Only Seven Years Left for Global Warming Target

[SwitchBlade]

Originally Posted by spadlet

I'm curious about what (I think it was Richard) said in response to that video last time it was posted. What about if we invest loads of resources in reducing CO2 emissions, then find out that wasn't the major cause after all? The video assumes that either AGW is causing climate change or climate change doesn't exist. What if climate change does exist, people need to adapt to survive it, it isn't due to anthropogenic global warming and we use up a load of our resources reducing carbon emissions?

The whole debate seems to be polarizing rather than encouraging scientific debate and learning. Can a person not question a scientific theory without being labeled a 'denialist' and insulted? If the evidence is for AGW and there is none against then logically questioning evidence should reach the conclusion that AGW is the cause. The person has learnt something and people have had an opportunity to reaffirm their position. If new evidence comes to light, should it not be considered along with the previous evidence?

Either I'm confused by your terminology or you are. You state, "The video assumes that either AGW is causing climate change or climate change doesn't exist." AGW by definition = MAN caused Global Warming. The video doesn't take a position on whether or not GW exist. The video specified that GW was either Man caused (the A in your acronym) or not - that caused the "TRUE"/"FALSE" rows.

Whether or not we do something to try to counteract (perceived) GW is the "YES"/"NO" columns. The rest of your questions are answered in a best/worse case basis by putting your question in the correct square. For example: "What about if we invest loads of resources in reducing CO2 emissions, then find out that wasn't the major cause after all?" would go in the "FALSE"/"YES" square column – GW isn’t man caused but we spend loads of money trying to fix it.

Your wanting to question the scientific theories is part of the point of the video. Regardless of the scientific theories, are you willing to bet on not ending up with the worse case in order to save whatever would be spent to try to fix GW until there is no scientific dispute?

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by spot1234

I'm not really confident that you know what your talking about.

I am.So don't worry for me.Just for the record[and at the risk of repetition ] ,I have been involved in Ecology since the 70's I have a few bits of paper somewhere to say so,but more importantly I have farmed organically and have a long running restoration under my belt.Just so folks understand what Ecology is ,it is the scientific study of the relationships and interactions between organisms and their environments.Note the use of the words "scientific" and "study" .So I suppose you could say that right now I am a research scientist.Oh and a Marine Engineer just so you know that if your momma was anywhere near the seaside during the 60's and 70's.......then tell her forfi said hi and thank you

[spot1234]

Originally Posted by forfismum

I am.So don't worry for me.Just for the record[and at the risk of repetition ] ,I have been involved in Ecology since the 70's I have a few bits of paper somewhere to say so,but more importantly I have farmed organically and have a long running restoration under my belt.Just so folks understand what Ecology is ,it is the scientific study of the relationships and interactions between organisms and their environments.Note the use of the words "scientific" and "study" .So I suppose you could say that right now I am a research scientist.Oh and a Marine Engineer just so you know that if your momma was anywhere near the seaside during the 60's and 70's.......then tell her forfi said hi and thank you

If what you say is true that would be great but your just insulting me rather then answering my questions using this knowledge. I figure that a continuation of this discussion will not lead to me being enlightened but instead we would just bait each other until one of us realized how pointless it is and gives up.


You sure showed me; congratulations on your victory.

[forfismum]

Originally Posted by spot1234

If what you say is true that would be great but your just insulting me rather then answering my questions using this knowledge. I figure that a continuation of this discussion will not lead to me being enlightened but instead we would just bait each other until one of us realized how pointless it is and gives up.


You sure showed me; congratulations on your victory.

Congratulations on being insulted .Of course you can choose to believe what I said or not,entirely you choice. Pay attention to my posts across the forum and you may become enlightened.......or not.
My first introduction the the fraudsters who have been hijacking matters environmental were the publications of the Club of Rome,the greatest collection of garbage ever written..until the IPCC was spawned.So I guess that I have about 38 years experience in the wacky world of environment.You know that in all that time I have only had 2 papers published? so I guess that makes me a failure.Maybe me current thesis will hit the headlines.........

I also do good parties

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by SwitchBlade

Either I'm confused by your terminology or you are. You state, "The video assumes that either AGW is causing climate change or climate change doesn't exist." AGW by definition = MAN caused Global Warming. The video doesn't take a position on whether or not GW exist. The video specified that GW was either Man caused (the A in your acronym) or not - that caused the "TRUE"/"FALSE" rows.

Whether or not we do something to try to counteract (perceived) GW is the "YES"/"NO" columns. The rest of your questions are answered in a best/worse case basis by putting your question in the correct square. For example: "What about if we invest loads of resources in reducing CO2 emissions, then find out that wasn't the major cause after all?" would go in the "FALSE"/"YES" square column – GW isn’t man caused but we spend loads of money trying to fix it.

BUT it doesn't take into account that there may be another cause, which we may have to deal with. It may be a large issue and we may require the resources we have just spent on AGW, incase that is the cause, to tackle it. Ooops, what do we do now? It assumes that if we are wrong, nothing bad will happen so we've just used up some resources uneccesarily. It's doesn't adress th issue of, we have ap roblem, we get the cause wrong and spend loads of resources 'just in case' then discover the actual cause and have fewer resources to tackle it. Feel free to enlighten me if I have missed that part of the video.

Originally Posted by SwitchBlade

Your wanting to question the scientific theories is part of the point of the video. Regardless of the scientific theories, are you willing to bet on not ending up with the worse case in order to save whatever would be spent to try to fix GW until there is no scientific dispute?

I personally would rather we focus our resources on win-win actions, that can be justified with issues we are more certain about and will also reduce AGW if it is an issue. This is instead of everything being justified using AGW and the other issues being possible mentioned in a sideline in the small print at the bottom of the page. If you want a few ideas on my thinking I'll post a link to the thread on TES where I started to cover this.

[SwitchBlade]

Originally Posted by spadlet

BUT it doesn't take into account that there may be another cause, which we may have to deal with. It may be a large issue and we may require the resources we have just spent on AGW, incase that is the cause, to tackle it. Ooops, what do we do now? It assumes that if we are wrong, nothing bad will happen so we've just used up some resources uneccesarily. It's doesn't adress th issue of, we have ap roblem, we get the cause wrong and spend loads of resources 'just in case' then discover the actual cause and have fewer resources to tackle it. Feel free to enlighten me if I have missed that part of the video.

You're making an assumption that many people make WRT economics. That is that it is like a pie - if one thing/country/etc. gets a slice, there is that much less left for every one else. That's not how it works. Resources are wasted everyday and we get through it. There may be a short term shortage of some items or services necessary for the effort -but solutions are generally found. Example: WWII is looked at by some for the rationing that was imposed due to the items necessary for the war effort - but it was the same war that ended the Great Depression, in some places more than others by bringing about full employment.

Economics is more like a tide, all boats rise or fall together.

Originally Posted by spadlet

I personally would rather we focus our resources on win-win actions, that can be justified with issues we are more certain about and will also reduce AGW if it is an issue. This is instead of everything being justified using AGW and the other issues being possible mentioned in a sideline in the small print at the bottom of the page. If you want a few ideas on my thinking I'll post a link to the thread on TES where I started to cover this.

Ah, the ol' win-win actions. The problem I believe is identifying them. Those that think CO2 is the problem believe they have identified it - the cause of AGW! There are intelligent things that can be done simply in the name of economics and reduction of pollution. These are generally what I do. For example; until coal and oil are as expensive as solar power - I don't anticipate putting a solar collector on my roof, even though I live in one of the sunniest places in the country. However, I do have to pay for electricity, so I have many CFLs, a programmable thermostat, an energy efficient heat pump etc.

People waste what they don't pay for, and the more expensive something is the less is wasted.

[screener]

And if market economics worked worth more than superficially that would be true, even the old swan song about rising tides. But since market economics fail miserably to deal with the real world it is necessary for action to be taken to deal with global warming. It is recognized that co2 is a contributing factor, Therefore if human incremental co2 is reduced, whether Agw is the main cause or not isn't as important as the reduction that can occur because of that effort. If it turns out that global warmings main cause is elsewhere we will have helped ourselves anyway and future use of resources to combat the effects of some other agent will be eased by our collectively having done something to minimize the damage now.

[forfismum]

Why not consider the simple facts about atmospheric gases? We really know so little about them that I fail to understand how supposedly intelligent people waffle on about how we must do this that and the other to reduce them.Just look at what is news in scientific circles in the past few days,forget the IPCC romantic novels and concentrate on the data.

At this link we find that undersea volcanoes can and do release 10 times more co2 than had been allowed for.
News Release : Geologists Discover Signs of Volcanoes Blowing their Tops in the Deep Ocean : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

At this link we find that enormous amounts of methane are generated in the topmost layers of our oceans.

New Pathway For Methane Production In The Oceans Discovered

So here we have 2 major sources of gas that are not included in any of the wonderful computer models used by the doomsters.Its no wonder that they keep getting it wrong

[prashamk]

Some more news towards uncertainty of IPCC and others....

Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.

Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California. Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta every summer to scale them.

...........When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at UC Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

..........But for Shasta, scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air. On the mountain, precipitation falls as snow, adding to the glaciers enough to overcome a 1.8-degree rise in temperature in the last century, scientists say.

"It's a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it's not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.

.........Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, too, but there are too many to study them all.

MORE

[forfismum]

That's another factor in the puzzle as Prashamk has noted. Subtle changes in wind/rainfall patterns make enormous differences.In my neck of the woods we are having a wet summer this year as the winds crossing the Atlantic are set right over the country ,in other years a shift of 1 or 2 degrees sends these wet winds off to the north and we get continuous sunshine.There is a more subtle bit of this story insofar as these patterns actually start in the Rocky Mountains in the USA .Look at the globe and see how far away these are from Europe.