No need to panic ?
 

It would seem that the tide is now turning & we may at last see just what a scam this all is.
Yes of course we should strive to reduce waste/consumption & strive to stop Global Buisiness from destroying the planet in the search for the biggest profit line, but carbon offset/tax this/tax that etc etc ?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...ws_BlogsModule

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Yet the impact that Climate change is having on various Inuit tribes within the Arctic circle cannot be ignored. Peoples lives are already being impacted and their lifestyles and lives are being put in danger so I wonder if they feel there is no need to panic?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Not so fast

From the New York Times

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Don't panic Mr Mainwaring, don't panic. :confused:


We're all Doomed I tell ye, .... Dooooomed !!! :eek:

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Nah, it's not as good as that :eek:

Re: No need to panic ?
 

For sure there is a change occurring, but some question the current thesis as to why ?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

To question it is fine but to deny it is not.

The Wall Street Journal apparently has a bit of history on this. Although they published that article by 16 scientists they refused to publish an earlier article by 255 scientists with quite another view of the situation.

And although I'm not a scientist I can see how the WSJ article is logically flawed. This part...

... is at best dubious (define 'pollutant') and in any case completely irrelevant. None of the facts stated say anything whatever about the effect of TOO MUCH carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

So a rather dodgy article.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

As you say you are not a scientist, but a number of the signatory's to the article are & a number of them experts in their field to say the least.


Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Re: No need to panic ?
 

[QUOTE=playamonte;9880540]As you say you are not a scientist, but a number of the signatory's to the article are & a number of them experts in their field to say the least.
QUOTE]

I am a scientist. Well, at least one with a Masters and published papers, although not a PHD

I suggest you research where the scientists you listed receive most of their funding. I think you may find a lot of it comes from fossil fuel companies, motoring companies etc

There are many types of scientists. Fat ones, skinny ones, intelligent ones, stupid ones, moral ones and immoral ones

I choose to listen to those who are at the head of their field i.e. not the ones you listed. And they are unequivical that climate change is happening. There is a "scientific" debate to be had on whether we can reverse climate change, by how much and how to do so. But the climate is changing and human activity (and our current system of growth capitalism and overpopulation) is a major driver of it.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

[QUOTE=cricketman;9880696]Yes indeed we should & god help the career of any that buck the current trend.

BTW what category do you fit into then from your list. ;)

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I am in the camp of 'there is no MAN-MADE global warming/climate change' but that is a gut instinct, I have no hard facts or scientists to trot out.

Let me offer a few reasons though of why I feel this way.

Before fossil fuels were used extensively, around 1900, the only man made pollution was perhaps the burning of other carboniferous fuels ie wood/peat.
Therefore I do not believe that a period of just over 100 years can have had such an impact.

Man only inhabits a very small portion of this earth, there are vast tracts of land where nature runs its course with plants and trees processing carbon dioxide and creating oxygen.

Up until fairly recently, 50 years ago, those people using fossil fuels in large quantities were Europeans, North Americans and parts of South America. Apart from some industry the vast majority of the Asians, Indians, and Africans could not afford/ did not need to use fossil fuels.

I am not saying that I am right, nor am I saying that we should not try to be much greener and preserve what little reserves of fossil fuels we have.

What I am saying is that I do not think that man has created this climate change. I believe it is a cyclical event that has been repeated many times before man even populated this earth. I think that we are arrogant to even think that against mother nature we could make such an impact.

My twopenn'th, for what it's worth.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Thanks for sharing, this indicates precisely why the topic generates such confusion abong the general publish - because most people dont understand how and why climate change is caused

There are 2 main molecules - CO2 and methane, they hang around in the stratosphere and reflect the heat (radiation) that bounces back from the earth and would normally escape back out into space.

There have always been CO2 and methane in the stratosphere. However, in the past 100 years, humans have produced much higher quantaties of these molecules than existed previously - through manufacturing, industry and farming. So now there is more of them in the atmosphere and more heat is being reflected back to earth instead of excaping out to space - it really is simple

As for, humans buring fossil fuels a 100 years ago. Yes they were but in much lower quantities. There are now 6 times more humans on the planet than 100 years ago - and manufacturing and transport (the biggest contributers to CO2 levels) were at a much lower rate

Now, its hardly rocket science is it? :)

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Ok cricketman I do appreciate that there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere than 100 years ago, I think that is a universally accepted fact.

However I reiterate, can only 100 years, a mere speck in the eons of time, produce such a huge climatic change?

What about the time when there were huge amounts of volcanic activity, on earth spewing sulphur particles etc. surely this was more likely to bring about climate change.

I think we ought to switch the debate away from whether climate change is man made or not and concentrate on preserving what little resources we have left.

Man is never going to do without electricity in the next millenium.

We should put all our energies into finding, cheaper natural ways of producing electricity by harnessing the elements rather that spending billions tinkering with the effects of climate change.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

You have a couple of concepts a little confused

1. We are not talking about huge changes in the climate, just changes of 1-4c. However, at a 4c increase, most of the UK disappears underwater
2. Yes, volcanic activity cools the earth dramatically. In the last ice age, temperatures dropped by more than 4c. This caused a mass extinction of mammals - and wiped out the other humanid species e.g. neandathals and 7-8 others around the world
3. Yes you are correct, producing sustainable green energy is the key, along with changing our throwaway consumerist culutre - and a sharp dose of population control. If the population increases by a factor of 6 over the next 100 years, like in the did in the last 100 years, then we are DOOMED!

We need to act, the quicker the better or our grandchildren will have a miserable future and our great, great grandchildren may have no future at all.

Half of me thinks that the human race wont exist in 2,000 years time, while the other half thinks there will be a major incident in the next 100 years or so that will make us face up to reality - and humans will survive as a much less populous species living sustainably. Perhaps 500 million (12 times less than now)

What I say may seem radical, but I've studied the matter quite a bit and it doesnt look good. That is what exponential population curves do to every species from bacteria to humans! You adapt or get wiped out.

Humans are in the unique position of being able to consciously effect our own destiny, my wish is that this consciousness spreads to the people that matter!

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Yeah yeah, we've all heard the arguments before... "Its all cyclical..." or "Its just nature..." but its bollocks, yes there have been events in the past that clearly show climate change and at times that change can be massive but there is one FACT that most people overlook... The changes we have seen in the past (OK, not seen I know, but you know what I mean) took place over tend of thousands of years, in some cases even longer, in others maybe shorter but never has that change taken place in less than a 100 years, its the speed of the change that is causing concern, for one it means that nature doesn't have the chance to adapt, to evolve and that means extinctions.


Its funny how not only is the climate debate a generational thing but also an education one, when I was doing my Hort courses a few years ago I was convinced that Global warming was the only environmental science, it was during those studies that I realised that global warming is a bit of a myth as the WORLD is not warming, but climate change is, its clear to see all over the world.

Oh and to the person/people who think that man is not causing it, get a grip, just because you don't believe something doesn't mean its wrong, do a bit of research, look up places like the Dead Sea and the utterly shocking river Citarum, if that doesn't sway you towards the damage man is doing to this finite resource we have then I suggest you curl up in your Spanish bubble and hope that god takes care of you in your old age...

Re: No need to panic ?
 

The original post of this thread pointed to the fact that there are a number of scientist who are bucking the trend and saying that the current bout of climate change is not man made.

I am one of a number of ordinary Joe's who happen to agree with them.

What I am not saying is man is not guilty of producing pollution and wasting resources.

All I am saying is that I truly believe that man is not responsible for climate change. Nothing that has been said in this thread has convinced me otherwise. Yes there has been some passionate debate about the rights and wrongs of man made terrestrial pollution but that was not the theme of this thread.

Things I would dispute are is it proven that greenhouse gases are the cause of climate change, no scientists are split.

Of all the gases that make up green house gases, how big a proportion is CO2, less than 2%??

How much of that CO2 is extra ie produced by man, and not animals, vegetation or evaporation of the oceans??

If climate change is man made and we stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow how long would it take for this climate change to stop or slow down, another hundred years??

What we need is to stop banging the drum and apportioning blame and put all our energies into finding cheaper renewable sources of electricity. We do not need to give vast subsidies to companies etc. to reduce their 'carbon footprint' giving spurious results at best.

The whole terrestrial pollution debate needs a thread of its own, it has nothing to do with climate change.

All of this is MOHO of course as I am not a scientist or an expert.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Wrong. Not a big fan of physics are we? Everything we do, everything we are is connected, without sounding like a hippy at all, because I'm not, there is nothing on earth that is not connected. The irony about life on earth is that man has spent so long looking for its own origins and coming up with countless myths to explain our origins we have almost completely, as a general population, overlooked the real miracle.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

So much ignorance in a post is incredible

I wont waste my breath with more explanations. Maybe before having an opinion about climate change you should learn something about science?

As for saying "scientists are split", no they are not! There are a noisy minority being paid off by big industry who are dening it. Just like there are holocaust deniers, or people who think we have an inner alien lizzard

Have a look to see if there are any climate change deniers from the top UK universities. These are the ones I trust. Not Iowa state university sponsored by Exxon Mobil, or the University of Monsanto

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I am not joining in this debate but you do appear to contridict yourself.
On the one hand you say scientists are not split when the paragraph above clearly shows that they are.
Just because you don't trust them does not necessarily make them wrong and you should not ignore them.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

where is bil when we need him to put a bit of common sense into life ??

Re: No need to panic ?
 

What paragraph above?

If less than 1% of scientists are for something - and 99% are for something else. They are not splt, there is a minority of scientists who think differently

A split implies that it is somewhere close to 50:50

The scientific community is not a closed community and is not difficult to enter. There are loads of stupid and bad scientists. Just like there are in many other fields.

You need to study the journals, papers and references of individual scientists - and try and understand their experimental work and data analysis before concluding who is right or wrong. You can't just look at a list of random names, you dont even know what they are scientists of. They could be scientists in the field of optimisation of fossil fuels or "political scientists" as the Americans call them :rofl:

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Why do you choose to align yourself with the minority?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I was talking about the thread subject not about the science you patronising person. Just because you and others shout the loudest does not make you right.This forum is about discussion and opinions not about taking sides or one upmanship.
You know nothing about me or my background or the subjects that I study as I you.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible - the vast majority of scientists, based upon the available evidence, are saying that it's happening. They are many compared to the few deniers.

Yes

What are these billions being spent on exactly if not on the reduction of burning hydrocarbon fuels?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

What are these billions being spent on exactly if not on the reduction of burning hydrocarbon fuels?[/QUOTE]

Subsidies and tax breaks given in return for reductions in carbon footprint. Most of the reductions I suspect are at best spurious.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

The only way for a company to reduce its carbon footprint is for it directly or indirectly to reduce the hydrocarbon fuels it burns - which is what you are advocating isn't it?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

In theory yes, but in practice I suspect it is just juggling statistics.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I do not align myself with either side, but do question what we are told and when I have the option to plant a tree when I book a flight (at a cost) I cannot help being a tad skeptical (not to mention carbon tax)

I watch at least a few science based documentary's a week & it is becoming clear that the more science discovers, science realises just how much they do not know (I generalize of course)

Cricket says he is a scientist, that being the case I thought it was a scientists role to question the status que ?, but if you do not subscribe to the current agenda you are considered a heretic & can then be the subject of name calling.
Are you funded by the Global Warming Industry ?, no then a good many scientists owe their living to it.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Hmm...:sneaky:

Re: No need to panic ?
 

You are confusing marketing and science

Planting a tree when flying is a marketing scheme. Aimed at getting you to buy the flight by playing on your conscience, pun intented ;)

It won't help the environment one bit because you'll find that the company actually hasnt planted an extra tree in the world anyway. They normally just sponsor tree planting schemes that would have taken place anyway.

Yes I always question the status quo. I have questioned and concluded that global warming/climate change is happening

However, I do not agree with the many of the measures governments and business promote, most of them are smokescreens and will make zero difference. Carbon offsetting and carbon taxes being a case in point

Btw, there is a gripe of mine that people rely on the media to tell them what to think. The media especially in the UK is terrible. It is sensationalist and deliberately misleading. If you want to really know what is going on then you need to go to more reliable sources, journals, global conferences, people and institutions that you know of as "credible"

Don't delegate your decision making to the media! If you really want to know about something then the info is out there. My professor at uni said to me that the key to being a great scientist isnt remembering lots of stuff, but knowing where to find the key information. The internet doesnt help in this respect because most info on the interent is misleading and out of context.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Carbon Tax should be paid as is without any allowances other than normal tax allowances.
Carbon Tax Credits should not be discounted and sold on the open market.

Companies have turnovers of £/$/€ billions but pay less tax than the office cleaner.
This should be stopped and then see how countries suddenly find that their income takes a ride on the sky rocket.

imho

Re: No need to panic ?
 

There are 2 questions:

1. Is climate change due to warming caused by human activities happening?

2. If yes, what should be done about it?

The first one is not a matter of opinion or belief - it is either happening or it isn't and no amount of belief will change the fact. We are not entirely sure of the answer to this question although the majority of scientists are agreed that it is happening. It's actually not a terribly important question anyway because the same actions have to be taken whatever the answer.

The second question therefore is independent from the first. If the answer to the first is yes, then the only thing that can be done about it is to burn less fossil fuel as it is this activity which is causing the problem. But we have to do this anyway as it is obvious that at some point it is going to be exhausted and we are going to have to find alternatives. We might as well start now then which would have the added advantage of sorting out question 1 should the answer to it be yes.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Actually you made a statement. You said, and I quote... "The whole terrestrial pollution debate needs a thread of its own, it has nothing to do with climate change."

The part of your statement that said "... it has nothing to do with climate change" led me to make my post, you can sort of see why I did... No?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

:rofl: Yes you have a point there.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

I will not answer the last section.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Yes I can see why you jumped, thank you.

If you read stuff and don't ask questions especially as most of us are not experts you end up blindly believing one thing or another.

My position with climate change and whether it is man made or not is that co2 and methane are cited as the bad guys because over the last century or so man has been emitting them at a pace.

It has not been proven to me by anything that I have read or seen that there is a direct correlation between the increase in mean temperatures and the increase in co2/methane emissions. Just because they have both increased does not mean one caused the other. In fact there is some evidence that historically points to the increase in co2 levels follows a similar increase in global temperature and not the other way round.

Even with the increased levels of these two gases do they not still only represent a tiny proportion of the earth's atmosphere?

I am not unwilling to accept the common belief that this current episode of climate change is man made but I have not been convinced by the evidence I have seen so far.

Even if it is man made and down to emissions and we stop those emissions tomorrow would it not take decades for the earth to recover.

Surely the best plan would be produce electricity by cleaner methods whether it be hydro, wind, solar, wave or even, in the shorter term by increased nuclear generation. Electricity is needed by everyone from the poorest countries in the world to the richest, and is likely to continue that way for the foreseeable future.

We need to make alternate sources of electricity more reliable and more affordable or they will never be taken up in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Scientifically speaking, you are still pre-Aristotle :D

Although I do admire your commitment to understanding the issue

If I gave you a teaspoon of arsenic, you would die, even though the arsenic would only represent a tiny proportion of the molecules in your body

Ok bit of a inelequant example, but your logic isnt based on understanding

The key concept for climate change is the concept of equlibrium. Our whole environment is an equilibrium of various elements; liquids, gases and solids, all of which have different properties

Water, CO2 and methane has always been in the atmosphere where they act (not out of design, but "accidently" if you like) as reflectors of heat (radiation) to keep the earth warm. Without them earth would be too cold to support life

The amount of water, CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is now at record levels (as we know them), especially the latter two. So more heat is/will be being reflected back to earth

Now, remember that we are in equilibrium, everything effects everything else, although not immediately. Systems change and react to all kinds of things. However, increasing the amount of these molecules (all else being equal) will eventually warm the planet. This is scientific fact

It is also scientific fact that the extra CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is due to human activity

What is up for discussion, is exactly when the equilibrium will shift and cause significant global warming (or climate change, as we are in equilibrium the effects may not warm to begin with, depending on the composition of other elements in the atmosphere e.g. imigine if there were lots of SO2 in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, it is difficult to model how this would counterbalance (or not) the additional CO2 and methane)

The scientists who chalenge climate change, dont even speak about proportions of these molecules. Very crudely they look at historic data and say "in my opinion the earth is not warming" or "the climate change is just following historic climate cycles". In some respect, they are correct, but they are ignoring the elephant in the room i.e. the changing proportion of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere

We KNOW this will cause trouble we are just not sure exactly when and by how much. Many reliable scientists have plenty of evidence showing that we are already feeling the effects. The danger is that once the equilibrium shifts to the "warming" effects, we will see brusk warming that will change life as we know it within a very short space of time (perhaps 50-100 years). Once we get to this phase, it will almost be too late to do anything about it, as we will be fighting against the equilibirum. Any actions we take then may take 100-200 years to be felt

Does this make it clearer for anyone?

Re: No need to panic ?
 

My thoughts as well & here is an interesting snippet.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Re: No need to panic ?
 

Yes thank you. Apart from what you have written in your last post I have seen some stuff today about other co2 emitters, plants and animals being neutral as the planet absorbs their emitted co2 more or less as it has done for thousands of years. Whereas the man made stuff is just one way traffic.

I am still not wholly convinced but this is the first time I have been confronted with the equilibrium concept.

One thing is still a bit puzzling though is why mean temperatures decreased during the four decades post ww2 when presumably man made co2 emissions will have increased significantly.