Global Warming

[malfunction]

My 2p:

In truth no-one knows whether it's part of a natural process or man made (or aggravated by man). One thing to look at is the effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. More CO2 = more heat... More heat = more water vapour in the air... More water vapour in the air = less heat... I don't believe that as a race we're doing good things to the planet but I don't believe there's enough evidence either way to say what's causing the rise in temperatures. It may only be anecdotal but the Romans planted vineyards in Yorkshire - the point is that both on the 'local' level and on the global level things change with or without man's influence.

[G4Z]

Yeah, but I am not disputing that global waring occuring what I am asking about is really weather or not this is a natural cycle anyway and our planet has been hotter than this before and with more co2. so, will global warming really be a problem do you think?

[DaBeeeenster]

Look at the co2 graphs mate! Do you think that is happening because of industrialisation and the burning of fossil fuels, or do you think it is just a co-incidence?

Do you think it would be best to

a) prudent to look into ways of reducing co2 emmission levels (fusion reactors, renewable energy sources, fuel cells etc)
b) assume it's a coincidence and simply go away

[Auran]

A few points:

1. CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas whose contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is very small. In addition, the percentage increase in CO2 due to mans activities against the background of natural CO2 production is small. Thus all the hot air about the Kyoto agreement is a waste of time.

2. What is more important is controlling the amounts of other longer chain molecules like methane and propane. Putting corks in cows bottoms has been proposed as a solution

3. Global Warming is only a theory and has not yet been proved to the highest standards of scientific rigour. There are so many holes in some of the data and asumptions it makes me laugh. My worry is that most of the work is scaremongering in a rush to get funding.

4. We should be spending our money on research into renewing carbon resources and alternative energy sources as these are far more important.

5. The Governments scientific advisor needs to have a serious think about his claim that we'll all have to live on Antartica David Bellamies comments on this at the weekend were less than complementary about his intellect.

[DaBeeeenster]

A few points:
1. CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas whose contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is very small. In addition, the percentage increase in CO2 due to mans activities against the background of natural CO2 production is small. Thus all the hot air about the Kyoto agreement is a waste of time.
2. What is more important is controlling the amounts of other longer chain molecules like methane and propane. Putting corks in cows bottoms has been proposed as a solution

Proof, please?

3. Global Warming is only a theory and has not yet been proved to the highest standards of scientific rigour. There are so many holes in some of the data and asumptions it makes me laugh. My worry is that most of the work is scaremongering in a rush to get funding.

This is NOT TRUE. Would you care to demonstrate the "holes in some of the data"?

4. We should be spending our money on research into renewing carbon resources and alternative energy sources as these are far more important.

More important than what?

I find it absolutely incredible that the fossil fuel and nuclear fuel lobby has so convincingly managed to trash science in the name of profit, and even more unbelievable that people are taken in by it. Very saddening.

[Auran]

Da Beeeenster

1. + 2. Assuming that you have ben reading into this subject then I'm surprised that you we're already aware of this. I will however find some info to demonstrate this.

3. The fact that there is STILL a huge argument raging within the scientific community should suggest that there is still a long way to go before we have enough credible evidence to support a "Greenhouse Effect" theory. There are quite a few could papers on the "holes" in this theory so I will drag out some links for you. Finally, I could get into an argument with you on this one about the nature of scientific proof, which is very poorly understood even in scientific circles. But as an example, Einsteins General Relativity Theory has not yet been proved - it is only accepted as a good postulate for macro systems.

4. More important than worrying about whether or not sea levels are going to rise based upon some pretty iffy science. Without energy we are back to living in caves sat round fires. I also forgot to mention energy efficiency research which is also important.

IT is NOT just the fossil fuel + nuclear lobby that is having a crack at the so called Greenhouse effect. A large number of both general and climate scientists are very dubious about some of the claims that are being bandied about. This is not a simplistic situation, the number of variables and effects involved are huge, and a large number of the models for their effects are based on very new-found science that has not gone through the rigours of long term peer critique.

[Blub2k]

Funny how none of this was disputed before the Halliburton Cabal got into the white house innit?

[Auran]

Not really - Clinton needed plenty of distractions to hide his own antics, and potential climatic disaster is quite a good one !!

[DaBeeeenster]

Da Beeeenster

1. + 2. Assuming that you have ben reading into this subject then I'm surprised that you we're already aware of this. I will however find some info to demonstrate this.

3. The fact that there is STILL a huge argument raging within the scientific community should suggest that there is still a long way to go before we have enough credible evidence to support a "Greenhouse Effect" theory. There are quite a few could papers on the "holes" in this theory so I will drag out some links for you. Finally, I could get into an argument with you on this one about the nature of scientific proof, which is very poorly understood even in scientific circles. But as an example, Einsteins General Relativity Theory has not yet been proved - it is only accepted as a good postulate for macro systems.

There are a handful of scientists that disagree with the concept, and the majority of those that do are funded by the fossil fuel lobby. From what I have read, the vast, vast majority are in agreement.

I dont see what the theory of relativity has to do with it. That is a mathematical and physical model, and has nothing to do with predictions within a highly complex system.

4. More important than worrying about whether or not sea levels are going to rise based upon some pretty iffy science. Without energy we are back to living in caves sat round fires. I also forgot to mention energy efficiency research which is also important.

"Iffy science"? Rubbish! Tens of thousands of scientists have been working in this area for decades. It is a well established theory backed up by current and historic data.

IT is NOT just the fossil fuel + nuclear lobby that is having a crack at the so called Greenhouse effect. A large number of both general and climate scientists are very dubious about some of the claims that are being bandied about. This is not a simplistic situation, the number of variables and effects involved are huge, and a large number of the models for their effects are based on very new-found science that has not gone through the rigours of long term peer critique.

Again, total rubbish! The scientific process that underlines the theory has been undertaken under the strictest levels of scientific procedure. Take a look at the list of references and sources that the IPCC report makes reference to:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm

and the number of people that reviewed the report...

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/559.htm

The documents that have been provided that "debunk" the notion of climate change are not in the same league.

[Auran]

As I said I'll get back to you on the 'holes', and I'm STILL surprised that you weren't aware that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas, even the pro-greenhouse lobby are aware of this fact.

There are not a handfull - there are quite a lot - you just don't hear from them because the media is pro-greenhouse disaster.

My point about relativity is that just because there is large amount of data to support something does not mean that you have a proof. Plus just because something is generally accepted, that also does not mean it is right. Newtons laws are a classic one for that !!

I'll admit I was being a bit argumentative with the "iffy science" quip, but I still maintain my point - without viable energy sources we are scr**ed. If you consider what the medium we are communicating with operates on and what it uses, then consider how many things we do use them. Then you'll understand what I mean. We can adapt to changing weather conditions if we have to.

I'm not saying that it wasn't done under strict scientific principles / procedures. Merely that we have a long way to go before we can say that we've got a complete climate model.

Just so you understand, I am not blindly arguing that the earth is not warming up. Rather that we are not about to end up living in the sea because of a runnaway greenhouse effect.

[DaBeeeenster]

As I said I'll get back to you on the 'holes', and I'm STILL surprised that you weren't aware that CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas, even the pro-greenhouse lobby are aware of this fact.

There are not a handfull - there are quite a lot - you just don't hear from them because the media is pro-greenhouse disaster.

Ok then. How about you list them?

My point about relativity is that just because there is large amount of data to support something does not mean that you have a proof. Plus just because something is generally accepted, that also does not mean it is right. Newtons laws are a classic one for that !!

I'll admit I was being a bit argumentative with the "iffy science" quip, but I still maintain my point - without viable energy sources we are scr**ed. If you consider what the medium we are communicating with operates on and what it uses, then consider how many things we do use them. Then you'll understand what I mean. We can adapt to changing weather conditions if we have to.

I'm not saying that it wasn't done under strict scientific principles / procedures. Merely that we have a long way to go before we can say that we've got a complete climate model.

Just so you understand, I am not blindly arguing that the earth is not warming up. Rather that we are not about to end up living in the sea because of a runnaway greenhouse effect.

Can we have some evidence backing up your claim that "CO2 is a poor greenhouse gas whose contribution to the "greenhouse effect" is very small." Also, can we have some evidence backing up the claim that methane produced from cows has a greater effect on climate change than human activities?

[Auran]

I will get back to you with specifics - unfortunately I am in the process of organising a huge product launch for this weekend so my time is short at present.

I did not say methane produced from cows has a bigger effect, rather that methane is a better greenhouse gas. The bit about cows was a joke.....

BTW Manmade CO2 is negligable compared to the biggest source - The Oceans

[GreenPiggy]

BTW Manmade CO2 is negligable compared to the biggest source - The Oceans

This is rubbish. Why has the CO2 count doubled in the last 100 years?

[DaBeeeenster]

I will get back to you with specifics - unfortunately I am in the process of organising a huge product launch for this weekend so my time is short at present.

No rush

I did not say methane produced from cows has a bigger effect, rather that methane is a better greenhouse gas. The bit about cows was a joke.....

Fair enough, but it's difficult to know what your positions are if you sprinkly jokes in your posts? Do you have proof as to which gasses are "better" than others?

BTW Manmade CO2 is negligable compared to the biggest source - The Oceans

Yes, but the Oceans have been there since year dot. The sudden and rapid introduction of billions of tons of man made C02 IS a new introduction into the system.

[Auran]

The ability of a gas to act as a greenhouse gas is related to its potential to absorb infrared radiation. This is based upon the bond lengths between molecules and the number of bonds in the molecule. Thus, the bigger the molecule the greater its ability to absorb.

CO2 is a small molecule with short bond lengths, thus is a relatively poor greenhouse gas. Water vapour, even though it is a small molecule is a very good greenhouse gas, in comparison, because of both the hydrogen bonding between molecules and the fact that it is made up of droplets rather than being a 'gas'.

I will have to get back to you on the overall impact of CO2 as I've noticed that a lot more work has been done on the effect of CO2 sinks recently which has impacted upon the amount in the atmosphere. Thus, the data may show that it has a bigger impact than the last time I was reading up about it. My concern in this area is obviously the rainforests, which idiots keep cutting down !!