Global Warming... a hoax?

[Schleswig-Holstein]

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

Of course we had periods when the atmospheric chemistry was completely different e.g. the Archean, when it was farking warm (oceanic water temps estimated at 55-85°C).

However, in the meantime, all those things that we rely on for ecosystem services (food, clean water, waste disposal) have evolved. The world would still be here if CO2 dominated the atmosphere, but it'd look very different.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

Of course we had periods when the atmospheric chemistry was completely different e.g. the Archean, when it was farking warm (oceanic water temps estimated at 55-85°C).

However, in the meantime, all those things that we rely on for ecosystem services (food, clean water, waste disposal) have evolved. The world would still be here if CO2 dominated the atmosphere, but it'd look very different.

I'm not sure you meant to write 'if CO2 dominated the atmosphere' but I know what you mean and you're right of course about trying to live in earlier environments in the way we do now.

The thing is that everything you mention as being critical is going to be put under huge pressure by factors other than CO2 and in a much shorter timeframe. The world is arguing about a possible and ignoring the definites.

[chieftiff]

The point is not about where the emissions are coming from - clearly global industry is playing a part, but more to do with the likely effects of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere - we've had higher levels than we have today at some point in the past and the planet didn't turn into a fireball.

Of course we had periods when the atmospheric chemistry was completely different e.g. the Archean, when it was farking warm (oceanic water temps estimated at 55-85°C).

However, in the meantime, all those things that we rely on for ecosystem services (food, clean water, waste disposal) have evolved. The world would still be here if CO2 dominated the atmosphere, but it'd look very different.

The Earth has been through extremes to get where it is from an atmosphere of ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, methane and carbon dioxide came RNA and DNA (nobody know how but it just did) and the evolution of early plant and bacterial life. Stromolites' were probably the key as the first lifeform to kick enough oxygen into the atmosphere to overcome oxidization by iron and then cyanobacteria (which absorbs CO2) played an important part in stabilizing the atmospheric gasses to form the ratio's we have today - et-voila a stable biorb in which life can crack on and evolve. As the ratio of those gasses continues to change life will evolve and technology will adapt, something will survive, however the question in all of this is really: are we in a position to engineer the earth and maintain (roughly) the balance we have today, so can we and should we?

[HectortheInspector]

News item on variations in ocean CO2 uptake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...om/8390388.stm

Which shows that assumptions about the oceanic absorbtion are just that-assumptions.

[chieftiff]

News item on variations in ocean CO2 uptake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...om/8390388.stm

Which shows that assumptions about the oceanic absorbtion are just that-assumptions.

So what are you saying, the oceanic absorption rate is an assumption or that there are assumptions in the theory?

A lot is understood about the relationships between co2 and the oceans (calcium carbonate interactions, sensitivity of absorption rate to temperature, changes in ph, etc) There are a few things that aren't well understood (increased saturation with increased pressure/depth and the sensitivity of that relationship to water chemistry and temperature to mention but one) as the oceans are without comparison the single biggest co2 sink on the planet understanding how much they can absorb is getting pretty important as is understanding the effects of co2 on the oceans' flora and fauna.

[HectortheInspector]

News item on variations in ocean CO2 uptake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...om/8390388.stm

Which shows that assumptions about the oceanic absorbtion are just that-assumptions.

So what are you saying, the oceanic absorption rate is an assumption or that there are assumptions in the theory?

A lot is understood about the relationships between co2 and the oceans (calcium carbonate interactions, sensitivity of absorption rate to temperature, changes in ph, etc) There are a few things that aren't well understood (increased saturation with increased pressure/depth and the sensitivity of that relationship to water chemistry and temperature to mention but one) as the oceans are without comparison the single biggest co2 sink on the planet understanding how much they can absorb is getting pretty important as is understanding the effects of co2 on the oceans' flora and fauna.

Assumptions in the theory. I'm aware of a lot of this, but no expert, but I was interested to see the comment in the report that half of atmospheric Co2 goes to the sea, and the rest to land. Given that 70% of the planet is water, much of which is full of O2 generating algae, carbon snaffling corals and so on, I was expecting a larger proportion to go to the oceans. If the oceans are overloading, then presumably thats because the land mass is absorbing less- Which suggests that more deforestation might be a bit of a silly idea.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

News item on variations in ocean CO2 uptake.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...om/8390388.stm

Which shows that assumptions about the oceanic absorbtion are just that-assumptions.

So what are you saying, the oceanic absorption rate is an assumption or that there are assumptions in the theory?

A lot is understood about the relationships between co2 and the oceans (calcium carbonate interactions, sensitivity of absorption rate to temperature, changes in ph, etc) There are a few things that aren't well understood (increased saturation with increased pressure/depth and the sensitivity of that relationship to water chemistry and temperature to mention but one) as the oceans are without comparison the single biggest co2 sink on the planet understanding how much they can absorb is getting pretty important as is understanding the effects of co2 on the oceans' flora and fauna.

Assumptions in the theory. I'm aware of a lot of this, but no expert, but I was interested to see the comment in the report that half of atmospheric Co2 goes to the sea, and the rest to land. Given that 70% of the planet is water, much of which is full of O2 generating algae, carbon snaffling corals and so on, I was expecting a larger proportion to go to the oceans. If the oceans are overloading, then presumably thats because the land mass is absorbing less- Which suggests that more deforestation might be a bit of a silly idea.

But why do you need a tenuous man-made global warming argument to conclude that we should put a brake on deforestation and how does it help restore the forests by devoting time and effort to carbon trading agreements?

There is a well established global environmental 'to do' list and Copenhagen fails to address almost any of it, offering the MMGW windmill instead. At best it's a missed opportunity, at its worst it makes existing problems even more formidable as the biodiesel/palm oil scandal showed.

[spunkymonkey]

Just used the BBC "listen again" to hear Jeremy Vine (spit!!!!) on this.

He was very gentle on both sides for once, including the last caller who seemed to be pointing out something about of course sea levels are rising - we're all flushing the toilet more than we used to and where do we think all that water goes? :D

[jagman]

If you'd read it you'd know I'm pretty much on the fence about the whole thing. I've corrected comments on this thread that in my professional opinion are inaccurate (with varying degrees of patience given the feedback), and I've tried to elucidate some of the challenges and complexities that are involved in this type of research. I'm an advocate of energy security, and IMHO that is a better argument for changing the way we live than climate change.

I do however think that for someone to disagree with something put in front of them that is fact, such as Keeling curves and radiative transfer physics that, in a word, works, does smack as bonkers.

And you're a simpleton indeed if you think that human interest doesn't play a part in both sides, but consider which side has more to lose financially in the long run. Consider taking Nature's words in the wider context that they were meant. It's a delicate time in the debate. Think of the Autism scare with MMR - more people died/had brain damage from measles in the following two years and I hope that loon and the media hypers remembers that.

I presume you've interpreted my post as calling you personally an evangelist SWW? For clarity, I didn't.

However you still miss the point, that point being that the pro argument is still being presented in the fashion I described earlier.
If the pro climate change lobby does not get a grip in double quick time they are going to blow their argument completley.
Climate scientists and the Milliband idiot standing there and insisting that anybody who is a "denier" is too stupid to understand the issue is just going to alienate the silent majority.

I fully accept that all sides have a their own interests, I've made my own feelings on energy security perfectly clear on many occasions and agrre with you.

As for which side loses, I strongly disagree with you, current eco-madness means we are all going to lose.
Copenhagen isn't going to help the planet, it isn't going to change the climate but it is ging to cost us all a fortune. There are no winners out of this mess.

We could apply logic and common sense but we aren't going to get that are we?
Sensible energy usage and generation I'm all in favour of, how is taxing my Land Rover going to change that?


All we have achieved to date is to create a half baked theory on environment change and punitive policies from government designed to exploit fear of that climate change to generate revenue.

If there was real concern about climate change then we would be approaching the whole thing very differently.

[12volts]

Open question to the believers in global warming:

What happened to the mid 1970 claims that we were about to freeze to death? After all the Earths temperature was going to fall by 6C, The nitrogen in the atmosphere would increase to near death levels?

There is no such thing as independent science. Scientists are no different to actors, they both have massive ego's to massage.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Open question to the believers in global warming:

What happened to the mid 1970 claims that we were about to freeze to death? After all the Earths temperature was going to fall by 6C, The nitrogen in the atmosphere would increase to near death levels?

There is no such thing as independent science. Scientists are no different to actors, they both have massive ego's to massage.

The Nitrogen piece is new to me, the villain of global cooling mid-Seventies was still CO2. The argument runs that the understanding of the science has improved since the mid-Seventies.

Please don't ask me what guarantee there is that the science will not further improve and revert us back to the Seventies position - it's that sort of argument.

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Here's a link to the famous 1975 Newsweek article.

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Sceptic though I am, in fairness I don't think it informs the argument one way or the other, but it is amusing to see the assertions of unanimity and the predictions of doom. Imagine what would have happened if we'd initiated plans to warm up the oceans on the basis of this pack of climate changers and the current crop of climate changers were right (or vice versa).

[12volts]

Open question to the believers in global warming:

What happened to the mid 1970 claims that we were about to freeze to death? After all the Earths temperature was going to fall by 6C, The nitrogen in the atmosphere would increase to near death levels?

There is no such thing as independent science. Scientists are no different to actors, they both have massive ego's to massage.

The Nitrogen piece is new to me, the villain of global cooling mid-Seventies was still CO2. The argument runs that the understanding of the science has improved since the mid-Seventies.

Please don't ask me what guarantee there is that the science will not further improve and revert us back to the Seventies position - it's that sort of argument.

So, basically you don't know what is happening to the climate. In the space of thirty years we have had: going to freeze to death or we are going to fry/suffocate. Hmmmmmmmm. 2000 years ago, grapes were grown in England - well documented. 200 years ago the Thames would freeze over- well documented.

You wonder why there is scepticism?

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

Open question to the believers in global warming:

What happened to the mid 1970 claims that we were about to freeze to death? After all the Earths temperature was going to fall by 6C, The nitrogen in the atmosphere would increase to near death levels?

There is no such thing as independent science. Scientists are no different to actors, they both have massive ego's to massage.

The Nitrogen piece is new to me, the villain of global cooling mid-Seventies was still CO2. The argument runs that the understanding of the science has improved since the mid-Seventies.

Please don't ask me what guarantee there is that the science will not further improve and revert us back to the Seventies position - it's that sort of argument.

So, basically you don't know what is happening to the climate. In the space of thirty years we have had: going to freeze to death or we are going to fry/suffocate. Hmmmmmmmm. 2000 years ago, grapes were grown in England - well documented. 200 years ago the Thames would freeze over- well documented.

You wonder why there is scepticism?

If you've followed this thread, you'll know that I don't wonder why there's scepticism in the slightest. You might want to re-register your fire. :D

[12volts]

Nothing personal mate. I'm of an age where I can remember previous climate scares - most people can't.