The great global warming debate, Phase 2

Mil-observer. Its good to be green, but not in the face.
Its all a case of WHAT IF! BUT WE CAN START PREPARING JUST IN CASE
(520 million years ago, CO2 levels were 200 hundred times to what they are today, O2 was 30% less than to day. The sea creatures were happy, the sun was a bit warm, but basically calm. My defence on the matter lays with population, the two matters are separate.)

EVO

Well said EVO3, whether you are thinking about social justice, global warming etc. over-population is a common barrier to progress.

The global financial crisis is a good model for what is happening with population. Local mortage risks were reduced by spreading (globalizing) the risk. This reduced the risk that a local bank would get into debt if there was a rush of local loan failures. So what happened? Globalizing the risk gave local cowboys everywhere the confidence to take bigger risks. Then what happened? When it all started to fall apart the globalized risk led to globalized failure instead of a localized problem.

We are taking similar risks with food supply. Globalization of the world economy and the advances in transport over the last 150 years has minimized the risk of local droughts etc resulting in people starving. So how has the world responded to this reduced risk of famine? We are doing the equivalent of what the finacial engineers did and pushing up the world population and risk of a worldwide crash.

Have a think about how interlinked our world is becoming and how vulnerable the system is to even minor problems with these links. There are a number of examples of very widespread power crisis that flow from some minor, localized glitch. Or ask yourself how long our society would last if it was subjected to WW2 level bombing?

KenH,

You have given the game away by claiming global cooling has been the case in the last 10 years. You are not a skeptic in genuine search of the truth but a denier cherry picking facts to suit your purpose. OF COURSE if the highest average global temperature since the beginning of civilization was recorded 10 years ago then until the next record is set every year subsequent to that year will be cooler. A year 3 student could work that one out. What you conveniently forgot to mention was that 7 or 8 (forget the actual number) of the last 10 years were the hottest on record.

Now, you say only 0.02% of the atmosphere is made up of CO2 (it is now closer to 0.04 actually and pre-industrial revolution was in the order of only.03% but set that aside). Now answer me this. What if the CO2 levels were zero; could life on earth as we know it exist? Patently not. So if a mere .03% OF CO2 enabled us and other living things to tick along as we have been then would an increase of 35% not pose a threat to this existence. What about an increase of over 50%? Could that spell trouble do you think? CO2 levels have already gone up by 35% and are steadily wending their way upwards so that if you and your fellow doubters hold sway it will have increased by a further 20% or so within decades.

You selectively choose to express the increase in CO2 as a % of total atmospheric gases. Indeed it is a very small % (only 0.01% - not 0.004% as you state) but that is not a relevant comparison. I am only pleased we are not dealing with these tiny levels of ozone or CH4 (methane) in the atmosphere. What about these levels of say cyanide gas, would you be happy with that?

Part II Reply to KenH

KenH,

Believing in anthropogenic causes of climate change also cannot in any way be compared to religious beliefs which are based solely on faith without a shred of evidence needed to support those beliefs.
A wide body of evidence is, on the contrary, there to support the climate change hypothesis and while this does not conclusively prove its anthropogenic causes it is pointing to a very high probability of that being the case.

I am sticking with the probabilities not relying on faith.

kulu

Probabilities? What, is this a matter for bookmakers instead? What probabilities do the carbon-dioxiders rely on except for the “high probability” claimed in the bankers-run IPCC propaganda? Whether you realize it or not, such actual religion as yours is usually described as “Mammon”, or greedy Pharisee scum running the temple (think bail-outs AND fart tax/ETS, etc.).

I always thought that thinking for oneself should win out. But OK, if it's “probabilities” you want, then try these on for size:

- colder temperatures globally, including record deep freezes, in steady decreases since the late-1990s warm period
- increases to massive ice sheet volumes in both Arctic and Antarctic sea and land areas by last year
- correspondingly and conspicuously negligible sunspot activity in the past year

...all pointing to a high probability that AGW is just another self-interested financiers' scam.

The earth is probably heading into another Ice Age.

I still don’t understand why people think some Chemistry is deadly in the atmosphere; Clearly Methane is used in Kulu’s example to imply something – and it is a natural occurring gass at the very least.
It is an obvious falsehood to try implying that there are pockets of gasses – i.e. Methane - and by default imply that if a Jet engine flew through it- It may cause the sky to catch fire; That is not said directly , but it is the obvious implication made ;-
Methane ; H4 = H2+H2= H4
Hydrogen Atom “H2 “ H2 x 6= Carbon atom ; what is so difficult to understand ?

Nuclear Isotopic value is ?