|
Post by marchesarosa on Sept 14, 2010 13:59:28 GMT 1
Is the AGW hype simply a function of the supposedly increasingly sophisticated types of measuring apparatus used? After all, we are being encouraged to get worried over temperature variations of tenths of a degree over a century! I posed this concern a couple of times on the old BBC board because it occurred to me that without these supposedly accurate measurements of climatic variables there would be no AGW hype because there is no perceptible change visible by normal observation. Similarly the mass communications blitz that brings every extreme weather even into our sitting rooms via satellite only serves to stoke the impression that these things are happening more often. Without the supposed sophistication of measurement techniques and the greater consciousness of events in the wider world there could be no AGW hype. AGW is merely a function of technological innovation. Tom Fuller discusses it further here: wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/14/the-joy-of-innovation/#more-24839
|
|
|
Post by lazarus on Sept 15, 2010 17:38:04 GMT 1
Is the AGW hype simply a function of the supposedly increasingly sophisticated types of measuring apparatus used? How do sophisticated types of measuring apparatus melt ice?
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 19, 2010 18:49:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by StuartG on Sept 19, 2010 23:11:38 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 9:25:13 GMT 1
It's not just a question of a couple of graphs, StuartG - there are numerous independent sources of evidence, the graph just serves to highlight the urgency of the problem. If all people want to do is attack the evidence then they have to use scientific arguments, not emotional ones.
|
|
|
Post by principled on Sept 20, 2010 14:24:43 GMT 1
Abacus I've just finished reading a news article about the movement of homo sapiens out of Africa. The key point about the article is that 70k years ago what is now desert was fertile plains. This is a simple example of how the climate has changed substantially in the past.
Now, while I can accept that man's actions must be having SOME effect on climate, I do not accept that 100% of changes are down to us. This, for me, is the key question which has yet to be answered by climate scientists. Stripping out anthropogenic change from natural variation must be very difficult and I doubt we have the tools yet to do it.
Thus, the doom mongers of the CC camp have,IMHO, done much to harm the debate as they appear to pin 100% of the change on man. This in turn has led to devastating policies by politicians which, again IMO, will result in much unemployment and misery without doing anything to reduce CO2.
If CO2 is the driver for CC, then just following the French example of nuclear electrical generation would reduce our CO2/person by 40% at a stroke. But, as we produce only 2% of the world's CO2, I doubt if this will do anything to mitigate any change in climate, especially as this is the amount of the annual increase in the CO2 produced by China. P
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 14:58:30 GMT 1
Abacus I've just finished reading a news article about the movement of homo sapiens out of Africa. The key point about the article is that 70k years ago what is now desert was fertile plains. This is a simple example of how the climate has changed substantially in the past. Now, while I can accept that man's actions must be having SOME effect on climate, I do not accept that 100% of changes are down to us. This, for me, is the key question which has yet to be answered by climate scientists. Stripping out anthropogenic change from natural variation must be very difficult and I doubt we have the tools yet to do it. Thus, the doom mongers of the CC camp have,IMHO, done much to harm the debate as they appear to pin 100% of the change on man. This in turn has led to devastating policies by politicians which, again IMO, will result in much unemployment and misery without doing anything to reduce CO2. If CO2 is the driver for CC, then just following the French example of nuclear electrical generation would reduce our CO2/person by 40% at a stroke. But, as we produce only 2% of the world's CO2, I doubt if this will do anything to mitigate any change in climate, especially as this is the amount of the annual increase in the CO2 produced by China. P I don't think that any responsible scientist would ever claim that any theory is 100% correct. The deciding factor must always be the weight of evidence in favour of one side or the other, and in the case of AGW, many serious scientists (without an axe to grind) feel compelled to support the AGW hypothesis, simply based on the weight of evidence. No one is saying (or should not be) that the AGW debate is over, but there comes a time when the amount of available evidence compels us to make a crucial decision as to how to deal with the impending crisis. To delay taking action on the grounds of imperfect data would be highly irresponsible and reckless and we would not be thanked for our lack of action by future generations who will suffer the catastrophic effects of climate change.
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 15:35:02 GMT 1
But what action are they suggesting? Building silly wind farms and taxing the air we breath? That's not the answer to a problem - that's the beginning of catastrophic economic meltdown.
How will that help??
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 15:57:01 GMT 1
But what action are they suggesting? Building silly wind farms and taxing the air we breath? That's not the answer to a problem - that's the beginning of catastrophic economic meltdown. How will that help?? Which is more important - preserve the environment, or worry about where your next car is coming from?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 15:59:17 GMT 1
Or another way of putting it: What's more important - a possible slight rise in temperature or certain economic meltdown.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 16:08:08 GMT 1
Or another way of putting it: What's more important - a possible slight rise in temperature or certain economic meltdown. I don't know how you can be so blasé about such an important matter. Do you really mean it?
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 16:24:44 GMT 1
The political and economic measures employed to mitigate possible AGW will destroy the world economy and lead to utter misery for billions. The piddling and disputed rise in temperature is nothing in comparison.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 16:34:41 GMT 1
The political and economic measures employed to mitigate possible AGW will destroy the world economy and lead to utter misery for billions. The piddling and disputed rise in temperature is nothing in comparison. Aren't you painting a very black picture? Surely, economic measures can be planned in advance to mitigate against extreme suffering if only the governments of the world would agree on a concerted plan. The alternative is to face even more suffering.
|
|
|
Post by abacus9900 on Sept 20, 2010 16:38:11 GMT 1
"For many, a warming climactic system is expected to impact the availability of basic necessities like freshwater, food security, and energy, while efforts to redress climate change, both through adaptation and mitigation, will similarly inform and shape the global development agenda." www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_cc/cc_index.shtml
|
|
|
Post by rsmith7 on Sept 20, 2010 16:38:22 GMT 1
Which governments? Concerted plan? What the hell can governments do? Economic activity doesn't come from government! It is hampered by government. Surely you aren't suggesting governments have the answer to anything? Hasn't that been tried before with devestating results?
|
|