Climate Change Debate

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Nimrod,
I genuinely would not seek to cause offence, if I misunderstood you I apologise. Energy policy is a complete mess and should be obvious to anyone who cares to look at the infrastucture in a rational way, without political pre-conceptions.
You're right, the mess has been brewing ever since the 3 day week.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Damning data here:

At this rate the arctic will be ice free in summers from about 2050 onwards. Its quite impressive that some lefty conspiracy is powerful enough to actually melt all the ice at the North Pole, isnt it?

That data is meaningless on its own the trend may well be back towards earlier times since 2007, too early to tell. Further, we do not have comparable data pre-satellite era. The Northwest Passage has been ice free further in the past.
What might also be useful is a corresponding graph for Antartic ice mass but I doubt it would be easy to extract a signal from the noise.
As you should know there are multi-decadal oscillations within the earth system which may be in such relative phase to cause such effects. No correlation betweeen sea ice extent and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions has been established here.

 

[visage]

That data is meaningless on its own

So you dont agree with models that suggest climate change, you dont agree with empirical data that suggest climate change, and you dont agree with scientific theory that suggests climate change. It seems to me that you position is rather more dogmatic than factual.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

So you dont agree with models that suggest climate change, you dont agree with empirical data that suggest climate change, and you dont agree with scientific theory that suggests climate change. It seems to me that you position is rather more dogmatic than factual.

That is a misrepresentation and you know it. Climate changes and always has done. There has always been a complex chaotic interaction between the earth, its surroundings and its own processes including life forms. Hint - sedimentary rock and trace atmospheric carbon dioxide are evidence of my latter point. My life view has changed radically over the years and have recognised that dogma is valueless but critical thinking is vital.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

So you dont agree with models that suggest climate change, you dont agree with empirical data that suggest climate change, and you dont agree with scientific theory that suggests climate change. It seems to me that you position is rather more dogmatic than factual.

That is a misrepresentation and you know it. Climate changes and always has done. There has always been a complex chaotic interaction between the earth, its surroundings and its own processes including life forms. Hint - sedimentary rock and trace atmospheric carbon dioxide are evidence of my latter point. My life view has changed radically over the years and have recognised that dogma is valuless but critical thinking is vital.

 

[Wolf Hunting]

As you should know there are multi-decadal oscillations within the earth system which may be in such relative phase to cause such effects. No correlation betweeen sea ice extent and anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions has been established here.

Ah, now I know what you're talking about!

It all makes sense now...

*gone...*

 

[The Bear]

Basically what he said Roy, is that the Earth's climate has natural rythms which could just be in a warming phase currently. That and there's no link between human CO2 emissions and the reduction in the ice caps.

It's all very wishy-washy IMO. This MIGHT be the real cause, that MIGHT be the underlying issue. Personally I don't think there's any doubt that humans are increasing the planet's CO2 levels. And I don't think there's any doubt that CO2 is a well established greenhouse gas. Occam's Razor.

 

[visage]

There's also the fact that we know of no natural cycles that operate this quickly.

Of course, a natural cycle could have started at the exact point that we started pumping billions of tonnes of IR absorbing Co2 into the atmosphere....

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

There's also the fact that we know of no natural cycles that operate this quickly.

Of course, a natural cycle could have started at the exact point that we started pumping billions of tonnes of IR absorbing Co2 into the atmosphere....

There is plenty of evidence that long term recovery from the Little Ice Age is at play, not carbon dioxide. Note, Vis likes to write billions of tonnes when I prefer to use parts per million of molecular content of which 3% might be attributed to man.

 

[visage]

There is plenty of evidence that long term recovery from the Little Ice Age is at play

Cough it up then.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Cough it up then.

Finger trouble, see above.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Basically what he said Roy, is that the Earth's climate has natural rythms which could just be in a warming phase currently. That and there's no link between human CO2 emissions and the reduction in the ice caps.

It's all very wishy-washy IMO. This MIGHT be the real cause, that MIGHT be the underlying issue. Personally I don't think there's any doubt that humans are increasing the planet's CO2 levels. And I don't think there's any doubt that CO2 is a well established greenhouse gas. Occam's Razor.

I am trying to keep my contribution at a not so technical level. Carbon dioxide has a current atmospheric concentration of less than 400ppm of which 12ppm might be ascribed to man. Water vapour dominates by several orders of magnitude. The GHG warming hypothesis relies entirely on net positive feedback of increased carbon dioxide on water vapour and the oceans.
My points have been to promote the complexities in the system, there isn't a magic bullet explaination. We only have a limited understanding of the constrained chaos we observe.
In any case, we do know that wrecking the economy using 'renewables' that contribute nothing and artificial 'carbon' markets is a hiding to nothing.
Oh, almost forgot, plants thrive in carbon dioxide intensive atmospheres, surely that benefits the animal food chain?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

[/B]

Ah, now I know what you're talking about!

It all makes sense now...

*gone...*

Roy, climate politics is a bit like Irish housing boom politics.
It will go the same way and have similar consequences on a larger scale.
Your houses are our wind turbines.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Considering the climate system is such a complex beast, with so many different factors and variables contributing to it could it not be possible that such a relatively insignificant volume of just one gas be enough to upset the precarious balance between the difference mechanisms and relationships that are going on? Could it be that mans contribution to CO2 emissions are the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

Considering the climate system is such a complex beast, with so many different factors and variables contributing to it could it not be possible that such a relatively insignificant volume of just one gas be enough to upset the precarious balance between the difference mechanisms and relationships that are going on? Could it be that mans contribution to CO2 emissions are the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back?

I would argue the opposite, control theory should tell you the step response of a system to a disturbance will indicate its stability. The Earth has recovered from large scale catastrophic events in the past. This indicates a very stable system, biodiversity the result. FFS people are arguing about fractions of a Kelvin and a few parts per million of a carbon compound in the atmosphere. Carbon being a rather useful and abundant element.
FYI atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels in recent geological timescales.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

I would argue the opposite, control theory should tell you the step response of a system to a disturbance will indicate its stability. The Earth has recovered from large scale catastrophic events in the past. This indicates a very stable system, biodiversity the result. FFS people are arguing about fractions of a Kelvin and a few parts per million of a carbon compound in the atmosphere. Carbon being a rather useful and abundant element.
FYI atmospheric carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels in recent geological timescales.

It could be either way, as you've said many times its so complex that no-one can accurately model our climate system. It could be finely balanced and a tiny change somewhere could knock the whole thing to pieces, it could have plenty of slack to compensate for huge changes left, right and centre.

I dont know, you don't know, hell, no-one can really say for certain either way. I'd rather try and do something to negate our influence though, even if it proves futile at least we can say we tried. It seems better way to think about the situation than considering our contributions to be pointlessly minute and throw all caution to the wind until we see concrete proof to say otherwise.

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

It could be either way, as you've said many times its so complex that no-one can accurately model our climate system. It could be finely balanced and a tiny change somewhere could knock the whole thing to pieces, it could have plenty of slack to compensate for huge changes left, right and centre.

I dont know, you don't know, hell, no-one can really say for certain either way. I'd rather try and do something to negate our influence though, even if it proves futile at least we can say we tried. It seems better way to think about the situation than considering our contributions to be pointlessly minute and throw all caution to the wind until we see concrete proof to say otherwise.

Here you preach the precautionary approach. I thought control theory was still taught on engineering degrees.
I am pretty certain of the control theory because it is readily testable.
On the other hand we have speculative claims of catastrophe with regard to climate which is not testable.

You have not addressed basic physical principles of stability of a system.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

You dont know how your actions are going to effect a system, do you throw caution to the wind doing what you want and hope there are no negative repercussions or do you put measures in place to reduce your impact and hope not to upset the balance?

 

[HAzelGroveWolf]

You dont know how your actions are going to effect a system, do you throw caution to the wind doing what you want and hope there are no negative repercussions or do you put measures in place to reduce your impact and hope not to upset the balance?

Please go and do some mathematics and physics before guessing. Please also re-read my control theory comments.
There are very good reasons to be energy efficient but carbon dioxide emission control isn't one of them.

 

[MARKakaJIM]

Please go and do some mathematics and physics before guessing. Please also re-read my control theory comments.
There are very good reasons to be energy efficient but carbon dioxide emission control isn't one of them.

I'm not guessing, i'm stating my opinion in an outrageously simple form, its your opinion that mans CO2 emissions doesn't represent a significant threat to our climate, you may have based it on many different things you've read and experimented with but as you've stated so many times yourself its a complex and unpredictable system so it is still, in essence, a guess.

You may like to cloud things up with your choice of language but i honestly cant be bothered, i put my opinion across in a very basic, simple fashion and thats how it is staying, minus the mathematics and physics thank you very much.