The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do you support catastrophic climate change  (Read 23328 times)

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #25 on: 24/02/2009 01:48:36 »
Quote
I guess conspiracy theorist will not ever try informing themselves first before they express an opinion. This is contempt prior to investigation. 

That is part of the conspiracy-theory oriented, paranoid mind.

Yep.Just remember just because you are paranoid doesn't mean people aren't out to get you

Cheers
justaskin

Then there was no point in you posting the question - you didn't want to discuss it - you wanted to argue your opinion, not the science of the subject in question. So as far as I am personally concerned just go away. You are contributing nothing and taking up bandwidth that could be better used for scientific discussion, not conspiracy theory-mongering. This site is for people interested in science, not the purveyors of conspiracy theory. If we wanted that, we would read newspapers owned by Rupert Murdoch.

This site cost money for ever bit of traffic used. You are wasting the money.
Gee Jim Bob I seem to have upset you.Sorry I did not put a smiley at the end of that line but I thought you might of recognised  it for the joke it is.
I thought this site was open to any and all sides of the GW/CC debate but it would appear not.It seems as far as this subject is concerned that is not the case.
Until I am banned for my views I will continue to post.

Cheers
justaskin
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #26 on: 24/02/2009 14:58:26 »
I thought this site was open to any and all sides of the GW/CC debate but it would appear not.It seems as far as this subject is concerned that is not the case.
Until I am banned for my views I will continue to post.

Cheers
justaskin

[pokes head in to discussion]

You will not get banned for voicing an opinion on climate change, this site is open to opinion and discussion. What you do need to do is stop the hijacking of threads just to post that climate change is not happening when that is not the question.

You will find though, that people dismiss what you have to say. This is not because they are trying to silence debate but because you have a closed mind and are not willing to engage in proper debate, you also have a very angry attitude in your replies to people.

There is nothing wrong with openminded debate from people who are willing to listen to both side but you are closed, unwilling to listen or even think that you could be wrong. I listen to and discuss with meteorologists, climate scientists and just about anyone with an opinion, you must be willing to do the same, you must be willing to review your own sources of information.

The people who post in this section of the forum are meteorologists, geologists, students and people with a genuine interest in these sciences. But, unless you are a climatologist you are relyinying on the data of others. It is up to you to then interprit that data or rely on someone else doing it for you. Again, you need to check your sources and see not only if they are correct, but if they have a vested interest in holding that view or opinion.

Try these links:

A connection between global arming and synoptic meteorology
Real Climate

You may also wish to read up on Stu Ostro He is the Senior Director of Weather Communications at the weather channel, he was once a adamant skeptic but is now in the global warming / climate change camp.

Note:
One of your main assertions is that the climate is not warming, this is a strange view to hold, even climatologists and metorologists who don't agree with man made climate change all agree that the climate is warming they just think it is part of the natural cycle.

[retracts head]

Edit:

and this link:
Ice Cap
« Last Edit: 24/02/2009 15:39:42 by Paul. »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #27 on: 25/02/2009 06:16:26 »
Thank you Paul for your comments I will take them onboard.
If I said that there was no rise in global temperatures over the last 100+ years then I am obviously wrong as any chart of such will show.
I would not say that I have a closed mind as far as the science is concerned just that I currently think the observations don't support CO2 as being the main cause of temperature rise.
So one question if I may(actually two)that I have never been able to get an answer too.
If you take a chart of both temperature and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 200 years.
Why was there a drop in temperature during the period 1880-1910 and a plateau of temperature from 1940-1970.Surely if you were ask to carry out a scientific experiment to show the link between CO2 concentration and temperature you could not say there is a direct link.The only thing you could say is that they both rose over the period.
If there is a direct link between CO2 concentration and temperature how is it that CO2 concentration has risen by roughly 1/3 over the last 100 years but global temperature has only risen about 10% of the amount.
Regardless of what you might think of me I would appreciate your explanation.
It may seem strange to you but I started out on the pro side of the debate.I have used solar to heat water for the last 30 years and will in the near future have a 1KW grid connect solar electricity generator.But due to apathy from government's and the hypocricy of some people in the environment movement I have move to the skeptic camp for the time being.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #28 on: 25/02/2009 19:24:17 »
justaskin

Thank you for being more open to discussion and saying that there is another side to the debate. 

The answer to the two questions is rather simple. Direct correlation is not possible. There are too many other factors involved as well. It is why no one is satisfied with climate models - there are just too many variables to consider. BUT many of these models do a fair job at replicating the past so they must not be discounted out of hand as they are very useful tools for climatologist.

Also, temperature will not respond directly to just one factor, such as CO2 as suggested above. Climate is much more intricate than suggested by your post. It responds to a large number of factors.

There is a highly probable relationship between CO2 and climate warming. There are many other factors as well, including the fact the climate has been warming for 13,000+ years. These factors include, but are not limited to, methane emissions - worse than CO2 (see 1., below,) nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide and one of the most important green-house gases, water vapor, as well as other gases that also must be factored into the equations. Fluorocarbons have effected the southern hemisphere more than the northern and the increase UV increases species loss and thus ecosystem loss.  There is also solar activity to be taken into account. The state of the earth's magnetic field, which seems to be deteriorating in intensity, may also be a cause for warming. There is just too little data to on magnetic variations to say definitively. Volcanic activity and war, especially WW II, caused and still causes large amounts of debris to be injected into the upper atmosphere where it lingers for long periods of time. This counters the warming effects of other factors and MAY be responsible for the 1940 to 70 reversal.

What is important is that by several means, not just carbon emissions, man is most PROBABLY accelerating the warming that is going to happen and has been happening. Other major factors in man's effect on climate are global deforestation, cattle and sheep ranching, oceanic pollution that destroys ecosystems that use CO2 and produce O2, fluorocarbons, deforestation due to acid rain, deforestation and other enviornmental imbalances caused by the transfer of insects and animals from one ecosystem to another, (e.g. rabbits, rats and mice in Australia), etc. 

Should we do something about this? If you are a fatalist you can say "In 1,000 years it won't make any difference." If you care about how you and your family are going to live in the next 15 years, YES - you should care and err on the side of caution by cutting emissions drastically and encouraging others to do so. It seems that you are already taking steps to do this. Wonderful!!

The data cannot have a direct correlations due to the number of variables. Yet the data does suggest that there is a very large certainty that CO2 is one of the two major causes of accelerated global warming.

____________________

1. - "Methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, having a warming effect 23 to 50 times greater." Cattle population has risen in the last 200 years from less than 200,000,000 head to nearly a billion head of cattle - Wikipedia   Also, methane is produce by all ruminates, including sheep. There are well over a billion head of sheep at present. These two populations produce a lot of methane - and what do you think nearly 7 billion people do to the amount of methane when feces is processed in sewer plants or broken down by the environment?
« Last Edit: 26/02/2009 01:42:57 by JimBob »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #29 on: 26/02/2009 02:15:26 »
Thank you JimBob for your explanations.
It is as you say the complexity of the subject that is one but not the main reason I come down on the skeptic side.
The main thing that tips my hand is that by and large people don't want to do anything about it.
I wonder what the carbon foot print of international sport is each year.
What if the IPCC and the UNFCCC said we must ban all international sporting events because of their huge carbon footprint.The idea is laughable, but why. If CO2 emissions not to mention
the effects on the atmosphere of aircraft are so critical don't we do everything we can to stop it.We don't need elite sport to live in fact we would probably be much fitter if there
were no elite sport.
Do you not think it is a little strange that we are considering herd reductions in a world were hunger is a real problem yet we do not consider reductions in areas that would make no difference to our daily lives

Cheers
justaskin
 

paul.fr

  • Guest
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #30 on: 26/02/2009 10:42:36 »

The main thing that tips my hand is that by and large people don't want to do anything about it.

But most people live by what they can see, smell and touch. They don't see the climate change, and when you have severe weather they see this as proof that there is no global warming / climate change. They also figure that they personally will not be living when / if things go bad...so why care!

The situation is then made worse by politicians, who on the whole, only make policies for the length of their term in office. They need to show that the money spent has visual effects so they can get reelected.

Personally, I think the only way to get people to change is by giving them an incentive. In the UK (and elsewhere I guess) people moan that they have to separate recyclable materials and put them in a different collection bin. No real hardship, but a lot harder than dumping it all in the one bin.
We need a system where the householder is paid, say by weight, for their recycled material. Heavily subsidise water storage tanks, solar panels and the like, encourage people to use them to save them money, not to save the environment.

I do think people are sick of being told they need to do this and that, watch their carbon footprints and act now to save the future. They just want to save money and have cheaper bills. In the present climate of recession this should be an easier thing to do. If the motorcar industry has to be bailed out then attach conditions that they must improve fuel performance, improve battery technology as well.

But why not also subsidise the green markey of personal wind turbines, solar panels, water storage tanks...this could also create jobs...
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #31 on: 26/02/2009 15:10:13 »
Where I live, Austin, Texas, there are the considerable incentives for the use of energy saving and producing devices. There are city subsidies for weatherizing homes, decreasing water use and driving less (new metro rail system in planning stages). Also, home power, solar panels, etc., are encouraged and ad velorum tax credit given for home owners who install these.

Why? The electrical utility is city owned, as is the water treatment facility. And this metropolitan area is one of the fastest growing in the US.  When I moved here in 1950, the poulation was less than 100,000 including 40,000 students at the University of Texas. By 2015 the projection is for 1,500,000 people with many more on the way. There are at present right at 1,000,000 in the five county area comprising the greater Austin area. All infrastructure is stressed.

Addressing another point. I quote from above "Do you not think it is a little strange that we are considering herd reductions in a world were hunger is a real problem yet we do not consider reductions in areas that would make no difference to our daily lives"

Meat is the most inefficient way for the human body to get protein. The use of land, the amount of energy needed to produce it, the water needed, all make meat an impractical way of satisfying the nutrition needs of a large population. Any any ecosystem the less efficient a population of organisms, the less their chance for survival - that is a general, basic principal of population dynamics.
   
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #32 on: 28/02/2009 17:21:53 »
Yep JB, I agree, meat, though very nice, cost a lot more resources by Kg produced than soy beans. I personally hate the discussion of animal made methane, it sounds so ridiculous when discussed, but I think you are correct when pointing out that we by raising live stock do add to the methane. But the problem for the moment I believe to be CO2, if we can lock and reduce our manmade CO2 production we might be able to control the releases of methane from the tundras and under our oceans.

The problem with controlling CO2 is that its 'life cycle' in the air seems to be from fifty years up to (?) And this is a big problem, as I understand that to mean that if we stopped producing any man made CO2 today the concentration in the atmosphere from our day before wouldn't be reduced into a heatsink like trees or our ocean for at least fifty ears.

So if I understand this right it means that what's getting 'taken up' in our heatsinks today is made around fifty years earlier. The concentration in the air will drop off if we stop contributing new man made CO2, but it also means that if we succeeded with that, rather far fetched, goal there still would be more CO2 than our planet in itself produces for at least fifty more years.

The methane in the tundra is already getting released, there are this 'crazy' :) Soviet researcher Sergei Zimov who built an observation post on the tundra to document it. http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2008/may/05/news/chi-siberia-loner_rodriguezmay05
And the story is collaborated by independent sources. http://www.sciencepoles.org/index.php?/news/new_study_shows_arctic_permafrost_releases_methane_into_atmosphere/&uid=1401

And there is releases from under the shallow waters up at the North pole too where the methane hydrates aren't that deep down as in tropic waters where those 'gas hydrates' may be at depths from 2000 meters to 10 000 meters.

"Gas hydrates are a potential energy source found in permafrost environments and under the sea floor. They form when water and methane gas come together under extreme pressure and in a cold environment.

The water and gas are frozen together at a molecular level. One cubic metre of gas hydrates contains 164-cubic-metres of methane gas, and 0.8 cubic metres of water."

In Siberia Oerjan Gustafsson of Stockholm University in Sweden told the Independent newspaper in an email from the vessel Jacob Smirnitskyi.

"
"An extensive area of intense methane release was found. At earlier sites we had found elevated levels of dissolved methane. "Yesterday, for the first time, we documented a field where the release was so intense that the methane did not have time to dissolve into the seawater but was rising as methane bubbles to the sea surface. These 'methane chimneys' were documented on echo sounder and with seismic [instrument]."

At some locations he said concentrations of the gas were 100 times the background level. These anomalies were documented in the East Siberian Sea and the Laptev Sea, covering several tens of thousands of square kilometres. Gustafsson added: "The conventional thought has been that the permafrost 'lid' on the sub-sea sediments on the Siberian shelf should cap and hold the massive reservoirs of shallow methane deposits in place.

"The growing evidence for release of methane in this inaccessible region may suggest that the permafrost lid is starting to get perforated and thus leaking methane."

Estimates for the amount of carbon locked up in the hydrates vary from 500 to 5000 gigatonnes. Scientists predict that warming will release some of these deposits, but modeling the temperature rise that would trigger significant releases has proved extremely difficult."

But we need to stop the CO2 first, that is our top priority as I believe it. The 'real' methane releases won't come until CO2 have warmed our oceans. Did you know that the waves on our oceans are already moving faster due to more 'heat' stored in them? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19426075.400 and http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMRLH12Z0F_index_0.html

The 'root' to the problem is still our CO2.
« Last Edit: 28/02/2009 17:32:32 by yor_on »
 

Offline justaskin

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #33 on: 01/03/2009 01:19:17 »
The 'root' to the problem is still our CO2.
Well yor-on I sincerely  hope that is not the case because if it is then I think we are screwed.Because the developing world by and large has made it plain they will not be reining in their emissions until they have reached a standard of living commensurate with the developed world.It would seem that the chances of there being a leveling out of emissions let alone a reduction, any time soon, are extremely remote.

Cheers
justaskin
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11993
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #34 on: 01/03/2009 11:11:57 »
You know Justaskin :)
Just when we think that things can't get any worse...
They do:)

On the other hand, we've fixed it so far.
So I fully expect us to come through again.

But even if I'm wrong, we still have a lot of good environmental reasons why we should change our energy sources. And btw, I won't mind being wrong on this one a thing..

--
Ah, global warming that is.
Not us 'coming through'
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Do you support catastrophic climate change
« Reply #34 on: 01/03/2009 11:11:57 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length