global warming is not human caused paper

[MacG]

Yawn, Yawn, Yawn....

Somebody please change the record.

Indeed!

[snow hope]

Climate change and particularly the AGW Theory are definately not black and white as some people want you to believe. I find that people who use terms like, "the scientific concensus" or people who won't even discuss the problem and pass you off in a condescending manner, are the people who find it difficult to argue the issue in any detail.

I have studied and researched climate change for the last 6 years and I am still sceptical of the anthropogenic aspect of current climate change. In fact I expect the global climate to cool over the coming decade or two.

I find it particularly interesting that whilst we have all been told by TPTB, energy companies, economists, basically everybody that we have nothing to worry about regarding Energy and Oil - we have used our brains and determined otherwise!

Yet TPTB have been falling over themselves to tell us how serious Global Warming is and how much we need to reduce our CO2 output, agreed a Kyoto Agreement that was meaningless, created a a political body called the IPCC to confirm all the worst fears we can think of regarding climate and yet some people agree with this hardly with a second thought? Oh and by the way the the scientists agree that mankind is only responsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 output budget at today's levels.

Are MacG, Bozio, MisterE, Totally_Baffled and me the only ones who can see the absurdness of the situation? Come on guys use your heads and start to think about this! It is not all stacking up........

Finally, I would say MisterE's post above says it a lot how I see it.......

[syberberg]

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.

Oh, I agree with you on that, it's just the lessening effect won't be that great. A 2-5% reduction pa would negligible. Why do you think the calls in CO2e cutting are between 60-100%?

Of course, that excludes the possibility of a fast crash. At which point, all bets are off IMHO.

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

If that pulse model, based on the Bern Model (designed to study the relationship between anthropogenic carbon emissions and atmospheric CO2 levels), is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it) it actually takes a lot longer for all the anthropogenic CO2 to be absorbed.

The 100 years (which is looking more and more like an underestimation) for all the CO2 molecules to be absorbed, it doesn't hang around in the atmosphere and then "drop back to Earth", the process of naturally removing it from the atmosphere, via photosynthesis, oceanic absorption, etc., takes that long to be complete. Sorry if I'm not making myself 100% clear. It's why I'd be useless as a teacher, I know what I mean and want to say, but somehow manage to fail miserably in the explanation.

I'd be interested to see what you think of this.

Of course, we're both not mentioning an increased use of coal to generate electricity, which if government's plans are anything to go by are going to a seriously detrimental effect and will certainly offset any reduction in emissions via a slow decline.

IMHO, the only way PO will have any noticeable effect is in the fast crash scenario.

[Bozzio]

Climate change and particularly the AGW Theory are definately not black and white as some people want you to believe. I find that people who use terms like, "the scientific concensus" or people who won't even discuss the problem and pass you off in a condescending manner, are the people who find it difficult to argue the issue in any detail.

I have studied and researched climate change for the last 6 years and I am still sceptical of the anthropogenic aspect of current climate change. In fact I expect the global climate to cool over the coming decade or two.

I find it particularly interesting that whilst we have all been told by TPTB, energy companies, economists, basically everybody that we have nothing to worry about regarding Energy and Oil - we have used our brains and determined otherwise!

Yet TPTB have been falling over themselves to tell us how serious Global Warming is and how much we need to reduce our CO2 output, agreed a Kyoto Agreement that was meaningless, created a a political body called the IPCC to confirm all the worst fears we can think of regarding climate and yet some people agree with this hardly with a second thought? Oh and by the way the the scientists agree that mankind is only responsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 output budget at today's levels.

Are MacG, Bozio, MisterE, Totally_Baffled and me the only ones who can see the absurdness of the situation? Come on guys use your heads and start to think about this! It is not all stacking up........

Finally, I would say MisterE's post above says it a lot how I see it.......

Well said snow hope!

[clv101]

This is what I don't get... how someone can say this:

I have studied and researched climate change for the last 6 years...

And then say something like this:

Oh and by the way the the scientists agree that mankind is only responsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 output budget at today's levels.

The first couple of hours of climate change research should tell you that isn't the point.

Yet TPTB have been falling over themselves to tell us how serious Global Warming is and how much we need to reduce our CO2 output...

I agree that some aspects of Government policy are using climate change as a way of not talking about energy security - but to suggest it's a great conspiracy that's influenced the science? I don't buy that for a moment.

[Bozzio]

The first couple of hours of climate change research should tell you that isn't the point.

Hi Chris,

Could you explain why?

[MisterE]

Climate change and particularly the AGW Theory are definately not black and white as some people want you to believe. I find that people who use terms like, "the scientific concensus" or people who won't even discuss the problem and pass you off in a condescending manner, are the people who find it difficult to argue the issue in any detail.

I have studied and researched climate change for the last 6 years and I am still sceptical of the anthropogenic aspect of current climate change. In fact I expect the global climate to cool over the coming decade or two.

I find it particularly interesting that whilst we have all been told by TPTB, energy companies, economists, basically everybody that we have nothing to worry about regarding Energy and Oil - we have used our brains and determined otherwise!

Yet TPTB have been falling over themselves to tell us how serious Global Warming is and how much we need to reduce our CO2 output, agreed a Kyoto Agreement that was meaningless, created a a political body called the IPCC to confirm all the worst fears we can think of regarding climate and yet some people agree with this hardly with a second thought? Oh and by the way the the scientists agree that mankind is only responsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 output budget at today's levels.

Are MacG, Bozio, MisterE, Totally_Baffled and me the only ones who can see the absurdness of the situation? Come on guys use your heads and start to think about this! It is not all stacking up........

Finally, I would say MisterE's post above says it a lot how I see it.......

That is spot on snow hope, and is exactly what I think and feel, but said in much better words than I could put, I dont deny outright CC or even man made CC, I try to keep an open mind with everything, but its that open mind that is ringing alarm bells for me, its all just a bit too convenient and in house. Also to me PO is a more pressing issue and in fact is the only issue of the next 100yrs that worries me. After enjoying life and doing what you can on this planet to make it a better place, then children are the only things that are left in life. PO seems along with a more totalitarian state are the only things that really make me believe that if these elements get out of control, my grandchildren and my children could suffer terrible or even die. Climate change is a debate, energy is a crisis. I wish I knew more on CC but I'm trying to get myself and family ready for the change that PO or recession can bring, and that means dealing with the now in a calm happy and productive manner - which does take effort, lots of work and time. Nonetheless its a good thread and I'm learning all the time - well trying too

[skeptik]

Hmm... ants nest suitable stirred

[biffvernon]

Oh and by the way the the scientists agree that mankind is only responsible for about 3% of the annual CO2 output budget at today's levels.

The first couple of hours of climate change research should tell you that isn't the point.

Yet TPTB have been falling over themselves to tell us how serious Global Warming is and how much we need to reduce our CO2 output...

Think of a bath. You've left the tap on. The inflow of water just matches the outflow throgh the overflow. No great problem. A steady state of dynamic equilibrium. But now your toddler turns the other tap full on and the capacity of the overflow is beaten. Flooded bathroom floor.

If we put more CO2 into the atmosphere than the carbon sinks can absorb, even a tiny bit more, then we are doomed. This was pointed out in the mid 19th century. Subsequent observations confirmed this. By the mid 1970s it was obvious to many scientists, even me, that AGW was going to be real and serious. I am constantly amazed that anyone doubts it but I am equally amazed that millions doubt Darwinian evolution, even after 150 years.

If TPTB really understood how serious it was they wouldn't be tinkering about with airline taxes. Coal mining would be outlawed.

[MacG]

I cant stop wondering about how much extra carbon dioxide will be emitted as a direct consequence of the Nobel peace prize? Lots and lots of people flying around and eating a fancy dinner to top it off. If the Norwegians really MEANT something with their award, they would have canceled the ceremonies and had some locally produced fish and chips for dinner.

[skeptik]

I cant stop wondering about how much extra carbon dioxide will be emitted as a direct consequence of the Nobel peace prize? Lots and lots of people flying around and eating a fancy dinner to top it off. If the Norwegians really MEANT something with their award, they would have canceled the ceremonies and had some locally produced fish and chips for dinner.

Damn! Wish I was on the Environment conference circuit. They always have them in such interesting places. Next biennial global warming conference for 'interested parties' is December 3rd in Bali. Lovely.

Several thousand people mainly from Europe and North America fly half way round the world to Bali for 10 days to discuss CO2 induced global warming.

Sort of warms the cockles that all these environmental activists, bureacrats, politicians and scientists are so concerned about our future that they are willing to leave their families behind in London, Tokyo, Chigago, etc.. in December and congregate in...Bali. I just cant imagine why they didn't choose Birmingham. Less far to fly for most of the participants. I mean, whats wrong with Birmingham in December? They have a perfectly good international convention center, and you can get to it by train. As it is the participants will have a really long flight to put up with before they can change into their swimming trunks and bikinis. It's tough at the top.

http://www.ictsd.org/biores/07-07-20/events.htm

[biffvernon]

I cant stop wondering about how much extra carbon dioxide will be emitted as a direct consequence of the Nobel peace prize? Lots and lots of people flying around.

Absolutely none. As you know, all the oil is going to be burnt anyway, whoever flies.

[SaturnV]

The first couple of hours of climate change research should tell you that isn't the point.

Hi Chris,

Could you explain why?

There is a finite but tiny quantity of carbon on earth, and a very small proportion of this is constantly being cycled naturally. The rest is locked up, as fossil fuels and in the ocean deep and does not ordinarily enter the carbon cycle. But if we release it into the atmosphere, either as CO2 or methane, then the natural balance within the cycle is upset.

[Bozzio]

I cant stop wondering about how much extra carbon dioxide will be emitted as a direct consequence of the Nobel peace prize? Lots and lots of people flying around.

Absolutely none. As you know, all the oil is going to be burnt anyway, whoever flies.

Exactly, so why all the pontificating about it on this forum?

[Bozzio]

The first couple of hours of climate change research should tell you that isn't the point.

Hi Chris,

Could you explain why?

There is a finite but tiny quantity of carbon on earth, and a very small proportion of this is constantly being cycled naturally. The rest is locked up, as fossil fuels and in the ocean deep and does not ordinarily enter the carbon cycle. But if we release it into the atmosphere, either as CO2 or methane, then the natural balance within the cycle is upset.

Yes, yes, I understand that. The question was more about why Man's 3% CO2 emmission is more significant than the other 97%?