global warming is not human caused paper

[MacG]

Ssshhhh. MacG turns into a troll whenever he hears someone mention climate change

I don't think you are very honest here. You seem to seek conflict in order to avoid the issues at hand. Since when did honest disagreements qualify as "trolling"?

[Totally_Baffled]

Ssshhhh. MacG turns into a troll whenever he hears someone mention climate change

Now now Biff - taking a contrary viewpoint isnt trolling!

I for one like these debates - as I struggle with the arguments on man made climate change ( i cannot make my mind up) and the succinct points made on these threads help a lot

BTW - I think its academic - we have to cut FF usage whatever the rights and wrongs of this debate - so lets just get on with it

[syberberg]

Hence peak oil is good news for climate change.

In the long term, yes it is. In the short term it isn't. Mainly due to the longevity of CO2 molecules remaining in the atmosphere, approx 100yrs.

[biffvernon]

( i cannot make my mind up)

The Earth is round, not flat ok?
We're here by evolution not intelligent design, yeah?
We've messed up the atmosphere, where's your problem?

[clv101]

Hence peak oil is good news for climate change.

In the long term, yes it is. In the short term it isn't. Mainly due to the longevity of CO2 molecules remaining in the atmosphere, approx 100yrs.

In the short term it isn't? What are you saying, you think it would be better for the climate in the short term if peak oil didn't exist and oil production sailed on up to over 120mbpd by 2030? That's the alternative to peak oil not existing and why I am absolutely certain peak oil is good news for climate change.

Sure, peak oil will cause lots of climatically negative things to happen - but critically - the magnitude of the climatically negative things won't be as big as the climatically positive thing that is ~90mbpd falling away at least at some 2-5% pa and possibly much more if the economic ramifications knock the global economy for six.

I don't see how the longevity of CO2 in the atmospheric affects whether peak oil is good or bad news for climate change. Also my understanding is that CO2 falls away such that ~50% is left after 30 years, ~40% at 60 years, ~33% at 100 years, ~22% and 500 years.

[Totally_Baffled]

( i cannot make my mind up)

The Earth is round, not flat ok?
We're here by evolution not intelligent design, yeah?
We've messed up the atmosphere, where's your problem?

Like these are comparible.

If only CC was as black and white as the first two!!

Oh , and there is no need to be so dogmatic about it! ( )

[MisterE]

I don?t understand climate change, don?t follow the journals, don?t read science, but deep down I just don?t buy it, call me thick, stupid, foolish or worse, I just cant see how we can have such an impact on the earth in such a short time. It?s probably all the bull that?s in CC that is probably most damaging to its argument. Sea levels are not going to rise by loads, the sea is not going to heat up, the poles can melt who cares they've melted before I'm sure and the Atlantic conveyor is not going to shut down and send us into an ice age blah blah blah. But what is probably going to happen is the weather will get more miserable a few more floods due to the concrete jungles with no decent drainage for us in the UK, and we will still keep raping the planet worldwide making it less beautiful and more ugly and wipe out or seriously f**k up a good few species of plants and animals. Don?t get me wrong to me the core element of CC to me ie the cure, is that in essence we should be striving to live in harmony with the planet, then if that?s the case I don?t need to know the argument because deep down in every human you already know that is the right thing to do and is how we should be living ? trouble is ?feel good inc? got most of the world mesmerized selling them a dream that in reality is a ?want it coporate commercial? nightmare.

I?d be more prone to believing that nature itself is noticing that the human race is taking the piss and getting out of control and its time to knock em down a few pegs. One thing is certain the planet and a vast abundance of life will be here long after we?ve gone, in fact I don?t think you can destroy life on the planet totally, it is alive. I just hope that out of all this we start making our environment look nicer and more natural, dedicate more time to looking after plants and animal cycles, lower our use on energy so there is plenty for the next generation and get back to a bit of nature, Xboxes and 55 inch plasmas are bloody brilliant, but its also nice to get outside and get back in touch with nature and have a break from shopping, your job, TV, adverts, newspapers, bloody ikea, mots n car bills, blah blah blah ? that?s it my heads gone I?m off sea fishing tomorrow!

Muwhahahaaaaaaaa I?ll go back in my box under the stairs now

[syberberg]

In the short term it isn't? What are you saying, you think it would be better for the climate in the short term if peak oil didn't exist and oil production sailed on up to over 120mbpd by 2030? That's the alternative to peak oil not existing and why I am absolutely certain peak oil is good news for climate change.

Didn't make myself terribly clear on that one did I? By short term I meant the next approx 50 years, due to how long CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere, approx 100yrs. By long term I meant approx 100 yrs. Production can sail up as high as it likes, it's the burning of fossil fuels that's the problem. As long as demand doesn't increase (yeah, right), production can rise as high as it likes (which we know it isn't going to). In the short term, a reduction in production, and therefore an enforced reduction in demand, won't make any significant difference unless we can sequestrate the extra CO2 (that's CO2 above the natural carbon cycle), due to the longevity of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

To put it another way: For the sake of arguement, let's say the global release of CO2 due to burning oil is 100tons in 2007. That 100tons will not leave the atmosphere until 2107. Again, for the sake of arguement, let's say the reduction of 2% pa starts next year, that'd be 98tons of CO2 put in the atmosphere, that won't leave the atmosphere until 2108. The CO2 from the previous year will still be there.

Sure, peak oil will cause lots of climatically negative things to happen - but critically - the magnitude of the climatically negative things won't be as big as the climatically positive thing that is ~90mbpd falling away at least at some 2-5% pa and possibly much more if the economic ramifications knock the global economy for six.

Again, you seem to be missing the point, it's the cumulative effect of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that's the problem. The reduction won't be noticed by the climate until approx 100 yrs after they've been released. Provided there's enough photosynthetic action still taking place and the sinks, like the ocean, haven't reached saturation point and started releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.

[clv101]

Like these are comparible.

Biff does make an interesting point in those comparisons. Today virtually no one understands the Earth to be flat however once-upon-a-time everyone did and the natural philosophers suggesting otherwise had a really hard time! The similar story of the rejection of Galileo's geocentric model of the universe was a subtext to ASPO5 in Pisa - where Galileo lived and worked in the 16th century. The empirical scientific evidence was on Galileo's side but conventional wisdom and religious dogma was against him.

Similar with intelligent design, empirical scientific evidence on one side and religious dogma on the other.

The anthropogenic climate change argument is the same. Empirical scientific evidence shows anthropogenic emissions are changing the climate - there's no escaping that general conclusion now. Yet against it we have conventional wisdom "we're so small, the Earth's so big" and the religious dogma has been replaced with capitalism, growth and a fundamental quest on a personal and national level to maximise energy supply at minimal cost. This new religion is every bit as entrenched as the Church's geocentric universe Galileo had so much difficulty with.

[MacG]

Like these are comparible.

Biff does make an interesting point in those comparisons. Today virtually no one understands the Earth to be flat however once-upon-a-time everyone did and the natural philosophers suggesting otherwise had a really hard time! The similar story of the rejection of Galileo's geocentric model of the universe was a subtext to ASPO5 in Pisa - where Galileo lived and worked in the 16th century. The empirical scientific evidence was on Galileo's side but conventional wisdom and religious dogma was against him.

Similar with intelligent design, empirical scientific evidence on one side and religious dogma on the other.

The anthropogenic climate change argument is the same. Empirical scientific evidence shows anthropogenic emissions are changing the climate - there's no escaping that general conclusion now. Yet against it we have conventional wisdom "we're so small, the Earth's so big" and the religious dogma has been replaced with capitalism, growth and a fundamental quest on a personal and national level to maximise energy supply at minimal cost. This new religion is every bit as entrenched as the Church's geocentric universe Galileo had so much difficulty with.

You are trying to enhance your arguments by positioning yourself on the shoulders of a couple of scientific giants. I doubt that either Galileo, Newton or Darwin tried to use the same trick to enhance THEIR cases. Careful now - the only people who tend to refer to "consensus" to strengthen their case have been the catholic church...

[clv101]

In the short term it isn't? What are you saying, you think it would be better for the climate in the short term if peak oil didn't exist and oil production sailed on up to over 120mbpd by 2030? That's the alternative to peak oil not existing and why I am absolutely certain peak oil is good news for climate change.

Didn't make myself terribly clear on that one did I? By short term I meant the next approx 50 years, due to how long CO2 molecules stay in the atmosphere, approx 100yrs. By long term I meant approx 100 yrs. Production can sail up as high as it likes, it's the burning of fossil fuels that's the problem. As long as demand doesn't increase (yeah, right), production can rise as high as it likes (which we know it isn't going to). In the short term, a reduction in production, and therefore an enforced reduction in demand, won't make any significant difference unless we can sequestrate the extra CO2 (that's CO2 above the natural carbon cycle), due to the longevity of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

To put it another way: For the sake of arguement, let's say the global release of CO2 due to burning oil is 100tons in 2007. That 100tons will not leave the atmosphere until 2107. Again, for the sake of arguement, let's say the reduction of 2% pa starts next year, that'd be 98tons of CO2 put in the atmosphere, that won't leave the atmosphere until 2108. The CO2 from the previous year will still be there.

Sure, peak oil will cause lots of climatically negative things to happen - but critically - the magnitude of the climatically negative things won't be as big as the climatically positive thing that is ~90mbpd falling away at least at some 2-5% pa and possibly much more if the economic ramifications knock the global economy for six.

Again, you seem to be missing the point, it's the cumulative effect of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere that's the problem. The reduction won't be noticed by the climate until approx 100 yrs after they've been released. Provided there's enough photosynthetic action still taking place and the sinks, like the ocean, haven't reached saturation point and started releasing CO2 back into the atmosphere.

I don't really understand what you're saying. I'm totally aware it's the cumulative effect that counts. However as soon as we emit 98 tonnes rather than 100 there will be less cumulative effect than there would otherwise have been.

I don't accept your model of CO2 molecules staying in the atmosphere for 100 years then droping to Earth all of a sudden. My understanding is anthropogenic emissions follow this pulse response function:

[21st_century_caveman]

You are trying to enhance your arguments by positioning yourself on the shoulders of a couple of scientific giants.

Actually, wasn't it Newton that originated the Shoulders of Giants comment?

[MacG]

You are trying to enhance your arguments by positioning yourself on the shoulders of a couple of scientific giants.

Actually, wasn't it Newton that originated the Shoulders of Giants comment?

Maybe, but certainly not before or in defense of Principia Mathematica. Maybe after in order to show some humility. "Humility" seem to be a bit deficient among AGW-proponents. They are simply "right" and skeptics are treated as "trolls". Or maybe "heretics"?

[Totally_Baffled]

Biff does make an interesting point in those comparisons.

I understood/understand the comparison, I just dont necessarily agree with it.

Gallileo turning out to be correct doesn't necessarily make CC anymore "proved".

Although I dont believe in "intelligent design", there still a shedload that science doesnt and cannot explain about the universe! So I keep an open mind.

Of course - I wonder how many times this comparison was made - and the theory turned out to be WRONG?

I suspect there are a number of examples when scientists theories turned out to be wrong despite the cast iron empircal evidence they thought they had?

[21st_century_caveman]

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn....

Somebody please change the record.