Do you believe in man made global warming?

[MrSmith]

I suppose you should take into account the way gases behave differently depending on where in the atmosphere they are. And that what could apparently cause warming can have all sorts of unexpected affects and not result in the 'obvious' outcome at all.

Far too simplistic.

It does appear to be a fact that the average global temperature has risen slightly, but we can't explain it with any model we've currently managed to construct, we aren't even sure that we've got all the relevant factors involved.

Maybe CO2 is really important, but on the other hand maybe the output of the sun is actually the key thing. Or maybe it's really all about how clouds form, something we don't really understand... Maybe it's all about the amount of soot we pump out, or more likely it's some combination of all these factors that we just aren't capable of analysing and thus aren't capable of making any predictions.

They argue about how we are affecting (ie by what mechanisms), by how much and in what way.

Without knowing at least a couple of those things we're not in a position to change our behaviour for the better are we?

Unfortunately trying to put the most complex phenomenon we know of into simple terms might be leading us into thinking that there is some simple answer to a simple problem...

 

You've convinced me we should continue as we are, bury our heads in the sand and hope for the best all because we don't fully understand every possible variable.

Then again, cutting pollution, cutting CO2 emissions, using renewable energy were possible, reversing deforestation, can’t do more harm than continuing as we are.

[Cyclone]

Yes, it can. That's the point I was trying to make. We can't say it will or it won't, but there is the possibility that it would do more harm.

[Cyclone]

Only if you believe that Cutting CO2, reversing deforestation and cutting pollution will course an ice age. Fortunately you seem to be the only person that thinks it can.

 

Possibly the only person on this thread, but maybe that's because the rest of you can't be bothered to actually do any research or prefer a simple answer (however wrong it might be).

[Cyclone]

you'd think it was a no brainer to be honest.

 

and the people who are against it what have you been asked to give up? ooooh, sorry that energy effiecient lightbulbs aren't instnatly bright, having to wait a whole few minutes for them to warm up must be a real inconvinince. car tax going up? no way/? that hasn't been a fixture of every year! the government promoting insulation for houses! I love wasting gas and paying more than I need to so heat can radiate through my house....

 

what are you missing out on here really?

 

Massive investment subsidies in 'alternative' energy sources which definitely cannot supply our needs is diverting investment away from safe nuclear plants that can supply our needs and don't emit any CO2.

Things like this are of far larger impact than any of the incredibly minor, one could almost say pointless, token gestures you just mentioned.

 

You're just convincing me that you don't really know very much about the subject, either the science, the technology or the politics involved.

[Cyclone]

OK, well, if you'll permit me to theorize a little further ...

 

I think that these homeostatic mechanisms, the complexities of which are hard to fathom because of the many interdependent factors feeding back into each other, have been at work for a billion years or more, regulating changes in the global climate to make it habitable for life. Not one iota of intention or direction, but evolving directly from the complex system itself.

 

In doing so, a number of stable patterns of varying periodicity have established themselves - weather systems, ocean currents, trade winds etc.

 

These systems have coped with everything that the solar system can inflict upon them, from volcanic activity, tides, sunspots, magnetic storms and so on.

 

Anyone disagree with this yet?

 

Sounds correct so far, but I'd like to add a little bit of information.

CO2 levels have in the past been massively higher than they are today, clearly the system and it's feedback mechanisms did not fail under those conditions.

[Halibut]

OK, well, if you'll permit me to theorize a little further ...

 

I think that these homeostatic mechanisms, the complexities of which are hard to fathom because of the many interdependent factors feeding back into each other, have been at work for a billion years or more, regulating changes in the global climate to make it habitable for life. Not one iota of intention or direction, but evolving directly from the complex system itself.

 

In doing so, a number of stable patterns of varying periodicity have established themselves - weather systems, ocean currents, trade winds etc.

 

These systems have coped with everything that the solar system can inflict upon them, from volcanic activity, tides, sunspots, magnetic storms and so on.

 

Anyone disagree with this yet?

 

Sounds good to me.

[fruitisbad]

Massive investment subsidies in 'alternative' energy sources which definitely cannot supply our needs is diverting investment away from safe nuclear plants that can supply our needs and don't emit any CO2.

Things like this are of far larger impact than any of the incredibly minor, one could almost say pointless, token gestures you just mentioned.

 

You're just convincing me that you don't really know very much about the subject, either the science, the technology or the politics involved.

 

IMO the lack of investment in nuclear plants isn't down to green energy stealing it away it's down to the huge swathes of people in this country, the world even, who are against nuclear energy for whatever reasons. I'd like to say I think Nuclear is a great way to meet our energy demands but there's no denying it's got a bit of a bad press, no matter how unfounded.

[llamatron]

Sounds correct so far, but I'd like to add a little bit of information.

CO2 levels have in the past been massively higher than they are today, clearly the system and it's feedback mechanisms did not fail under those conditions.

 

where is this info from-convenienttheoriesforyou.com? I just googled images of co2 levels in the atmosphere and all the graphs I looked at showed fluctuation and then massive increases at the time of the industrial revolution? Of course it depends on how and where you measure the co2 so seriously where is this from?

[Cyclone]

Try reading the whole thread, it's been posted several times.

The graphs you looked at presumably only go back <660,000 years as inconveniently for them before that it was massively higher and makes today CO2 look rather paltry by comparison.

[Cyclone]

IMO the lack of investment in nuclear plants isn't down to green energy stealing it away it's down to the huge swathes of people in this country, the world even, who are against nuclear energy for whatever reasons. I'd like to say I think Nuclear is a great way to meet our energy demands but there's no denying it's got a bit of a bad press, no matter how unfounded.

 

It's no coincidence that it has bad press, the same people that would like the government to throw money at wind farms (which they're doing) and which can't realistically provide for our energy needs, have a vested interest in making sure that nuclear has a bad name.

And despite what you may think, the government (the entire world) has a limited amount of money to go around. Spend it on wind farms and on wind farm subsidies (they get paid more for making electricity than it can be sold for, they also get paid when they can't make electricity due to the weather) and it isn't available to spend on modern fission reactors or research into fusion.