Dickie, when you are talking about pollution i agree with much you are saying. It is a concern but not related to the alarmist AGW hypothesis which is about temperature. Everyone knows that when plants decay, or the wind blows, etc or we burn something it will disaggregate all manner of gasses, chemicals and particulates .... some very nasty or unpleasant irritants or even beneficial ones. How we shield, filter, collect, disperse, etc these natural, environmental and human driven disaggregates is important and basically a fact of life itself. Much has been and needs to be done but I remember twenty years ago when people would go to Bondi and surf underTURD. There are simply innumerable environmental issues to contend with but CO2 is not the issue.

It is well understood that motor vehicles cause a wide range of air pollution problems in cities/towns, however quite a bit has been done with fitted basic anti-pollution equipment and responsible maintenance programs. The trend is that air quality has actually been improving because of tighter controls on car emissions but car use is increasing and again more needs to be done. Hybrid and electric vehicles are now coming on the scene which is excellent for cities.

Incidentally, Dickie do you live in the modern world? You have a computer i presume but what transport do you use? What heating and power do you use?

Chade,

Something like that. In order to prove global warming, you need to have the map compiled exactly the same way for, say, the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s etc and compare the maps to see where they differ. Mathematicians could then compute an average temperature for the whole globe for each 10-year period. If the average goes up with time, then you've got global warming.

There is a slight caveat though. The accuracy of the technique depends on how much interpolation of data values has been carried out to make the temperature map. If there are great big holes spatially in the data, then the technique is less accurate.

RobP "global warming"?

Please read the entire sentence.

Is it “significant”, relative to other possible causes of "global warming"?

“Significant” is likewise emphasised.

My point remains “Global warming and global cooling possibly exists, maybe as a cyclical consequence of something, be it wobbling on the earths axis, sunspots, the influence of the moon, I do not know.

It may also be attributable to anthropogenic causes.

What we do not know, however, is how “SIGNIFICANT” are the anthropogenic causes and what proportion is due to the increase production of carbon gases, relative to the total measure of global warming, in the current phase of the possible cycle.

There is some rudimentary sampling which occurs, I suspect often in isolation to other sampling. We have some computer models being built to extrapolate that sampling and supposedly predict future consequences.

I have some knowledge of computer modelling from some of the work I am paid to do.

I recognise how easy it is to miss errors in simple models and the likelihood of errors and unlikely-hood of identifying them in more complex world models increases exponentially.

I claim, that the hypotheses put forward to support the notion of “AGW”:

lack reliable data, are
too error prone and
too poorly measured

to justify imposing some world wide regime of carbon gas-production curtailment.

My other point remains, all this talk of carbon-gas curtailment is missing the point that the real contributor to “sustainability” comes more from population numbers than by lifestyle.

Yet, all these scientific experts focus on curtailing the activities which the you and I use in experiencing our lifestyle.

The idea of carbon trading is underpinning the introduction of some form of “Carbon Tax” the consequence of which will, supposedly justify diverting monies from those who earn it into government control which, in simple terms is a strategy of “Socialism by Stealth”.

So the real debate is less about global warming and more about imposing a failed political system through the back door because previous attempts at democratic adoption and revolution have failed but the “socialist” just won’t give up.

Thank you for your response Keiran. However, since you advocate "business as usual" in the GW debate, you will of course agree that emissions of A/CO2 would elevate regardless of warming and that those elevations would also increase the levels of ozone.

Despite the recent technology to mitigate vehicular pollution, over 2 billion kilograms of CO (an ozone player) were released from the transport industry in Australia last year.

Dr Kearney's article on fossil fuel use in that industry may be of interest:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861

Unfortunately, fossil fuel plants, refineries etc are also significantly responsible for the formation of anthropogenic ozone.

Those who advocate for the status quo will of course be required to acknowledge the scientific consensus on ozone.

Therefore, I would appreciate it if you addressed my previous question:

"May we have your strategies for mitigating T/ozone whilst increasing the levels of A/CO2 please Keiran?"

Dickie i'm always amused with the expression "business as usual" that you infer quite often. What does it mean? For yourself it implies an old fixed in place and unchanging mindset but that is far from the truth. Much is in fact being done for the environment because "business as usual" USUALLY now incorporates processes that adapt to changes.
e.g.
Higher CO2 then consider ..... converting the energy of sunlight to chemical energy. Biofuels may not be everyone's option at the moment but these don't necessarily need to be from typical food crops.
http://www.oilgae.com/
"Oilgae – Oil & Biodiesel from Algae
While a number of bio-feedstock are currently being experimented for biodiesel (and ethanol ) production, algae have emerged as one of the most promising sources especially for biodiesel production, for two main reasons (1) The yields of oil from algae are orders of magnitude higher than those for traditional oilseeds, and (2) Algae can grow in places away from the farmlands & forests, thus minimising the damages caused to the eco- and food chain systems. There is a third interesting reason as well: Algae can be grown in sewages and next to power-plant smokestacks where they digest the pollutants and give us oil!"

See what wicked pedia also says .....
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Biodiesel_from_Algae_Oil

Col,

I understand what you are saying and I have no problem with your line of logic. It’s very clearly put, actually.

But, you should understand I wasn’t trying to buy into the socialist/individualist, Left/Right debate. I maintain that the fact the term “global warming” was in quotes implies that the phenomenon is either not fully proved or understood. I was using that as a starting point to try and branch the discussion out a bit, that’s all.

A thread like this should really be about coming up with new ideas that challenge the status quo. Probably the question of overriding importance is: “Does the pumping of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere damage the biosphere either by warming of the atmosphere, chemical pollution or some other process we don’t fully appreciate yet?”

Some people’s attempts to do this just proves that as soon as a new shoot of thinking pops up, it gets cut down – or maybe the better analogy is that it gets squashed into the turf by the heavy roller.