A growing groundswell of opinion?

[Gray-Wolf]

In a world that has been here for billions of years, you'll excuse me for thinking the last 20 years are fairly insignificant.

When someone can prove this hasn't always happened I'll take more notice. Til then I'll take everything under advisement.

The whole point of discussing 'is it,isn't it' are the impacts on humanity and I can post as much proof as you need that there has never been 6.5 Billion folk trying to live within our changing environment ever before.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The only reason there are 6.5bn people on the earth is because of the various increases in technology. The by product of that is increased emissions of gases that occur in the most part, naturally.

In 20 years time the population will be 9bn. These people need feeding, housing, jobs. The by product... yup. It was always going to happen. That doesn't prove its affecting global warming. All the trends show is that it is warming, not WHY its warming. I thought that was the point?

[Bobby]

The only reason there are 6.5bn people on the earth is because of the various increases in technology. The by product of that is increased emissions of gases that occur in the most part, naturally.

In 20 years time the population will be 9bn. These people need feeding, housing, jobs. The by product... yup. It was always going to happen. That doesn't prove its affecting global warming. All the trends show is that it is warming, not WHY its warming. I thought that was the point?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - we are emitting billions of tonnes of it every year - 150 times more each year than all the world's volcanoes combined. I think we have emitted over a trillion tonnes since the industrial revolution. We are also producing large amounts of methane - a much more potent greenhouse gas, as well as other greenhouse gases such as CFC's, HCFC's and freon.

All that CO2 was slowly stored over a period of hundreds of millions of years by the Earth. Now we are burning that huge store that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate in a matter of decades. The warming we are seeing nicely correlates with the increases in greenhouse gases we have emitted, as well as concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. How could a trillion tonnes of CO2 leading to a concentration of 383ppm - by far the highest concentration for at least 400,000 years not have a warming effect?

We pump out CO2, the concentrations in the atmosphere increase as a result and increased amounts of this greenhouse gas lead to warming of the Earth's atmosphere. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

401,000 years ago how many planes, cars and factories were there?

Just because they are occuring at the same time, doesn't make them mutually dependant. I believe there is no definitive proof? Which is why im suggesting that people are less than convinced.

This is afteral the purpose of this thread, not if there is human assisted GW but why people might not believe there is.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Dartmoor_Matt

[Bobby]

401,000 years ago how many planes, cars and factories were there?

Just because they are occuring at the same time, doesn't make them mutually dependant. I believe there is no definitive proof? Which is why im suggesting that people are less than convinced.

This is afteral the purpose of this thread, not if there is human assisted GW but why people might not believe there is.

Nobody denies that there were natural cycles in the past but what is happening now isn't natural.

You are right that there is no definitive proof, but as I said earlier there is no definitive proof as such in the theory of gravity, relativity and even evolution. Doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them. All have huge amounts of evidence supporting them and all are widely accepted by scientists. My opinion is that there are 3 main reasons people don't believe in AGW: not understanding the subject, scepticism at the government, media etc and plain emotional reasons.

[laserguy]

You may, of course, be wrong. At the very least, unless you are going to argue that we aren't warming, then suggesting that "it's ALL to do..." is stretching plausibility.

I MAY be wrong,but very,very much doubt it. The possibility that the Earth may be experiencing one of it's cyclic bouts of warming is entirely coincidental and is a wonderfully convenient mac to hang all the world's present and looming troubles onto. Bring down CO2 emissions and you simultaneously bring down resource consumption. Bring down the human population (which surely is at breaking point ) and CO2 emissions go down with it along with resource consumption. Rocket science it ain't. In a Utopian world of infinite energy supplies Governments would welcome any warming going on! 'Climate change' and all the contrived claptrap that surrounds it is the facade presented by governments to the public,behind which is a Pandora's Box of delights too numerous and ghastly to contemplate. Joe Public has enough on his plate with the thought of future UK hurricanes,droughts amid sustained 40C heat,cities inundated with seawater etc. All conjecture,and all exclusively focussed on the negatives of a warmer world,never the positives. Scare tactics which,like a particularly cheap horror film,leave you waiting for the horrific climax which never comes but just fizzles away.

As the relentless rise in poulation goes on and the resources dwindle at a corresponding rate,compounded by the arrogant,hypocritical extravagance of the massed hordes living it up in Bali,the twin evils of unsustainable population with too little of everything to go around will blow 'climate change' out of the water for good. I was going to ask "why don't they just tell us the truth"?,but I answered that question myself earlier: it's too much to take in and 'climate change' is the friendly face of what's going on,neatly condensed into one managable package.Whatever happens,as long as the great and the good (and naturally that includes our wonderful philanthropic politicians ) see something coming they'll be alright,as always. As for you and me,well who knows? Isn't the world supposed to be ending in 2012?! (At the time of writing,that's intended as a slightly jokey sign off,but you never know )...

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Granted. 3 good reasons, but again I think it comes down to the proof issue.

There are very plausible reasons why people might believe or not believe in the other theories you mentioned. Not floating off into space, religion and not understanding. But thats off topic.

It could well be natural... we are afteral still coming out of an ice age. (some might say about to enter one but thats a whole different kettle of fish). The only sure way to make people believe is when they stand in central london and get their feet wet.

It doesn't help matters when certain BBC weather people say things such as "At least its mild" - They should say "but its far too mild for this time of year" begin to change mindsets at the base level and the rest will eventually follow. Until people are shown that leaving a light on, or turning the heating up has a direct impact on the world at large they aren't likely to be too bothered.

[Bobby]

Thing is, we'll never prove AGW beyond doubt. How could we? It could be a mircalous coincidence that CO2 levels rose to hit the highest levels for 400,000 years min just as we became indusrialised, that temperatures are warming at unheard of rates. Unlikely, but a possibility I suppose.

If we wait for complete undeniable proof to believe in it, then we'll never believe in it because no such proof will ever come. Virtually all life on Earth is dependent on our atmosphere being stable and just right for us - a little bit warmer and a little bit colder and we could become extinct. It's "just right" for us right now. We don't know what we're playing with. I was unsure of the severity of the negative impacts of climate change but I have become more negatively lately. Atlanta in the US could be out of drinking in water in 2 months due to drought. Australia has had one of the worst droughts in its history cutting its harvest by a good 3/4. Food prices are exploding like never seen before, world grain stocks are at 30+ year lows and it's not even started yet.

[HighPressure]

In a nutshell I believe that political interference and intervention in almost any subject including GW hinders unbiased scientific research. Independent research and findings outside that of the IPCC is not taken seriously.

[jethro]

Nobody denies that there were natural cycles in the past but what is happening now isn't natural.

You are right that there is no definitive proof, but as I said earlier there is no definitive proof as such in the theory of gravity, relativity and even evolution. Doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in them. All have huge amounts of evidence supporting them and all are widely accepted by scientists. My opinion is that there are 3 main reasons people don't believe in AGW: not understanding the subject, scepticism at the government, media etc and plain emotional reasons.

Please explain how you have established, catagorically that what we are experiencing now, isn't natural. Please, also explain why natural cycles are now consigned to history and no longer happening.

As for believing; you may have identified three reasons, but I do understand the subject, have no illusions or axe to grind with governments nor do I have any emotional feelings other than incredulity. I personally don't buy into this wholesale because the whole thing has more holes in it than a teabag.

[The Penguin]

After attending six climate change / environmental awareness conferences in the past two months, aimed at the construction industry, I have to admit that I'm warming (sorry) to the idea that AGW is, just possibly, a valid factor in the debate. However, what I'm absolutely positive about is that there are a plethora of individuals and organisations out there making a mint out of the whole issue, and I have a growing suspicion that this is becoming just another industry to some.

[Bobby]

Please explain how you have established, catagorically that what we are experiencing now, isn't natural. Please, also explain why natural cycles are now consigned to history and no longer happening.

As for believing; you may have identified three reasons, but I do understand the subject, have no illusions or axe to grind with governments nor do I have any emotional feelings other than incredulity. I personally don't buy into this wholesale because the whole thing has more holes in it than a teabag.

Just look at the wealth of research out there. The IPCC report is a good place to start. From a post earlier:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - we are emitting billions of tonnes of it every year - 150 times more each year than all the world's volcanoes combined. I think we have emitted over a trillion tonnes since the industrial revolution. We are also producing large amounts of methane - a much more potent greenhouse gas, as well as other greenhouse gases such as CFC's, HCFC's and freon.

All that CO2 was slowly stored over a period of hundreds of millions of years by the Earth. Now we are burning that huge store that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate in a matter of decades. The warming we are seeing nicely correlates with the increases in greenhouse gases we have emitted, as well as concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. How could a trillion tonnes of CO2 leading to a concentration of 383ppm - by far the highest concentration for at least 400,000 years not have a warming effect?

We pump out CO2, the concentrations in the atmosphere increase as a result and increased amounts of this greenhouse gas lead to warming of the Earth's atmosphere. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

..

And another strawman... when did I say natural cycles don't happen anymore? Of course they do. They have happened in the past and they will happen in the future.

What holes are there?

[jethro]

Just look at the wealth of research out there. The IPCC report is a good place to start. From a post earlier:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - we are emitting billions of tonnes of it every year - 150 times more each year than all the world's volcanoes combined. I think we have emitted over a trillion tonnes since the industrial revolution. We are also producing large amounts of methane - a much more potent greenhouse gas, as well as other greenhouse gases such as CFC's, HCFC's and freon.

All that CO2 was slowly stored over a period of hundreds of millions of years by the Earth. Now we are burning that huge store that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate in a matter of decades. The warming we are seeing nicely correlates with the increases in greenhouse gases we have emitted, as well as concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. How could a trillion tonnes of CO2 leading to a concentration of 383ppm - by far the highest concentration for at least 400,000 years not have a warming effect?

We pump out CO2, the concentrations in the atmosphere increase as a result and increased amounts of this greenhouse gas lead to warming of the Earth's atmosphere. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

..

And another strawman... when did I say natural cycles don't happen anymore? Of course they do. They have happened in the past and they will happen in the future.

What holes are there?

Haven't got time today, off to Wembley for a Manson gig. Very, very briefly, the only straw man you'll likely see me with is a dolly from the local fete. Holes: oodles, again time is too little today. Straight forward it most definately isn't, far from it, oh and causation and correlation. And the big chestnut of which leads Co2 or temperature increases?

Gotta go, the world of strange gothness beckons.....

[Stratos Ferric]

Just look at the wealth of research out there. The IPCC report is a good place to start. From a post earlier:

CO2 is a greenhouse gas - we are emitting billions of tonnes of it every year - 150 times more each year than all the world's volcanoes combined. I think we have emitted over a trillion tonnes since the industrial revolution. We are also producing large amounts of methane - a much more potent greenhouse gas, as well as other greenhouse gases such as CFC's, HCFC's and freon.

All that CO2 was slowly stored over a period of hundreds of millions of years by the Earth. Now we are burning that huge store that took hundreds of millions of years to accumulate in a matter of decades. The warming we are seeing nicely correlates with the increases in greenhouse gases we have emitted, as well as concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. How could a trillion tonnes of CO2 leading to a concentration of 383ppm - by far the highest concentration for at least 400,000 years not have a warming effect?

We pump out CO2, the concentrations in the atmosphere increase as a result and increased amounts of this greenhouse gas lead to warming of the Earth's atmosphere. Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

..

And another strawman... when did I say natural cycles don't happen anymore? Of course they do. They have happened in the past and they will happen in the future.

What holes are there?

Magpie,

there are people on earth today still arguing that the world is flat. There is another thread on N-W with people arguing rather passionately about the falsification of Apollo moon landings. My dear old auntie used to watch the replays of show jumping when fences were knocked down, and witter away with a smile "there it goes again, they're making the horse jump again, and it's still knocked the fence over". I remember aged eight arguing with my teacher that my mum really was 21, and all my classmates laughing at me.

Awareness cones to people at different rates, and for some the sun never rises at all.

Jethro may be right, but as Os is inclined to observe, it would be remarkable indeed if someone on N-W had spotted something that the vast majority of scientists have not.

The CO2 cause-effect argument is one of the ports of last call often recycled. Let me offer a medical analogy. Say I have a history of getting a headache, then soon after a rash. I infer the two are related cause and effect. Years pass and I eat something unusual and get a rash and a headache. I go see the doctor and he prescribes the treatment that has always previously worked, only this time it doesn't.

The huge failing on the part of those who always look backwards at istory and argue 'natural cycle' and 'whcih comes first' is the HUGE assumption that there is ONLY ONE way of producing an effect. It is quite possible that previous warming caused a release of CO2, that would then have a positive feedback. However, if that feedback is accepted then it must also be accepted that man made CO2 will have the same effect, and further, but separately, that in any case there is no immutable law that says CO2 MUST follow warming. The simple fact is that hitherto nature has had no way of unleashing GG in vast quantities, save for rampant vulcanism (which could also work to cause excess dimming).

Looking back to a geological past when man was still crawling around on all fours may offer some insight, but it may not.

After attending six climate change / environmental awareness conferences in the past two months, aimed at the construction industry, I have to admit that I'm warming (sorry) to the idea that AGW is, just possibly, a valid factor in the debate. However, what I'm absolutely positive about is that there are a plethora of individuals and organisations out there making a mint out of the whole issue, and I have a growing suspicion that this is becoming just another industry to some.

Of course it will and is. But so is the production of life saving medicines, and of cars that save occupants in crashes, and of genetically modified and enhanced foodstuffs. The insidious creep of commerce should do nothing to dilute the issue, and in any case, Governments alone cannot fund the solutions required to stave off the impacts of worst case scenarios.

[HighPressure]

Of course it will and is. But so is the production of life saving medicines, and of cars that save occupants in crashes, and of genetically modified and enhanced foodstuffs. The insidious creep of commerce should do nothing to dilute the issue, and in any case, Governments alone cannot fund the solutions required to stave off the impacts of worst case scenarios.

Yes SF but my problem is simply that I do not believe that governments or industries do anything to prejudice their short term prospects by looking after the long term. I am convinced that the whole AGW movement is doing nothing more then expecting a money lender to deliver a debt free future. I will for the sake of argument accept AGW 100% no argument so now I am looking for a fix, and I don't see it being delivered by the routes suggested, industry is obsessed with short term money and governments with their short term skins. I still remain a sceptic on the delivery of a solution and now find myself in the hands of untrustworthy bodies to deliver me accurate information on Climate change. I am afraid like many people I just don't buy it! Now I know you are going to say it does not change the science and you are right but by gum does it muddy the waters.

Edited December 6, 2007 by HighPressure

[jethro]

Magpie,

there are people on earth today still arguing that the world is flat. There is another thread on N-W with people arguing rather passionately about the falsification of Apollo moon landings. My dear old auntie used to watch the replays of show jumping when fences were knocked down, and witter away with a smile "there it goes again, they're making the horse jump again, and it's still knocked the fence over". I remember aged eight arguing with my teacher that my mum really was 21, and all my classmates laughing at me.

Awareness cones to people at different rates, and for some the sun never rises at all.

Jethro may be right, but as Os is inclined to observe, it would be remarkable indeed if someone on N-W had spotted something that the vast majority of scientists have not.

The CO2 cause-effect argument is one of the ports of last call often recycled. Let me offer a medical analogy. Say I have a history of getting a headache, then soon after a rash. I infer the two are related cause and effect. Years pass and I eat something unusual and get a rash and a headache. I go see the doctor and he prescribes the treatment that has always previously worked, only this time it doesn't.

The huge failing on the part of those who always look backwards at istory and argue 'natural cycle' and 'whcih comes first' is the HUGE assumption that there is ONLY ONE way of producing an effect. It is quite possible that previous warming caused a release of CO2, that would then have a positive feedback. However, if that feedback is accepted then it must also be accepted that man made CO2 will have the same effect, and further, but separately, that in any case there is no immutable law that says CO2 MUST follow warming. The simple fact is that hitherto nature has had no way of unleashing GG in vast quantities, save for rampant vulcanism (which could also work to cause excess dimming).

Looking back to a geological past when man was still crawling around on all fours may offer some insight, but it may not.

Of course it will and is. But so is the production of life saving medicines, and of cars that save occupants in crashes, and of genetically modified and enhanced foodstuffs. The insidious creep of commerce should do nothing to dilute the issue, and in any case, Governments alone cannot fund the solutions required to stave off the impacts of worst case scenarios.

The Co2 cause/effect argument isn't a last port of call, it is one fundamental, oft re-visited, because no one has answered or solved the puzzle. This entire theory exists because the recent rise in global temps has coincided with increased Co2 emissions from man; now that's a HUGE assumption if ever I saw one.

[Bobby]

The Co2 cause/effect argument isn't a last port of call, it is one fundamental, oft re-visited, because no one has answered or solved the puzzle. This entire theory exists because the recent rise in global temps has coincided with increased Co2 emissions from man; now that's a HUGE assumption if ever I saw one.

Its a moot argument because everyone agrees CO2 has a warming affect and if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then the atmosphere is going to warm, which is what we've seen.

How is it a huge assumption to say rising CO2 levels have a warming effect on the atmosphere? Which is what we're saying...

[jethro]

Its a moot argument because everyone agrees CO2 has a warming affect and if there is more CO2 in the atmosphere then the atmosphere is going to warm, which is what we've seen.

How is it a huge assumption to say rising CO2 levels have a warming effect on the atmosphere? Which is what we're saying...

The assumption is that Co2 leads temperature increases. Empirical evidence and historical records show this not to be true. There are time lags of indeterminate length, the estimates vary wildly but none of them are rapid. I'm not saying we haven't increased Co2 levels, nor am I saying it will have no effect, but theoretically (based on the IPCC accepted version) any effects felt by those increases, are quite a long way in the future. Currently, if temperature increases are linked to increased Co2 emissions then those emissions must have occured prior to the rapid industrialisation period. You also have to consider the nature of increased Co2; in simplistic terms the first, say for arguments sake, 100ppm have a far greater impact than the next 400ppm so the correlation graphs showing a steady increase in temps, in-line with increased emissions, don't make sense. It just doesn't work like that.

[Bobby]

The assumption is that Co2 leads temperature increases. Empirical evidence and historical records show this not to be true. There are time lags of indeterminate length, the estimates vary wildly but none of them are rapid. I'm not saying we haven't increased Co2 levels, nor am I saying it will have no effect, but theoretically (based on the IPCC accepted version) any effects felt by those increases, are quite a long way in the future. Currently, if temperature increases are linked to increased Co2 emissions then those emissions must have occured prior to the rapid industrialisation period. You also have to consider the nature of increased Co2; in simplistic terms the first, say for arguments sake, 100ppm have a far greater impact than the next 400ppm so the correlation graphs showing a steady increase in temps, in-line with increased emissions, don't make sense. It just doesn't work like that.

But we are increasing CO2 concentrations with our emissions and more CO2 means warming due to increased greenhouse effect, thus we are warming the planet. CO2 may well have followed temperature increases in the past, but that's the past when it was natural with no human factor. There weren't creatures emitting a trillion+ tonnes of CO2 in a few ddecades. I really don't understand the argument at all. How is this somehow evidence against AGW?

[Gray-Wolf]

Jethro, you know full well that there is always a delay from effect until impact. None more so than when our loverly planet fights to keep the status quo (otherwise each 'cyclical event' would have had a much greater impact than records show).

Past temp hikes have to be of a size that our methods can recognise, be it the change of coccoliths from one 'temp variety' to another or a change in fauna/flora and each of these 'events' takes time to establish.We may be able to pin-point changes in atmospheric composition to within years but our techniques for gauging planetary temp responses are far more 'clumbsy'.

The other point about 'time lag' are the immense exchanges in energy absorbed/release when substances move from one 'state' to another we all know the impacts when water in an airmass condenses out into droplets and the change in lapse rates when this occurs. Increased Co2 doesn't show it's global impacts like turning on a light, more like turning on a low energy light!

[Admiral_Bobski]

But we are increasing CO2 concentrations with our emissions and more CO2 means warming due to increased greenhouse effect, thus we are warming the planet. CO2 may well have followed temperature increases in the past, but that's the past when it was natural with no human factor. There weren't creatures emitting a trillion+ tonnes of CO2 in a few ddecades. I really don't understand the argument at all. How is this somehow evidence against AGW?

Though we've been through this whole argument before, I shall lay it out one more time while it still seems relevant to the current discussion:

1... We see in the historic record that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases.

We see, therefore, that temperature increase causes CO2 to increase.

2... We know from laboratory experiments that CO2 increases cause temperature increases.

Our current theory proposes that a doubling of CO2 will cause x amount of warming.

3... We know there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature

(the higher the amount of CO2, the less of a warming effect it has)

4... The historic record should show evidence of some sort of "swapover"

(the point at which CO2 is high enough to start forcing temperatures - a positive feedback)

The historic record shows no such effect.

So this leaves us with the conclusion that although there is quite clearly a two-way effect (temp increases lead to CO2 increases and vice versa), the concentrations we are talking about are not enough, in the real world, to have a significant effect.

:lol:

CB

Edited December 6, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Hiya]

3... We know there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature

(the higher the amount of CO2, the less of a warming effect it has)

Very, interesting, have you got a reference to that?

[Devonian]

Though we've been through this whole argument before, I shall lay it out one more time while it still seems relevant to the current discussion:

1... We see in the historic record that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases.

Yes, well, in the past CO2 increase was a feedback effect of a warming.

We see, therefore, that temperature increase causes CO2 to increase.

So, by that logic the Co2 rise atm is cause by a temperature rise and the vast amounts of Co2 humanity is adding to the atmosphere an amazing coincidence? No, you don't mean that?

My question is this. Does the way in which CO2 reaches the atmosphere change it's properties as a ghg?

[jethro]

Though we've been through this whole argument before, I shall lay it out one more time while it still seems relevant to the current discussion:

1... We see in the historic record that temperature increases preceded CO2 increases.

We see, therefore, that temperature increase causes CO2 to increase.

2... We know from laboratory experiments that CO2 increases cause temperature increases.

Our current theory proposes that a doubling of CO2 will cause x amount of warming.

3... We know there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature

(the higher the amount of CO2, the less of a warming effect it has)

4... The historic record should show evidence of some sort of "swapover"

(the point at which CO2 is high enough to start forcing temperatures - a positive feedback)

The historic record shows no such effect.

So this leaves us with the conclusion that although there is quite clearly a two-way effect (temp increases lead to CO2 increases and vice versa), the concentrations we are talking about are not enough, in the real world, to have a significant effect.

:lol:

CB

Precisely. The whole AGW theory hangs on this thread and yet still, despite the greatest minds in climatology being involved, the attentions of the worlds' scientific community being focussed on climate change and impossibly large sums of money being spent; no one, not one, has answered this fundamental question. Why?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hiya, Hiya! Here's just one reference to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.V41H..03R

It's an accepted fact about CO2, but it doesn't get much airtime (presumably because it implies that any temperature increase isn't going to carry on forever no matter how high emissions go...) :lol:

Yes, well, in the past CO2 increase was a feedback effect of a warming.

So, by that logic the Co2 rise atm is cause by a temperature rise and the vast amounts of Co2 humanity is adding to the atmosphere an amazing coincidence? No, you don't mean that?

My question is this. Does the way in which CO2 reaches the atmosphere change it's properties as a ghg?

Hi Dev,

it's nice to see you back on and putting words in my mouth! No. That is so unbelievably not what I said. My previous post was a point-by-point introduction to what we know. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that the apparent CO2 increases of the present are caused by temperature increases. At all. If you actually bother to read my post - the whole thing mind you - you might see that my conclusion at the bottom is based upon all of the preceding information - namely that temperatures force CO2 levels and vice versa!!!! Please don't try to make me look ridiculous, because it isn't working.

:lol:

CB