Environment problems

[RETIRED]

Now, now kiddies. No personal attacks please. Agree to disagree about the topic and debate it.

[rod@plasterbrok]

This debate has touched on being lively at times and has had some great points put forward on both sides. At first I wondered what I got myself into but as it went along I learnt a lot more about my own opinions as much as i did the opinion of others.

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I would hate to see it develope into a slanging match, as debate is good.

I forward my apologies to Astrid if I personaly offended her. An attack on her person was never my intention. Feel free to challenge my opinions.

Thanks Moderators.

Cheers Rod

[Sebastiaan56]

This debate has touched on being lively at times and has had some great points put forward on both sides. At first I wondered what I got myself into but as it went along I learnt a lot more about my own opinions as much as i did the opinion of others.

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I would hate to see it develope into a slanging match, as debate is good.

I forward my apologies to Astrid if I personaly offended her. An attack on her person was never my intention. Feel free to challenge my opinions.

Thanks Moderators.

Cheers Rod

Hi Rod,

I agree, the day I dont learn more is the day I stop drawing breath. What we are doing is the scientific process, bringing in more data and debating. I also believe that we have the right, in fact the imperative, to test our scientists as we do our pollies, religious, and business leaders. Human knowledge evolves, there are no "end points". I am extremely wary of someone who doesnt let me think for myself.

Yes, it's shocking, but vested interests have been involved in muddying the waters in many debates that have been in the public eye, and not just this one. Tobacco is the big one, but also obesity, asbestos, flouride, vaccinations, etc. etc.

Never underestimate the power of profit to subvert the truth.

Well said Woodbe. We all have a role to play in this dialogue. Those who are the public figures should disclose their funding. One of my favourite all time sites was fossilfuels.org which advocated using more to increase the CO2 in the environment to encourage plant growth. Sponsored by an oil lobby group in the US. I cant find it anymore so I guess its gone to archive land.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I've enjoyed it too. I must admit I often like to play the devil's advocate. My own beliefs in this matter are not very concrete, having not done a great deal of research into it myself. I do tend to take what we are told by the scientific community at face value, assuming that they have the best of intentions. I understand how these arguments are hijacked by the media, politicians and other groups with vested interests, so that's what we have to watch for.

I believe that the risk management approach put forward by that guy in all those videos is a logical point of view - but it assumes that you put enough stock in what is being said to believe that these catastrophic events have a real possibility of taking place. I feel that ordinary mortals such as ourselves don't have the training and experience required to debate on the same level as the scientists making the claims. That we have to take their advice and act on it - but in a considered and methodical way, not a mass panic. So I can appreciate the calls for calm.

All I really object to is any line of argument that makes definite statements about things, one way or the other. I suppose the danger is that there will come a point in time when the hype becomes ingrained as a fact and all of our policy is built on an absolute acceptance of it. That is where we have to rely on the scientific community to do a sanity test. Past mistakes aside, I believe that we have no-one else to rely on.

If that sounds non-comittal, that's because it is.

Cheers,
Agnostic C

[Gra]

Agnostic C

Well you defiantly weren't silent

again good debate. If the government debates were so well performed we might get somewhere

[rod@plasterbrok]

I suppose the danger is that there will come a point in time when the hype becomes ingrained as a fact and all of our policy is built on an absolute acceptance of it. That is where we have to rely on the scientific community to do a sanity test. Past mistakes aside, I believe that we have no-one else to rely on.

I would say that this has already happened in the main.

The problem as I see it is that the MSM have accepted AGW as real and reports always as if there is no possibility that it may not be real.

The average person relies on the Media and generally accept what they hear as truth. It is no wonder people look at you funny when you say, "hang on it is not conclusive yet".

Governments should all independently asign a team of non biased scientist to go through all available data and theories on both sides of the argument without reference to the possible results of AGW. Then real policy can be formulated without predjudice.

The problem with taking into account the possible effect of AGW in any stud into the reality of AGW, is that any person would surely err on the side of extreme caution slanting the results in there prefered direction.

They should proceed on the basis there would not be any significant problem with warming, then if established based on pure facts, less the emotion, that AGW is inevitable, then the effects should be considered without inflation. With that, reasonable action could be taken without fear.

At the moment scientists and Governments alike face incredibly hostile reaction to any mention of doubt to AGW. This is what is stifleing proper debate on this subject.

The debate is far from over and infact just beginning.

Cheers Rod

[dazzler]

Now, now kiddies. No personal attacks please. Agree to disagree about the topic and debate it.

Hi Dad....It was billy, he is always naughty when youre not around

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi Dad....It was billy, he is always naughty when youre not around

Daaaaadd.... Dazz isnt sharing his beer properly........

[rod@plasterbrok]

Hmmm. This makes interesting reading.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Your comments?

or this http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Please attack the opinion and the reason why it is wrong.

[silentC]

Haven't got time to read the whole thing at the moment (they expect me to do some work today!) but yes I can see that it's far from across the board agreement.

I guess it depends on how you define consensus - some definitions I have seen state that consensus suggests no disagreement, but I've always believed it to mean that there is a majority. I think some lay people outside the scientific debate have perhaps read too much into the use of the term in this case and held that it means a) the entire scientific community is in agreement (as if that would ever happen) and b) that it indicates certainty that events described are going to take place.

It stands to reason that there are going to be dissenting opinions. If it swings around to the point where the majority dispute the claims, then you can say that consensus is against global warming being as big an issue as has been claimed, even though there will always be scientists who fervently believe that it is. The question is then whether having a concensus is enough to dimiss it.

[dazzler]

Hmmm. This makes interesting reading.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.c...y.SenateReport

Your comments?

or this http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Please attack the opinion and the reason why it is wrong.

Hi Rod,

Wow that senate link had a lot of stuff and was work getting through. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of skeptical experts with very valid views.

In my mind though the newstatesman link is what concerns me.

The evidence of the rise in co2 parts per million since the start of the Industrial Revolution;

From New Statesman...

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

So humans have raised the CO2 level by about 25% over that period.

So there is no arguement that humans have changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and there appears to be no argument even in the senate link that CO2 is a factor in the greenhouse effect and that a warming or cooling planet may be a very natural thing.

So the arguement seems to be more as to whether its

a. manmade

and

b. is it going to benefit or hurt humans.

For the skeptics the answer is "maybe" to a. as most that i have seen are skeptical but not definate

and maybe for b.

So maybe we are doing it, maybe not. Maybe it will hurt us, maybe not.

Your arguement seems to be that the proof isnt there so lets hold off until we sort it one way or the other. I think thats a fine arguement if we have somewhere else to go if we are wrong. Sadly we dont.

Doesnt it seem reasonable for the future of our species that the current inhabitants at least limit what changes we are making until the situation is clear. Do we have the right to keep on doing things that change the composition of the atmosphere when we are unsure of the outcome.

So I agree with you that global warming is not clear cut 100% definate. But I would really like to see us at least be a bit safer until we know.

cheeers

dazzler

[pharmaboy2]

dazzler - there is a great deal of difference between CO2 is agreenhouse gas (known fact) and co2 is responsible for warming. Warming could be an oceanagraphic change, it could be solar, it could be cosmic ray induced, it could be methane induced, it could be co2 induced.

There is not too many who disagree that man has created the co2 levels, but quantifying what effect that will have on temperature is difficult. A simple look at the graphs of co2 versus average temperature would show anybody that the 2 arent inextricably linked - at best there is a very decent sized delay. this delay in efffect is one of the reason we get such large ranges in time as to temp effects.

Second reason is the application of albedo effect. the models used by the IPCC have co2 producing about 20% or less of the warming, but water vapour forcing the rest but this depends on the ehight and makeup of clouds or whether simply higher humidity are the result. This difference is substantially disputed with a range from positive feedback all the ways to a negative feedback. All the discussion is pointless untill the question of what will happen to clouds with increased temp is settled.

Now with a small note - the 0.5 increase in recent decades, onw would have thought that the cloud issue would have been cleared up, alas no, the latest study on tropical cloud formation during a warm period was for a negative feedback, and hence an end to the modellers predictions of large changes - but they wont give up that easy -!

Consensus - keeps getting brought up, but consensus is the absolute enemy of scientific understanding - the wrod "breakthrough" is only necessary as science has a strong tendency towards accepted paradigms. Skeptics call consensus "groupthink"!

[rod@plasterbrok]

Dazzler, My view is that we should take all reasonable steps to reduce polloution as a matter of course.

What I object to is spending trillions of dollars world wide in a knee jerk reaction to something that may not exist as many studies are predicting.

If kyoto goes through as the IPPC wants the only result will be a transfer of wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries, with no measureable reduction in Co2 and no definite reduction in warming.

In view of the fact that temperatures have stabalised over the last 10 years I thing that extreme action needs to be delayed while further studies are made.

Cheers

Rod

[MICKYG]

This may be of interest to the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ons_per_capita


Regards Mike

[dazzler]

dazzler - there is a great deal of difference between CO2 is agreenhouse gas (known fact) and co2 is responsible for warming. Warming could be an oceanagraphic change, it could be solar, it could be cosmic ray induced, it could be methane induced, it could be co2 induced.

Hi

I didnt say it leads to warming. What I am saying is we ARE changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and have done so to the extent of at least 25% more than previously existed.

Nature didnt do it, we did, and its not normal.

I have a marine fish tank that I need to monitor constantly. If the levels of one salt change just a couple of percent then the fishes die. Transpose this to the air we breath and I wonder if it does us any good.

If a 25% change is okay and not to worry about then what level should we go to. 50%, 100% ?.

cheers

dazzler