Mount Etna erruption.... Spectacular?

[Loosehead]

http://news.sky.com/skynews/picture_gallery/pi cture_gallery/0,,15410-1241175,00.html

Can anyone fail to be amazed at the Earth in action? Pumping thousands of tons of CO2 out in one go, does anyone still believe mankind has any effect on global warming? Are we so arrogant as to believe we can effect the climate?

[WaldoMcFroog]

1) Certainly not me.
2) Yes, most people accept that man is directly responsible for global warming. A few claim otherwise, but they are rightly regarded as the equivalent of 'flat earthists' by credible scientists in the face of overwhelming evidence to support human's causal role in Global Warming.
3) Not arrogant, simply able to understand incontrovertible evidence.

You're not normally such a conspiracy theorist, but you're following the lunatic fringe on this one.

[youngmafbog]

ThinK I've said this before Loosehead but King Canute springs to mind.

Problem is all these eco warriors are incapable of looking at anything that might mean the motor car gats a reprieve.

Governments of course are not interested as going 'green' means legalised robbery of the motorist and any othre tax such as air flights. If they seriously thought the tree huggers were right they would tax fossil fuels out of existance but they dont do they. All is done is a token taxation to appease the chattering classes and not inconvienince and/or upset the rest too much.

Now just off to collect my new V8.

[oxfordrocks]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinio n_on_climate_change

I know you can't rely on Wikipedia, but this article is quite interesting.

[Loosehead]

Mankind controls 3-4% of the earth's Carbon, if all of us had a Carbon footprint of 0 tomorrow the most effect it could have would be 3-4%. The Krakatoa erruption in the 19th century put out more carbon in one go than mankind. There are counless natural sources of Carbon emission, from Volcanoes to forest fires, yet we hysterically concentrate on our 3-4% as if we can have some sort of effect. Check out "Earth Story" by the National Geographic. There are still some people left who have not been taken in by the Eco propaganda. I'm all for stopping pollution and energy waste but please can we get away from this ridiculous notion the mankind is effecting climate change. This is not a conspiracy theory Waldo, you are not usually one to run with the sheep.

[delboy3]

For once I have to agree with Loosehead.

Not so long ago the "Green Conspiracy" was the sole pet project of scruffy, smelly, tree-dwelling white rastas - nowadays the so-called Eco Warriors can be found wearing expensive business suits, driving unnecessarily large expensive cars and pontificating to the masses on the effects of the "human footprint" (how I hate that expresson). All the while the geolocigal evidence from Earth's past clearly tells us that climate change is an entirely natural part of the environmental cycle, as has happened dozens, if not hundreds, of times in Earth's 4.5bn year history.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for reducing waste and pollution, but I refuse to believe that we are choking the planet each time we spray our armpits.

[youngmafbog]

OK Waldo, read this and argue with it

http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarmin g/global_stott.htm

Do you deny that climate change has ever occured before? The world existed for many many many years before mankind was even a twinkel in adams eye. And climate changed all during that time in short periods of time too. How do you explain the ice age to quote a very extreme example

Nature is a pwerfull beast. If you and your like think you have any infulence anywhere near what nature can do you really are living in cloud cookoo land.

I have said before, fossil fuel usage should be controlled for the pollution it causes that is the real problem and that is how it should be promoted. There is no argument against that at all.

[Kathyan]

Climate change has been going on for thousands of years. Nothing we do will change it. It's just an excuse to squeeze yet more money out of the hard working British public.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Actually, I don't have to explain anything. What you lot of woo woos need to explain convincingly is how the entire scientific community bar a tiny minority endorse the fact that human activities bear key responsibility for climate change in the way that you are claiming is false.

What you are proposing is that science, as a system of independant individuals, with the wonderful self-regulating checks and balances that are inherant in such a system, would not pick up on your arguments and support them if they were true. The reason your views are fringe views is because they are simply not credible and not supported by evidence, not because the scientific community is incapable of understanding the argements.

You're being exactly like Young Earth Creationalists arguing against the scientists who say the Earth is billions of years old in trying to argue that only a tiny few are clever enough to see through this evil scientifc conspiracy. It doesn't wash. Science doesn't work like that, it is not a single entity that could possibly endorse a notion such as man-made global warming if it were false. No amount of claiming it's all about funding and money maaan is able to give that notion legs, sorry.

[Loosehead]

One word Waldo, Fashion. Most research needs money, money for research usually at best comes with a nudge toward the desired result and at worst is witheld from those who do not jump on the popular bandwagon. There are a lot of irefutable things about science but there are also a lot of frightened people wondering where their jobs will go if hey fail to produce the "right" result. Can you show be where in any of the scientific research you refer to where it explains how you can change climate with a max of 4% of the catalyst? Can you show me explanation of climate and weather events from before global warming became fashionable. What caused the Thames to freeze over in the 19th century? What caused the ice age, hell while we are at it what caused the long hot summer of 1976?

[jake-the-peg]

I can't understand Loosehead why you keep to this in the face of contant expert opinion

Nasa's Goddard Laboratory, The Royal Society the list as we both know goes on and on.

Are you better informed than all these professionals? more up to date with the facts than them? perhaps you have access to more powerful computers

Or do you just believe you are cleverer?

Why do you think you can understand this better than them?

This is a serious question - I really would like to know why you think you're more up to this question than all these august bodies and scientific professionals

As a by the way the Royal Society has even put up a web page explaining in simple terms what's wrong with the most common skeptic arguments.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

[jake-the-peg]

Your argument to fashion just doesn't hold water Loosehead.

We've seen it before - cold fusion - is a prime example.

The dead give away is when only one or two researchers can see the effect. Genetic research in Korea also springs to mind.

What you are suggesting is a global conspiracy involving thousands of scientists

For someone who normally takes such delight in pucturing conspiracy theories I simply can't understand why you've latched on to this one so strongly?

I know the green movement can be an anoying bunch of hippies and it's really annoying when they turn out to be right about something but even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

[WaldoMcFroog]

You're obsessed with the long carbon cycle, and that 4% figure, aren't you? *Everyone* knows about the long carbon cycle, m'kay? *Everyone* knows that climate changes naturally. Even Al Gore gets that.

Do you honestly think that the vast majority of scientists would manage to overlook these things? These articles that are being put up as 'evidence' aren't so hard to understand. I think the world's foremost scientists would be able to cope with them, don't you? Yet they're still not agreeing with you.

I don't accept your fashion argument either. Science simply doesn't work like that; you are postulating a conspiracy so huge that it couldn't possibly exist.

Normally, you're much more skeptical than this. Normally, you'd be the first to point out how completely unfeasible such a grand conspiracy must be, yet you're supporting it.

[Loosehead]

Ok guys all I need is an explanation for the things in my previous post and I'm on board! Mainly how can you have climate changing effect with access to such a small amount of the dangerous element. Can someone point me at an explanation? It's not an obsession but The LCC etc seems to be a key point that is unexplained. If the climactic change of the past is down to global warming/cooling etc then what caused it before the industrial revolution? The biggest releaser of Carbon emmission is the Oceans, what possible difference does our puny effort make? Reasonable questions I think you'll agree. All the conspiracy theories of which you speak have their respective "anomolies" explained reasonably, I'm only asking for the same, and I'll believe! The biggest releaser of Carbon emmission is the Oceans, what possible difference does our puny effort make?

[jake-the-peg]

The atmosphere is the prime example of where small differences can have a large effect.

I take it that you'd accept that human ChloroFlourohydrocarbons were the cause of the Ozone hole over antartica and yet they contributed a tiny proportion of the composition of atmosphere.

However from the Royal Societies website:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=62 31
In contrast to this natural process, we know that the recent steep increase in the level of carbon dioxide - some 30 per cent in the last 100 years - is not the result of natural factors. This is because, by chemical analysis, we can tell that the majority of this carbon dioxide has come from the burning of fossil fuels. And, as set out in 'misleading argument 1 ', carbon dioxide from human sources is almost certainly responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. There is much evidence that backs up this explanation and none that conflicts with it.

Now although I have a background in professional physics I'm not a climate scientist and I'm not in a position to make an informed judgement on the raw data.

I just have a real hard time accepting that there is an international conspiracy of scientists lying to the world over something this important just to get grant money.

I think I'd sooner go with the "Nobody went to the moon one" there'd be less conspirators involved

[Loosehead]

OK I agree that an Ozone Hole exists and that CFC's indeed are dangerous to ozone. The hole was first measured in 1985, did it suddenly appear? No. There is some evidence from analysis of Antarctic geology that the hole has always been there, I know you doubt that so I'm looking for sources now.

As to part 2, explain how a Carbon Dioxide molecule can be different depending on source. Even my basic chemistry tells me a one CO2 molecule is the same as the next one.

The oceans emit vast amounts of CO2 ae you saying that they can tell the Oceanic CO2 from the Fossil fuel CO2? What about that from forest fires and volcanoes? Cows backsides for that matter? Have we discovered a series of carbon variants or indeed a new technique for determining the origin of molecules?

Ironically enough, global warming could lead to an Ice age, do you think that's what caused the last one? What caused the global warming back then?

If I can answer my doubts I'm on the GW band wagon with the those sensible ones among you guys, I just need convincing!

[Oneeyedvic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 � 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years.

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800,000 years before the present.[21] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied between 180 � 210 �L/L during ice ages, increasing to 280 � 300 �L/L during warmer interglacials.[22] The data can be accessed here.

Some studies have disputed the claim of stable CO2 levels during the present interglacial (the last 10 kyr). Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[23] argued that CO2 levels during the period 7 � 10 kyr ago were significantly higher (~300 �L/L) and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations. Others have disputed such claims, suggesting they are more likely to reflect calibration problems than actual changes in CO2.[24] Relevant to this dispute is the observation that Greenland ice cores often report higher and more variable CO2 values than similar measurements in Antarctica. However, the groups responsible for such measurements (e.g., Smith et al.[25]) believe the variations in Greenland cores result from in situ decomposition of calcium carbonate dust found in the ice. When dust levels in Greenland cores are low, as they nearly always are in Antarctic cores, the researchers report good agreement between Antarctic and Greenland CO2 measurements.

[WaldoMcFroog]

Loosehead, there's an article here about how different isotopes of carbon, in combination with other factors, can be used to demonstrate a causal relationship between present CO2 levels and human activity.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content /interviews/interview/643/

However, this is probably even better at explaining exactly how and why we know that we're not looking at oceanic C02 etc. It is all explained and accounted for.

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/096.h tm

And it's parent article:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.h tm

[IggyB]

um... the thames used to freeze over in the 19th century because it was a lot wider and thus shallower - making it slower flowing and easier to freeze. One it was narrowed and thus deepened as a control measure it is much less likely to freeze...
there i answered one of your questions!

[jno]

pulling old London Bridge down also helped, IggyB: it had lots of piers and so slowed down the river flow. The replacement, and the current one, have only a couple I think; a faster flowing river doesn't freeze as easily. This is more to do with the results than the causes of warming, but it does show that small changes can make a difference, so yes, we can do things. Loosehead, would you accept that we have enough nuclear weapons today to create a nuclear winter if we so desired? Would you call that affecting the climate?