Mmmmmmmm
Being as we get S4C I may or may not have missed the prog - would like to have seen it.
Now - the Earth is a Dynamic, Complex Adaptive System, it is not a simple closed system, nor is it a pile of sand. As a consiquence selecting data points to support your cause whilst ignoring others that do not - is a typical exercise in tampering. If we take a run chart of global average temp which goes back before records were kept as we can use ice core and tree ring data etc, we can see that global average temps have fluctuated over time. If we take local temp records - for the UK for instance - we can see that these have also fluctuated over time - and the variation is greater than in the global average temp. This is because there are sinks and soaks, etc within the whole that allows localised variation. For example, one of the thopughts on global warming is that the temperature in the UK could actually drop, and that in the equatorial regions could rise more. Current thought is that the Northern European mean will rise, that the Gulf Stream / North Atlantic Conveyer will not switch off and that we will have more rain and higher winds - more extremes of weather.
Take those global average run charts and do a simple XmR calculation on them and we get all the data points within 3 sigma units of the mean - this indicates a stable system - however there have been periods when this stability has wobbled a little (good old chaos and complexity) However - more resent average temperatures indicate a different sort of pertubation, we should (arguably) be looking at a down turn in temps but we actually see a systemic shift in temperature. This IS very very very different to the natural variation we have seen over the past 100,000 plus years. It is also very very very different to the spin the 'global warming deniers' put on the very carefully selected data points they use.
All CAS can show dynamic complexity. There is a delay of variable length between cause and effect, and this can vary dependent on circumstance. Simple example - you are stopped in a queue of traffic at some lights, the lights go green - in a system showing no dynamic complexity all the cars, bikes etc would move off as one and gaps would develop due to varying speed as you progress. However there is a dynamic delay in the system - hence the cars further back do not move. If the queue is long enough you will see the lights on red and still be moving forwards as the dynamic complexity moves the other way. Simulaly - ever been on the motorway when there is a big delay which suddenly clears and there is no evident cause... Similar things happen in the environement. The industrial revolution was a) pretty small and poxy on a global scale - it was big news in the North of Europe but most of the world has not even got that far yet. It kicked out loads of dust in Norther Europe and increased CO2. The dust has a pretty instant effect - sit in the sun = hot, close the curtains to create shade = cooler. The CO2 produced however has a much longer time for impact, hence the reasons that if we stopped all industrial activity NOW! the effects of the CO2 and CO2 equivelents we have produced will continue to have a building effect for some decades before the system sinks it all back.
And as was said - what is wrong with acting as if global warming was a reality - even if later it turns out to be true. Unless you are about to die from dehydration, not knowing if the clear liquid in the pop bottle is water or paraquat ahs one pretty simple answer - unless you are an infant - dont drink it! If it is water you have just gone a little thirsty, if it is paraquat drinking it is pretty terminal. In our selfish little lifetime, the prospect of a slightly less productive and rich future that acting on the premise is real may make us think - bollox I will not be around if I am wrong, however if we believe we are immortal - through our children, and through the return of the minerals etc from us to the general biomass when we die (Unless you are like Princess Di and have been buried in a lead lined coffin) then the slight hiccup in the ever growing wealth of the Northern Hemisphere is a little price to pay, just in case.
Oh and from a perfectly scientific point of view. The Holocaust happened, to deny it in may countries is a crime, and in absence of the criminal aspect you have to be pretty odd to deny it happened. Global warming will probably kill more people than the holocaust, to sit idly by like,our grandfathers did, and whatch it happen is a true crime against humanity, to deny that it is happening - or is probably happening - is conspiricy to commit that crime.
Can I get off my soap box now please?
R
