Copenhagen 09

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • In december lots of governments will produce lots of greenhouse gasses flying to a big meeting to discuss global warming and worrying about climate chaos.


    What is the point of this meeting? will it be sucessful? is it whitewash to make us believe government/buisness give a shit when they only care about the next few years and how much money they earn?


    What needs to happen at this meeting to change the way we use energy so that our kids have a planet with a stable enviroment?


    My personal view is that we need to move towards some form of individual carbon ration which can be used or traded on an open market. We need some form of rationing so that those who use more than their allowance have to pay and those who use less than their allowance can profit. This would also lead to wealth redistribution from rich to poor countries but will also have benefits for those living in the west who have a small carbon footprint.

  • Post by fat ().

    The post was deleted, no further information is available.
  • [FONT=&quot]Copenhagen[/FONT][FONT=&quot] event is excellent.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]People are gathering to discuss changing our ways, to make a better world. Thats got to be a good thing![/FONT]


    [FONT=&quot][/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Contraction and Convergence is one way to encourage less abuse of planetry resources.[/FONT]

    “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”
    Lao Tzu
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  • [FONT=&quot]24th October[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]INTERNATIONAL DAY OF CLIMATE ACTION[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Amazing actions from all over the Earth[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]http://www.350.org/[/FONT]

    “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”
    Lao Tzu
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


  • What is the point of this meeting?


    To figure out how to tax us more, whilst putting forward the whole globalist agenda.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • To figure out how to tax us more, whilst putting forward the whole globalist agenda.


    [FONT=&quot]Normal environmentalist helped get this subject on the table, but when governments and business start to listen, paranoia creeps in for some people and cries of “this is all a con” start up.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Emitting pollution has a price and its right that polluters pay. Aviation fuel, burning of coal, burning of gas, should be taxed heavily.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Why should we have a climate change agreement ?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]More renewable energy. [/FONT]

    “Nature does not hurry, yet everything is accomplished.”
    Lao Tzu
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]


  • My personal view is that we need to move towards some form of individual carbon ration which can be used or traded on an open market. We need some form of rationing so that those who use more than their allowance have to pay and those who use less than their allowance can profit. This would also lead to wealth redistribution from rich to poor countries but will also have benefits for those living in the west who have a small carbon footprint.



    Ditto. I can see nothing working apart from rationing..

    but omg, china is the 'world's biggest polluter'... er hello!!! am i living in a parallel universe to the bbc where america doesn't produce on average 20 tonnes of co2 per person per year?

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • [FONT=&quot]Normal environmentalist helped get this subject on the table, but when governments and business start to listen, paranoia creeps in for some people and cries of “this is all a con” start up.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Emitting pollution has a price and its right that polluters pay. Aviation fuel, burning of coal, burning of gas, should be taxed heavily.[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]Why should we have a climate change agreement ?[/FONT]
    [FONT=&quot]More renewable energy. [/FONT]


    You'll forgive me if I still doubt, given how:
    * I still recall the "Ice age is on its way" from th '70s
    * The way climate change has become almost a religion, with doubters treated like Heretics who are subject to ridicule and bile (or allegations of paranoia)
    * The way that if its such a serious danger we have govts supporting the car industry whilst charging us more for using the cars.....it always seems to be us that pay the price, not industry

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • You'll forgive me if I still doubt, given how:
    * I still recall the "Ice age is on its way" from th '70s
    * The way climate change has become almost a religion, with doubters treated like Heretics who are subject to ridicule and bile (or allegations of paranoia)
    * The way that if its such a serious danger we have govts supporting the car industry whilst charging us more for using the cars.....it always seems to be us that pay the price, not industry



    granted, there's lots of stupid people (or, rather, intelligent people behaving stupidly) regarding anthropogenic climate change, who spew out rubbish and attack other people unpleasantly etc., but you get that with all serious issues; this is no exception.
    the problem is that the majority of the doubters are misinformed, through scientific papers reguarly cited on websites, in the press, from 'experts' funded by exxon. this is totally and utterly true.. it started with a tobacco company creating/funding an 'independent' research project to prove that passive smoking doesn't harm other people/babies etc to try and prevent it being banned.. and so it didn't come across as blatant, they wanted funding from other places, and exxon among others agreed, with the arrangment that they would then do research to disprove anthropogenic climate change/suggest lots of greenhouse gasses is a great thing for the planet and all the other misnomers that still continue to float around today..
    the only way to read a good report is in a peer reviewed journal : too many people take for granted that if someone has 'dr' in front of their name they know what they are talking about.
    with this as with everything sources must be looked at.
    This goes for both sides of the arguement of course. there's lots of stuff made up by 'environmentalists' to the detriment of everyone...
    as of course we know thaht govt. and people in general will only take what they want to hear, and if there's the slightest excuse not listen then they will grab it.
    So listening to the govt. isn't a good plan; we just blame China and do nothing. Mr Bush Sr's attitude summed it all up, and that has dominated the world for the last 30 years. Oil gets you rich now. Destruction of planet is for others to worry about later.
    And the few things that are being done are for the wrong reasons. nuclear power, carbon capture and storage etc..

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • The catch is.....we dont *know* whether anthropogenic climate change is happening.... :S


    Climate is an arcane subject, with arguments on all sides as to the reasons behind climate change; each sponsored by one biased group or another. Is it CO2 levels, or is it, for example, Sunspot activity? How are we to know which side is telling the truth when the subject *is* so arcane :S

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • The catch is.....we dont *know* whether anthropogenic climate change is happening.... :S

    Climate is an arcane subject, with arguments on all sides as to the reasons behind climate change; each sponsored by one biased group or another. Is it CO2 levels, or is it, for example, Sunspot activity? How are we to know which side is telling the truth when the subject *is* so arcane :S



    because there's some people who aren't on any sides, people with no agendas at all. some people do just want to learn the truth.
    the huge majority of top climate scientists agree for sure that anthropogenic climate change is happening.
    the science behind it is easy to understand, there's lots of evidence. high co2 levels and higher temps have always gone together, and 'cause we're burning so much coal/oil/gas this is definitely increasing.. and this leads to positive feedbacks (like permafrost melting and releasing more greenhouse gases, less ice = lower albedo)
    [Check out George Monbiot.. he's cool he tried to make a citizen's arrest on john bolton :) (for iraq war) ]

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • How are we to know which side is telling the truth when the subject *is* so arcane :S


    The point is that it is made to look arcane by people who have an agenda to push.


    "Oh, it's all so complicated! How can we possibly know? And since we can't decide, let's do nothing."


    Sorry, that is not being unbiased or open-minded; that is taking a side. Not only is it taking a side, but the side it takes is following the corporate agenda. It's what they want you to believe, because it helps them make more money.


    The case supporting anthropogenic climate change is not at all arcane. It is simple and well established except to those who support the corporate agenda. So well established, in fact, that anyone looking to propose an alternative explanation for climate change must first come up with a solid case to show why anthropogenic climate change is not happening. Give me a reason why CO2 is not causing global warming. If you can make a case for that, then I might listen to speculations on sunspots or whatever.


  • That isnt how science works :S You cant prove a negative.


    The world has heated up and cooled down many times and the sunspot cycle appears to fit the bill as well. People on both sides come with political agenda attached and both arguments seem plausible. And I speak as someone who would be happy to see us deindustrialise a lot....I just look and see in practice what has become primarily an excuse to tax :S

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • it has become an excuse to tax, but that doesn't make it any less real
    our govt.'s actions are not a reflection of reality

    it's not about proving a negative though; it's about finding some evidence to disprove an already existing and well-established hypothesis
    i am yet to hear anything that has not been countered - and continuously more things are thrown to 'prove' that it's not happening. e.g. 'antarctic isn't warming at same speed as arctic'.. people don't take into account all the factors involved; the cold currents surrounding and protecting the south pole etc.

    what would the climate scientists who believe in this have to gain by lying? why would people say, we'd rather have nuclear power, even though we hate it, than see more coal burnt, if they were lying?

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • it has become an excuse to tax, but that doesn't make it any less real
    our govt.'s actions are not a reflection of reality


    If this evidence is so conclusive, how come we have airport expansions, car plants being given bailouts etc? All parties are talking up industrial expansion - you'd think, if this situation was genuine and serious, they would get together and agree to tell the truth on the matter so that none will lose out for doing so. But there isnt even a hint of this happening. Instead all we get are new taxation opportunities arising.

    Quote

    it's not about proving a negative though; it's about finding some evidence to disprove an already existing and well-established hypothesis


    Just because climate change is shouted loudest and first doesnt mean it is accurate....


    Quote

    i am yet to hear anything that has not been countered - and continuously more things are thrown to 'prove' that it's not happening. e.g. 'antarctic isn't warming at same speed as arctic'.. people don't take into account all the factors involved; the cold currents surrounding and protecting the south pole etc.


    That's part of the point; climate is a hugely complex system yet we have people shouting from all sides that *their* interpretation is the accurate one. :S

    Quote

    what would the climate scientists who believe in this have to gain by lying? why would people say, we'd rather have nuclear power, even though we hate it, than see more coal burnt, if they were lying?


    It has gotten to the point where, if you deny ACC you are being called names reminscent of holocaust denial.... :S Ad hominem has no place in scientific discourse. And funding tends to come from either govt (typically bigging up the message of ACC) or oil business (typically arguing against it).


    In many ways, ACC reminds me of the Dihydrogen Oxide thread....

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • That isnt how science works :S You cant prove a negative.


    Sorry, no, that is ignorant. That is how science works. Yes, you can prove negatives. In fact negatives are much easier to prove than positives. Learn some science before you comment on scientific issues.

  • Sorry, no, that is ignorant. That is how science works. Yes, you can prove negatives. In fact negatives are much easier to prove than positives. Learn some science before you comment on scientific issues.


    Science doesnt offer proof. It offers evidence supporting one theory or another.


    I cannot give you proof of how X is not doing Y. It is entirely possible that dust level on the moons surface influence our climate; its a complex subject....and that is before we get into Chaos Theory. Life does not happen in a sealed laboratory. Even a sealed laboratory isnt really sealed - the "cosmic radiation" that passes through it alone will impact on what happens in there.


    So when you say "Give me a reason why CO2 is not causing global warming" there are two answers. One, I do not doubt that CO2 has an influencing factor on climate. Two, I cannot show how something is not causing something else....all I can do is construct a theory on evidence.


    So kindly do not speak of "ignorance" to me :)

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • It is very easy to disprove things. If it takes X joules of energy to produce Y temperature change, and if source A is not producing X joules of energy, then it source A cannot be causing an observed change of Y degrees. QED.


    Get a clue. :pp

  • It is very easy to disprove things. If it takes X joules of energy to produce Y temperature change, and if source A is not producing X joules of energy, then it source A cannot be causing an observed change of Y degrees. QED.


    1, That is evidence
    2, You cannot know for certain there are not other contributing factors.....like, for example, the conductivity of the medium through which X joules of energy travel.


    Quote

    Get a clue. :pp


    Get an education :rolleyes:

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • Get an education :rolleyes:


    I consider a science education in high school and in universtity to be a better education in science than being a regular watcher of CSI shows. :pp


    Quote

    1, That is evidence

    Duh, yeah! :rolleyes:

    Quote


    2, You cannot know for certain there are not other contributing factors.....like, for example, the conductivity of the medium through which X joules of energy travel.

    Hell, yes, there are other contributing factors. There always are. Try not to make a huge virtue of stating the obvious. :rolleyes:


    Science is at its best when it makes predictions. When the understanding of material science produces a prediction, and when the evidence indicates that the prediction is accurate, then you can conclude two things:
    1. The understanding of the material science is good.
    2. The other contributing factors are minor in comparison.


    At that point, those trying to advance an alternative explanation for the evidence need to show why the prediction is wrong in spite of its having been accurate.


    This is the situation in climate science today. An understanding of the physical properties of CO2 led to a prediction that rising CO2 levels atmosphere would cause a warming climate change. This was known back when I was in high school, before you were a twinkle in your parents' eyes. Over the intervening decades, improvements in understanding of the other factors in the atmosphere have resulted in numerical predictions of how big a change to expect. The evidence that has been and still is being accumulated supports those predictions as being accurate.


    So now, the onus is upon those who claim that this is not happening to show what if anything is wrong with this model.


    Yes, there are sunspots. Not a big enough effect to override the effect of CO2. Yes there are changes in the Earth's orbit, but they are regular, well measured, and predictable, and they do not produce a big enough effect to counter the effects of CO2. Yes, there could be all kinds of other factors.


    But those proposing those other factors have to show two things in irder to have them taken seriously:
    1. why the greenhouse effect theory does not account for the evidence (because it does);
    2. why the proposed effect does account for the evidence (because it doesn't).


    Get a clue.

  • Hell, yes, there are other contributing factors. There always are. Try not to make a huge virtue of stating the obvious. :rolleyes:


    The virtue isnt in stating the obvious. Its in stating the obvious that you repeatedly miss with your infantile comments - that climate is a complex system, not just an equation on a bit of paper, and thus we cannot know all contributing factors.


    Quote

    This is the situation in climate science today. An understanding of the physical properties of CO2 led to a prediction that rising CO2 levels atmosphere would cause a warming climate change. This was known back when I was in high school, before you were a twinkle in your parents' eyes. Over the intervening decades, improvements in understanding of the other factors in the atmosphere have resulted in numerical predictions of how big a change to expect. The evidence that has been and still is being accumulated supports those predictions as being accurate.

    Ok, you seem to be having difficulty reading this point so I will repeat it. I do not doubt that CO2 impacts upon climate. There. Clear enough? What I doubt is that it is the major contributor to, geologically speaking sudden, "Climate Change" that we are repeatedly told it is - with disagreement receiving "denial" labels by people who are responding to this in a "Ban H20" quasi-religious manner.


    Quote

    Yes, there are sunspots. Not a big enough effect to override the effect of CO2. Yes there are changes in the Earth's orbit, but they are regular, well measured, and predictable, and they do not produce a big enough effect to counter the effects of CO2. Yes, there could be all kinds of other factors.

    So please can you tell me which factories caused the previous episodes of global warming the earth has encountered over the last 4 Billion years? :S Clearly natural processes are perfectly capable of causing dramatic change in climate.....


    Quote

    Get a clue.

    Can you get any more pathetic?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • and thus we cannot know all contributing factors.


    ...as I already acknowledged. But we can put an upper limit on the magnitude of their effects.


    Quote

    Ok, you seem to be having difficulty reading this point so I will repeat it. I do not doubt that CO2 impacts upon climate. There. Clear enough?

    Acknowledged.

    Quote

    What I doubt is that it is the major contributor to, geologically speaking sudden, "Climate Change"

    Quote

    Quote

    that we are repeatedly told it is


    Since this is a quantitative claim that contradicts well-understood theory and evidence, provide evidence that substantiates your claim.


    Quote

    So please can you tell me which factories caused the previous episodes of global warming the earth has encountered over the last 4 Billion years? :S

    This is a red herring. No one has suggested that human-caused activities have caused previous climate changes, because it is obvious that they didn't. Therefore discussion of that point is stupid.


    As is your assumption that the causes of previous and current climate changes must be the same. If you are going to alledge that they must be the same, then you should provide evidence to support that. That is your theory, not mine.


    The actual evidence shows that the causes are different, and that human-caused activities are the primary cause of the current situation.

  • ...as I already acknowledged. But we can put an upper limit on the magnitude of their effects.


    No we cant. We dont know what they all are :S We can hazard a guess, but (like I keep pointing out) climate is a hugely complex system.


    Quote

    Since this is a quantitative claim that contradicts well-understood theory and evidence, provide evidence that substantiates your claim.

    That is my point; it is such a complex subject we are supposed to just trust the experts......who seem to generally agree the solution involves.....oh yes, taxation and increased centralised govt control. And they cant even agree how dramatic this supposed change will even be :S


    It has also become, by and large, a political football between the forces of (Oil-Based) capitalism and the forces of (tax and legislate) big govt socialism. THAT, even if there were no other issues, makes me wary of the matter. Its an arcane enough subject to make it difficult to question the capitalist side and its also an arcane enough subject to make a convenient bogeyman for the other side to demand a need for protection from.


    Quote

    This is a red herring. No one has suggested that human-caused activities have caused previous climate changes, because it is obvious that they didn't. Therefore discussion of that point is stupid.

    No, it points out that the earth's climate undergoes dramatic change all of its own accord. Occams razor - it can do it by itself, it doesnt need us to do it, so why is it happening now.... The need is for those who promote ACC theory to provide clear evidence (not arcane mumbojumbo) of our involvement being the case.


    If your argument relies on calling people "stupid" in order to make your point it just shows how weak your argument really is.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Coyote: spelling and grammar ().

  • There you go with the "Oh, it is too complex for me to understand" wailing again. Okay, you brought up Occam's razor. Apply it.


    You have lots of possible factors. Quantify them. One of those factors is large enough to account for the observations. Other factors that we know about are too small to account for more than a tiny portion of the observations. Which is the simpler explanation?
    1. That both the quantification of the major factor and the quantification of the minor factors are wrong?
    2. Or that the proposed explanation is in fact correct?


    We have ACC that accounts for 4-6 degrees per century temperature change and we see temperature changes in that magnitude range occurring. Of all the other possible explanations of climate change that we know about (and acknowledging that there could be others that we don't know about) there are none that individually or together currently account for a temperature change of that magnitude. Yet we are seeing one.


    Occam's razor concludes that the simplest explanation is the best. The simplest explanation is that a phenomenon that is predicted to cause a particular temperature change is the most likely explanation for an observed temperature change of that magnitude, especially since no other factors can account for that magnitude.


    Science is never closed minded. If you can show that there is a better explanation, scientists will listen. But your explanation would have to show why the established explanation is wrong. That's how science works. It advances primarily by showing that established explanations were wrong or incomplete.


    Those, like you, who wail that it is all too complex are simply too poorly informed to understand the science. There is a simple remedy: get informed. It is easily understood by those who make the effort.


    When I challenge you to show what is wrong with the established theory, it is a test. If you understood it, you would be able to show its flaws. You flunk the test. You don't understand it.


  • Climate changes naturally.


    Some scientists propose that there is such a thing as ACC and that it is of a level to need action.


    That requires clear (not arcane) evidence of how:
    * ACC exists
    * it is a noteworthy threat


    It isnt up to me to disprove ACC theory, it is for ACC theory to be presented in a clear and non-arcane manner which takes into account other factors; such as sun-spots, the wobble in orbits, etc


    Dismissing those concerns in a "well you are being stupid" manner doesnt work to support ACC theory nor present it in a clear manner. Like I have repeatedly said, I am not opposed to a reduction in industrialisation of the west cultures. I am how ever opposed to what this is being used to sell; namely, global governance and increase in taxation. If you want me to agree to a need for global governance I want a clear, non-arcane, substantial and non-childishly-presented argument put before me. If you cannot do that, if all you can do is offer me an arcane "trust the expert" option, then I have no time for your argument whatsoever - faith is for religions, not science and politics.

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

  • If this evidence is so conclusive, how come we have airport expansions, car plants being given bailouts etc? All parties are talking up industrial expansion - you'd think, if this situation was genuine and serious, they would get together and agree to tell the truth on the matter so that none will lose out for doing so. But there isnt even a hint of this happening. Instead all we get are new taxation opportunities arising.



    Money. Lots of situations in the world are genuine and serious and we don't sort them out.

    the govt is doing stuff though albeit not enough (imo), there's agreements and things, amounts we have to reduce our production of co2 by by certain dates etc. they're aware there is an issue, and have made some decisions based on that.
    people are getting together which is what these talks in copenhagen are about, and the IPCC and the stern report etc.
    the airports are able to expand and more cars on the roads, because the voters want that - or at least, cheaper flights etc and the government likes being where it is.


    Re your arguement with keith - there's lots of evidence for acc, and as i tried to say earlier, no good evidence of anything else.

    Solar activity for example has certainly had massive effects in the past, like the little ice age in the middle ages, but it is widely believed that the dominant factor on the climate at the moment is the levels of greenhouse gases. Sunspot activity still occurs obviously, but the fluctuations in temperature it causes are 0.1 to 0.2 degrees celcius. we can tell this by looking at sunspot activity and comparing it to changes in temp. in the 11 yr cycle etc.
    ice cores and tree rings inform of us t he main contributing factor to temperature changes through-out earth's history, and sometimes it is the atmosphere, sometimes solar activity, sometimes other things that are the main factor.

    like i said, the people who are pro other things causing climate change, are unable to back their claims up well, as far as i have read, unlike the scientists who say it is due to the burning of fossil fuels. there is more evidence for acc than anything else.

    I agree you should not 'trust the expert' - experts lie or aren't really experts. so you read everything and study it yourself and make your own opinions, with no agenda. and this is what i have done, and this is the conclusion i have come to. i cannot of course force anyone to believe anything and wouldn't wish to, but people read one article which says 'biggest con of our time' or something and believe it straight out and don't do any research. and that's that, all the science in the world can't change their mind.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Well, it doesn't help if your opposition to the concept is based on opposition to a political concept that I don't share. I, too, am opposed to global government.

    Quote

    That requires clear (not arcane) evidence of how:
    * ACC exists
    * it is a noteworthy threat

    Arcane, of course, is a loaded word intended to bias the argument. You mean, perhaps, too complex for you to understand? It is not a characteristic of the argument, but a response from the listener.


    The theory of ACC is not arcane, nor is it difficult to understand. Explaining it to someone who has no background in science requires explaining the background too. That is probably too much to do in a single post on a forum thread. Unfortunately, if that is a person's primary source of information on the subject, they will remain uninformed.


    Nevertheless, I will make an effort.


    1. The temperature of the Earth (or any object) is determined by the balance of energy in and energy out. If more energy is coming in than going out, the object's temperature will rise. Conversely, if more energy is going out then in, the temperature will fall. The change in temperature alters the energy going out, achieving a new balance at a different temperature.


    2. At the surface of the earth, there is a minor energy contribution from heat within the core of the Earth, but by far the majority of the enery input comes from the sun, mostly in the form of visible light.


    3. The only output of energy from the surface of the Earth is infra-red radiation out into space.


    4. Carbon dioxide is transparent to visible light. It is relatively opaque to infra-red radiation. This is a physical property that is easily measured in the lab, and has been known for over a century.


    5. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere behaves the same as in the lab: it allows visible light through and blocks infra-red radiation. That means the incoming visible light from the sun continues to come in, but the infra-red radiation going out is blocked and re-radiated down to the surface.


    6. This action of carbon dioxide raises the temperature of the surface of the Earth. Without the carbon dioxide, the temperature would have been much lower. Because it is there, blocking the infra-red radiation, the temperature is higher than it otherwise would have been. The rise in temperature increased the radiation of infra-red to achieve a new balance.


    7. All this is natural so far.


    8. In the last 200 years, industrial activity, including transportation, has dumped huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Not all of it has stayed there - there are natural processes that remove it - but a large portion of it is still there because we are producing it faster than natural processes can absorb it.


    9. This is not speculation: you can measure the CO2 in the exhaust of any combustion process. We can also measure the increase in atmospheric levels that have occurred, using bubbles of trapped gases in glacial ice, which can be dated precisely. Pre-industrial levels were around 200-220 ppm. The level today is 380 ppm.


    10. Our measured use of fossil fuels more than accounts for this increase. Any alternative explanation of the sudden rise in CO2 levels would need to account for all the CO2 that we have made. Simplest explanation: we know we put it there; we know it is still there; therefore we are the cause.


    11. This increase in CO2 level is predicted (see point 5) to increase the global temperature. Predicting the precise amount of the change is problematical, but it is in the range of 4-6 degrees C in the next century.


    12. We are seeing temperature changes that correspond to this predicted rate.


    13. We are not seeing any other mechanism that would generate comparable temperature changes at the present time. There are other factors that influence the temperature balance, but they are not currently comparable in magnitude.


    14. Therefore, human activity, in the form of burning fossil fuels, is the major cause of the current climate change. Other factors are minor in comparison.


    QED. ACC exists.


    Now, if you disagree with that, tell me which part you disagree with and why.


    How "noteworthy" you consider the threat is of course subjective. To some people, famine is not noteworthy. There, you are getting into risk assessment, which is a whole 'nother ball of wax.


  • So far I have NO particular issues with what you have said.


    1, why is the level of CO2 expected to cause the predicted level of temperature increases? Is there an easily comparable measure of co2/temperature in the past to which it can be compared?


    2, what other potential impactors have been looked at? why are they discounted? by whom?

    "The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can't do."

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Coyote: interesting typo :D ().


  • 1, why is the level of CO2 expected to cause the predicted level of temperature increases?


    The details of the calculations are complex. No, I have not studied them in detail. However, I am not willing to distrust the scientists on this point alone, when everything else about the theory looks reasonable.


    The main complicating factors in the calculation are feedbacks, both positive and negative. For example, higher temperature might create more clouds, which would reflect sunlight (negative feedback), or higher temperatures melt sea ice and permafrost, reducing reflection of sunlight and releasing methane gas (both positive feedbacks). It is because of the need to assess these feedbacks to refine the calculations that the theory took 40 years from when it was first proposed until its general acceptance.


    If you actually want to see the gory details of the calculations (as opposed to simply exploiting the point as a rhetorical device), you will have to get down and dirty and read the original papers.

    Quote


    Is there an easily comparable measure of co2/temperature in the past to which it can be compared?


    Why, yes, funny you should ask. There is:



    Quote


    2, what other potential impactors have been looked at?


    All the standard ones that doubters like to raise: solar variations, eccentricities in the Earth's orbit, volcanic activity, etc.

    Quote


    why are they discounted?


    They aren't discounted. They are factored into the calculations, where their effect is miniscule. We know there hasn't been a sudden increase in volcanic eruptions in the last 200 years, so the effect of volcanic gasses is tiny. We know that sunspots aren't making a significant contribution - if anything the recent observed changes would cause a decrease in temperature. We know with extreme precision what the Earth's orbit has being doing for the last few thousand years and what effect that has on solar radiation received on the Earth's surface. They take all those factors into account and the result is a net contribution of no more than 10% of the total. The other 90% is us.