[Miyazaki]

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Earth warming faster than thought

2,500 scientists say that the risks of warming are greater than previously thought and it is happening more quickly than previously thought.

Short of a Chinese style 'one child' policy the world over, is there really much we can realisitically do to reduce the levels of CO2 rather than just slow down the acceleration of CO2 output?

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by Miyazaki

BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Earth warming faster than thought

2,500 scientists say that the risks of warming are greater than previously thought and it is happening more quickly than previously thought.

Short of a Chinese style 'one child' policy the world over, is there really much we can realisitically do to reduce the levels of CO2 rather than just slow down the acceleration of CO2 output?

In the short-to-medium term, no. In the long term, there is the principle of sequestration, in which left-over carbon from whatever process it was involved in (for example, the remains of plants which have been grown for fuel or food) is buried or otherwise disposed of out of reach of the atmosphere.

If we cut our CO2 emissions way back, to some small fraction of the current levels, then processes in the ecosphere would tend to reduce the excess by natural sequestration.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by DPinBucks

In the long term, there is the principle of sequestration, in which left-over carbon from whatever process it was involved in (for example, the remains of plants which have been grown for fuel or food) is buried or otherwise disposed of out of reach of the atmosphere.

Where do you put it though?

You can't dump it in the oceans as it is acidic and shags up whole ecosystems.

You could bury it down mine shafts but you can get the issue of leaching.

Reforestation sounds like a good idea to me. So much of Europe was forest until very recently.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by Miyazaki

Where do you put it though?

You can't dump it in the oceans as it is acidic and shags up whole ecosystems.

You could bury it down mine shafts but you can get the issue of leaching.

In fact, carbon is very insoluble in water. Ladies would not be best pleased if their diamond jewellery dissolved in the first rain shower.

The greatest source of natural sequestration is thought to be the skeletons and shells of plankton sinking to the sea bed. The most popular idea for artificial storage is to convert plant waste to charcoal, which is a dense form of pure carbon.

Perhaps you're thinking of carbon dioxide? That does dissolve in water to give carbonic acid.

Reforestation sounds like a good idea to me. So much of Europe was forest until very recently.

Yes, but the land is useless for other purposes, and anyway it's not obvious that that would provide the greatest possible way of removing atmospheric carbon. At best, forests are slow-growing. Sunflowers or bamboo would be better bets.

[leedswillprevai]

Before you start hitting the panic button listen to the audio I posted called the Big Chill

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Before you start hitting the panic button listen to the audio I posted called the Big Chill

Couldn’t get it to work, but I don’t think I’ll try again, thanks. Perhaps you could summarise it for us?

If I had to guess, I’d say it goes something like this:

• Global warming is a myth put out by a conspiracy of industry and governments to distract our attention from their dreams of world dominance;
• The greenhouse effect is a myth put out by physicists who have to say such things to keep their research grants;
• Climate change is a myth put out by meteorologists who want to keep their jobs.
• We're in a naturally cooling cycle at present, so warming may be beneficial;
  or, alternatively:
• We're in a naturally warming cycle at present, which has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect;
• We’re all going to freeze to death by 2054

[deckingman]

There are many reasoned arguments and a great deal of scientific evidence, to suggest that just possibly, there may be flaws in the computer models, which seem to be the primary tools used for predicting climate change. I find it odd that people have such a strong conviction that their own belief is flawlessly correct, and will not even consider looking at any data which may off another opinion. Is it the eleventh comandment that thow shalt not doubt the teachings of the IPCC?

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by deckingman

There are many reasoned arguments and a great deal of scientific evidence, to suggest that just possibly, there may be flaws in the computer models, which seem to be the primary tools used for predicting climate change. I find it odd that people have such a strong conviction that their own belief is flawlessly correct, and will not even consider looking at any data which may off another opinion. Is it the eleventh comandment that thow shalt not doubt the teachings of the IPCC?

The trouble is mate that the IPCC is a panel, backed up by strenuous research, in the latest case, by 2,500 scientists.

Science works by consensus and a few mutterings by a handful of scientists, rightly, will be taken in the broader context. Most denialist properganda I have seen is not even written by peer reviewed scientists!

[leedswillprevai]

If you listen to the audio for yourself then you will be creating a balanced approach to this otherwise you are just willfully ignoring information and the interview is conducted with a scientist

[leedswillprevai]

Furthermore if you feel you are open minded and are willing to read more about this, check this out

Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree « Tad Cronn
this to which is the rebuttal to the response of the link above

Global warming: 31,000 scientists revisited « Tad Cronn

http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Furthermore if you feel you are open minded and are willing to read more about this, check this out

Global warming ‘consensus’: 31,000 scientists disagree « Tad Cronn
this to which is the rebuttal to the response of the link above

Global warming: 31,000 scientists revisited « Tad Cronn

Global Warming Petition Project

Going off topic now but...

The top link is clearly bias and a blog not a peer researched paper or review. I'll pick out a few bits of choice info...

"The 31,000 signers all hold scientific credentials; approximately 9,000 of them hold scientific Ph.D.s"

The audio link doesn't work mate.

[DPinBucks]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Furthermore if you feel you are open minded and are willing to read more about this, check this out

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

OK. This is the key quotation from the articles.

If you’d read all my other posts on this subject (and please don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying you should have), you’d have seen that that is pretty well what the scientific community is saying, including the more rational of the ‘doom mongers’, and specifically including myself.

Take the first sentence:

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.

The important word here is ‘catastrophic’. Human release of CO2 will cause heating of the atmosphere. That simply cannot be argued. It doesn’t matter how many ‘scientists’ are marshalled to deny it: it is inevitable. The only way to refute it is to disprove the greenhouse effect: not a hypothetical impossibility but not currently in dispute by any branch of physics.

What we don’t know is what impact this heating will have in practice. We simply do not know. The quotation is being disingenuous in implying that, because there is no convincing evidence that there will be a catastrophe, we are justified in ignoring the fact that there is no convincing evidence that there won’t. There are many factors which may mitigate or worsen the impact (key phrases: metastability; tipping-point; feedback effects; even Gaia), and it is perfectly possible that a warmer climate will in fact be beneficial. The global warming discussion is not helped by hysterical unfounded 'predictions' of unallayed disaster.

But if you look a bit further into the issue, you will see that what is really the most worrying about global warming is not the long-term: the earth and human society will survive all that CO2 can throw at it, barring a runaway effect such as happened on Venus, and no-one is predicting that, thank goodness. What is really of most concern is the medium-term: say the second half of this century. Here the effects could be (note: could be, not will be) utterly devastating as early 21st century human society struggles to cope with the political consequences of the mix of rising sea levels, climate instability, climate change, population growth and increased energy demands.

It seems to me to be a no-brainer to prepare for the worst here. We have nothing to lose: in the end any mitigation we put in place, even if it were unnecessary in terms of global warming, will make us better prepared for future energy demands, especially for when the oil runs out.

You’ll notice that I’ve not said anything about the second sentence in the quotation. That’s because it’s one of those statements which seem to be profound but which actually say nothing. Yes, some plants and animals may benefit, but so what? Plants will generally benefit from increased CO2, but will wheat & rice, for example, be amongst them in warmer climes? There are others which will be harmed. How do we pick & choose which to consider? Will we be better off if we let some prosper and others die? Do we know for certain that those which will benefit will be of more use to us than those which won’t?

[leedswillprevai]

Sorry mate just posting this also, will read through your response above a bit later

http://www.petitionproject.org/gw_ar...ew_OISM600.pdf

This is the 12 page review which accompanies the petition

[deckingman]

Originally Posted by Miyazaki

The trouble is mate that the IPCC is a panel, backed up by strenuous research, in the latest case, by 2,500 scientists.

Science works by consensus and a few mutterings by a handful of scientists, rightly, will be taken in the broader context. Most denialist properganda I have seen is not even written by peer reviewed scientists!

In which case, may I respectfully suggest that you take a look at this. Facts about Climate Change Science, truth from consensus and climate change skeptics It is not denialist propoganda, but puts forward the views of both "Consensus" and "Skeptic" scientists in what seems to be a very balanced manner. (Note the use of the term "skeptic" rather than "denialist").

[Stuart Wright]

There is no difference between a sceptic and a denialist. Either stance is denying overwhelming evidence and is dangerous to the future of all of us.
Also, the sceptics/denialists bleat on about there being other changes to the earth's climate previously, but don't bother to consider that small changes now will greatly affect the society we have now. There are already millions of people starving to death in the world. Small chances now will exacerbate that situation. Casting any doubt on the fact that we have to act now to save our way of life is sheer lunacy.

[leedswillprevai]

I still haven't had a chance to read through everything but what your response is typical of willful ignorance. There are over 31,000 signatures skeptics and in terms of people starving to death, clearly you are making this into a very simplistic issue. One of the reasons people are starving is because the imf has raped their country, another reason why people are starving is because they have been turfed off their own land to make way for cocoa plantations.

So please stop trying to turn this into a simplistic and emotional issue (that was to the administrator). Furthermore in terms of small changes, well small changes will occur on the earth, right now that is is global cooling and that is actually a threat to food supplies depending on the severity and the length of time it continues for of course.

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

So please stop trying to turn this into a simplistic and emotional issue (that was to the administrator).

But the bottom line is simple and emotional. There is a very real possibility that humanity will be devastated before the end of the century.

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

now that is is global cooling and that is actually a threat to food supplies depending on the severity and the length of time it continues for of course.

Funny how the Global Cooling event was predicted by Climate Scientists a long time ago.
Climate scientists, the same group who predict CC.
'Well they got this bit right, but they are wrong on climate change'.
I'm not saying that people can pick and choose those bits of science they like and poo-poo the rest, but........

[roba666]

I believe our climate is changing and that we are contributing to it but I refuse to believe that we are the sole cause and that we can make any impact in 'stopping' it.

I believe nature is far and away more powerful and stubborn than we give it credit for. We are leaseholders on this planet, maybe our time is coming to an end. Sad it may be but what's to say it's not true? But I don't believe we've only got till the end of century.

Why couldn't all this be inevitable, for better or worse, climates evolve and who are we to try and change that. Don't get me wrong I'm very lucky to have been born in the UK and I really feel for people who are suffering around the world but.......the real problem here is that there are too many people on the earth consuming too many resources. Now what politician is going to tackle that un-PC controversial fact then???


R

[leedswillprevai]

I agree with most of what you said Rob but don't agree there are too many people. I think if you look into this subject more, it's more to do with the oligopoly's which run the main markets restricting supply but there are massives of natural resources out there. Also bearing in mind that new born populations throughout the west are massively declining and as the third world become more industrialised, the same thing will happen to them also.

However absolutely, if there is such inevitably that a huge catastrophe will occur, then it's forces much more powerful than humans which will cause it. The very reason why the earth is cooling is ultimately the very reason why the earth warms and that is the sun. When 31,000 sign a petition accompanied by evidence explaining their position and people can only react by calling them lunatics, then the argument for suddenly becomes very very shaky,

[gpl1968]

More interesting reading here:link. In a U.S. Senate minority report, 650 scientists express their skepticism to the theory of AGW.
Interestingly, far from the 2500 climate scientists that were claimed to author the initial IPCC report on AGW, only 52 took part.
More interesting reading:HereandHere.

[NikB]

Originally Posted by roba666

I believe our climate is changing and that we are contributing to it but I refuse to believe that we are the sole cause and that we can make any impact in 'stopping' it.

I believe nature is far and away more powerful and stubborn than we give it credit for. We are leaseholders on this planet, maybe our time is coming to an end. Sad it may be but what's to say it's not true? But I don't believe we've only got till the end of century.

Why couldn't all this be inevitable, for better or worse, climates evolve and who are we to try and change that. Don't get me wrong I'm very lucky to have been born in the UK and I really feel for people who are suffering around the world but.......the real problem here is that there are too many people on the earth consuming too many resources. Now what politician is going to tackle that un-PC controversial fact then???


R

This echoes many of my thoughts. Maybe it's our time and there's not actually a damn thing we can do about it. Who says we can beat nature?

I also agree that there are too many people and that situation is only going to get worse. Sure there is the potential to feed more but we are exhausting the land that is currently in use - global soil erosion is not as well reported but there are some very severe issues around the corner because of the way land is managed. So we would then need to use new land that is less fertile and this will also have further impacts on the environment and space for population expansion.

[Stuart Wright]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

So please stop trying to turn this into a simplistic and emotional issue

Some people might be able to consider that there will be millions more children starving to death and not be moved. I'm glad to say I'm not one of them.

[Stephen Wilde]

The activities that create carbon dioxide emissions are the very activities that increased the carrying capacity of the planet by reducing human death rates.

A reduction in such activities will produce more deaths sooner than would continuing them.

Every nation has to be allowed to get wealthy enough for it's citizens to voluntarily choose to reproduce at less than replacement rate as all relatively wealthy societies seem to do.

The UN estimates a global population peak around 9 billiuon by late this Century then a slow decline.

We should do all we can to get past that peak quickly and peacefully which will, inevitably, involve more fossil fuel use not less.

We should get to 2100 with a declining global population and by then hopefully a viable alternative to fossil fuels.

Energy rationing by political elites will be devastating and will defer that happier scenario indefinitely.

Unfortunately the decision is not within my control.

[The Dude]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

Some people might be able to consider that there will be millions more children starving to death and not be moved. I'm glad to say I'm not one of them.

Have you ever considered that by delaying the ultimately inevitable, ie allowing global human population to increase beyond sustainable levels, that you are actually condemning more millions/bilions of (as yet unborn) children to the very fate which you are so self-rightouesly trying to protect them from?

Any expectation that 'our way of life' should somehow continue indefinitely is both ignorant and naive.

Ignorant of the 1000's of years of well documented human history.

Naive in the extreme, based on the aforementioned ignorance.

[Stuart Wright]

Originally Posted by The Dude

Have you ever considered that by delaying the ultimately inevitable, ie allowing global human population to increase beyond sustainable levels, that you are actually condemning more millions/bilions of (as yet unborn) children to the very fate which you are so self-rightouesly trying to protect them from?

Any expectation that 'our way of life' should somehow continue indefinitely is both ignorant and naive.

Ignorant of the 1000's of years of well documented human history.

Naive in the extreme, based on the aforementioned ignorance.

I don't know what planet you are on, mate, but it's way different to this one.
The human population has been over sustainable levels for decades, which is why we have had people starving to death for decades.
I don't understand why you think it is self-righteous to give a damn about people. And with regard to maintaining our way of life, I rather obviously mean growing levels of human comfort, increasing levels of food production and availability of clean drinking water and reducing human poverty and disease while caring about other species of animals on the planet. If the climates change to reduce the amount of available resources like cultivatable land and clean drinking water, then there will be less resources available to advance civilisation. If the water levels rise and large areas of land dip below sea level, there will be more people trying to live on less land.

We can't *expect* our way of life to stay the same, but we can at least acknowledge that we should try and do *something* to stop a situation where millions of people will die.
Just wanted to point these rather obvious issues out since you are ignorant of them.

[leedswillprevai]

Again, it's your ignorant self that refuses to acknowledge the underlying reasons why countries are so immersed in poverty, when you actually snap out of this emotive "you don't care about these people" you will understand the dynamics and mechanics of this. However as for the notion that "I am not moved" it disgusts me what the major banks have done to this planet. It turns my stomach to see how a wealthy nation like Argentina has been pulled down to such a level that a large segment of the population have lost everything, it upsets me to see the suffering in Bolivia, that is happening all over area.

So again, stop with the simple emotive notions and casting aspersions about how other people feel about the plight of others.

[Stuart Wright]

Originally Posted by leedswillprevai

Again, it's your ignorant self that refuses to acknowledge the underlying reasons why countries are so immersed in poverty, when you actually snap out of this emotive "you don't care about these people" you will understand the dynamics and mechanics of this. However as for the notion that "I am not moved" it disgusts me what the major banks have done to this planet. It turns my stomach to see how a wealthy nation like Argentina has been pulled down to such a level that a large segment of the population have lost everything, it upsets me to see the suffering in Bolivia, that is happening all over area.

So again, stop with the simple emotive notions and casting aspersions about how other people feel about the plight of others.

What exactly is arrogant about my post?
And why does the issue of caring about other people have to be complicated? I'll continue with the simple emotive notions, thanks, because that's what it boils down to.

I know I shouldn't get involved with these posts because you'll just insult me and I'll just ban you, but it just makes me so mad that there are people do plain dumb to continue with the scepticism of MMGW.

[leedswillprevai]

No it boils down to facts, read the articles the former chief economist of the IMF Joseph Stiglitz wrote about the actions and policies of the IMF. That is the reality, they are the ones causing the suffering of the poor and keeping the third world, third world.

Oh and as for insults, I get it, it's alright for you to call me and others dumb but should we reply then you get to ban individuals.
Does this word hypocrisy mean anything to you

[robh2002]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

What exactly is arrogant about my post?
And why does the issue of caring about other people have to be complicated? I'll continue with the simple emotive notions, thanks, because that's what it boils down to.

I know I shouldn't get involved with these posts because you'll just insult me and I'll just ban you, but it just makes me so mad that there are people do plain dumb to continue with the scepticism of MMGW.

With regards to your last paragraph - hear, hear! Education is a large part of the problem.

[Miyazaki]

Originally Posted by Stuart Wright

it just makes me so mad that there are people do plain dumb to continue with the scepticism of MMGW.

I think it is a mixture of non-education on the subject combined with the armchair scientist viewpoint.

People that pick and choose certain areas or aspects to view their worldview.

The sort of people that own a 4x4 and feel so sick with worry over the effect their selfish behaviour is having on the planet they mask it by finding an argument to allow them to carry on as they were.

Its crazy.