General Climate Change Discussion.......

[weather eater]

Thought I'd better put this here as it is not strictly about Artic ice.

Apologies, sloppy wording on my part...

Feedbacks are a poorly understood part of the AGW theory. The theory is reliant upon CO2 trapping heat, leading to warmer oceans, leading to greater evaporation, leading to greater heat. This is dependent upon clouds being a positive feedback, without the amplification of water vapour in the form of clouds, CO2 alone, regardless of volume or rapidity of additions, or source (due to saturation rates and logarithmic effect) cannot effect a great deal of change. The IPCC assume a positive feedback from clouds, the predominant feedback mechanism; there is nothing in recent observation nor historical data to support this.

Saying that large volumes of CO2 released quickly, at our behest will inevitably lead to change, possibly catastrophic change, is more a moral judgement than a scientific one.

But thats the point Jethro, I certainly did not say inevitable, what you are effectively saying is that we poorly understand feedbacks so hey ho lets just carry on regardless, that seems to me to be fraught with danger, as for historical data, of course there is no historical data to support this, because mans release of naturally stored CO2 has no historical precedent. We are in unknown territory dealing with complex systems we dont understand. We dont understand so lets carrying on with a massive experiment. I find it hard to wrap myself around the argument of, lets not act on what we do know because of what we dont, thats the sort of argument that was put about by the Tobacco companies 40 odd years ago in regard the link between smoking and cancer.

Edited July 20, 2009 by weather eater

[jethro]

Thought I'd better put this here as it is not strictly about Artic ice.

But that’s the point Jethro, I certainly did not say inevitable, what you are effectively saying is that we poorly understand feedbacks so hey ho lets just carry on regardless, that seems to me to be fraught with danger, as for historical data, of course there is no historical data to support this, because mans release of naturally stored CO2 has no historical precedent. We are in unknown territory dealing with complex systems we don’t understand. We don’t understand so lets carrying on with a massive experiment. I find it hard to wrap myself around the argument of, lets not act on what we do know because of what we don’t, thats the sort of argument that was put about by the Tobacco companies 40 odd years ago in regard the link between smoking and cancer.

And at what point have I ever said or intimated "hey ho, let's just carry on regardless"? That is just another assumption. Those who believe in the theory of AGW, do not have sole ownership of being a responsible, caring human being. I work in the great outdoors, the environment is my living, my family back ground is the great outdoors and stewardship of land; my home is an eco love fest, my lifestyle matches it. Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions.

When it comes to the rest of your post, we actually know a great deal about the workings of CO2. From whence it came, is utterly irrelevant to the physics of the science. I absolutely agree we don't know all we need to know about the complex systems, how they act, interact with one another which is why saying "if we've released it, is must inevitably lead to catastrophe" is wrong. It is again assuming there are no natural mechanisms to counter it and also assuming CO2 can over-ride everything else. Where is your science to support this?

[Thundery wintry showers]

The issue of whether or not humans were the source of X amount of CO2 is indeed irrelevant to the physics of it, but by adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere humans are significantly enhancing any radiative forcing that comes from CO2. This radiative forcing could be large, as per the suggestions of the climate models, alternatively it could be quite small, but the issue is clear enough.

Many of us are not saying "if we've released it, it will inevitably lead to catastrophe". That's what many sectors of the media like to tell us, together with those with views at the pro-AGW end of the spectrum (say, a 3 or 4 on a scale of -4 to +4) but it is unreasonable to tar everyone else with the same brush, or mis-represent them as holding views that they do not.

Common scientific arguments for positive feedbacks with CO2 include water vapour and release of CO2 from the oceans- they may contain flaws, but they exist. Looking at the past on a geological scale, it is clearly possible to get temperatures as much as 5-10C warmer than now, but it also appears that there are natural mechanisms that prevent global temperatures from rising significantly higher than that. Thus a runaway greenhouse effect seems unlikely, but the extreme possibility of a 4-6C rise by 2100 is not beyond the realms of possibility. More likely IMHO is something in the region of 1 to 4C, however, as I do not trust that these hypothetical positive feedbacks will necessarily dominate proceedings.

[jethro]

The issue of whether or not humans were the source of X amount of CO2 is indeed irrelevant to the physics of it, but by adding a lot of CO2 to the atmosphere humans are significantly enhancing any radiative forcing that comes from CO2. This radiative forcing could be large, as per the suggestions of the climate models, alternatively it could be quite small, but the issue is clear enough.

Many of us are not saying "if we've released it, it will inevitably lead to catastrophe". That's what many sectors of the media like to tell us, together with those with views at the pro-AGW end of the spectrum (say, a 3 or 4 on a scale of -4 to +4) but it is unreasonable to tar everyone else with the same brush, or mis-represent them as holding views that they do not.

Common scientific arguments for positive feedbacks with CO2 include water vapour and release of CO2 from the oceans- they may contain flaws, but they exist. Looking at the past on a geological scale, it is clearly possible to get temperatures as much as 5-10C warmer than now, but it also appears that there are natural mechanisms that prevent global temperatures from rising significantly higher than that. Thus a runaway greenhouse effect seems unlikely, but the extreme possibility of a 4-6C rise by 2100 is not beyond the realms of possibility. More likely IMHO is something in the region of 1 to 4C, however, as I do not trust that these hypothetical positive feedbacks will necessarily dominate proceedings.

I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, I was replying directly to Weather Eater who is saying both here and in the Arctic thread where he took my post from, that catastrophe will follow. I think his mis-representation of me as "hey ho, let's carry on regardless" was absolutely attributing views that I do not hold and am entitled to correct his mistaken assumption.

As for the physics, I understand, you understand, we have said exactly the same thing but in different words. The radiative forcing capabilities is still poorly understood as it depends so much on other factors, only last week a new paper was released addressing the issue of aerosols and soot; new studies show the effects and estimates of these has been considerably mis-calculated, when this new information is fed into the models, the outcomes will change yet again. When it comes to other positive feedbacks, clouds are a huge unknown - what is known is that they were assumed to be a positive feedback, recent observation is showing they net a negative feedback; again this new information will alter the outcomes of model projections for the future.

Nothing is certain in this debate, people shouldn't talk in absolute terms on any of this.

[Thundery wintry showers]

A pretty fair reply there.

With regards ENSO it will be interesting to see if we do get a full-blown El Nino out of this, and if so, whether global temperatures can surpass those of 1998. I recognise that one month taken in isolation doesn't prove much, but when all of the warming comes from the oceans it seems pretty likely that it's down to El Nino.

[weather eater]

I'm not tarring everyone with the same brush, I was replying directly to Weather Eater who is saying both here and in the Arctic thread where he took my post from, that catastrophe will follow. I think his mis-representation of me as "hey ho, let's carry on regardless" was absolutely attributing views that I do not hold and am entitled to correct his mistaken assumption.

Nothing is certain in this debate, people shouldn't talk in absolute terms on any of this.

Sorry plain wrong, I'd did not say that a catastrophe was inevitable, merely that there is a potential when meddling with things we don’t understand, and that it might be prudent to take action based on what we know than what we don’t. I have to say Jethro that I stand by my gung-ho comments that were not aimed at you specifically, (try not to take things so personally) because most of the AGW deniers on these pages advocate either a wait and see policy or a plain its just not happening attitude, either way given how mankind is burning fossil fuels it amounts to a gung-ho attitude. It might be that a catastrophe is not just around the corner but there is no doubt to my mind that we are rather trusting to luck in that regard. Human beings even with the best intentions frequently mess thing up in regards the environment, look at the damage to our wildlife that is being caused by the well intentioned realise of Mink into our countryside by people who failed to engage their brains before their hearts.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Sorry plain wrong, I'd did not say that a catastrophe was inevitable, merely that there is a potential when meddling with things we don't understand, and that it might be prudent to take action based on what we know than what we don't. I have to say Jethro that I stand by my gung-ho comments that were not aimed at you specifically, (try not to take things so personally) because most of the AGW deniers on these pages advocate either a wait and see policy or a plain its just not happening attitude, either way given how mankind is burning fossil fuels it amounts to a gung-ho attitude. It might be that a catastrophe is not just around the corner but there is no doubt to my mind that we are rather trusting to luck in that regard. Human beings even with the best intentions frequently mess thing up in regards the environment, look at the damage to our wildlife that is being caused by the well intentioned realise of Mink into our countryside by people who failed to engage their brains before their hearts.

And human beings also make wild assumptions about reasons for things. When there is so much uncertainty about feedbacks just why should we believe the assumptions of AGW proponents regarding the predicted existence, extent,and strength of the positive feedbacks of which they hypothesise

I repeat once more, AGW is not something we know in the absolute terms that you suggest. It is something that is hypothesised about. Personally I'm not sure we can plan for a particular sort of catastrophe in those absolute terms when we can't in truth be certain that A) there will be a catastrophe because the reasoning is assumptive then the specified catastrophe is assumptive and C) any number of different catastrophe's are possible or not as the case may be based on the fact that the science is based on hypothetical assumption. How can you make a decsion that we are trusting to luck rather than judgment against the background of so much uncertainty? That is based purely on your opinion that the hypothetical science is sound.

why is is not valid to equally suggest that hypothetical science is not sound? Is it not more dangerous to be betting against uncertainty and being faced with an entirely different set of potential problems as a consequence of such assumptive belief. By all means lets be responsible for our environment, but lets do that out of respect for the planet we live in, not just based on wild assumptions about what we might or might not be doing to our climate. And lets consider a wider range of outcomes that we might need to act on. Human beings with the best intentions do indeed mess things up, but quite possibly for entirely the opposite reasons for which you suggest.

Assume makes an ass of u and me . Most of us have heard of that one. How about acting on that first before signing up lock stock and barrel to scientific hypothesis.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

On the subject of 'deniers', I would say that being open minded beyond the existence and extent of AGW is in contrast being alive to other possibilities and outcomes rather than putting eggs in one basket over a hypothesis.

[Thundery wintry showers]

If something is hypothetical it doesn't make it unsound. For example, I choose to avoid running out into main roads repeatedly without checking for traffic based on the hypothesis that if I do, chances are I will end up severely hurt or killed. Although there is plenty of evidence to back up that assertion, it is a hypothesis not a fact, as I can only prove it to be true by running out in front of cars and getting severely hurt or killed. Just like we can only prove AGW to be true by pumping out tonnes of emissions, chopping down rainforests etc. over the next 100 years and having a warming at the mid to high end of the IPCC's range over the same period.

There is room for argument over whether a significant degree of AGW is as likely to be true as the above, but it illustrates that we should not reject something, or refuse to take action on it, purely because it's a hypothesis.

That said I have always maintained that the current anti-AGW emphasis is guilty of "putting too many eggs in one basket" and that a wider-ranging focus on sustainability is more in order.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I would say that, in scientific terms, the potential for getting run over when running out into the street is a theory rather than a hypothesis.

I think that may be the fundamental difference - or it may just be an interesting semantic argument!

CB

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

What is being repeatedly missed is that I am saying there are other outcomes/dangers etc etc we 'could' plan for besides the AGW predictions. There are other dangers that could happen besides those predicted by AGW proponents. What is so special and exclusive about the particular catastrophe(s) that AGW proponests suggest? Why shouldn't we also be cautious about other dangers that might be posed by underestimating natural forces? I'm don't understand why this keeps being turned around back to why we shouldn't dismiss AGW all the time.Why do we have to focus on this so exclusively? What is so dismissive about considering other options besides AGW? That is what is meant by me referring to putting eggs in one basket. Presenting an argument for not dismissing AGW is again keeping the focus purely on that. Why is a hypothesis, a theory (call it whatever it you like) so above all else?

There is also an argument for suggesting that such exclusivity and obsession with AGW is a symptom of the modern faddy and neurotic world we live in. We have swine flu, we have all sorts of world problems but our high internet. mobile phone networks saturate us with news that takes on ever bigger proportions and magnitude with ever increasing coverage. Things can adopt a much bigger drama and worry than they might in reality suggest. That is NOT to be complacent - but a sense of proportion and balance in things would help. Ignorance might be bliss - but sometimes too much knowledge is as dangerous as too much.

I'm probably not explaining myself properly - I am in truth as frustrated about that as I am about the repeated points I keep making being missed.

[Devonian]

What is being repeatedly missed is that I am saying there are other outcomes/dangers etc etc we 'could' plan for besides the AGW predictions. There are other dangers that could happen besides those predicted by AGW proponents. What is so special and exclusive about the particular catastrophe(s) that AGW proponests suggest? Why shouldn't we also be cautious about other dangers that might be posed by underestimating natural forces? I'm don't understand why this keeps being turned around back to why we shouldn't dismiss AGW all the time.Why do we have to focus on this so exclusively? What is so dismissive about considering other options besides AGW? That is what is meant by me referring to putting eggs in one basket. Presenting an argument for not dismissing AGW is again keeping the focus purely on that. Why is a hypothesis, a theory (call it whatever it you like) so above all else?

There is also an argument for suggesting that such exclusivity and obsession with AGW is a symptom of the modern faddy and neurotic world we live in. We have swine flu, we have all sorts of world problems but our high internet. mobile phone networks saturate us with news that takes on ever bigger proportions and magnitude with ever increasing coverage. Things can adopt a much bigger drama and worry than they might in reality suggest. That is NOT to be complacent - but a sense of proportion and balance in things would help. Ignorance might be bliss - but sometimes too much knowledge is as dangerous as too much.

I'm probably not explaining myself properly - I am in truth as frustrated about that as I am about the repeated points I keep making being missed.

But, this is a climate forum, you'd expect us to be interested and concerned about climate.

The world does face other problems - but to touch on them would take us off topic. I'll just list the ones that concern me: 1. Over consumption of finite resources just about covers it (be it oil, wood, fish, metals, soil, water or pretty much anything humanity uses).

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But, this is a climate forum, you'd expect us to be interested and concerned about climate.

The world does face other problems - but to touch on them would take us off topic. I'll just list the ones that concern me: 1. Over consumption of finite resources just about covers it (be it oil, wood, fish, metals, soil, water or pretty much anything humanity uses).

And your reply has also conformed in the same way to what I have suggested. Climate is not soley about AGW.....

I will give up on this now. A Wallbash smilie might be appropriate!

And your reply has also conformed in the same way to what I have suggested. Climate is not soley about AGW.....

And you have missed the point I was trying to make in my world wide illustration

I will give up on this now. A Wallbash smilie might be appropriate!

[Thundery wintry showers]

This thread is called "General Climate Change Discussion" so surely the main emphasis of the posts should be on climate change, be it of anthropogenic origin, natural origin or a combination of the two? There is plenty of scope to have threads on the wider range of issues, such as sustainability as previously mentioned.

I have always maintained that there is too much emphasis on AGW at the expense of other factors, so it gets very tiresome when some sceptics repeatedly act as if I don't hold that view. But there are strong reasons why there is so much of a focus on it, because the effects of it could well lead to rapid changes in climate over short spaces of time, large sea level rises, and cause changes in rainfall patterns and atmospheric circulation- and we don't have much way of knowing how it will pan out, except for the generalisation that in a warmer climate more intense rainfall is likely when averaged globally.

Personally I think of lack of sustinability is actually the more definite, and equally as worrying, threat, and addressing that would also involve addressing most of the potential causes of AGW. There seems precious little coverage of that side of the issue among the media. But not doing anything about AGW by definition implies not becoming significantly more sustainable.

I can understand Tamara's frustrations with the mainstream "AGW this AGW that" stuff but it is wholly unreasonable to jump on anyone who dares to present a piece of evidence that supports AGW, and address weakened, exaggerated versions of their actual arguments.

[jethro]

Sorry plain wrong, I'd did not say that a catastrophe was inevitable, merely that there is a potential when meddling with things we don’t understand, and that it might be prudent to take action based on what we know than what we don’t. I have to say Jethro that I stand by my gung-ho comments that were not aimed at you specifically, (try not to take things so personally) because most of the AGW deniers on these pages advocate either a wait and see policy or a plain its just not happening attitude, either way given how mankind is burning fossil fuels it amounts to a gung-ho attitude. It might be that a catastrophe is not just around the corner but there is no doubt to my mind that we are rather trusting to luck in that regard. Human beings even with the best intentions frequently mess thing up in regards the environment, look at the damage to our wildlife that is being caused by the well intentioned realise of Mink into our countryside by people who failed to engage their brains before their hearts.

Weather eater, with the greatest of respect, taking my post from another thread, re-posting it in an entirely different thread and then saying "what you are effectively saying is that we poorly understand feedbacks so hey ho lets just carry on regardless" is directing it entirely at me. Intimating that I was having a hissy fit, compounds your actions, a more appropriate reaction would perhaps have been "sorry".

The problem of acting on the information we have thus far in regards to AGW is we stand a very real chance of causing more harm than good; another example of "failing to engage brains before hearts". We've already had the ill thought out fiasco of taking arable land out of food production to grow bio fuels; this led to many thousands dying and continues to add substantially to the large world food deficit.

Many plans have been mooted to combat AGW and warming, among them, throwing sulphur into the atmosphere, seeding the oceans with iron to promote Algae growth, even painting every roof and road white.

For arguments sake, let's say we decide the models are correct, we calculate how much alternative negative energy we have to artificially add to the system in order to counter the additions of CO2. We paint everything white, we throw oodles of sulphur up into the atmosphere and we seed all the oceans. Hooray! Problem solved. Then some bright spark comes along and shows that actually, what we thought we knew about clouds was wrong, what we thought we knew about aerosols and soot was wrong; together they substantially alter the assumed radiative budget and CO2 doesn't cause the degree of warming that we thought it did. Too late, we've done our sums and we've sorted it, problem is we've over sorted it and what we now face are many years of cooling - just to make the situation much worse, the PDO is in its' negative phase, the AMO expected to be soon and the quietest Sun we've had in decades. Global cooling is a much, much scarier scenario than a couple degrees of warming; we've got a lot of people to feed in this world, we already struggle to do that, add cooling and we'll fail spectacularly.

[weather eater]

I’m quite prepared to go along with the idea that AGW might not cause a catastrophe its by no means certain although I rather suspect that for the developed world, anything, as long as it does not effect us too much, would be seen as a non event, for it to be a true catastrophe, it must be so for the developed word and not just the third world. It seems to me that the dangers posed by not limiting the environmental impacts of our actions outweigh the impacts of making some efforts to do so, of course this is a double edged sword, do we have the right to hold back the developing world, in effect saying to them, we have lead the high life but you must sacrifice doing so for the benefits of us.

TWS has it right as far as I see it, we cannot wait in the road to be killed by a car to prove it could happen. History is I'm afraid littered with disasters caused by wait and see policies and inaction, we knew about theory’s that smoking caused lung cancer years before we did anything about it, black propaganda by the tobacco industry played a huge role in that and millions have died needlessly as a result, there are many people, who in the teeth of the evidence still don’t want to believe it. In terms of AGW I suspect that if the ice caps melted, the tropics became a desert etc etc there would still be some saying its all a Natural cycle. Even for many on these boards nothing short of a catastrophe is going to do as evidence. but on a plus note for those sceptical of AGW, this summer looks like developing into another wash out for us that will be arguable three in a row, which is how the medieval warm period ended.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

It might indeed be addressing AGW, but there is a difference between sustainability because it is a good thing for wider environmental reasons and because it is good simply for AGW. Can we not discuss what is good for the environment, our animals, plants, land seas, fish and aquatic life as well the welfare of the polar bears etc etc without, period, having to bolt AGW onto it???? Yes, I am well aware that these associated topics are beyond the remit strictly of the climate change area - but my point about AGW obsession, in which I used comparison to other 'crises' has been surely totally and utterly missed. Because they are OT somehow obviosuly somehow justifies making such a link or comparison too tenous and therefore also justifies AGW such exclusivity.. AGW, obviously, can still be discussed within the remit of the climate change arena, but within the contect I am trying so hard to describe, then can it not be viewed by some less exclusively? That is not dictating what people say, but it is attempting to see the bigger picture and that the science isn't settled and that uncertainty of feedbacks as well as other natural forcings exist.

This stuff about sceptics (including me) being supposedly irresponsible and complacent in terms of supposedly saying 'stuff the environment' and advocating doing 'nothing' is totally bogus and misrepresentative. Just because soemone disagrees with the reasons for climate variations, does not inexorably mean that they advocate being gung-ho in terms of the way we live and not promoting sustainability. There are, actually, an awful lot of other reasons beyond alleged climate change why we should be environmentally sustainable and responsible in other general ways. Jethro alludes to her own lifestyle in that respect - mine aint so differrent in many ways.Yet some AGW folk tar you with the irresponsible brush. Once again, it is a symptom of obsession with AGW that leads to such sweeping gereralistic statements being made. Kind of illustrates my whole point. That has been/is totally failed to be acknowledged

As for the last part of the final sentence, once again I have genuinely no idea whatsoever where this comes from?! Why persist with this 'weakened versions of arguments'stuff? It was bewildering enough last time. I am addressing general points and giving my own view - like everyone else. If my posts in this thread and the arctic thread from this morning have been properly read then there is plenty of balance in there. I am not dismissing AGW, I don't agree with the amont of exclusivity it gets, I don't see why the threats associated with its hypothesis are any more dangerous than freezing to death because of another ice age, I also don't believe that all the positive feedbacks associated with AGW exist nor anywhere near to the extent that many proponents do. Why do I have to keep repeating this position? I honestly bore myself too - saying the same thing over and over again. lol! This stuff about attacking weakened versions of arguments that keeps cropping up (whatever it is supposed to mean!) wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) arise if that position was understood or accepted. If I was saying that AGW was a total 100% fabrication then I could understand -but I am clearly not, nor ever have and that is irrespective of my deep scepticism about its extent and the way that some proponents advertise it and ram it down others throats as the be all and end all of the debate. Why can't this be looked beyond? I just think that people get into there heads what they think you are saying, or what they want you to say, instead of what you really are saying

If that all sounds like frustration - then that would be right....

[weather eater]

Weather eater, with the greatest of respect, taking my post from another thread, re-posting it in an entirely different thread and then saying "what you are effectively saying is that we poorly understand feedbacks so hey ho lets just carry on regardless" is directing it entirely at me. Intimating that I was having a hissy fit, compounds your actions, a more appropriate reaction would perhaps have been "sorry".

Yes I did reply to your post but only as a reference, because your post echoed with what many others think. I only moved it into the other thread because we had all rather gone of topic and I thought I would rather move my comments myself as opposed to it being done by a mod. As in so many of these cases I have use the word you rather than sounding like the queen and saying one, If at times I have directed comments at you I'm afraid I’m not going to say sorry, this not because I have no regards for your opinions or any facts that you might present but because that is the nature of debate, especially when dealing with a subject that is often short on facts and high on opinions we both know that this is often the case in regards this subject, if you want to single me out and say that you think I’m wrong and these are your reasons then that’s fine I’ll come back with what I think and that’s fine, Its just debate, besides you’re very combative in your posts, I like that, you don’t mince words and nether will I. Lets be honest what we think and mull over on this site in regards AGW is going to make not one jot of difference to whether AGW is a serious issue or just another storm in a tea cup, we can’t effect it in any meaningful way, all this really is, is humans doing what humans do, exercising our brains for pleasure.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Jethro's post only illustrates the downsides of one way of addressing AGW, namely trying to introduce anthropogenic cooling in order to offset any anthropogenic warming- a policy which would do nothing to address the "sustainability" issue either. It does not suggest that we should do nothing about it, but rather that it is dangerous to think "anything to address AGW is a good thing"- which is the kind of narrow-sighted thinking we get all too often among policymakers these days, sadly.

It might indeed be addressing AGW, but there is a difference between sustainability because it is a good thing for wider environmental reasons and because it is good simply for AGW. Can we not discuss what is good for the environment, our animals, plants, land seas, fish and aquatic life as well the welfare of the polar bears etc etc without, period, having to bolt AGW onto it????

Or alternatively sustainability can be a good thing for wide-ranging environmental reasons, of which AGW is potentially one of the most important- just because we shouldn't exclusively focus on AGW doesn't mean we should go to the other extreme and ignore it. Particularly in a thread focused on climate change.

I am not dismissing AGW, I don't agree with the amont of exclusivity it gets, I don't see why the threats associated with its hypothesis are any more dangerous than freezing to death because of another ice age, I also don't believe that all the positive feedbacks associated with AGW exist nor anywhere near to the extent that many proponents do. Why do I have to keep repeating this position?

I can't see how I can possibly be "missing the point" I'm afraid, as I actually hold similar views myself, if not quite as strongly- I have stated this many times in the recent past, yet whenever I point this out you ignore it and continue repeating your position as if I'm completely unreceptive to it.

But there is a difference between focusing exclusively on AGW at the expense of all else, and merely posting a link to the latest NCDC report, showing that June was the 2nd warmest on record, and hypothesising that El Nino might bring temperatures back up to near-record levels in the near future (and I never attributed this specifically to AGW, some have assumed that I was attributing it to AGW- hence my reference to mis-representation of my arguments).

[jethro]

Yes I did reply to your post but only as a reference, because your post echoed with what many others think. I only moved it into the other thread because we had all rather gone of topic and I thought I would rather move my comments myself as opposed to it being done by a mod. As in so many of these cases I have use the word you rather than sounding like the queen and saying one, If at times I have directed comments at you I'm afraid I’m not going to say sorry, this not because I have no regards for your opinions or any facts that you might present but because that is the nature of debate, especially when dealing with a subject that is often short on facts and high on opinions we both know that this is often the case in regards this subject, if you want to single me out and say that you think I’m wrong and these are your reasons then that’s fine I’ll come back with what I think and that’s fine, Its just debate, besides you’re very combative in your posts, I like that, you don’t mince words and nether will I. Lets be honest what we think and mull over on this site in regards AGW is going to make not one jot of difference to whether AGW is a serious issue or just another storm in a tea cup, we can’t effect it in any meaningful way, all this really is, is humans doing what humans do, exercising our brains for pleasure.

I'm not going down the "you said this, you said that" ad infinitum, too many threads have descended into that.

You're perfectly at liberty to not say sorry, you're right this is a debate; past history suggests a lot of the heat around here could be easily avoided if apologies were made occasionally when mis-interpretation has happened. I've apologised countless times, I'm sure no one thinks less of me for doing so and it's certainly diffused many a potential mine field.

You expressed opinions with no supporting facts to substantiate them. I expressed opinion, with facts. Your stance was that vast amounts of CO2 released from carbon deposits long ago must have a negative impact upon our world as it is without precedent and at our behest.

That is flawed on many counts.

Firstly, it matters not a jot where the CO2 comes from; it is still just CO2, natural in origin, not nasty, toxic stuff.

Secondly, it pays no attention to the actual physics of CO2. The properties of CO2 are well known and not in dispute. It behaves in a logarithmic fashion and has a saturation level.

Thirdly, it is assuming that CO2 can over-ride all natural processes.

Fourthly, it pays no attention to the radiative budget.

I take issue with the "we can’t effect it in any meaningful way", we can. We can cut CO2 emissions. We can develop alternative means of energy other than fossil fuels. We can curb our consumption. We can stop chopping down the Rain Forest, clearing vast expanses of land and growing crops in a mono culture environment. We can stop poor agricultural practises which lead to soil erosion and ultimately drought ridden, barren land. And this is just the tip of the iceberg....

On a day to basis, we can walk instead of drive We can insulate our houses. We can turn our heating down. We can re-cycle. We can stop replacing appliances, TV's, Hi-fi's etc as soon as the newest model comes out and instead replace as they wear out. We can drive smaller engined cars. The list goes on and on and on.

[weather eater]

Cheer up Tamara perhaps I better explain what I mean by gung-ho as it seems its being taken personally which is not what I intended. What I mean is that as a species we are using up fossil fuels in a gung-ho manner we really don’t know what effects of the release of naturally stored CO2 over a short period will do, and thus to my mind we are being gung-ho about the impact of that as well. Despite the dire warning concerning AGW, as a species we are actually doing very little about it and most of what governments appear to be doing is like it or not merely a tax gathering exercise, I trust them not. What is actually happening is that more and more CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere rather than less and in my opinion this is not going to change. For all the talk on these pages, and whatever our opinions are, we are going to find out what the consequences are sooner or later, large or small maybe none, it seems to me unstoppable, I don’t believe there is the willpower in the world to change it, even if proved beyond doubt. All there is to decide is which NW members get to say told you so.

[Methuselah]

In one important respect, like TWS I believe, I agree with noggin and NSSC: sustainabilty should be our aim, and won't be achieved by a succession of knee-jerk reactions centred solely around AGW. There is a bigger picture, let's face it: if we can achieve sustainability then AGW will become an historical curiosity...

It seems to me, that many government agencies et al want to conflate (at least in the public's mind?) the two by singling-out the AGW problem. Where is the joined-up thinking? I could be wrong but isn't AGW a symptom of unsustainability?

Edit: TWS, you beat me to it!

Edited July 21, 2009 by Pete Tattum

[Methuselah]

That is flawed on many counts.

Firstly, it matters not a jot where the CO2 comes from; it is still just CO2, natural in origin, not nasty, toxic stuff.

Secondly, it pays no attention to the actual physics of CO2. The properties of CO2 are well known and not in dispute. It behaves in a logarithmic fashion and has a saturation level.

Thirdly, it is assuming that CO2 can over-ride all natural processes.

Fourthly, it pays no attention to the radiative budget.

Point three is patently untrue, Jethro. No one is claiming such a thing?

[jonboy]

But, this is a climate forum, you'd expect us to be interested and concerned about climate.

The world does face other problems - but to touch on them would take us off topic. I'll just list the ones that concern me: 1. Over consumption of finite resources just about covers it (be it oil, wood, fish, metals, soil, water or pretty much anything humanity uses).

This a a climate CHANGE topic and as such climate may change to a warmer OR cooler setup. I think the point was being made is that every time someone tries to suggest that we are entering a cooler phase and we should consider the consequences of such a shift it always gets turned round as to why the poster doesn't agree with AGW. If the topic of Climate change is to be discussed properly then all possibilies should be up for grabs without forever returning to why you don't believe in AGW.

Some off us are open minded enough to believe that the signs are there to indicate that we maybe entering a significant cooling phase. We know that as yet there may not be enough scientific evidence to nail it but we are concerned enough to raise the poosibility because I can assure you the world will have significantly greater difficulty dealing with a cooling planet than a warming one.

[weather eater]

You expressed opinions with no supporting facts to substantiate them. I expressed opinion, with facts. Your stance was that vast amounts of CO2 released from carbon deposits long ago must have a negative impact upon our world as it is without precedent and at our behest.

That is flawed on many counts.

Firstly, it matters not a jot where the CO2 comes from; it is still just CO2, natural in origin, not nasty, toxic stuff.

Secondly, it pays no attention to the actual physics of CO2. The properties of CO2 are well known and not in dispute. It behaves in a logarithmic fashion and has a saturation level.

Thirdly, it is assuming that CO2 can over-ride all natural processes.

Fourthly, it pays no attention to the radiative budget.

I take issue with the "we can’t effect it in any meaningful way", we can. We can cut CO2 emissions. We can develop alternative means of energy other than fossil fuels. We can curb our consumption. We can stop chopping down the Rain Forest, clearing vast expanses of land and growing crops in a mono culture environment. We can stop poor agricultural practises which lead to soil erosion and ultimately drought ridden, barren land. And this is just the tip of the iceberg....

On a day to basis, we can walk instead of drive We can insulate our houses. We can turn our heating down. We can re-cycle. We can stop replacing appliances, TV's, Hi-fi's etc as soon as the newest model comes out and instead replace as they wear out. We can drive smaller engined cars. The list goes on and on and on.

I agree with your last two paragraphs, but as I put in my other post I doubt there is the will power in the world.

I thought I was careful not to say, “must” have an impact all I have said is we are playing with fire when assuming it wont, it seems to me that for some on these threads its OK to assume no effects but out of order to suggest it might.

I don’t profess to be an expert as some on these pages do but it seems to me that the bulk of the climate science community does think it will have an effect, as I say some on these threads think they know better and the science is flawed and like to cite natural cycles despite the fact that our knowledge of these is largely down to the same scientist’s who's science is so suspect when it comes to AGW that seems to me to be selective thinking. On your third point nobody is saying CO2 is overriding natural processes but it might alter them, to use a rather crude/poor analogy if your are freewheeling down a hill at 30 miles an hour and the gradient changes and gets stepper, you start to go faster but the process of freewheeling has not changed, the gradient/gravity has augmented your speed, you, the bike, its wheel size etc has not changed. Any natural process can be altered.