The Great Global Warming Swindle

I don't mean to be rude but a lot of the comments here seem to be akin to the dodo who said "dem pigs wont cause me no bother".

As I've said above if there was incontrovertible evidence that CO2 emissions had nothing to do with global warming the Oil industry would have come down harder on the "global warming industry" than





SJB

[QUOTE]I don't mean to be rude ..........QUOTE]
Well don't be then.......

Cheers

Don

Don

Here is your reasoning, as I see it:

1) The Earth has been around for a (comparatively) long time.

2) Mankind has been around for a (comparatively) short time.

3) Mankind has gotten to be around for a long time because of past periods of global warming.

Therefore

4) The effect of mankind on the environment cannot have been detrimental enough affect, in such a (comparatively) short time, the atmosphere to the extent that scientists are proposing that we have.

I'm really not sure how you get to the conclusion from these basic premises. Your reasoning is simply not clear.

Here is a summary (cut and pasted from Wikipedia) of the scientific method for coming to conclusions:

1. Define the question
2. Gather information and resources
3. Form hypothesis
4. Perform experiment and collect data
5. Analyze data
6. Interpret data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypotheses
7. Publish results

Deane

BTW much of the evidence as presented in the channel 4 documentary has been completely discredited in 'The Independent' and other publications.

Deane,

Let me help you read the more important bits of what I said:-

quote:

Man's influence on Global warming has been noticable for the past 10,000 years ie since the beginning of farming. The industrial revolution is also noticable.

However, the important points are

(1) both these effects (despite being noticable) are insignificant compared to natural changes
(2) natural changes will dominate our future
(3) even if we stopped producing ANY CO2 from now onwards, it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference to the natural outcome.

I have added the figure in parenthisis to help you a bit. And in case you are having difficulty with (3) the globe's natural systems produce so much CO2 anyway, that cutting off man-released CO2 won't make a blind bit of difference.

Let me make another observation.

I don't think we have too many scientists on this forum who are actively engaged in experiments concerning global warming. For sure I am not one of them and I'd bet a pound to a penny that you aren't, nor Acad, nor Sloop John B. So, we are all relying on what we have read in newspapers, magazines, books, the internet etc etc .......oh! and the telly of course. So I think your lecture on how to conduct a scientific invesitigation is a bit pointless - we are relying on evidence presented to us by others.

Of course the majority of sheep are going to follow the majority of scientists this week. And when the scientists change their views next week, the majority of sheep are also going to change their direction. As Willy pointed out above, we don't have to look very far to see evidence of this sort of sheepish behaviour in frightening reality, and its proof that the majority of scientists can easily mislead the majority of people (cd is better than LP, in case you forgot)

So my POV is that global warming is happening, but there is nothing you or I or even George W Bush can do to stop it. We will just have to cope with it.

Meanwhile, a lot of people (and this includes the oil industry) are going to make a lot of money out of making you reduce carbon emmissions by reducing the burning of fosil fuels.

Cheers

Don

quote:

And in case you are having difficulty with (3) the globe's natural systems produce so much CO2 anyway, that cutting off man-released CO2 won't make a blind bit of difference.

having great difficulty with it, what exactly are these "earth's (not globe's) natural systems"?




SJB

quote:

having great difficulty with it, what exactly are these "earth's (not globe's) natural systems"?

Volcanoes mostly, but everything that breaths exhales CO2.

The proportion of man-made CO2 emmisions is around 4% of global CO2.

[/QUOTE]

having great difficulty with it, what exactly are these "earth's (not globe's) natural systems"?
[/QUOTE]

Each year:

1) The surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90Gtonnes C.

2) Vegitation and the atmosphere 60 Gt C.

3) Marine biota and the surface ocean 50 Gt C.

4) Surface ocean and teh intermediate and deep oceans 100Gt C.

Regards,

Willy.

My understanding is that these are in an equilibrium with plant life using the CO2, and it's the extra (along with deforestation) that is tipping this equilibrium equation to a point where CO2 levels can rise even more dramatically.
It isn't that the earth is making these huge amounts and they are all adding to the total. These amounts are the relatively stable amounts being processed on the planet.

I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one as neither of us seem likely to change each others minds.


Happy Easter All.



SJB

Ignoring the small amount of Co2 that escapes the atmosphere (if you really want something to worry about then teh rate of loss of helium is a corker) there is an equilibrium, however the point of equilibrium is constantly on the move. The relative amounts of Carbon in the atmosphere/vegetation/surface ocean/deep ocean/etc. varies over time. For example just before the last ice age there was a rise in the level of atmospheric CO2. The point of equilibrium shifts constantly. There is little doubt that human activity is contributing to a shift in the point in equilibrium. The points of difference are the magnitude of the human inducede component of atmospheric CO2 and wether or not this human induced shift (or indeed any shift in atmospheric CO2) will lead to a dis-proportionate increase in global temperatures (beyond the 14C or so contribution that all GHGs already make to the climate).

Regards,


Willy.