Jara

Sorry Pro, but, again, I don't get it. You're telling me that the fact that something is only .041% of a larger body means that it couldn't have a significant effect upon the latter? So if a taipan bites you, you'd say, Oh, not to worry, it's only point whatever of my body weight? That's about as cogent as Wrecker's analogy of the light shining in the bath. The organisations I mentioned above - the ones you seemed to dismiss because they were old news (like, a year old, sure) - they aren't just some riff-raff the cat dragged in. They are absolute leaders in their field - the one I quoted, for example, the American Chemical Society - they don't come any bigger, better or more respected, both in industry and academia. And there were many others - the Meteorological Society, the Geophysical Union, the Society of Industrial and Applied Mathematics. They all believe global warming is serious, worsening and man-made. Could I ask you a question(I'm serious here - you've obviously read a lot more than I have)? I just pulled that letter off the web. Are there any serious scientific organisations - and I mean serious - joined by academic leaders, respected by their profession, and not just stooges funded by some oil company or Saudi Arabia - that support your views? Another question - (I've taken the time to answer yours) - have you ever actually tried to discuss your opinions with scientists? Have you raised those questions with professionals, rather than semi-literate, unqualified no-hopers like me? If not, why not?

The article I quoted gives the current figure of .041%. The article also says it was 180-280 ppm during glaciations, rising to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution (i.e. almost doubled in a couple of hundred years, so presumably the extra 120-220 ppm has been added by human activity).

Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming. Isn't the answer to both questions there? Ranging from 180 ppm during glaciations to 280 ppm in interglacial periods, increasing to 400 ppm and rising since the Industrial Revolution, leading to global warming?

Uh, god, Pro - are you going to keep me googling all Christmas? Per-leeze, I've got better things to do. Like you, I'm unqualified in the field, and have to rely on Professor Wikipedia, who tells me the following (from the same article) : Current concentration[edit] See also: Global warming, Climate change, Atmospheric methane, Holocene climate, and Quaternary climate CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years Over the past 400,000 years, CO2 concentrations have shown several cycles of variation from about 180 parts per million during the deep glaciations of the Holocene and Pleistocene to 280 parts per million during the interglacial periods. Following the start of the Industrial Revolution, atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased to over 400 parts per million and continues to increase, causing the phenomenon of global warming.[10] The daily average concentration of atmospheric CO2 at Mauna Loa Observatory first exceeded 400 ppm on 10 May 2013[11][12]although this concentration had already been reached in the Arctic in June 2012.[13] It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm) [14][15][16][17][18]which corresponds to approximately 3200 gigatons of CO2, containing approximately 870 gigatons of carbon. Each part per million by volume of CO2 in the atmosphere thus represents approximately 2.13 gigatonnes of carbon.[19] The global mean CO2 concentration is currently rising at a rate of approximately 2 ppm/year and accelerating.[14][20][21] There is an annual fluctuation of about 3–9 ppm which is negatively correlated with the Northern Hemisphere's growing season. The Northern Hemisphere dominates the annual cycle of CO2 concentration because it has much greater land area and plant biomass than the Southern Hemisphere. Concentrations reach a peak in May as the Northern Hemisphere spring greenup begins, and decline to a minimum in October, near the end of the growing season.[21][22] Since global warming is attributed to increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases such as CO2, scientists closely monitor atmospheric CO2 concentrations and their impact on the present-day biosphere. The National Geographic wrote that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is this high "for the first time in 55 years of measurement—and probably more than 3 million years of Earth history."[23] The current concentration may be the highest in the last 20 million years.[6]

By the way, Pro, I'm curious - do you have any qualifications in climate - or any other - science at all?

Wow. A genius. You can google. So can I. From Wikipedia's article on CO2 in the atmosphere: Anthropogenic CO2 emissions[edit] See also: radiative forcing, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, and Global warming While CO2 absorption and release is always happening as a result of natural processes, the recent rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere is known to be mainly due to human (anthropogenic) activity.[75] There are 4 ways human activity, especially fossil fuel burning, is known to have caused the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last few centuries. 1) Various national statistics accounting for fossil fuel consumption, combined with knowledge of how much atmospheric CO2 is produced per unit of fossil fuel (e.g. liter of gasoline).[76] 2) By examining the ratio of various carbon isotopes in the atmosphere.[75] The burning of long-buried fossil fuels releases CO2 containing carbon of different isotopic ratios to those of living plants, enabling distinction between natural and human-caused contributions to CO2 concentration. 3) Higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the Northern Hemisphere, where most of the world's population lives (and emissions originate from), compared to the southern hemisphere. This difference has increased as anthropogenic emissions have increased.[77] 4) Atmospheric O2 levels are decreasing in earth's atmosphere as it reacts with the carbon in fossil fuels to form CO2.[78] Burning fossil fuels such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas is the leading cause of increased anthropogenic CO2; deforestation is the second major cause. In 2010, 9.14 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC, equivalent to 33.5 gigatonnes of CO2 or about 4.3 ppm in earth's atmosphere) were released from fossil fuels and cement production worldwide, compared to 6.15 GtC in 1990.[79] In addition, land use change contributed 0.87 GtC in 2010, compared to 1.45 GtC in 1990.[79] In 1997, human-caused Indonesian peat fires were estimated to have released between 13% and 40% of the average carbon emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels around the world in a single year.[80][81][82] In the period 1751 to 1900, about 12 GtC were released as CO2 to the atmosphere from burning of fossil fuels, whereas from 1901 to 2013 the figure was about 380 GtC.[83]

So you are right and the American Chemical Society is wrong?

I don't know how to answer your question about CO2/Ice ages, etc, and neither do you. These guys might, though. The American Chemical Society is overwhelmingly the most important professional body representing chemistry in the world. It is replete with Nobel prize winners, cutting edge researchers, brilliant scientists. It doesn't just represent academia or government: it also represents hard-nosed businesses working in the industry. Here is a quote from its mission statement: The Earth’s climate is changing in response to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter in the atmosphere, largely as the result of human activities. Chemistry is at the heart of understanding the climate system and integral to addressing the development and deployment of new emission reduction technologies and clean energy alternatives. The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity. Unmitigated climate change will lead to increases in extreme weather events and will cause significant sea level rise, causing property damage and population displacement. It also will continue to degrade ecosystems and natural resources, affecting food and water availability and human health, further burdening economies and societies. Continued uncontrolled GHG emissions will accelerate and compound the effects and risks of climate change well into the future.

Not melodramatic - dramatic. How do I "know"? Uh...(eyes roll) how am I supposed to answer that? How do we know anything? How do I know I'm not a butterfly's dream? How do you know I exist? Some things you just have to take for granted. Anyway, if you seriously want to argue it, here's a random choice from the list of organisations. The American Chemical Society. Read about it yourself. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/about/aboutacs.html This is not just the largest organisation in the field of chemistry, it is the largest scientific organisation in the world (158,000 members). It exists to support scientific endeavour in the field of chemistry. It leads research, publishes academic journals, sponsors the profession's major conferences. Its board members are among the most distinguished chemistry professionals in the world. It is non-partisan: it's mission is to help bring about a better world by the advancement of chemistry. Is that "cream" enough for you? If these guys agree that global warming is real and man-made, surely you (and maybe even Pro) could at least think there is the tiniest, teeny-weeniest little chance that they know what they are talking about?

Very objective reply. Scientists who believe in global warming are "funding-addicted" (who isn't, by the way?) Those who don't are "reputable." The organisations quoted in that article represent the cream of American science. Ignore them at your (and our grandkids') peril.

How exciting. Pro's got me off "Ignore". Could I use this brief window of opportunity to ask you a question (sparked by Bing's excellent, very logical contributions)? Do you actually know any Muslims? Do you have Muslim friends? Colleagues?

That Goldwater website has some quality journalism, terrific stuff like: "Virginia Man forces Woman to Make Love Dogs" for example. (I don't even know what it means)

er...sorry?

here's an early Christmas present for the deniers: https://www.aaas.org/news/intersocietyclimateletter2016 Thirty one of America's leading scientific organisations confirming their fear that global warming is real, dangerous and human-induced.

Simplistic labels? You're probably right, Daisy - I'm a simple country boy - but then again, maybe I'm just calling a spade a spade - when somebody spends their time trawling the Internet dredging up every negative scrap of dirt they can find about a religion shared by 400,000 of our fellow citizens, thereby stirring up trouble and fostering negativity on all fronts, what should I call it?

Well, no, I don't think I claimed that I had no prejudices. I am, for example, prejudiced against rabid racists. What's your second question? All prejudices unacceptable? I'd probably say yes to that. Certainly they aren't very helpful. I'd prefer we tried to look at things logically, as Grape did a few posts ago. But you're right - we all have our prejudices, and we should work to reduce them - for my own part, I'll try to do work on my prejudice against rabid racists (that would be a lot easier to do if Pro wasn't ignoring me).

What a subtle, finely-honed intellect old Pro has. "...because Third worlders have appalling (he can't even spell it) cultures." Not a hint of prejudice there.

No point my responding to Pro, as he's got me on ignore, but for the rest of you, but Pro's got it mainly wrong, as usual. Ehrlich isn't a climate expert, and never described himself as such - Pro's just looking for any excuse to bag climate scientists in the hope of undermining their credibility. Ehrlich is a biologist, mainly known for his warnings about overpopulation. He clearly got the timing wrong - I suspect mainly because of the green revolution - but long-term, I fear he's right - as Daisy was saying a day or two ago, overpopulation scares the crap out of most sensible people. Surely there's a limit to how long agriculture can keep feeding an exploding population? Even in our own green, wealthy state, it's scary to see the way the expanding suburbs are swallowing up fertile farming land. 150,000 people coming here every year. Jeez...

Well, I did, but I thought I was agreeing with you (it is the season of good cheer - sorry if i wasn't clear -

Yes, but looking at tonight's news, globalisation seems to include the spread of nuclear weapons from a North Korea desperate for cash - that'll end well.

I'm with you there, Daisy - population growth scares the bejesus out of me - especially when I walk down Swanston Street, it feels like most of them are moving here. No planning, no infrastructure, dog eat dog for the jobs, property development the only industry. I sometimes think - none of us really knows how climate change will affect us, but imagine what it will be like in fifty years and the environment really is collapsing and our population is fifty million? Chaos.

This piece was written by a fellow called Jim Steele, a noted climate denier who, from what I can see of his blog, has no qualifications whatsoever in climate science (not that there's anything wrong with that, I suppose - he's a high school science teacher, so I'm sure he knows more about it than me - and to be fair, Tim Flannery isn't a climate scientist either)

Hey Wrecker - sorry for slow reply - been on the run - always happy to hear from you What I like about Scorcher is that is run by professional Australian climate scientists (connected to the Uni of NSW) with no vested interests that I can see. I've found them happy to answer questions, a service I've used when doing research for various things I've written. In the Useful Links section at the end there's a selection of references and articles, ranging from the academic to the popular, you can access if you want to. Here's one of latter, from the Skeptical Science website: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/apr/13/its-settled-90100-of-climate-experts-agree-on-human-caused-global-warming

No need to rely upon propaganda to inform your decisions. Just look at the science. One site I find useful is called Scorcher. Despite the emotive name, it's run by a highly qualified, experienced climate scientist called Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick. Clearly demonstrates how the world is heating up and how this impacts upon marine ecosystems (actually she also lists her email - at Sarahinscience- if any of you deniers want to give her your thoughts - I'm sure she'd love to hear from old Pro as he flounders around in his glass-bottomed boat)

No doubt if they tell you it's in bad shape you'll scrounge around and find some half-qualified dim-witted pseudo-scientist in the pay of the fossil fuel industry to assure you everything's rosy.