General Climate Change Discussion

[pottyprof]

By request, the general debate thread returns

As always.. stick to the code of conduct -----> http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?act=SR&f=8

Ta muchly..

[Gray-Wolf]

Just lifted this from the 'Arctic' thread;

I'd imagine we are now starting to see the 'new' pattern for early in the freeze season with the expected refreeze of the high arctic, which used to be perennial locked, leading to a period of 'apparent' rapid ice growth (as the 'new' open water refreezes).

I do hope that those folk who got carried away with the rates of re-freeze in Oct/early Nov have now got their heads around how/why this should occur as it will continue to be a feature from now on (unless we DO build new 5yr+ perennial in the high arctic) and even after two years it is wearing thin as a 'topic' of discussion.

Surely our main focus should be Ice thickness.......the depth to which the 'new' ice freezes.

Last year saw large areas of relatively thin ice form over large areas of the Arctic which enabled the scale of melt (over a poor summer) that brought us to the second lowest ice levels on record. Any 'good/warm' summer would lead to an early period of open waters in the high arctic and more heat absorption in the seas there leading to more of the high temps we are seeing currently as the waters loose their heat back into the atmosphere.

The nattering over on the 'models' thread are focused on the loss of the 'extended cold' we used to succumb to in past years. A look at the charts makes you wonder about the influence of this new 'heat engine' in the arctic on the polar vortex and the polar jet......and our chances of having a 'traditional winter'.

If we can see an influence over winter then maybe our past two 'wet/warm' summers are also to become a feature of the 'new' arctic regime?

With the PDO turned negative you would expect colder conditions but it would appear that AGW is exerting a stronger influence than the normal 'oscillations' of the climate.Seeing as the poles are supposed to see greater influence from any warming maybe we are seeing just how far the warming can negate the 'natural variability' of the planet?

I feel we would do well to draw parallels with past PDO -ve phases and this current one to see just how 'different' it pans out to be. I do not think we can afford the luxury of waiting to amass more data on this (seeing as the oscillation is so lengthy) and must accept the influence that the 'new' open waters over summer has on things (as we see currently).

If PDO-ve really is acting as PDO neutral then what of PDO+ve? If we do not see a slowing (as predicted) of warming up to 2015 then what of the acceleration in warming predicted for thereafter??

What of the impacts of the next (2009) El-Nino???

We were always told that the impacts in polar regions would be greater than anywhere else but ,at the same time, we were told that the polar regions were the 'thermostat' for the planet.

If we have 'knocked out' our thermostat then surely the impacts on lower latitudes will be far greater than our 'forced warming ' alone. Past epochs show just how far a 'balanced planet' can warm without our messing with the controls.

Nothing happens in isolation, mess with one thing and it impacts the next,and the next, and the next.....

We are permanently asked 'What an ice free arctic means' maybe we are getting our answers?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What do you feel? everything within 'normal operating parameters' or are we into uncharted territories???

[Gray-Wolf]

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Foretell...ltdown_999.html

A little piece of evidence for those who believe CO2 to be a benign 'trace' gas.Nahcolite will only be precipitated out when atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are high and so it's occurence in a strata gives us a glimpse of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 at that time whilst the rest of the paleo-climatic data show us what it was like on earth.

It would seem that we are headed for a very bad place (as predicted) after all....387ppm and rising....

[jethro]

Mmmmm, hard to take someone seriously when they make such a fundamental mistake as this;

"The glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro has not much time left even now. Many mountain glaciers are going to disappear," he said.

Wrong. Nothing whatsoever to do with CO2 levels and a warming atmosphere; the glaciers haven't melted because it's too hot, they've melted because the trees at the base have been cleared, this has in turn created a drier atmosphere, hence less snow.

It could be a simple mistake on his part but it makes me wonder how much he knows about the whole subject; seems to me he's focused upon one tiny part and drawn huge conclusions.

[Essan]

Yes, there are still a lot of people who mistakenly assume warm = glaciers melt, cold = glaciers grow. It's much more complicated than that and, indeed, one consequence of global warming would be for glaciers in some regions to grow, not retreat.

And, of course, changes in precipitation patterns due to deforestation is one of the more serious, and yet less well known, aspects of anthropogenic climate change.

[Admiral_Bobski]

"Lowenstein's concerns are rooted not in speculation about unprecedented future happenings, but in the scientific discovery and analysis of mineral samples formed during the Eocene Epoch, the warmest period on earth in the last 65 million years.

What Lowenstein and his colleague Robert Demicco at Binghamton University have discovered is that nahcolite, a rare, yellowish-green or brown carbonate mineral, only forms on earth under environmental conditions marked by very high atmospheric CO2 levels.

That establishes it as both a marker and a benchmark that can be used by scientists as they consider the likely climatic implications of ever-increasing CO2 levels in our atmosphere today."

One key point to make about this article is that it doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know - we know that CO2 levels coincide, historically, with high temperatures. The argument we have had time and time again is about cause and effect - is CO2 the cause of temperature increase or is it an effect of temperature increase?

A study that tells us that particular mineral is formed in warm, CO2-rich environments tells us only that we'll get some more of this mineral if temperatures and CO2 levels continue to increase. I'm not sure how it introduces anything new to the CO2/temperature argument.

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

So though the CO2 increases associated with the Eocene plate tectonic activities (Owen and Rea, 1984) and their hydrothermal activities (Berner,Lasaga and Garrels (BLAG) 1983) and the global climate change seen through this period are yet again 'unconvincing' in terms of 'Greenhouse gas induced warming' then? just another grand coincidence??

Some times it is hard for me to stretch my disbelief of a causal link between CO2 and infrared heat capture and the warming of the globe as far as you seem happy to C-Bob. As you say the CO2 is always there but ,in many instances,it increases due to general increased volcanism (so no feedback loop) whilst global temps rise.

If we could find no reason for the CO2 increases then we may think that rising temps caused a positive feedback loop releasing CO2 but when we know the planet has undergone massive CO2 out bleeds and we see that the planet warmed.....?

[Admiral_Bobski]

So though the CO2 increases associated with the Eocene plate tectonic activities (Owen and Rea, 1984) and their hydrothermal activities (Berner,Lasaga and Garrels (BLAG) 1983) and the global climate change seen through this period are yet again 'unconvincing' in terms of 'Greenhouse gas induced warming' then? just another grand coincidence??

Some times it is hard for me to stretch my disbelief of a causal link between CO2 and infrared heat capture and the warming of the globe as far as you seem happy to C-Bob. As you say the CO2 is always there but ,in many instances,it increases due to general increased volcanism (so no feedback loop) whilst global temps rise.

If we could find no reason for the CO2 increases then we may think that rising temps caused a positive feedback loop releasing CO2 but when we know the planet has undergone massive CO2 out bleeds and we see that the planet warmed.....?

There's a lot more to vulcanism than just CO2, GW, as I'm sure you are aware. The amount of environmental upheaval associated with any past volcanic activity is a far broader subject than simply, "Look how much CO2 there was."

Besides, all I said was that the article to which you linked added nothing new to the argument against CO2. It doesn't. All it has done is thrown in a reference to a mineral that is formed under particular conditions, which isn't proof of anything we didn't already know.

CB

[shuggee]

From an anonymous member - something Seasonal to smile about...

Tis the season - The Twelve Days of Global Warming

On the first day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the second day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the third day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the fourth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the fifth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the sixth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the seventh day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the eighth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

El Nino missing,

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the ninth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Scientists a-censored,

El Nino missing,

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the tenth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Arctic Ice Recovering,

Scientists a-censored,

El Nino missing,

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the eleventh day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

C02 a-rising,

Arctic Ice Recovering,

Scientists a-censored,

El Nino missing,

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy.

On the twelfth day of Global Warming,

my true love sent to me

Twelve years this cycle,

C02 a-rising,

Arctic Ice Recovering,

Scientists a-censored,

El Nino missing,

Climate Models drowning,

Hanson a-lying,

SOLAR MINIMUM,

More falling temps,

No warming trend,

Two Clinton thugs,

And Al Gore's cap and trade policy!

[jethro]

:lol: I love it.

[RedShift]

From an anonymous member - something Seasonal to smile about... :lol:

Has Mondy been cutting and pasting again?

[noggin]

I'm posting this because it's interesting and also for me it is more evidence of that old "growing groundswell of opinion" against AGW. Here goes...

http://www.iceagenow.com/Top_Scientists_sa...ng_is_a_lie.htm

There are some very telling quotations in there, especially with regard to funding.

I trust that the source will not be harangued just because of what it is.

[Gray-Wolf]

We would already appear to be within the period where the warming is rearranging global weather patterns (tri to bi lobal polar arrangement, northerly migration of jet and so northerly migration of storm centres, northerly migration of the oceanic 10c isotherm) so I think that these contrarians will be noting the egg on their faces before long!

When we were still within the period where much energy (in the northern hemisphere) was spent on melting ice over summer we were more insulated from the greater impacts of that free energy. The mechanism for the 'increased rate of warming' expect from 2015 would seem to reflect the final loss of summer ice by 2015(http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=13c570ce-0d99-4854-b73e-56eaa12567c9).

Insofar as 'contrarians' go we are now in an 'endgame' of the 'is it?, isn't it? human driven change?' period and ,though their dalliance may result in the loss of species/million of savable human lives, at least their twittering will have to cease

[Solar Cycles]

We would already appear to be within the period where the warming is rearranging global weather patterns (tri to bilobal polar arrangement, northerly migration of jet and so northerly migration of storm centres, northerly migration of the oceanic 10c isotherm) so I think that these contrarians will be noting the egg on their faces before long!

When we were still within the period where much energy (in the northern hemisphere) was spent on melting ice over summer we were more insulated from the greater impacts of that free energy. The mechanism for the 'increased rate of warming' expect from 2015 would seem to reflect the final loss of summer ice by 2015(http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=13c570ce-0d99-4854-b73e-56eaa12567c9).

Insofar as 'contrarians' go we are now in an 'endgame' of the 'is it?, isn't it? human driven change?' period and ,though their dalliance may result in the loss of species/million of savable human lives, at least their twittering will have to cease

Another sermon based on distorted facts, The jet as you put it, as been taking a more southerly track. All this talk of a doomsday type scenario is not going to alter the fact that, AGW is a theory that can only be proved on a computer model. And even then the data is severely flawed, as shown by the likes of Mann's hockey stick. Gw time to look at the bigger picture, sea levels aren't rising like predicted, Glaciers are advancing around the globe, and none of these doomsday scenarios which you shout about, will never happen. Except on a computer model that is! :winky:

[Android]

sea levels are rising, glaciers are in retreat around the world, the models reflect current human understanding of the climate. They aren't going to be completely accurate of course, but that's reflected in the results - it's something like between 1.5C to 4.5C due to co2 doubling, which is a wide range of error reflecting uncertainty in the models. But that uncertainty doesn't support co2 having a non significant warming effect.

Remember that noone has managed to make a model of the climate that shows the recent warming was natural, nor has anyone made a climate model that shows rising co2 has an insignificant warming effect.

For AGW to be false requires two independant discoveries to be made:

1) Discovery of a yet unknown significant climate driver to explain the last 30 years of warming, which would require experts to have missed something quite obvious.

2) Discovery that doubling co2 leads to far less warming than expected, which would require understanding of the atmosphere to be in serious error.

[laserguy]

sea levels are rising, glaciers are in retreat around the world.....

Sea levels are not rising,I could provide hundreds of links like this one if I'd the mind to

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

Exactly the same applies to the melting glaciers debacle.

Gray Wolf,you're doing a sterling job of convincing yourself of imminent catastrophe,but it's bouncing straight off me,I'm afraid. Where I once took you semi-seriously I now hear someone who has not only taken on the desperate air of Al Gore but one who is actually quoting him. This is very bad. There is no such phenomenon of AGW. More and more people who might actually be qualified to comment with any sort of authority are coming forward and saying just that. Why now? I don't know - if a numpty like me could see through it all along it beggars belief that these people have genuinely been barking up the wrong tree for all this time. No,as expected,the reality of the situation is finally beginning to triumph - to the point where it is prudent to jump overboard right now. Wonder why they stuck it out for so long? Anyways,in the aftermath of a house move,much to do. See y'all.

[osmposm]

Sea levels are not rising,I could provide hundreds of links like this one if I'd the mind to

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/sealevel.htm

Barrie, that is a very interesting and impressive, even persuasive link - or would be were it not for a couple of worries I have about the author and the source.

(1) The author, Dr Morner, tries very hard - too hard for my money - to impress us with his credentials. I am always a little mistrustful of people who tell us quite so insistently just how marvellous and important they are. I may be doing him an injustice, but personally I would prefer to be hearing from someone other than him stuff like "There are many good sea-level people in the world, but let's put it this way: There's no one who's beaten me. I took my thesis in 1969, devoted to a large extent to the sea-level problem. From then on I have launched most of the new theories, in the '70s, '80s, and '90s...." He sounds suspiciously like someone who finds himself not thought of as highly as he thinks he ought to be, and is not best pleased about that....oh, just found a rather dismissive view of him in 1998 by the great pseudo-science debunker, James Randi - nothing to do with AGW, it concerned Morner's claims that he had paranormal dowsing powers: http://www.randi.org/hotline/1998/0012.html

(2) The website on which you found the piece includes this fairly mind-boggling page of other "popular delusions" they seek to dispel: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/diagnose.htm#delude . There are several interesting ones there, including denials that AIDS is caused by sexually-transmitted HIV, and that Democracy is not really a good thing. I cannot argue convincingly about most of them (I have insufficient knowledge) - bar one: the "myth" that corpulence is caused by consuming too many calories and/or expending too few in exercise. I have just lost three and a half stone, from 16 down to 12 and a half. I did not eat unhealthy food before, just too much. I have, indeed, lost the weight by the simple expedient of taking more exercise and eating less.

However, to be fair, extremist-view fringe websites often pick up and copy pieces they like from more reputable sources. The original interview with Morner is here: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007...f/33-37_725.pdf . You may not know about Executive Intelligence Review and Lyndon LaRouche. Have a look at the homepage - http://www.larouchepub.com - read some of Mr LaRouche's opinions. He is among the world's most (in)famous and conspiracy theorists - among his contentions is that the (British) Royal Family are deeply involved in drug-running, that they had Princess Di killed, and that British Intelligence organized the recent Mumbai terrorist attacks.

Morner chose to be interviewed and published by this organisation, which must at the very least call into question his common sense if he wants to be taken seriously.

Hope the move went well.

Ossie

[Solar Cycles]

sea levels are rising, glaciers are in retreat around the world, the models reflect current human understanding of the climate. They aren't going to be completely accurate of course, but that's reflected in the results - it's something like between 1.5C to 4.5C due to co2 doubling, which is a wide range of error reflecting uncertainty in the models. But that uncertainty doesn't support co2 having a non significant warming effect.

Remember that no one has managed to make a model of the climate that shows the recent warming was natural, nor has anyone made a climate model that shows rising co2 has an insignificant warming effect.

For AGW to be false requires two independent discoveries to be made:

1) Discovery of a yet unknown significant climate driver to explain the last 30 years of warming, which would require experts to have missed something quite obvious.

2) Discovery that doubling co2 leads to far less warming than expected, which would require understanding of the atmosphere to be in serious error.

Answer to your first question, It's the sun. active sun, warmer temperatures, less active sun cooler temperatures. Second question, Co2 is still being pumped into the atmosphere, yet the climate is cooling. AGW = Urban Myth!

[jethro]

For AGW to be false requires two independant discoveries to be made:

1) Discovery of a yet unknown significant climate driver to explain the last 30 years of warming, which would require experts to have missed something quite obvious.

2) Discovery that doubling co2 leads to far less warming than expected, which would require understanding of the atmosphere to be in serious error.

And for AGW to be proven true, we need one simple, basic discovery - that increased CO2 drives warming. To date, this has not been done. That old problem of causation and correlation; the two are worlds apart.

[Iceberg]

Answer to your first question, It's the sun. active sun, warmer temperatures, less active sun cooler temperatures. Second question, Co2 is still being pumped into the atmosphere, yet the climate is cooling. AGW = Urban Myth!

So why a virtually dead sun but temps still way above normal....

[Stratos Ferric]

And for AGW to be proven true, we need one simple, basic discovery - that increased CO2 drives warming. To date, this has not been done. That old problem of causation and correlation; the two are worlds apart.

I continue to be staggered that there are people on here who do not accept that increased CO2 causes warming in the climate. Some of the arguments put forward on here help explain why in less sophisticated times people believed the world to be flat. As I look out from my windows it seems flat, and I would defy anyone to prove otherwise but for our ability to view our small and lonely planet now from far distant vistas, but remember, there was a time when those who believed the earth to be a sphere were in the minority. When Columbus set off on his voyage some cautioned that he might fall off the edge of the earth.

Re the CO2 conundrum Real climate give a quite plausible sequence. They explain why CO2 might often lag, and then kick in.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2-in-ice-cores/

From my perspective this is very simple. For the vast majority of time natural cycles have abounded without any man made influence. Carbon is hard and slow to release left to nature alone. Warmer waters would increase rates of dissolution, hence a potential lag effect, when the climate is warming for other reasons.

Most of the standard misunderstandings are debunked here...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/

The replaying of the same old arguments is astonishingly tiresome, and indicates very little than that a fair few on here, who might consider themeselves open minded, rather betray a closed-mindedness in their comments and observations, buttressed by a worrying inability to differentiate between short-term and localised cycles in weather vs long term movement in climate. The only surprise is that so far in this thread nobody has mentioned that global temperatures have fallen back this year and that, ipso facto, warming is a myth - although I concede that one or two hint at such an argument.

I thought that the science of CO2 in the atmosphere was now generally accepted. If not then we should all be worried that Governments around the world are now taking the issue seriously and attempting to reduce consumption of carbon as energy. If they are wrong on this then what else are they wrong on? I do, however find it bizarre that the world over all these stupid, misguided, people have found themselves in positions of influence, whilst the doubters tap away fron their front rooms, relying only on channels like this to have any hearing.

The only thing that is different this time is that, and perhaps for the first time, man is able to exert sufficient influence on natural cycles to change things. The fact that something has not happened before does not mean that it cannot happen now. The fact that in the past things have happened a certain way does not mean that that is the only way that they can happen.

The most sinsister aspect of warming is that, as most effective killers do, it creeps. If it moved faster there would be less room for nearly reasonable doubt; moving slowly those who wish for a different outcome can be tricked. Just as we force ourselves into a dress, or trousers, and tell ourselves that despite tell-tale bulges that bid otherwise, we aren't any fatter; or look in a mirror and say that our hair isn't thinning and we aren't really getting older...

Twenty years ago when I was just out of university this stuff wasn't even talked about. Now anyone with half an iota of sense can see that the climate is warming, that things simply are not what they used to be. Yes, the change stutters along, but the forces that always were there, and which introduced natural variation within slow long term trends, are still there; there will always be "background" fluctuation. What is different now is that there is some additional upwards forcing, and that man seems to be driving most of that.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Stratos Ferric

[Kained]

Sf in the Real Climate article they don't tackle why Antartica and the surrounding ocean warm, leaving it as an unknown. Neither do they tackle how the process ends. Even with the extra CO2 it only states that it could amplify the warming phase.

This seems a little vague?

[jethro]

I continue to be staggered that there are people on here who do not accept that increased CO2 causes warming in the climate. Some of the arguments put forward on here help explain why in less sophisticated times people believed the world to be flat. As I look out from my windows it seems flat, and I would defy anyone to prove otherwise but for our ability to view our small and lonely planet now from far distant vistas, but remember, there was a time when those who believed the earth to be a sphere were in the minority. When Columbus set off on his voyage some cautioned that he might fall off the edge of the earth.

Re the CO2 conundrum Real climate give a quite plausible sequence. They explain why CO2 might often lag, and then kick in.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...2-in-ice-cores/

From my perspective this is very simple. For the vast majority of time natural cycles have abounded without any man made influence. Carbon is hard and slow to release left to nature alone. Warmer waters would increase rates of dissolution, hence a potential lag effect, when the climate is warming for other reasons.

Most of the standard misunderstandings are debunked here...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/guide/bigpicture/

The replaying of the same old arguments is astonishingly tiresome, and indicates very little than that a fair few on here, who might consider themeselves open minded, rather betray a closed-mindedness in their comments and observations, buttressed by a worrying inability to differentiate between short-term and localised cycles in weather vs long term movement in climate. The only surprise is that so far in this thread nobody has mentioned that global temperatures have fallen back this year and that, ipso facto, warming is a myth - although I concede that one or two hint at such an argument.

I thought that the science of CO2 in the atmosphere was now generally accepted. If not then we should all be worried that Governments around the world are now taking the issue seriously and attempting to reduce consumption of carbon as energy. If they are wrong on this then what else are they wrong on? I do, however find it bizarre that the world over all these stupid, misguided, people have found themselves in positions of influence, whilst the doubters tap away fron their front rooms, relying only on channels like this to have any hearing.

The only thing that is different this time is that, and perhaps for the first time, man is able to exert sufficient influence on natural cycles to change things. The fact that something has not happened before does not mean that it cannot happen now. The fact that in the past things have happened a certain way does not mean that that is the only way that they can happen.

The most sinsister aspect of warming is that, as most effective killers do, it creeps. If it moved faster there would be less room for nearly reasonable doubt; moving slowly those who wish for a different outcome can be tricked. Just as we force ourselves into a dress, or trousers, and tell ourselves that despite tell-tale bulges that bid otherwise, we aren't any fatter; or look in a mirror and say that our hair isn't thinning and we aren't really getting older...

Twenty years ago when I was just out of university this stuff wasn't even talked about. Now anyone with half an iota of sense can see that the climate is warming, that things simply are not what they used to be. Yes, the change stutters along, but the forces that always were there, and which introduced natural variation within slow long term trends, are still there; there will always be "background" fluctuation. What is different now is that there is some additional upwards forcing, and that man seems to be driving most of that.

How about we stick to discussing the science rather than going down the old, old route of personal comments eh. I welcome you back to this area SF, when sticking to the actual science, you have some very valid points but when you veer off, as you have above, well, it's astonishingly tiresome. We've mostly moved away from those tactics in recent times and the climate area has been a pleasanter place to be.

[HighPressure]

My 2 pennies worth is simply that CO2 is a warming gas, however its lack of removal from the atmosphere does not fit with overall AGW theory. The interaction between man made CO2, ocean temps, currents and CO2 removal is not understood to any great degree. The question is not does CO2 cause warming or even contribute to it, but is if man was to significantly reduce its emissions would this have any noticeable effect of global temps? I see no scientific evidence to suggest a 20% or even 50% cut would have any impact and am yet to see any explanation of this, other then the same old tired route of CO2 = warming which in itself is a meaningless statement. The message of reduced emissions = less warming is at best hope casting and at worst fraudulent.

Edited December 15, 2008 by HighPressure

[Gray-Wolf]

High S.F. , nice to see you in here!

Don't worry about the negativity, it's normal! There are many areas within 'noticeable climate shift that drive me to distraction too. The amount of energy some people appear to exert to bring the slenderest counter argument is nigh on laughable but these are the times we live in??

As I was keen of pointing out over on the old 'beeb' site the Arctic is done for (now most folk can see this) we still have folk pleading against the obvious that this is not the truth. All you can do is hold your breath and count to 10. Time alone will show the truth and ,for some, they will only be satisfied when they've seen the corpse..........