It is interesting to see how the ostriches all come out and put their heads in the sand so quickly.

Global warming is only a part of the reality which we have to face. We need to realise that we live in a closed system, and that we have finite resources, particularly of coal, oil and gas, so that we should be doing what we can to conserve them for future generations, instead of using them up as though there were no tomorrow.

Even if global warming turns out to be a myth, we should be doing something to reduce our consumption of energy down to a level which is sustainable in the long term. That undoubtedly means that we should be doing something to reduce the world population back to a more realistic level, because if we don't, than as sure as Hell, nature is going to do it for us.

Might I suggest a careful reading of

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

Just to throw some light on the subject.

David

VK3AUU is right.

I'm somewhat bemused by the commentators who are presumptuous enough to think they know more on global scientific matters than the vast majority of the scientific establishment.

I know that predicting the outcomes of global warming is a near impossible task given the complexities of the situation, but there are clear trends that can be observed, and they're quite compelling.

What is clear, is that any action has an equal and opposite reaction. Whether it's global warming or something else, there's only so much you can affect any given ecosystem - be it our atmosphere or a garden pond - before its equilibrium is thrown out of whack.

There can also be no denying we live in a world of limited resources and sooner or later these chickens will come home to roost, whether it's a few decades or longer.

Ultimately, putting global warming aside, the author is speaking about the difficulty of reducing consumption.

And yet, I see no appraisal of the difficulties we will encounter once we inevitably run out of these finite resources.

Are we to assume everything will be fine and dandy?
I can only assume that with growth having a tendency toward acceleration, the sooner you begin to take action, the easier it will be as you're not consuming as fast.

Whether you're a global warming skeptic or not, you can't deny that accelerating consumption of finite resources will inevitably result in catastrophe.

So to the author and the naysayers, all I can say is it's quite apparent you're only concerned for the present, not the future.

Some comments have switched the issue to one of resource scarcity or "peak oil". This is a different matter from the difficulty of achieving the targets being discussed.

For Australia there is no issue of supply shortages - we have hundreds of years of coal and an almost infinite amount of uranium available. When shortages emerge - as they may have done with the world oil supply, the price will gradually rise stimulating a search for new resources and an economy in the usage of the existing resources. Adjustments take place on a gradual basis. This bears no similarity to the forced sterilisation of resources that a carbon tax/cap imposes.

At present Australia has no means of shifiting from a level of about 16 tonnes per capita of co2 emissions to the 2.5 tonnes by 2030 that would be required under a 20 per cent global reduction with an equal per capita level of emissions. Even total nuclear wold only get us half way there.

Within the last few weeks a number of internationally known and respected research organisations published on the internet updated average global temperature data sets that reflected the findings from 2007.

These organisations are;

• The NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS),
• National Climate Data Centre (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
• Hadley Climate Research Unit (HadCRU) of the UK Meteorological Office

Each organization reports a global average temperature anomaly for each month. HadCRU data began being collected in 1850; GISS and NCDC began in 1880.

The link below superimposes the three separate data sets on the one graph over the last 30 years.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/trend1.jpg

A regression line from actual data has been plotted on the graph to show the trends.

Now, some people on this thread (and others) would say that GW stopped in 1998 – they signify their ignorance about linear regression and trend analysis.

Using their arguments, they would have to say GW stopped in 1976, 1982, 1988, 1991 and 1998. I ask you all, which is it?

Putting it another way, have a look at the following graph from NOAA. It depicts the global average temperature since 1880.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Is there anyone who does not understand this graph?
_________________________________

Anti-green,

You know very well my thoughts on right-wing/left-wing ‘think tanks’ … if you can not see the false dichotomies in such ideological or socio/politico agendas then I am can not hope to have a rational and logical discussion with you.

Senator Inhofe and his ‘list’ does contain some luminaries, but if you had bothered to go to the sources themselves and to ask the pertinent questions, you would have realised that his actions were just a political stunt – the Pope for heavens sake!

Inhofe (and subsequently the Lavoisier Group) are doing all they can to ‘deny and delay’ so as to maintain the power and wealth of their respective groups.

Science is telling us we have issues to deal with. It is the political ‘right/left bun-fight’ that is the problem, as you so clearly demonstrate in your posts.

Cont’d

Cont’d

TRTL,

GW is a symptom of Unsustainable development – we can do it better, no matter what side of the fence we lean on.

Some people have their head in the sand, their arms flaying around in the melting permafrost, their feet stuck in the mud and their rear end pointing to the sky emitting a potent GHG – this is the real problem.

Bigmal says,

“Only economists would have numbers coming out their backsides, and few of them connected to reality.”

Now it’s the economists (before the scientists) – you’re coming across as telling everyone that you are the only one on this planet connected to reality – sounds ‘sus’ to me.

Hasbeen,

Get over it – forget the IPCC if you wish – understand the science!
BTW, see other thread (later) for an understanding of climate/weather (sorry for the delay in responding – been busy).

Keiran,

No, you have got the numbers wrong, see other thread (later) – ditto as for the ‘been’ above – been busy.

Anti-green,

Please don't distort or misrepresent the science. NO ONE is saying "increased atmospheric CO2 is due entirely to human activity" - cite your source please.

"It is also known that the absorption curve is logarithmic so for example a change in CO2 concentration from 50 to 100 ppm would have a greater effect then say between 400-500 ppm." What exactly are you trying to say?

What "rubbery" figures please? Cite your source.

Of course there are denier/sceptic/contrarian/whatever websites - they have an agenda to push.

_______________________

It is obviously a difficult problem humanity faces, it's about time people realised this and started to work together on solutions

I haven't gone through most of Garnaut's report yet, and I accept that it's an interim report inviting debate, but there seems to be no attempt to assess the costs and benefits of adapting to changed climate (if the changes assumed by Garnaut occur) and the Herculean efforts proposed for Australia to reduce emissions, which will have negligible impact on global climate except in the surely fantastic scenario that all other nations are morally inspired to follow our lead, no matter what the cost.

Garnaut is an excellent economist, and in my experience a man of high integrity, but there seems to be an element of unrealistic idealism in his report. To an extent (though this doesn't seem to be his intention), he is demonstrating the tremendous costs involved in making very little difference to global warming. I have previously argued that there will be few if any countries in the world that will bite the bullet and face the political cost of massive cuts in emissions - cf the holier-than-thou EU, which has a much worse record on containing emissions than pariah Australia.