[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Are we past the point of no return on Global Warming?  I believe that we are past the point of no return on Global Warming.  It would require drastic action on the part of all nations to stop it.  In my opinion, we would have to stop burning coal, stop burning jungles just to clear the land, stop all motor traffic and especially stop all Jet aircraft action.  How long will this take?  I estimate that it will be about 100 years more ore less.  What do you think?  I would really appreciate hearing your opinion on this topic.  Regards, Joe L. Ogan

[alancalverd]

No. It has been a lot hotter in the geological past (there are hippopotamus bones in East Anglia), and even in recorded history (indoor fireplaces and chimneys appeared suddenly in northern Europe in the 12th century, and have been in use ever since).

There are good reasons to reduce our consumption of fossil fuel, but climate change isn't one of them. If we stop burning coal, the lights will go out in the west, the modernising economies of China and India will plunge back into the stone age, and many people will starve almost immediately. If, on the other hand, we reduce the human population (by simply not making more babies than we need) our descendants could live sustainably for ever and have enough space to cope with the inevitable changes in climate without killing each other.   

Suppose we stopped all motor traffic tomorrow. How would you get food? If we didn't burn coal to make fertiliser, how much food would there be? If we didn't have jet planes, how would politicians get to conferences on climate change? 

Of course land clearance is an abomination. England should revert to its primordial state - 90% forest with a few bare mountains sticking out at the top. Or are you only concerned with foreign forests? 

[CliffordK]

Another thing about waste products.
If you let wood and other waste products rot, the decomposers release essentially the same amount of CO₂ as burning it does.  It just takes a little longer.  Would you get more methane release?

If you burn oil to chip the waste products in a forest, you may in fact be carbon-negative vs just slash burning.

I'm not saying that slash burning is good, but it may not be significantly worse than other forms of disposal of organic materials.

Ideally, of course, one could use the stored energy in the wood, for example using hog fuel powered generators rather than coal powered generators.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Thank you both for your opinions.  What if the situation gets worse? Much worse, very much worse?  I am convinced that the status quo will not remain the same.  I would be interested in hearing some suggestions to solve the problem before it gets worse!  Thanks for your help!  Joe L. Ogan

[alancalverd]

It's difficult to see an uncontrollable and inevitable natural phenomenon as a solvable problem. The climate will change, as it always has.

The problem is human overpopulation in climate-sensitive areas, and the solution is to make fewer babies. No effort required.

[SimpleEngineer]

Thank you both for your opinions.  What if the situation gets worse? Much worse, very much worse?  I am convinced that the status quo will not remain the same.  I would be interested in hearing some suggestions to solve the problem before it gets worse!  Thanks for your help!  Joe L. Ogan

The problem is not fully understood, therefore how can a correct solution be found other than by luck.

How do we know its going to get worse? My crystal ball is on the fritz.. is yours working?

The biggest question remains.. IS there a problem? and those that started us on this road of confusion proved to be liars and charlatans, with 'peer' reviewed gospel that may yet be true, but has been severely undermined by the lying, cheating and bullying that went on to 'prove' their point.

[CliffordK]

Undoubtedly there will be some winners and some loosers with Global Warming. 

Canada and Russia may go through some traumatic changes, but may in fact benefit from increased temperatures. 

Africa is actually a diverse continent.  Tropical regions may in fact expand.  However, temperatures may become increasingly uncomfortable for humans.

There are, of course, many ways to create climate change, especially locally.  Forests create their own microclimate.  Deforestation may well change this microclimate and can be locally damaging, and potentially even globally damaging.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

Thank you both for your opinions.  What if the situation gets worse? Much worse, very much worse?  I am convinced that the status quo will not remain the same.  I would be interested in hearing some suggestions to solve the problem before it gets worse!  Thanks for your help!  Joe L. Ogan

The problem is not fully understood, therefore how can a correct solution be found other than by luck.

How do we know its going to get worse? My crystal ball is on the fritz.. is yours working?

The biggest question remains.. IS there a problem? and those that started us on this road of confusion proved to be liars and charlatans, with 'peer' reviewed gospel that may yet be true, but has been severely undermined by the lying, cheating and bullying that went on to 'prove' their point.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

I have not been aware of any lying, cheating or bullying to get people to believe in global warning.  Do you have any credible evidence to support your statement?  Thanks for your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[alancalverd]

It's a surprisingly complicated question!

Climate change is an established fact, nothing to do wth belief. All the geological evidence and written history shows that the global climate changes over time. The article of faith is AGW.

Things started to go wrong when people latched on to a recent correlation between CO2 concentration and some recorded temperatures, assumed that CO2 is the causative factor (despite the geological evidence), invented Anthropogenic Global Warming  as a consequence of fossil fuel burning, and established the Kyoto agreement. Had the principle been sound, and had every nation signed up to it, and had it made any difference, they might have been excused on the basis of having stumbled on something that worked. But the emerging economies of India and China were excused from the protocol, carbon credits were traded to introduce smokestack industries into Iceland (whch previously had none) and those governments that had signed up, used it as an excuse to raise disproportionate taxes on air travel and subsidise the installation of fatuous windmills. And meanwhile the CO2 concentration has risen but the warming hasn't.     

Now anything done to you against your will and with no popular mandate is bullying. Any "worldwide agreement for the benefit of all living things" with huge and growing exemptions is cheating.

And since we have absolutely no instrumental data for the polar regions before 1900, and almost no reliable instrumental data for 90% of the land surface or 99% of the ocean surface before 1970, and all the good data from 1900 to 1970 comes from areas which were being urbanised or concreted over during that period, and not even an agreed definition of global mean temperature, the claimed precision of the data on which the recent warming trends is based, is frankly a lie overlaid on a guess. 

So the answer is that the believers have no credible evidence on which to base their belief.

Lucky guesses are the very stuff of science. When the luck runs out, however, a scientist looks for another explanation but a politician hides behind consensus.

[peppercorn]

I have not been aware of any lying, cheating or bullying to get people to believe in global warning.  Do you have any credible evidence to support your statement?

Well Joe, it looks like the short answer is 'No' then.

[alancalverd]

Even though the long answer (reply #9) is yes.

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

All I can say is that, if I am ever in trouble, I want to have Alan explain what I did and why I did it.  Thanks for comments . and regards, Joe L. Ogan

[peppercorn]

Very droll Joe. Very droll []

[SimpleEngineer]

I have not been aware of any lying, cheating or bullying to get people to believe in global warning.  Do you have any credible evidence to support your statement?  Thanks for your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

lets start with the initial story
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2064826/New-leak-hacked-global-warming-scientist-emails-A-smoking-gun-proving-conspiracy--just-hot-air.html

then the wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

However (although this IS from a bit of a consipracy site it has a direct quotation from the emails which sort of worries me about the value of the journalism from the other sources as this is very clear they are hiding things.. IN THEIR WORDS!)
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=11777

The debunk
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

But to be fair current access to the information has been restricted.. but I read the emails.. and there were no context issues, there were emails lying about missing data, asking peer reviewers to accommodate the gaps in data with threats to their reputation.

Without access to them anymore, (last lot came out in 2011 when i read them) I cannot give direct links.. but the evidence shows that everything reported by mainstream journalism and further debunking actually ignores the content of the emails.. YET the IPPC changed its story from Global warming to Man Made Climate Change (which to be fair is a much more accurate approach).

Unfortunately this now looks like a massive conspiracy theory.. by the fact someone has removed the emails from access its hard to actually to prove the content does not add up with the findings of no misconduct. I read them, I would have been ashamed if I had built a case in the manner they did. If you didnt read them, well I can totally understand your reluctance to accept this particular truth. We need faith in our science, I asked did these emails affect this faith, and it seems few have actually read the content of the mails. 

[alancalverd]

Anthropogenic Global Warming is more like a religion than a conspiracy. It's a convenient myth that "explains" what is happening, predicts disaster, and blames sinful humans for it. And like any religion, it can be profitable for those at the top (fame, fortune and conferences galore! windmill subsidies!) and comforting for those in the middle (Guardian-reading vegetarian cyclists who recycle their potato peelings on their way to Evensong) whilst the voiceless Baldrics at the bottom get screwed by petrol tax and the export of manufacturing jobs (makes a change from being terrified or molested by priests, my lord).     

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

OK, gentlemen, you have made your points. So, what should we do? Disregard the subject completely?  Wait and see if the situation is going to get worse? Take limited action to correct the situation? Take immediate action to correct the situation as much as possible.?  Some other suggestion that you think is both possible and that will correct the situation?  Thanks for your comments.  Joe L. Ogan

[alancalverd]

1. If anthropogenic CO2 is the driver, the only way to make any impact at all would be to immediately and completely ban the combustion of fossil fuel in China, the USA, the Russian Federation and India http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.KT.OE/   followed in succession by all the major manufacturing countries and the EU, or the farming of animals. "Per capita" figures are pointless because the world is not governed on an individual basis, so although Kuwait and Canada have huge per capita outputs of CO2, passing a law in either state will have almost no effect on the atmosphere because there are very few capitas. 

2. If anthropogenic CO2 is not the driver, we have no control over climate and can only mitigate the effect of change. The most effective way to do this is to make fewer babies so society becomes more resilient to famine and flood, and more tolerant of mass migration from unsustainable areas.

3. Geoengineering and mass reforestation

I think 1 is undesirable and unfeasible. 2 costs nothing (and actually saves money) and is desirable even if the climate doesn't change, or changes for the better. 3 is fraught with unknowns, staggeringly expensive, will lead to dispossession of land, riots and starvation, and is at best only a temporary solution . 

[peppercorn]

Much as I'd be happy to see population growth reigned in - in a controlled manner rather than the mass deaths that are extremely likely throughout the developing world due to climate change effects - it seems somewhat immoral for the West to effectively say 'Well, we had our growth period in the 20th century. Now it's time for you to pay for our excesses.'

In addition, an aggressive capping of new births will do little to cut the impact alone.  It turns out it is rather a fallacy to suggest that resource use is as simple as the number of people the planet supports.  For example developing nations switching to more Westernised (meat rich) diets is having a considerable effect on resource depletion and added greenhouse gas.

[CliffordK]

It turns out it is rather a fallacy to suggest that resource use is as simple as the number of people the planet supports.

Nice chart, but it would be hard to convince many Americans or Europeans that we should aspire to the standard of living in Bangladesh.

Unfortunately, I hear much more discussion about CO₂ than discussions about population.

As far as global warming, it may not make the world any more or less habitable for humanity, but rather cause migrations, displacing people from one location to another.  Some arable land will become no longer arable, and other land that was previously impossible to farm will become arable.  Undoubtedly such migrations will be problematic both for the displaced people, as well as the countries that otherwise would be able to support an increasing population.

You are right that it is hard to criticize countries for going through processes that the "west" has already gone through.  Although, perhaps others can learn from the mistakes that we've made, and are extremely difficult to roll back.

As far as forests, did the North American forests, or Western European forests ever rival the Great Amazon Basin?