Climate Change & The Deafening Silence?

[Nuts]

I think some odd things while i'm out walking... took the hound for a long ramble yesterday and the thoughts went through everything from 'what was He thinking' to why it was such a nice day despite the forecast...

I follow some odd things... some are of little interest (to many) in their detail but in this case the outcome should be something that cant be ignored:

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/wp ... T_2011.mp3


I expect we will hear all sorts of summaries and spins to this one

[Nuts]

For those who arent interested in wading through the details:

'The guy' (well qualified), is offering conclusions reached from studies of satellite imaging data. He is presenting a theory (well positioned) that the human effect on climate change is negligible.
He notes that all the modeling that has been done to date has been based on an Assumption that carbon emissions control earth temperature. The ice core sampling is thought to affirm this assumption.
The suggestion is, however, that changes in atmospheric carbon fluctuate with and are driven by earth temperature. The increase (or decrease) in CO2 has been (and will be) ongoing despite any minor effect of human influence (ie we only contribute a Very small percentage of the 'total' and its this total that (he thinks) matters to the debate)

[photohiker]

The suggestion is, however, that changes in atmospheric carbon fluctuate with earth temperature. The increase has been and will will be ongoing despite any minor effect of human influence (we only contribute a Very small percentage of the 'total')

There is a feedback that says that as you increase the temperature, the atmospheric CO2 will increase. There's also a lag associated with it (years)

Sorry, anyone suggesting that we are not significantly increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is in denial. The measurements of CO2 have been clearly researched and the identification of the sources of the CO2 in the atmosphere is done. We know about the carbon sinks and the carbon balance, the greenhouse effect, the rabid consumption of fossil fuels etc, but still there are people that come out with what they think is a magic silver bullet that blows away thousands of published, peer reviewed scientific papers that say we are emitting significant CO2, we are changing the climate of the planet.

We are emitting about 9 billion metric tonnes of carbon emissions into the environment every year, nearly half of which lands up in the atmosphere.



I'd like to believe it isn't happening, but there is just too much evidence. If you go looking, sure you can find people who reckon it isn't happening. There's plenty of people who reckon the moon landing didn't happen either.

[Stibb]

+1 photohiker!

The rate of change in CO2 in the atmosphere has never (!) been greater than in the last decade or two. Hm, I wonder why?
Wait, Nooo. Can't be. No way. The industrial revolution and human "eco-friendly" way of living surely has got nothing to do with it *Gasp*



Samuel Shenton would be a great leader for the deniers today

[Nuts]

I would just say that i haven't the background to debate this, even if i wanted. It can be in the reading but I do hope its clear i don't really have a 'view' one way or the other.

I did, however, study 'science' and he does make the important point in questioning the bandied term 'the science'.. science is Never 'done'...

I do sometimes chuckle at how polar these issues become and the speed at which some (even 'real') science types proceed to debunk (even) one of their own. The mere mention of these results is days old yet (a quick search shows) that some fall over themselves to 'debunk' without due process ... shame on them.. its possible to forgive the general population taking 'sides' (ie automatically labeling reason as 'denial') (he did say he was 'agnostic' ) ...but 'scientists'.. c'mon.. even if they dont agree, it's little wonder why many don't swallow Any theory.. even if the guy is wrong, even if the possibilities he suggests have been proposed before, the data covers new ground...?

[taswegian]

Personally, I worry that the world seems caught up in an argument whether our weather is human invoked or not, all whilst the world flexes itself and the climate waxes and wanes around us.

I was watching my beloved mountain the other day and the measely dump of snow and pondering on my childhood days when I'd toboggan down the hill behind our house on one of mums metal trays.
And how snow would sit on the front of 'The Tiers' for weeks, and on Black Bluff till Christmas time, even beyond at odd times.
Those days are gone (for now).

Governments are notorius for commisioning scientific reports into all manner of disciplines and then turn their backs on the recomendations as though the reports and concerns amounted to nothing.
And yes you ar right - one 'expert' is quick to debunk anothers theory, and so who are we to believe thoughts infuse the mind of poor Joe Blow

I'm also concerned this whole 'carbon debate' will be another area for the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer. Instead of being a social responsibilty issue it becomes a grab for money.

Sorry Nuts, like you 'I think some odd things while i'm out walking...'. This whole debate (not your post) stirs me inside - didn't mean to rant.

[Nuts]

I'm also concerned this whole 'carbon debate' will be another area for the rich to get richer and the poor get poorer. Instead of being a social responsibilty issue it becomes a grab for money.

You could be right, the proposed tax seems to be set up to redistribute wealth more than anything. Perhaps it wont mean much at all in reality besides recognising a cost for pollution but i too have my doubts whether the big polluters wont find a way to turn it to their advantage (in a less than hoped for way). Oil companies seem to operate with smoke and mirrors when it comes to petrol pricing, maybe this will be a golden opportunity for the various players to blame new taxes for increasing costs..

If at any time carbon Is thought less of a risk i'd like to see a refocus as some sort of general 'pollution tax', not redistributed but focused back on fixing other pressing environmental problems.

You must have enjoyed that last big dump Taswegian

(Im ranting too... they did say it would be nice out today... )

[taswegian]

You must have enjoyed that last big dump Taswegian

Yes, sure did. Rather special, and I was thinking it'd last a lot longer, but then it warmed up... and now...
Edit: It's just come out of hiding and there's a white cap on it.

[Turfa]

Why do we need reams of climate data proving that it is changing... I mean it would seem to be a sensible idea to reduce emissions & reduce energy usage just for the sake of doing it.....regardless of what the climate is doing.

[corvus]

Can anyone explain why the Ice Cap is Melting ??
corvus

[photohiker]

The icecap melts every year. I think it's something to do with summer.

I'm also sure you meant to ask why it's melting more than it has in the past. Up until a week or so ago, it was tracking worse (less ice) than 2007, which was the worst year in recent times.

Lots of data and graphs here: http://sites.google.com/site/arcticseaicegraphs/

[Nuts]

Why do we need reams of climate data proving that it is changing... I mean it would seem to be a sensible idea to reduce emissions & reduce energy usage just for the sake of doing it.....regardless of what the climate is doing.

I get the feeling that this is the conclusion of more than one doubtful advocate... but then whether it is best done the way proposed is more a question of economics and politics, even with strong convictions scientists really do need to need to stick to science..

[Nuts]

Can anyone explain why the Ice Cap is Melting ??
corvus

Michaels right, oodles of data... temperatures generally rising.. current theory is that its due to increased carbon dioxide levels, this guy ^^^ isnt arguing the fact, simply suggesting that the levels of CO2 arent increasing (to this extent) as a result of human activity. Hes saying that the temperature rises are a natural event and in themselves are responsible for free carbon entering the system...

(Did I get that right... who bothered listened to the podcast )

[taswegian]

when I went to school I was fascinated with the different ages - Ice ages. They came and they went.
I guess they will continue to come and go.

I am all for effective and innovative ways to better utilise our resources, and cleaning up the environs. I'm with Turfa on that one.

[photohiker]

(Did I get that right... who bothered listened to the podcast )

Yea, I listened to a lot of it. Basically that's the gist of what he seems to be on about.

He seems to think that the people who study the climate and publish papers on it, haven't thought of these simple ideas. Reality is that they have. The scientific method is to think of a hypothesis and then try to shoot it to bits. Only after it survives the shooting do you bother to try and prove it. Multiply by 1000's of studies on every facet of the climate, independently replicated many times.

These guys go on about how these is no consensus and science doesn't 'work' like that. They're basically right, but what has happened is that there is so much weight in the body of published work underlying and defining our understanding of the climate, and the effects of our carbon emissions that the chances of it being wrong have become very small. That's not to say that there is nothing new to learn and discover, just that we know enough to know that we are heading into uncharted waters.

[Nuts]

His credentials are rattled off in the first few minutes. I too would like to believe him but his data hasnt yet even been published... not that it would matter what I thought. I reckon though, for the Evidence that is offered from this, (the sole source to date) it needs (and probably deserves?) yet Again, thorough examination and peer review.

It is this Ongoing debate that I had in mind when i set the title for the topic, not public policy. I'm happy to just observe any topic where someone wants to discus politics or religion

As for conclusions to this as a 'debate' I doubt we'll see any 'winner' in my lifetime either way, personally, in this one I think it would do well (for science) to remember that Galileo Was only one person.

[photohiker]

I think it would do well (for science) to remember that Galileo Was only one person.

Yes he was. He used science. His opponents used religion and philosophy. I'm sure there is a parallel you're seeing here, but you will have to spell it out for me.

I'm not suggesting that the whole basis for human induced climate change could not be unseated by a single new idea, just that the chances of that new idea appearing have become vanishingly small and your pal Murry Salby doesn't appear to have it...

[Nuts]

Ar har... im still here, for now... yer i dunno, you drawing that conclusion beats me.. g'nite

[andrewbish]

+1 Turfa

I am resolutely cynical of government -supported 'initiatives'. Even more so when many governments agree on a plan/theory.

What is undeniable is that the Earth is a finite resource - as is the atmosphere that enables us to breathe - and we really should take more care of it,

Andrew

[Dale]

I see the decision to not to take action on climate change as akin to receiving a diagnosis from your doctor who says you need to stop doing this or that or you will probably die - we're not 100% sure but there's a good chance you'll die... Given the body of evidence shouldn't we give the planet (and ourselves) the benefit of the doubt ?

[sthughes]

Really climate change isn't going to "hurt" the planet. Earth warms up and cools down by itself and has done so for billions of years and will continue to do so despite what we do. Climate change will however, hurt the economy and put some people's lives at risk according to most experts. So it may be pertinent to do something about it if we are able.
With the presently available scientific evidence, suggesting the current increases in CO2 and global temperatures are not human influenced is becoming a bit of a silly argument in my opinion. I place such comments in the grouping with those who advocate smoking is good for you.
There is also the argument that overall, after a difficult initial adjustment, human kind will in fact be better off with a warm planet in the long run. This does seem to make a lot of sense to me.
However no matter how you look at it our current dependence on fossil fuels needs to end, and will do so sooner or later whether we choose it or not. Most people are oblivious to how little oil is still out there for us to burn recklessly, and coal isn't as infinite as some would spout. Sure we may not run out of either for centuries, but it is already becoming harder and harder to extract. Will you still be happy to burn 50 lites to go bushwalking each weekend when it is $10 a litre? and will you be sitting reading a bushwalking forum when power (and and hence also internet data) costs many times as much? Our only way of avoiding this is to move to alternative power sources, and the sooner we do it the less of a price shock it will cause.
Whether you think the "Carbon Tax" is aimed at reducing carbon emissions, cooling the planet, re-distributing wealth, loosing labour the next election or whatever, it will certainly have the effect of making renewable energy much more viable, and in my opinion that is a good thing.

So in summary I think humans are contributing significantly to global warming. I don't think that in the long term it is as bad a thing as is represented by the media, but in the short term (next century or two) it will be very problematic to society. We do need to change radically from "business as usual" if our way of life is to be maintained into the future.

[Nuts]

The topic could just has easily (and perhaps more appropriately) been labeled the deafening 'science'...

While I agree (and have) that some cost for pollution is good, that's about where the conclusions end (for me).. If people want to discuss their opinions, however based, thats all good. I was simply thinking it was an interesting concept, worth linking for those with an interest in science, not politics.

(fwiw, the concept proposed in the link doesn't argue against the fact that we add carbon to the atmosphere. It just makes a bigger deal of the 95% that we have no control over..)

[photohiker]

Seems our Murry Salby is becoming notorious in the blogosphere.

Publish his data he should. Meantime, large holes in his verbal presentation, poked have been. here

[Nuts]

Content removed by poster, happy to remove the initial link if enough people find his suggestions Evil

[photohiker]

Content removed by poster, happy to remove the initial link if enough people find his suggestions Evil

I'm not saying its evil, I am saying that until he puts up, scientists working in the field appear to think he's not right on the basis of what he has said.

If he's genuine, he will get a paper published for proper inspection. I hope he does that rather than just disappear...

[Dale]

Really climate change isn't going to "hurt" the planet.

Beware sthughes, the Druids are coming after you

So if you have too much time on your hands, here is a 2000 + post thread from BPL - 'the Carbon Flame War':

http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin ... d_id=12706

[Nuts]

bah, sure we can beat that... edit: though please start another topic if you want to fill it with self effacement or chest pounding..

[stepbystep]

The Earth will sort us all out at the end of the day, be it in 100, 1,000 or 1,000,000 years. We(humans) are very arrogant to think we are so important.

We are but a flea on the butt of an elephant, and our time will come......

[Dale]

To quote Bill Hicks (on humans) "We are a virus with shoes."

[Nuts]

gee, morbid bunch aren't we