The all encompassing Climate Change/AGW Thread..

[CSP]

.....discuss!

From me...

Fact: Climate has and will always change regardless of human influences.
Fact: Humans cannot significantly impact climate change either adversely or positively.

Any tax or costs imposed by governments anywhere in the world is purely a cash grab based on scaremongering.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't manage and consume our planet's resources smarter and cleaner. I'm all for that!

[minux]

I have one question.

How is taxing business a better way of reducing carbon dioxide than say, planting trees?

[CSP]

As a follow-on question to that, regarding taxing individuals...

How is it smart to tax individuals, most of whom are already struggling to get from pay to pay, and then use that tax to support the same individuals who struggled to pay it in the first place? It's going to cost X millions of dollars to administer and the money is just going to go round in circles. All without any impact on lowering carbon dioxide levels - the excuse with which the tax is meant to be for.

[nathanVY]

Fact: Climate has and will always change regardless of human influences.
Fact: Humans cannot significantly impact climate change either adversely or positively.

Any tax or costs imposed by governments anywhere in the world is purely a cash grab based on scaremongering.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't manage and consume our planet's resources smarter and cleaner. I'm all for that!

Agree 718%

Summed it up pretty well there CSP, Yes obviously the climate does change, no we didn't do it.

Yes we should be smart about how we treat the planet, etc

[Jesterarts]

I have one question.

How is taxing business a better way of reducing carbon dioxide than say, planting trees?

It's not. It's purely a financial decisions.

Taxing business = revenue for govermenent directly from carbon tax and then increased tax from individuals who are going to be paying more for a product when the business passes on the cost. Very clever.

Planting trees = no revenue for goverment.

I agree that we should be looking to cut down emissions but not because of stupid climate change, but purely because I think need to cut down polution.

I think we would all benefit if the air we breath was simply cleaner. Plus we eat fish from the sea etc so we should try to avoid those fish absorbing pollution from the water they live in and then us eating it.

In regards to climate change, I agree it's happening, the climate is constantly changing as it has for millions of years. There have been 5 ice ages in the history of the planet. So safe to say the planet has gone through a cooling stage which caused them and then warming stage which ended them. This is a process that takes thousands and thousands of years. People today are running around waving their hands in the air panicing over comperative data that has been gathered over what, 100 years? Pfft. Somewhat melodramatic isn't it?

So what it temperatures rise 1 degree in 50 years... in 500 they may drop 10. It's all about cycles, everything in nature is and so it the earths CO2 levels, temp, etc... see below.



Also, people are saying that climate change is bad because it's causing extintion, rising sea levels, etc.

Mightly big assumption that right now the world is at it's peak of perfection in species and geographical features. Maybe the species that are going to because extinct will allow other species to become superior and evolve more.

Survival of the fittest, isn't that what nature is about?

And I'm fairly confident the whales and dolphins will be pretty pumped it sea levels rise destroying man made areas. They will have more space to swim in and the population to build.

Plus at the moment industry and power generation methods are dirty and cause polution, but thing about how far technology has come in the last 50 years. In another 50 fossil fuels will be just that, fossils and industry will have developed technology to cut down their impact in regards to pollution and environmental effect.

[vr94ss]

Sure Jester, that graph shows cycles of temperature rise and fall. It also shows a strong correlation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere to the temperature. CO2 ppm goes up, temp goes up.. Where is this CO2 coming from that has raised the ppm from a pre-industrial 280 to the current 387(2009) levels? You'll also notice that in the last 400,000 years it hasn't risen over 300ppm. How would you explain this?

[CSP]

That graph just goes to show that the best prediction for the next 50 - 100 years is that temperatures are going to start to go down, and along with it CO2 levels.

[torch]

I have one question.

How is taxing business a better way of reducing carbon dioxide than say, planting trees?

shouldnt politics best be in the all things political thread?

[torch]

.....discuss!

From me...

Fact: Climate has and will always change regardless of human influences.
Fact: Humans cannot significantly impact climate change either adversely or positively.

Any tax or costs imposed by governments anywhere in the world is purely a cash grab based on scaremongering.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't manage and consume our planet's resources smarter and cleaner. I'm all for that!

Facts?, Humans cannot significantly impact climate change either adversely or positively.

According to who is this a fact? and where it is proven to be so.

[minux]

shouldnt politics best be in the all things political thread?

Are you for real?

This is an all topic AGW thread. Seeing as this tax is coming in because of the AGW alarmists, then it is a valid question in this thread.

[vr94ss]

That graph just goes to show that the best prediction for the next 50 - 100 years is that temperatures are going to start to go down, and along with it CO2 levels.

You read graphs as well as you use excel it seems.. How does it predict temperatures going down? It shows temperatures follow atmospheric CO2 levels. That predicts that as we add more CO2 the atmosphere temps will continue to rise. All evidence shows this and that is why there is a scientific consensus.

[torch]

Are you for real?

This is an all topic AGW thread. Seeing as this tax is coming in because of the AGW alarmists, then it is a valid question in this thread.

Cmon mate, you can have it both ways, if you want to keep agw out of the "all political thread", keep politics out of the "all agw thread".

[minux]

You read graphs as well as you use excel it seems.. How does it predict temperatures going down? It shows temperatures follow atmospheric CO2 levels. That predicts that as we add more CO2 the atmosphere temps will continue to rise. All evidence shows this and that is why there is a scientific consensus.

So at the end of the interglacial period, what will happen? Are you saying the co2 will keep rising so the temp will too? If that is the case, what has caused the temp drop at the end of each interglacial period? What has caused the co2 concentration to so rapidly drop? Why is it so different this time? Why will a carbon tax fix something that has fixed itself naturally every interglacial period?

[torch]

So what it temperatures rise 1 degree in 50 years... in 500 they may drop 10. It's all about cycles, everything in nature is and so it the earths CO2 levels, temp, etc... see below.

.

Yes, there have been cycles before as your graphs show, I assume they are accurate.

Bid did you actually pay any attention to the magnitudes on both axis. Those cycles have a period of 100,000 years. Our current man induced cycle has a graph that looks like that but its time span is 100 years. Did you also notice the actual maximum ppm of CO2, about 300ppm, but right here now in 2011 we have 392ppm. Clearly those graphs you have chosen to show are not indicative of what is happening now or either the level of co2 or the time in which it took to happen, a different forcing factor is at work here, the answer is obvious, man has released extra co2 into the atmosphere very quickly by digging up fossiled carbon and burning it

[torch]

Yes, there have been cycles before as your graphs show, I assume they are accurate.

Bid did you actually pay any attention to the magnitudes on both axis. Those cycles have a period of 100,000 years. Our current man induced cycle has a graph that looks like that but its time span is 100 years. Did you also notice the actual maximum ppm of CO2, about 300ppm, but right here now in 2011 we have 392ppm. Clearly those graphs you have chosen to show are not indicative of what is happening now or either the level of co2 or the time in which it took to happen, a different forcing factor is at work here, the answer is obvious, man has released extra co2 into the atmosphere very quickly by digging up fossiled carbon and burning it

That graph just goes to show that the best prediction for the next 50 - 100 years is that temperatures are going to start to go down, and along with it CO2 levels.

no it doesnt, for the same reasons Ive listed above.

[nathanVY]

Haha. Cows are a bigger problem for the ozone layer than we are! But I guess you could still blame us for growing so many of them


Source

[Cheap6]

shouldnt politics best be in the all things political thread?

touche'

Cmon mate, you can have it both ways, if you want to keep agw out of the "all political thread", keep politics out of the "all agw thread".

We can't isolate one from the other.

I suppose it was getting a bit difficult in that postings on different topics were being mixed and we're here now so: game on.

[monkeys437]

You read graphs as well as you use excel it seems.. How does it predict temperatures going down? It shows temperatures follow atmospheric CO2 levels. That predicts that as we add more CO2 the atmosphere temps will continue to rise. All evidence shows this and that is why there is a scientific consensus.

Its one of those chicken or the egg debates. If the earth was to warm due to some other factor, a higher rate of evaporation of the oceans would occur. This releases CO2 which enters the atmosphere. The links between Temperature and CO2 are definitely valid, but debate surrounds whether the warming causes atmospheric CO2, or CO2 causes warming.

Ive read a few papers on the correlation between increased solar activity and global temperatures and it makes for some interesting reading. The general jist of it is when the sun goes through periods of increased heat output the earth warms slightly, causing CO2 levels to rise regardless of what we humans do. When Solar activity decreases the earth cools slightly the Oceans will re-absorb the CO2 again.

Im not a scientist but it does make sense to me that the sun is the dominant factor in global temperature. After all, its quite hot.......

[minux]

Cmon mate, you can have it both ways, if you want to keep agw out of the "all political thread", keep politics out of the "all agw thread".

If you like I can close this thread, ban you for multiple user names and we can all move on? Or you can discuss AGW here and everything that goes with it. Your call commsirac.

[torch]

So at the end of the interglacial period, what will happen? Are you saying the co2 will keep rising so the temp will too? If that is the case, what has caused the temp drop at the end of each interglacial period? What has caused the co2 concentration to so rapidly drop? Why is it so different this time? ?

Because in the past these cycles were largely caused by what is known as milankovitch cycles: changes in the aspects of the earth's orbits caused heating and release of co2as the temp dropped co2 was reasborbed by the oceans, it was not rapid(its 20,000 years on the graph), http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geo...1/milankov.htm,

Rapid: is how we have increased co2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than a hundred years!


we are not in the middle of one of these malinkovitch extremes at the moment, hence why scientists will tell you the rise of co2 and temp that the earth is experiencing now is not part of a natural cycle

[nathanVY]

Its one of those chicken or the egg debates. If the earth was to warm due to some other factor, a higher rate of evaporation of the oceans would occur. This releases CO2 which enters the atmosphere. The links between Temperature and CO2 are definitely valid, but debate surrounds whether the warming causes atmospheric CO2, or CO2 causes warming.

Ive read a few papers on the correlation between increased solar activity and global temperatures and it makes for some interesting reading. The general jist of it is when the sun goes through periods of increased heat output the earth warms slightly, causing CO2 levels to rise regardless of what we humans do. When Solar activity decreases the earth cools slightly the Oceans will re-absorb the CO2 again.

Im not a scientist but it does make sense to me that the sun is the dominant factor in global temperature. After all, its quite hot.......

I like this guy...

Moon is responsible for tides, Sun is responsible for temps.

[Jesterarts]

Yes, there have been cycles before as your graphs show, I assume they are accurate.

Bid did you actually pay any attention to the magnitudes on both axis. Those cycles have a period of 100,000 years. Our current man induced cycle has a graph that looks like that but its time span is 100 years. Did you also notice the actual maximum ppm of CO2, about 300ppm, but right here now in 2011 we have 392ppm. Clearly those graphs you have chosen to show are not indicative of what is happening now or either the level of co2 or the time in which it took to happen, a different forcing factor is at work here, the answer is obvious, man has released extra co2 into the atmosphere very quickly by digging up fossiled carbon and burning it

Just using the graph to point out there are clear cycles that occur and disipate the CO2 in the atmosphere and reduce temperatures.

Now unless every 100,000 year man has to intervene to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere, there is no evidence to suggest that the planet will not continue going through these cycles as per usual.

Unless we are suggesting that every 100,000 years the most advanced species at the time introduces a carbon tax to reduce global warming.

I would have to disagree with this if it is what you are leading towards and I can't see a T-Rex holding a pencil to jot down a carbon tax let alone orchestrate all the other dinosaurs in an effort to breath less.

[Jesterarts]

Its one of those chicken or the egg debates. If the earth was to warm due to some other factor, a higher rate of evaporation of the oceans would occur. This releases CO2 which enters the atmosphere. The links between Temperature and CO2 are definitely valid, but debate surrounds whether the warming causes atmospheric CO2, or CO2 causes warming.

Ive read a few papers on the correlation between increased solar activity and global temperatures and it makes for some interesting reading. The general jist of it is when the sun goes through periods of increased heat output the earth warms slightly, causing CO2 levels to rise regardless of what we humans do. When Solar activity decreases the earth cools slightly the Oceans will re-absorb the CO2 again.

Im not a scientist but it does make sense to me that the sun is the dominant factor in global temperature. After all, its quite hot.......

Interesting idea. I like it and it does make alot of sense in theory.

You wouldn't by any chance have links to articles you could provide us?

[minux]

Because in the past these cycles were largely caused by what is known as milankovitch cycles: changes in the aspects of the earth's orbits caused heating and release of co2as the temp dropped co2 was reasborbed by the oceans, it was not rapid(its 20,000 years on the graph), Milankovitch Cycles,

Rapid: is how we have increased co2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than a hundred years!


we are not in the middle of one of these malinkovitch extremes at the moment, hence why scientists will tell you the rise of co2 and temp that the earth is experiencing now is not part of a natural cycle

I would google, but I am on iphone and it is a pain in the arse.

How have scientists decided that the earth has changed tilt etc? How have they calculated the past has had different orbit paths etc?

[CSP]

Rapid: is how we have increased co2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than a hundred years!

But "we" (as in the human race) haven't increased CO2 from 280ppm to 392ppm in less than 100 years... I mean, there simply is no proof of that!