However on this topic the evidence is staking up that the man made polution is facilitating climate change.
Increasingly the phrase "the body of scientific knowledge" is used when referring to climate change. You make the point that the evidence is stacking up. My own search for evidence is limited to the web and I must say that after several weeks combing the available evidence I came to the following thoughts:
The language used in even the scientific literature on both sides of the argument is often emotive, personal, and vitriolic. Dispasionate scientific discussion is unfortunately in the minority. The basis for many papers often starts with the assumption that Global Warming is or is not occuring. The manner of argument is all to often aimed at discredited the opposing view rather than collecting, collating, interpreting and presenting new evidence.
On the evidence itself there are consistent records from 3-4 locations showing an increase in CO2 content of air over the last 40 years.
The evidence for increasing temperature over the same period is also consistently recorded although the records are less reliable than the CO2 measurements because many recording locations have been urbanised which is known to increase temperature. Notwithstanding genuine attempts have been made to eliminate this affect and temperature is shown to have increased.
The evidence for temperature change over periods longer than 140 years is far more difficult to establish because of the lack of recording instruments. The popular "hockey stick chart" for temperature over the last 1000 years is based on analysis of tree rings as a proxy for temperature. There are a few locations (I recal around 10) where tree ring proxy data extends back 400 years. Beyond 400 years to 1000 years the bulk of the data is derived from tree rings in Southern California where the trees have survived long enough to analyse. The hockey stick chart shows that the temperature in 1998 was higher than the range of estimated temperatures even in the Mediavel warm period around 8-900 years ago.
Tree ring data will obviously be susceptible to factors other than temperature, such as rainfall, sunlight, and possibly even CO2 levels. It is my understanding that a stastical procedure called primary component analysis has been used to isolate the temperature effect. This is a valid technique often used in medical research where a lot of factors could be seen to contribute to a condition and researchers wish to focus on just one. A criticism of the hockey stick chart most vocally from the "there is no global warming camp" but also from pro global warming researchers, is that this primary component analysis will reduce the variance of the data, ie it will show less temperature movement. Indeed when this limitation is considered it is probable that temperatures in medieval war period reached higher levels than today. This corresponds with historical evidence of warm climate agriculture in areas such as Scotland and Greenland during this period. The Hockey Stick Authors address this historical evidence but usually content that it is a result of local European warming not global warming. The irony that the tree ring proxy data for that period is (I think) exclusively sourced from a single location in California appears lost on them. The emotion in this argument appears to prevent the No case from seriously considering the tree ring proxy data but at the same time it prevents the Yes case from addressing the statistical deficiency in the results. In all this does not make for good science on either side.
The evidence for CO2 in air the beyond 1958 is primarily derived for air bubbles trapped in ice. These records extend over 500,000 years and show a reasonably well known 100,000 year cycle related to the orbit and tilt of the earth. Interesting this shows temperature increasing first followed by an increase in CO2. This is plausible as the oceans contain a lot of CO2 and as the water becomes warmer it can hold less CO2 (Just think beer). In recent time the record from the ice core shows an increase since industrialisation that neatly matches with the air measurements commencing in 1958. Howeve this is only achieved after the ice record is shifted forward 83 years. It is reasoned (so far as I can make out, without experimental evidence) that the air trapped in the ice is older than the ice because the ice is formed from snow that compresses over time to become ice. The assumptions are that the air is trapped some 50-200 years after the origninal snowfall. Some antogonists argue (without experimental evidence) that the process of drilling and recovering the ice core will result in some CO2 being liberated and that the ice core will therefore always be biased to a low reading.
Clearly the jump from proxy estimates for temperature and CO2 to measured records is something that is very difficult to calibrate. In summary for what its worth I personally concluded that we are clearly increasing the CO2 content of the air. that the CO2 levels are possibly the highest in 500,000 years if we the air bubbles trapped in ice and subsequently recovered and analysed are truly representative of the air quality at the time the bubbles were trapped. Temperature has increased in the last 40 years and probably the last 100 years although it did drop between 1945 and 1975. Finally and probably at odds with popular oppinion, I could not conclude with confidence that the temperature today is the highest in the last 1000 years let alone over longer periods.
This climate change over the next decade or so will ultimately cost the economy which will place pressure on a large number of small and medium enterprises viability. These SMEs employ a very large slice of the labour market here in Australia and if the SMEs are hurting or go under then jobs will be lost and the economy will spiral downwards.
This is a very wide ranging conclusion for which you present no reasoning. I would make two points. Firstly Firstly the estimates of climate change of the next century range from a 0.5 degree increase in temperature to a 6 degree increase. The exact climate change of the next decade or so remains uncertain. Secondly the economic impact must therefore be even more uncertain. Indeed the evidence from 1000AD to 1600AD when at least Europe (and more likely the world) moved from a warm period thru a little ice age was characterised by a drop in economic, social and cultural development. Hence the "dark ages". Again, the increase in temperature over the last 100 years has been accompanied (whether by cause or effect) by unprecedented economic growth. None of this is to say that you may not be correct but your case is presented without strong argument.
Conversely a new industry will be borne from the mess - the polution clean up industry and if we take South Korea as an example - Seoul was one of the most poluted cities in the world - the South Korean Government commissioned industry to find an answer to the issue of polution and that answer has now become one of South Korea's most successful exports to the world. Australain companies will be created and emerge on the world scene as polution busters who clean up the mess of others - this will create new jobs and new exports.
Out of interest what is the answer that has become one of South Korea's most successful exports.
IMO, mate, man is poluting his environment at greater speed than ever before - all in the name of making a dollar - I do not know the holistic answer to the problem - but I am sure there are valid truths in clean energy, clean coal, carbon trading etc. etc.
I would agree with most of this statement. Regarding the making of dollars, I guess its chicken and egg, industry makes dollars where it sees consumers will purchase products. Industries don't vote, consumers do. The ultimate answer will be driven by public policy of which consumers/voters are the drivers. Industry will follow as it has done with many other environmental issues. Industry is an expression of consumer behaviour and therefore the ultimate cause and responsibility lies with the consumer.
Another important point, which is often used as an excuse but remains valid is; It is a global problem and will require a global answer. It has been correctly pointed out that if Australia ceased generating electricity today, China would replace that capacity within 12 months. Clean energy, clean coal, and carbon trading will all have a transaction cost and unless implemented globally will result in significant inequity.
Remember we have another emerging power in the world today - China - and should it achieve its goals of having a car for every family and central heating for every house - aiming to have a standard of living akin to the USA and Australia - then we will have 250m extra cars on the road and the same amount of houses being heated by either oil or coal - the delicate world environment could not handle such exhaust.
Lastly - from memory you have kids - this anecdote may amuse you - My family live in country NSW now - Queanbeyan (Gateway to the nations capital) :hihi, and I took the wife and our 3yo. Stuart, up to Sydney to see his older brother from a previous marriage of mine - as we drove into the outskirts of Sydney - Stuart said Dad whats that stuff hanging over the houses?
I am wary of anecotal contributions to the debate, because by definition most of our experiences are geographically constrained, in my relatively short lifetime, I have seen various parts of Australia move through droughts and floods. I would guess that our perception of climate variability is effected by the penetration of the internet and satellite TV which exposes us to extreme weather events occuring continuously throughout the world which we were largely ignorant of even as recently as the 1970's. Certainly the research appears to have varying conclusions on the changing frequency of extreme weather events. It goes without saying that boring weather events will never get airplay
We are stuffing up our world - just like a person with a clogged and runny nose when they have a cold - no doubt about it!
