Climate change

[theodog (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

its not happening (said humming with fingers in ears and eyes shut)

This is not a quote from a scientist (in above context), it rings of the church's control of Galileo.
Everbody knows it is happening, the question is 'by what means?'

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Try being a female in, Egypt..well most of North Africa.. Iran any of the Emirates. Spend some time in the shanty towns in Johannesburg, Mexico, Manila, Rio....and thinking of the Philippines ...child abuse. The Military junta in Burma etc.
Then there is China.....sigh.....and you wheel out the USA???

Yes I agree, they are severe. Yet to stop somebody from doing something that does not harm anything or anyone is low level abuse of human rights, still abuse. On some level one could wheel out any Gov't.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by theodog

.....that does not harm anything or anyone is low level abuse of human rights, still abuse. On some level one could wheel out any Gov't.

True...but continuing on this tangent....A young lass can walk down any street in in small town USA wearing a low cut top and pair of hot pants. (not sure I'd try this in East LA or Harlem, but for totally different reasons..)

The consequences of trying the same stunt in Tehran are pretty horrible.

Accusing the USA of human rights abuse is akin to abusing someone for smoking a cigarette during a raging bushfire....a total loss of perspective to say the least.

[rat156]

Getting back to the global warming myth/reality debate...

I was following the thread with interest yesterday, and have picked up on it again today.

Firstly I'd like to say that a robust debate is what is needed on this topic, probably at a higher level than a forum of an astronomy website, but anyway a start is a start.

Next I'd like to declare my qualifications, a Science degree in Chemistry and a Masters in Chemistry. I have worked for about 20 years in the analysis of molecules by Mass Spectrometry, so although I understand the chemistry of the GW/CC debate, but could not declare myself an expert on the mechanics of same.

As a scientist I have an intrinsically skeptical mind. I have yet to be convinced that there is a link between the man made CO2 level increase and the temperature rise of the Earth. What I am convinced of is that these two things are happening, just not convinced of the link between the two. Unfortunately the science to prove the link is basically to disprove every other cause, that would take a long time, which we may not have. The core samples merely prove that whenever there's a temperature rise, there's a CO2 rise. Usually the temperature rise precedes the CO2 level, not sure that's the case this time.

The main problem with all of this is that the cost of doing nothing if the global warming is man made is catastrophic. The cost of doing something about it could be economically catastrophic. More significantly for us is that our (Australia's) contributions to GW are minuscule, but our impact can be massive.

The main areas that man contributes to CO2 increase are in fuel and deforestation. Most of the fuel is used for power and transportation. We, as a nation with so much vacant land and solar resources should be investing massively in solar energy conversion. If we can develop a viable solar electricity generation plan we could lead the world and then build the technology or even better licence it. The technology is out there it just needs to be developed and scaled up.

Now for the rant.
What I can't stand is the media sensationalism associated with this. Everytime the temperature gets hot it's global warming, everytime there's a drought/flood etc. it's global warming, no people that's weather. The current drought in Victoria may have something to do with GW, but I doubt it, current temerature records only go back a couple of hundred years at best, so to say the hottest day on record means absolutely nothing. The media have linked it to GW and will continue to do so as it makes good press, bad journalism but good press.

Thanks for opening up the topic Peter.

Cheers
Stuart

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Peter, so creating a law which stops families from growing their own vegetables for their own consumption not an abuse of basic human rights??
And creating man made viruses to spread or infect human populated areas is not an abuse of human basic rights? All done in the U.S

[KenGee (Kenith Gee)]

Marclau I replied to the names that had been posted that's all. My aim was to show that in most cases the names are of people who are not convinced about GW are not climate specialist. Yes some are scientist but they commenting out their field. Now everyone has a right to do so, but more weight should be put to people views who have actually studied the problem, and I mean studied not read a few books and some web sites. If a Medical doctor wrote a book about quantum physics being completely wrong and that all physics are telling lies in order to get research money, everyone would think the person is crazy. Well this is what is happening in this field and a few other s that upset people’s faith based worldviews.
Btw I read the bill you’re talking about it does nothing of the sort you say it does. Also I would love to see your evidence that the US is developing bio weapons.

[theodog (Jeff)]

Originally Posted by rat156

Now for the rant.......


Thanks for opening up the topic Peter.

Cheers
Stuart

I agree here (rant & Peter) too. Media drives Govt policy drives funding of research.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Accusing the USA of human rights abuse is akin to abusing someone for smoking a cigarette during a raging bushfire....a total loss of perspective to say the least.

Like a butterfly flapping its wings in the Amazon......

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Marclau

Peter, so creating a law which stops families from growing their own vegetables for their own consumption not an abuse of basic human rights??
And creating man made viruses to spread or infect human populated areas is not an abuse of human basic rights? All done in the U.S

Happy to discuss this...but how 'bout you start an appropriate thread ?

[avandonk]

In all honesty folks you are all arguing about something that is incontrovertible. The top 70m of earths oceans temperatures are rising ever more quickly. As PW pointed out no one has read the original article he refered to.

Unless you have at least some tertiary education you can be easily lead by charletans.

I repeat the time for argument is over.

We all have been s_h_t_tting in our nest for a long time. It is time to change our ways.

Bert

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by KenGee

Marclau I replied to the names that had been posted that's all. My aim was to show that in most cases the names are of people who are not convinced about GW are not climate specialist. Yes some are scientist but they commenting out their field. Now everyone has a right to do so, but more weight should be put to people views who have actually studied the problem, and I mean studied not read a few books and some web sites. If a Medical doctor wrote a book about quantum physics being completely wrong and that all physics are telling lies in order to get research money, everyone would think the person is crazy. Well this is what is happening in this field and a few other s that upset people’s faith based worldviews.
Btw I read the bill you’re talking about it does nothing of the sort you say it does. Also I would love to see your evidence that the US is developing bio weapons.

Ken,

You read which part about the bill??? It's some 1700 pages long with further white papers making up the bill !!!! Have you read it fully and understand it's implications fully??

I'm not trying to be smug in any way but imposing all these restrictions and guidelines certainly and most definantly means a family cannot grow any home grown organics or vegetables for fear of fines, penalties, etc etc for breaking the law !!!!! Furthermore, no family could possibly afford the $$$$$$$$$$ needed to implement the law.


O'K I agree that certain scientists may not be experts in the said field but that doesnt prove they are out of their depths............history should have taught you that........just look at aids........scientists and experts told us it was derived from Monkeys in Africa.......these same epxerts lead us to believe this was all true just because they wrote papers etc etc......30 years later we know this was far from the truth......

And dont even get me started on cancers & superbugs.......chemo therapies etc.......

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Happy to discuss this...but how 'bout you start an appropriate thread ?

Peter, just created the thread...............

[Peter Ward]

At this risk of repetition the USCGRP report, (gathered by some pretty shonky organizations such as the NSF, NASA, Smithsonian, NOAA ) has come up with ten key, but apparently false, findings on climate change because...

1) they are incompetent
2) they are part of a global conspiracy
3) they are part of a CIA conspiracy
4) they have been fooling policy makers for 30 years just for research grants
5) some "scientists" disagree
6) they had nothing better to do
7) mother nature was being incredibly sneaky to the point a Nobel prize went begging for the last 30 years but nobody was interested.

or perhaps, just perhaps...

8) someone noticed a small change, like a glacier or two had gone AWOL when they had blinked (...a geologically timed blink) and policy makers in *every major US Federal Department including defense* wanted to know what plans/infrastructure/agriculture could be put into place to mitigate further changes .....

OK Pick a number....

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

1) they are incompetent
2) they are part of a global conspiracy
3) they are part of a CIA conspiracy
4) they have been fooling policy makers for 30 years just for research grants
5) some "scientists" disagree
6) they had nothing better to do
7) mother nature was being incredibly sneaky to the point a Nobel prize went begging for the last 30 years but nobody was interested.

or perhaps, just perhaps...

8) someone noticed a small change, like a glacier or two had gone AWOL when they had blinked (...a geologically timed blink) and policy makers in *every major US Federal Department including defense* wanted to know what plans/infrastructure/agriculture could be put into place to mitigate further changes .....

OK Pick a number....

You forgot scientists are part of the fiendish plot to invent new taxes.

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Peter - 2 words:

Guantanamo Bay.

Dave

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by sjastro

You forgot scientists are part of the fiendish plot to invent new taxes.

Doh! But yes, puts it all into perspective.

[Marclau (Marcel)]

feel the need for a group hug.............

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

OK, everyone gather around Marclau, just be careful of the eyes

BIll

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Over geological time spans the balance of atmospheric composition has changed. I stress the change has been over *geological* times, so plants and organism adapt, over extended periods.

Sharp changes, as induced by volcanic, impact or greenhouse crises, lead to mass extinction of species (BTW, happening as we speak)

Agreed estimates put human activities pumping 300 billion tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere during the last 200 or so years and CO2 *has* risen from 260 ppm to close to 380ppm with no seriously accepted "natural" mechanism
for this change.

Not bad for just 200 years.....and given geological time scales are in the *millions* of years one wonders what homo-sapiens can accomplish!

Peter,

The idea the natural climate change only occurs over timescales of million of years is quite common and supports the suggestion that the present warming is so rapid that it must be anthropogenic. This a misconception. Firstly, most climate records lack the temporal resolution to resolve rapid change, had it occurred. Secondly, there are many climate events recorded in the relatively recent past (several 100ka) whos transition apparently took only decades.

The best reference I've found in a short search is:

Jonathan Adams, Mark Maslin and Ellen Thomas "Sudden climate transitions during the Quaternary" Progress in Physical Geography 23,1 (1999) pp. 1–36

If you can't access that an early version (minus diagrams and tables) is at

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html

I'll quote part of the abstract (my emphasis)

The time span of the past few million years has been punctuated by many rapid climate transitions, most of them on timescales of centuries to decades. The most detailed information is available for the Younger Dryas-to-Holocene stepwise change around 11 500 years ago, which seems to have occurred over a few decades. The speed of this change is probably representative of similar but less well studied climate transitions during the last few hundred thousand years. These include sudden cold events (Heinrich events/stadials), warm events (interstadials) and the beginning and ending of long warm phases, such as the Eemian interglacial. Detailed analysis of terrestrial and marine records of climate change will, however, be necessary before we can say confidently on what timescale these events occurred; they almost certainly did not take longer than a few centuries.

Various mechanisms, involving changes in ocean circulation and biotic productivity, changes in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and haze particles, and changes in snow and ice cover, have been invoked to explain sudden regional and global transitions. We do not know whether such changes could occur in the near future as a result of human effects on climate.

Phenomena such as the Younger Dryas and Heinrich events might only occur in a ‘glacial’ world with much larger ice sheets and more extensive sea-ice cover. A major sudden cold event, however, did probably occur under global climate conditions similar to those of the present, during the Eemian interglacial around 122 000 years ago. Less intensive, but significant rapid climate changes also occurred during the present (Holocene) interglacial, with cold and dry phases occurring on a 1500-year cycle, and with climate transitions on a decade-to-century timescale. In the past few centuries, smaller transitions (such as the ending of the Little Ice Age' at about AD 1650) probably occurred over only a few decades at most. All evidence indicates
that long-term climate change occurs in sudden jumps rather than incremental changes.

Being 10 years old it's summary of climate change is obviously dated but none of the central tenents have changed. However its treatment of possible AGW is disappointing - but that isn't why you would read it. If I find a better ref I'll pass it on.

I'm not at all saying this shows that the present climate changes are purely natural, only that the speed of the change is not proof of AGW.

cheers,
David

[tonybarry (Tony)]

Hello David,

A good paper for the likes of me. Many thanks for the reference.

Regards,
Tony Barry

[TrevorW]

Were stuffed I'm leaving when's the next ship out of here

[avandonk]

Yes David the same scientists that gave you that little factoid are most probably alive today.

We are not dealing with an ancient Earth that had no biological negative feedback mechanisms.

We are all in deep trouble. I do not care for myself. I like most of you have children and grandchildren.

I will now turn up the heater as it is cold in Melbourne!


Bert