Charismatic

With New Zealand set to expend, as I understand it over $100bn, on climate change between now and 2050 (if you want some measure of how immense that is it’s over $21,000 for every person in New Zealand) I was wondering what conclusions you had reached about the causes of global warming with so much conflicting evidence.

Justcol

If man was removed from the planet 100 years ago would it be in the same poor state it is today ?
Hyperthetical i know but i cant really see how anyone could answer yes,
therefore you would have to say the current problem with global warming is man made

Charismatic

You have noticed global warming happening?

It’s interesting to me that the most accurate data we have from satellites built specially to monitor just this effect (GISS) by measuring various radiation reflection levels indicates...slight cooling:.

Draw your own conclusions about the climate change hypothesis .

What is it they say about science again? Heaps of evidence but no absolute proof?

Sally Redux

People who have lived in my area in the US for a long time, have all commented on how much hotter it has become, with far more wildfires.

Cape Blue

I think the science of greenhouse gases such as CO2 acting as an insulator for re-radiated infra-red heat is pretty sound and don't see any scientists arguing against it.

I think that humans have emitted billions of tonnes of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels (that have been stored out of the climate cycle for many millions of years) and have therefore added to this greenhouse effect.

I think that measurements of CO2 (and other GG's) indicate that current levels are much higher than they have been in a very long time.

I gather that recent cooling might be related to "global dimming" - the huge amounts of SOx and other pollution particles emitted by China's industrialization that restrict sunlight getting to earth. Perhaps when developing countries reduce this pollution the masked warming trend may continue.

Charismatic

Like Richard Lindzen? There are many more as well of course. By enlarge most scientists do think the hypothesis to be valid.

If the most accurate data we have contradicts our hypothesis however do we carry on blind to the actual experimental data?

It's interesting that on a small scale I can shine a light at a container filled with carbon dioxide and measure temperature change more rapidly, then record an increase in temperature. I can also find out that the effect is approximately proportional to the logarithm of the concentration, so each extra ppm will be less effective at raising temperature

Of course this doesn't seem to work in the real world with real experimental data...

My point is actually that we are expending a lot of resources on a problem that may not really exist. I think folks need to think about this carefully, do you see my point?

Kooky.

There are lots of scientists arguing about it.

You can find tons of information out there in cyberland, for and against. Let me know if you want some links.

(I work for an environmental organisation.)

Cape Blue

There are scientists arguing that CO2 does not block (OK absorb) infra-red radiation?

Cape Blue

Is he actually arguing that infra-red radiation is not absorbed by increased greenhouse gases? Is he arguing against the basic physics?

I am not sure I understand you light-shining example.

My take is that the complexity of CC with its multiple feedback loops is at the far end of our capacity to comprehend and that certainly no one without both advanced degrees in related subjects & who have worked and researched in the field for many years, can fully appreciate the situation.

Without trying to jump heavily into the ad hominem http://logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm there are always going to be some who swim against conventional thinking - occasionally they turn out to be correct, but the vast majority of the time the thousands of other suitably qualified and experienced people from around the world, who have reached consensus over many years of arguing, are more likely to be right.

Perry Groves

We're all screwed. NZ will be under water in years to come, we better all go and live on Mars.

BEVS

Not going there. Men are from Mars

lardyl

and most of the AGW-Skeptic stuff is from the scientific equivalent of Uranus........

go on check out the credentials of many of the real sceptics and you'll find evidence there along with a bit of history of being "renta-expert" for the oil, tobacco, asbestos, etc industries.....or Conservative/religious tendencies that mark them out as being a little less than even-handed......maybe......

myself I am a "precautionary principle" person and did a little work on IR absorbtion of CO2 at University......but that was so long ago that I'm not qualified to speak about it.

I will say, however, that synergstic interactions are an issue that many of us can't hope to predict and that simpliying the relationship between surface temperatures and the increase in [CO2] is rather an over-simplification......also not all the spend on alternative energy sources and the increased costs of making/disposing of things is a cost with the *only* benefit being a reduction in the carbon footprint, there are other benefits, which may add up in the (perhaps, very) long term to a nett gain.......maybe.

we'll wait and see I suppose and I for one hope the doom-sayers are very wrong!

TeamEmbo

I don't think global warming is a man-made thing. I think it is a natural process of periodic warming and cooling.

Cape Blue

Why do you think that?

MacScot

Have a read here:

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html