Thank goodness for two so very different opinions.
The problem for lay persons, such as me, is that it is very difficult to read in the popular media well-reasoned arguments for each side of important issues, such as climate. You can see my confusion being expressed in the opening paragraphs of an earlier Post on Climate Change.
It might not be rhetoric to say that the issue of man-made climate change could be one of the most pressing issues of all for mankind. Thus having two very clearly opposing views is incredibly useful. Learning from Dogs is grateful to both guest authors.
On the 16th October, we published a general Post about the subject that tended to lean towards the view that mankind was not affecting the climate in such a direct way as had previously been thought.
That was then followed by a Post largely consisting of an article by Patrice Ayme arguing, scientifically, that there was a direct link between mankind and global warming.
Then a Post that contained the full article by Alan Carlin arguing, again on scientific grounds, that there was not a direct link.
Patrice commented on the Alan Carlin article. But to give greater visibility to this debate, this Post carries Patrice’s comment. We hope to have a response from Alan Carlin soon.
The preceding essay of Mr. Carlin sounds scientific, but is not. It is just a piece of sheer propaganda, as the insistence that this is all about the “UN” shows readily.
More than 98% of scientific papers support the fact that greenhouse gases cause warming, it has nothing to do with the “UN”, a political organization. Many conservative Americans do not like the “UN”, so, by painting the greenhouse with the “UN”, Mr. Carlin apparently hopes both will disappear. Mr. Carlin ought to be told that the “UN” is not a scientific organization.
There is world scientific organization made of all the countries individually, which came with scientific evidence on “Climate Change” gathered UNANIMOUSLY, but that’s not the “UN”. That’s called the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Once again, unanimous. Saudi Arabia or the USA or Cuba or Kuwait can block the entire set of conclusions. They did not. Unanimous.
That the atmosphere should be warming at 10 kilometers is an absurdity, exhibiting a complete misunderstanding of the nature of the greenhouse: the greenhouse causes the exact opposite effect (infrared light blocked next to the ground cannot go and warm up the upper atmosphere, so the greenhouse causes a COOLING of the upper atmosphere!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Mr. Carlin knows too little physics to pass the first exam. (I used to teach physics at Stanford and Berkeley, and graded hundreds of students; in particular I taught the basic thermodynamics course for physics major, obviously differently from Mr. Carlin, who obviously has no notion of how a greenhouse works).
After a student got an F, what to do? Talk to them kindly?
The talk about volcanoes sounds scientific, but is nothing relevant. OK, volcanoes have a huge impact on climate, and probably killed the dinosaurs (lava of the Deccan Traps, more than a mile thick, 400 feet of which deposited in less than 10 years). But it’s neither here, nor there in the present debate.
Fact is greenhouses gases augmented by more than 50% in a little more than a century (from 280 ppm to 450 ppm). Only complete fools would think that will have no impact. Half of the CO2 went into making CARBONIC ACID in the ocean. wait until it comes out (which it started to do in the Antarctic).
The greenhouse has nothing to do with the UN, it has everything to do with the fossil fuels.
PA
Learning from Dogs 
greenhouse gases cause warming
As Patrice says, there is apparently deliberate muddying of the water on this topic by powerful but shortsighted vested interests. Personally, I am convinced. This is not only by the plethora of information from ostensibly reliable sicientific and other sources but from simple personal observation and reasoning.
You only have to drive on a busy motorway past an industrial area to see that vast amounts of heat and fumes are being sent into the atmosphere. Now this has been going on for CENTURIES. Nobody has ever written – as far as I know – any explanation of how this amount of material and heat is REMOVED from the atmosphere. Ergo, it ISN’T removed. Now, the atmosphere is big, but infinite it ain’t, and if you mix even small quantities of red dye into a white dough for long enough then eventually you’ll have red dough.
I am now personally at the stage of dismissing non-believers with a certain impatience and eagerly await any indication that our leaders will do something concrete. There is movement, but whatever is done it seems to me too late, especially when – at the last count – China alone was building at least one coal-fired power station PER WEEK. And we are hooked on CONSUMPTION. Only last week I read ecstatic reports about this year being a bumper year for the discovery of oil. For me, oil should be reserved for plastics, and they should be recycled. Burning it is insane ….. Of course, I do it like everyone else, but then I am not a leader ….. I need help to get unhooked ….
Personally, I am beginning to panic …… how much is a trip to Mars?
LikeLike
Hello all,
How do we try to understand these issues and deal with this kind of controversy? I don’t know, but there is a huge amount to say and, of course, many others have already said much of it!
Surely, some agreement is needed?
Do we agree that we care more about *what” is correct than about *who* is correct?
Also, especially given the severity of this issue, is it not likely that improving our understanding of *what* is right might involve more humble analysis of the views of other people than of our own.
Evidently, we are desperately short of clarity on how to analyse and agree on causation relationships.
To draw on aviation analogies that tend to find their way into this blog … when flying along “fat dumb and happy” in a light aircraft and suddenly spotting a fast jet careering (literally: get it?!) past albeit some distance away (or, frequently, below!), it is probably a good idea not to fixate on it, but to look around for his mates who might be more likely to hit you.
Maybe the same applies with these arguments? Perhaps, having spotted and predicted the track of one doomsday scenario, it is better not to fixate on it, but to look around to spot and predict the track of some more that other people say that they have spotted!
At risk at getting caught in the middle of this, here is a small riposte to each of you.
Chris: the atmosphere is not big; it is very thin. The altitude above which human performance starts to degrade without oxygen is generally considered to be 10,000 feet (about two miles); this is less than the length of the runway at Heathrow (stood on end), or less than about one hundredth of the width of the UK. But this merely emphasises that the atmosphere is very vulnerable to “heat and fumes”. But the argument is not about that, it is about whether it is the “heat” OR the “fumes” that is the leading cause. That is, it is not about which is the greater cause but about which IS the cause and which is the effect. This is important because massive effort is likely to be required and we’d better be directing it at the correct target!
Patrice: surely if we are concerned about what is correct rather than who is correct, then it is the correctness of the reasoning that matters, not whether 98% of scientific papers or just one paper support it?
As Tim Smit has said, the next couple of decades will determine whether we are worthy of the term “homo sapiens”!
(… dismounting hobby horse!)
John
LikeLike