New Research

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm afraid I agree with Laser, those who are concerned about climate change should lead by example when it comes to living a sustainable lifestyle. If you are concerned about the climate but are unwilling to change the way you live, or want the option to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle in the hope that the government or science will come up with a way to minimise your own personal impact, then it (IMO) undermines your stance and argument. Not only that, but it begs the question that if you don't live sustainably and are concerned about the environment, are you off-loading the guilt this may induce and berating people who don't share your concerns/conviction in the AGW debate as a result?

As for war, it's packaged to achieve the aims of those governments who wish to indulge in it. The same can be said of all aspects of life. If wind farms/fracking/nuclear power/Severn barrier were packaged in way to infer that future warfare may be necessary in order to secure future energy sources, those greener energy supplies may be welcomed with less of a nimby attitude. Of course, the government will still keep all their options open, why else have we clung onto the Faulkland Islands if not to have mineral rights in the South Atlantic?

Carbon capture and sequestration.....yes, if it can be achieved, affordably and safely. Geo-engineering.....I certainly hope not. We have no idea of the possible consequences. We have no way of measuring the impact. What happens if we tip the balance too far and we end up with drastic cooling? Cold climate kills far more people than a warm one. IMO, we've done enough damage already with the stuff we've done to the planet, let's not deliberately do more.

As for the developing nations like China and India, yes they're rapidly expanding and I don't think we have the right to say they can't but they're also leading the way in developing green energy; China in particular is making massive headway.

http://www.forbes.co...rgy-investment/

Once more, I must disagree.

Being concerned about climate change isn't a choice for myself and many others, like believing gravity or evolution isn't a choice. It is just the way it is. Even if I was a right wing, free market, small government libertarian, I would still be concerned about climate change because it simply is something that has the potential to cause huge problems for humanity.

I'm not here telling people that they shouldn't drive SUVs, go on foreign holidays or become vegetarian because I know that even if every person lived a more sustainable lifestyle, CO2 emissions would still rise and warming would still continue.

My concern for the climate is based on my understanding of the science, not a personal choice.

I think this shows us the difference between ye sceptics and the rest of us. This is a scientific issue, not one of personal preference and opinion. If someone has understands the science behind climate change well, and argues it well and you claim their lifestyle undermines their argument, then that's just a huge logical fallacy. How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle.

There's no worries about me projecting any guilt by the way. The fact that I don't own a car and mainly walk and cycle everywhere probably means my carbon footprint is lower than most here!

With geo-engineering, like most sound of mind folk, I'd wouldn't want to see anything rushed into. Start of simple, like pumping water vapour into the upper atmosphere, and take things very slowly. Us humans being on this planet and exploiting it the way we are is modifying weather and climate already, with known and unknown consequences as it is.

Nice to see China making some progress with green tech, hopefully the progress will continue and expand.

[laserguy]

Once more, I must disagree.

Being concerned about climate change isn't a choice for myself and many others.....

But are you concerned or aren't you? If you are,and are reasonably sure that we are to blame for the unpleasantness in store, you've got to act accordingly. If the answer is no,then stop pretending otherwise.

[BornFromTheVoid]

But are you concerned or aren't you? If you are,and are reasonably sure that we are to blame for the unpleasantness in store, you've got to act accordingly. If the answer is no,then stop pretending otherwise.

It is concerning, yes. But the rest, which you conveniently left out of your post, included

"even if every person lived a more sustainable lifestyle, CO2 emissions would still rise and warming would still continue."

Anyway, I probably have a lower carbon footprint than most here, so it's a moot point.

[jethro]

Once more, I must disagree.

Being concerned about climate change isn't a choice for myself and many others, like believing gravity or evolution isn't a choice. It is just the way it is. Even if I was a right wing, free market, small government libertarian, I would still be concerned about climate change because it simply is something that has the potential to cause huge problems for humanity.

I'm not here telling people that they shouldn't drive SUVs, go on foreign holidays or become vegetarian because I know that even if every person lived a more sustainable lifestyle, CO2 emissions would still rise and warming would still continue.

My concern for the climate is based on my understanding of the science, not a personal choice.

I think this shows us the difference between ye sceptics and the rest of us. This is a scientific issue, not one of personal preference and opinion. If someone has understands the science behind climate change well, and argues it well and you claim their lifestyle undermines their argument, then that's just a huge logical fallacy. How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle.

There's no worries about me projecting any guilt by the way. The fact that I don't own a car and mainly walk and cycle everywhere probably means my carbon footprint is lower than most here!

With geo-engineering, like most sound of mind folk, I'd wouldn't want to see anything rushed into. Start of simple, like pumping water vapour into the upper atmosphere, and take things very slowly. Us humans being on this planet and exploiting it the way we are is modifying weather and climate already, with known and unknown consequences as it is.

Nice to see China making some progress with green tech, hopefully the progress will continue and expand.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me.

There is no logical fallacy, either you are concerned about the environment, or you are not. No one is saying anything about the science behind the theory of AGW, no one is saying whether the theory is right or wrong, in fact no comment has been made on the validity of the science at all. Either you commit to living as sustainably as possible, or you don't; the choice is entirely yours'. Where it undermines an argument and the campaigning for people to take climate change seriously is the hypocrisy element. How is it feasible to live a consumerist lifestyle whilst berating others for not caring about the planet or worrying about climate change? It's a put your money where your mouth is moment. For myself (and I think I can speak for Laser too) caring about the planet, showing concern for the impact we may have, isn't an academic argument or an abstract ideal - it's a reality, it's the way we live.

As far as "How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle", I cannot think of a more contradictory comment to make, and with respect and no insult intended, an utterly vacuous statement to make too. Climate Change isn't an abstract idea to be pondered over by academics for all eternity, it isn't something so completely divorced from reality that it can be pored over and argued over for ever more. All the scientific argument in the world, all the data, research and scientific papers are absolutely worthless unless they can be translated into real life. Individuals lifestyles are critical if you're serious about climate change and caring about the planet.

CO2 emissions continuing to rise, regardless of how we choose to live is a bonkers statement to make. If that were even remotely true then there would be no green energy industry, no efforts being made by nations like China to develop alternative energy to fuel their expansion. There would be no drive in this country to insulate homes, re-cycle, build wind farms, hydro-electric etc etc etc. In effect, your statement is saying there's nothing we can do so let's carry on regardless - morally, scientifically, academically, that is utterly incorrect.

Geo-engineering.....The IPCC reports only achieve the projected level of future warming by including the expected rise in water vapour into the models. CO2 alone is a fairly innocuous substance, not capable of producing much warming, it is the rise in water vapour due to the warming which is supposed to be primarily responsible for the additional warming - a positive feedback. This is an assumed feedback loop but we don't actually know if it will happen or by how much; our knowledge of clouds is poor, we haven't unravelled the puzzle of do they warm or do they cool. Pumping water vapour into the upper atmosphere without knowing what will happen or the impact it will have is daft. When we've unravelled the puzzle of clouds, when we know how water vapour cools/warms, then it may be sensible but until then, it's a bonkers idea.

[Devonian]

I'm sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me.

Would you and LG care to reply to my post on this theme (last page) - or is it a case of going for BF because you see him as an easier target?

But are you concerned or aren't you? If you are,and are reasonably sure that we are to blame for the unpleasantness in store, you've got to act accordingly. If the answer is no,then stop pretending otherwise.

I don't think AGW will suddenly be less of a problem if people like BF are called 'hypocrite'.

[jethro]

Would you and LG care to reply to my post on this theme (last page) - or is it a case of going for BF because you see him as an easier target?

I don't think AGW will suddenly be less of a problem if people like BF are called 'hypocrite'.

I don't see anyone as a target, I'm not that rude. I've been having a conversation with BFTV; neither one of us has taken offence, I don't think either of us need someone else to do that on our behalf, we're both able to disagree without taking it personally.

I see no post from you that either addresses myself or quotes one of my posts - from that I assumed you too were having a conversation with other people. If you have points to make in this conversation or questions that you would like me personally to answer, please can you make it more obvious that you are addressing me as time is short and I scan read in order to catch up with posts and only those directed at myself penetrate the radar.

What do you want me to answer/respond to, your post above is in answer to other people's points, it's not clear to me what you want me to answer.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I'm sorry but that sounds like a cop out to me.

There is no logical fallacy, either you are concerned about the environment, or you are not. No one is saying anything about the science behind the theory of AGW, no one is saying whether the theory is right or wrong, in fact no comment has been made on the validity of the science at all. Either you commit to living as sustainably as possible, or you don't; the choice is entirely yours'. Where it undermines an argument and the campaigning for people to take climate change seriously is the hypocrisy element. How is it feasible to live a consumerist lifestyle whilst berating others for not caring about the planet or worrying about climate change? It's a put your money where your mouth is moment. For myself (and I think I can speak for Laser too) caring about the planet, showing concern for the impact we may have, isn't an academic argument or an abstract ideal - it's a reality, it's the way we live.

As far as "How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle", I cannot think of a more contradictory comment to make, and with respect and no insult intended, an utterly vacuous statement to make too. Climate Change isn't an abstract idea to be pondered over by academics for all eternity, it isn't something so completely divorced from reality that it can be pored over and argued over for ever more. All the scientific argument in the world, all the data, research and scientific papers are absolutely worthless unless they can be translated into real life. Individuals lifestyles are critical if you're serious about climate change and caring about the planet.

CO2 emissions continuing to rise, regardless of how we choose to live is a bonkers statement to make. If that were even remotely true then there would be no green energy industry, no efforts being made by nations like China to develop alternative energy to fuel their expansion. There would be no drive in this country to insulate homes, re-cycle, build wind farms, hydro-electric etc etc etc. In effect, your statement is saying there's nothing we can do so let's carry on regardless - morally, scientifically, academically, that is utterly incorrect.

Geo-engineering.....The IPCC reports only achieve the projected level of future warming by including the expected rise in water vapour into the models. CO2 alone is a fairly innocuous substance, not capable of producing much warming, it is the rise in water vapour due to the warming which is supposed to be primarily responsible for the additional warming - a positive feedback. This is an assumed feedback loop but we don't actually know if it will happen or by how much; our knowledge of clouds is poor, we haven't unravelled the puzzle of do they warm or do they cool. Pumping water vapour into the upper atmosphere without knowing what will happen or the impact it will have is daft. When we've unravelled the puzzle of clouds, when we know how water vapour cools/warms, then it may be sensible but until then, it's a bonkers idea.

Haha, if you can't see how it's a complete logical fallacy, then I don't know if it's possible to have a logical debate with you...

I am concerned about the potential for climate change to cause problems for humanity. Once more, it's is not a political or personal choice like it might be for you. With the evidence I've seen, I can no more say that it isn't a potentially harmful problem, than I can say the Earth is flat. I don't come on here to berate others for not being more sustainable, I mainly started posting on threads here to defend the science and scientists from so called "sceptic" attacks.

But hey, lets take you position to it's ridiculous conclusion. So, if everyone that believes CO2 is causing warming is to live the most sustainable lifestyle, then really they should either live in a cave and eat what nature provides... or kill themselves (with home-made natural materials of course!). I suppose for you, anyone that believes in evolution must be an atheist or their arguments on evolution versus creationism are invalid, or anyone that expresses any political ideas must be a politician or you don't listen to them.

As for "How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle", please point out the contradiction here!

A scientific argument is based on evidence, not a persons lifestyle. If this a a philosophical debate, then you might have a leg to stand on, but it's not. The strength of a scientific argument lies in evidence. Your whole argument seems contradictory and puerile on this.

I stand by what I said with regard to every person leading a more sustainable lifestyle still causing rising emissions. If you cared to engage in a little thought rather than continuing with all the inane hyperbole, you might have considered a few other things. We still have huge numbers of industries that produce massive CO2 emissions. Deforestation contributes to a large portion of the CO2 increase. Even with every person leading a more sustainable lifestyle, without the right green infrastructure in place, we cannot help but cause some CO2 emissions. While we can make some differences with changes to our day to day lives, the change needed to stop rising anthropogenic CO2 cannot come from the ground up.

Anyway, here's a handy filtering system you may wish to employ. Any AGW believer that responds to your posts on this forum you can simply ignore. I mean, they're clearly using extra, needless energy to respond via the internet, thus ruining anything they have to say, no matter what the content of their argument is. If all the "sceptics" follow you on this, ye can ignore everyone and have the sub forum all to yourselves!

[Gray-Wolf]

I neither wear sackcloth nor bathe in ashes so does this lessen my abilities to understand the peril that past generations have placed us in?

Does my non-adherence to the cave and skins bent leave me (or anyone like me?) unable to understand what science, and personal observation tempered with that science, is showing me?

My lack of answers leave me incapable of observation?

And though i may plant Forrest's if my words lead many to continue their lives B.A.U. how do I 'measure' my impacts?

If one's carbon footprint be the sword then what of the pen?

Seeing as I'm butting in here I'll use BFTV. Has his posting , over the years, lead to more folk being more mindful of the situation the planet is in, and by doing so enabled those folk to tend to their Friends with more understanding? Have his words caused his Carbon footprint to grow, or by influence and information, to turn negative by the mega tonne?

just a thought (seeing as I've always been big on our impacts on the Lurkers understanding/decisions)

[laserguy]

Would you and LG care to reply to my post on this theme (last page) - or is it a case of going for BF because you see him as an easier target?

Sorry Dev - I did see the post in question and it was rude of me not to respond, but yes good for you - actions speaking louder than words an' all that. We have much more in common than you probably realise,whatever our motives...

[Methuselah]

If the entire world human population had a collectively neutral carbon footprint then, by definition, anthropogenic CO₂ ​would cease to build up....

[laserguy]

If the entire world human population had a collectively neutral carbon footprint........

.......... there'd be no-one here,Pete! Would world climate be any different without us? Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no-one there to hear it etc?

[jethro]

Haha, if you can't see how it's a complete logical fallacy, then I don't know if it's possible to have a logical debate with you...

I am concerned about the potential for climate change to cause problems for humanity. Once more, it's is not a political or personal choice like it might be for you. With the evidence I've seen, I can no more say that it isn't a potentially harmful problem, than I can say the Earth is flat. I don't come on here to berate others for not being more sustainable, I mainly started posting on threads here to defend the science and scientists from so called "sceptic" attacks.

But hey, lets take you position to it's ridiculous conclusion. So, if everyone that believes CO2 is causing warming is to live the most sustainable lifestyle, then really they should either live in a cave and eat what nature provides... or kill themselves (with home-made natural materials of course!). I suppose for you, anyone that believes in evolution must be an atheist or their arguments on evolution versus creationism are invalid, or anyone that expresses any political ideas must be a politician or you don't listen to them.

As for "How strong a scientific argument is, is far from being related to an individuals lifestyle", please point out the contradiction here!

A scientific argument is based on evidence, not a persons lifestyle. If this a a philosophical debate, then you might have a leg to stand on, but it's not. The strength of a scientific argument lies in evidence. Your whole argument seems contradictory and puerile on this.

I stand by what I said with regard to every person leading a more sustainable lifestyle still causing rising emissions. If you cared to engage in a little thought rather than continuing with all the inane hyperbole, you might have considered a few other things. We still have huge numbers of industries that produce massive CO2 emissions. Deforestation contributes to a large portion of the CO2 increase. Even with every person leading a more sustainable lifestyle, without the right green infrastructure in place, we cannot help but cause some CO2 emissions. While we can make some differences with changes to our day to day lives, the change needed to stop rising anthropogenic CO2 cannot come from the ground up.

Anyway, here's a handy filtering system you may wish to employ. Any AGW believer that responds to your posts on this forum you can simply ignore. I mean, they're clearly using extra, needless energy to respond via the internet, thus ruining anything they have to say, no matter what the content of their argument is. If all the "sceptics" follow you on this, ye can ignore everyone and have the sub forum all to yourselves!

I can’t decide if you’re deliberately missing the point in order to avoid addressing it or if you are genuinely misunderstanding.

Once more for the record and so that it can only be crystal clear....I have at no point made any suggestion about the validity of the theory of climate change. Your insistence that you do not have a personal choice in believing in climate change is irrelevant to this conversation; we’re not discussing the science.

The contradiction from the accepting climate change but not actually doing anything about it? Isn’t it obvious? The science tells us that CO2 has the potential to warm the planet and cause harm. The science also tells us that the extra CO2 is because we’ve been emitting tons of the stuff for years. Again, the science informs that we need to reduce emissions. Emissions won’t magically fall unless we all use less, or live a lifestyle which reduces our own personal emission levels. I don’t believe in passing the buck for anything in life, we all have personal responsibility; those industries which produce massive levels of emissions are making stuff for us, we buy it, we use it. Why do folk find it vital to have a new phone the second a new model comes out? The old one works just fine, use it until it’s broken, then re-cycle it. Ditto, new cars, new TV’s, Computers, Ipod’s..... The list goes on and on – all personal, individual lifestyle choices which have an impact upon emission levels. If you are concerned about climate change, you (and that’s a generic you) should address your own personal level of consumption.

Hyperbole.....a term used to dismiss exaggeration and rhetoric. As I get older I find I appreciate irony more and more. I’ve never been one for exaggerating climate change nor the impact it may have. All I’ve been saying in this conversation is that CO2 has the potential to cause problems, that we should reduce emissions in order to minimise the risk both now and in the future and that we should all take responsibility to do our bit wherever possible. If that’s hyperbole and rhetoric then every scientist connected with climate change studies is guilty of it too, as are World Leaders, Politicians, numerous celebrities and many posters on here – you included.

As far as I’m concerned and I accept I may be alone in my thinking, if you’re going to repeatedly express concern about climate change, enter into debates about the issue in a public forum, berate people for not taking the science seriously or for questioning the science then you’ve got to put your own house in order first. If you’re not prepared to adjust your lifestyle or make every effort to live sustainably or even it seems, make the connection between individuals living sustainably and reducing emissions, then there’s little point in being concerned about climate change, let alone trying to persuade others to agree with your point of view on the issue. For me, it’s like listening to the Pope advocating abstinence then finding out he’s got a season ticket to the local house of ill repute or listening to those Politicians berating Benefit Scroungers only to find out they’ve been fiddling their expenses. There’s a bit of a hollow ring to it all.

[Methuselah]

.......... there'd be no-one here,Pete! Would world climate be any different without us? Does a falling tree make a sound if there's no-one there to hear it etc?

Sooner or later, barrie, there will be no fossil-fuels left. And after that date, whether we like it or not, humanity will have a neutral carbon footprint...Nothing lasts forever!

[laserguy]

Sooner or later, barrie, there will be no fossil-fuels left. And after that date, whether we like it or not, humanity will have a neutral carbon footprint...Nothing lasts forever!

Except for when we're back to lighting fires in the forest to keep warm! Anyways I'm up for the neutral carbon malarkey, but not the daft made-up scary climate-change scenarios to get us there. How many more times!?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I can’t decide if you’re deliberately missing the point in order to avoid addressing it or if you are genuinely misunderstanding.

Once more for the record and so that it can only be crystal clear....I have at no point made any suggestion about the validity of the theory of climate change. Your insistence that you do not have a personal choice in believing in climate change is irrelevant to this conversation; we’re not discussing the science.

The contradiction from the accepting climate change but not actually doing anything about it? Isn’t it obvious? The science tells us that CO2 has the potential to warm the planet and cause harm. The science also tells us that the extra CO2 is because we’ve been emitting tons of the stuff for years. Again, the science informs that we need to reduce emissions. Emissions won’t magically fall unless we all use less, or live a lifestyle which reduces our own personal emission levels. I don’t believe in passing the buck for anything in life, we all have personal responsibility; those industries which produce massive levels of emissions are making stuff for us, we buy it, we use it. Why do folk find it vital to have a new phone the second a new model comes out? The old one works just fine, use it until it’s broken, then re-cycle it. Ditto, new cars, new TV’s, Computers, Ipod’s..... The list goes on and on – all personal, individual lifestyle choices which have an impact upon emission levels. If you are concerned about climate change, you (and that’s a generic you) should address your own personal level of consumption.

Hyperbole.....a term used to dismiss exaggeration and rhetoric. As I get older I find I appreciate irony more and more. I’ve never been one for exaggerating climate change nor the impact it may have. All I’ve been saying in this conversation is that CO2 has the potential to cause problems, that we should reduce emissions in order to minimise the risk both now and in the future and that we should all take responsibility to do our bit wherever possible. If that’s hyperbole and rhetoric then every scientist connected with climate change studies is guilty of it too, as are World Leaders, Politicians, numerous celebrities and many posters on here – you included.

As far as I’m concerned and I accept I may be alone in my thinking, if you’re going to repeatedly express concern about climate change, enter into debates about the issue in a public forum, berate people for not taking the science seriously or for questioning the science then you’ve got to put your own house in order first. If you’re not prepared to adjust your lifestyle or make every effort to live sustainably or even it seems, make the connection between individuals living sustainably and reducing emissions, then there’s little point in being concerned about climate change, let alone trying to persuade others to agree with your point of view on the issue. For me, it’s like listening to the Pope advocating abstinence then finding out he’s got a season ticket to the local house of ill repute or listening to those Politicians berating Benefit Scroungers only to find out they’ve been fiddling their expenses. There’s a bit of a hollow ring to it all.

Look at how the whole debate started

Laserguy

All those who accept CO2-inspired AGW as real and are concerned about it, should lead the greenest of green lifestyles

Me

Accepting CO2 is causing warming and a problem is down to understanding at least some the science behind it and picking scientific consensus over conspiracy theories. Rather than it being a political position or personal choice, as so many try to make it.

You

I'm afraid I agree with Laser, those who are concerned about climate change should lead by example when it comes to living a sustainable lifestyle. If you are concerned about the climate but are unwilling to change the way you live, or want the option to continue to live a consumerist lifestyle in the hope that the government or science will come up with a way to minimise your own personal impact, then it (IMO) undermines your stance and argument

Until you can understand that this debate stated with both talk of individual lifestyle and how that relates to the validity of their scientific arguments, continuing on is pointless.

You say we're not discussing the science, yet the very next lines gets into the science of CO2 and what science tells us!

Your continued assumptions about the how sustainably I live and your incredible tangential rants (you actually managed to include the pope in this one!) just add to the incredible nature of your recent posts.

I think we may have drifted a little off topic anyway

[jethro]

Look at how the whole debate started

Laserguy

Me

You

Until you can understand that this debate stated with both talk of individual lifestyle and how that relates to the validity of their scientific arguments, continuing on is pointless.

You say we're not discussing the science, yet the very next lines gets into the science of CO2 and what science tells us!

Your continued assumptions about the how sustainably I live and your incredible tangential rants (you actually managed to include the pope in this one!) just add to the incredible nature of your recent posts.

I think we may have drifted a little off topic anyway

You've missed your part in the beginning of this conversation, this taken from your first post on the subject from page 40

I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life.

The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo.

I have made it absolutely clear (repeatedly) that my comments on this have absolutely no bearing on the science of the topic. I have also made it absolutely clear that my comments have been directed at you and anyone else who accepts the science of AGW, who berates others for not accepting AGW, spends much of their spare time discussing climate change on a public forum and profess to have a profound concern about climate change and the impact it may have, have a responsibility to live a sustainable lifestyle. By your own admission (quoted above) you do not live a very eco-friendly life. I have made no assumptions about you or your choices, I have simply responded to your own admission. You have gone on to say that individual choices will make no difference/do not make a difference - a direct contradiction to all wisdom and advice from all official quarters.

Perhaps I'm a simple soul but by my reckoning if you have an Honours Degree in Earth Science, are doing a Masters in Remote Sensing and GIS, planning a Phd in Arctic Climate with the ultimate goal of becoming an Arctic Climate Research Scientist, spend much of your spare time in places like this forum then you, personally, should make more of an effort to live an eco friendly life. That's a comment about you, not the science. If you're unwilling to do that, are unable to accept that personal effort is important and the foundation for the goals of lower emissions and less damage caused to the planet (which is after all, the foundation stone of all climate science) then all your words are hollow. As for the Pope, as no stories have emerged about visits to Bordellos nor secret love children discovered I can only presume he at least practises what he preaches; you've got to admire a man who's as good as his word.

[BornFromTheVoid]

You've missed your part in the beginning of this conversation, this taken from your first post on the subject from page 40

I didn't see his post as anything about individual lifestyles. I know I don't live a very eco-friendly life.

The extent to which we live green lives shouldn't alter whether or not we accept the science of AGW imo.

I have made it absolutely clear (repeatedly) that my comments on this have absolutely no bearing on the science of the topic. I have also made it absolutely clear that my comments have been directed at you and anyone else who accepts the science of AGW, who berates others for not accepting AGW, spends much of their spare time discussing climate change on a public forum and profess to have a profound concern about climate change and the impact it may have, have a responsibility to live a sustainable lifestyle. By your own admission (quoted above) you do not live a very eco-friendly life. I have made no assumptions about you or your choices, I have simply responded to your own admission. You have gone on to say that individual choices will make no difference/do not make a difference - a direct contradiction to all wisdom and advice from all official quarters.

Perhaps I'm a simple soul but by my reckoning if you have an Honours Degree in Earth Science, are doing a Masters in Remote Sensing and GIS, planning a Phd in Arctic Climate with the ultimate goal of becoming an Arctic Climate Research Scientist, spend much of your spare time in places like this forum then you, personally, should make more of an effort to live an eco friendly life. That's a comment about you, not the science. If you're unwilling to do that, are unable to accept that personal effort is important and the foundation for the goals of lower emissions and less damage caused to the planet (which is after all, the foundation stone of all climate science) then all your words are hollow. As for the Pope, as no stories have emerged about visits to Bordellos nor secret love children discovered I can only presume he at least practises what he preaches; you've got to admire a man who's as good as his word.

Once again, you make out that an understanding of the importance of climate change is related to a persons lifestyle. I find the science of climate change both interesting and concerning, but the idea of getting to a position where I might one day add to humanities understanding the world is the main reason I picked any science. When I started the undergraduate course, I was as much a denier as many of the posters on here. But the more I learned, the more critical (or sceptical even!) I became and the better my understanding became, the more my stance shifted. Anyway, you think if someone believes climate change is a problem, that they should live the greenest life possible, which as I said earlier, would put an end to them even posting on forums like this. If I was on here to tell people to live CO2 neutral life, then it would be right for me to practise what I preach. But that's not the case. How green somebodies life is does not ultimately change their understanding and cognitive abilities. So to say it undermines their argument is, imo, incredibly anti-scientific.

And again, you make presumptions about how "green" my lifestyle is, when you simply don't know. You say, I should make more of an effort to live an eco friendly life, when you have no idea what I'm already doing!

If you want to take this to pm, then fine. But we clearly don't agree/have wires crossed or something here, so it's pointless cluttering up this thread

[jethro]

What you don't seem to get BFTV is that although we disagree about the current level of impact AGW may be having, we share a common interest in concern for the future.

I'm knocking on for 50, I've got children and no doubt in the not too distant future, I'll have grand children too. I've got a lifetime connection to the African continent and a long term interest/involvement in the field of famine relief over there. I may be too old to see all that climate change may bring in the future but my family here and overseas are not; they will live and grow old in a world with far greater uncertainty, possibly poverty and hardship, than I've faced.

I've been hard on you over the last couple of days, I suppose I should apologise, but I'm not going to. We live in a world where apathy reigns supreme, where the majority view is that everything is someone else's problem, someone else's responsibility. What concerns me is that if people like yourself and GW, both passionate advocates in this debate, both profoundly involved in raising concerns and issues can blithely separate the science from reality, divorce it from practical application and personal responsibility, what hope is there? If even people like you don't or won't make the effort to really live as sustainably as you possibly can, what's the likelihood of average joe public doing it? I hope I've annoyed you, I hope I've goaded you into thinking about your consumption, I hope you've uttered at least one "how bloody dare she" when reading my posts to you because at the end of the day, with your education, with the future career you're planning, you may have a greater chance of influencing people on this topic than any of us will ever have.

[BornFromTheVoid]

What you don't seem to get BFTV is that although we disagree about the current level of impact AGW may be having, we share a common interest in concern for the future.

I'm knocking on for 50, I've got children and no doubt in the not too distant future, I'll have grand children too. I've got a lifetime connection to the African continent and a long term interest/involvement in the field of famine relief over there. I may be too old to see all that climate change may bring in the future but my family here and overseas are not; they will live and grow old in a world with far greater uncertainty, possibly poverty and hardship, than I've faced.

I've been hard on you over the last couple of days, I suppose I should apologise, but I'm not going to. We live in a world where apathy reigns supreme, where the majority view is that everything is someone else's problem, someone else's responsibility. What concerns me is that if people like yourself and GW, both passionate advocates in this debate, both profoundly involved in raising concerns and issues can blithely separate the science from reality, divorce it from practical application and personal responsibility, what hope is there? If even people like you don't or won't make the effort to really live as sustainably as you possibly can, what's the likelihood of average joe public doing it? I hope I've annoyed you, I hope I've goaded you into thinking about your consumption, I hope you've uttered at least one "how bloody dare she" when reading my posts to you because at the end of the day, with your education, with the future career you're planning, you may have a greater chance of influencing people on this topic than any of us will ever have.

Ok ok ok! You're right that you p****d me off, but I don't think it was as you intended to!

Just remember your basing all this of your false presumption of what I meant by not living a "very eco friendly lifestyle". To clarify what I meant by that, is I know there is more I can do, but in my current situation (living in a city apartment and off government grants for my education), I'm unable to do things like grow my own veg, use some of the waste as compost, install solar panels or a wind turbine, and many other things. But I do what I can within reason, I cycle and walk nearly everywhere I go, I buy local produce as much as I can (and can afford), my heating will usually only come on during actual cold weather, and not before several extra layers of clothing have been added first, and things of the sort! So while I do what I can, I know it's not good enough. Without the proper green infrastructure in place, in my current situation I cannot live an adequately eco-friendly lifestyle.

I didn't want to go into any detail on what I do to be "kind" to the environment, as I didn't think it was necessary or relevant to my position on climate change.

I think that's ultimately where we disagree here.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Some actual new research! This time on the all important cloud feedback mechanisms

Modelled suppression of boundary-layer clouds by plants in a CO2-rich atmosphere

http://www.nature.co...l/ngeo1554.html

Cumulus clouds in the atmospheric boundary layer play a key role in the hydrologic cycle, in the onset of severe weather by thunderstorms and in modulating Earth’s reflectivity and climate1. How these clouds respond to climate change, in particular over land, and how they interact with the carbon cycle are poorly understood2, 3. It is expected that as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations the plant stomata will close4, 5, leading to lower latent heat fluxes and higher sensible heat fluxes. Here we show that this causes a decline in boundary-layer cloud formation in middle latitudes. This could be partly counteracted by the greater ability of a warmer atmosphere to take up water and by a growth in biomass due to CO2 fertilization6. Our results are based on a new soil–water–atmosphere–plant model supported by comprehensive observational evidence, from which we identify the dominant atmospheric responses to plant physiological processes. They emphasize the intricate connection between biological and physical aspects of the climate system and the relevance of short-term and small-scale processes in establishing this connection.

A review of sorts, of the paper here

http://www.mpg.de/63...e-change_clouds

[loafer]

But I do what I can within reason, I cycle and walk nearly everywhere I go, I buy local produce as much as I can (and can afford), my heating will usually only come on during actual cold weather, and not before several extra layers of clothing have been added first, and things of the sort!

It's worth noting that you've just described 99% of student lifestyles, but that most of them act in a 'green' manner because they have to for monetary reasons, rather than because they want to!

[BornFromTheVoid]

It's worth noting that you've just described 99% of student lifestyles, but that most of them act in a 'green' manner because they have to for monetary reasons, rather than because they want to!

That's mostly true, only I doubt most students try to buy local food and I'd say close to a third own a car already.

Perhaps we should all be eternal students though? Better for the environment, and you get to learn something along the way!

[knocker]

Activation of old carbon by erosion of coastal and subsea permafrost in Arctic Siberia

Absract.

The future trajectory of greenhouse gas concentrations depends on interactions between climate and the biogeosphere^{1, 2}. Thawing of Arctic permafrost could release significant amounts of carbon into the atmosphere in this century³. Ancient Ice Complex deposits outcropping along the ~7,000-kilometre-long coastline of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS)^{4, 5}, and associated shallow subsea permafrost^{6, 7}, are two large pools of permafrost carbon⁸, yet their vulnerabilities towards thawing and decomposition are largely unknown^{9, 10, 11}. Recent Arctic warming is stronger than has been predicted by several degrees, and is particularly pronounced over the coastal ESAS region^{12, 13}. There is thus a pressing need to improve our understanding of the links between permafrost carbon and climate in this relatively inaccessible region. Here we show that extensive release of carbon from these Ice Complex deposits dominates (57 ± 2 per cent) the sedimentary carbon budget of the ESAS, the world’s largest continental shelf, overwhelming the marine and topsoil terrestrial components. Inverse modelling of the dual-carbon isotope composition of organic carbon accumulating in ESAS surface sediments, using Monte Carlo simulations to account for uncertainties, suggests that 44 ± 10 teragrams of old carbon is activated annually from Ice Complex permafrost, an order of magnitude more than has been suggested by previous studies¹⁴. We estimate that about two-thirds (66 ± 16 per cent) of this old carbon escapes to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, with the remainder being re-buried in shelf sediments. Thermal collapse and erosion of these carbon-rich Pleistocene coastline and seafloor deposits may accelerate with Arctic amplification of climate warming^{2, 13}.

http://www.nature.co...ature11392.html

Edited September 5, 2012 by knocker

[BornFromTheVoid]

Evidence of recent causal decoupling between solar radiation and global temperature

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/3/034020/pdf/1748-9326_7_3_034020.pdf

Abstract

The Sun has surely been a major external forcing to the climate system throughout the

Holocene. Nevertheless, opposite trends in solar radiation and temperatures have been

empirically identified in the last few decades. Here, by means of an inferential method—the

Granger causality analysis—we analyze this situation and, for the first time, show that an

evident causal decoupling between total solar irradiance and global temperature has appeared

since the 1960s.

[Gray-Wolf]

Sadly , even though we knew how small the variation in forcing was (compared to others) I think folk will ignore this evidence as much as they have the PDO's measured changing nature?

If folk are so afraid of accepting our part in the state change of the Arctic /Global temp increases why can't they just say it and be done instead of this endless searching for any other reason, other than us, to pin things on?

Again I feel that we all owe a duty of care to our Lurkers (esp. the younger ones?) to bring as balanced a picture of what we know to be happening to our world and a constant barrage of 'oh! but we aren't 100% sure are we?' whilst sounding reasonable is not a good reflection of how sure we truly are of the forces we are changing around us. We all like to dot the 'i's' and cross the 't's' but the lack of it does not make the paper unreadable does it?