natural warming view, there are just too many coincident factors to suggest unusual warming and a degree of man induced forcing. We are now outside reliably measured limits and seem to warming at a rapid pace at present. I have occasionally remarked that we are probably still just about at a point where it might be entirley natural, but with each passing year that, statistically, becomes a less and less tenable position to take.

To be brief.

Continue to hold out. Science is not the be all or end all. Mother Nature is, IMHO, and fine well you know my opinion.

But, i am getting your question; riseable or not.

I'm not sure it's a risable question, more a philosophical point for you to ponder.

Say you entered a town in which there were only two people, one of whom was known for always answering a question the same way, whatever the evidence to the contrary, and one that did not. If you wanted a considered opinion on a subject which one would you ask?