On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:30:28 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:

In article , Andy Hall
wrote:
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006 13:55:38 +0100, John Cartmell
wrote:


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.

Of course. Just as it is equally silly to suggest that it is the only
effect as is implied by the political bandwagon. More reasonably, the
reality is likely to lie somewhere between a natural trend happening (which
may of course be subject to variations up and down over decades and
centuries) and man made influence of CO2 emission.

Truth is rarely conveniently found half-way between where competing ignorant
statements place it. I prefer to accept scientific evidence.

So do I, which is why I think it's important to keep all possible
factors in mind. Since non-man-made change cannot be eliminated as a
contributor to global warming, it is foolhardy to assume that CO2
emission is the only causal contributor.




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.

Hence my point that this debate is not where the entire focus ought to be
as it seems to be today, but also to consider what to do in the event of
various global warming scenarios actually happening.

Prepare for the worst-case scenario? Then prepare for your civilisation to
disappear.

That may happen. There are also numerous other possibilities between
where we are now and that.

It would be far more useful, while doing what is technically and
politically achievable with CO2 reduction, to put some effort into
whether any of those can also be influenced, or at the very least to
consider options as to what to do should they occur.



This would cover the situations of Dubya, his successors, the Chinese, the
3rd world and everybody else who is unwilling or unable to do anything
about CO2 emission as well as the scenario that CO2 emission might not have
as much influence as is thought and that it is other phenomena beyond our
control instead or as well.

This is not to say that I don't think that reduction in CO2 emission is
worthwhile. I am simply concerned about backing one horse only and
especially when the other punters are not laying bets at all.

We're back to you cheering on those yobbos ...

No *we're* not. Only *you* are.




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?

No I don't which is why I make the point that sensible thought should go
into how to deal with movement of people, should that become necessary at
some point, before it actually happens.

If you get to that point you have lost. We're planning to avoid that.

Really? What happens if said planning is wrong and despite the best
efforts for CO2 reduction, climate change continues to occur?






Applying emotion to it is not going to deal with this in any useful way.

Applying quiet, scientific detachment has not got us very far since the early
60s.

Quiet scientific detachment considers all of the options and outcomes.
It should also consider options if the original theory is incorrect or
the changes that it would like are not achieved.




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?

This assumes that you believe that CO2 emission reduction is *the* way to
address the issue and that looking at that *and* other things such as what
to do if that can't be achieved for whatever reason or doesn't have the
influence that was first believed does not make sense.

I'm looking at the scientific question and answers. Choosing which populations
to choose to wipe out is a political consideration.

Brigands, murderers, dentists and civil servants would be a reasonable
start.

I was also looking at the scientific, applied acientific and possibly
engineering considerations.

Work should also go into what can be done in the event of the various
scenarios resulting from global warming - for example different types
of food production in different places plus the other paraphernalia
and locations for the support of mankind's continued existence.



It is that that is my concern about the current bandwagon. When there is
tunnel vision like this, the usual outcome is to meet a train coming the
other way.

I'm not on a bandwagon. I'm trying to educate someone who dismisses real, and
dangerous problems as a bandwagon.

Don't be mistaken. I am not dismissing CO2 emission and it's
reduction, per sec, as a bandwagon. It may well have a substantial
influence on climate. On the other hand, there amy be other factors
as well.

The bandwagon is following it as *the* issue to the exclusion of
others. This is convenient for politicians and others who are hard
of thinking. The danger in this is if either the required
reductions can't be made either technically or politically (which is a
very likely possibility whether we like it or not) or if the influence
is not what we thought.



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.

That's not what I said at all. The point is that attention should be
paid to CO2 emission, including reducing it *and* the possibility that that
cannot be done sufficiently and soon enough to make a difference *and* the
possibility that there are other manmade influences *and* the possibility
of natural influences and *also* to look at what to do if none of these
play out and we do have to deal with climate change happening.

We don't deal with climate change if we get the worst. There is no reason to
suppose that, if we let it go beyond the tipping point, there is any
technology that will cope - and no reason to suppose that any mammals will
survive, even though it's likely that life will continue.

There may well not be any technology that will cope if no effort is
put into researching that. It would also assume the notion of a
tipping point. Granted, one can model that, but it depends on a set
of assumptions that may or may not happen.



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.

What if the conclusions are wrong and it is (also) another manmade or
natural phenomenon and the change is happening even if we do take drastic
action on CO2 emisssion? What happens if Dubya's successors take a
similar view to him and the Chinese and 3rd world continue to go in the
wrong direction?

Could be a touch uncomfortable.

Exactly. Unfortunately, I think that this is the most likely
scenario. I don't *want* that this should be what happens, but fear
that it will be.

Given that likely reality, I would like to see at least some effort
going into dealing with the consequences.



We have already taken your advice and we are now at "We have to do
something bloody fast!" stage. Now.

No we haven't. You didn't read what I said, just what you wanted to think
I said.

Your advice was to investigate further. We have done. We have spent too long
doing so.

No it wasn't. I have not said that effort should not go into
reduction of CO2 emission or that it should be delayed to look at
alternatives. My point is that while that is being done, and knowing
full well that it will take longer than is desirable, we should also
be looking at whether there are other factors and whether we can do
anything about those and also to look at how to deal with the outcome
of CO2 emissions not being reduced as we might hope.




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.

Listening to one-issue politicians certainly doesn't.

I don't listen to politicians or the media on questions like this. None of
them show more than minimal real understanding.

Which is all the more concerning


--

..andy