Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Global Warming


_w_

Recommended Posts

Well, I'd say that there has always been a neo-luddite brigade; the 'back-to-the-land' fantasists who think things would be just peachy if we disposed of 90% of the population, and everyone went back to subsidence farming.. They do provide some pretty nasty quotes.

I'd also point out that fixing global warming and the related issues of providing plentiful energy, food and water to a population of 10 billion is basically an engineering problem for which solutions exist should we choose to adopt them. The fact that people are prepared to argue against the existence of obvious problems and the implementation of obvious solutions says a lot about people, unfortunately.

thing is, to a consrvative, the solutions are already there and already being inacted and it looks pretty much OK- being largely ones of economic organisation, ie an efficient global market economy, absence of corrupt govt etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

true again - but the underlying question is economic - hpw significant does the impact need to be in order to have a greater economic/human impact than that implied by the cost of up-front mitigation?

Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it. It is, of course, impossible to carry out an accurate cost/benefit analysis when there are still so many unknowns, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and ignore the issue as some seem to suggest. Logic would suggest that some, easily implemented, mitigation strategies would be sensible; the extent of these strategies needs to be dictated by science and economics.

I've got no argument with those who argue for or against particular measures on economic grounds; what does genuinely baffle me is the attitude of those who, bizarrely, simply refuse to countenance the notion that human behaviour could possibly significantly affect the Earth's climate (edit: or that such effects could be detrimental to humans).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's the million dollar question, isn't it. It is, of course, impossible to carry out an accurate cost/benefit analysis when there are still so many unknowns, but that doesn't mean we should throw up our hands and ignore the issue as some seem to suggest. Logic would suggest that some, easily implemented, mitigation strategies would be sensible; the extent of these strategies needs to be dictated by science and economics.

I've got no argument with those who argue for or against particular measures on economic grounds; what does genuinely baffle me is the attitude of those who, bizarrely, simply refuse to countenance the notion that human behaviour could possibly significantly affect the Earth's climate.

there is a real tangible economic cost to over-reacting which directly results in the deaths of millions of people in poor countries, that is the problem; of course if significant mitigation IS desirable then that is an acceptable cost as the alternative is worse, however if it turns out that mitigation IS NOT desirable then acting for acting's sake is not a good thing

for what it's worth, I know as a fact from conference-experience that the liberal economic concensus on climate change (that even quite severe scenarios are probably survivable with GDP and calorie production holding up to continue economic development) is tacitly and often rudely rejected by VI climate scientists, who tend to be red NWO lefties expectign the economy to collapse in 20 years from climate change, but who also strangely have large mortgages on a 25 year term and fight vehemently to protect their nice final salary pensions

their chief objection is that economists cover such a wide variety of views, but the upshot is that only severe left-wing/statist economists' views are tolerated and reported, AFAIK, in the IPCC literature

it is taken as factual that climate fluctuations have unbearable economic costs, whereas that assertion has no academic concensual basis, it is siimply glossed over

the risk is in the tail of the climate-change chance (in my liberal view), which makes a measured response difficult/impossible to be sure about, the current stalemate in policy response, with small, low-cost strategies (such as taxing fuel and discouraging large car engines, encouraging SOME alternative energy supplies etc) seems sensible and may be in the ball park; of course you will never persuade China and India to take part wholesomely, naturally and reasonably

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what does genuinely baffle me is the attitude of those who, bizarrely, simply refuse to countenance the notion that human behaviour could possibly significantly affect the Earth's climate (edit: or that such effects could be detrimental to humans).

I agree. It's very bizarre behaviour indeed. Almost like the blind acceptance that house prices only ever go up.

Mankind can DEFINITELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER NOT be even a BIT responsible for changing the Earth's climate - I believe that as much as I believe that house prices only ever go up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got no argument with those who argue for or against particular measures on economic grounds; what does genuinely baffle me is the attitude of those who, bizarrely, simply refuse to countenance the notion that human behaviour could possibly significantly affect the Earth's climate (edit: or that such effects could be detrimental to humans).

I dont believe that we can affect the earth's climate with the poxy amount of CO2 we are releasing. We know that CO2 levels have gone up and down in history before, and the climate has not gone into runaway mode via any sort of positive feedback. As the whole theory of global warming relies on a positive feedback mechanism, I can only conclude that the earth doesnt provide one, because if it had, it would have been triggered before and the earth would have become unbearably hot and remained that way.

As for whether the CO2 does change things, I am sure it does, but not enough for anyone to worry about.

I am sure that the earth's climate can change though, we have had Ice Ages in the past, and their onset appears to be sudden, as does their ending. I have yet to hear a conclusive explanation as to why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is a real tangible economic cost to over-reacting which directly results in the deaths of millions of people in poor countries, that is the problem; of course if significant mitigation IS desirable then that is an acceptable cost as the alternative is worse, however if it turns out that mitigation IS NOT desirable then acting for acting's sake is not a good thing

for what it's worth, I know as a fact from conference-experience that the liberal economic concensus on climate change (that even quite severe scenarios are probably survivable with GDP and calorie production holding up to continue economic development) is tacitly and often rudely rejected by VI climate scientists, who tend to be red NWO lefties expectign the economy to collapse in 20 years from climate change, but who also strangely have large mortgages on a 25 year term and fight vehemently to protect their nice final salary pensions

their chief objection is that economists cover such a wide variety of views, but the upshot is that only severe left-wing/statist economists' views are tolerated and reported, AFAIK, in the IPCC literature

it is taken as factual that climate fluctuations have unbearable economic costs, whereas that assertion has no academic concensual basis, it is siimply glossed over

the risk is in the tail of the climate-change chance (in my liberal view), which makes a measured response difficult/impossible to be sure about, the current stalemate in policy response, with small, low-cost strategies (such as taxing fuel and discouraging large car engines, encouraging SOME alternative energy supplies etc) seems sensible and may be in the ball park; of course you will never persuade China and India to take part wholesomely, naturally and reasonably

Well this is the cunning thing that the VI-deniers do - they attack the science to avoid having to have that economic discussion in the first place. I suspect mainly because they would have to pay for any change that is needed - much better to let the little taxpayers pay for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that's interesting

I always took Northern hemisphere continentaility (albedo, again along sim. lines to ice) to be of a similar impact, ergo there would stuill be an impact, Milankovich on its own IS evidence but not proof

have you a citation/link that supports your claim that notwithstanding ice-caps, Milankovich wouldn't work? Or even in the geological record, I mean, the geological record is tricky, the fuirther back you go the harder it gets, and (per K/T* sorry error) pre-uplift of the Tibetan plateau (which ushered in current Quaternary ice-age cycles)I admittedly guess that it is almost impossible to be certain about cycles, consequently no PROOF either way, but I can be enlightened...

Within many sedimentary sequences, relative ageing (i.e. point A is 10k years after point B) is possible with fine analysis, so it would in theory be possible to detect milancovitch cycles almost arbitrarily far back - I believe that it has even just about been done, but the effect is very small. After all, the effect on the Earth's total energy budget is pretty small-to-zero, it's all about changing seasonality. If you want to get the +-6K changes associated with glacial/interglacial, the only way to make the energy budget work is by ice albedo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, one way of 'seeking truth' is to accuse anyone who disagrees with you a 'careerist', and therefore dismiss their arguments without even reading them?

Who said I haven't read them? I've spent an inordinate amount of time reading about global warming, at least more than I should have considering I have no particular interest in climate science. I'm a real sucker for those scare stories, I get caught every time. I have looked at the data and the arguments put forward by advocates of global warming. Even when I found some of the data to be clearly misrepresented (in several instances), or causations being produced out of thin air or what to an ignoramus like me looked like major elements being ignored such as the sun cycles, I still kept an open mind considering the seriousness of the threats that were predicted.

I have remained in that state until now. Today I am quite confident that the theory as presented is without merit and nowhere near being scientifically proven. Looking at the considerable means that are put into its promotion, I deduce that it is a scare story being pushed by VIs with an undeclared agenda.

I'm still waiting for a straight answer on the question I posed earlier. Is there a natural greenhouse effect or not?

In lab conditions and simplified environments the greenhouse effect is valid IIUC. One must put this in its proper context however because on its own this fact is of no use:

- The earth is a very complex system with endless feedback loops. Proper scientific measurements show that any variation that would be measurable seems to be cancelled by as yet unidentified feedback mechanism. That is assuming the theory has any validity to begin with.

- If there is a greenhouse effect cause by human produced CO2 on earth the odds IMO are that it is absolutely minimal due to the quantities of CO2 released by humans in comparison to the size of the atmosphere. We are talking about changes in parts per million, do these have any effect whatsoever??? This is what is not proven IMO.

- The warming forecasts (not the hyped up reports derived from them) that I see would not take us to the levels of the medieval warm period. The world didn't end then, if anything I wish we could go back to that level of warmth.

Among other things. The presentation in the OP highlights most of the questions and flaws in the theory as far as I can tell.

If I understand what you are getting at it would be pretty close to saying that because speed increases kinetic energy and the risk of harm we should all stand completely still from now on. It's nonsense obviously and a nefarious use of science. But this is what you come up with when some people do not put things in their proper context and base their efforts on finding a desired outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Within many sedimentary sequences, relative ageing (i.e. point A is 10k years after point B) is possible with fine analysis, so it would in theory be possible to detect milancovitch cycles almost arbitrarily far back - I believe that it has even just about been done, but the effect is very small. After all, the effect on the Earth's total energy budget is pretty small-to-zero, it's all about changing seasonality. If you want to get the +-6K changes associated with glacial/interglacial, the only way to make the energy budget work is by ice albedo.

well i don't disgaree with you, interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well this is the cunning thing that the VI-deniers do - they attack the science to avoid having to have that economic discussion in the first place. I suspect mainly because they would have to pay for any change that is needed - much better to let the little taxpayers pay for it.

well there are VIs on both sides - warmists attack liberal economics; deniers attack liberal science!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, more is the pity as it gets in the way of any meaningful discussions.

in particular, meaningful discussions are thwarted within the very scientific field itself, as individual scientists' careers are threatened to do so, it is a terrible thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on one of your points:

- If there is a greenhouse effect cause by human produced CO2 on earth the odds IMO are that it is absolutely minimal due to the quantities of CO2 released by humans in comparison to the size of the atmosphere. We are talking about changes in parts per million, do these have any effect whatsoever??? This is what is not proven IMO.

The point is that the gases (nitrogen, oxygen) comprising most of the Earth's atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. It makes no sense to argue that changes in CO2 as a proportion of the entire atmosphere are small, therefore greenhouse effects are small. It's like arguing that 1 gram of cyanide won't hurt you because it's only a tiny fraction of your body weight! Really, this is very basic stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on one of your points:

The point is that the gases (nitrogen, oxygen) comprising most of the Earth's atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. It makes no sense to argue that changes in CO2 as a proportion of the entire atmosphere are small, therefore greenhouse effects are small. It's like arguing that 1 gram of cyanide won't hurt you because it's only a tiny fraction of your body weight! Really, this is very basic stuff.

yep

there are 2 types of climate sceptic - the CO2 deniers, who are just wrong, and the economic-catastrophe deniers, whom I count myself amongst, that i do not deny the existence of AGW, but I am just not sure that the proposed medicine is not much much worse than the disease

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. It's very bizarre behaviour indeed. Almost like the blind acceptance that house prices only ever go up.

Mankind can DEFINITELY WITHOUT ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER NOT be even a BIT responsible for changing the Earth's climate - I believe that as much as I believe that house prices only ever go up.

And here you show that you have been trapped by the propaganda net. When I say the theory is too weak to be taken seriously doesn't mean I have no doubt. Just that the theory as it currently stands is too weak to be taken seriously. It doesn't mean that I am not concerned about human impact on the environment either, I am not AFAIK, totally brainless however much some would like to suggest to support their position.

If human impact on the environment troubles you there are some REAL problems that I think we are facing. The main one I see today is that of desertification and the unsustainable depletion of underground aquifers. That one, if confirmed and not tackled, could be very serious indeed. That seems more real and pressing than theories without proper factual bases. That is where resources should be directed IMO rather than towards new buildings in Brussels and higher City bonuses via the carbon credit market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to pick up on one of your points:

The point is that the gases (nitrogen, oxygen) comprising most of the Earth's atmosphere are not greenhouse gases. It makes no sense to argue that changes in CO2 as a proportion of the entire atmosphere are small, therefore greenhouse effects are small. It's like arguing that 1 gram of cyanide won't hurt you because it's only a tiny fraction of your body weight! Really, this is very basic stuff.

Some chemical compounds cause sex changes in frogs when absorbed in tiny quantities whereas they have no impact in large quantities.

Nature is complex, nothing is basic or simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planet is warming.

It has done so before.

It will do so again.

It will be fine.

Ecosystems will collapse and new ones develop.

Unfortunately this time around there is a very selfish species that is wilfully adding to or causing (it does not actually matter which to the planet) the warming

and that species has a "society" based on being able to inhabit and exploit and populate every part of the planet

come the change in the planetary temperature, that species will be one of the many to suffer as those bits of the planet that remain habitable to it become rather crowded

alternatively that species could try to do something to alleviate / offset the change and ensure its longer term survival

simple really

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The planet is warming.

It has done so before.

It will do so again.

It will be fine.

Ecosystems will collapse and new ones develop.

Unfortunately this time around there is a very selfish species that is wilfully adding to or causing (it does not actually matter which to the planet) the warming

and that species has a "society" based on being able to inhabit and exploit and populate every part of the planet

come the change in the planetary temperature, that species will be one of the many to suffer as those bits of the planet that remain habitable to it become rather crowded

alternatively that species could try to do something to alleviate / offset the change and ensure its longer term survival

simple really

I still think George Carlin had it right.

"the planet is fine. the people are f*****."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some chemical compounds cause sex changes in frogs when absorbed in tiny quantities whereas they have no impact in large quantities.

Nature is complex, nothing is basic or simple.

You obviously missed the point of my analogy.

I never claimed that nature was simple; I was merely pointing out that you seemed to be lacking understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts (atmospheric composition in this particular case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subtle ploy is the one you are using: the use of a broadbrush tag ('deniers') in order to help systematic stereotyping (and stop people thinking for themselves in the process).

How about, instead in engaging in propaganda techniques, you tell me what you make of historical CO2 rises showing up after warming phases rather than before?

Brilliant

Someone else who knows the truth about climate change yet doesn't understand the very basics behind Milankovich cycles and the difference between carbon cycle feedbacks and forcings. I'd expect a bright A level student to be able to deliver a competent essay on this.

Look this a fascinating topic...and if you are interested in it do a proper course..the Open University run an excellent series of planetary science courses....but at least then you may have a platform from to understand what it is you actually do and don't know.

I think the problem here is less Milankovich and more Dunning Kruger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:

- The earth is a very complex system with endless feedback loops. Proper scientific measurements show that any variation that would be measurable seems to be cancelled by as yet unidentified feedback mechanism. That is assuming the theory has any validity to begin with.

If this magic feedback exists why has it never operated before in earth's climate history?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it�s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

Do they all have to live in the UK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The usual -

1 ) What problem that exists for you in day to day life is this stuff supposed to be solving?

2 ) Given that every other large scale push for taxes based on some massive potential catastrophy has turned out to be cobblers, what are the odds of this one being diferent?

3 ) Why is this stuff called science when there is no replicable experiment possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.