Environmental agenda is slipping off the radar screen

[parmenides3]

No, not by a long way I think.

If it's all 'true' (which is by and large what I have come to think), then it is obviously important. If it's important, then trying to help each other understand what is going on and what the options are is also important. I often get bored responding to the same arguments, with what I think is fairly obvious reasoning, but I will continue to do so because I think it is my responsibility to.

Roger: sorry, a bit busy for now, I will respond to your post later...

:)P

[noggin]

Am I alone ......

Definitely not!

Most threads, however they start out, seem to end up with the same old arguments again and again and again.

I can't be doin' with it any more.

[dr.rioja]

does anyone know where the quote starting this thread has been lifted from?

[Devonian]

...

Not that vastly different from today, is it? Okay, so the spacings are a bit different, but not so much so that climate would have been vastly different. If you start moving closer to the present day then the spacings become a bit more recognisable, and it's a fairly safe bet that just 1 million years ago there was virtually no significant difference from today's arrangement.

So, to point out warmer periods in Earth's history at any point within the last million years is not in fact so very wrong after all.

CB

Actually, CB, as I understand it it's the case the differences are very significant.

60 million years ago water could, effectively, circulate around the equator (well the globe at low latitude), now it can't. This means it could be warmed more (for an explanation (I find this is difficult to explain and I can't find a web ref (touched on here or here)), see 'New views on a old planet' by Tjeerd H Van Andel (one of my most thumbed books - everyone here should have a copy)) and that temperatues across the planet were more equal (warmer).

.

[The Penguin]

No, not by a long way I think.

Strange, isn't it, that something that keeps going and going doesn't go anywhere?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Unless there are reasons for it which aren't always immediately apparent?

[jethro]

HP: I agree and sympathise with your thoughts, I think perhaps one of the reasons why this goes round in circles is because to accept AGW we also have to accept compromises have to be made. If compromises are to be made then perhaps judging the extent that we are to blame, should in some way indicate the level of compromise required. At the end of the day we all need electricity, cars etc, sure we can all do our bit but in reality how much difference will that make? Maybe people in this country are a tad fed up with the sermonising when other countries are less keen to make sacrifices? With the best will in the world, we could all lead impeccably green, environmentally sound, carbon neutral lives but will that make any difference? Very little. There is bound to be resentment for anything which increases our cost of living but the resentment would be less pronounced if it were a genuinely world wide effort with quantifiable results and rewards. I would love to discuss the political agenda involved in all this, it cannot afterall be discounted, it is real and a large component but I think there is a general consensus on this forum that politics should be left aside; a thought shared I believe by Paul and the Mods? I believe in the past this has proved to be a contentious issue and tempers regularly flared; perhaps if we all agreed to be adult about a political discussion they may consent to one?

In the meantime I have attached a link which breaks down the areas which produce the most Co2, it's a few years out of date so I expect the percentages country wise have changed but it gives quite a clear picture of where reductions have to be made if we are to have any real impact.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/cl..._change/co2.htm

[The Penguin]

Unless there are reasons for it which aren't always immediately apparent?

And perhaps for good reason.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I think one of the main reasons for the circularity of the arguments is that no single point of contention is ever cleared up. The debate drifts from one point to the next to the next and finally back round to the original point, but none of the points are ever clarified.

The reason I keep treading over the same ground is because I want to be able to clarify at least one point. It looks like that is never going to happen, so it is with some regret that I feel I must drop out of this debate altogether. Although there is some crossover on people's general feelings with regards to AGW, people's views on individual points are fairly polarised. We never get anywhere discussing these individual points because we move onto the next subject before the first one has been cleared up.

Further down the line one of these same old issues crops up and it seems a pertinent point to try and clarify the situation, but the same thing happens again...sigh...

Maybe I'll just stick to the lounge...

CB

[Devonian]

I think one of the main reasons for the circularity of the arguments is that no single point of contention is ever cleared up. The debate drifts from one point to the next to the next and finally back round to the original point, but none of the points are ever clarified.

The reason I keep treading over the same ground is because I want to be able to clarify at least one point. It looks like that is never going to happen, so it is with some regret that I feel I must drop out of this debate altogether. Although there is some crossover on people's general feelings with regards to AGW, people's views on individual points are fairly polarised. We never get anywhere discussing these individual points because we move onto the next subject before the first one has been cleared up.

Further down the line one of these same old issues crops up and it seems a pertinent point to try and clarify the situation, but the same thing happens again...sigh...

Maybe I'll just stick to the lounge...

CB

CB. I spent some time searching for refs to address you point about past climate in my post just above - I think they are good refs and back up my argument. Before you go, what do you think?

[jethro]

I think one of the main reasons for the circularity of the arguments is that no single point of contention is ever cleared up. The debate drifts from one point to the next to the next and finally back round to the original point, but none of the points are ever clarified.

The reason I keep treading over the same ground is because I want to be able to clarify at least one point. It looks like that is never going to happen, so it is with some regret that I feel I must drop out of this debate altogether. Although there is some crossover on people's general feelings with regards to AGW, people's views on individual points are fairly polarised. We never get anywhere discussing these individual points because we move onto the next subject before the first one has been cleared up.

Further down the line one of these same old issues crops up and it seems a pertinent point to try and clarify the situation, but the same thing happens again...sigh...

Maybe I'll just stick to the lounge...

CB

It would be a great shame if you go hide in the lounge, don't give up eh.

D

[laserguy]

No,don't go CB! I for one look forward to your input. Re the 'complaint',it is human nature that these debates drift a little,but generally they stay relevant. I suppose they have to,to a degree because each point causes a ripple which touches on something else. But it's all relevant,like the tributaries to a river they all add to the whole. OK,when a thread starts to seriously drift wide of the mark then I've no problem with someone spotting that and flagging it up . I've read my last post and while I admit to rambling a little I think it was relevant in that this thread is about attitudes and reactions to the issue,ie what appears to be making it take a back seat just lately and why many seem to be losing interest. I think most of us wander a little but it's a good thing at times if the wanderings add interest and context.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB. I spent some time searching for refs to address you point about past climate in my post just above - I think they are good refs and back up my argument. Before you go, what do you think?

Hi Dev

Perhaps I can concede the point with regards to climate as long ago as 60 million years (although I do not believe that the differences are insurmountable in terms of comparison; they just require some compensation) - you are correct that oceanic circulation was quite different (more circulation at the equator primarily because of a larger uninterrupted body of water). But if I could emphasise my point that going back just one million years doesn't make a significant difference to continental arrangement - despite the slight differences in continental positioning the climate would not have been significantly different as a result. It is not unfair, then, to compare current climate with, for example, anything in the Vostok Ice Core (which most, though not all, comparisons have been made with).

Another question is this: if the continental positioning 65 million years (and longer) ago made the planet conducive to an evenly warm climate, where does that leave us with regards CO2? CO2 levels were significantly higher, yet the main apparent cause of the warmth back then was continental positioning. So just how much of an effect did (and does) CO2 have on the environment?

It would be a great shame if you go hide in the lounge, don't give up eh.

Thank you for your words of encouragement, Jethro - I fear, however, that if I continue debating the issues which interest me then I am only going to end up narking off the majority on these boards. It would appear that I have started to already, since most of the complaints of circularity in the arguments seem to crop up soon after I make a post.

In my defense, I only want some answers....!

CB

[Devonian]

Hi Dev

Perhaps I can concede the point with regards to climate as long ago as 60 million years (although I do not believe that the differences are insurmountable in terms of comparison; they just require some compensation) - you are correct that oceanic circulation was quite different (more circulation at the equator primarily because of a larger uninterrupted body of water). But if I could emphasise my point that going back just one million years doesn't make a significant difference to continental arrangement - despite the slight differences in continental positioning the climate would not have been significantly different as a result. It is not unfair, then, to compare current climate with, for example, anything in the Vostok Ice Core (which most, though not all, comparisons have been made with).

I can live with that time scale - over it climate is broadly comparable.

If you compare now with any time up to a million years past I suspect now would be both the highest level of atmospheric Co2 and very warm...

Another question is this: if the continental positioning 65 million years (and longer) ago made the planet conducive to an evenly warm climate, where does that leave us with regards CO2? CO2 levels were significantly higher, yet the main apparent cause of the warmth back then was continental positioning. So just how much of an effect did (and does) CO2 have on the environment?

It leaves us knowing Co2 is a ghg. I see no reason to think it's properties were different then. It leaves me fairly sure that ocean circulation helped warm the planet and that Co2 conc (difficult to know with certainty) were perhaps higher but not much higher especially at the end of the Cretaceous? So there may have been a double warming effect.

On a side line, what is also fascinating is how warm the whole depth of the oceans were back in the ~100mya past (mean over depth ~20C plus, the lingering effect of millions of years of warming?), how cold they are now (mean over depth ~3C, the lingering effect of the ice ages, of a ~million years of cooling? A vast cold climate buffer, worth thinking about I rekon) and how important ocean stratification is to how the oceans are life wise.***

Thank you for your words of encouragement, Jethro - I fear, however, that if I continue debating the issues which interest me then I am only going to end up narking off the majority on these boards. It would appear that I have started to already, since most of the complaints of circularity in the arguments seem to crop up soon after I make a post.

In my defense, I only want some answers....!

CB

So do I. Keep posting!

*** rough temperature figures, no time to find and check the links.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Devonian

[Gray-Wolf]

Re- circular nature of denialists replies:

Does the reduction of Polar ice this year mean nothing (but cyclical nature) to any of you/ Does not the 'coincidence' of post industrial temp rise not seem a little thin to you? Do not the recent wealth of data sets/images from Antarctica fulfilling the predicted break up of the E.A.I.S. ,200 odd years before times, mean nothing to you?

I guess not for all of this is within the public domain (and current) and yet I get the strong feeling it will require images of Ross adrift and the calving off of E.A.I.S. (with the consequent global flooding) to convince you.

The 'witnesses' to change do not change their stance/hopes with any new spurious claim nor do they struggle to find evidence of mans involvement of the changes, it accrues on a daily basis, they do however wish to be wrong, dead wrong, in their understandings.

Maybe this is where both sides agree (and maybe the motivation for either sides struggles) we do not wish for it to be our doing and we do not wish to live with the changes.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[jethro]

Thank you for your words of encouragement, Jethro - I fear, however, that if I continue debating the issues which interest me then I am only going to end up narking off the majority on these boards. It would appear that I have started to already, since most of the complaints of circularity in the arguments seem to crop up soon after I make a post.

In my defense, I only want some answers....!

CB

[Admiral_Bobski]

I can live with that time scale - over it climate is broadly comparable.

If you compare now with any time up to a million years past I suspect now would be both the highest level of atmospheric Co2 and very warm...

It leaves us knowing Co2 is a ghg. I see no reason to think it's properties were different then. It leaves me fairly sure that ocean circulation help warm the planet and that Co2 conc (difficult to know with certainty) were perhaps higher but not much higher especially at the end of the Cretaceous? So there may have been a double warming effect.

On a side line, what is also fascinating is how warm the whole depth of the oceans were back in the ~100mya past (mean over depth ~20C plus, the lingering effect of millions of years of warming?), how cold they are now (mean over depth ~3C, the lingering effect of the ice ages, of a ~million years of cooling? A vast cold climate buffer, worth thinking about I rekon) and how important ocean stratification is to how the oceans are life wise.***

So do I. Keep posting!

*** rough temperature figures, no time to find and check the links.

Hi Dev - there's a few things I want to check out before replying to the above, and a few comments/questions that I want to word correctly (I've still got a stinking cold, which is making it very hard for me to think clearly right now!), so I'll get back to you a little later on. I shall write back though - I'm not shrugging you off...honest!

Thank you, also, for your encouragement Dev. I have a new plan. Rather than not posting (or "slipping off the radar", to tie this in to the current thread!), I think I shall limit myself to the new technical forum on climate change. The threads on this forum seem to be becoming less to do with the main debate and more to do with "what to do next". Not that that is a bad thing, but it's not my main area of interest.

So I shall shift fora!

CB

PS - I shall respond to your comments as well, GW, a little later on...

[pottyprof]

I say keep going, even if it's in a dedicated thread for un-answered questions, that way only those who want to navigate the ever decreasing circles could venture in prepared.

That is a good idea Jethro. I'll start a thread purely for anyone wanting to to raise an unanswered question. Nothing else but questions. As each question is answered then it can be crossed out. Some questions will probably never be answered but at least debate may push forwards focusing on just one question at a time.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Hi everybody! I'm going to do a bit of investigating right now, but I thought I should quickly apologise to both laserguy and Jethro for skipping their replies - sorry! I didn't see them - oops!

To laserguy I would like to say that I am all for the debate drifting from subject to subject. This constant flow of ideas helps to keep a debate interesting (to my mind, at least) and does show how all these different questions are interlinked. I also don't particularly mind questions being left unanswered if the focus of the debate legitimately moves into other areas before the original question is answered. My only worry is that this free-flowing debate is obviously annoying some others on here who want to stop going over the same ground time and time again. (To be honest, I quite enjoy it - it's like visiting an old friend! )

So for now I would like to wrap up by thanking potty prof for opening up the "Questions Only" thread (and Jethro too, for thinking it up in the first place!) - it seems like a great idea, and I look forward to seeing how it pans out.

Ciao for now,

CB

Edited October 1, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[jethro]

That is a good idea Jethro. I'll start a thread purely for anyone wanting to to raise an unanswered question. Nothing else but questions. As each question is answered then it can be crossed out. Some questions will probably never be answered but at least debate may push forwards focusing on just one question at a time.

Thanks Potty, things have tended to get a tad muddled. Any chance the powers that be would sanction a political thread for climate change? Not party politics but world order and the greater picture involved here. I know we're not supposed to discuss politics so I'm reluctant to just go ahead and start a thread without prior consent; I do feel it is quite a large player in why the distrust of AGW is so large and entrenched.

[pottyprof]

Thanks Potty, things have tended to get a tad muddled. Any chance the powers that be would sanction a political thread for climate change? Not party politics but world order and the greater picture involved here. I know we're not supposed to discuss politics so I'm reluctant to just go ahead and start a thread without prior consent; I do feel it is quite a large player in why the distrust of AGW is so large and entrenched.

Yep.. Feel free Dawn. If you have a question about it being involved then ask it and start your thread. We need to see what is being asked and why there is so much conflict and see if there is any middle ground. Everything must stay on topic though and that would be to do with AGW/CC

List your question here and let the debate commence..

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=40751

[jethro]

Yep.. Feel free Dawn. If you have a question about it being involved then ask it and start your thread. We need to see what is being asked and why there is so much conflict and see if there is any middle ground. Everything must stay on topic though and that would be to do with AGW/CC

List your question here and let the debate commence..

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=40751

Thanks Paul.

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi Dev

...Another question is this: if the continental positioning 65 million years (and longer) ago made the planet conducive to an evenly warm climate, where does that leave us with regards CO2? CO2 levels were significantly higher, yet the main apparent cause of the warmth back then was continental positioning. So just how much of an effect did (and does) CO2 have on the environment?

...CB

CB, there does seem to be a tendency in sone discussions for people to assume that because A led to B aeons ago, the same is true now. It would be a little like me saying that if I went into a malarial zone fifty years ago and contracted malaria it would be equally hazardous for me to do so now; the difference being that there are now highly effective anti-malarials.

Continental positioning is critical because it impacts very significantly the efficiency with which the planet can flux energy polewards; in the modern world the southern andnorthern hemisphere have very different climatic belts and weather precisely because the continental distribution is very different.

Equally, CO2 can either lag or lead, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It may be that in the past we had a warmer climate for geotectonic reasons, that then led to increased natural release of CO2 (this is important in current warming because one effect, e.g. man made GHGs, might be enough to take the climate to a tipping point at which point another process kicks in - irrespective of what we do to try to curb GHG production thereafter).

We need to shake of this orthodoxy which says there can only be one factor at play, and that that factor MUST ALWAYS be directed the same way and in the same sequence.

That is a good idea Jethro. I'll start a thread purely for anyone wanting to to raise an unanswered question. Nothing else but questions. As each question is answered then it can be crossed out. Some questions will probably never be answered but at least debate may push forwards focusing on just one question at a time.

What do you mean by 'cross a question out'?

[pottyprof]

What do you mean by 'cross a question out'?

I use the term loosely.. If something is answered to it's full extent then you can draw a line through it. Not that it will happen..

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, there does seem to be a tendency in sone discussions for people to assume that because A led to B aeons ago, the same is true now. It would be a little like me saying that if I went into a malarial zone fifty years ago and contracted malaria it would be equally hazardous for me to do so now; the difference being that there are now highly effective anti-malarials.

Continental positioning is critical because it impacts very significantly the efficiency with which the planet can flux energy polewards; in the modern world the southern andnorthern hemisphere have very different climatic belts and weather precisely because the continental distribution is very different.

Equally, CO2 can either lag or lead, it doesn't have to be one or the other. It may be that in the past we had a warmer climate for geotectonic reasons, that then led to increased natural release of CO2 (this is important in current warming because one effect, e.g. man made GHGs, might be enough to take the climate to a tipping point at which point another process kicks in - irrespective of what we do to try to curb GHG production thereafter).

We need to shake of this orthodoxy which says there can only be one factor at play, and that that factor MUST ALWAYS be directed the same way and in the same sequence.

What do you mean by 'cross a question out'?

Two things here, SF - firstly, I wasn't trying to suggest that only one factor was at play at some point in the past, but the balmy conditions of aeons ago are generally described as having been caused by continental positioning rather than CO2 levels. However, since CO2 levels were significantly higher during many periods in the ancient past why is it that those CO2 levels are downplayed?

Secondly, you say that CO2 can either lead or lag. Well, this is still a point of some contention - apparently even in climate science circles. I had a debate with P3 about this a while back and I asked the question why there wasn't a definable step-change where CO2 took the lead from temperatures (even if CO2 gradually crept into the lead there should be some sign of it in the historic record). P3 e-mailed a climate scientist this question, and the scientist was unable to give an answer (though he did add that just because it has no explanation doesn't necessarily make it inexplicable). The fact is that, so far as climate science is concerned, CO2 leads and lags, depending on the situation, but this definition seems decidedly ham-fisted to me and it needs clearing up.

This is one issue I will start up a specific thread for, once I have gathered my relevant bits and pieces.

CB