The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[laserguy]

I've been driving the same tiny, very efficient car for more than a decade - so much so I've literally worn it out :o

Me too,except that it's far from worn out due to meticulous maintenance! Correction - the car's 10 years old,I've owned it for 5. I admit I've got a motorbike with a bigger,rip-snorting engine that does much less mpg but it's my passion and I ain't giving it up for no-one! In my defence re 'green' matters I use it little (sub 1000 miles a year,it gets pampered and tweaked more than ridden and it's nineteen years old!),surely that's not hurting anyone?? Good on you anyway Dev;someone who practises what they preach.

Stop press! Just seen your post TWS,and I'd like to comment on your first paragraph. It harks back to a point I made elsewhere,how folk see recent mild UK winters as a manifestation of GW against the backdrop of falling (or at lest for now,stable)world temps,yet AGW advocates would argue that a bout of severe UK winters would mean nothing in the scheme of things. Swings and roundabouts. I do get your point though,hopefully you can see mine. I've never said we should maintain the status quo,far from it. I'm all for everything that falls under the 'green' banner for myriad reasons,just don't want those reasons hidden behind the mask of 'climate change' which as far as I'm concerned has no part in it.

[VillagePlank]

Or perhaps people have also just given up posting, as the same (unsubstantiated) arguments keep coming round time and time again?

Well, there's some substance to the fact the last twelve months have shown a record cooling? Nearly 100 years of warming wiped off the map in 12 months. I find it mildly irritating that people still fail to mention this.

Perhaps the climate will correct itself (and indeed, that is the form bet) but it will need a record rate of rate of increase to achieve that this year. Perhaps it's a data anomaly? Well, we've all been reading from the same data, huh?

Whilst you are prepared to slate everyone for having a, how can I put it, less than consensus view, it is now time for you to talk about how 80 years of warming has disappeared off the map.

I am sure you will talk about solar activity - but you must also remember that it is your ilk (I have no idea if you have claimed the follwing) that claim that solar activity is not significant when compared to CO2.

So can solar activity override CO2 or not? Is CO2 that important when faced with the solar system?

As for substantiated evidence, please refer to Hadley.

EDIT; Sorry nearly 0.8C differential is more like 20 years. Apologies.

Edited March 12, 2008 by VillagePlank

[laserguy]

So can solar activity override CO2 or not? Is CO2 that important when faced with the solar system?

From 'Physics Today' :

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

[Devonian]

From 'Physics Today' :

http://www.fel.duke.edu/~scafetta/pdf/opinion0308.pdf

I've tried to understand it. To me it reads as 'we've shown this' not 'this is how we've shown this' . So, what have they shown and how?

RC take on it - fwiw I find it more convincing

Edited March 13, 2008 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've tried to understand it. To me it reads as 'we've shown this' not 'this is how we've shown this' . So, what have they shown and how?

RC take on it - fwiw I find it more convincing

Hi Dev,

A couple of things. Firstly, the S&W article linked to by laserguy is from this month, March 2008. The RealClimate article is dated March 31st 2006 and so is not talking about this article. I am assuming that you are looking at the 2008 article as a continuation by S&W of the theme they wrote about in 2006, but I thought I'd mention it anyway, before someone else does!

Secondly, I don't find the RC take on it more convincing. About half way down the page there is a response by Scafetta which critiques the critique, and does so fairly decisively. It is clear that the RC blogger had not properly read (or had not properly absorbed) the content of the paper, which has lead to misquotes and misunderstandings of S&W's assertions. (A few posts further down there is another reply by Scafetta countering the comments inserted into the original reply. It is all well worth reading.)

CB

[Guest Daniel]

There have been many threads on this topic that have gone around in circles. Here's a recap on the main points for discussion, and an attempt to differentiate facts from opinions (as the line between the two can be blurred sometimes).

Global warming

This is simply the rise in the mean global temperature. The globe has warmed by approximately 0.5C in the last 50 years, as is well illustrated by these graphs provided by independent organisations:

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/resea...-jan-dec-pg.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

"Global warming" does not mean that all parts of the globe are warming, or that they are all warming at the same rate, or that low temperature extremes cease to happen. I'm well aware that the media love to scaremonger by blaming every extreme weather event on global warming- pointing to individual weather events as "proving" global warming, or lack of it, is a poor line of argument. Long term trends should be used as evidence for climate change (conversely, lack of long-term trends indicates lack of climate change).

So, the challenge for those who dispute that the planet is warming, is to find evidence that there hasn't been a long-term upward trend in temperature.

What about the apparent levelling off in the past 10 years? I don't think 10 years is long enough to make a judgment, given how chaotic and variable the atmospheric system is- the El Nino of 1998 played a large part for example. The temperature trend of the next decade, and particularly what happens when we next get an El Nino, should confirm whether it's a blip or a stalling of the warming trend, though I suspect the former is by far the more likely.

Human influences

There are a number of 'natural' factors that cause global and regional climate change. Human activity is very likely to be producing extra forcings, through release of pollutants, deforestation etc, most of which are towards warming, which add to the natural forcings already in existence.

It's important to bear this in mind- some of those who dismiss AGW talk as if the idea of AGW is that human-induced forcing somehow replaces natural forcing, when in reality it doesn't, it adds to it. Thus, the AGW argument amounts to "the planet is probably getting warmer than it would be if it wasn't for human activity".

What is still uncertain is the extent to which this human activity is causing the current warming. It could well be that some of the warming is due to 'natural' forcings- though it's also possible (perish the thought!) that natural factors might have worked the other way, and masked the effects of AGW. Even the top climate scientists are unsure of the extent to which humans are responsible- the latest IPCC report predicts a warming between 1.1C and 6.4C in the next 100 years, for example.

Action and mitigation

If we are to address the issue of pollution, and potential contributions to AGW, there are a few delicate balancing acts that we may need:

• The action itself- inaction could lead to dangerous climate change, but too much action too soon could force a destructive return to primitive lifestyles
  
• Realism- avoid assuming we can achieve things we can't, but also avoid assuming we can't achieve things that we can
  
• "Sticks" (taxes, emissions limits etc)- being too draconian, especially if we haven't implemented good "carrot" policies first, can be very destructive and punish many of the wrong people, but if we don't use enough sticks, the less conservation-minded may abuse the system
  

When it comes to change, realistically speaking I'm pretty certain we can engineer change, but it's unlikely to happen overnight- such change will have to happen slowly over a number of decades. But even if we only succeed in slowing the rate at which all the fossil fuels are used up, it might make enough of a difference to save us from a dangerous degree of anthropogenic-induced warming.

Some specific issues include the limited availability of fossil fuels (which will help assist change from an economics perspective), the short-termist electioneering of governments, and the excessive consumerism which generates a strong economy but often at the expense of environmental and social progress. Another question that I don't have a clear answer to, is whether it would be useful, or counterproductive, to think of a specific vision of a society based on sustainable living and aim towards it. If everyone were able to broadly agree on one, it would be an excellent idea, but the problem is the likelihood of different people having conflicting views on what the vision should be.

I'm only scraping the surface of the issue here, but hopefully, plenty of points above for discussion.

There is growing signs that global warming will come to an end and a new cooling will begin with in a few short years. this winter out side the U.K has been one of the coldest for many years and global temps took a dip in Jan. If we do cool down the cooling will cause far greater problems than any warming. since last year the sun has entered a very quite phase and this could be the start of a major quite period that will last decades if not longer and cause long term cooling into another mini ince age. In the same year that the sun has gone quite there been a massive rise in food prices. many think this is due high demand. but the sun has played a major role in this as well. A quite sun mean cooler tempertures on earth and thats is bad for food growing. in Europe history clearly shows in warm times crops were good and the people were health. But in cold times crops failed and there was massive starvation and unrest. In our current warm period which I think will come to a sudden end in the U.K and europe food gowing has been good and there for we enjoyed cheap prices in our shops. But as the next cooling starts in europe growing food will become harder and therfore food costs will rise and combined that with high demnand things look very bed in the comming years. We need not have a brutal cold winter to cause crop failer a cold wet summer will do that. now in recent years we enjoyed warm settled sunny summers which is good for food growing and farming. now just think for a minute what would happing to our crops if we had a very cold wet summer twere it rains all the time and the land turns to mud. then crops would fail and we be short of food. now history shows that that occured in 1315. this was the year of the great crop failer. before that year Europe and The Uk had a long run of warm settled summers ideal for food growing and this was the mediaval warm period. then out the blue without any warning came the summer of 1315. that was the coldest and wettest summer ever and perhaps one of the worst. it rained and rained the whole time and lands turned to mud and crops died. starvation on a scale not seen before or since began and after that a new climate age arrived in Eroupe with brutal cold winters extreems drought sometimes heat and cold. this had a massive effect on farming and food growing became much harder. with mass starvation from time to time. The same thing could happen again and the currents signs from the sun is telling us that it will.

[Devonian]

There is growing signs that global warming will come to an end and a new cooling will begin with in a few short years. this winter out side the U.K has been one of the coldest for many years and global temps took a dip in Jan. If we do cool down the cooling will cause far greater problems than any warming. since last year the sun has entered a very quite phase and this could be the start of a major quite period that will last decades if not longer and cause long term cooling into another mini ince age. In the same year that the sun has gone quite there been a massive rise in food prices. many think this is due high demand. but the sun has played a major role in this as well. A quite sun mean cooler tempertures on earth and thats is bad for food growing. in Europe history clearly shows in warm times crops were good and the people were health. But in cold times crops failed and there was massive starvation and unrest. In our current warm period which I think will come to a sudden end in the U.K and europe food gowing has been good and there for we enjoyed cheap prices in our shops. But as the next cooling starts in europe growing food will become harder and therfore food costs will rise and combined that with high demnand things look very bed in the comming years. We need not have a brutal cold winter to cause crop failer a cold wet summer will do that. now in recent years we enjoyed warm settled sunny summers which is good for food growing and farming. now just think for a minute what would happing to our crops if we had a very cold wet summer twere it rains all the time and the land turns to mud. then crops would fail and we be short of food. now history shows that that occured in 1315. this was the year of the great crop failer. before that year Europe and The Uk had a long run of warm settled summers ideal for food growing and this was the mediaval warm period. then out the blue without any warning came the summer of 1315. that was the coldest and wettest summer ever and perhaps one of the worst. it rained and rained the whole time and lands turned to mud and crops died. starvation on a scale not seen before or since began and after that a new climate age arrived in Eroupe with brutal cold winters extreems drought sometimes heat and cold. this had a massive effect on farming and food growing became much harder. with mass starvation from time to time. The same thing could happen again and the currents signs from the sun is telling us that it will.

Daniel, why has Australia seen it's wheat crops failing? Cold and wet or hot and dry weather.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Devonian

[stewfox]

I'm all up for people questioning the correctness of the science behind AGW- finding holes in existing science helps to advance it as the holes are subsequently legislated for. But I can't stand this kind of argument:

1. I don't want change, and don't want to be taken out of my comfort zone. I want things to stay as they are, because they're the way they are.

2. Therefore, we should take no action.

3. Therefore, either AGW doesn't exist, therefore justifying inaction, or it does exist but it can't be helped, therefore justifying inaction.

Many of those who use arguments like the above then say "but by all means we should reduce wasteful use of energy". So if we're agreed that action is needed to some extent, even if humans aren't largely responsible for the warming, why the desire to latch onto any POV that leads to the conclusion "we should just maintain the status quo" and accept it as gospel? It makes no sense.

I'd prefer 1 billion spent on picking up a billion plastic bags around the world rather then reducing CO2 emissions by 0.01%

Things can happen over night re change (e.g. plastic bags)

What I don't like is hypocrisy i.e. the government increasing taxes on flights and then building more runways (no more Tax on flights and yes build more run ways if needed)

Bit like raising the Tax on alcohol pops by a few pence and then saying that will solve binge drinking, its doesn't address the issue at all. However I don't suggest don't do anything just use the laws that are there.

Just because you disagree with a proposal (putting billion/trillions into reducing CO2) what is the government going to try and do now reduce it by 80% by 2050 ? doesn't mean you want to do nothing or don't care for the environment.

The problem with global warming is that for so many years we have had so many alarmist reports that if and only if the Earth now goes into a cooling trend we might see society swing violently against the green lobby in its wideness' sense and that would be sad

I'm sorry I can't find the link (mention before) but even now in the American scientific journal regarding Antarctica ice melt it shows how Florida would look with 100/200ft sea level rises etc

I'm afraid to say if we get another cool global year the back lash will be great which could have a deter mental effect on the Greens which wont be good

We only have one planet and we all know about finite resources but global warming and the hype have backed itself into a corner

[Devonian]

I'd prefer 1 billion spent on picking up a billion plastic bags around the world rather then reducing CO2 emissions by 0.01%

Things can happen over night re change (e.g. plastic bags)

What I don't like is hypocrisy i.e. the government increasing taxes on flights and then building more runways (no more Tax on flights and yes build more run ways if needed)

No one likes hypocrisy, but a hypocritical approach to problems doesn't make them go away.

Bit like raising the Tax on alcohol pops by a few pence and then saying that will solve binge drinking, its doesn't address the issue at all. However I don't suggest don't do anything just use the laws that are there.

Rather OT but a red herring surely? No one suggest the tax rise will cure the binge problem?

Just because you disagree with a proposal (putting billion/trillions into reducing CO2) what is the government going to try and do now reduce it by 80% by 2050 ? doesn't mean you want to do nothing or don't care for the environment.

The problem with global warming is that for so many years we have had so many alarmist reports that if and only if the Earth now goes into a cooling trend we might see society swing violently against the green lobby in its wideness' sense and that would be sad

It would but it works both ways. Warming might well pause for a while, people might get complacent even more complacent and then it warms with renewed vigour in the next few years. Of course, then society would return to the comfort of what the sceptics have to say. For warmers it's loose loose. When it warms people wont listen when it doesn't they listen to the sceptics. Is this a new rule of mass human behaviour?: decades of warming means nothing a few months of average temperatures and AGW is 'disproven'?

I'm sorry I can't find the link (mention before) but even now in the American scientific journal regarding Antarctica ice melt it shows how Florida would look with 100/200ft sea level rises etc

I'm afraid to say if we get another cool global year the back lash will be great which could have a deter mental effect on the Greens which wont be good

We only have one planet and we all know about finite resources but global warming and the hype have backed itself into a corner

Again, what if warming pauses for a while and then it warms again? What will sceptics do then. Oh, just carry on as before I rekon...

Edited March 13, 2008 by Devonian

[SnowBear]

Here is a question for everyone, if, just if, the Global Warming and co2 theories are found to be a big myth, what will you all think and do in regard to the scientists, governments and other groups who have been pushing it? How will you react? How will your trust be effected?

Just interested to know what might happen in the future if it is all found to be a complete load of hogwash and that all this past 30 years was just cycles which we knew little about.

Not too sure but this might be a post for a new thread, mods please do make a new thread if its deemed to warrant it.

[Devonian]

Here is a question for everyone, if, just if, the Global Warming and co2 theories are found to be a big myth, what will you all think and do in regard to the scientists, governments and other groups who have been pushing it? How will you react? How will your trust be effected?

Just interested to know what might happen in the future if it is all found to be a complete load of hogwash and that all this past 30 years was just cycles which we knew little about.

Not too sure but this might be a post for a new thread, mods please do make a new thread if its deemed to warrant it.

Let me pose a question as well. What if AGW happens as predicted, the consequence of established sceince understood for decades. What if in 75 years time the world is 3C warmer with vast changes to the planet, agriculture, sea ice, weather and climate? What if AGW scepticism is a load of hogwash, pushed by self interested groups? How will you react?

TBH I think such questions, strawman as they are, serve little purpose.

Edited March 13, 2008 by Devonian

[SnowBear]

No, it doesn't serve little purpose, there are so many theories, so much data, so many contradictions, so many ways this could end up, why are the questions I put of little purpose? Agreed there are those questions you put too, so lets pose those questions too.

If your current belief in what will happen is found to be hogwash, that covers both sides.

The science, politics and conclusions drawn at the moment can be at complete opposite ends of the spectrum which means we have not got it all nailed down tight. Just when we think we have it nailed along comes some data to throw a spanner in the works, on both sides. It leaves many areas open to question on what the climate will eventually do in reality, the eventuality which will not happen for some time to come, its an ongoing subject.

For the record I sit on the fence, I see points in the arguements in both sides yet neither seem to get the whole picture.

[wysiwyg]

Here is a question for everyone, if, just if, the Global Warming and co2 theories are found to be a big myth, what will you all think and do in regard to the scientists, governments and other groups who have been pushing it? How will you react? How will your trust be effected?

This is a good example of how polarised an argument can become when interested parties begin to cherry pick ideas to fit agendas.

In defence of scientists I think it's fair to say that none of this whole issue will ever be considered a myth. The theories, assumptions and predictions on both sides of the argument are soundly supported by robust and sensible science imo. As things stand this leads to uncertainty surrounding the whole issue of GW and this is what drives the science to continue seeking answers. This is not black and white, of course there is evidence of a warming trend, of course there is evidence that CO₂ may contribute, of course polar ice melt is a threat, of course the sun has a role to play.

Governments will continue as always to look for opportunities to control and manipulate on the one hand, and maintain a majority of contented voters on the other. Put another way how much can they raise taxes and popularity without pushing too far and loosing votes and credibility.

Environmental groups will take whatever suits and fit it to their agenda - nothing wrong with that!

Large multinationals will take whatever suits and fit it to the cause of protecting profits, shareholders and their own existence.

Just interested to know what might happen in the future if it is all found to be a complete load of hogwash and that all this past 30 years was just cycles which we knew little about.

I agree with Dev here - the emotiveness of such a statement doesn't really help the argument. None of it is hogwash (and this from a sceptic!) and even if other cycles etc are found to be effective the current science is still valid and can't just be dismissed on the grounds that other, more likely and contributory, effects are discovered and verified.

What I think is valid in your statement is the "what if" style of questioning.

When I look at a piece of well researched evidence on either side of the argument I will ask the questions: "What if it is true/false? How does it fit in with what is already known/likely". It's sometimes a bit too easy to look at a piece of biased media reporting connected to a piece of science and think "That's rubbish/a myth/hogwash etc" or "Well that settles it they must be right because they agree with what I think"

I think that answers your question as to where my trust is - i.e. with my own eyes, ears and thought process.

In answer as to how I would react in either yours and Dev's hypotheses I would accept whatever was the outcome in terms of the science but never give up questioning and looking for answers.

[SnowBear]

BTW, I am not trying to set up a strawman arguement Devonian, I am interested in what people will do, react, say etc if...and I emphasis "IF", their current belief, be it pro or anti, is found to not come true. What will be the potential backlashes for groups, how will people think of their governments if they have made them pay more taxes due to CO2 emission controls when it is found that no effect comes from CO2, what will the people who find out that the Earth continues to warm and it is found that current AGW theories are correct. What will peole think of science, how will their trust in authorities etc be effected.

It is this reason why I did wonder myself if I should have set this up as a new thread as its not really part of the debate on this thread. Mods please do make it a new thread if you think it should be.

[Hiya]

Again, what if warming pauses for a while and then it warms again? What will sceptics do then. Oh, just carry on as before I rekon...

What goes down must go back up? If after say 30 years of cooling we're at a point of gobal mean temperatures being say -0.7*C of the 60-90 and it starts to warm would you argue that it is because of carbon dioxide?

Obviously any cooling is natural, but warming is man made.

[wysiwyg]

It is this reason why I did wonder myself if I should have set this up as a new thread as its not really part of the debate on this thread. Mods please do make it a new thread if you think it should be.

To be fair I think this is fine in here. Most of the threads drift around the general subject anyhow so if it was in a new thread it would be off-topic before you could say ermm... well.... off-topic

[Devonian]

What goes down must go back up? If after say 30 years of cooling we're at a point of gobal mean temperatures being say -0.7*C of the 60-90 and it starts to warm would you argue that it is because of carbon dioxide?

No, I'd say the science as I understood it was wrong. But, I don't think it is, ergo I don't think what you pose will happen - see you in thirty. However there is a caveat. A massive volcanic eruption, or meteorite might well send temps back several tenths of a degree, but would not invalidate the science.

Obviously any cooling is natural, but warming is man made.

It's a natural event that happens to be outweighing the warming push to the extent that global temps have fallen back towards normal. Cool they are not. What is really interesting is what will happen to temps post La Nina.

[wysiwyg]

It's a natural event that happens to be outweighing the warming push to the extent that global temps have fallen back towards normal. Cool they are not. What is really interesting is what will happen to temps post La Nina.

One could argue that El Nino was actually driving the recent anomolous warming. Personally I don't think there is enough correlation between ENSO and warming/cooling alone. Something else drives this phenomenon and I am currently thinking it is not atmospheric CO₂ levels but more to do with a combination of ocean currents and solar activity.

Edit: Was looking at this when I posted above http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/observing1.html

Edited March 13, 2008 by wysiwyg

[Thundery wintry showers]

The problem with Stevefox's arguments is that they seem to contain the assumption that if we try to reduce CO2 emissions it will require spending billions/trillions of pounds and will only reduce CO2 by 0.01%. It's misleading to assume an extreme worst-case scenario and make points based on that assumption, though it's the kind of manipulation the politicians use.

It's a bit like, at the other extreme, saying we're all going to die on the assumption that global temperatures will rise by over 6C in the next 100 years.

Re. SnowBear's point, it's not a bad one. While it's exceedingly unlikely that AGW will be shown to be a myth, there is a possibility- not a likely one, but a possibility nonetheless- that the impact of human activity on climate has been grossly overestimated. In my case it wouldn't change my views on action, as I would advocate moving towards sustainable growth even if it transpired that the "CO2 causes warming" relationship was heavily flawed. I mention this on my personal manifesto, that the proposals are "anthropogenic global warming-neutral" (though I'm going to revise some of my proposals soon, as I wrote them about a year ago).

In that sense I see Laserguy's point some posts ago; indeed it's quite possible that playing the 'sustainability' card might win more public support than going on about AGW, as there's much less uncertainty associated with that way of looking at it, yet it yields much the same conclusions re. action.

Even if it does cost billions/trillions to reduce carbon emissions significantly, it's no worse than letting the fossil fuels run out and then losing billions/trillions in productivity because we didn't bother finding cleaner alternatives and so end up with insufficient energy sources to power our appliances with.

[wysiwyg]

Even if it does cost billions/trillions to reduce carbon emissions significantly, it's no worse than letting the fossil fuels run out and then losing billions/trillions in productivity because we didn't bother finding cleaner alternatives and so end up with insufficient energy sources to power our appliances with.

I think that "sustainability" is key here and that is maybe why some people find it frustrating that large quantities of resource are seemingly being channeled into CO₂ reduction when there are many more factors in play here. Couple that with the fact that the UK Government will bail out an ailing bank at the drop of a hat with £50odd billion but will not act on sustainability issues unless the investment comes from private sources then you have a recipe for some very disgruntled people.

I would not be so naive to think that we are merrily wandering along burning FF and not doing anything about the future though. Whilst some of the measures so far taken smack of tokenism, they are a small step in the right direction and I am confident that research is ongoing into sustainable energy sources. Particularly it is ironic that much of this will be funded by the energy industry as they have most to lose when FF becomes economically unviable.

None of this will happen overnight. Governments have little choice but to slowly coerce change, balanced against their political survival. Frustrating I know!

Edit: swear filters can be hilarious at times FF s = I'm not happy, in fact I'm quite sad

Edited March 13, 2008 by wysiwyg

[stewfox]

The problem with Stevefox's arguments is that they seem to contain the assumption that if we try to reduce CO2 emissions it will require spending billions/trillions of pounds and will only reduce CO2 by 0.01%. It's misleading to assume an extreme worst-case scenario and make points based on that assumption, though it's the kind of manipulation the politicians use.

I actually said

I'd prefer 1 billion spent on picking up a billion plastic bags around the world rather then reducing CO2 emissions by 0.01%

However I will apologise for posting the '0.01%' as I haven't any scientific evidence to back that up. However I didn't say 0.01% would cost billions or trillions which I appreciate is very emotive

What I do know if you took a billion plastic bags from the sea/rain forests etc and put them in a proper land fill site the immediate beneficial impact would be higher then spending it on reducing CO2.

However

It would but it works both ways. Warming might well pause for a while, people might get complacent even more complacent and then it warms with renewed vigor in the next few years. Of course, then society would return to the comfort of what the skeptics have to say. For warmers it's loose loose. When it warms people wont listen when it doesn't they listen to the sceptics. Is this a new rule of mass human behaviour?: decades of warming means nothing a few months of average temperatures and AGW is 'disproven'?

Clearly this is a danger lets say 2 years of cooling and then run away warming

You could argue Global warming have done an excellent job in getting people 'ready' to say something should be done. From 2003 but gives you an idea

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/fe...highereducation

CO2 and warming could be link in a way we don't yet fully understand

The worse thing that could happen is some cooling then rapid warming

Its not easy but one shouldn't put all ones eggs in ones basket

Edited March 13, 2008 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

Do we know that the plastic bags idea would have more benefits than reducing CO2? "Reducing CO2" is a very vague reference- there may ways that money could be spent, that would result in CO2 reduction, that would have appreciable benefits, but equally, ways that bring very little appreciable benefit.

I'm not a big follower of the emphasis on CO2 either as it happens- I do think sustainability is a better emphasis, after all, if we move towards sustainability CO2 reductions would almost certainly follow as a result anyway. Whereas, it is possible to reduce CO2 using non-sustainable approaches, which in the long run may bring limited benefit.

It's widely assumed that governments can't carry out long-term planning because it may affect their electability, which might be correct, but has anyone questioned that line of thinking? It might be that the public may be more understanding if their government is carrying out plans that may have short-term inconveniences but clearly-defined long-term gain. Or it may be that the public's confidence in the authorities is so shattered that they'd take too much convincing...

I personally don't have much time for the way the current political system works. I doubt that any alternatives to democracy itself are particularly workable, but the form of it we currently have rather goes against many of the principles of it, including the short-term electioneering, the apathy and the "voting the lesser of the evils". I'm not sure how this could be reformed to a better democratic system, but the current system does help to maintain negative status quos.

[Weather-history]

Here is an article from the Times of January 1982 that I have. Professor Hubert Lamb, one of the UK's most famous climatologists believed at the time that we could possibly be embarking on the first step of another ice age. This was only 26 years ago.

[stewfox]

Do we know that the plastic bags idea would have more benefits than reducing CO2? "Reducing CO2" is a very vague reference- there may ways that money could be spent, that would result in CO2 reduction, that would have appreciable benefits, but equally, ways that bring very little appreciable benefit.

Short term yes , I dont see a plastic bags washed up on the beach in the Maldives

Long term who knows , I dont see the Maldives :o

Anyway now India has the $3,000 car we better hope the CO2 - global warming isnt too closely linked

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/as...car-454140.html

[SnowBear]

If the government wants to make a real incentive, instead of taxing to the hilt that which people need, eg transport etc, why don't they push more for greener lighting in peoples houses, most homes could be almost self sufficient in lighting with the products available on the market now, solar panels, wind turbines etc. The excess power generated by all these homes in the summer and days when maybe no-one is at home, homes not occupied, and many other instances, could then put into the power grid. Thing is, they would then loose revenue in the major electricity generators returns, so what would happen then? they would tax the power you generate yourself somehow!