Al Gore Slamdunked

[Cambon]

A landlocked sea that's drying because of man made diversions? Inland lakes drying and creating water vapor? All parts of climate change and the feedback loop. Whats your point, unnless I'm missing it you appear to be demonstrating climate change?

 

Man made diversions - not carbon. Lakes drying up causing more greenhouse gases - not carbon. Water from drying lakes raising sea levels - not carbon. Cause of evaporating lakes? a more arid landscape as more and more green area is turned to concrete to house the masses - not carbon.

[Jimcalagon]

Stanford University - Global warming is not bad for all

 

It's an ill wind, etc...

[Slim]

Man made diversions - not carbon. Lakes drying up causing more greenhouse gases - not carbon. Water from drying lakes raising sea levels - not carbon. Cause of evaporating lakes? a more arid landscape as more and more green area is turned to concrete to house the masses - not carbon.

 

 

 

Right, I still don't know what your point is. I don't think I've ever claimed that all environmental changes are due to carbon?

 

Are you claiming that the sea is rising simply because of the drying lakes? Landlocked water is a part of the rise, but solely responsible? Don't be silly.

 

Melting sea ice does raise the water level too.

[Cambon]

Right, I still don't know what your point is. I don't think I've ever claimed that all environmental changes are due to carbon?

 

Are you claiming that the sea is rising simply because of the drying lakes? Landlocked water is a part of the rise, but solely responsible? Don't be silly.

 

Melting sea ice does raise the water level too.

 

Quick, run for the hills. We are doomed!!!

From the article:

......could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

[Slim]

Quick, run for the hills. We are doomed!!!

From the article:

......could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

 

 

 

The estimates of the ice shelf loss from Greenland is around .5 mm per year, we're talking about accumulated very small changes here.

 

I notice you've ignored my other points.

[Cambon]

Like I said, we're not talking about millennial cycles here. They're not really of any relevance to this discussion. Yes, the carbon that is now being released into the atmosphere may once have been organic, but what matters to us as a thriving organism of the day is where that carbon is now what effect it has on our environment. Taking a simplistic example; drilling it and burning it is in our control, and it's creating the problem. How is highlighting the fact that this carbon may have been an animal millions of years ago in any way relevant to mankind today?

 

 

As to the population point, one person in Tanzania has the same footprint as 320 Americans. You cannot tell me that carbon output cannot be reduced by anything other than reducing the population in the face of those kind of figures.

From what I can see your graph and the above are the only other two points you have made since I engaged you in debate.

 

The graph also just happens to coincide with overpopulation of earth.

 

Drilling and burning carbon based fuels is not helping the situation, but the removal of rainforest and the covering of what was green area with asphalt and concrete alone is raising the temperature of the planet.

 

Your tanzania / american example is irrelevant.

[Slim]

Drilling and burning carbon based fuels is not helping the situation, but the removal of rainforest and the covering of what was green area with asphalt and concrete alone is raising the temperature of the planet.

 

 

 

Both actions by man, and yet you're also arguing that this is a natural cycle that we have no control over. Make your mind up?

[Albert Tatlock]

Talking of cycles...if we melt down all the bicycles in the world, we could create a large space-based umbrella that we could adjust to allow set limits of sunlight to reach the earth - thus controlling global warming, whilst freeing us at the same time from this no-road-tax-paying, 3-abreast-yackity-yacking menace of the road.

 

This is not so far fetched, as apparently there are just enough bicycles to do this, including not least 9 million in Beijing.

[Cambon]

 

Both actions by man, and yet you're also arguing that this is a natural cycle that we have no control over. Make your mind up?

 

Actually, I said earlier that the change in sea levels (and climate for that matter) has been going on since the beginning of time. However, I am arguing that although you and all the "experts" are desparately trying to link global warming (now called climate change because it s actually cooling) to excessing output of CO2. It just so happens that all the data, all the graphs showing climate versus CO2 coincide with the increase in, and over population of the planet. Unless that is reduced the manmade effect on the climate will continue to change, regardless of CO2.

[Albert Tatlock]

 

Both actions by man, and yet you're also arguing that this is a natural cycle that we have no control over. Make your mind up?

 

Actually, I said earlier that the change in sea levels (and climate for that matter) has been going on since the beginning of time.

Beginning of time...not strictly true, as the earth was formed some 9 billion years after the big bang when time began, and water only appeared on the earth's surface about 200 million years after that. Or, if you are religious, 2.30pm a week next Tuesday 10,000 years ago.

[Orange]

......whilst freeing us at the same time from this no-road-tax-paying, 3-abreast-yackity-yacking menace of the road.

 

Excellent

[Slim]

Actually, I said earlier that the change in sea levels (and climate for that matter) has been going on since the beginning of time. However, I am arguing that although you and all the "experts" are desparately trying to link global warming (now called climate change because it s actually cooling) to excessing output of CO2. It just so happens that all the data, all the graphs showing climate versus CO2 coincide with the increase in, and over population of the planet. Unless that is reduced the manmade effect on the climate will continue to change, regardless of CO2.

 

What a mess. Let me try to work out what you're saying:

 

You agree that man causes co2 and that co2 causes change in climate. You therefore think the only solution to climate change is to reduce the population? Even though it's easily demonstrable that the amount of co2 per head varies massively?

 

Don't you think that's a little simplistic? Look at mankind's recent history, and how technology has change dover a very short amount of time. What do you think the average Europeans carbon footprint was in the year 1800? Do you really think it's inconceivable that our pace of technology with a focus on reducing co2 can make similar gains in the other direction? Are you that jaded that the only solution is 'sod it'?

[Chinahand]

Cambon you are wrong when you say the world is cooling. Even over the last 8-12 years or so temperatures have on average increased - if you deliberately cherry pick your data to one data set (CRU's) and one data interval (starting in 1998) you can get it to be negative, but NASA's and NOAA's data - which cover a larger area of the earth do not show this; when you average the data sets temperatures are still going up. IE regression lines put through these data points are positive. Now, I'll be fair, there are some elements to what you are saying. The variation involved means that the error margin on these temperature readings is such that the rate of increase is not statistically robust enough to categorically say warming is occuring during this short period.

 

But this isn't a major issue for climatologists - climate trends occur over multiple decades - the idea that the warming is such that any 10 year period will invariably show a warming isn't true. Climatologists are currently improving their models to try to get a better idea of how the earth's short term cycles - weather - can affect average temperatures, but believe me this isn't unexpected. The last 10 years are not abnormal and definitely do not mean global warming due to man's use of Carbon (and other green house gases) is not occurring.

 

I am also most confused by your contention that global warming is caused by population and not that population's use of green house gases. The technology exists today to reduce the output of these gases by something like 90% in the next 50 years - though implementing that change will take a huge effort.

 

You are absolutely talking out of your posterior if you are going to claim that using this technology will not vastly reduce humanity's dangerous alteration of the earth's ecology. Obviously it isn't a panacea - ecological damage will still occur and nature will still make life very difficult for such a huge population.

 

But without it the climate change will make life a real misery for many billions of people.

 

I've said before I do not think global warming is particularly going to change life for us in the rich west. Our eating habits may change, and we will probably be affected by the political issues as climate change affects the world's resources such as water. More than likely I'll need a new roof as gales get worse!

 

But have no doubt if we don't reduce our output of green house gases the world will warm. I agree that the world's population IS going to increase. That is a big enough problem for us to face. But when you add climate change on to the problems due to population increases the issues get far far more difficult.

 

We DO have the resources and expertise to reduce those additional problems, and they are very significant for billions of people who will be affected by the increased desertification and flooding human caused climate change will cause.

 

You are ignoring the physical properties of green house gases - over the next 50 years the increase in these will be predominantly CO2, but methane is also there - and wishing on an unknown saviour to stop them remorselessly affecting the world's climate.

 

That is massively blinkered of you, and shows a vast indifference to humanity's suffering. Sure humanity suffers alot anyway - but climate change will significantly add to that burden - and we can do something about it.

 

The longer we delay the more difficult dong it will be.

[Cambon]

What a mess. Let me try to work out what you're saying:

 

You agree that man causes co2

Yes

 

and that co2 causes change in climate.

No.

 

You therefore think the only solution to climate change is to reduce the population?

Yes

 

Even though it's easily demonstrable that the amount of co2 per head varies massively?

that is irrelevant

 

Don't you think that's a little simplistic? Look at mankind's recent history, and how technology has change dover a very short amount of time. What do you think the average Europeans carbon footprint was in the year 1800?

What was the population of Europe back then? Where were all the tarmac roads, concrete jungles that absorb heat?

 

Do you really think it's inconceivable that our pace of technology with a focus on reducing co2 can make similar gains in the other direction?

Yes

 

Are you that jaded that the only solution is 'sod it'?

No. The only solution is to reduce the earth's population and stop building roads, estates, cities, massive shopping complexes, car park, industrial areas. As I have said before, and I am sure I will say again, CO2 is probably not helping the situation, but it is not the cause.

]

[Chinahand]

Cambon you are massively uninformed. Are you really saying that humanity's use of green house gases will not cause any problems to the earth's climate which will have consequences for humanity.

 

IE Two worlds - both using the same amount of power with the same populations, but in one the source of that power is not reliant on green house gases, and in the other it is. Are you saying these two worlds will face approximately identical problems?

 

The vast predominace of evidence and understanding science is able to bring to bear on this subject disagrees with you.