Global Warming?

[down-the-slope]

As it says...Global Warming :dunno:

[Petrie's Tache]

Nope!

[Mon Dieu4]

Hope it hurries up :agree:

[Tinyclothes]

From the little I understand I think global warming doesn't mean just constantly hot weather, it means extreme weather such as the freeze that's going on at the moment.

[hibee_boy]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas. Yes, CO2 can be bad for our environment (e.g. pollution) but it doesnt affect climate change.


its government paranoia and a marketing ploy for big companies

[LiverpoolHibs]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas. Yes, CO2 can be bad for our environment (e.g. pollution) but it doesnt affect climate change.


its government paranoia and a marketing ploy for big companies

What, pray tell, is your opinion based on?

[Tinyclothes]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas. Yes, CO2 can be bad for our environment (e.g. pollution) but it doesnt affect climate change.


its government paranoia and a marketing ploy for big companies

Nonsense.

[Sylar]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas. Yes, CO2 can be bad for our environment (e.g. pollution) but it doesnt affect climate change.


its government paranoia and a marketing ploy for big companies

There will always be natural cycles and variations in the climate, but to say it is a political fabrication is utter codswallop.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas. Yes, CO2 can be bad for our environment (e.g. pollution) but it doesnt affect climate change.


its government paranoia and a marketing ploy for big companies

Utter nonsense. If you genuinely believe that I urge you to look at the science behind climate change.

The cold snap we're currently having also can't be taken as evidence against climate change. You have to look at the big picture with climate science, that's why global average temperatures are used. The High pressure that's keeping us in our big freeze is resulting in milder conditions in the mediterranean at the moment.

[CropleyWasGod]

For me, I will go with the experts who say that climate change is a reality, until proven otherwise.

Even if they are wrong, the measures we are all being asked to take (recycling, reduce wastage, carbon offsetting etc.) and the measures being taken at a macro level (carbon capture, alternative energy sources etc) can only be good. That holds even if humans have no effect on climate change.

[hibsdaft]

For me, I will go with the experts who say that climate change is a reality, until proven otherwise.

yup :agree::agree:

[ballengeich]

Global warming is happening - average temperatures have risen steadily over the past 200 years, coinciding with the start of the industrial revolution. The debate is about whether this is due to human influence or a natural cycle.

From reading scientific opinion I believe that human activity is a significant factor in current trends. The difficulty climate scientists have is that they can't prove their theories by the usual scientific procedure of experimentation - we simply don't have a supply of surplus planets to try things out on and are therefore conducting a giant and possibly suicidal experiment on the only one available to us. The theories are backed up only by modelling so less proven than normal science.

If I read an alternative coherent theory of current trends that explains what is happening I'll be prepared to change my mind, but the bleating that things have changed before so we can't be influencing things now is intellectually inadequate. Human influence is the best theory we've got at present.

I don't expect any significant action to change things - the perspective required is beyond that of politicians bent on achieving power.

[Lofarl]

Man made global warming is utter nonsense

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

Ofcourse asking questions about this at Copenhagen will be met with this response
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytKI6kHs7Jw

But like most people I browse Wikipedia looking for more information about it
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx


By Professor David Bellamy

Whatever the experts say about the howling gales, thunder and lightning we've had over the past two days, of one thing we can be certain. Someone, somewhere - and there is every chance it will be a politician or an environmentalist - will blame the weather on global warming.

But they will be 100 per cent wrong. Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy makers are not.

Instead, they have an unshakeable in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement. Humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up.

They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock. Unfortunately, for the time being, it is their view that prevails.

As a result of their ignorance, the world's economy may be about to divert billions, nay trillions of pounds, dollars and roubles into solving a problem that actually doesn't exist. The waste of economic resources is incalculable and tragic.

To explain why I believe that global warming is largely a natural phenomenon that has been with us for 13,000 years and probably isn't causing us any harm anyway, we need to take heed of some basic facts of botanical science.

For a start, carbon dioxide is not the dreaded killer greenhouse gas that the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol five years later cracked it up to be. It is, in fact, the most important airborne fertiliser in the world, and without it there would be no green plants at all.

That is because, as any schoolchild will tell you, plants take in carbon dioxide and water and, with the help of a little sunshine, convert them into complex carbon compounds - that we either eat, build with or just admire - and oxygen, which just happens to keep the rest of the planet alive.

Increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, double it even, and this would produce a rise in plant productivity. Call me a biased old plant lover but that doesn't sound like much of a killer gas to me. Hooray for global warming is what I say, and so do a lot of my fellow scientists.

Let me quote from a petition produced by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has been signed by over 18,000 scientists who are totally opposed to the Kyoto Protocol, which committed the world's leading industrial nations to cut their production of greenhouse gasses from fossil fuels.

They say: 'Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide are in error and do not conform to experimental knowledge.'

You couldn't get much plainer than that. And yet we still have public figures such as Sir David King, scientific adviser to Her Majesty's Government, making preposterous statements such as 'by the end of this century, the only continent we will be able to live on is Antarctica.'

At the same time, he's joined the bandwagon that blames just about everything on global warming, regardless of the scientific evidence. For example, take the alarm about rising sea levels around the south coast of England and subsequent flooding along the region's rivers. According to Sir David, global warming is largely to blame.

But it isn't at all - it's down to bad management of water catchments, building on flood plains and the incontestable fact that the south of England is gradually sinking below the waves.

And that sinking is nothing to do with rising sea levels caused by ice-caps melting. Instead, it is purely related to an entirely natural warping of the Earth's crust, which could only be reversed by sticking one of the enormously heavy ice-caps from past ice ages back on top of Scotland.

Ah, ice ages... those absolutely massive changes in global climate that environmentalists don't like to talk about because they provide such strong evidence that climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon.

It was round about the end of the last ice age, some 13,000 years ago, that a global warming process did undoubtedly begin.

Not because of all those Stone age folk roasting mammoth meat on fossil fuel camp fires but because of something called the 'Milankovitch Cycles,' an entirely natural fact of planetary life that depends on the tilt of the Earth's axis and its orbit around the sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
Melted

The glaciers melted, the ice cap retreated and Stone Age man could begin hunting again. But a couple of millennia later, it got very cold again and everyone headed south. Then it warmed up so much that water from melted ice filled the English Channel and we became an island.

The truth is that the climate has been yo-yo-ing up and down ever since. Whereas it was warm enough for Romans to produce good wine in York, on the other hand, King Canute had to dig up peat to warm his people. And then it started getting warm again.

Up and down, up and down - that is how temperature and climate have always gone in the past and there is no proof they are not still doing exactly the same thing now. In other words, climate change is an entirely natural phenomenon, nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.

In fact, a recent scientific paper, rather unenticingly titled 'Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations Over The Last Glacial Termination,' proved it.

It showed that increases in temperature are responsible for increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, not the other way around.

Ignored

But this sort of evidence is ignored, either by those who believe the Kyoto Protocol is environmental gospel or by those who know 25 years of hard work went into securing the agreement and simply can't admit that the science it is based on is wrong.

The real truth is that the main greenhouse gas - the one that has the most direct effect on land temperature - is water vapour, 99 per cent of which is entirely natural.

If all the water vapour was removed from the atmosphere, the temperature would fall by 33 degrees Celsius. But, remove all the carbon dioxide and the temperature might fall by just 0.3 per cent.

Although we wouldn't be around, because without it there would be no green plants, no herbivorous farm animals and no food for us to eat.

It has been estimated that the cost of cutting fossil fuel emissions in line with the Kyoto Protocol would be £76trillion. Little wonder, then, that world leaders are worried. So should we all be.

If we signed up to these scaremongers, we could be about to waste a gargantuan amount of money on a problem that doesn't exist - money that could be used in umpteen better ways: fighting world hunger, providing clean water, developing alternative energy sources, improving our environment, creating jobs.

The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact.

Think of the money wasted. It could clear the Yam debt and build a super new stand

[ballengeich]

Man made global warming is utter nonsense


Think of the money wasted. It could clear the Yam debt and build a super new stand

No proof there that man-made global warming is nonsense - simply other opinions.

Bellamy's assertion that because CO2 is natural an increase can't be harmful is incorrect. The problem is balance - if you disturb a natural balance there will be unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. Our bodies are full of things that are ok in the right proportion, but harmful when too prevalent or insufficient.

Look up more details on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - they're not a body with any great reputation - doesn't prove they're wrong, but regard their opinions with some scepticism.

I accept that human influence on climate isn't 100% proven, but to dismiss the possibility, against the bulk of objective scientific opinion is at best complacent.

[PeeJay]

No proof there that man-made global warming is nonsense - simply other opinions.

Bellamy's assertion that because CO2 is natural an increase can't be harmful is incorrect. The problem is balance - if you disturb a natural balance there will be unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. Our bodies are full of things that are ok in the right proportion, but harmful when too prevalent or insufficient.

Look up more details on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - they're not a body with any great reputation - doesn't prove they're wrong, but regard their opinions with some scepticism.

I accept that human influence on climate isn't 100% proven, but to dismiss the possibility, against the bulk of objective scientific opinion is at best complacent.

Bellamy basing his views on organisations such as the one he cites (OISM) does his reputation no good whatsoever. The link below shows (IMO) what genuine scientists and open-minded people are up against. It's frightening to realise how misguided people (right-wing, socialist-hating, creationist-promoting nutters) can succeed in fooling some people into apparently believing that "black is white". These people are running an agenda that has next to nothing to do with scientific honesty, integrity or the betterment of mankind. I'm pretty sure that if the genuine scientific community (currently pro-global warming) found hard evidence that global warming was not in fact a problem, it would publish and admit it had been wrong. Surely this is the way of the scientific community? The scientits from OISM have already departed from the path of honesty and integrity, they have twisted information and data, published a petition with pseudo scientists (18,000 non-verified names!), made claims that have little basis in reality and so on... how can Bellamy and likeminded people base opinions regarding such vitally important matters as global warming and the future of mankind on organisations like OISM, when they are patently propagators of nonsense? :confused:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

[khib70]

Bellamy basing his views on organisations such as the one he cites (OISM) does his reputation no good whatsoever. The link below shows (IMO) what genuine scientists and open-minded people are up against. It's frightening to realise how misguided people (right-wing, socialist-hating, creationist-promoting nutters) can succeed in fooling some people into apparently believing that "black is white". These people are running an agenda that has next to nothing to do with scientific honesty, integrity or the betterment of mankind. I'm pretty sure that if the genuine scientific community (currently pro-global warming) found hard evidence that global warming was not in fact a problem, it would publish and admit it had been wrong. Surely this is the way of the scientific community? The scientits from OISM have already departed from the path of honesty and integrity, they have twisted information and data, published a petition with pseudo scientists (18,000 non-verified names!), made claims that have little basis in reality and so on... how can Bellamy and likeminded people base opinions regarding such vitally important matters as global warming and the future of mankind on organisations like OISM, when they are patently propagators of nonsense? :confused:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
I see. Basically you're totally correct and anyone who disagrees with you are "right-wing, socialist-hating, creationist-promoting nutters".

Very scientific:rolleyes:

[number 27]

I see. Basically you're totally correct and anyone who disagrees with you are "right-wing, socialist-hating, creationist-promoting nutters".

Very scientific:rolleyes:

I must say that seems a rather strange interpretation of what he actually said.

I think it was fair to point out that if Bellamy is going to question the majority of scientific opinion then his own sources should also be open to scrutiny, and based on that link they do indeed seem to lack credibility.

[Dashing Bob S]

As someone who hates, loathes and detests Al Gore and his self-serving tripe, I have to say that i've even less time for the dangerous fools who would deny the destructive impact of man's consumerist/colonialist economic order upon the ecology of our planet.

[PeeJay]

I see. Basically you're totally correct and anyone who disagrees with you are "right-wing, socialist-hating, creationist-promoting nutters".

Very scientific:rolleyes:

It's not really what I said is it?:cool2: But then we're all entitled to our views - aren't we - and discussion is a healthy thing. Perhaps you disagree with everything mentioned in the article linked to - why? Bellamy obviously chooses to simply ignore the apparent lack of integrity and scientific verification associated with OISM's assertions - again one has to wonder why?

[Sergio sledge]

It is very easy to prove that the temperature has risen over the last 400 years, but that does take a starting point of a mini ice age.

What is harder to prove is that we are warmer now than ever before, although there is a mounting amount of evidence to suggest that this is the case, certainly in the last 1000 years anyway. Coincidentally, this last 1000 years which a lot of people use as their starting point is just after what some people refer to as the medieval warm period, which it has been suggested had warmer temperatures, or comparable temperatures to what it is today.

I don't it can be disputed that climate change is a natural occurance, but what is hard to judge is how much of the temperature rises just now are caused by humans, and how much of it is natural. I don't think we'll ever know, unless someone discovers how to time travel and goes back in time to study relationships between temperature and greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and the causes of those gasses, over every few years since the earth came into being.

In other words, global warming is happening, I think that the human emissions of greenhouse gasses is a contributing factor, but I'm unsure as to how much it is contributing to the natural cycle of things. The earth is a resilient beast, which will cope with whatever is thrown at it, however we should be taking whatever steps we can to minimise our impact on it.

[The_Todd]

Climate change is a natural process that IMHO cannot be influenced by hunmas



Is that a new special mutation of Rangers fan?

[Sauzee07]

To be fair, this kind of lunacy is nothing new. In the 1970's the big fear was Global Cooling. A Newsweek article from 1975 makes particularly humerous reading:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

You will note that it was being suggested that the polar ice caps should be melted by covering them in black soot in order to heat the world up. :doh:

No doubt the current "experts" are equally wrong.

[GlesgaeHibby]

To be fair, this kind of lunacy is nothing new. In the 1970's the big fear was Global Cooling. A Newsweek article from 1975 makes particularly humerous reading:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

You will note that it was being suggested that the polar ice caps should be melted by covering them in black soot in order to heat the world up. :doh:

No doubt the current "experts" are equally wrong.

This nonsensical hypothesis received very little support from the scientific community at the time, it was shot down pretty quickly.

[(((Fergus)))]

As someone who hates, loathes and detests Al Gore and his self-serving tripe, I have to say that i've even less time for the dangerous fools who would deny the destructive impact of man's consumerist/colonialist economic order upon the ecology of our planet.

I don't think anyone would deny that consumerism/colonialism has a destructive effect on the earth, what is perverse though is that this destruction - the real and the imagined - is being used to begin a whole new round of consumerism (from hybrid/electric cars and boiler scrappage to nuclear power) and colonialism (stopping the development of rival economies in Asia using the lever of carbon emissions).

[Woody1985]

No proof there that man-made global warming is nonsense - simply other opinions.

Bellamy's assertion that because CO2 is natural an increase can't be harmful is incorrect. The problem is balance - if you disturb a natural balance there will be unforeseen and unpredictable consequences. Our bodies are full of things that are ok in the right proportion, but harmful when too prevalent or insufficient.

Look up more details on the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine - they're not a body with any great reputation - doesn't prove they're wrong, but regard their opinions with some scepticism.

I accept that human influence on climate isn't 100% proven, but to dismiss the possibility, against the bulk of objective scientific opinion is at best complacent.

Agree with this.

Taking the point in bold is a great example, overload our bodies with water and it will kill you. Overload the planet with CO2 and the adverse effects will/are being felt. Combine that with removing major sources of plant life that converts CO2 back into oxygen and you have a problem.

[lapsedhibee]

Is that a new special mutation of Rangers fan?

Hun mas present a dilemma. On the one hand hand, we don't want them to breed as that leads to more huns in the world (bad). On the other hand, we do want them to breed as that increases the amount of plant life available to absorb excess CO2 (good).

[Moulin Yarns]

There is no such thing as global warming. Yes, the mean global temperature is rising, but it is more correctly referred to as climate change. As for human influence, and the effect of CO2, this graph (http://geology.com/news/2007/02/climate-change-animation.html) shows that, since the industrial revolution, when levels of man made CO2 increased, so did the mean global temperature. This is the simplest explanation for man's influence on global warming.

If anybody believes otherwise then there's only one thing to say to them :ostrich::titanic:

I should add that David Bellamy is an ecologist, not a climate change expert, just because he is a Professor doesn't mean he should be believed in everything he says. (I have a lot of time for him BTW)

[(((Fergus)))]

Agree with this.

Taking the point in bold is a great example, overload our bodies with water and it will kill you. Overload the planet with CO2 and the adverse effects will/are being felt. Combine that with removing major sources of plant life that converts CO2 back into oxygen and you have a problem.

If you overload the body with anything, the body reacts to stop you, e.g., vomiting or going unconscious.

[--------]

To be fair, this kind of lunacy is nothing new. In the 1970's the big fear was Global Cooling. A Newsweek article from 1975 makes particularly humerous reading:

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

You will note that it was being suggested that the polar ice caps should be melted by covering them in black soot in order to heat the world up. :doh:

No doubt the current "experts" are equally wrong.


:agree: You're not supposed to have that sort of attention-span these days, young man. We're now post-1984 - Orwellian Amnesia's the order of the day. Need to set the Thought Police on you, I'm afraid. :devil:

Seems to me that common sense dictates that we conserve the natural resouces of the planet to the best of our ability, while seeking new sources of (preferably) renewable energy that don't themselves pollute or damage our natural environment. At the same time we should be working to share the resources we have a lot more fairly among the whole population of the planet. And we should be seeking ways to minimise our pollution of the natural environment.

At the same time reality tells us that whatever we do, human beings as a species will affect the environment in which we live. Just being here means we change things. Some of the tree-huggers seem to think we shouldn't be affecting the world around us at all, and that any effect we do have must be by definition harmful, while some of the petrol-heads seem to think that they can do whatever they want to whoever and whatever they want without any consequences whatsoever.

They're both stupid. Even The Famous Eccles knew that 'everybody's gotta be somewhere'.

It's the evangelistic hysteria on the one side and the bone-headed arrogance on the other that I can't get on with.

[holyrood hibbie]

Global warming is nonsense. This is the natural history of the earth, you go back to the dinosaures and you see the carbon levels and the temperatures. THey had sky rocketing summers and bitter cold winters. Global warming is a consporicy theroy created by the Americans to make there population scare themselves but they didn't realise how much it would esculate.

[The_Todd]

Global warming is nonsense. This is the natural history of the earth, you go back to the dinosaures and you see the carbon levels and the temperatures. THey had sky rocketing summers and bitter cold winters. Global warming is a consporicy theroy created by the Americans to make there population scare themselves but they didn't realise how much it would esculate.


To what ends do the American government want to scare the American public about climate change?

The Americans are one of the biggest culprits when it comes to fuel use and CO2 emmissions, so I'm unsure what they would have achieved from this "conspiracy"?

[Sylar]

I've posted a few extensive commentaries on here before regarding the science of climate change and global warming. As such, to save me typing it all again from scratch, I'm going to edit/alter an old post, for the sake of efficiency.

Global warming, does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, as the numerical and physical model outputs are based on pretty solid (and longterm) data series', but these stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and I now feel that this is being used as a manipulator, allowing government to increase taxes and fuel duty. However, the picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is somewhat necessary (to a degree) to create a worst-case vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions. Granted, if the UK completely stopped emitting ANY CO2, then it would have a trifle of an impact on the global scale (particularly when the new Industrial powerhouses of China and India are left to pump pollutants without regulation). Global warming is not something which should be taken on board by only the wealthiest of countries, as it is very much a global problem.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided a large quantity of the particles which acted as the warming blanket. When eruptions were catastrophic in size, particulate matter, soot and ash would act as an inpenetrable blanket, which would automatically reflect solar radiation back into the outer reaches of the atmosphere. It's a very tricky margin to define, what quantity eventually tips the balance in the other direction.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.

I agree with many of the concerns raised, that is has become a profiteering and scare tactic used by many companies/governments. Our approach to climate change and global warming needs to be driven by good quality research, which provides reliable projections, and allows us to develop strategy/policy to tackle this global issue.

[Moulin Yarns]

I've posted a few extensive commentaries on here before regarding the science of climate change and global warming. As such, to save me typing it all again from scratch, I'm going to edit/alter an old post, for the sake of efficiency.

Global warming, does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, as the numerical and physical model outputs are based on pretty solid (and longterm) data series', but these stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and I now feel that this is being used as a manipulator, allowing government to increase taxes and fuel duty. However, the picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is somewhat necessary (to a degree) to create a worst-case vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions. Granted, if the UK completely stopped emitting ANY CO2, then it would have a trifle of an impact on the global scale (particularly when the new Industrial powerhouses of China and India are left to pump pollutants without regulation). Global warming is not something which should be taken on board by only the wealthiest of countries, as it is very much a global problem.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided a large quantity of the particles which acted as the warming blanket. When eruptions were catastrophic in size, particulate matter, soot and ash would act as an inpenetrable blanket, which would automatically reflect solar radiation back into the outer reaches of the atmosphere. It's a very tricky margin to define, what quantity eventually tips the balance in the other direction.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.

I agree with many of the concerns raised, that is has become a profiteering and scare tactic used by many companies/governments. Our approach to climate change and global warming needs to be driven by good quality research, which provides reliable projections, and allows us to develop strategy/policy to tackle this global issue.


:thumbsup:Here endeth the debate :greengrin

[Moulin Yarns]

Global warming is nonsense. This is the natural history of the earth, you go back to the dinosaures and you see the carbon levels and the temperatures. THey had sky rocketing summers and bitter cold winters. Global warming is a consporicy theroy created by the Americans to make there population scare themselves but they didn't realise how much it would esculate.

Source? :wink:

Since when were records kept in the cretaceous period?

[Woody1985]

If you overload the body with anything, the body reacts to stop you, e.g., vomiting or going unconscious.

Yes, but it doesn't always work. When you lose consciousness you sometimes don't regain it or go into a vegative state.

Also, systematic abuse of the body tends to result in adverse affects in the medium to long term. Damage that cannot be reversed.

[Woody1985]

I've posted a few extensive commentaries on here before regarding the science of climate change and global warming. As such, to save me typing it all again from scratch, I'm going to edit/alter an old post, for the sake of efficiency.

Global warming, does exist but you need to define your terms - NATURAL global warming or ENHANCED global warming? Natural global warming exists with utterly no question. All records (dendrochronology, radio isotopes and soil stratigraphy) confirm this. Temperature graphs as far dated as the Quaternary era further substantiate the argument with series' of natural warming and cooling cycles.

Enhanced global warming is another kettle of fish. I believe it DOES exist, as the numerical and physical model outputs are based on pretty solid (and longterm) data series', but these stats and rates quoted in public medium are often overstressed and I now feel that this is being used as a manipulator, allowing government to increase taxes and fuel duty. However, the picture painted by a lot of academics and policy makers (myself included in the former bunch) is indeed one of scaremongering, but id say this is somewhat necessary (to a degree) to create a worst-case vision of what our world can deteriorate into if policies are not adapted to reduce our global carbon emissions. Granted, if the UK completely stopped emitting ANY CO2, then it would have a trifle of an impact on the global scale (particularly when the new Industrial powerhouses of China and India are left to pump pollutants without regulation). Global warming is not something which should be taken on board by only the wealthiest of countries, as it is very much a global problem.

Surely it stands to reason that if you add more particles into the Earth's atmosphere (to a certain buffer point) that it will act as a blanket? Incoming solar radiation and fluxes have a great degree of energy, but after they interact with the Earth's surface (or clouds, etc etc), their energy is dissipated so when it is reflected, it has less energy and cannot pass through these airborne particulates, meaning it is centralised in the atmospheric biome, sort of like a central heating system in a closed room. Now that's not to say that the extra particulates in the air can all be attributed to anthropogenic sources, but let's consider some facts. Consider the rapid industrialisation and urban expansion of many large cities in the developing world. Think about the expanding population and the person:car ratio which exists and the output that will mean. Think of the countries which have inefficient recycling plants meaning items like fridges, freezers, televisions and computers are left to refuse, allowing chemicals such as freon and ozone to be released into the atmosphere. There are numerous stats out there to support the arguments of enhanced outputs - you just have to make strides to locate them.

To be fair, Earth has endured warming periods like the one we are currently experiencing, long before man inhabited this planet. The main problem we're facing today is that no human has ever lived through such a period before and we're not covering ourselves in glory trying to avoid the inevitable (a return to a cooling period). The only difference between this period and previous ones, actually stems from a similarity. The rate of warming is pretty much identical - however, in aeons gone by, volcanic and tectonic activity were much more frequent as the planet was in a less stable position - as a result, volcanic eruptions provided a large quantity of the particles which acted as the warming blanket. When eruptions were catastrophic in size, particulate matter, soot and ash would act as an inpenetrable blanket, which would automatically reflect solar radiation back into the outer reaches of the atmosphere. It's a very tricky margin to define, what quantity eventually tips the balance in the other direction.

It certainly does exist, but the real question is whether or not we're in a position to alter the course we seem to have set. I don't think we are to be brutally honest, so long as nations like America, India and China continue to place their economy at the forefront of their national priorities, ahead of environmental preservation for future generations.

I agree with many of the concerns raised, that is has become a profiteering and scare tactic used by many companies/governments. Our approach to climate change and global warming needs to be driven by good quality research, which provides reliable projections, and allows us to develop strategy/policy to tackle this global issue.

:top marks

[Petrie's Tache]

Paris Hilton enters climate change debate, accepts blame for 'global hotness'

LOS ANGELES. Heiress Paris Hilton says climate change is real and has blamed herself for what she calls "global hotness". Describing the planet as "so totally hot right now", Hilton said that global hotness was decimating the wild Chihuahuas of central Mexico. However she said that foot shortages caused by climate change could "help poor people look totally hot".

Hilton said she had been made acutely aware of the climate crisis at a pool party in Beverley Hills last week.

"My friends were like, 'Oh it's going to totally be like cold or whatever, so wear something with sleeves', and I was like, 'Cool, okay, whatever'," said Hilton.

"But when I got to the party, my friends were like, 'Oh my God, Paris, we are totally like tripping because it's really really hot right now', and it was true. They were totally tripping because it was really really hot right then.

"I was sweating into my fur panties and everything."

She said since then she had noticed that wherever she went she felt "so totally hot right now".

"At first I was like, 'Oh my God, maybe it's because I wear fur underpants', but then I was like, 'No, it's not, because I'm so skinny and hot, and skinny hot people who totally eat less than like five calories a day normally feel cold, so it can't be that'.

"I realised that it must be me, making the weather totally hot."

She said she was deeply concerned about global hotness's impact on "the fauna".

"Fauna is like the science word for lots of fawns, which are awesome little creatures that have the torso of like a hot guy with the legs of a goat," she said.

"I saw it in a documentary called The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. I think it was that movie Al Gore made. Basically the planet is getting hotter, and it's because of a snow-witch, and we need lions, because, um, lions are hot."

However she said that the plight of fawns was dwarfed by the "total wipeout" facing the wild Chihuahuas of central Mexico.

"These noble animals roam free in large packs in the highlands of Mexico, like totally stealing and eating Mexican babies," she said.

She would neither confirm nor deny that her own Chihuahua had once stolen and eaten the child of one of her Mexican servants, but said that Chihuahuas could eat up to fourteen times their body weight in human flesh.

"But because of global hotness they just sit around panting with their eyes bugging out," she said.

"And who wants a dog that looks like that? If we don't stop global hotness, no hot people will want a Chihuahua, and if nobody wants Chihuahuas their self-esteem will fall and they'll start cutting themselves and boning totally random guys and it will just be so random and not hot."

However she said all was not lost.

"There's totally an up side to global hotness, which is like poor people don't have any food. That's totally the break many young aspiring models in the slums have been waiting for.

"It's so hot being malnourished because you don't even need to throw up, and if you do it's like only a grain of rice that you throw up, so you can just do it anywhere - on set, in your limo, whatever."

[IndieHibby]

Discussed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/28/new-paper-in-nature-on-co2-amplification-its-less-than-we-thought/

Original Source:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/nature-carbon-cycle-feedback-is-80.html

[IndieHibby]

Good summary of some of the issues with the data sets:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece)

[Petrie's Tache]

From the express:

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/158214/The-great-climate-change-retreat (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/158214/The-great-climate-change-retreat)

[IndieHibby]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/)

---------- Post added at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 PM ----------

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly and Joe *******i on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY)[/URL]

[GlesgaeHibby]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/ (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100027173/global-warming-time-to-get-angry/)

---------- Post added at 11:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:25 PM ----------

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly and Joe *******i on Global Warming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y2iF99kOY)[/URL]

:agree: I'm worried about carbon trading full stop. The EU Emissions Trading Scheme failed in the first phase as there were more permits issued than pollution needed.

The Kyoto Clean Development Mechanism is fundamentally flawed, see this article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5257602.ece

Luckily the UK has followed the lead of Germany, Spain and Denmark in introducing Feed in Tariffs for renewable energy from April of this year. This will, IMO, be better for cutting carbon as well as securing a long term sustainable future than Carbon Trading.