An Inconvenient Truth

[SNOW-MAN2006]

What worries me about what you say, I believe you will be proved right about Earth's ability to self repair, is that will that 'repaired' Earth be capable of supporting us? Using the analogy of an organism, it might merely rid itself of parasites?

No probs re your theory mate. I could have worded my replies a tad differently...

Well the earth has been through alot before and i we have survived an ice age and im sure previous animals in the past have been through alot.

If a repaired earth means an end to GW then im al 4 it

SNOW-MAN2006

[Methuselah]

I've a feeling that societal changes will be in order; which may mean internecine squabbling or even all-out warfare...I am more than concerned for the welfare of my descendents!

[drgl]

good post-particulary the last point.

[Thundery wintry showers]

What worries me about what you say, I believe you will be proved right about Earth's ability to self repair, is that will that 'repaired' Earth be capable of supporting us? Using the analogy of an organism, it might merely rid itself of parasites?

No probs re your theory mate. I could have worded my replies a tad differently...

Yes, I go along with that as well- a very good point.

I also agree that our society will have to change in some way in order for our life on this planet to be sustainable.

One of my main concerns re. the above is the tendency for policymakers to be at one extreme or the other. For example, you have the extremism of the environmental pressure groups, and the extremism of the sceptics (e.g. Iceagenow). It seems that the extent to which people are interested in a topic like this tends to be correlated, in many cases, with the extremity of the position they take up and the extent to which they are closed-minded about it.

There are some individuals who care about environmental issues but seem to have a more balanced approach, there are many names I can think of on this forum, including some of the more famous ones like Philip Eden. However, these people don't generally get much of a say in policymaking. I don't think this is a healthy situation with regards deciding what changes in society are needed... could well lead to the wars described by Pete above if we're not careful!

[Methuselah]

You have a very good point there, Ian. I think that it's psychologically easier to take an extreme view of things; it can be very comforting to be on one-side-or-the-other, rather than stuck somewhere in between - and have to take equal amounts of flak from both sides??

The general public doesn't much like any admission of anything less than 100% certainty either, methinks??

[Gray-Wolf]

It seems we are a decidedly anxious bunch (up to 20% of the population are medically treated for anxiety/depression each year and the figures are increasing) and as such you can understand why people are not wishing to change their lives to offset a change they cannot yet quantify. I would imagine, nature liking balance, that the 20% anxiety ridden are offset by a 20% bunch of cocky/couldn't give a $hit people meaning that nigh on half the population are so far removed from 'normality' they should not be expected to engage in the subject in any meaningful way and especially not just to reinforce their own mental positions. I suspect, however, that many of the damaged folk are the 'extremists' on either side of the argument and that they are pushing their side for their own mental reinforcement and not for the 'greater truth'. Ah well, such is life! the rest of us can just ponder on until some irrefutable event transpires to confirm our worst suspicions......

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

450 million years ago the planet was SO different (continents/oceans/ocean currents and thus weather patterns/the power of the sun also lower) it's rather deceptive to simply compare then with now unless you also point out the differences (but of course it's a nice diversion...). I suspect you'd dispute data showing it to be warmer now than at any time since the ice age, but you accept (without question?) far less reliable data for 450 million years ago?

Devonian

CO2 hasn't changed has it? Yes the planet was different so what has the difference in oceans/landmasses/currents/sun output got to do with humans? Nothing. No diversion, no deceptions. The planet warms without CO2, it cools with larger amounts of CO2 than now. The arctic is cooler now than 1925 - 45, the warm up to now since mid/late 60s is much less than back then. There was less CO2 then than now, recordings show more ice coverage in 1938 than now yet the arctic is colder than back then and there was a cooldown in between. This is why I do not buy the theory and sit very much on the fence and face towards the other way

BFTP

[Roger J Smith]

I think the really inconvenient truth is that the GW theory keeps changing to fit new global climate patterns, which raises the suspicion that it is not a very sound scientific theory at all. Anything that is really just speculation but enforced as belief by anxious scientific authorities is really a sidetracking of legitimate science. The reality is that relatively small shifts in global climate have been taking place since GW became a fashionable topic, none of them much different from the kinds of changes that have always been seen from decade to decade or half-century to half-century in the past. Add to that the fact that whatever warming you can accept as legitimate is more likely to be of natural origins than human-related, and you get a situation where the more obvious response should be to plan for natural change that could well be underway, rather than acting like King Canute and trying to stop natural processes from happening by over-estimating minor human contributions.

That may turn out to be an inconvenient truth for Al Gore if he plans to become the modern King Canute in 2008. The other inconvenient truth? Where most of the people actually live, it ain't getting warmer (go outside and check it out for yourself.)

Now, let the inquisition begin, the heretic hath spoken. Off with my head!!!

[kippure]

[quote name='Roger J Smith' date='21 Jun 2006, 05:40 PM' post='7202

That may turn out to be an inconvenient truth for Al Gore if he plans to become the modern King Canute in 2008. The other inconvenient truth? Where most of the people actually live, it ain't getting warmer (go outside and check it out for yourself.)

Now, let the inquisition begin, the heretic hath spoken. Off with my head!!!

[noggin]

The other inconvenient truth? Where most of the people actually live, it ain't getting warmer (go outside and check it out for yourself.)

Now, let the inquisition begin, the heretic hath spoken. Off with my head!!!

Regarding your entire post, Mr Smith, I couldn't agree with you more, thanks for putting it all so well. I vote for you to keep your head!

With regard to the small extract that I have quoted, I and a few others have noted/observed that our "regions" have stopped heating up and have started cooling down over about the past 3 years. Unfortunately there are some people on the forum who don't seem to think that "mere" observation counts for anything!

Also, not really apropos anything, I have noticed that the media don't refer to "global warming" so much now as to "climate change".

Edited June 21, 2006 by noggin

[Scribbler]

I think the really inconvenient truth is that the GW theory keeps changing to fit new global climate patterns, which raises the suspicion that it is not a very sound scientific theory at all. Anything that is really just speculation but enforced as belief by anxious scientific authorities is really a sidetracking of legitimate science.

As usual Mr R J S – an excellent post.

It is human nature to be either sceptical about or all in favour of anyone who comes up with a theory –whatever the theory is about. None of us really like to sit on the fence! But some theories are easier to prove or disprove than others.

Because we are dealing with a dynamic process (i.e. climatic changes), anyone who has any degree of scientific interest in the future of the weather, the earth, the oceans, etc, etc will therefore be inclined to put forward their own theory or support someone else’s. But the only place that we can look with any degree of certainty is into the past.

However, although we can extrapolate climatic conditions for past millennia, there is no way that we can include localised extremes in those graphs and charts. Using Dendroclimatology (as an example) we can find out that 2500 BC was a dry, cool year in central Britain (probably wrong - it might have been warm and wet, for all I know!) but we can’t tell if there was a heatwave for a week or so in June that summer or that there was a violent thunderstorm that dumped 50 mm or rain in one small area in August.

So the crap weather that we’ve had this week or the heatwave of last week will never appear in the climatic record of 2500 AD. Only the broad overall figures will remain and the records of the extremes of our climate, which we make headlines of, will disappear eventually.

And since the climate is also a thing of the future – only someone who’s been there can say for certain what the weather or climate will be like.

Therefore all us scientifically-minded people can come up with all the theories in the world about climate change – and all be wrong!

Being one of those scientifically-minded people, that does annoy me somewhat!

My basic theory?

There’s too many of us causing too much pollution through industrialisation and environmental damage. We’re damaging the earth beyond its ability to repair itself.

What we have been doing for the past 500 years will take 5,000 years for the earth to put right and the damage will not be made good in time to save our civilisation as we know it.

[acbrixton]

Add to that the fact that whatever warming you can accept as legitimate is more likely to be of natural origins than human-related, and you get a situation where the more obvious response should be to plan for natural change that could well be underway, rather than acting like King Canute and trying to stop natural processes from happening by over-estimating minor human contributions.

That may turn out to be an inconvenient truth for Al Gore if he plans to become the modern King Canute in 2008. The other inconvenient truth? Where most of the people actually live, it ain't getting warmer (go outside and check it out for yourself.)

Now, let the inquisition begin, the heretic hath spoken. Off with my head!!!

Roger, I hesitate to take issue with you (save on one tangential matter: see below) as I am not a scientist let alone a climatologist. However:

1. I rather think that you have been a little glib in stating baldly that it is a "fact" that GW "is more likely to be of natural origins than human-related". What is the basis for that assertion please?

2. Is it really the case that "human contributions" are "minor"? Do not the figures for atmospheric CO2 show a steady and accelerating increase from about the early 19c in line with increased industrialisation?

3. A tangential matter (where I am certain of my stance!): it is a common misconception to assert that King Canute (or Cnut) believed that he could command the tides. His view was the exact opposite and he was trying to demonstrate his powerlessness for the benefit of his more gullible courtiers.

Regards

ACB

[Devonian]

I think the really inconvenient truth is that the GW theory keeps changing to fit new global climate patterns, which raises the suspicion that it is not a very sound scientific theory at all. Anything that is really just speculation but enforced as belief by anxious scientific authorities is really a sidetracking of legitimate science.

I think saying the above is to, perhaps unintentionally, plant nasty little 'anti accepted science' seeds in peoples minds. Lets see something, anything, to back up this claim of scientific wrongdoing. I think you have nothing but nasty little seeds.

The reality is that relatively small shifts in global climate have been taking place since GW became a fashionable topic, none of them much different from the kinds of changes that have always been seen from decade to decade or half-century to half-century in the past. Add to that the fact that whatever warming you can accept as legitimate is more likely to be of natural origins than human-related, and you get a situation where the more obvious response should be to plan for natural change that could well be underway, rather than acting like King Canute and trying to stop natural processes from happening by over-estimating minor human contributions.

There is NO evidence the warming is just natural - none! How on earth you can conclude the warming is 'more likely' to be natural I simply can't figure out. You do know the effects of ghg's? You do know the sun isn't warming? So you base your conclusion on an false premis. It's also a misunderstanding and misrepresentation of black is white proportions, (which is, sadly, seen quite often), that to want to reduce the amount of climate changing ghg we add to the atmosphere is to, somehow, want to incease our effect on the climate. NO!, it's just so simple - reduce ghg's and you reduce the anthropogenic effect.

That may turn out to be an inconvenient truth for Al Gore if he plans to become the modern King Canute in 2008. The other inconvenient truth? Where most of the people actually live, it ain't getting warmer (go outside and check it out for yourself.)

Now, let the inquisition begin, the heretic hath spoken. Off with my head!!!

See above. Oh, and this is a La Nina kind of year yet it's, globally, still warm. Go figure.

[Methuselah]

One question for which I've never seen a satisfactory answer is: how is it that anthropogenic ghgs are claimed by anti-GWers to be environmentally/geologically/climatologically neutral, whilst their natural counterparts are not? Surely ghgs are ghgs, irrespective of the naturalness, or otherwise, of their sources?

Do we really expect a longwave photon to say to itself: I'm not allowed to be absorbed and re-radiated earthwards by that molecule of CO2 or CH4 - because it's manmade?? :lol:

[noggin]

Oh, and this is a La Nina kind of year yet it's, globally, still warm. Go figure.

It ain't hot in the Antipodes.

[Devonian]

It ain't hot in the Antipodes.

No, well, average global temperature ain't just the Antipodies.

[kold weather]

See above. Oh, and this is a La Nina kind of year yet it's, globally, still warm. Go figure.

La Nina ended a few months ago now, i believe surface temps returned to normal byFeb/March and in fact the sub-sruface temps presently are more akin El Nino then La Nina right now suggesting we may see a weak El Nino by the end of the year, though thats for another time and place I suppose!

I'll quote what i wrote in another thread as this is my belief:

I can see a cooldown of sorts but we are still seeing more above average months then we would normally.I suspect that the solar min doesn't actually cool the earth down on its own but is rather a by-product usually of what actually occurs.

I believe that during solar mins blocking becomes much stronger then it does during solar maxes. i haven't got enough dates to back up this claim but one look of the present cycle seems to suggest a rather neat comprasion:

http://www.sec.noaa.gov/info/image3.gif

As you can see the last min was between 1995-97 and alas we had a more blocked set-up then normal which led to the hot summer of 95 as well as the cold winters of 95-96 and the first two months of 96-97. Then we had the unsettled condtions between say 1998-2002 where winters got very zonal which was due to the solar max occuring, and over the last 2-3 years we've seen marked reductions of zonality and blocked condtions have ruled over.

I'll be intrested in some more dates of solar mins tp see how close it goes with periods of more blocked weather. More blocked condtions at higher latitudes allows more build-up of cold which means more cold air to tap into from the poles.

As Pete suggested I'm strong believer that the next strong El-nino will see us have the warmest year ever and I think we'd probably break the 11C mark as well!!!!

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Is it me or does all of this sound a little bit silly?

totallt sane if you beleive in GW and they are said to be big pollutants and if GW is true i would lead the campaign to slauter them but i dont so they are just nice now and then with me sundya dinner.

SNOW-MAN2006

[crimsone]

I wonder if we could have done anything to reduce Venus' greenhouse gases? Clearly humankind must have had something to do with that because natural processes, by themselves, do not produce enough to tip the balance. I think you and I should start an organisation to lobby the Venusian parliament to ban gas-guzzling cars, stop the use of refrigerators, and ban flatulent cows.

Damn Venusians must be related to those evil Americans, eh?

Erm, I fail to see the logic in that one. For a start, its a different orbit. One that's a LOT closer to the sun. I very much doubt that Venus has EVER been cool per se. Secondly, Men are from earth, women are from earth - deal with it (lol). We don't live on venus and we never have. Given the heatwave they've been experienceing there which has lasted from the birth of the solar system to oday, I rather doubt ANYTHING lives there, save the possibility of microscopic live akin to that which we see around geysers and volcanoes on earth, else perhaps silicone based life - which would probably be quite unlikely - and their fossils would now be only molten glass anyway.

I must add here that of course, bovine flatulence has never been claimed to be a major factor in global warming. There are other mechanisms (both natural and artificial) for the release of methane on the planet.

[Methuselah]

It ain't hot in the Antipodes.

But it's winter in the Antipodes...

I wonder if we could have done anything to reduce Venus' greenhouse gases? Clearly humankind must have had something to do with that because natural processes, by themselves, do not produce enough to tip the balance. I think you and I should start an organisation to lobby the Venusian parliament to ban gas-guzzling cars, stop the use of refrigerators, and ban flatulent cows.

Damn Venusians must be related to those evil Americans, eh?

If we're to reduce mankinds impact on the environment then we should start with the most potent greenhouse molecule - water vapour. The next on the list is to plug cows bottoms because the CH4 that exits from them is high on the list of dangerous culprits.

Is it me or does all of this sound a little bit silly?

What's any of that got to do with anything?

[Scribbler]

If we're to reduce mankinds impact on the environment then we should start with the most potent greenhouse molecule - water vapour.

So - we get rid of the oil economy and go nuclear.

And what is the only pollutant (apart from radioactivity) from a nuclear power station? Heat - much of it in the form of water vapour!

The next on the list is to plug cows bottoms because the CH4 that exits from them is high on the list of dangerous culprits.

I thought that termites rated higher than cows on the CH4 pollutant scale?

Venus never has had 4x4, and has never burnt fossil fuels. The point is that catastrophic climate change occured there without any of our help; it could be occuring here, too.

One tiny thing in favour of a greenhouse scenario on Venus is that is it just a little bit closer to the sun than we are! Like - 40million kilometers!

[Dawlish]

I wonder if we could have done anything to reduce Venus' greenhouse gases? Clearly humankind must have had something to do with that because natural processes, by themselves, do not produce enough to tip the balance.....

....Is it me or does all of this sound a little bit silly?

Yes; basically. Your points have no logic, sorry! Also, they aren't funny!

Paul

Edited June 22, 2006 by Dawlish

[crimsone]

But still, the term "bovine flatulance" as a descriptor of GW will be ringing through my head for days to come.

[Scribbler]

A report today in -

http://www.terradaily.com

End of 20th century warmest in 400 years: US report

WASHINGTON, June 22 (AFP) Jun 23, 2006

Human activity has made Earth hotter now than at any point in 400 and possibly more than 1000 years, a US Congress commissioned report said Thursday.

"The committee pointed out that surface temperature reconstruction for periods before the Industrial Revolution ... are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that current warming is occurring in response to human activities," the report by the National Academy of Sciences said.

Now will you believe us?

[noggin]

But it's winter in the Antipodes...

Yes, I know. But my contacts down there have been commenting that it is "absolutely freezing", a "bitterly cold" Winter (for them, that is!)

I am a simple soul. But was not Europe particularly cold this past Winter? There was snow in Asia. The Antipodes are having a cold old time and there are my own modest observations of my climate cooling down.

I put it all together and arrive at the conclusion that any GW has now stopped and we have tipped over into a cooldown.