[Karsten]

I believe no one knows what is going on if anything.. The climate is governed by too many unknowns, and their is no real evidence that we are doing anything detrimental. The science is way to complicated and totally beyond us all.

I don't understand such comments. It may be difficult to understand what is going on. Scientifically speaking that is. Many things are. Most don't bother us because they do not require us to change anything. However, there are thousands of scientists quite busy with this topic and they have come to certain conclusions. From what I understand those conclusions are that the global climate is changing faster than it should and that human activities are to a large extend causing this change. So, yes, we are doing something detrimental. We just cannot see the results immediately. If you turn on your car while it is with you in your closed garage it will take a few minutes for you to experiences the detrimental effects of your action. What we do as a species is in principle the same - you just have to wait longer for the effects and it is more complicated than that.

Why do we trust teachers, dentists, electricians, engineers, priests, car mechanics, day-care providers, city officials, etc. but we do not trust the carefully phrased, peer-reviewed findings of the best scientists on this planet in regard to climate change? Is this still a science issue?

Of course those findings could be wrong. I am certain that they will be adjusted like any scientific knowledge occasionally needs adjustments. But you have to ask yourself four questions:

1)What if they are right and we do nothing?
2)What if they are wrong and we do nothing?
3)What if they are right and we change our ways?
4)What if they are wrong and we change our ways?

Those four scenarios have meaning. One (the last) may be wicked expensive and we will look back and think that we panicked for no good reason and will never listen to science again that quickly. Another scenario (the first) may end life for human beings on this planet. It is a matter of intelligent risk management. The first scenario is just not acceptable. We cannot do nothing.

[justaskin (OP)]

Why do we trust teachers, dentists, electricians, engineers, priests, car mechanics, day-care providers, city officials, etc.

A good number of the people on that list are not trusted.

But we do not trust the carefully phrased, peer-reviewed findings of the best scientists on this planet in regard to climate change? Is this still a science issue?

The reason that I don't trust the scientists on the IPCC panel is because some of them have been caught massaging data to support their position and the fact that the IPCC does not have any scientists on the panel that actually disagree with the hypothesis of climate change.If the IPCC was a truly representative body of scientific opinion there would be one or two scientists that don't support the hypothesis on the panel.
The other thing about the IPCC is why don't they freely publish their data and modeling
so other scientists who don't support their position can peer review their data and methods.What is the IPCC hiding.
I would be more prepared to support climate change if.
1)The science was more open.
2)If I didn't see banks and financial institutions lining up to run carbon trading schemes
3)If I was not being bombarded on a daily basis by climate alarmists with outlandish statements.
4)And finally if I could see some tangible evidence of a change in the climate.

Cheers
justaskin
 

 
 

[JimBob]

First, to be rigorous about this, justaskin, you need to do your homework.

The climate is NOT restricted to Sydney Airport and the data for that site OR is it restricted to just Australia - it concerns the whole world, the weather and ocean currents, as ocean currents are driven by the wind and the two forces interact. No meaningful approach can be made until that fact is taken into consideration.
After you have looked at and managed to wade through all of the data for the world, then I would consider you opinion informed.

I will also state that MY opinion is not informed with respect to what I just suggested that you do. I am somewhat more informed as I have studied the effects of climate on my field of science, sedimentology, a branch of geology that concerns both sand deposits and limestone deposits, including coral.

I am sure that being Australian you are aware that the Great Barrier Reef is in a drastic decline. Many scientist, MOST scientist, in fact Australian Scientist, believe it is due to to climate warming that has also raised the water temperatures of the ocean the reef is located in.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/media/media_archive/2009/2008_01_07

SO in at least one respect, your statement that Australia is not experiencing climate warming is incorrect. It has been measured by the Australian Government. Park scientists, not the CSIRO.

Now for Art Raiche. He is one person. Is it scientifically correct to base a conclusion on the opinion of one person rather than a larger number, both of these choices being from people who are informed about climate and its effects? NO. it is downright counter to the scientific norm.

You said 30,000 scientists are dissatisfied with climate models - yes, that is true. It is damned difficult to get all of the variables into the model to do one that satisfies everyone. I believe there are more than half a million scientist in the world that are satisfied that the models are the best now available.

Fourth, you asked "And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions?"

You obviously didn't check their web site (or your grammar - FOG). Start here - http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/activity . It will lead you to the meeting reports, the scientist involved and the publications that are available in scientific journals. You will also find original reports, with science and everything included at this site, including http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/activity/publications/ar4/working-group-iii-fourth-assessment-report There is one hell of a lot more data and research there, as well.

Next, you asked "And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it." The reason is simple. These 39 countries account for 99% or more of all the problem that are to be addressed by the Protocol.

Now, as I am not a person who does climate study full time, but am only do it as a PART of the rest of the science I do, I do know a few things about climate change.

1. The climate is always in flux
2. For the last 13,000+ years the world's climate has been slowly warming - 15,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was a grassland, the Gobi Desert was very much smaller and glaciers covered most of Canada, parts of the northern US, Europe, Scandinavia, The Himalayas, much of Northern Asia were all under hundreds of feet of ice.
3. The Southern Hemisphere is less affected by climate variation than the northern hemisphere. You thus would notice it less in Australia than in Europe or America.

It is my conclusion from these facts - not opinions, but things that can be checked from independent sources - that the earth has been warming for at least the last 13,000+ years.

Now for the main question - all of the evidence points to the fact that man is probably responsible for the escalated increase in the mean temperature of the earth in the last 200 years. I said "probably," not conclusively - but that probability is much greater than 50-50, it is more like 85%. It began rising much more when coal became more important as the Industrial Revolution took place. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ & http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm

That is an educate, informed OPINION. Notice three words "educated and informed" and OPINION." I see none of the first two reflected in your posting. According to you it is all due to money and power. 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.

[justaskin (OP)]

The climate is NOT restricted to Sydney Airport and the data for that site OR is it restricted to just Australia - it concerns the whole world, the weather and ocean currents, as ocean currents are driven by the wind and the two forces interact. No meaningful approach can be made until that fact is taken into consideration.

I think you will find that I did not claim that climate was restricted to Sydney Airport.

I am sure that being Australian you are aware that the Great Barrier Reef is in a drastic decline. Many scientist, MOST scientist, in fact Australian Scientist, believe it is due to to climate warming that has also raised the water temperatures of the ocean the reef is located in.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/media/media_archive/2009/2008_01_07

SO in at least one respect, your statement that Australia is not experiencing climate warming is incorrect. It has been measured by the Australian Government. Park scientists, not the CSIRO.

The GBR is a great political football in Australia.Here is a link that refutes the above link.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/global-warming-unlikely-reason-for-slow-coral-growth/

Now for Art Raiche. He is one person. Is it scientifically correct to base a conclusion on the opinion of one person rather than a larger number, both of these choices being from people who are informed about climate and its effects? NO. it is downright counter to the scientific norm.

I was not asked for any scientific proof. Just to verify my statement that the CSIRO was not a trusted source of science anymore.

You said 30,000 scientists are dissatisfied with climate models.

No I don't think I did.

Fourth, you asked "And why don't the IPCC release the data and the models they use in their decisions?"

I don't think they release the algorithms they use to gain their climate results do they.

Next, you asked "And why of the 190 odd countries that are signatories to the Kyoto protocol is it only the 39 developed nations that have to do anything about it." The reason is simple. These 39 countries account for 99% or more of all the problem that are to be addressed by the Protocol.

And what would those problems be exactly.

It is my conclusion from these facts - not opinions, but things that can be checked from independent sources - that the earth has been warming for at least the last 13,000+ years.

Then why wasn't it a problem 10,000 years ago or 1000 years ago or 100 years ago or even
40 years ago.Then we were all told by the scientists we were entering an ice age.
Have a look at any temperature graph for the last 200 years and tell me why if global temperature rise  is in lock step with CO2 increase did the temperature fall from 1880 to 1910.That would be when the industrial revolution was in full swing.So the temperature should have been going through the roof but it didn't.Why?.

Now for the main question - all of the evidence points to the fact that man is probably responsible for the escalated increase in the mean temperature of the earth.

No all the evidence does not point to man.There is evidence of water vapor's effect there is also evidence of sun's effect

That is an educate, informed OPINION. Notice three words "educated and informed" and OPINION." I see none of the first two reflected in your posting.

And finally for the big put down.I am not a scientists therefore I am uneducated,uniformed
and am not entitled to an opinion.
Correct me if I am wrong but when did I say I had done any scientific work.
If being a scientist is a criterion for be allowed to  comment on climate change then I guess that lets.
Al Gore
Nicholas Stern
Most Hollywood actors
Maurice Strong
Yvo de Boer
Out

According to you it is all due to money and power.

Thats what it seems to be about so far.Maybe you should do some reading about the UNFCCC and its plans for the world.Maybe what CDM's  and JI's are.

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

[JimBob]

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.

[justaskin (OP)]

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]

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

[justaskin (OP)]

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

[JimBob]

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?

[justaskin (OP)]

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]

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...

[JimBob]

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.
   

[yor_on]

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.

[justaskin (OP)]

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

[yor_on]

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'