Flat Earthers

[MKG]

3 out of 5!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091114/tuk ... a1618.html


Mike

[Green Aura]

You're not really surprised are you?

[MKG]

No, I'm not. Depressing, isn't it?

Mike

[Big Al]

3 out of 5!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20091114/tuk ... a1618.html


Mike

Take it with a pinch of salt Mike because there is nothing there that I can see to validate this piece. What were the demographics of the survey?

If you ask 10 senile OAP's in a nursing home as opposed to 10,000 young people then you may well get the results this survey reports....

[MKG]

Oh, I quite agree with you, Big Al. I'm convinced that a lot of people only claim to believe we have nothing to do with global warming so that they don't have to think about their heavily consumer-biased lifestyles. Greed and selfishness - that's what depresses me.

Ah well - when t'revolution comes ...

Mike

[dave45]

Belief shouldn't come into it.

Either the science is correct and the evidence supports the theory, or it doesn't. End of.

The problem is that the internet gives equal voice to the nutters, and the pseudo-scientists as the real scientists, and the man in the street can't tell the difference. Neither can I. Who can you trust?

My view is that if the tobacco companies had the manipulative skills/techniques available today back in the 60's then we'd still be arguing over whether ciggies cause cancer.

We are out-numbered by the professional manipulators. How do you really know that *your* POV is right? A serious and fundamental question!

I would take the James Randi view (on paranormal events) though - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. Have the enormous economic sacrifices being demanded in the name of AGW got that level of proof?
I hope so, but it has not been demonstrated to me. I've just read that the IPCC just takes an average of all their various computer models to arrive at their global temperature predictions.... is this true? can this be correct?

The public is right to be skeptical. The scientists need to calmly point to the science and the evidence and be very sure they've got it right.

Would you bet your own money on it? how sure are you?

[Brij]

Personally, I don't think the global warming question is as important as the fact that we live in a world with finite resources, and global population is climbing and climbing. I also believe that the world will be less beautiful if we go exhausting it, and that that is therefore immoral. Plus, I don't like the consumerist lifestyle (that isn't to say I'm not a sucker for it sometimes!), so global warming or not, something has to change!

[MKG]

Hi Dave - scepticism is, you're right, a very healthy attitude. And the climate change deniers also have a point - climate has always changed quite naturally, and the evidence for that is in the geological and fossil records, plus some historical observations ranging over the last 900 years or so. But those records also show that climate change has never before occurred at such a rate as it is now - so something is different this time around. We know that we produce an awful lot of carbon dioxide and release it into the atmosphere. We know that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, as my Venusian friends all tell me. We can model to a reasonable degree of accuracy what effects all that CO2 has had on our climate. All of this suggests strongly (but still only suggests) that the main agent is the human race.

Alright, none of that is absolute evidence. But the only absolute evidence we can ever get of catastrophic climate change is ... catastrophic climate change. I'd prefer not to wait and see. I cannot predict with any certainty that if I jump off a fifty-foot cliff I'll die when I hit the ground. But I'm not going to do it because all of the available evidence suggests that I will, and avoiding the cliff edge might be seen as a more sensible thing to do.

My personal opinion is that it's too late anyway - but I may be wrong so I tend to prefer the scenario of at least attempting to alleviate the effects.

Mike

[mamos]

Fantastic

This is the sort of debate that we should all be having.

To be honest, nobody knows what the hell is going on. For years we have been told that taking an aspirin a day will help protect us from heart disease then all of a sudden it might actually cause us harm. Ecstasy and cannabis are going to bring about the destruction of our youth, then, Oh, they are not so bad.

If the powers that be cannot decide what is best with a simple aspirin then can we trust them to tell us what is going on with something as complicated as climate change.

We all automatically assume that nuclear power is a bad thing just because basically the press over the years have told us this is what we should think. Then, James Lovelock -a well known environmentalist- comes along and says "Nuclear power is the only green solution"

Having heard Mr Lovelock speak I was convinced that he was right and that nuclear power had had a bad rap. In comparison, the amount of waste generated by a nuclear power station compared to a similar output fossil fuel power station was minuscule. Yes obviously the way forward was nuclear power. How could I have been so blinkered.

Then, I actually spoke to someone who works in the nuclear power industry. He said that technically Mr Lovelock was correct. The amount of primary waste created by the nuclear power industry was tiny compared the other traditional methods of power production, but it is the secondary waste that really mounts up. My contact in, who worked at a nuclear power station in maintenance said every time they went anywhere near an area that could be in the slightest bit radioactive they had to wear special overalls, boots, masks and gloves all of which get disposed of in landfall or other means. This waste does not show up in the amount of waste that is generated by the station but way out weigh the primary waste over the years.

Where do we get pretty much all of our information? Yes the press. And we can always trust them to tell the truth. You decide.

I have very little faith in what I hear on a day to day basis.

What I really hate though is people are so frightened to express an opinion for fear of offending someone or appearing stupid.

We cannot say this or that because we may offend this person or that group of people. This is how we end up with ridiculous health and safety laws meaning children can no longer play conkers or we can't call Christmas christmas.

Could one of the reasons why we are in the state be there are just be too many people in the world. Could the real reason why we are heading towards global meltdown be that we just don't seem to be able to stop breading. The world just can't cope with the amount of people living on it.

However, telling people to cycle to work or turn off their TV when they are not using it is a lot easier and more politically correct than telling them to stop having babies.



mamos

[MKG]

Alright, then - a few facts. Nothing which can't be gleaned from official records if you're prepared to do the research, and no opinions or what-ifs - just straightforward, demonstrable, scientific facts.

CO2 is one of the gases which naturally keeps the atmosphere warm. It does this by strongly absorbing infra-red energy from the sun. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more infra-red is absorbed and the warmer the atmosphere becomes. This is known as the Greenhouse Effect, which is demonstrable even on very small scales (such as in a greenhouse).

Since the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 has increased by about 35%. This is not a guess - scientists have been able to accurately measure the content of air for quite a long time. Three-quarters of the increase has occurred over the last fifty years. Such levels have existed before (according to the geological record, which hardly has an opinion) - some 20 million years ago when the earth had a large number of extremely active volcanoes.

Now we can couple one set of facts with the other. A CO2 increase of 35% (which coincides with our increasing industrial activity) means that the heating effect on the atmosphere of CO2 has also increased by 35% (and CO2 is not the only heating agent). A warmer atmosphere means that the surface layers of the oceans and the land are also warmer. There's no escaping that conclusion - warm things heat up cooler things which are next to them.

Now, if anyone wants to disagree with the facts, then they'll have to come up with an alternative explanation for the excess CO2 which we know is there. There has been no overall increase in current volcanic activity, so that's out. There are no additional piles of rotting vegetation lying around because we've actually seen off a large chunk of forest around the world which might have contributed, so that's out. CO2 sources, anyone?

It would be a logical leap on a gargantuan scale to claim that the human race has not been directly responsible for the excess CO2. The question, though, is whether or not the excess CO2 is partly responsible (along with methane, fluorinated aerosol propellants and, of course, any naturally-occurring upward trend) for global warming. Given the existence of the Greenhouse Effect, the inescapable conclusion is yes - we have, at the very least, contributed significantly to global warming. The only possible defence against that conclusion is to claim that we do not produce CO2 or that, if we do, it somehow magically does not have the heating effect which "natural" CO2 has. Preposterous claims.

When you come across any scientist making any such claims, it's always a good idea to check who his/her employers are.

Of course, now come the arguments. Can we continue to produce CO2 on such a large scale and not suffer consequences? Obviously not - this really isn't an argument. Have we already damaged the climate system of the earth beyond repair? Ah - this is the real argument. We don't actually know.

But if the Jeremy Clarksons of this world are wrong, will it be their descendants who take all of the blame, or will that be a democratic punishment?

Mike

[Big Al]

Bit simplistic i know but when I get up in the morning and it's cold I put a jumper on. If it's raining outside I put a waterproof on. If it's searingly hot I use it as an excuse not to do the housework....

When I die I'll be dust sprinkled from a hot air balloon over windermere by my son and wife. Until then I will try not to get too depressed about the possible future, which is the hard part considering my wife and I have a 20 yr old son.

[dave45]

MKG - too many non-sequiturs

for instance, yes CO2 is a GHG and yes it is increasing. But what is the relationship between CO2 concentration and its warming effect? Is it linear? you seem to be assuming that. Why should it be? is there a saturation point beyond which additional CO2 has no more effect? have we passed it? Pretty important to understand "the process", yet I have never seen this mentioned in the traditional theory.

Maybe someone can point me to the scientific chapter and verse on this.

This guy is a famous AGW denialist and this site considers it (and a lot more besides) http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html but I don't have the knowledge to evaluate it properly.

and remember correlation does not imply causality.

[MKG]

Yeah - junkscience is an interesting site, but with an agenda all its own. For a supposed non-partisan article, it's strange to read the final line ...

"Activists and zealots constantly shrilling over atmospheric carbon dioxide are misdirecting attention and effort from real and potentially addressable local, regional and planetary problems". (Do note "potentially" - isn't our CO2 production a potentially addressable problem?)

Sort of lets the cat out of the bag, methinks.

There's no non-sequitur in my statement on CO2 warming effect. I said that if the CO2 content of the atmosphere increases by 35%, so does its warming effect. Whether that effect increases temperatures in a linear or logarithmic way is immaterial. Obviously, there is a saturation limit beyond which further CO2 additions will have no effect because the available energy has all been spoken for. The surface temperature of Venus (a mind-boggling 462 degrees Celsius) give us a good indication of where that lies (and there's very little water vapour on Venus - it's just about all down to CO2). No doubt the authors of the junkscience article would argue (as they do about Earth's atmosphere) that estimated averages of the Venusian temperature have varied wildly over the last couple of decades. This is true, but none of the estimates have been below 400 degrees. This, of course, displays a typical inaccuracy and we should therefore discount all measurements of that planet's temperature. I think not.

The article is a strange one, decrying averaging techniques in one breath and then using averaged figures to support its own arguments. It's also full of "it wasn't just me - Johnny did it too" justifications. I think it's well-known that CO2 is not the only warming agent in the atmosphere - in fact, I said that. But it's one we can do an awful lot about. And it's no good Jimmy blaming Johnny when they both had a hand in the dastardly deed.

Accusations of mountain out of molehill arguments levelled against a "mere" one degree C rise in average temperature (although, once again, as they've rubbished averaging techniques, how can they justifiably fix on that value?) are dangerous. Temperature shifts of between 3 and 5 degrees have the capability of totally disrupting ocean dynamics and, if that happens (and there is evidence pointing to the beginning of that process), we're looking at massively FALLING temperatures for a lot of the world. There is not too much difference between a 1 degree rise and a 3 degree rise, especially when we know that climate change is accelerating.

There's actually a group of Russians who want to increase the production of warming agents, because they think that most of sub-arctic Russia would then be a paradise. Maybe. It's just as likely that it would be covered by an ice sheet. There are a lot of people who wouldn't mind the average temperature in Britain being more like the Med. - but if the Gulf Stream failed, it wouldn't be quite like that. There are a lot of scientists screaming blue murder about climate change, and there are probably just as many scientists who argue against them. Who's right? I don't actually care. Global warming, if it continues unabated and whether it is part of a natural cycle or whether the human race contribute to it in any meaningful way, is damaging to human society. It is unarguable that it leads to sea-level rise and the consequent destruction of a portion of land used by humans for living space and agricultural economy. It is unarguable that if present trends continue, then the majority of the inhabitants of this planet will have their lives severely disrupted. It is unarguable that we will lose a number of species of flora and fauna and others will be put under dangerous strain. We should be preparing for the eventuality.

We maintain large armed forces in Britain to give ourselves a degree of confidence in the face of war, but it's a long time now since we've been militarily attacked. Still, most pople would think it irresponsible not to maintain at least some kind of defence force. We are prepared for the eventuality of war. Cutting our CO2 emissions can only serve to slow down global warming effects (and it's easy to do if only we can release ourselves from the bonds of innate greed and selfishness). That gives us and our descendants more time to prepare for the eventuality of catastrophic climate change. It might not happen (although I'm one of the pessimistic ones) and if it doesn't, all well and good. But it might well happen - and if we're not prepared, we're buggered as a species.

Mike

[dave45]

I really don't know. I've tried, but I can't tell good from bad science. Try this guy for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syun-Ichi_Akasofu a real scientist but one of the dissenters and skeptics. His article (a 51MB PDF) here - http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/pd ... change.pdf is quite readable and argues that the effect of CO2 is heavily overstated because natural cycles aren't properly accounted for. Sounds plausible. Yet Al Gore said the science was settled. Is it really? ISTR reading that the 2007 IPCC report said they were 95% certain of their case (can't remember what exactly). That means that on their own reckoning there's a 20-1 chance they're wrong. Are those odds good enough to try and change the way the world works?

We all know it is easier to take the Jeremy Clarkson and neocon nutter approach of blank denial, because its easy and you don't have to think too hard to say "its all rubbish". That way you can carry on driving your gas-guzzlers and brand all climate change politics as a socialist conspiracy to tax the wealth-producers.

But if you have an interest in the truth of the matter rather than the dirty game of politics, what can you do?

I think I shall follow Voltaire's conclusion in Candide, and cultivate my garden.

[MKG]

... the 2007 IPCC report said they were 95% certain of their case (can't remember what exactly). That means that on their own reckoning there's a 20-1 chance they're wrong. Are those odds good enough to try and change the way the world works?

I appreciate your stance, Dave. I note that the report you quote places CO2 emissions from fossil fuel as contributing more than 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions from all sources - interesting to say the least.

But I have to correct one point. If the IPCC are 95% certain of their case, that translates as 1 in 20 chance that they are wrong, rather than 20 to 1 as you state. That's odds of 19-1 that they're RIGHT.

Yes, I think those odds are good enough to try to change the world.

Mike