[Closed] Global warming - see for yourself

-1 for big dave same head in sand toss from somebody who has yet to think about what it will mean to him.

Actually I have. I've studied it, been out there in the world and gotten my hands dirty working on nature reserves and even changed career on the strength of my believes but after many years I have to admit that my views have softened, I've listened to the other side of the argument and I have to say that I'm really and truly not convinced. I also grew fed up with under powered weedy little eco cars and the feeling that I was slowly becoming an form of eco-catholic (full of guilt but without the buggery :D)

Science is about having a balanced argument and the almost evangelical tone that some of the posters on this thread have adopted sums up everything that is bad about the climate change movement. The tone of the pro-climate lobby only serves to alienate people who may be interested but not overly familiar with some of the issues as it doesn't come across as open minded.

I work alongside a lot of very passionate people in very high profile delivery bodies and environmental institutions and I have to say that a lot of the time their arguments are well intentioned but surprisingly flimsy when viewed objectively. They are also not always relistic or entirely rational as too much emotion has crept into the green movement over the last ten years.

For my parting shot consider this; you are all on this forum because you are presumably mountain bikers. You ride bikes that in most cases where made thousands of miles away from the UK, you probably always make sure you buy the latest gear and to enjoy your hobby a lot of you will most likely strap your bikes to the back of a car (not great for fuel consumption) and travel sometimes hundreds of miles to ride them in a largely artificial environment which was created at the expense of once natural habitat. Some of you will even fly to Europe and beyond to enjoy your biking. Seriously, are you really the sort of people to be handing out sage advice on climate change?

Science is about having a balanced argument and the almost evangelical tone that some of the posters on this thread have adopted sums up everything that is bad about the climate change movement. The tone of the pro-climate lobby only serves to alienate people who may be interested but not overly familiar with some of the issues as it doesn't come across as open minded.

We did the how green are you thing early re-read the thread and see our scores. Your description/ slur is not that accurate and even if it were it adds nothing to your argument. Notice than when challenged you offer nothing to explain some of your rather outlandish claims /assertions.

Again I am open minded now persuade me with facts not invective.

Big Dave, can I summarise for you?

What you seem to be saying is that you can't be arsed, but you'd feel better about yourself if nobody else could be arsed either.

Well, I'm sorry, but you have to make your own decisions in this life, then live with them.

If you think some people on here have an evangelical tone that you don't like, then don't listen, but don't make it an excuse for not facing up to reality.

dave had you said it like that the first time round i would not have responded in the way that i did.
that seems like a fair view to me.

I think the earth is a bit too big and complex a structure for us to truly damage.

That's not a good enough reason to ignore our resonsibilities.

We all reap the benefits of technology. We've all picked up the habits of our parents, like they did from theirs, and made them normal.

All these problems seem to stem from using technologies on a large scale before we understand all their effects.

We're just engaged in a series of unproven experiments with the natural world. For 200 years we've been at this but I think that arrogant attitude needs to be left in the 20th century.

Science is about having a balanced argument

Nope - it's about looking at the data and following your logic to its conclusion, however uncomfortable that may be. The truth is not "balanced", or democratic.

I avoid posting credentials or a CV as I'm not deluded enough to think it gives any weight to what I say, either you follow my reasoning and take it on its merits or you don't. I will say that some of the best MTB trails I've ridden anywhere start less than a mile away though. 🙂

I note you are of the view Britain is not in Europe Dave. 😉

Bet you guys are hopping mad now, big summit in Frankfurt about global warming and 2 stories on the BBC today: Branson unveils his rocket ship to fly you in to space for £120k a go and Britains aviation needs room to grow 😉

epicyclo,

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm ]Greenhouse effect in a bottle[/url]

Greenhouse effect in a bottle

Slightly ironic that the video starts with a car ad.

Also - it slightly annoys me that she says she "hopes" the CO2 bottle will get hotter. Why "hope"?

because, it's a science experiemt, and they go wrong sometimes.

(wires fall off, a bottle leaks, the cat escapes, someone left a cheese sandwich in the vacuum chamber, yada yada yada).

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8400905.stm ]clicky[/url]

and before someone says: 'most weather stations have seen urbanisation over the last 200 years, blah blah concrete blah...' it's the arctic regions that are seeing some of the fastest warming.

with enough pressure on our governments, we can start funding serious research into nuclear fusion, once we get that sorted, we're sorted.

Surely the world would turn wartastic if everyone had fusion

Anyone watching "Man on Earth on Channel 4 now? Tony Robinson doing a sort of Time Team thing tracing human history through climate change.

Amazing how the changes just happened with "Scientists" saying how they just happen even within a decade giving big temp changes...im sure it will be dismissed...by the its all our fault brigade... 🙄
did ya see the cavemans private Jet parked outside his Cave..next to the bently.... 🙂

rightplacerighttime - Member
epicyclo,

Greenhouse effect in a bottle

I've been trying to rig up a similar experiment but with a black metal plate on one side to see what happens when the heat source is cycled, ie what happens to the heat stored in the CO2 when the heat source is removed - ie how much radiates away. Also to compare how much heat reaches the plate through CO2 compared to air when the heat source is active, and does less heat hit the plate when going through CO2. (I'll insulate the plate on its non exposed side).

Need more sensors and have to write a wee programme first.

If I finish it I will post it (regardless of results)

But I also have 5 bikes to get ready for the 'Puffer... 🙂

[url= http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ ]“members of the public feel more confident expressing opinions on others’ motivations and tactics than they do expressing opinions of scientific issues.”[/url]

Global warming is happening - fact.

Global warming due to man is the biggest Con out there.

It is an excuse for everyone to tax you within an inch of your life.

We are in a natural cycle, always have been, always will be.

Which natural cycle would that be hainey? All of the ones I'm aware of would suggest we should be cooling right now.

Global warming due to man is the biggest Con out there.

Looking forward to your detailed, peer-reviewed, analysis that supports that conclusion.

[url= http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm ]Sun spot activity low[/url]

"Low solar activity has a profound effect on Earth’s atmosphere, allowing it to cool and contract."

Thanks hainey. I was one of those that believed the evidence and the science behind it but I'm now converted by your solid argument 😉

Could you provide similar incite in the field of particle physics as they're going through such a kerfuffle starting up the LHC?

It has been proven and ratifed by a large proportion of the scientific community that the earth has a natural warming and cooling cycle of 1500 years. In fact, there are far more smaller cycles of warming and cooling which happen every 50 years.

From about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. From 1965 to present day they have risen 0.4degC. The difference between 1890 and 2010 is that we have a knee-jerk media and governments who are struggling for money. In the late 1960s they were predicting doom and gloom that the earth was cooling.

Global warming and cooling does exist, but its just part of the planets natural cycle.

The suns activity vastly outways any effect of pollution or man made gases. The number of the Sun's cosmic rays hitting the Earth affect the number of low, cooling clouds that reflect solar heat back into space, amplifying small variations in the intensity of the Sun.

2000 years ago greenland was covered in trees, birds and mammals! Now its covered in about 200m of ice.

it is excellent to see the anti lobby litterally say it is wrong , offer no evidence to support this position and then go. It is like they have no robust arguments to back up their position.
[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry ]article above here with hyperlinks to case studies,graphs etc[/url]

Global warming and cooling does exist, but its just part of the planets natural cycle.

Why do we need to go back over and over these things? The magnitude and timescale of current warming trends are NOT explained by "natural cycles" (do you think the Earth menstruates? 🙂 ), but ARE explained best by man-made CO2.

These issues are not illuminated by bar-room type arguments like:

The suns activity vastly outways any effect of pollution or man made gases

We've been through the rest but I like the anecdote about trees on Greenland. Were these below where the ice sheet is now?

Are you refering to Milankovitch cycles hainey? In which case you are being very selective in your time periods as there are three major superimposed cycles. How about posting a link to a site with the cycles expressed graphically? Or would that be embarassing as it would not support your view as Milankovich cycles in no way explain current high temperatures and CO2 levels.

Everyone arguing against global warming is brain-washed by big oil without even knowing it, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/07/climate-change-denial-industry ]FACT[/url]

According to who? All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity. If you have evidence suggesting differently then great. Thats what debate is all about.

You say that cycles "ARE explained best by man-made CO2" - care to elaborate on that, or is that an easy flippant statement to make? Its easy to blame man-made CO2, but global warming and cooling trends suggest differently and at times far earlier than us humans had entered the industrial revolution.

You say that cycles "ARE explained best by man-made CO2" - care to elaborate on that, or is that an easy flippant statement to make?

Fair bit of elaboration here:
[url= http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm ]http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg1_report_the_physical_science_basis.htm[/url]

Not really, you've just pointed to a website.

Not really, you've just pointed to a website

Yes - a website with detailed information about the science behind climate change predictions. There are also executive summaries, if you're pushed for time.

There is also this site that I posted yesterday:
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm ]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm[/url]

For every hypothesis there is a counter hypothesis or argument. This is the great and exciting thing about science. Unfortunately the climate models that are used are only as good as the data that is put into them. A lot of the IPCCs arguments aren't based on fact, they are based on prediction. In fact there own research goes into great detail as to why ALL[b] the global warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years has been caused by natural occurences, sun activity, volcanos etc. But seemingly this is now not relevant for the 21st century!? Why is that? Is it because the IPCC scientists have their wages paid by the same governments who are a little strapped for cash right now? The same governments who are charging us green taxes but building more roads, more airports and less investment in public transport?

[i]All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity[/i]

So the Earth should have been getting colder for the last 50 years of decreasing solar activity hainy. Your own logic is against you.

Sun cycles, Milankovitch cycles, volcanic activity cycles. None of them explain either current CO2 levels or current warming. On the contrary as my sun activity link from NASA clearly states if you read it.

All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity.

Quote some so I can decide to believe you or not

No, its because the scientists are all in the pay of the lizard-people and the secret one world government. However, I believe that they do take other causes of climate change into account and they do not appear to explain recent changes in the climate.

Also, prediction is usually considered a reasonable way of investigating, given the current difficulty of taking measurements in the future, what is likely to happen in the future.

I already have Mark, hainy is ignoring it as it proves he is wrong to attribute current warming to solar activity.

[url= http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29may_noaaprediction.htm ]NASA solar cycles[/url]

If NASA is right then we should really take their projections into consideration and predict even faster global warming as higher CO2 levels and a higher level of solar activity in the next decade combine to rapidily increase temperatures.

If NASA is right then we should really take their projections into consideration and predict even faster global warming as higher CO2 levels and a higher level of solar activity in the next decade combine to rapidily increase temperatures.

Which seems to be being borne out by reality as temps are rising WAY faster than predicted.

irrespective of the arguments laid out, Hainey seems to be in a natural cycle whereby they come across as a bit thick

For every hypothesis there is a counter hypothesis or argument. This is the great and exciting thing about science.

Yep - and if the counter hypothesis is shown to be better, it will be accepted; and if not, it will be tossed in the bin. And that process has led to the current state of our understanding, which is that man-made global warming is happening.

NASA is government funded right?

There are plenty of papers out there which link it, don't have the time to search now. But google global warming, sunspots, thousand year high - you'll get the picture.

At the end of the day, Scientists can not prove that global warming is directly linked to Man. Neither can we categorically say that its not.

My main issue with it all is that its not science anymore, its more of a religion. And we all know where religion gets us! Those of us who question the scriptures of global warming are labelled heretics or deniers - as quoted recently an innuendo intended to link us to something as horrific as the holocaust.

I am looking forward to the global warming inquiry (like the Iraq war enquiry at the moment) where the leaders of the world go on the stand to proclaim that they heard the evidence from a cab driver.

which is that man-made global warming is happening.

iDave - a welcome contribution to the debate, it was well thought out, intuitive, showed a hugh amount of imagination and a creative mindset. Thanks so much for setting down your copy of the Daily Star for 10mins to type those few words!

epicyclo,

Maybe you can demonstrate your experiment to me in person!

I'll be photographing the Puffer again this year (and although this is completely off-topic I recently put together a slideshow from last year - [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/30973426@N06/sets/72157622326565395/show/ ]click[/url])

So you think we can deforest much of the land mass of the planet thus reducing the carbo sink and release CO2 stored away in the geological record, and the climate won't change at all. I don't know how old you are Hainey but the younger the better as then you'll have longer to observe.

I don't agree with cutting down the rainforests no.

Not sure where you are going with that question?

Wow, Sun and Daily Star in one day, don't think I could manage that actually. I'm too busy being intelligent, ingenious, and creative.

thats your opinion, not everyones, and that doesn't make it correct!

Umm, no, it's not an opinion, it's a very rough summary of the conclusions of most scientists who have looked at the issue in detail.

My main issue with it all is that its not science anymore, its more of a religion.

Duuhhhh. I despair. As you said above, it's a process of hypothesis and counter hypothesis, but to select one above the other requires work. On the one hand you have teams of scientists collecting data and working out models; on the other hand you have hainey saying "oh, it's all down to extra people wee'ing in shoes" (or whatever). The two don't have the same weight. If you have a counter hypothesis, fine, but you need to put in some effort to substantiate it.

I am looking forward to the global warming inquiry (like the Iraq war enquiry at the moment) where the leaders of the world go on the stand to proclaim that they heard the evidence from a cab driver.

No need to wait. The evidence is all there, in the public domain, but you can't be arsed to read it.

DrJ.

Stating it over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

There are equally as many scientists in ths world who disagree with man made global warming as who agree with it. That is why it is so highly debated throughout the world.

[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations ]list here no dissenters [/url]

There are equally as many scientists in ths world who disagree with man made global warming as who agree with it. That is why it is so highly debated throughout the world.

NO that is not true. The vast mahority of scientist and scientific institutes accept global warming and man made global warming.

With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.

[b]Can you evidence this or any of your ludicrous claims?
[/b]

Science is not just about saying something it is about evidencing it almost everything you have said has no evidence to support it. and you are failin gto grasp the basic issue

as Edukator said how can reducing our ability to store carbon whoilst releasing vast quantities of the stored carbon have no effect? What will this effect be?

hainey,

Did you read the item in the link by Dave in the post just before your first?

If not, then please do. It says everything I would like to say in response to your recent posts, but better.

But just to answer one of your later points directly. You said:

LL[b] the global warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years has been caused by natural occurences, sun activity, volcanos etc. But seemingly this is now not relevant for the 21st century!? Why is that?

It's because we've only been burning large amounts of fossil fuels for the last 100 years, and because there are now a lot more of us.

Population at the turn of the (20th) century was less than 2 billion. Now it's 6.7 Billion.
Number of those using electricity at the turn of the century was 0. Now it's three quarters.
Number of cars at the turn of the century was a few thousand. Now its 600,000+
Number of passenger jet planes at the turn of the century was 0. Now it's about 18,000

Obvious really.

If you are approaching your side of the debate from a "purely man is responsible for global warming" without any consideration from what we already KNOW - not hypothesis then you make think its obvious.

If you look at the IPCCs figures, they talk about global fluctuations in temperature of extremes of +/-5 degC, they discuss CO2 levels once in our atmosphere 18 times what they are now. Sea level rises of over 3m. And these are not one offs, this has happened multiple times in a cyclic fashion for the last 400,000+ years.

Now, in the last century, temperatures have risen by 0.6degC, CO2 levels have risen by 30% and the sea levels have risen by 10cm. - Not a good trend in anyones book, but no where near anything as extreme as seen before.

So, the IPCC put all the extreme global warming and cooling cycles down to natural phenomenon before the industrial revolution, and are now putting the last relatively minor fluctuations down to man? Doesn't add up.

obvious really

Indeed, what we need is a good old fashioned plague!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/4755328.stm

Hainey.. I looked at the link you provided but it doesn't show a link between solar activity over the last 5 years and that it predicts for the future and global warming TREND.. Can you give me another link to one that makes this link? Cheers.

I think that ultimately being less environmentally destructive and creating technologies that work well WITH the environment rather than using it destructively makes sense whether the whole thing is driven by man or not. Sustainability and "green" tech, more careful energy use etc all make sense whether we're heading toward man-made self-destruction or not. And since there is still considerable argument, look at it from a case study arrangement:
1) There's nothing wrong and man does nothing - yeay.
2) The world's changing and man does nothing - oops.
3) There's nothing wrong and man does something that turns out to be needless - yeay, and look we have new fuels/technology and live better with our resources
4) The world is changing and we can slow/stop it - yeay.

That's 3 yeays to 1 oops, does it not make more sense to do what we can instead of sitting back and hoping it goes away?

120mm or 140mm on a Cotic Soul?

sorry, left off some 000s

Number of cars now - 600,000,000

not what the IPCC concluded though is it Hainey ...are you better qualified than them?
Why not send them your findings ?
I like the way you use their arguments to support yours but ignore their conclusions .... very amusing.

It is very likely that human activities are causing global warming

[i]1) There's nothing wrong and man does nothing - yeay.
2) The world's changing and man does nothing - oops.
3) There's nothing wrong and man does something that turns out to be needless - yeay, and look we have new fuels/technology and live better with our resources
4) The world is changing and we can slow/stop it - yeay.[/i]

5) The worlds changing, and man does something that turns out to be pointless, so squanders a huge amount of resources on trying to change something, instead of concentrating on something which [b]did[/b] make a difference.. (eg, instead of concentrating on carbon reduction, we put our resources into reducing other impacts of human activity on the planet such as chemical pollution, deforestation, desertification etc. ) a big old wild goose chase, oops

hainey,

At least quote the SAME wrong stats at us in your posts.

First you said:

From about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. From 1965 to present day they have risen 0.4degC.

But then you said

Now, in the last century, temperatures have risen by 0.6degC,

Come on, which one do you like? Final answer?

Did you look at that link BTW? Here it is again with a more snappy clicky:

[url= http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/12/07/the-real-climate-scandal/ ]Why some people are so vociferous in denying something they don't really understand[/url]

5) The worlds changing, and man does something that turns out to be pointless, so squanders a huge amount of resources on trying to change something, instead of concentrating on something which did make a difference.. (eg, instead of concentrating on carbon reduction, we put our resources into reducing other impacts of human activity on the planet such as chemical pollution, deforestation, desertification etc. ) a big old wild goose chase, oops

But none of the "solutions" to it are ever going to be pointless, your option is essentially number 2 in my list. Regardless of whether climate change occurs or not we need to find better fuels, reduce power use/waste and attempt to reduce our reliance on ever decreasing resources - that's just common sense. Reducing deforestation is part of the whole current climate-related attack anyway, reduction of pollution is already ongoing and tightening further.

z-11,

sorry I didn't respond to those 2 really long posts you made, I would have but I was too busy at the time.

anyway, on your latest,

Don't you think that the important problems of deforestation and desertification are part of the overall climate change problem? And will be tackled as part of tackling that problem?

I think our main area of disagreement comes about because of our different views on the conectedness of things. Seems to me that you like to break down problems into specific small(er) problems before tackling them, whereas some of us here accept that things as being more complex (and possibly too complex to really understand how absolutely all the factors work together) but understandable enough to realise that as things stand we are onto a bad bet if we do nothing about it.

I really really hope that you are right and that climate change is not going to be as bad as many scientists think. The difference is that I for one would rather not take the chance.

I think contrary to what you say you are choosing to conclude what you want to read from the IPCC.

They have stated that extreme climate change up until a century ago was down to natural phenomenom. Since the industrial revolution it is humans fault with no influence of natural phenomenon? Talk about choosing an argument to suit your own agenda.

I think rightplaceright time highlighted a great point:

With such dramatic population increase
With such a huge increase in demand on natural resources
With such a huge increase in car ownership and hence CO2 output
and all the knock on effects of this, we have seen a temperature increase of....wait for it 0.6degC.

Oh.

Thats it?

You mean that billions more people, billions more gases, billions more cars has had LESS of an effect than natural causes dating back hundreds of thousands of years?

Well the evidence speaks for itself!

I pretty much agree with what coffeeking says, whether global warming is man made or not, it does not give us the freedom to pilige (spl) the earths resources and treat it like a uni student treats a war memorial. Anything we can do to keep our planet nice and pretty for generations to come is a good thing. However, the money being grabbed from us in the name of green taxes should be better spent on curing disease, famine, better technology etc.

I think contrary to what you say you are choosing to conclude what you want to read from the IPCC.

"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

we have seen a temperature increase of....wait for it 0.6degC

Words fail me 🙄 😉
[img] [/img]

Still no references in any post or an answer to this question

what will be the effect of reducing our ability to store carbon [de-forestation]whilst releasing vast quantities of the stored carbon [fossil fuels]?

The Government are doing everything they can to stop global warming..
that is why despite huge protests from friends of the earth, local residents and other environmental groups about a development out the back door of my house, The government and the forestry commission granted permission to chop down a woodland that was planted 10/12 years ago "looks great now aswell" to build...FLOODLIT five a side footy pitches of which there are already 2 others within 4 miles of this site.
Wait for it...there is an empty feild next to the woodland owned by the same person but the trees are going....
And yeah there are bats and all sorts of nice things living there..

this has been on the tele and everything and it still got granted..

Thats how committed the Mp's are to the issue and its one of the many reasons i believe absolutely nothing they say....

Rightplace: Don't you think that the important problems of deforestation and desertification are part of the overall climate change problem? And will be tackled as part of tackling that problem?

Part of the climate change problem, yes, my worry is that carbon is seen as a panacea and fix it all solution that might be wide of the mark!

as you said: [i]some of us here accept that things as being more complex (and possibly too complex to really understand how absolutely all the factors work together) [/i] - this statement works both ways, fixing carbon doesn't necessarily fix the problem! so, what we're hearing from the scientists is that "carbon dioxide" is the problem, so the politicians are concentrating on fixing it - we see solutions like carbon sequestering and biofuels coming out, billions and billions of dollars will be poured into fixing the carbon problem...

What nobody in the climate change lobby appears to be asking is "what if it isn't carbon"

If it is not a carbon dioxide related issue - then all the effort we pour into reducing carbon output and trying to reform the "carbon economy" is time, effort and money pissed up the wall - [b]if[/b] climate change is an inevitable natural variation, then we need to concentrate the efforts on mitigating the effects - as i suggested before regards agricultural and irrigation infrastructure in arid/borderline arid areas, preparations for the need for mass migration, and coping with the political and physical challenges that might create.

[b]if[/b] climate change is going to happen anyway, then the people most at risk are the billions of subsistence farmers - in the comfortable developed world we can put all our effort behind cutting carbon on the [b]chance[/b] that this might stop climate change, or we can put it all into direct effort to make living in those regions most likely to be affected viable, knowing that this is likely to payback whatever the outcome.

Junkyard,

You are missing the point.

To put it simply.

IPCC are saying that prior to the last century it had nothing to do with man and we saw huge changes on multiple occasions to the climate.

They are saying that in the last century it has been down to man, with no contribution from natural sources (not sure why nature stopped having an effect 100 years ago but i am sure they can answer that one) and since man has been involved temperatures have risen 0.6degC (or 0.72degC according to some sources) Anyway, in the grand scheme of things - not a lot.

I can not answer your question regaring global storage of carbon dioxide as i don't know the answer. I don't know what the earths potential to store carbon actually is. Do you? I have already stated that deforestation is not a good thing. I completly oppose it. However, it is estimated that there are now more trees in the world than there ever have been, the problem is that they are all small saplings so in the short term don't have the potential of larger trees so we need to wait until they have matured.

Oh and the Forestry Commision gave this land owner a grant £50,000 to plant the tree's in the first place..great EH!!!!!!!!!!!

And local's including me gave money to take them to the high court, residents raised £15,000 but guess what it was lost and the chain saws a buzzing as we speak.... 🙁

hainey,

If you can relate .6 degrees to the changes I mentioned and accept that as probable causation, then that is a big step forward (although to be picky it's a little bit more than .6 degrees)

The next bit you need to think about is whether .6 degrees in 100 years is important. It might not sound a lot but it is, not just because of the size of the rise, but also the speed at which it has happened.

There is a lot of thermal lag in the system as increased air temperature very slowly starts to warm the seas. Already we already have a lot of heat energy caught up in the system that is predicted to cause more extreme weather events and destroy many important species like corals (home to 25% of marine life).

Also, we aren't going to cut our emissions sufficiently to stop average temperatures rising more. The very best we can hope to do is to limit rises to 2 degrees in the next century. That means changes in the environment that will be too fast for many, many species to adapt to. And the weather will get even more unpredictable - likely effect things such as hurricanes in the southern hemisphere.

Rising sea levels. We are already in line (current emissions) for 1m sea level rise this century. So even in this country we'll be spending billions on a new London flood barrage, maybe flood protection for cities like Portsmouth. Loss of farmland in East Anglia. And globally there will be massive problems in countries like Bangladesh.

There's a few to be going on with.

If the science is still uncertain on climate change, what's wrong with just trying some of these measures to cut CO2 for 50 years, and then looking again?

Most people in 2009 are better off than ever before
Not many people in this country are starving
We would create a more elegant & efficient system for using our resources
We would have more time to understand the Earth
We would have more oil/gas/minerals etc left over for future generations

If we find after 50 years that man really cannot affect the Earth then game on, fire up the V8s again, get in your planes, turn the heating on with the window open.....simple

hainey,

You are wrong in your analysis of the IPCC report. They do consider all of the potential causes of climate change.

You can't relate a 0.6degC to man, thats what i am saying. Its impossible to say that when 400,000 years of history tells a different story.

I am interested to hear about your thermal lag theory!!!!

It's not my theory. But here it is.

CO2 causes the atmosphere to heat up relatively quickly. A warmer atmosphere causes the oceans to warm up, but much more slowly. As the oceans start to warm they do a much poorer job of regulating (limiting) rising temperatures in the atmosphere. If we can limit CO2 it will also take the oceans a lot longer to cool than the atmosphere.

BTW - have you read the linked article yet?

You can't relate a 0.6degC to man, thats what i am saying. Its impossible to say that when 400,000 years of history tells a different story.

Can you provide a refernce to these data that you are quoting?

www.google.co.uk

http://www.google.co.uk

Cool - go ahead and use it to back up your argument. What you say does not seem consistent with this:
[url= http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf ]http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter6.pdf[/url]
See, e.g., fig 6.4

Hainey said..

They are saying that in the last century it has been down to man, with no contribution from natural sources

The IPCC said..

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.

I don't agree with your assessment of their conclusion. Specifically you state they claim 'no contribution from natural sources' where as the IPCC state,' Most of the observed increase....'.

I clicked on your link above and all I got was a search engine front page.. Can you be a little more specific with your references so I can follow up on your point of view?

sorry

www.google.co.uk

Hainey, can you give me your opinion on this please?
[img] [/img]<

Actually, one good thing to google is a historical graph of Temperature Versus CO2. It quite happily shows that increases in CO2 [b]lag[/b] temperature increase and are not the cause. Something which has been known for a long time but merrily swept under the carpet.