h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wasn't sure where to raise this, here or in SEx but thought it would be a more wide ranging discussion in the Forum.

I am sceptical that the current rise in global temperatures is all down to CO2 and tend to the solar activity school. There seems to be multitudes of consultants, research projects and politically correct do gooders making big bucks from how to reduce CO2. The environment has become the new CND.

I read this morning that Mars is experiencing almost exactly the same change in temperature as Earth.

How can this be when there has been no industrialisation of Mars.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1720024.ece

I'd definitely say that CO2 isn't the sole cause of climate change... I tend towards the belief that climate change happens anyway (when you consider the ice ages and that Scotland was once desert it's pretty sound) and that all our pollution has just helped things along a bit.

Hmmm...I think it's right to be sceptical, but I have to laugh at the insinuation that all those sandal wearing hippies who were such a threat in the 60s are now the ruthless masterminds behind the global warming scam. What exactly would their motive be?

Ooh, you've opened a can of worms here. I think the bulk of the (credible) evidence and general scientific consensus is that human emissions contribute a significant amount to climate change.

But don't counter by saying something like 'Galileo's ideas was scorned' or 'people once thought the world was flat' because this is *scientific* consensus we are talking about here, not just established ideas.

Yes, but 'significant amount' is still a far cry from the 'entirely responsible' line many people take.

The climate system is far too complex and poorly understood at the moment to claim that any one factor is entirely responsible. That's whether it's greenhouse gases, solar radiation or whatever.

Hurrah! I really could've done with you in my corner when I had that blazing row with another Researcher over my making a similar comment.

"There seems to be multitudes of consultants, research projects and politically correct do gooders making big bucks from how to reduce CO2."

Big bucks?
Compared to the amount oil companies and motor manufacturers have spent on research and PR trying to debunk global warming I don't think its big bucks. I'm sure some people especially pressure groups like Friends of the Earth have oversimplified the issue at times as happens with all political issues but the environmental lobby aren't the ones with the big bucks.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute can afford to produce hilarious video shorts. http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm

"CO2: they call it pollution, we call it Life"

There were big bucks made those in CND?

I dont care if its all rubbish about CO2 pollution and global warming. We have being given a credible warning and not to take sensible action seems ignorant and stupid.

What are the risks to humanity of switching to cleaner fuels, reducing the output of pollution and recycling?

Weighing the risks of doing something and doing nothing as far as I know them I think its best to go for doing something.

one love

As far as I can tell, all or nearly all of the steps that are proposed to counter climate change still need to be taken whether or not climate change is caused by human activity. Further, most of the activities around reducing consumption and waste and becoming more fuel efficient would need to be done even if climate change isn't happening.

Does anyone seriously doubt that oil reserves are running out? Does anyone seriously doubt that pollution harms health and reduces the quality of life? Does anyone really think that it doesn't matter that more and more species of animal are becoming extinct or are on the brink of extinction, and that the rainforest is shrinking?

If climate change is caused by human activity, we should do everything in our power to stop it, or to minimise its effects. But it certainly doesn't follow that we can do nothing if climate change is not caused by human activity - we're still running out of oil.

If climate change is not caused by humans, or if there is nothing we can do about it now, our response cannot be just to do nothing and shrug our shoulders and say its not our fault. If climate change is happening and is natural, then we need to prepare for it - prepare for the floods, evacuate certain low-lying regions of the world if need be, build flood defenses, move to an agriculture that would function in the new climate.

And most of all, we need to support the developing world in doing those, as it's the developing world who will suffer the worst of climate change.

I don't know enough science to form a view on global warming, other than to take the view that science has been very successful in giving me a great life, and therefore I trust the majority scientific view. However, I know enough logic to know that "not our fault" does not logically entail "do nothing". Which, as far as I can see, is the hidden agenda of the climate change deniers.

PS - the article on Mars gives a clear explanation as to why the Mars findings can't be applied to Earth.

I can say that I could't agree more with all of you but on the other hand I can't really agree with anyone of you.Have you heard of the 'global dimming'? It is a theory on the probability that the ECO-UNFRIENDLY gases help the Earth to become a little bit cooler while increasing the quantity of clouds in the atmosphere

In addition,scientists don't know everything and we need to be sceptical.About Mars.Well,our Sun is developing and it will be becoming hotter and hotter in the future.The different planets will be getting different quantity of solar energy from that they are getting now.If I am right ,what is happening on Mars will be an outcome of the changes on our Sun.The Earth is probably undergoing much the same./I don't know whether you can understand what I meanbut I hope so./Moreover,it is presumed that the Earth changes its axis over different periods of time.
I can only guess whether those gases exert influence on the climate but I am sure is that they influence us .In my view,the gases do more harm than good as far as its effect on people is concerned

write to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know how credible global dimming is as a theory. I know there was a Horizon programme on it but that doesn't count for as much as it once did. The danger with 'global dimming' is that it could potentially mask the effects of our greenhouse gases. Global dimming works on the idea that particulates (soot and the plethora of other little bits of stuff industry pumps out into the atmosphere) provide condensation nuclei around which water forms - and hence clouds. It relies on 'dirty' fuels like coal. So if we want to keep its cooling effect (which I'm not really clued up on - it might be essentially nonexistent) we'll have to stay with archaic methods of burning our fuels.

A few things about science:

"Yes, but 'significant amount' is still a far cry from the 'entirely responsible' line many people take."

It's not *that* far away, really. You will never get a scientist to say something is "certain" or "entirely responsible". The strongest wording science will allow you to make in this case is that humans are responsible for the *significant* amount of global warming. In science, the word "significant" *means something* - it's a statement of *how* certain they are - in this case pretty damn sure.

In light of this, we should be taking these folks seriously. They know waaayyy more about this stuff than you or I.


Why don't scientists ever claim total knowledge? Why, other climate-change sceptics in this very forum have answered that:

"The climate system is far too complex and poorly understood at the moment to claim that any one factor is entirely responsible."

and

"In addition,scientists don't know everything and we need to be sceptical..."

Science agrees with you. Even so, climate scientists are pretty sure humans are the main cause of global warming. We need to listen to these people and adapt to avoid a horrible mess of a future.

Ste

Nice post, Ste.

Re global dimming: as Iaconian says, it's apparently caused by particulates in the upper atmosphere, which reflect sunlight back into space. As I understood it, if it's true it's *extremely* bad news, because it means that when it stops (and it's been getting less due to Clean Air Acts in the West), it means that the net effect of the greenhouse gases will be higher, ie more intense, rapid warming.

Re global warming: as Mr Dreadful said, the climate varies enormously, and can switch rapidly between different equlilibria. This correlates quite nicely with CO2 levels, historically. Because CO2 traps heat at the wavelengths which carry heat from the ground through the atmosphere to space, it's reasonable to assume that differing CO2 levels cause the change in temperature, rather than vice-versa.

The IPCC are the experts in the science of climate change: their latest report says that the current warming trend is 'very likely' caused by humans, very likely being defined as 90% or more.

Climatoligists deal in probabilities, so while it's correct to say they don't know everything, it is true that have a good idea what the chances of something happening are. Given that the latest IPCC report is particularly cautious, because *everything* in it is established science, and the newest models, and the latest research, aren't included. These seem to show faster, higher warming. The people who say it's a conspiracy obviously don't know their economics; the *subsidies* to businesses using CO2 emissions is hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The amount of *wealth* involved must be worth trillions. To say there's a conspiracy misses out the net benefit to the conspirators, and makes no sense whatsoever. It's crap, in other words.

As for the science, I don't think any of the people expressing doubt in this thread really have the credentials to argue with professional scientists on their terms. I don't think many people would say to a ecologist 'Nah, animals don't really do that, you're wrong'. Probably not.

A quote from the article linked to in post 1:

"The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. "

This is according to the scientists who discovered the results on Mars. Reading the details of the article explains exactly *how* it can be occurring on Mars and not linked to global warming.


Also from WanderingAlbatross

"... and tend to the solar activity school."

There is no solar activity school...

sorry, that should have read "and not linked to man-made global warming".