CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[Big Kev]

This all makes great reading over lunch. Keep it going

[Pluggy]

I was considering locking the thread and letting 'em cool down.....

[Bruff]

Definately my last:

''Not one iota of proof just supposition and estimate''

I'm sorry but all findings are at that moment in time an 'estimate', at for example a defined and documented significance level. In time, these estimates may be refined, which in turn may refine the initial hypothesis(es).

As I said at the start of this chain, we have not 'proved' the Theory of Relativity. Our estimate of its validity, as of this time, and based on experiment are that it has merit. As its formulator said, and I quoted, just one experiment will 'prove' the whole thing wrong. The work at CERN to 'find' the Higgs, will only 'find' it to an estimated 5-sigma level which is the standard test (I think - by think I mean it might be a tighter 6- or greater sigma event). Anything less is not 'proof' as the physicist would understand it.

Richard Broughton

[Big Kev]

I was considering locking the thread and letting 'em cool down.....

Not until they start hurling abuse at each other

[Tripps]

I was considering locking the thread and letting 'em cool down.....

No no let it run. It's worth the price of admission on its own.
I'm amusing myself by guessing how many "last words" there will be. It's still quite well mannered - so harmless.

[PanBiker]

Exactly, nowt wrong with healthy debate especially on such an important issue.

Anyway, I'm sticking with the consensus from the (dare I say scientists) that know a whole lot more about it than I do.

I think I would use my veto option anyway if you pulled the plug Pluggy -

[hartley353]

pluggy pulling the plug would be a blessing, only my manners have kept me making replies, a lot of effort has been taken by my opponents, why they should have believed they could sway me when I was holding a full house I dont know. Each and every one has taken time to search out their version of the truth, and then posted it without any consideration for its content. Yes we have all gained amusement from it, and as in all such matters little has been gained. These matters can only be bettered if all participants have a pint in there hand and a host willing to pull more....Mike.

[Pluggy]

Democracy, it will remain open for the time being....

[hartley353]

Love democracy wouldn't have it any other way. Normally I just listen to music on my computer,and delve into other subjects as I read what ever is to hand. My brain has had some grand exercise, and opened many of its closets for a spring airing. Bruff was surprised I could go over information so quickly,the answer it's all in my head
the human brain can still give Stanleys fast computer a run for its money, and as he would say no leccy used...Mike.

[hartley353]

Definately my last:

''Not one iota of proof just supposition and estimate''

I'm sorry but all findings are at that moment in time an 'estimate', at for example a defined and documented significance level. In time, these estimates may be refined, which in turn may refine the initial hypothesis(es).

As I said at the start of this chain, we have not 'proved' the Theory of Relativity. Our estimate of its validity, as of this time, and based on experiment are that it has merit. As its formulator said, and I quoted, just one experiment will 'prove' the whole thing wrong. The work at CERN to 'find' the Higgs, will only 'find' it to an estimated 5-sigma level which is the standard test (I think - by think I mean it might be a tighter 6- or greater sigma event). Anything less is not 'proof' as the physicist would understand it.

Richard Broughton

Very pleased that you are keeping up with the CERN project, experiment due to be carried out there imminently to do with climate change we will have another part of the puzzle soon,possibly one side of the jigsaw will be inplace. Massive way to go before a picture appears.

[Tizer]

Bruff was surprised I could go over information so quickly,the answer it's all in my head

Perhaps the way the information is put together in your head makes sense to you but it doesn't fit the facts and once it sees the light of day it only serves to obfuscate. The fundamental problem is that whatever facts you are presented with you'll only choose the ones that suit you and then twist them to fit your world view. A scientist can't do that, he/she would be pilloried by other scientists at the first hint of such a thing. Deniers can do what they like.

[Stanley]

I agree with Kev, wonderful stuff which shows yet again that OG has the whole spectrum of human fallibility. On a small scale this thread illustrates the problems that serious researchers have when brought face to face with certitude. Thank God they don't lose heart!

[hartley353]

Bruff was surprised I could go over information so quickly,the answer it's all in my head

Perhaps the way the information is put together in your head makes sense to you but it doesn't fit the facts and once it sees the light of day it only serves to obfuscate. The fundamental problem is that whatever facts you are presented with you'll only choose the ones that suit you and then twist them to fit your world view. A scientist can't do that, he/she would be pilloried by other scientists at the first hint of such a thing. Deniers can do what they like.

So sorry to have woken you from your servile slumbers,if I have given you an itch please feel free to scratch it. My satisfaction comes from knowing I have provoked thought.

[hartley353]

I agree with Kev, wonderful stuff which shows yet again that OG has the whole spectrum of human fallibility. On a small scale this thread illustrates the problems that serious researchers have when brought face to face with certitude. Thank God they don't lose heart!

Pure science was a wonderful thing,and people rightly venerated its practitioners. To defend the people who poison your food,clone animals,genetically modify your fauna,teach beagles to smoke,squirt toxins into the eyes of rabbits, grow ears on laboratory rats, ad nauseum. Do you realy like these people Stanley.

[Tripps]

Back to Global warming....
This made me smile today - Help for Norway.

[Stanley]

David, they should be sending them over here! (But could we afford the leccy?)

[chinatyke]

Subject: The other side of the coin?

Whatever your views on climate change it seems that mainstream media does not go out of it’s way to show us the other side of the coin- could it be that it doesn’t make for ‘shock horror’ headlines?

In the interest of balance, below is an extract from a fairly long but easy to read article - Full article is here

Of the 186 billion tons of CO₂ that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.

At 368 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/atmos_gases.html
Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO₂- impoverished. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carbo ... chor147264
CO₂ is odorless, colorless, and tasteless.
Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product.
Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product.
Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it.
All life on earth is carbon-based and CO₂ is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!

Just another revenue raising scheme, there was life on Earth during the Carboniferous Period when CO₂ levels were much higher.

[Stanley]

Comforting news for the Maldivians....

[hartley353]

Some thing for the ignorant scientists to read,it may still many tongues.

[chinatyke]

Comforting news for the Maldivians....

I'm not trying to say that Global warming isn't occurring, just that it is out of our control and taxation won't remove one ounce of CO₂.

Where I live, we are sat on thousands of feet thickness of limestone, which was produced in the oceans, and it very efficiently locked up CO₂. The same thing goes for coal and oil produced from vegetation. Protect the oceans and trees and things that remove carbon. Green ideas must be a good thing and should be promoted, but I think governments are milking this as a cash cow.

[chinatyke]

Some thing for the ignorant scientists to read,it may still many tongues.

Do you really want to go back to the old days when the lifespan was around 40 years? I'm happy with the benefits technology has brought. Genetic modification speeds up what occurs naturally. I agree there are risks, but mutations can and do happen in Nature also.

Before long there will be 7 billion people demanding the resources of this planet. Either let Nature do its worst to bring the population to sustainable levels, something like a global plague or disaster, or develop the technology to provide the resources required.

[hartley353]

Today I picked up the mail on sunday, on page 38 and occupying most of it is an article. The jist of is that the official government watch dog on supposed greenhouse emissions has come out and attacked the MOS for correctly saying that their evidence is flawed. Sir Brian Hoskins says their findings are robust,smell any flannel yet.He also says that the paper had misunderstood their computer models, although 3 years previously he had said their models were pretty lousy. when I posted my beliefs I didn't know that my findings were backed up by such prestigeous people as Dr Ed Hawkins of the National Centre for Atmospheric Science. Or that the economist had run a 4 page report last week discrediting the false prophets of global warming....Mike
PS this is not a continuance of last week just an addendum.

[Tizer]

Chinatyke, I agree with your response to Hartley about the need for producing more food but I don't support your post on climate change and CO2. The web links you use to support your comments are to pages written by Monte Heib who is well-known as a coal industry man who promotes use of fossil fuels. His claims are crafted to distract readers from the scientific evidence by using `straw man' arguments, by taking information out of context, and by citing facts without further explanation. His claims have been refuted many times but they still get regurgitated often on the Web. Let's take your comments one at a time...

"Of the 186 billion tons of CO₂ that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
Quite so. Scientists don't claim otherwise. These amounts can be estimated and are scientific facts. But it's meant to give the impression to the reader that the CO2 from human activity is irrelevant which is wrong. The cycle of CO2 involves billions of tons of the gas but it has been in balance for a long time - until now when human activity has started to add extra CO2 to the cycle that can't be taken up fast enough.

"At 368 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present."
Agreed, a fact. But that doesn't make it insignificant or unimportant. That tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere holds the Earth's temperature in a state fit for human life. It's a very sensitive system and it only takes a small increase in CO2 to boost the temperature.

"Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO₂- impoverished."
There have been times in the distant past (millions of years ago) when the CO2 concentration was much higher - but so was the temperature. Scientists don't claim that higher CO2 would destroy the Earth or even destroy life, they only warn that it will have a serious effect on humans and on civilisation. That serious effect would occur if we move to those higher temperatures.

"CO₂ is odorless, colorless, and tasteless."
What's that got to do with it? Oh yes, a `straw man' argument meant to distract us by saying "Look, this CO2 stuff won't harm anyone." Scientists don't claim atmospheric CO2 will directly harm humans.

"Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product."
Yes, this is known as photosynthesis. It occurs in daylight using the sun's energy. Plants also "breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product."

"Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product."
So do plants. I'm not sure what this has to do with the debate other than try to put CO2 in a good light.

"Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it."
CO2 is both a nutrient and a pollutant, as is oxygen (oxygen is toxic to life and living organisms had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves from the toxicity). Animals don't benefit from more CO2 in the atmosphere, and nor do all plants. And too much CO2 in the oceans is toxic to coral reefs.

"All life on earth is carbon-based and CO₂ is an essential ingredient."
All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. Nobody is saying we should eliminate CO2 from the Earth.

"When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide."
Under controlled, enclosed conditions and with certain types of plant.

"CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide."
This comes back to my comment at the beginning: "The cycle of CO2 involves billions of tons of the gas but it has been in balance for a long time". It is held in balance by feedback mechanisms. Molecules of CO2 are continuously cycled through the atmosphere, the oceans and the rocks (calcareous rocks such as limestone, chalk). But the extra CO2 being added to the atmosphere in a short time scale (by geological standards) is now forcing the system out of balance, the extra CO2 can't be taken up fast enough and a proportion of the excess that has been released from burning fossil fuels will remain for centuries even if we stopped burning these fuels now. A small proportion would remain for thousands of years. We worry about storing radioactive waste but we are unwittingly storing up another problem in excess CO2.

"If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!"
Not true, we can improve the prospects. And the least costly initiative - cutting back on our energy use - would have the greatest effect, but is anathema to the fossil fuel lobby. Our biggest problems are getting the politicians in countries worldwide to work together and countering the campaigns of the vested interests.

"Just another revenue raising scheme, there was life on Earth during the Carboniferous Period when CO₂ levels were much higher."
You try living a 21st century life under those conditions!

[Tizer]

As for the Mail on Sunday, Hartley needs to broaden his reading material whereby he would discover that the Mail's David Rose is good at misinterpretation and misusing other people's data. Some of the scientists concerned have had to complain because he doesn't seem to understand the data or statistics and is misrepresenting them.
The Committee on Climate Change's response to the Mail is here:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/ccc-blog/

[hartley353]

The Mail is not my normal reading,this reading was an act of serendipity, because of the clock change my normal paper was sold out, and I picked up this copy rather than return home empty handed. I have no knowledge of the columnist, or of any reason he should mislead. But what he said agrees with what I believe, and for me that is good enougth. When scientists start working for the common good, and not for money, then I may listen to them.