What will it take?

[Gray-Wolf]

I don't know if this will even become a thread but to avoid any chance of sniping, sarcasm or plain rudeness what do you each feel would make human involvement in global warming an acceptable truth? Just post your list and we can compare our individual tolerances for change.

Let's try and play nice this time Eh? I will.

Ian

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks team!

I suppose there is no need for me to list my 'trigger points' as they were breached years ago.

Maybe some of my personal angst is tied up in why others cannot see the same as me so it'd ease my pain to actually know where each and every one of you is coming from so, if you're willing, let us have your 'triggers' that would satisfy you that we are starting to affect our world in ways that are a worry you!

[eddie]

I already believe we have caused the some of the warming we have seen and also that the earth will continue to warm as a result of our actions. Sorry if this isn't the sort of reply you were after GW but I do think this was a good idea for a thread!

Perhaps there aren't that many people that believe humans have no involvment at all in global warming? The argument seems to have moved on to the degree of warming caused by us and how much warmer it will get.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Nothing but 100% proof will convince me that it is definitely a truth. I do, however, think it is highly likely to be true given the available evidence, and as time goes on, it's looking more and more likely.

It's more a case of looking at probabilities rather than "true or false".

[Paul]

Please read the announcement at the top of this forum area, all posts are being pre-moderated, eg they will be checked by the team before they appear - posting them over and over again will not make them appear any faster!

[John Cox]

Just to put the record straight, I think that man's influence is of relatively little significance in Global Warming

[Gray-Wolf]

Just to put the record straight, I think that man's influence is of relatively little significance in Global Warming

So what would you need to see John to convince you otherwise?

[Slinky]

So what would you need to see John to convince you otherwise?

Have to say to convince me fully we would need to find answers to the "trigger points" of past warm ups and cool downs, and completely discount them from happening now. As I find our lack of knowledge in this area shocking considering the current media frenzy which is AGW, its unacceptable that it is almost a dirty thought to be hidden away and not thought about, strikes me as bizarre? I would think study the hell out of previous GW events in the past to find out more about this one would make a bit of sense........

Also to explain why the warming started so late when we were polluting long before the current warm up, and to explain why Co2 levels follow temp rise.

[Guest Mike W]

I think your last point on why it's only now warming at the rate it is now and why it wasn't warming at this rate back in say the 1920's,30's,40's,50's,60's etc is becasue we emmited alot of sulphur dioxide aswell which counter-acted the carbon dioxide effect enough, but with the clean air laws the sulphur dioxide has all but disappeared and has no more cooling affect, except perhapes locally in a small way for China or India, but even these and silmialr countries are about to or are noiw reducing their SO2 also so. But the clean air laws was good, but it only fixed the cooling pollutants and not the warming ones liek nitrogen, CO2 and methane. Whichj means we have seen and are still seeing a big temperature surge as one pollutant is left on in place of the other.

[Gray-Wolf]

So Mike , I take it you've seen enough to convince yourself that we (mankind) are affecting the global environment?

[Guest Viking141]

I do believe man is making some contribution but to what extent? Aye theres the rub and its why I think this is a bit of a loaded question. Its not necessarily that black and white as to say man is/is not having an impact. There could be a considerable difference in degree.

B)

[Essan]

I would need to see something like:

Evidence that city centres are warmer than surrounding countryside under identical synoptic conditions

Evidence that aircraft produce contrails and that high level cloud has an effect on temperature or other aspects of weather

Evidence that human activities produce soot, sulphates and other pollutants and that such pollutants may reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface

Evidence that the albedo of built up areas or high latitude forestry plantations is different to open scrubland and that albedo is a real effect and has an impact on temperature

Evidence that the aforementioned soot may fall in polar regions affecting the albedo of such areas

Evidence that the flow of fresh river water into oceans has been changed by the construction of dams or diversion of rivers and that increases/decreases in fresh water into the oceans affects salinity, temperature, ability of the oceans to hold CO2, plankton growth and the speed of the thermohaline circulation

Evidence that burning down huge areas of rainforest produces effects such as the 'Asia Brown Cloud'

Evidence that burning down huge areas of rainforest reduces evapotranspiration in the burnt area and that evapotranspiration is a real effect and that this contributes towards tropical rainfall and cloud cover

And I'm sure there's a few other things I'd need to see as well ......

Oddly enough, none of this involves carbon emissions (directly) nor computer model predictions and for all of it I have indeed seen highly convincing evidence.

So, is human activity affecting climate or not?

[Wynn D Woo]

I would need to see something like:

<snip>

I have to say you have summed up a lot of my thoughts rather well.

Edited October 16, 2007 by pottyprof
long quote from post above snipped.. :)

[Hiya]

Does anyone have a link to the evidence that says sulphur dioxide counteracted the warming effects of carbon dioxide?

[Gray-Wolf]

I do believe man is making some contribution but to what extent? Aye theres the rub and its why I think this is a bit of a loaded question. Its not necessarily that black and white as to say man is/is not having an impact. There could be a considerable difference in degree.

B)

Hi Viking. The reason for the title is to do just that, to see if are able/willing to put a component of our current warming squarely at mankind's doorstep.

As I had noted in another thread it would seem (to me) that we none should be questioning mans impact on climate just the extent of mans contributions to the changes and the predicted impact upon the normal planetary climatic oscillations of those inputs.

As we have found the folk who 'deny' any role of man in climate change can tend to 'inflame' those who have seen more than enough of mans impact on climate to be left in no doubt of his role in things.

As I'd also noted in the locked thread , prior to it's 'locking' by Paul, there is sound psychological reason why this 'angst' should arise as a natural and human reaction (however poorly we view it).

As such it would seem (to me) to make common sense to remove, from open debate on climate change, those who drive these responses (however benign their intentions on posting may be) to allow less embittered threads to evolve.

As in nature (where nothing is perfect) we will never achieve 100% 'proof' of mans involvement in these changes and it would appear (to me) be be unrealistic therefore to demand such levels of proof before we are willing to accept our role in things.

I too feel that natural climate/planetary responses will play a leading role in future climate change (mechanical collapse of ice sheets,Cathrite releases, storm intensification etc) but that which placed us in a position to 'bring on' these natural responses will be partly,or wholly, mans impacts.

[John Cox]

Hi Grey-Wolf,

Slinky and Essan put things well in perspective for me.

I will agree that man may have a small contribution and I mean may have. In fairness to scientists I doubt if this will ever be proven and I will nail my colours to the mast and say that it is unlikely that you are anyone else will be able to prove it to me. I could be wrong but I doubt it.

What drives me mad is all we hear about in the media is mans effect on Global Warming, the politiciens saying we must do this to reduce emissions and do that. They have not a clue and are just scaremongering and making people think that the world will come to an end if we dont do what they say. It just does not wash with me.

[Essan]

What drives me mad is all we hear about in the media is mans effect on Global Warming

I'd like to see more about man's effect on Global Precipitation and Global Cloud Cover :o

[Guest Viking141]

I think its fair to say we have an impact. The mere fact that we exist on this planet must mean we have some sort of impact. However, to say, as some do, that most, if not all of the current warming is down to our activity or to be obsessed to the nth degree with particular aspects of our activity, such as our CO2 production is at least misleading and potentially dangerous.

As you have stated, there are many factors involved here. Some human activity, like slash and burn farming techniques and the resulting changes in land use are, I believe , having an impact upon our climate, not just the fossil fuels we are burning. I also seem to remember having read somewhere than the amount of CO2 released by rotting vegetation far exceeds that from human combustion of fossil fuels - but I could be wrong my memory aint what it used to be! Then add to the mix natural cycles/variability in our climate which have always been happening even absent human input (for an example in extremis - the PETM - when temps were much higher than today all down to natural (volcanic, solar, etc) causes), the effects of solar forcing and cosmic waves (which are poorly understood at the moment) you have a much more complicated picture than some would have us believe.

My view is this: GW? yes. AGW? yes but not to the extent we imagine, natural cycles/solar input - yes to a much greater extent than we believe at present. The other thing I would say is this. The one thing that really gets me about all of this is the widespread assumption that the only possible outcome of GW/AGW is yet more GW/AGW, why? The Palaeoclimatic record says otherwise. It appears to me that the Paleoclimatic record shows that going from one climactic extreme to the other is actually a fairly normal state of affairs on this planet. We have had the PETM and "Snowball Earth" both absent any input from the human race at all and various stages in between. If you look at the record it shows that the outcome of a warming phase on this planet is not further runaway warming but cooling. Whilst not a believer in the "Gaia" hypothesis it seems to me that when things get to a certain tipping point the trend then reverses naturally and takes a downward plunge (or upward from a cold phase as the case may be).

The trouble with the human race is our arrogance. Our belief in our own omnipotence. Something that some scientists seem very prone to. Too wrapped up in their own cleverness and patting eachother on the back to consider for one second that they might actually have got it wrong. The idea that we are "masters of all we survey" and that anything we do on this planet, for good or for ill, far outways any other influence, anything our planet can do, anything our powerful star can do, we outweigh them all! History has repeatedly shown that whilst we think we understand everything we come into contact with, the true extent of human knowledge and understanding of the forces at work around us is pretty limited indeed.

In a nutshell then, my own summary of what I believe to be happening: a largely natural cyclical variation in earths climate (and I include solar forcing in the term "natural") slightly amplified by human activity, (not just CO2 production but by such things as changes in land use etc) which will inevitably lead to another downward plunge which may equally be amplified by human input.

[mk13]

I am more concerned about the population growth of this planet and what effect this is having?

Use the link below to find when the population of earth reaches one trillion.

Now tell me were in past history has the earth had such a large population and what effect this had on our climate and draw your own conclusions?

http://www.ibiblio.org/lunarbin/worldpop

Edited October 16, 2007 by mk13

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I know people 100 years ago would have considered it ridiculous to even consider that the population would exceed 6 billion within a century, but assuming that we're defining a trillion as one thousand billion, then I'm not sure we'll ever see Earth's population at over 150 times its current level. That's like comparing when the earth had a population of 40 million with today.

[Bobby]

Quite, the population will never ever even come close to a trillion. The UN predicts human population to plateau at about 9-10 billion. I think it'll be less than that though, probably 7 - 7.5 billion at most.

[Polar Continental]

using the refresh button, watch the population increase by 100 with each click :o

Edited October 16, 2007 by Paul Carfoot

[laserguy]

Viking 141's earlier lengthy post (no point quoting it again ),was to me,quite brilliant. Further to that I'd like to say (and I can't stress enough that I'm not being deliberately awkward or obstructive ),that I will not and cannot take AGW seriously until government butts out of it completely and the scientists involved are no longer effectively in their employ.

I mean,there are many thousands of scientists who robustly oppose AGW,and they are not funded by government. Why on Earth should I believe the ones who work for employers who are ,let's say economic with the truth,rather the ones who actually have nothing to lose by their opposition? AGW-as long as politicians are involved it's all about tax and nothing to do with our future welfare. Nobody likes a hypocrite,let alone take them seriously. Here's just one of thousands:Al Gore,living the life of palatial splendour and luxury off the back of telling the rest of the world how to behave. I don't think so.

[Devonian]

Viking 141's earlier lengthy post (no point quoting it again ),was to me,quite brilliant. Further to that I'd like to say (and I can't stress enough that I'm not being deliberately awkward or obstructive ),that I will not and cannot take AGW seriously until government butts out of it completely and the scientists involved are no longer effectively in their employ.

I mean,there are many thousands of scientists who robustly oppose AGW,and they are not funded by government. Why on Earth should I believe the ones who work for employers who are ,let's say economic with the truth,rather the ones who actually have nothing to lose by their opposition? AGW-as long as politicians are involved it's all about tax and nothing to do with our future welfare. Nobody likes a hypocrite,let alone take them seriously. Here's just one of thousands:Al Gore,living the life of palatial splendour and luxury off the back of telling the rest of the world how to behave. I don't think so.

Whether someone is a hypocrite does not, per se, mean they are wrong. If it did then if a 60 a day smoker hypocritically told you smoking was bad for your lungs you'd not take them seriously and start smoking!

Whatever I think this smacks of P3's "Anyone who believes in cabbage is an idiot and is probably being fooled by a government conspiracy to make us change the way we live, or restrict our freedom, or make us pay more tax, because of this spurious cabbage claim."

I live near Exeter. When time permits I visit the Met O library. I simply refuse to believe those government funded scientists behind it, the Met O and the Hadley Centre are part of one big conspiracy. Surely someone of the thousands there would blow the whistle?

[Bobby]

Viking 141's earlier lengthy post (no point quoting it again ),was to me,quite brilliant. Further to that I'd like to say (and I can't stress enough that I'm not being deliberately awkward or obstructive ),that I will not and cannot take AGW seriously until government butts out of it completely and the scientists involved are no longer effectively in their employ.

I mean,there are many thousands of scientists who robustly oppose AGW,and they are not funded by government. Why on Earth should I believe the ones who work for employers who are ,let's say economic with the truth,rather the ones who actually have nothing to lose by their opposition? AGW-as long as politicians are involved it's all about tax and nothing to do with our future welfare. Nobody likes a hypocrite,let alone take them seriously. Here's just one of thousands:Al Gore,living the life of palatial splendour and luxury off the back of telling the rest of the world how to behave. I don't think so.

Well, even if the scientists are biased, only doing it for the money, in the government's pocket... so what? That doesn't mean the science is wrong. You can only prove the science wrong with your own science, research and evidence. Either the science is wrong or it's not, questioning the scientists' credibility is not going to further anybody's understanding of the subject.