Climate Change / Personal comment / politics / science / vision

Climate Change, Climate Sensitivity, the Unknowns.

Today we have this thing called climate change, most scientists believe we have caused change in the climate by pumping tonnes of CO2 and other chemicals into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. This theory has been tested since the 1970’s, and most people who have studied the subject believe this to be true.

Because we are doing this climate change thing for the first time. There have been arguments and disagreement with what change will occur and how quickly. I personally believe with some climate scientists that the climate may be changing faster than the climate models have predicted.

Aside from the obvious changes we have seen in the weather in regions around the Earth, fires in Australia and increased fire season in Los Angeles, drought in Texas. In some countries and pacific islands we are looking at the disappearance of habitat; large migrations of people from one part of the planet to another. I was pleased to read recently a leading climate sceptic Professor Richard Muller after an exhaustive study came to the same conclusion, that climate change is real. I am sure at some point in the future most deniers will conclude their wrong; but how long and at what cost?

Also the new technologies that would replace the existing climate polluting hydrocarbons are giving the possibility for cleaner and ultimately cheaper energy. And energy is the future, without energy we are sitting at home with candles or cooking over an open fire.

I believe the climate is changing, this leaves me with a few questions of my own. How will we cope with the migration due to flooding? Why aren’t we taking into account possible changes in climate, and building infrastructure to facilitate future populations? Clean drinking water, water for livestock, what kind of crops yield the most food per acre? How will governments deal with the harsher weather systems and loss of life and property?

Because even the sceptic’s can no longer deny there is a change in weather patterns. The recent attacks seem to be on the data. Just say the scientists are telling climate stories and not climate facts. Like saying the smoke from the house isn’t the color you said it would be, as we watch it burn to the ground.

I sincerely hope that reasonable people come together soon, put the bikering aside and look at the facts. Stop telling the lies that the scientists have some sort of agenda, not too many scientists have solar cell companies, but all too many deniers like the oil business. Don’t invent your own facts and deny the truth. We don’t have much time, I will be fine, but many poorer countries and people who don’t realize how close this all is. They deserve the truth, not stories, not vested interested lies; just the truth!

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Climate Change, Climate Sensitivity, the Unknowns.

  1. “I was pleased to read recently a leading climate sceptic Professor Richard Muller after an exhaustive study came to the same conclusion, that climate change is real.”

    I find it very interesting how this did not make much of a splash in the news yet everytime something comes out that potantially scratches or nicks at the corners of climate change the media is all ablaze with the “news”.

  2. Yes I am very familiar with the issues discussed at the link you give.

    However, I have very little idea what the fuss is all about. The study in question does support the notion that the climate is changing, which is very little surprise to most of us. In fact I think everyone would be more worried if it stopped changing as climate change as I am sure you agree, is in the nature of things anyway.

    What the study did NOT address, as far as I can make out, is whether this change is due to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    You are no doubt aware that there is NO proof for the assertion that Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming.
    If you had the privilige of studying statistics at any tine during your life time, you would understand that correlations are never proof, only a necessary condition for proof and without any substantiating factors emerging over the many years of research, any idea of a proof upon which we should radically change our civilisation over is very meager indeed. In fact there are plenty of disproving factors which have not gone away. (I welcome you to read my blog and it’s links if you are interested in some of these.)
    Thus if it cannot be shown that the climate change is anthropogenic, we should simply sit back and enjoy/adapt/endure whatever mother nature throws at us. Seeing as how we do not appear to have reached previous temperatures which have been calculated from historical events yet (and which also appear in proxy records), there seems to be very little to be concerned about.

    As for CO2 being toxic, I finish by giving you a few facts about that subject, in case you haven’t explored that aspect yet.

    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
    Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
    Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
    Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)
    Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
    http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
    http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
    Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.
    Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

    Oh and CO2 does become toxic at about 50,000 ppmv http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html

    I do agree with your final statement absolutely though!
    They deserve the truth, not stories, not vested interested lies; just the truth!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

  3. When it comes to the media I have become sceptic. There are too few media outlets who really try to tell the news as it is. I like NPR, BBC, and Al Jazeera.
    We get biased reporting from Fox, and the rest are so PC you could say almost anything, it’s not questioned for facts; just reported as fact as they want to give the impression of impartiality. You are right this study didn’t make the headlines, probably because it states the fact that global warming exists. And almost half the population of the USA doesn’t. They may be afraid of losing viewers, and if I am right on that! A really sad state of affairs exists, hope I am wrong!!
    Thanks for the comment!

  4. I think you’re right. The media has pulled back from providing factual NEWS and promoting journalistic standards, the kind that Walter Cronkite, Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw and much earlier Edward Murrow adhered to, favoring commentary. Perhaps, this is fed by Americans unconscious (or conscious) need to have everything interpreted for them. It seems we, as a voting public, have relinquished our abilities to taken in the facts and making up our own minds. Instead we have pundits (“experts”) who do all that for us and spew out their own conclusions without really explaining how they got there.

    And I think you have cause to be fearful of that loss of viewership from Faux but then again, that climate change news goes completely against their message that climate change is a liberal conspiracy.

    It does speak to a sad state of things but then again…you can drive yourself mad delving too deep into the intricacies of all this.

  5. Baldbiker,

    You appear to have accidently erased my comment.
    Here it is again.

    Yes I am very familiar with the issues discussed at the link you give.

    However, I have very little idea what the fuss is all about. The study in question does support the notion that the climate is changing, which is very little surprise to most of us. In fact I think everyone would be more worried if it stopped changing as climate change as I am sure you agree, is in the nature of things anyway.

    What the study did NOT address, as far as I can make out, is whether this change is due to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
    You are no doubt aware that there is NO proof for the assertion that Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming.
    If you had the privilige of studying statistics at any tine during your life time, you would understand that correlations are never proof, only a necessary condition for proof and without any substantiating factors emerging over the many years of research, any idea of a proof upon which we should radically change our civilisation over is very meager indeed. In fact there are plenty of disproving factors which have not gone away. (I welcome you to read my blog and it’s links if you are interested in some of these.)
    Thus if it cannot be shown that the climate change is anthropogenic, we should simply sit back and enjoy/adapt/endure whatever mother nature throws at us. Seeing as how we do not appear to have reached previous temperatures which have been calculated from historical events yet (and which also appear in proxy records), there seems to be very little to be concerned about.
    As for CO2 being toxic, I finish by giving you a few facts about that subject, in case you haven’t explored that aspect yet.

    A scientist untainted by the AGW lobby would say that a concentration of about 1,000ppmv would be beneficial to life on earth, this being the concentration that Glass House growers prefer, http://api.ning.com/files/X-APctmkiwvgEI5fT6iiGjWFvKNX*cWuzeO4qmDVbgA_/Greenhouses.CarbonDioxideInGreenhouses.pdf
    Our exhaled breath is about 4500ppmv http://www.biotopics.co.uk/humans/inhaledexhaled.html
    Up to 5000ppmv is acceptable for work places (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists.).
    Up to 3000ppmv for residences (Canadian exposure guideline for residential buildings)
    Medical oxygen has between 10,000 ppmv and 20,000 ppmv in it.
    http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
    http://www.bocsds.com/uk/sds/medical/10_carbondioxide_oxygen.pdf
    Currently our atmosphere has about 390 ppmv of CO2 in it.
    Furthermore, some scientists credit the extra CO2 in our atmosphere as the reason for our increased food production.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

    Oh and CO2 does become toxic at about 50,000 ppmv http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_dioxide/health_cd.html

    I do agree with your final statement absolutely though!
    They deserve the truth, not stories, not vested interested lies; just the truth!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com
    Honestly it does not do your beliefs very much good if you are unable to answer a perfect reasonable comment which disagrees with you. If you have reasonable logic to support your beliefs, a reasoned answer will be little problem.

    Actually I do encounter a number of people in the blogosphere who are unable to modify their beliefs according to incontrovertible facts which clash with their views.
    I am in the habit of publishing them on my other blog http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
    Inability to give a reasoned reply (replies are always treated seriously and with respect) simply displays to my readers that the subject’s beliefs are religious in nature and do not reflect logic or facts.
    Cheers.

  6. Pingback: Dare I Call These People Alarmists?

  7. Thanks, the looney has published your comments.
    There are times when people will have to agree to disagree on an issue, I have read your blog and we appear to be on different sides of this argument. I disagree and believe that it is real, man made and will have a profound effect on populations in the next fifty to hundred years.I respect your opinion and time will tell who was right.
    The Loony!

  8. baldbiker > This whole climate change “debate” has become something akin to the evolution vs creationism back and forth hasn’t it? No matter how much evidence is presented neither the “denier” nor the creationist will be swayed. For the sake of one’s own sanity the preferable strategy seems to be grin and nod absently while awaiting the most opportune moment to step away.

  9. I agree, as I said in the blog I understand there are different points of view. And there will be an outcome. If I am wrong I will be the first to apologize, and if anybody wants to deny climate change, or evolution; they are entitled to their opinion.
    I don’t have the inclination to try to convince them otherwise. The facts in the end will be available in our life time, I hope the people in charge who can actually make a difference act properly. Thank you!

  10. “time will tell who was right”

    If we follow the IPCC demands of a 60% reduction in co2 emissions from present, we will die whether we are right or wrong.

    We simply have to get this right else we will most certainly “have a profound effect on populations in the next fifty to hundred years”

    Check out the economic effect in this scientific paper.
    http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/emissioncuts_economics.pdf

    Also note how this differs from any IPCC scientists and some reports by government officials.

    I am an economist and I think this report is right on!

    Read and think about it!

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com

Comments are closed.