In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 09:05:13 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:38:27 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy
wrote:



I would like to know:-

How much global warming is anthropogenic and how much natural ( e.g.
the little ice age was caused by the sun, but what were the early
middle ages and Roman warm periods caused by? It wasn't C02. It was
warm enough to farm in Greenland in 1000AD, its not that warm now,
how come ice caps didn't melt
This is as bad as the nature/nurture question. It doesn't really matter
what caused it - we need to reduce it to avoid *big* problems.


I do wonder about one thing. Let's suppose that the apparent increase
in temperature is actually due to a cyclic trend and has little
relationship to CO2 emissions.

If this did turn out to be the case, then controlling CO2 emissions
would not have the effect that is hoped.

It doesn't matter *why* - CO2 emissions make it worse.

Possibly, but by how much? Nobody has actually measured whether climate
change is happening in the absence of CO2 emission, because obviously
that can't be done. Therefore, how does one know the extent to which it
does contribute to climate change?

As there are feedback effects it would be silly to give a single answer to
that question; it depends what you mean. It would be very foolish to suggest
there is no effect.

It would be rather misguided to discover, having reduced emissions by some
huge percentage, that there had been no effect.

Not as misguided as waiting for proof that even thoroughly stupid people like
GW Bush can't ignore and then finding that it's far too late to do anything
about it.


In practical terms, it is also unlikely that the larger polluters are
going to be willing to do what is required to bring CO2 emission levels
down to the figures at the point that there was first thought to be a
possible connection.

A bunch ofyobbos are beating the hell out of an innocent passer-by and, as
you reckon they won't stop, you cheer them on. Do you?

You are applying an emotional argument and missing the point.

If you think that's emotional try waiting until peoples homes are disappearing
- and the numbers move from thousands to millions. Try explaining to me why I
*shouldn't* get emotional about the prospect of my grand-daughter having to
defend her home against starving hordes from the South East - or do you
seriously think that 20 millions can be rehoused without people getting
emotional?

This is not to say that one should not attempt to reduce CO2 emissions,
but equally one does not read a lot about work to deal with the impact
of substantial climate change if and when it happens.

If we pass the tipping-pont and greenhouse gasses are released from the
tundra & sea and the gulf-stream ends then it's simply a matter of half
the world's population finding somewhere new to live.

How do you suggest we go about it?

You tell me. However, let's say that the contribution of CO2 idea does
turn out to be wrong or that it has much less of an influence than was
initially thought. The implication of that, is that we would not have been
able to influence climate change by cutting CO2 emissions and climate
change was happening anyway and beyond our control.

My concern is that backing only the CO2 horse is rather unwise. If we have
got it wrong then shouldn't some work be going into dealing with climate
change outcome rather than just saying that unless we cut CO2 emissions the
end will come?

Rather unwise as opposed to stupidly suicidal?

My pragmatic point, above, is that history doesn't support measures
happening on a co-operative world basis at any great speed, if at all. Even
as so called sentient beings, animal instinct is never far below the
surface or even below the surface at all, which is why socialism doesn't
work. I am not saying whether that is a good or bad thing, but it would
be naive to expect that world governments and populations are going to
become self denying.

And your solution is to suggest that we check and double-check until it's far
too late. We've known of the problem for 45 year (at least) and we have
already checked and double-checked and it's already too late to take anything
but drastic action. We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We
have to do something bloody fast!" stage. Now.

Betting the bank on one issue and one approach does seem a little unwise.

Bank? You seriously think there will be a *bank* left! ;-!!(

There might not be. However, making the whole thing a one-issue situation
does not make sense either.

It doesn't make sense to people who won't listen.

--
John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing