Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

[Touring Mars]

It seems somewhat odd that Nigel Lawson should start out by saying that 'the only answer is that we do not know' (with regard to why and how the observed global temperature increases have happened), without also then emphasising that anthropogenic causes are atleast a candidate that should be considered as a possible factor (and potentially a significant one at that). He goes on to debunk some of the data previously put forth by the IPCC and others without also highlighting the fact that other explanations have also been similarly attacked, debunked, disregarded or simply ignored as well - surely not everyone can be completely wrong?

First, the relatively new and highly complex science of climatology is an uncertain one, and neither scientists nor politicians serve either the truth or the people by pretending to know more than they do.

He seems to be suggesting here that the warnings from the scientists should always be taken with a pinch of salt (which arguably may be true), but doesn't seem to be leaving any lea-way for the scenario (and very real possibility) that there may come a time in the very near future when the scientific evidence becomes so compelling, that to ignore it would constitute irresponsibility - the argument that neither scientists nor politicians should not pretend to know more than they do cuts both ways - this is a limiting factor on both sides of the debate, and until the true effect of anthropogenic emissions is known (for which much further study is warranted/required) then should we not be keeping an open mind on the matter?

Second, far and away the most rational response to such climate change as, for any reason, may occur, is to adapt to it.

This, to me, is an almighty cop-out - of course, we will have to adapt to it, regardless of blame or cause - but if that cause (or atleast some part of it) is found to be attributable to manmade emissions which could have been reduced if a concerted effort had been made, then we would have to hold our hands up and say that this "adaptation" that will be required by many millions of people, could have been minimised if only we had not ignored the possibility that our actions are partially responsible.

However, I strongly agree with his contention that the debate should not be allowed to be hijacked by 'eco-fundamentalists', esp. those who seek to equate environmentalism with anti-capitalism, without any respect or knowledge for the scientific debate - but by the same token, the final say on the 'scientific consensus' must come from the scientific community itself, and the economists shouldn't have anything to do with that, IMO. If the scientific community en masse turned around tomorrow and declared anthropogenic global warming to be complete bunk, then maybe I'd be a little less skeptical of a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and economist (for the current UK opposition party) challenging what is still the scientific consensus opinion.

 

[Danoff]

It seems somewhat odd that Nigel Lawson should start out by saying that 'the only answer is that we do not know' (with regard to why and how the observed global temperature increases have happened), without also then emphasising that anthropogenic causes are atleast a candidate that should be considered as a possible factor (and potentially a significant one at that).

You have a point here. But I find that everyone is well aware of this, and so it isn't really necessary to remind people of that potential cause. Most people assume that this is the case. He's trying to get people to think about things that they aren't already thinking about.

He goes on to debunk some of the data previously put forth by the IPCC and others without also highlighting the fact that other explanations have also been similarly attacked, debunked, disregarded or simply ignored as well - surely not everyone can be completely wrong?

I think it's possible that everyone could be completely wrong. But more likely, lots of people are partially correct. I think the fact that all of this debunking is going on highlights the level of uncertainty we have with respect to climate change.

He seems to be suggesting here that the warnings from the scientists should always be taken with a pinch of salt (which arguably may be true), but doesn't seem to be leaving any lea-way for the scenario (and very real possibility) that there may come a time in the very near future when the scientific evidence becomes so compelling, that to ignore it would constitute irresponsibility

When you said this I asked myself what it would take before I found the evidence to be compelling. Surely there will always be those who don't believe global warming is real or that we're the cause. So when do I jump ship? When do I decide that it is happening? Surely when they do get the right computer model, I won't believe that they've got the right model.

What it's going to take for me is an accurate prediction of the average temperature over time. At least as acccurate as the actual value of the temperature change they're predicting. Basically, it isn't until they've shown that they can accurately predict this stuff that I'll put any stock in their predictions. I think that's reasonable.

this is a limiting factor on both sides of the debate, and until the true effect of anthropogenic emissions is known (for which much further study is warranted/required) then should we not be keeping an open mind on the matter?

That's what I've been arguing for.

This, to me, is an almighty cop-out - of course, we will have to adapt to it, regardless of blame or cause - but if that cause (or atleast some part of it) is found to be attributable to manmade emissions which could have been reduced if a concerted effort had been made, then we would have to hold our hands up and say that this "adaptation" that will be required by many millions of people, could have been minimised if only we had not ignored the possibility that our actions are partially responsible.

He's saying that in this case, a pound of prevention saves an ounce of adaptation.

but by the same token, the final say on the 'scientific consensus' must come from the scientific community itself, and the economists shouldn't have anything to do with that, IMO.

I think scientists should have the final say on what's actually happening. But when you start to talk about what we're actually going to do about it, you have to consider the economic damages. Without that you're not looking at the full picture.

 

[UnoMOTO]

When you said this I asked myself what it would take before I found the evidence to be compelling. Surely there will always be those who don't believe global warming is real or that we're the cause. So when do I jump ship? When do I decide that it is happening? Surely when they do get the right computer model, I won't believe that they've got the right model.

Likely not in our lifetime. If the earth is thousands...er...millions of years old, It would take more then a few hundred years to detrmine if the earth is warming on its own or we have enough impact to make such a change. We surely see micro changes right in front of us, but relating it to the entire globe would take a much larger observation period.(in my uneducated opinion)

 

[Danoff]

This just in, Famine has been proven right by the UN

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

 

[FoolKiller]

This just in, Famine has been proven right by the UN

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Oddly, the only place I heard about this before now was a local rock music station. Hardly a reliable source of important information, and since I was almost late for traffic school when I heard it I wasn't in a mode to file it away as important information for later. Honestly, I thought they were making a joke about cow farts.

 

[Touring Mars]

Interesting article, nice find 👍 The variety of detrimental environmental effects of cattle-rearing (a uniquely human activity) really is quite shocking...

 

[Thiele]

this is old news, but Sunrise Australia have released a new website

www.cooltheglobe.com.au

 

[Casio]

I love the first 'Did you know?' that I saw when I opened the page.

Australia is one of the highest users of water, per capita, in the world, despite being the driest inhabited continent on Earth.

I mean, wow. What are the chances of the people living on the driest continent using the most water?!

 

[Thiele]

i know, the water shortage is an extremely severe problem here, this is what really annoys me:

New water restrictions restricting sprinklers to weekends 11pm - 5am (or something) will start January 1st 2007

why not start now, it may be too late by then

 

[Casio]

Because then the Christmas trees will die.

D'uh.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

What is cattle rearing?

 

[Thiele]

Because then the Christmas trees will die.

D'uh.

but if they are conserved this year, then the Murray river will be gine forever and no christmas trees in the future

 

[Jay]

i know, the water shortage is an extremely severe problem here, this is what really annoys me:

why not start now, it may be too late by then

I wouldn't worry about it all that much, as for the Murray, the government will just have to step up and spend some money...... for once.

but if they are conserved this year, then the Murray river will be gine forever and no christmas trees in the future

Murray is not going anywhere.

 

[FoolKiller]

why not start now, it may be too late by then

Two reasons:
1) This gives it time for teh information to get out that this is happening.
2) You can't expect everyone to change habits over night. Thsi gives them a chance to adapt

What is cattle rearing?

Raising/farming cattle/cows.

 

[UnoMOTO]

This just in, Famine has been proven right by the UN

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20772&Cr=global&Cr1=warming

Don't let PETA get a hold of this! I see a whole new ad campaign, Save a cow, save the earth.

 

[Thiele]

they said on the news about a month ago that the Murray could be dry within 6 months!

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I really doubt that the Murray River will be dry within six months.

 

[FoolKiller]

they said on the news about a month ago that the Murray could be dry within 6 months!

Permanently or just until it rains again?

And are we talking about this Murray River?

 

[Thiele]

i don't know but we're talking about the Murray River that we get our water from.

how many Murray Rivers are there?

 

[FoolKiller]

i don't know but we're talking about the Murray River that we get our water from.

how many Murray Rivers are there?

You all must have some extremely hot and dry summers to completely drain a river capable of running house boats, paddle wheel excursions, and small cruise lines. Everything I read from a small Google search on Australian tourism Web sites dealing with the Murray River talk about things that require a moderately deep river. I found much better pictures showing huge boats and giving a good feeling of depth, but they were copyrighted.

From this Web site it appears to be quite a thriving river system.
And according to Wiki it is over 2500 kilometers long. It hardly sounds like something that is in danger. If it were I am sure that recreational sites, like the one I linked above, would be mentionning that certain activities could not occur.

Even the environmental Web sites such as this one don't mention six months. It is an initiative to last until 2025. That is a 20 year project. If your time frame were six months then this would be a pointless project. And according to this site the major concern is salinity, not low water levels. Salinity infiltration is a much more common environmental concern that I have seen before.

I think you have either misunderstood or been misled by your media with scare tactics.

 

[fyfee]

Well, however long it will be, doesnt change the fact were running out of water. Our reseviors are down to 35% i think..and with the bushfires going it doesnt help

 

[Danoff]

Water is the most abundant substance on the planet, and if you believe the global warming folks, we're only getting more of it. So I'm sure you guys can figure out how to get some water (or where to find some).

 

[Jay]

they said on the news about a month ago that the Murray could be dry within 6 months!

I never saw that but if they did it is all lies.



I went to the Murray river just last weekend, at Goolwa (near the mouth of the river) and the water level is as high as it always has been seriously, if that large river were to disappear in just 6 months.........

 

[GT Pro]

I went to the Murray river just last weekend, at Goolwa (near the mouth of the river) and the water level is as high as it always has been seriously, if that large river were to disappear in just 6 months.........

Same here, we went camping up there a few weeks back and it was fine. Which was a good thing considering the long drive up there.

 

[Thiele]

I never saw that but if they did it is all lies.

I went to the Murray river just last weekend, at Goolwa (near the mouth of the river) and the water level is as high as it always has been seriously, if that large river were to disappear in just 6 months.........

Same here, we went camping up there a few weeks back and it was fine. Which was a good thing considering the long drive up there.

we have a shack in Blanche town and we're going there again in a couple of weeks for a holiday, i'll see if the water level's still as high as it was last time. It's only about an hour from here.

 

[Jay]

we have a shack in Blanche town and we're going there again in a couple of weeks for a holiday, i'll see if the water level's still as high as it was last time. It's only about an hour from here.

So, did you get to see the river Murray water level?

 

[Sureboss]

We've had our hosepipe ban lifted in the South East of England. Apparently during the ban we saved 40 odd million litres a day. We looked at our water meter today and we've used 37 Cubic metres in 3 months (going on the basis that the meter started at zero).

Our reservoirs were very low, infact I think bewl water (a big reservoir in Kent) was at around 1/3 full at it's worst. It's much higher now thankfully.

 

[Thiele]

So, did you get to see the river Murray water level?

Nah, we haven't gone yet, don't think we are now.

 

[Mark T]

A panel of 2500 scientists from 130 countries have decided that man is the likely cause of global warming. Full story here http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1249870,00.html

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, I watched the live press conference the IPCC had this morning... they have just today made available a concise summary of their latest (4th) report, available in .pdf format here (see the Information for Press panel, right of centre) It seems that they have brought together alot of new data to allow them to draw much firmer conclusions about the role of human activity as a driver for climate change. The summary report is apparently specially written to be concise and accessible enough for 'policy makers' (i.e. non-scientists) to comprehend it.