Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

Another blooming climate survey


What is your opinion on climate change?  

82 members have voted

  1. 1. Where do you stand on climate change?

    • There is no warming; its a fabrication based on inaccurate measurement. It is arrogant to presume that we can have any effect on Nature.
      1
    • The recent warming is entirely natural. CO2 has nothing to do with it. It could well be the Sun.
      7
    • There may be some changes in the atmosphere, but the changes are all within natural limits. The 'scares' are exaggerations with a political motive.
      11
    • It's so confusing I can't make my mind up; it is getting warmer but I don't know why. All of the arguments sound convincing & I can't decide who to trust.
      6
    • There is warming and CO2 may cause some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be sure. The IPCC probably underestimates some of the natural forcings and overestimates the role of CO2.
      28
    • The mainstream scientific view, as per the IPCC, has got it more or less right. I accept that the scientists probably know what they are doing and we are warming the planet
      8
    • The IPCC is compromised by political intervention; I agree with the scientists who say that it is underestimating the problem and something needs to be done about it soon.
      4
    • Too much of the science is conservative in its findings; I think it's probably worse than they are saying.
      0
    • If we don't do something about emissions in the next few years, we are in real trouble. Action is needed now to mitigate the threat of serious warming and other impacts.
      9
    • We are on the edge of a disaster, which we may not be able to prevent. We are messing up the earth's natural systems and will pay the price in some ways even if we act now.
      8


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Do you think people like me somehow like the kinds of verbal beatings we get? Or do you think I have the views I have out of some kind of misplaced sense of mischief?

Dev: this time, I do think you're probably overreacting a bit. jethro was just trying to say what he thinks; he must be allowed to do that. On the more general point, it matters not one whit how many times a moron shouts 'idiot' at you; think of it not as an accusation, but as an advertisement. :)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Jam tomorrow eh? I've been hear such things for decades.

Btw, how distant is 'the not too distant future'?

But that's precisely my point Dev; decades. Put a few decades into perspective of time, they wouldn't warrant a click of the fingers in real time when looking at climatology.

I grew up on a farm in the Cotswolds surrounded by old farmers and farm workers. I quickly learned that if I didn't want to go to bed the best way of being allowed to stay up was to ask questions, believe me, no one likes to reminisce more than an old farmer. An old farmer talking about the weather takes some beating. Lambing and harvest are the clearest memories, probably because they were fixed points of reference for the conversations which would invariably run along the lines of "been a good year/bad year/crikey it's been dry/wet/cold/hot". Grandad would have been in his eighties and he would recant stories his Grandad had told him; that's a living memory since the 1830's give or take. Throw into that my forty odd years of memory and it's very clear to me that it goes up and down. For every positive, there's a negative, equal and opposite reaction. I accept fully chucking out Co2 or any other pollutant into the atmosphere cannot be a good thing but I don't for one minute believe that just that one thing can overide the physics of the entire globe. We as a species are just not that important or influential in the grand scheme of things and that's precisely what we are being told to accept. Mankind, the biggest, best and most dangerous creature alive.

All I can say with any certainty is it was cooler with snowier winters when I was a child. If my Grandad or his Grandad were still alive they could tell me what it was like in their childhood and some of their collective years would have been cooler, some would have been warmer. Tell me why our generation's experience is any different than theirs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Jam tomorrow eh? I've been hear such things for decades.

Btw, how distant is 'the not too distant future'?

Isn't the another strange quirk of human nature which to seeks to deny the concernes raised by some by attacking the character of those who raise such concerns as (in this case) worriers (often spun up into 'scaremonger' 'chicken little', 'liars' even)? I wonder what some people would have been saying on Easter Island as the trees we gradually chopped down. 'Don't worry there's no lack of trees, it's all just scaremongering.' I rekon....

Do you think people like me somehow like the kinds of verbal beatings we get? Or do you think I have the views I have out of some kind of misplaced sense of mischief?

But that really isn't what I'm saying. I haven't and wouldn't attack anyone's character; nor would I.

Denyers, sceptics, doubters, naysyers call me and others what you will; are all subjected to verbal beatings too. My gripe when it comes to exaggeration was against the portrayal of AGW in the media, not you. Everywhere you look nowadays, even for the most bizarre things, you get a GW view point attached. It's counter-productive and exceedingly mis-leading, marketing gone mad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Dev: this time, I do think you're probably overreacting a bit. jethro was just trying to say what he thinks; he must be allowed to do that. On the more general point, it matters not one whit how many times a moron shouts 'idiot' at you; think of it not as an accusation, but as an advertisement. :)P

Well, to be clear, I was thinking in general and over the years in various places. And, yes, I take your point, framing I guess eh :clap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Dev: this time, I do think you're probably overreacting a bit. jethro was just trying to say what he thinks; he must be allowed to do that. On the more general point, it matters not one whit how many times a moron shouts 'idiot' at you; think of it not as an accusation, but as an advertisement. :)P

He's a she. And P3, I would expect better from you than "moron" and "idiot". It conveys a sense of superiority which is neither founded nor attractive; got out of bed the wrong side this morning?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
But that really isn't what I'm saying. I haven't and wouldn't attack anyone's character; nor would I.

Denyers, sceptics, doubters, naysyers call me and others what you will; are all subjected to verbal beatings too. My gripe when it comes to exaggeration was against the portrayal of AGW in the media, not you. Everywhere you look nowadays, even for the most bizarre things, you get a GW view point attached. It's counter-productive and exceedingly mis-leading, marketing gone mad.

A word like 'worrier', it's not a compliment to the charcter of a subsection of people, surely? Worrier here, scaremonger elsewhere I'm afraid, and in the worst places we're liars or worse. That said, please note my reply to P3, I am talking generally and over the years.

Btw, more substantially, when is the 'not too distant future'?

He's a she. And P3, I would expect better from you than "moron" and "idiot". It conveys a sense of superiority which is neither founded nor attractive; got out of bed the wrong side this morning?

Oopps. Where did P3 say YOU we're such things? But it does nicely illustrate the sometimes unconstructive role of languge in such debates don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Larbert
  • Location: Larbert

Go, go, Jethro. That's a good lass! :D

Have a little read of this. The part in bold at the bottom is my favourite quote this week.

Alarmists need not reply :clap:

(right, i'm back to blog land - couldn't resist because i'm a devilevil.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
A word like 'worrier', it's not a compliment to the charcter of a subsection of people, surely? Worrier here, scaremonger elsewhere I'm afraid, and in the worst places we're liars or worse. That said, please note my reply to P3, I am talking generally and over the years.

Btw, more substantially, when is the 'not too distant future'?

Oopps. Where did P3 say YOU we're such things? But it does nicely illustrate the sometimes unconstructive role of languge in such debates don't you think?

I see your point, but doubter here, climate holocaust heretic elsewhere; that just goes round and round. I didn't take the moron or idiot personally, just don't think inserting phrases like that serves any positive purpose, whatever the point of debate may be.

Not too distant future? Pick a date, any date, the only way anyone would get it right is by pure chance. And that's part of my point, at some time in the future, it will get cooler as it has done in the past and as it has also warmed in our current time. Temperatures go up and down, it's going up at the moment, it won't continue ever marching skywards, will it? If you twisted my hand behind my back and forced a date, I'd guess the predicted quieter Sun after 2012 (?) and the following two predicted quieter cycles thereafter will have an impact. Perhaps after that, we will be in a better position to more accurately assess the impact of Solar activity upon Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

Er.. sorry, jethro, I was using the gender-specific term to refer to your avatar. I'll try to remember in future. And note, these words were not references to you: I was defending you, remember? they were a reference to the more general point.

Following on from your earlier post, I can now understand why you are 'cautious/doubting/sceptical' (pick a term...). A 'little bit' of greenhouse gases added to the immensity of the entire system doesn't seem like very much. It certainly doesn't seem enough to cause some of the dramatic consequences that we read about in the media.

It is not especially intuitive to relate the amount of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to the effect these have on the global average temperature, but this is exactly what scientists are asking us to understand. A little GHG goes a long way, when it comes to 'balancing' the global heat budget. I know the 'blanket' analogy is not exactly how it works, but consider the comparison: those thin, rattly silver foil 'blankets' that runners often cover themselves with after a marathon are much lighter and thinner than your average duvet, but they do a better job of keeping the runner warm, because of what they are made of and how this material retains heat in the system. Thus it is for GHGs. There aren't a lot of them, compared to the volume of the atmosphere, but there have been enough, in the past several thousand years, to keep the global average temperature relatively stable.

What we call Global Warming - particularly the CO2 part of it, is founde on the knowledge (not guesswork, but observation and known physics), that the amount of these gases which keep the heat budget balanced have been increasing. Quite quickly. And more gases = more heat retention in the system = global heat budget thrown out of balance.

I hope this helps. Sorry if you thought I was being rude about you; not intended at all.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
Go, go, Jethro. That's a good lass! :shok:

Have a little read of this. The part in bold at the bottom is my favourite quote this week.

Alarmists need not reply :shok:

(right, i'm back to blog land - couldn't resist because i'm a devilevil.gif

You little devil! Sorry for borrowing your hat this morning, trimmed it with a few flowers and ribbons for a change, you can have it back now, back to work for me.

I do find it staggering that one program can provoke so much antagonism yet hours and hours of t.v time and yards of newsprint devoted to the pro GW view are somehow o.k. If the science is so certain, what's the panic all about eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

I think the 'panic' (perhaps 'worry' is more appropriate) is that reasonable people who don't know a great deal about science might see the programme and actually believe some of it, which does not help in gaining a more general understanding of how and why the climate is changing, and what this means for our children and their children.

If such material is ignored, or left unchallenged, there are those who would claim it as 'authoritative' or 'proof'. It is neither. It is a deliberate distortion of both fact and science; a 'swindle'. I don't mind a challenge to the AGW argument. I don't like lies, either.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
I think the 'panic' (perhaps 'worry' is more appropriate) is that reasonable people who don't know a great deal about science might see the programme and actually believe some of it, which does not help in gaining a more general understanding of how and why the climate is changing, and what this means for our children and their children.

If such material is ignored, or left unchallenged, there are those who would claim it as 'authoritative' or 'proof'. It is neither. It is a deliberate distortion of both fact and science; a 'swindle'. I don't mind a challenge to the AGW argument. I don't like lies, either.

:)P

Oh you and I have a great deal in common, trouble is I can and do argue the very same, for the same reasons; just from the other side of the fence maybe. None of it, pro or con, is a done deal. It's best guess scenarios situation, backed up by incomplete science. I'd say so far the pro AGW side have had by far the greatest media coverage with which to influence people, most of it backed by less science than this particular program. By definition that would imply most people are informed from one perspective, we need the other perspective and lots of it to be broadcast/published before the general public have any where near a balanced, informed understanding of climate. Al Gore's film was neither "authoritative" or "proof", it cherry picked and distorted then heaped a huge dose of American shmaltz on top for good measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
Oh you and I have a great deal in common, trouble is I can and do argue the very same, for the same reasons; just from the other side of the fence maybe. None of it, pro or con, is a done deal. It's best guess scenarios situation, backed up by incomplete science. I'd say so far the pro AGW side have had by far the greatest media coverage with which to influence people, most of it backed by less science than this particular program. By definition that would imply most people are informed from one perspective, we need the other perspective and lots of it to be broadcast/published before the general public have any where near a balanced, informed understanding of climate. Al Gore's film was neither "authoritative" or "proof", it cherry picked and distorted then heaped a huge dose of American shmaltz on top for good measure.

I am going to disagree with you on this. Almost all of it is a done deal, pro; the con stuff doesn't add up, never has. Doesn't mean the science is perfect, but it is a lot stronger than 'best guess scenario' and a lot more complete than many people seem to imagine.

How you can say

I'd say so far the pro AGW side have had by far the greatest media coverage with which to influence people, most of it backed by less science than this particular program
is beyond me: the sheer quantity of science backing AGW is astonishingly large. In contrast, the quantity of (proper) science challenging it is miniscule by comparison. This isn't because of any conspirarcy, it's because the results of the research end up that way; supporting the AGW hypothesis.

I entirely agree that the general public is not well-informed and often struggles to understand the science, but I disagree that we aren't given a range of perspectives. Ignore the Gore film; it was a movie. The notion that there are more than a tiny number of scientists out there who genuinely doubt the AGW hypothesis is false. I wouldn't say all of this if I hadn't done the research for myself, but the weight of scientific evidence is vastly one-sided, and, inasmuch as science can be, pretty much conclusive. That's what I think, anyway...

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
I am going to disagree with you on this. Almost all of it is a done deal, pro; the con stuff doesn't add up, never has. Doesn't mean the science is perfect, but it is a lot stronger than 'best guess scenario' and a lot more complete than many people seem to imagine.

How you can say is beyond me: the sheer quantity of science backing AGW is astonishingly large. In contrast, the quantity of (proper) science challenging it is miniscule by comparison. This isn't because of any conspirarcy, it's because the results of the research end up that way; supporting the AGW hypothesis.

I entirely agree that the general public is not well-informed and often struggles to understand the science, but I disagree that we aren't given a range of perspectives. Ignore the Gore film; it was a movie. The notion that there are more than a tiny number of scientists out there who genuinely doubt the AGW hypothesis is false. I wouldn't say all of this if I hadn't done the research for myself, but the weight of scientific evidence is vastly one-sided, and, inasmuch as science can be, pretty much conclusive. That's what I think, anyway...

:)P

I didn't explain myself very well did I? Apologies, my fault, that'll teach me to fire off a quick reply when I should have been working.

What I meant to say is how can the picture presented to the general public be a complete one when the science is incomplete. I don't doubt that the pro side science is valid but, and it's a big but, the bias in research funding and work is towards man's contribution. Understandably; it is far easier to research artificial warming as there is a known point from which to begin. We know we're pumping Co2 out into the atmosphere, we know roughly, or can calculate how much and we know it's a GHG. What there hasn't been enough of, or anywhere near equal research is into natural causes. There are many ways to do calculations but just because 2+2=4 doesn't mean 1+3 or 3+1 or even 5-1 don't add up. I personally think all possible variations of calculus have to be done and tested before the picture is presented as a complete one.

From my own limited research on the web I know there are many, many more than just a few dissenting scientists out there who doubt the AGW hypothesis; they are a group of very learned professionals with years of research between them so they shouldn't be given a cursory dismissal, they know a damn sight more than you or I.

My concern is not that the general public may not understand the science but that we are bombarded on all sides with this idea that there is no more to learn, we've got it sussed and we haven't. Time and again stories come out about how this is happening or that is happening and according to the IPCC it shouldn't happen like that or it shouldn't be happening yet, blah, blah, blah. Could this possibly be because the science behind it is flawed? Could there be a far greater driver than Co2 at work which is messing up their calculations? Without the research we'll never know and until such point as we do, it shouldn't be presented as the Holy Gospel.

We aren't presented with a balanced view either in the media or on television, dozens and dozens of programs and articles have a AGW slant, the "Green Issue" sells, it's being exploited wholesale. I discounted the Al Gore movie, I expect you did too but it won an Oscar for gods sake, as best documentary! That has to have an impact on the general public. Don't believe me? Burberry used to be confined to the coat linings of gentlemen and ladies of a certain class, more often glimpsed on a race course or at Badminton, a celeb or two thought it was cute, soon it was plastered across the globe in the media. Now it's available in your local Poundstretcher, adorning a plastic cup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......

IPCC do have it wrong but only because certain nations forced them to 'tone down' their predictions.

With less particulate pollution than in the airs above us (as the current ,ongoing measurements will surely show?) this year will give us a taste of just how far along the 'warming curve' we actually are (without the mitigation of the particulate pollution) The suns 'extra' strength, due to the 'curtain of pollution' being drawn open, will mean many parts of Europe/NW Europe will again record excessive heat and the year on year increase in CO2 will trap in more of the 'extra' warmth.

By October Joe public will be sick of melting poles,heat waves, droughts and hurricanes (whether they 'understand them' or not!)

Edited by Gray-Wolf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
From my own limited research on the web I know there are many, many more than just a few dissenting scientists out there who doubt the AGW hypothesis

I am going to tease you now: this is closely related to the 'formal research I am doing at the moment. Can't say more now, except that it has stimulated some very encouraging response. (in that the people who have responded have been very supportive of the research).

Apart from that, there is not a great deal of difference in our views, except in the detail relating to the science.

On the point about natural forcings, or something going on besides CO2, this is much more complicated than most people think. I'll just summarise very briefly by saying that it is possible either that some things are going on apart from CO2, or alongside CO2, or because of CO2; it really is very hard to tell. But whatever else, there is still all that CO2, and the way it just keeps that pesky heat in the system. I don't think it is the whole story, nor will it ever be, but in a sense it is going to be there, in the background or the foreground, however the story turns out.

I have also become aware that it is almost impossible, now, to separate the science from the politics, becaus the whole climate debate has become intensely politicised. This is very irritating, but is something we will have to take into account.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
I am going to tease you now: this is closely related to the 'formal research I am doing at the moment. Can't say more now, except that it has stimulated some very encouraging response. (in that the people who have responded have been very supportive of the research).

Apart from that, there is not a great deal of difference in our views, except in the detail relating to the science.

On the point about natural forcings, or something going on besides CO2, this is much more complicated than most people think. I'll just summarise very briefly by saying that it is possible either that some things are going on apart from CO2, or alongside CO2, or because of CO2; it really is very hard to tell. But whatever else, there is still all that CO2, and the way it just keeps that pesky heat in the system. I don't think it is the whole story, nor will it ever be, but in a sense it is going to be there, in the background or the foreground, however the story turns out.

I have also become aware that it is almost impossible, now, to separate the science from the politics, becaus the whole climate debate has become intensely politicised. This is very irritating, but is something we will have to take into account.

:)P

Only known to respond to teasing with Marshmallows.

What is it you do for a living P3? Am I allowed to ask? I've updated my avatar, still not gender specific but the reason for being Jethro - my cat, a West Country creature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent
I have also become aware that it is almost impossible, now, to separate the science from the politics, becaus the whole climate debate has become intensely politicised. This is very irritating, but is something we will have to take into account.

:)P

Hi P3

This is a point I have been banging on about for ages on here, which brings me back to my 3 original questions:

1- The question being asked of by this poll is the core question.

2- What we should do about it.

3-Political interference and trust in governments to both deliver the truth and to deliver a solution or best shot at it. (Now this is actually the biggest issue for me and one that I think often clouds peoples judgement in the first 2 question).

It is simply not going to be enough working on the core question without taking the other 2 factors seriously into account. The key point from this survey is that most people think that man has had some effect on GW the only argument appears to be how much. Parts 2 and 3 to me block the way forward any further progress on the whole issue. Most people thats the vast majority would back doing something if they thought it would really achieve something and that their government was not just taking them on a ride.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

jethro: in theory I am still a schoolteacher, but I have not worked much for the past several weeks due to illness. In my dreams I'm an academic (when I'm not winning an Olympic medal for something). I expect a career change soon; just don't know what it will be yet.

HP: I think that the poll also shows how far the government still has to go to get the message across. It doesn't help that there is so much confusion between general environmentalism, which is something many of us think is a 'good' thing, and the issues arising from climate change, which involve the environment, but do not mean, in the sense that some would have us believe, a 'complete transformation' in the way we live; just some important adjustments.

The trouble shown by this poll is that, for one reason or another, the majority of people on NW believe that the problems are exaggerated, and the emphasis on CO2 is political. This is hard to argue against. If we find it hard to accept what scientists are telling us, there's no way we're going to trust the government to tell us the 'real' truth' rather than some 'spun' version.

None of this would matter to any of us if CO2 isn't a threat. I am in the process of finding out what, if any, the scientific consensus is on this question, amongst others.

My thought is that, until the core issue; 'how much of a problem is CO2?', is sorted out in the public mind, the other two problems are left hanging in the breeze.

Thanks to you and everyone else for some really interesting posts.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Chevening Kent
  • Location: Chevening Kent

For me there is the question that CO2 may have already acted as a catalyst in GW and I am not convinced by removing it we would return our climate to its previous state?

One big area of concern is that our government policies do not seem to backup the message they are given out and therefore doubt they actually believe the message themselves. A good example to me would be when the Ozone layer was found to be damaged by CFCs, once this was accepted CFC emission reduction was top of the agenda and achieved in a very small space of time. Simply anything that emitted CFCs was a no no overnight. If we applied the current government CO2 agenda to CFC's they would simply increase the price of these items and be making plans and subsidising new factories to make more CFC producing goods, hence more airports, heralding new car plants as good things etc. Many thinking people look at what governments do and propose to do then see that the problem can't be as bad as stated, this is why I think your poll results maybe suffering a political backlash?

Does that get my point across, I know what I mean :yahoo:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Sunny Southsea
  • Location: Sunny Southsea

We can't remove the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere (yes, I know, someone in the USA is working on 'air scrubbers'); we won't stop adding more to the atmosphere; all the political shenanigans are about slowing down the rate at which our emissions grow; yes, we are increasing the amount we add every year, by a couple of percent.

Even if some way could be found to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow, we would not 'return' to previous levels, or previous average temperatures, for several hundred years; 200 at best. But the climate isn't that bad - yet. The idea is that if we add CO2 a bit more slowly, and eventually stop adding very much at all, then we might slow down the process of warming enough to make adaptation easier, or find new technologies; we'll also reduce the risk of reaching the much-vaunted climate 'tipping point', beyond which, nothing we can do will stop large-scale changes. What scientists worry about (generally) is how much warmer it might get. And that depends (they mostly agree) on how much more CO2 we emit.

The poll may show a political backlash, or a response to 'the great global warming swindle', or to Mondy's articulate scepticism, or to something else entirely. Whatever it is, I can't deny that the results do worry me, a bit.

:)P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
  • Weather Preferences: Hot & Sunny, Cold & Snowy
  • Location: Mytholmroyd, West Yorks.......
We can't remove the CO2 that is already in the atmosphere (yes, I know, someone in the USA is working on 'air scrubbers'); we won't stop adding more to the atmosphere; all the political shenanigans are about slowing down the rate at which our emissions grow; yes, we are increasing the amount we add every year, by a couple of percent.

Even if some way could be found to stop burning fossil fuel tomorrow, we would not 'return' to previous levels, or previous average temperatures, for several hundred years; 200 at best. But the climate isn't that bad - yet. The idea is that if we add CO2 a bit more slowly, and eventually stop adding very much at all, then we might slow down the process of warming enough to make adaptation easier, or find new technologies; we'll also reduce the risk of reaching the much-vaunted climate 'tipping point', beyond which, nothing we can do will stop large-scale changes. What scientists worry about (generally) is how much warmer it might get. And that depends (they mostly agree) on how much more CO2 we emit.

The poll may show a political backlash, or a response to 'the great global warming swindle', or to Mondy's articulate scepticism, or to something else entirely. Whatever it is, I can't deny that the results do worry me, a bit.

:yahoo: P

Though your post makes great sense I do believe we are already in 'critical' state which is temporarily being mitigated by the planets own 'climate controls' and our particulate pollution. The continued introduction of CO2 coupled with the temporary lessening of particulate pollution (as the developed world cleans up it's act) will lead to GW over-riding the planets abilities to keep climate relatively stable.

We may already be seeing this in differing regional synoptics and the alteration of the effects of some global drivers (La-Nina/El-Nino).

We do not have to wait long for confirmation of this as the rapid increase in rate of change over the last 15yrs attests to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl
  • Weather Preferences: Snow and lots of it or warm and sunny, no mediocre dross
  • Location: Cheddar Valley, 20mtrs asl

Found this on Accuweather; sums up nicely why I strongly believe more research, and lots of it needs to be done before making any sweeping changes.

Carbon Footprints

Tuesday, April 24, 2007

Elliot Abrams

Monday, April 23, 2007, 9 P.M.

A few weeks ago, a Business Week article ran a story about global warming in which it was stated (and I paraphrase) that the science behind global warming has been proven and the debate has moved on to what to do about it. Judging from what I have seen of the IPCC report's executive summary, and the vast majority of articles on climate change, there is consensus about this in the scientific community.

While there is considerable acceptance of the idea that humans and our activities have played a role in contributing to global warming, much work remains to be done. Each week, we see new findings about ice in the polar regions, and a major scientific research effort is unfolding for this summer in an effort to get more answers. On another track, it turns out that the hydroflourocarbons that are used as refrigerants (replacing the clorofluorocarbons that had been in use) are strong greenhouse gases. This means even if we have reversed the destruction of upper atmospheric ozone, we have introduced a new contributor to global warming.

Yet another study suggests that the use of ethanol to replace gasoline will in a small way contribute to increased deaths from carbon monoxide. The April 18, 2007, edition of Science magazine's Daily News Archive (ScienceNOW Daily News) has an article by Jocelyn Kaiser that states, "But a new study of the health effects of substituting ethanol for gas reveals a downside: more sickness and death from a nasty air pollutant, ozone." In another story I saw on Fox News this afternoon, I learned that New York City's mayor Bloomberg announced 127 environmental proposals in a speech he gave yesterday (April 22) at the Museum of Natural History. One proposal was to plant a million trees in the city during the next ten years.

Finally, when looking for backing for an idea I want to propose for my local township (where I am serving as Chair of the Board of Supervisors) to set up a volunteer commission that would look for ways to reduce the township's carbon footprint, I came across plans and initiatives that have already gotten underway in localities around the country. A Google search came upon Portland, Ore., as a major success story in this regard.

How does all of this tie together? As we move from strictly a study of climate change and global warming to a discussion of what to do about it, we must recognize that this means a whole new set of players will need to join the research and solution finding effort. I mean, what does a climate scientist know about the best strategies for planting trees, shrubs or anything else in the most effective manner to do the most mitigation? If one solution is tried, will it cause another problem? In this week's New Scientist (April 21-27 edition), there is a report stating that clearing the land to increase soybean production is having an adverse effect on climate in the Amazon rainforest. The article cited a report in Geophysical Research Letters (DOI:10.1029/2007GL029271) stating that when three-quarters of forest test plots were cleared for soybean production (in a climate change model), there was subsequently nearly a 16 percent decrease in precipitation compared to a 4% reduction when the same land (using the same climate model) was cleared for pasture land. The cause of this was attributed to higher albedo (meaning more solar energy is reflected rather than absorbed on soybean fields than forests and pasture land), resulting in less surface heating ... thus decreasing convection (showers and thunderstorms). It was not clear to me whether they plugged in a bare field or a field with a full growth of soybeans when making these calculations.

The point of all this: people in the many specialties of agriculture will need to play an increased role in finding and evaluating solutions to the global warming problem. In a sense, the arguments of climate science have been so successful that the next phases of research will include a much broader community of scientists than have been active in global warming issues so far.

Updated: 4/24/2007 8:22 PM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear

We are on the edge of a disaster, which we may not be able to prevent. We are messing up the earth's natural systems and will pay the price in some ways even if we act now.

I will shortly open a new topic to discuss my views.

SM06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...