Ian Williams, on 21 November 2011 - 19:06, said:
HI Dave, I think you have me all wrong, Probably my fault with the title of the thread so have changed the exclamation mark with a question mark.
The whole AGW thing for me came about or at least to my attention in the late 80`s with the abandonment of CFC gases etc, so they replace it with a much safer HFC gas, only for us to now learn that, that may now not be safe, moving the goalposts? In the report they say there are now HFC`s which erode within months instead of say 15 years so maybe thats the answer, but after 20 odd years with HFC`s in our fridges, air cons etc here we are again possibly back to square one! Why are they not using this lower HFC in all new products now?
Just heard on the BBC a few mins ago the world has increased its CO2 by 2.3 ppm between 2009 and 2010 which exceeds the decadal average of 2.0 ppm and one scientist on there jumped on and said that we are now looking at the higher end of how much we warm by the end of the century. I remain unconvinced!
As are many, unconvinced... I believe that natural variation will likely set up to balance off some of the warming potential. However, once we lose the majority of year round polar ice cover it is probable the many will be in for a shock.
Not that the highs will be worse; but, that the lows will not be as low. Heat flow should increase and temperate seasons expand. Subtropical storms should increase and seasonal weather ridges/trouths in the temperate through the polar zones become more dominate.
That the expansion of emissions is dropping here in the States there is less of an ability to affect the annual loading of the atmosphere. Within 10 yrs it may be possible we too could be watching the developing countries further endanger the rest of us. Unless we can put our errors back in the ground, (IE: Bury our carbon heavy wastes.), it is likely the arguement that they have an equivalent right. (In truth, where we had 1/2 million over 50 years, the 2 billion will exhaust their argument in 12.5 years starting around 2006. This means by 2020, we will have parity and need to be working to put the "genie back in the bottle".
Demand here for fossil fuels are beginning to wane in the better economic circles. It is the other 90% that will have to wait the 10 years for low carbon technology to trickle down to them... It is likely another 20 years to reach the 3rd world.
Ozone, HFCs and their cousins are not the make or break threats some want to suggest. Warming or excessive UV in or of itself is not a threat if we sequest ourselves away in climate controlled environs. (Versus environmentaly controlled climates?) It has more to do with the rest of life on the planet. Do we really want to convert the planet to spaceship Earth...? (It would seem smarter to choose a more geostable planet...)
I think it may be a better idea to try to distribute the best we would want to move forward with by 2020 to higher latitudes or climate controlled enclosures, (My first question is which Great Lake are we going to tap. With the second question being who is building the air conditioned greenhouse for the Redwood/Sequoia forest? I want to invest now so that when mine get of age they can afford a berth...)