Dave Cornwell wrote:

The reference you site above quotes "CFCs have ceased the increase observed
before about 1992 and have either leveled off or are in decline (Montzka et
al., 1999). The latter is a response to decreased emissions related to the
Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. "

I am referring specifically to CFC's so I'm not quite sure what the less
positive view is as illustrated here?
Dave



The effect of CFC 11 has reduced very slightly since 1997, and that is good, but
the larger effect of CFC 12 has only levelled, and thus the amount of 'harm' it
is doing has remained constant, and at its peak. While a cessation of increase
is welcome, the 'damage' done, and still being done, is not (yet) reduced.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On 14 Apr, 07:32, Norman Lynagh normanthis...@thisbitweather-
consultancy.com wrote:
The following site is quite interesting

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best spent
on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes rather
than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find ways of
reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent.

I think we need to do both, but I agree current policies advocated by
politicians to combat climate change are a bit depressing. Land is
taken out of agriculture use for 'carbon neutral' tree planting to
justify some polluting activity. So instead (certainly in our climate)
of having fast growing crops we have slow growing or dead trees.
Meanwhile in the fast growing tropical forests deforestation
continues. The west attempts to meet carbon targets by exporting
'dirty' industries to the third world.

The only way to really cut carbon emissions is a dramatic cut in
consumption, and as the world economy seems to be built on a high
production/consumption model, that's very unlikely to happen.

But I suppose that
drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London within the next
50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner :-)

That's a problem with democracies - dictators can take a longer term
view!

Meanwhile, down in Penzance we've had the first 'proper' summer sea
mist this morning. Sun keeps poking through, looks like it's about to
break properly.

In message , Gianna
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
In message , Gianna
writes
Norman Lynagh wrote:
The following site is quite interesting
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/
Table 2 and Fig 2 suggest to me that time and money would be best
spent on finding ways of coping with the inevitable climate changes
rather than pussy-footing around trying (unsuccessfully?) to find
ways of reducing the growth in emissions by a few percent. But I
suppose that drawing up a plan for the evacuation of Central London
within the next 50-100 years is not exactly a short-term vote winner
:-)


Very well said!

The issue of who or what is to blame seems to have more importance
than working out how to adapt to the consequences, when in fact it
does not matter.
If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then
you are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to
taking remedial action.

LOL! Thank you for making my point for me.
As the OP implied, the need is to *adapt*, not delude one's self about
'remedial action'.

If you insist that you don't know the causes of global warming then you
have no grounds for adopting energy conservation, energy substitution,
carbon sequestration, no-till cultivation, reafforestation, etc. as
strategies to respond to it.


Those who favour the 'people did it' view automatically move along
to the 'then people will fix it' view, all the while missing the
point that if their view is correct, then it was always too late to
try to mend something by damaging it a bit less in future. There
are more important things than their egos.
But you would seem to have it that if we've damaged the climate,
it's OK for us to go ahead and damage it even more. The problem isn't
so much the change to the climate that as already happened as the
change that we can foresee happening if we carry on with "business as


Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that? Never!

It seems to be implicit in the paragraph that I was responding to.

Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to
happen even if all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now
(assuming AGW)?

To quote you, "Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that?
Never!". There is some change in the pipeline, as the oceans and
ice-cover adjust to the warmer atmosphere. That still doesn't mean that
we don't want to minimise future climate change.

We can adapt to some changes in the climate, and we will do so, but as
the changes get larger the costs of adaptation escalate. We can probably
adapt to 400 ppm CO2, there seems to a consensus that we can cope with
500 ppm, but I'm not sure that we can cope with 1000 ppm. Even if we can
poorer countries will suffer disproportionately, and the world will lose
thousands if not millions of species.

In reality, global emissions will not cease, nor reduce significantly,
in the foreseeable future. If the UK ceases all emissions immediately,
the effect on the climate of the world will be zero.
What is 'right' or 'correct' has absolutely no relevance because what
is economically and politically viable for each country is what each
country will do. Why pretend otherwise?

Interestingly, I have done everything I can to reduce my emissions to
the minimum. I have done this as a believer in Natural Climate Change
because there is always the possibility that I might be wrong (and
because it saves money).
I am also supporting the attempt to transform my local power station
into the first carbon capture station, in spite of the UK government
attempts to frustrate the plan.

Isn't it a shame that all those who believe that the change *is* their
fault (as members of the AGW causing human race) have not already done
similarly. Isn't it also a shame that they cannot conceive of the
possibility that they might be wrong - or is that why they resist using
a smaller car, or changing their light bulbs, or getting up off their
bottoms to turn the TV off at night?

You can accuse me of ignorance if it makes you feel good, you can even
claim to cleverness too if it massages your ego, but what are you as an
individual going to do? Have you taken steps towards 'going green'?
Have you done all you could do? Are you ready for the new type of
weather? Are you adapting?

To reiterate the original point, you wrote that the cause ("what is to
blame") of climate change "does not matter" when selecting our response.
That is equivalent to acting as if we were ignorant of the cause, and is
a flawed position, for reasons that I've given above. That is not the
same as accusing you of ignorance.

And you might like to turn down the level of ad-hominem, such as the
"more important things than their egos", in your first post in this
thread.

Or are you just whining because someone disagrees with you?

Have you had a doctor look at that beam in your eye.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

"Gianna" wrote in message
...
Dave Cornwell wrote:

The reference you site above quotes "CFCs have ceased the increase
observed before about 1992 and have either leveled off or are in decline
(Montzka et al., 1999). The latter is a response to decreased emissions
related to the Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone
layer. "

I am referring specifically to CFC's so I'm not quite sure what the less
positive view is as illustrated here?
Dave



The effect of CFC 11 has reduced very slightly since 1997, and that is
good, but the larger effect of CFC 12 has only levelled, and thus the
amount of 'harm' it is doing has remained constant, and at its peak.
While a cessation of increase is welcome, the 'damage' done, and still
being done, is not (yet) reduced.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
-------------------
Yes, I see what you are saying now.

Dave
* * * * * * *

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

If you insist that you don't know the causes of global warming then you
have no grounds for adopting energy conservation, energy substitution,
carbon sequestration, no-till cultivation, reafforestation, etc. as
strategies to respond to it.

It is my view that current climate change may be partly, or entirely, a result
of natural cycles. So, I do not insist that I 'do not know'. Quite the
reverse, I have formed that opinion, as is perfectly reasonable.

I have very good grounds for not wishing to pollute the planet on which I live.
It is elementary good housekeeping as practised by most species. Only a fool
soils their own habitat. I have held these beliefs since my mid-teens (a long
time) and that pre-dates talk of climate change.

There is also, as previously stated, the possibility that I might be wrong in my
assessment of the cause of the current changes. My opinion is my opinion, but I
do not state it as though it were the only possible opinion.

I really do not mind that some people disagree with me - a range of opinions is
a good thing, especially in science. I do mind that others mind that I (and
others) disagree with them - it makes me wonder why they would.


Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to
happen even if all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now
(assuming AGW)?

To quote you, "Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like that?
Never!". There is some change in the pipeline, as the oceans and
ice-cover adjust to the warmer atmosphere. That still doesn't mean that
we don't want to minimise future climate change.


As previously questioned, how do you propose to do that in the face of politics
and economics? It is my firm belief that regardless of the cause of the
changes, it is not within our gift to minimise future changes in a meaningful
way. As this thread began by suggesting, it is better to use our resources in
dealing with it.

I cannot repeat enough, it seems, that our reaction to these changes must be the
same, regardless of the cause. Arguing about the cause is wasting time.
We must adapt (or die). We should not be polluting the planet anyway,
regardless of warming, cooling, or anything else.


We can adapt to some changes in the climate, and we will do so, but as
the changes get larger the costs of adaptation escalate. We can probably
adapt to 400 ppm CO2, there seems to a consensus that we can cope with
500 ppm, but I'm not sure that we can cope with 1000 ppm. Even if we can
poorer countries will suffer disproportionately, and the world will lose
thousands if not millions of species.


While that may well be perfectly true, if those changes happen, then we will
adapt as far as possible, or we will die.
At the moment, I see lots of emphasis on reducing *the rate* of damage (*not*
reducing the damage of course) and no emphasis on how people are supposed to
adapt and survive in the meantime. This was I think the point of the thread,
and the point of my posts in this thread.

If AGW is the cause of climate change, and if the reductions being discussed are
put into place, this will slow down, but not prevent, the loss of many species
including perhaps our own. The loss of our own species will be hastened by
failure to plan to adapt.


To reiterate the original point, you wrote that the cause ("what is to
blame") of climate change "does not matter" when selecting our response.

And I repeat it above, and here. If the warming is natural, we have to adapt to
it. If the warming is man-made, we have to adapt to it.


That is equivalent to acting as if we were ignorant of the cause, and is
a flawed position, for reasons that I've given above. That is not the
same as accusing you of ignorance.

I quote "If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming then you
are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes to taking
remedial action."

Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were replying to
my post.


And you might like to turn down the level of ad-hominem, such as the
"more important things than their egos", in your first post in this thread.

I might. My points in my paras. 3 and 4 above refer.


Have you had a doctor look at that beam in your eye.


I can't find a translation for that. I suspect however that may be as well (-:

To conclude this particular interchange (from my end anyway) I make the
following non-personal non-political points:

I support the OP in the view that our priority should be to adapt to the
changing climate.

As a separate issue, we should not be polluting our planet at all.

If we think that adjustments to CO2 emissions would help reduce the effects of
climate change in a significant way, then we should know at what point the
planned reductions outlined in Kyoto, assuming they were achieved in those
countries participating, result in the planet being back to (more or less) how
it would have been had AGW not happened (assuming that the planet fails to
respond to the rising temperatures in the meantime, as it almost certainly will).

Would that happen before the extinction of our species from 'ordinary' causes?



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

"Gianna" wrote in message
...

Your point about votes does highlight the main flaw in partisan
representative democracies ... they are very partisan, not very
representative, and barely democratic.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

If ever a truer word was spoken the-)

Well said.

In article , says...
Dave Cornwell wrote:

The reference you site above quotes "CFCs have ceased the increase observed
before about 1992 and have either leveled off or are in decline (Montzka et
al., 1999). The latter is a response to decreased emissions related to the
Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. "

I am referring specifically to CFC's so I'm not quite sure what the less
positive view is as illustrated here?
Dave



The effect of CFC 11 has reduced very slightly since 1997, and that is good, but
the larger effect of CFC 12 has only levelled, and thus the amount of 'harm' it
is doing has remained constant, and at its peak. While a cessation of increase
is welcome, the 'damage' done, and still being done, is not (yet) reduced.



Table 2 is actually a very positive view of the CFC changes from
Montreal. Note that CFCs have long lifetimes. CFC11 went up by 40%
from 1979-1989, peaked in the early 90s and has decreased since then.
CFC12 went up by 60% from 1979-1989 and have now leveled off. In the
absence of the Montreal Protocol, the CFC12 forcing would have been ~
0.23 (instead of 0.17) and CFC11 ~0.11 instead of 0.063. More
importantly, the forcings would be continuing to increase instead of
decreasing as they will be in the future.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks

In message , Gianna
writes
Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:
The following cut and pasted to the top, to make an apology before
addressing other points

That is equivalent to acting as if we were ignorant of the cause, and
is a flawed position, for reasons that I've given above. That is not
the same as accusing you of ignorance.

I quote "If you insist on ignorance about the causes of global warming
then you are insisting on tying one hand behind your back when it comes
to taking remedial action."

Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were
replying to my post.

Those words weren't intended to mean what you think they mean. In
hindsight I could have expressed myself better. I apologise for any
offence caused.



If you insist that you don't know the causes of global warming then
you have no grounds for adopting energy conservation, energy
substitution, carbon sequestration, no-till cultivation,
reafforestation, etc. as strategies to respond to it.

It is my view that current climate change may be partly, or entirely, a
result of natural cycles. So, I do not insist that I 'do not know'.

Sorry. I was offended by "There are more important things than their
egos." in your original post. I saw that as an unwarranted slur on
people who are concerned about anthropogenic contributions to climate
change, and that got in the way of me expressing myself clearly on your
other point.

Let me try again. You wrote the cause "in fact does not matter". I
disagree. If you adopt the position that the cause does not matter you
are implicitly committing yourself to acting as if you did not know the
cause, and this places an unnecessary and detrimental limitation on your
ability to respond.

My disagreement with you on this point is independent of my disagreement
with you on the causes of global warming. Even if the causes are natural
knowing the causes would be helpful.

BTW, the view that current climate change is partly the result of
natural cycles is the mainstream climatological position. I don't have
the numbers to hand, but I seem to recall that 30-50% of the warming of
7the last 50 years is of natural origin.

Quite the reverse, I have formed that opinion, as is perfectly
reasonable.

I have very good grounds for not wishing to pollute the planet on which
I live. It is elementary good housekeeping as practised by most
species. Only a fool soils their own habitat. I have held these
beliefs since my mid-teens (a long time) and that pre-dates talk of
climate change.

There is also, as previously stated, the possibility that I might be
wrong in my assessment of the cause of the current changes. My opinion
is my opinion, but I do not state it as though it were the only
possible opinion.

I really do not mind that some people disagree with me - a range of
opinions is a good thing, especially in science. I do mind that others
mind that I (and others) disagree with them - it makes me wonder why
they would.

It so happens that I also do not mind that some people disagree with me.
I do mind when they use ad-hominem arguments, such as "There are more
important things than their egos." That you incorporated that sentence
in your post makes it look as if you do mind that people disagree with
you.


Why do you completely overlook the change that *will continue* to
happen even if all 'problem' emissions cease completely right now
(assuming AGW)?
To quote you, "Now whenever did I suggest anything remotely like
that? Never!". There is some change in the pipeline, as the oceans
and ice-cover adjust to the warmer atmosphere. That still doesn't
mean that we don't want to minimise future climate change.


As previously questioned, how do you propose to do that in the face of
politics and economics? It is my firm belief that regardless of the
cause of the changes, it is not within our gift to minimise future
changes in a meaningful way. As this thread began by suggesting, it is
better to use our resources in dealing with it.

If the current warming is anthropogenic it will continue, and it will
eventually become so clear that politics will cease to become an
obstacle. I don't believe that economics, as opposed to sectional
self-interest, is yet an obstacle.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

Having said that I had concluded this interchange, I shall not continue the
topic. However, I think an interpersonal response is appropriate.

Stewart Robert Hinsley wrote:

Perhaps the 'you' referred to was someone else, even though you were
replying to my post.

Those words weren't intended to mean what you think they mean. In
hindsight I could have expressed myself better. I apologise for any
offence caused.


I appreciate that very much, thank you.


Sorry. I was offended by "There are more important things than their
egos." in your original post. I saw that as an unwarranted slur on
people who are concerned about anthropogenic contributions to climate
change, and that got in the way of me expressing myself clearly on your
other point.
[...]
I do mind when they use ad-hominem arguments, such as "There are more
important things than their egos." That you incorporated that sentence
in your post makes it look as if you do mind that people disagree with you.


My comment was aimed, however poorly, at those of any view who will not tolerate
an opposing view. While it is often the case that some AGW supporters use
ridicule and offensive tones to deal with anyone who dares to disagree, it is
not exclusively so.

You are quite obviously not of that ilk, and I apologise if you were personally
offended by my remark. I too could have been more clear as to whom it referred.

I look forward to some interesting debates with you in the future.



--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *