bpors,

Fine, but you didn't answer my question.
Thank you, I am familiar with AGW greenhouse theory. I was first educated on it when I worked for Greenpeace. We were then taught by someone (I think his name was Fagin) on how to use it to extract money from people on the street.

Q&A,

Thank you for your time and response. I assumed something like this, but am delighted to see a climate scientist use the words "probably" and "some disagreement". However, it raises further questions for me about climate complexity and variations in the capacity and amount of sequestration and absorption by oceans, but much as you choose to engage in a public forum, I can't expect you to oblige me on all these, and I thank you for your response.

There are clearly other climate forcers, and I wonder if the world started cooling again due to these, would people consider pumping CO2 into the atmosphere as was done in the 70s (the considering, that is) ‘cause things were getting a bit cold. I'm dubious about trying too hard to "get the climate right", but I have no huge problem with reducing carbon emissions in a sensible way, so long as it isn't done in a panic that produces worse immediate consequences.

On the topic, the philosophy of science is an interest of mine, and I liked where John was heading, but then he went off in a direction that I wouldn't. Personally, I question the validity and usefulness of a number of the constructs and dichotomies in eco-environmental science and discourse.
I believe there are limits to what science overall can tell us, and I think, somewhat like you, if I have understand you correctly, that public policy is about more than science and must take into consideration an array of competing values.

Cont…

Which makes me wonder why you are so vehemently opposed to "right wing think tanks" contributing to policy formulation, unless you are simply declaring your own left wing ideology and agenda, and why you only see economics as muddying the waters. The world, the climate, the economy, and human psychology is muddy.

On a sweeping note, and don't quote me, I reckon the 21st century will see evolution in energy use, as in the 20th - it already seems to be happening and I don't think it needs to be pushed through fear or urgency - the dire forecasts will not eventuate as predicted (although dire things will still happen), alarmists will say it's because we did something, skeptics will say because it was never going to happen, anyone who makes a correct prediction will cry why didn't you listen to me, those who get it wrong will offer a hundred justifications for the impossible-to-foresee events that made them wrong, people will continue to have the same kind of arguments in different forms, and the world will go on, and sadly neither of us will be around to follow the rest of the story. And even our environmental (over)consciousness will change as surely as the world has gone through enormous cultural transitions in the past - animism, renaissance, art deco, disco........ And if I’m wrong it’s because…

Having linked to some of OUG's sites, I understand that there are people who would wish me tried and executed for such thoughts, and even for asking the innocent question above. I take comfort in the fact that I harbour no such violent malice towards even the most strident alarmist. And if I were to go to trial, I imagine I would quickly and cowardously subscribe to every aspect of AGW. Not worth it, martyrdom is a dying act.

John/Baygon,

How clever. I can never get my dog to hold the shovel properly. You are very fortunate on your 10 acres.

That's probably the best I've seen you post, fungo.

I look forward to continuing the dialogue. Right now, my better half beckons :)

fungochumley,

would had have thought it too obvious as to where the excess CO2 went in the past. Plant life. And we we dig it up and drill for the fossiliized remains and then burn the stuff. Didn't Fagin tell you that?

Interesting posts Fungo and Q&A – may the dialogue continue. Fungo, I was interested in your comment “it raises further questions for me about climate complexity and variations in the capacity and amount of sequestration and absorption by oceans”.

Knowing a bit about the climate, this comment is of great interest to me. My original post above mentioned, “CO2 from natural and anthropogenic sources has to be absorbed by the oceans according to Henry's Law Constant that maintains an ocean-atmosphere equilibrium of 50:1. Anthropogenic CO2 is still subject to physical laws.”

Q&A, you would know something about this. Can you explain how the assumption of a long residence time for anthropogenic CO2 (up to 200 years) arose given that atmospheric CO2, from whatever source (natural or anthropogenic), is subject to Henry’s Law? I know that the IPCC assume that naturally-derived CO2 was already in ocean-atmosphere equilibrium and that additional anthropogenic CO2 is added to the atmosphere, leading to its accumulation there (and presumably the long residence times) but it begs the question: how come it is not subject to Henry’s Law?

E. Sundquist’s 1985 paper lists the results of 36 separate studies, based on a number of different measurement methods, that give an atmospheric CO2 residence or turnover time ranging between two and 25 years. Is it possible that the assumed long residence time for anthropogenic CO2 is an artefact of the modelling?

Either anthropogenic CO2 is relatively quickly absorbed into the carbon cycle, as per Henry’s Law, and the ocean-atmosphere equilibrium is maintained, or there is an unknown physical mechanism that applies only to anthropogenic CO2 (thus allowing for its atmospheric accumulation) that overrides Henry’s Law. I may not have this right but in my mind there is a significant problem here for the AGW hypothesis.

Please, no ad homins.

raredog - no doubt that AGW is subject to physical laws. The question becomes, and this is the exegis of the original article, can we be certain that our existing physical laws provide an adequate explanation? Our notion of the physical laws is basically an extrapolation of the known into the unknown. We treat them as universals but in general that is altogether too strong an assumption to make about any of the physical laws. (In that sense I am an old fashioned sceptic).
So my attitude to AGW is to argue that to claim certaintity about the impact of human CO2 is a bridge too far - too the best of my knowledge AGW is a unique event so one has a right to be sceptical about the claims that are made about its impact but that scepticism applies both to those who deny any adverse impacts and those who claim it will cause catastrophe. I therefore go on to argue the prudential case- I fail to see why we do not apply to AGW the same yardstick as we do to other areas of public policy. For example when Darwin was rebuilt it was rebuild so as to withstand another cyclone Tracy - yet realistically the chances of another cyclone Tracy hitting Darwin are minimal. When we engineer bridges etc they are engineered to withstand the most unlikely events. In short we set a standard of prudence that we refuse to apply to AGW argument. So if we cannot be absolutely certain that there will not be adverse impacts due to Human Co2 emissions should we therefore not apply the same prudential standards as we do in other areas? The scientific debate will continue to be interesting but it cannot set public policy. We do have the right to ask the question are politicians entitled to demand that we take the risk that AGW is mistaken? Or should prudence dictate that they take action to shift our socio-economic systems so that they are not dependent on CO2 emissions?