Are we warming the planet or is it natural? I don't care! Surely any form of reduction in pollution is a good thing? Even if its driven by the fear of GW.
Since seeing the GW swindle program I'm thinking why turn the lights and TV off and why walk to the shop next door?

Exactly my first reaction when I saw the program. You need to get googling and get a more balanced view. I'm glad the programme aired - I now know a lot more about climate science, the for and against argument on "man made" and can say - I'm happy to do my bit as long as it's saving me money. OR at least doesn't cost much more. Regardless of the climate - energy prices will go up , so getting off fossil dependences sooner is a good thing.

As most of you will have worked out, I'm towards the skeptical side regarding AGW (Earth history tends towards negative feedbacks and near equillibruim, rather than the run-away warming suggested by some).

However, it is reasonable to try to cut pollution because of the local and regional effects, and much pollution is associated with burning of fossil fuels (disregarding whether CO2 should be classed as a pollutant). Reducing road transport (and especially congestion) makes a lot of sense in reducing particulate emissions, aerosol emissions and noise. However, the Government tend to prefer a blunt-instrument approach (i.e. tax the polluters) rather than taking a more carrot and stick approach in encouraging people to walk or cycle, to work from home or to travel outside of normal peak hours.

Good question - does GW matter.

If sea level rises by an unmanageable amount as a result of GW (whatever GW's cause) it matters.

But if sea level doesn't rise significantly you could say GW is a good thing for some and a bad thing for others. If your frozen tundra turns to good farmland great news. But if your hitherto lush farm turns to desert, bad news.

If the world were to cool there would be similar problems. It's change that causes the difficulty.

If you ignore the GW effects of CO2, CO2 is definitely not a pollutant. Indeed it's a good thing - it aids plant growth. If CO2 levels fell to pre-industrial levels there would be a significant reduction in agrigultural production, with all its implications for hunger in the third world.

So for many reasons it's not a clear cut "more CO2/warming all bad, less CO2/cooling all good".

The nice idea that mankind can manage the climate to stay just the same is unfortunately unrealistic.

I worry a lot about the demand that we rush into action. There is a distinct possibility that the actions could be misdirected and do environmental harm and cause suffering in the third world. It would seem that the USA are looking at “gasohol” production in South America. If this increases the rate of “land grab” clearing of the Amazon then it is very likely to do more harm than good. Diverting agricultural land from food production could easily impact on food programs for the third world. A proliferation of nuclear power can hardly be a desirable thing but as an already well-developed carbon neutral technology is likely to be increasingly used before better, more acceptable technologies are developed.

And finally, my concern that if, in a headlong rush to eliminate carbon from first world infrastructure, we scrap prematurely much of the existing infrastructure the loss of revenue will almost certainly affect disproportionately the flow of aid and charity to the third world.

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
As most of you will have worked out, I'm towards the skeptical side regarding AGW (Earth history tends towards negative feedbacks and near equillibruim, rather than the run-away warming suggested by some).

Dr B - whilst i am in admiration of any scientist ( a subject i just couldnt handle ) isnt the whole point about AGW exactly that - it isnt something you can -' Earth history tends towards equilibrium' - as at no time in earths history since wee have been around has the climate had to experience abd handle the increase in co2 from buring fossil fuel.

i dont think anyone could argue that burning fossil fuel does not produce co2. We have only been burning fossils fuels for the last 250 years or so. So how can you compare Earth's historical tendancy to self correct when this is a first case scenario?

Sorry my typing just gets worse!

quote:

I worry a lot about the demand that we rush into action. There is a distinct possibility that the actions could be misdirected and do environmental harm and cause suffering in the third world. It would seem that the USA are looking at “gasohol” production in South America. If this increases the rate of “land grab” clearing of the Amazon then it is very likely to do more harm than good.

I agree on this aspect Cloud Man.

If the Bush administration were really intending to take the problem seriously, the first thing to do would be to look at reducing emissions at home. But they think they can sell this policy as a "green" initiative to a sufficient proportion of their electorate, and whether it actually causes more harm than good is neither here nor there as far as they are concerned.

quote:

Originally posted by Robmb:

quote:

Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
As most of you will have worked out, I'm towards the skeptical side regarding AGW (Earth history tends towards negative feedbacks and near equillibruim, rather than the run-away warming suggested by some).

i dont think anyone could argue that burning fossil fuel does not produce co2. We have only been burning fossils fuels for the last 250 years or so. So how can you compare Earth's historical tendancy to self correct when this is a first case scenario?

1) If you are a real skeptic [in the good sense that it means in many other areas, who can change their mind when they see new data, unlike a denialist who knows better], once again I recommend William Ruddiman, "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate", about 12 pounds from Amazon, superbly well-written by an expert, but very accessible to non-experts, and a great exercise in seeing how good theories actually come to happen.

2) 250 years: Well, actually, the Chinese started burning coal about 3,000 years ago, and of course, people have been burning down forests longer than that, and that also produces CO2. And lest one say: "but how could the smaller and pre-industrial populations have anything to do with this?"

- Industrialism has been at it only ~200 years.
- Agriculture has been at it ~8,000 years.
- Methane-producing agriculture (rice paddies, especially) and other domesticated animals (cows) for ~5,000 years

The ice-core record shows very solid evidence that in normal interglacials, both CO2 and CH4 peak, and then go down (with jiggles) for a long time, far enough that we spend about 90% of the time with kilometers of ice over Toronto.

In *our* interglacial, the only one with any human agriculture:
- CO2 started going back up 8,000 years ago, with more jiggles (the processes are more complex),
and of course is going up really fast right now.
- Methane started going up about 5,000 years ago (and by now has mostly leveled off, thank goodness).


Here are good charts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record

and this is not too bad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

(one must always be careful with Wikipedia, but it's not a bad place to start).

John M - thanks for this. Not wanting to be picky but IR certianly started pre 1800 and trees are not fossil fuels. Anyway i take your general points.

Do you agree that the current level of co2 in the atmosphere is new to our civilization? Is the major drive for this increase our recent(200 or 250 years makes little odds) burning of fossil fuels?

My thinking suggets that the normal interglacial co2 record has been broken by our input. So we cannot rely on Earths historical tendency to self correct. Do you think this is a fair view?

John M

Found an interesting debate in Real Climate (i know) where they have given Ruddiman a chance to argue his thesis.

One comment grabbed me. If yo are in a rowing boat and the waves are unable to capsize you. do you assume that if you stand up and rock the boat violently that you wont end up swimming?