A very convenient Truth ?
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 11 August 2009
A very convenient Truth ?
Global big-business is riding on the “environmental band-wagon” (IMHO, of course)
I have just got back form a few weeks in Alaska, BC, Alberta and the Yukon. Seen many glaciers, snowfields, wild animals and forest fires. Enjoyed back-packing in the pristine wilderness of the Rockies and added to the Carbon footprint by flying over the mountains and glaciers to get to different golf courses whilst enjoying the aerial sights along the way.
Spoke to several Park Rangers and environmentalists who all bang on about preserving the ecology and preventing global warming. And in general, I can sort of empathise with their passion.
However………..
When I asked each one to describe, in relation to global warming
The problem
The cause
Their aim (of those who are concerned about global warming)
The probability of success in achieving their aim
……not one could accurately define their aim or describe what was actually needed to achieve their aim. And none were at all convincing in supplying evidence of the cause(s) of the problem of global warming.
No doubt this forum will be able to provide the necessary clarity and vision to overcome the scepticism of people like me.
As someone commented. What is the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? – The environmentalist already has his house in the woods!
Cheers
Don
Global big-business is riding on the “environmental band-wagon” (IMHO, of course)
I have just got back form a few weeks in Alaska, BC, Alberta and the Yukon. Seen many glaciers, snowfields, wild animals and forest fires. Enjoyed back-packing in the pristine wilderness of the Rockies and added to the Carbon footprint by flying over the mountains and glaciers to get to different golf courses whilst enjoying the aerial sights along the way.
Spoke to several Park Rangers and environmentalists who all bang on about preserving the ecology and preventing global warming. And in general, I can sort of empathise with their passion.
However………..
When I asked each one to describe, in relation to global warming
The problem
The cause
Their aim (of those who are concerned about global warming)
The probability of success in achieving their aim
……not one could accurately define their aim or describe what was actually needed to achieve their aim. And none were at all convincing in supplying evidence of the cause(s) of the problem of global warming.
No doubt this forum will be able to provide the necessary clarity and vision to overcome the scepticism of people like me.
As someone commented. What is the difference between a developer and an environmentalist? – The environmentalist already has his house in the woods!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by Mat Cork
GiaC...I think we passed the point beyond which 'it's too late' a while ago (IMO). Adaptation is the name of the game now.
My worry is the eco-backlash, where we hear about folks 'being sick of hearing about the environment', coupled with an ongoing disbelief in the scientific community relating to climate change. A lot of folk (particularly in the UK) are convinced that the scientific community is divided on this issue! I don't know which is the bigger worry, that or living with climate change itself.
My worry is the eco-backlash, where we hear about folks 'being sick of hearing about the environment', coupled with an ongoing disbelief in the scientific community relating to climate change. A lot of folk (particularly in the UK) are convinced that the scientific community is divided on this issue! I don't know which is the bigger worry, that or living with climate change itself.
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by girlfriend in a coma
Of course you might be right that it's too late Mat.
I believe the climate is changing, but not surprising as it always has.
IMO man's activities must be having a significant effect on climate & other 'natural' characteristics of Earth.
The research in to world temps' in the days after 9/11 (whether correct or not) illustrates the complexities of climate mechanics.
The general climate debate reminds me of similar arguments proposed when first the theory, & then evidence emerged re: ozone depletion.
I think the right approach proved to be best endeavour to prevent the damage caused by CFCs.
It might be too late to prevent serious or catastrophic climate change, but we don't know so we must try.
Whether people can grasp what is at stake & take action, & whether governments/big business has the vision is another matter. I feel cynical regarding this currently!
Regards - Craig
I believe the climate is changing, but not surprising as it always has.
IMO man's activities must be having a significant effect on climate & other 'natural' characteristics of Earth.
The research in to world temps' in the days after 9/11 (whether correct or not) illustrates the complexities of climate mechanics.
The general climate debate reminds me of similar arguments proposed when first the theory, & then evidence emerged re: ozone depletion.
I think the right approach proved to be best endeavour to prevent the damage caused by CFCs.
It might be too late to prevent serious or catastrophic climate change, but we don't know so we must try.
Whether people can grasp what is at stake & take action, & whether governments/big business has the vision is another matter. I feel cynical regarding this currently!
Regards - Craig
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Ok guys, try this...
The earth temperature IS increasing - and at an accelerating rate
The volume of ice in both hemispheres IS decreasing
The two principal causes of this are the three normal causes of glacial periodicity AND human "forcing" effects (eg agriculture, industrialisation, population)
Scientists can't agree on which of the two principal causes is dominant
Science is hopelessly unable to predict climate change, cause, or effect....and the public knows this
Scientists can't agree on whether reducing the human "forcing" effect by 50% (or any other %) will be sufficient to prevent a catastrophic climate event
Most of the proposed "Eco-friendly" savings suggested to date (biofuels, windfarms, reudction in air/car travel etc etc etc) will deliver economic ruin or starvation, to any country who goes it alone, before there is any eco-friendly return
Using our whits, mankind might come up with an earth-shattering solution (pun intended)ie before its too late
None of the above addressess the problem of resource sustaiability
Dispute and discuss!
Cheers
Don
The earth temperature IS increasing - and at an accelerating rate
The volume of ice in both hemispheres IS decreasing
The two principal causes of this are the three normal causes of glacial periodicity AND human "forcing" effects (eg agriculture, industrialisation, population)
Scientists can't agree on which of the two principal causes is dominant
Science is hopelessly unable to predict climate change, cause, or effect....and the public knows this
Scientists can't agree on whether reducing the human "forcing" effect by 50% (or any other %) will be sufficient to prevent a catastrophic climate event
Most of the proposed "Eco-friendly" savings suggested to date (biofuels, windfarms, reudction in air/car travel etc etc etc) will deliver economic ruin or starvation, to any country who goes it alone, before there is any eco-friendly return
Using our whits, mankind might come up with an earth-shattering solution (pun intended)ie before its too late
None of the above addressess the problem of resource sustaiability
Dispute and discuss!
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by Mat Cork
I don't think that's strictly correct Don.
Most scientists (in related fields especially) are in little doubt that the key driver is anthropogenic. What exists to the contrary is typically 'theoretical ramblings' from academics on the fringe.
Equally, climate models based on known CO2 emissions and levels of deforestation tend to tally with what is being observed.
The question is now (IMO) have we left it too late? From what I see at work we have, and we now need to limit the rate of damage and concentrate on adaptation. But for the worlds coral reefs etc...it's too late.
Most scientists (in related fields especially) are in little doubt that the key driver is anthropogenic. What exists to the contrary is typically 'theoretical ramblings' from academics on the fringe.
Equally, climate models based on known CO2 emissions and levels of deforestation tend to tally with what is being observed.
The question is now (IMO) have we left it too late? From what I see at work we have, and we now need to limit the rate of damage and concentrate on adaptation. But for the worlds coral reefs etc...it's too late.
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by u5227470736789439
It is too late and I am forty-eight later this year.
I hope I don't live to see billions starving. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee that I shall not.
Younger people alive today definately will.
ATB from George
I hope I don't live to see billions starving. Unfortunately I cannot guarantee that I shall not.
Younger people alive today definately will.
ATB from George
Posted on: 16 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I don't think that's strictly correct Don.
Oh!, all of it? or just a little bit of what I said? - like the bit about "scientists can't agree on whether reducing the human forcing effect by 50% will be sufficient to prevent a catastrophic climate event"
Suppose we DID stop the human forcing effect, then what? do we accept the ensuing glacial maxim, with Canada under an ice field that extends south to encompass New York and Washington DC ? Scandanavia looking like the South Pole, Scotland and England under ice (ecept south of Finchley) and the channel Tunnel redundant because we can walk across to France ?
And does the population so affected migrate to Southern europe/north Africa (without invitation) or simply accept our fate and die?
Or do I exaggerate slightly?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 17 September 2009 by Mat Cork
No just the bit about scientists not being in agreement Don.
I don't know the rate of glacial expansion in N.America, but I would have thought (but don't actually know) that the glaciation of Canada would take an extremely long time?
I think society will be incapable of shifting its bevavior sufficient to account for human effects on the climate, I'd suggest we've got no chance of accounting for more than that. Adaptation will be the response...so in your scenario, Canada at some time, like most pacific island nations will be lost.
I don't know the rate of glacial expansion in N.America, but I would have thought (but don't actually know) that the glaciation of Canada would take an extremely long time?
I think society will be incapable of shifting its bevavior sufficient to account for human effects on the climate, I'd suggest we've got no chance of accounting for more than that. Adaptation will be the response...so in your scenario, Canada at some time, like most pacific island nations will be lost.
Posted on: 17 September 2009 by Derry
quote:Originally posted by Mat Cork:
No just the bit about scientists not being in agreement Don.
Not all scientists agree: 33,000 signatories to the Oregon Petition; in 2007, 400 climate scientists (4 times the number who drew up the IPCC report and some of whom were on IPCC panels) published a separate document US Senate Report "400 Prominent Scientists Dispute Man-Made Global Warming Claims" condemning the conclusions of the IPPC report as "unproven, alarmist and wrong".
The IPCC theory is not "proven" it is at best hypothesis and at worse dogma.
Posted on: 17 September 2009 by girlfriend in a coma
We are highly evolved monkeys clinging to a rock hurtling through space, & the rock is dying.
Frankie Boyle
Frankie Boyle
Posted on: 18 September 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:Originally posted by Derry:
The IPCC theory is not "proven" it is at best hypothesis and at worse dogma.
That's simply not right. The dispute in question was rooted (when those from relevant fields were questioned) in the nature of the discussion and was railroaded by 'scientists' who were clearly not 'prominent'...in relevant areas.
The reporting of that event was entirely misleading and contorted. It also suggests that because 400 'scientists' signed the petition and only 100 drafted the report - this is in any way material. It's not, the research on this matter is overwhelming and pulls in 1000's of scientists.
What you miss Derry, is that there is evidence and theory to support anthropogenic climate change, whilst there is only theory to it to be a natural event (which neither modelling or observation supports). That of course doesn't stop certain outspoken Geography Professors knocking up half based theory and selling it as 'scientists' in disagreement. This is where the dogma lies.
I'd love to read a scientific paper, which shows that what we see has happened at this rate before, and then goes on to explain the natural causes. But I can't, because there isn't one. I sincerely wish there was.
Posted on: 19 September 2009 by Derry
What caused Greebland to ice over some 400 years before anthropogenic Co2 was produced?
Why is no credence given to Milankovitch?
Why does the incidence of water vaopur, the most powerful and plentiful of greenhouse gases, given less (or no) primacy above Co2 or methane?
Why is the fact that temperature variations follow more closely solar irradiation ignored in preference to Co2 which do not closely relate to temperature?
I could go on but none of this is fashionable, nor politically acceptable, nor commercially of worth.
Why is no credence given to Milankovitch?
Why does the incidence of water vaopur, the most powerful and plentiful of greenhouse gases, given less (or no) primacy above Co2 or methane?
Why is the fact that temperature variations follow more closely solar irradiation ignored in preference to Co2 which do not closely relate to temperature?
I could go on but none of this is fashionable, nor politically acceptable, nor commercially of worth.
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:Why is no credence given to Milankovitch?
I think you will find everybody (of any significance) accepts the natural infuences identified by Milancovitch. I think you will also find a high degree of correlation in their estimates of these effects on temperature and glaciation.
quote:What caused Greebland to ice over some 400 years before anthropogenic Co2 was produced?
To avoid confusion, can you put some approx dates on these events, eg Greenland iced over c.1,400ad v anthropogenic CO2 reaches significant levels c.1,800
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:Originally posted by Derry:
I could go on but none of this is fashionable, nor politically acceptable, nor commercially of worth.
On the contrary D, it's extremely fashionable.
Don has covered the main points, but the other points raised (water vapour and solar induced change) aren't in any way ignored. They're factors in most of the research we see.
Nobody suggests there hasn't been fluctuations in the past...I don't know what caused the glaciation of Greenland, but I'd expect that there would be an explanation easily at hand.
Surely the pressing issue, is why are we seeing such a rapid change and what's causing it? Climatic modeling supports the notion that it's anthropogenic.
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
Earlier in this thread I suggested that man would use his wits to come up with new energy solutions (to solve both CO2 emission problems and the problems caused by OPEC)
This past couple of weeks I have become aware of salt-water/fresh-water osmosis and also direct transformation of sun/earth infrared energy into electricity.
Anybody else heard of any other exciting developments? (biofuels is just a load of rubbish!!)
Cheers
Don
This past couple of weeks I have become aware of salt-water/fresh-water osmosis and also direct transformation of sun/earth infrared energy into electricity.
Anybody else heard of any other exciting developments? (biofuels is just a load of rubbish!!)
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Mat Cork
Well it looks like the Seven Estuary Barrier is a goer...which is rubbish for other reasons imo.
I've said it before Don, but the solution will (in all likelyhood be), more sustainable lives...less air travel, less car journeys, less tacky opulance, more responsible behaviour.
The sad thing in this thread (and no disrespect to Derry), is that folk are still labouring under the illusion that CC scientists are somehow 'more commerically viable' 'better funded' etc, and the downtrodden scientist who wants to pursue research to disprove anthropogenic change is unfashionable and poorly funder. Thanks to petrochem companies, and the intent of governments to find ways around grasping the nettle, the complete opposite is true...by a huge margin. But, despite their funding...they have found nothing, not a shred of evidence that what we are seeing has happened before, at this rate and can be explained by natural processes.
I've said it before Don, but the solution will (in all likelyhood be), more sustainable lives...less air travel, less car journeys, less tacky opulance, more responsible behaviour.
The sad thing in this thread (and no disrespect to Derry), is that folk are still labouring under the illusion that CC scientists are somehow 'more commerically viable' 'better funded' etc, and the downtrodden scientist who wants to pursue research to disprove anthropogenic change is unfashionable and poorly funder. Thanks to petrochem companies, and the intent of governments to find ways around grasping the nettle, the complete opposite is true...by a huge margin. But, despite their funding...they have found nothing, not a shred of evidence that what we are seeing has happened before, at this rate and can be explained by natural processes.
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:I've said it before Don, but the solution will (in all likelyhood be), more sustainable lives...less air travel, less car journeys, less tacky opulance, more responsible behaviour.
Improbabile.
Possibly more efficient use of resource. Possibly a reduction in use, driven by supply v demand. But not spontaneous responsible human behaviour.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 21 September 2009 by Mat Cork
No...I don't think it will be voluntary Don. But things will start to bite...they are now, EzyJet pulling out of airports etc.
Posted on: 22 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
quote:EzyJet pulling out of airports
Mat,
Easyjet is a sympton of the economic downturn in Europe and the UK in particular - nothing at all to do with responsible human behaviour.
For every Easyjet route that has been cut, there is probably a new coal-fired power-station come online in China, or another 1,000 new cars on the streets of India.
Economics and Big-Business are still the driving force behind change, and change is still going in the wrong direction.
It is good to see Weary Old Gordon suggesting that world leaders attend the next climate summit. He is concerned that global effort is stalling and there is no protocol in place beyond 2012 when Kyoto expires. He is right to be concerned.
We need a step-change in the use of CO2 polutants, both for the human environment and sustainability of global resources. This, IMHO, isn't going to happen. We need low carbon-footprint energy resources (wind-farms aren't, nuclear power stations are)to be invented and brought on line. Any ideas?
It would also help if environmental scientists, (the ones who consider anthropogenic CO2 to be our root problem) could be clearer about the precise level of CO2 we need in our atmosphere, and how we are going to maintain such a figure once, or if, we ever achieve it.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 22 September 2009 by Mat Cork
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
It would also help if environmental scientists, (the ones who consider anthropogenic CO2 to be our root problem) could be clearer about the precise level of CO2 we need in our atmosphere, and how we are going to maintain such a figure once, or if, we ever achieve it.
I'm an env scientist Don (coastal/marine not climatic) and I think they struggle to pin down that figure, because it depends on how the system responds to the existing loading.
Just my opinion, but I think if you listen to leading scientists at NOAA, IPCC, Tyndall etc, off the record, they've given up on anything other than adaptation.
I agree with your sentiments Don, I've just been in the field for too long and I'm sceptical that much will change. Governments have created this myth that CC or most other human impacts on the environment, are in dispute. Clearing of the amazon has become a forgotten cause, the end of our coral reefs through warming etc - all rarely make the news these days...folk have been confused and see them as tree-hugging issues.
I saw a documentary last year, where a chap wandered around the City, and asked folk where their air came from, was it:
a)just a big stash of air round the globe and there's enough to last forever; or
b)plants take our CO2 and turn it into air we can then breath.
The vast majority (admittedly interviewed), despite appearing well educated types, thought b)was just greeny propaganda and most were giggling at the notion of it. Most said a) definitely.
Astonishing and extremely worrying.
Posted on: 22 September 2009 by Don Atkinson
The air we breath is actually c.78% Nitrogen. Its the c.21% Oxygen that the plants regenerate. But your message is correct in that we NEED large forests to generate the O2 that we need in the atmosphere.
An intersting question on University Challenge last night was that O2 is the most prolific element in the earth's composition (presumably by mass). Most of it is probably tied up in rocks such as metalic oxides. Que - mankind needs to find an economic way of releasing this O2 to compensate for deforestation!
I belive that slight changes in the temperature of the oceans and/or the tundra could provide a far more dramatic change in the balance of gasses in the atmosphere, with the release of catastrophic amounts of methane if a temperature tipping-point is reached.
cheers
Don
An intersting question on University Challenge last night was that O2 is the most prolific element in the earth's composition (presumably by mass). Most of it is probably tied up in rocks such as metalic oxides. Que - mankind needs to find an economic way of releasing this O2 to compensate for deforestation!
I belive that slight changes in the temperature of the oceans and/or the tundra could provide a far more dramatic change in the balance of gasses in the atmosphere, with the release of catastrophic amounts of methane if a temperature tipping-point is reached.
cheers
Don
Posted on: 25 September 2009 by steveb
quote:I'd love to read a scientific paper, which shows that what we see has happened at this rate before,
What about the 8 degree change over Greenland in about 40yrs during the Younger Dryas (11,600BP)-the cause is a Dansgaard/Oeschger event, The little ice age of ~400 to 200 years ago has been interpreted as the cold part of a D-O cycle, putting us (even without the purported effects of anthropogenic global warming) in a period of warming climate.
The D-O events appear to reflect changes in the North Atlantic ocean circulation, perhaps triggered by an influx of fresh water.
The events may be caused by an amplification of solar forcings, or by a cause internal to the earth system - either a "binge-purge" cycle of ice sheets accumulating so much mass they become unstable, as postulated for Heinrich events, or an oscillation in deep ocean currents.
Try this reference-Abrupt Climate Change-published by American National Academy of Science-available to read online
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph...ord_id=10136&page=R1
As far as comments on carbon dioxide levels go-we are at the lowest levels in Earth's History, during the Carboniferous levels were some 18x higher than know, in the Cretaceous 14x PAL. From the GEOCARB model
"The carbon cycle and carbon dioxide over Phanerozoic time: the role of land plants"
R. A. Berner
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1998 January 29; 353(1365): 75–82. available online
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g...r.fcgi?artid=1692179
Steve
Posted on: 25 September 2009 by Mat Cork
Steve, with respect, those examples are well explained on many sites. The fact is the cause of previous events can be explained...what is needed is an example we can't explain...this would then provide an argument that what we see now, could be due to some as yet unknown effect.
Previous events which are based in identified causes don't help the argument against human induced climate change at all.
The Carboniferous period was a time of huge volcanic activity...it's a poor example to use in suggesting that what we see today is acceptable.
Have a look at the Royal Society or NOAA sites...they clear out the wheat from the chaff.
Previous events which are based in identified causes don't help the argument against human induced climate change at all.
The Carboniferous period was a time of huge volcanic activity...it's a poor example to use in suggesting that what we see today is acceptable.
Have a look at the Royal Society or NOAA sites...they clear out the wheat from the chaff.
Posted on: 26 September 2009 by Derry
Since you persist in your belief about co2 and climate change - how much atmospheric co2 is too much and what proportion of that is man made?
Oh, and what caused the little ice age?
Oh, and what caused the little ice age?