Lurksalot Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Must admit I've thought twice about adding a comment to this debate? Well what the hell Anyway I used to work for a long time for a large broadcasting company and the journalists used to spend many hours grinding out a story interviewing people and really digging around for the truth in something. Nowadays they all sit in front of a computer screen and surf the net and believe everything that appears in front of them. The headline or sounbite is everything. It is really scary as we believe the cr*p they churn out. There used to be courses at said company that tried to teach caution over material gleaned from the internet so it is a real issue. The whole GW debate shows this in spades when common sense tells you that mans impact on the environment is microscopic in terms of the earths history. But every major weather event hurricanes, floods and hotter summers is blamed on cheap flights to Tenerrife !! I remember not that long ago when derision was hurled at two scientists claiming the earths surface was made up of plates that moved causing earthquakes and the formation of mountain ranges and to give an oscar to a Al Gore for some pseudo sciece film!!! what is the world coming too??? well I am sure that there is a lot of truth in a lot of the evidence around but I'm also sure there is a shedload of crap I ABSOLUTELY believe that there is not enough news to fill all the media space available and they are all producing more and more sh*t to get you to buy into their take . I read the local weekly rag but really take no interest in most of the junk thats broadcast or printed .It is very difficult to make conclusive observations on any number of issues, as getting any level of accurratte info is hard to sift from the rubbish. prime examples are politics and weather patterns , How us mere mortals are supposed to pick a side is beyond me , so I don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACW Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 I don't dispute that the earth is actually getting warmer but I find it suprisng that no-one has mentioned that biggest reason is that the sun is pulling our planet closer towards it every day by a natural process of gravity. I guess we need some clever nuclear process to fire the earth back out into space. It's a very good point, as we have been putting stuff into space making the planet lighter so it will get closer to the sun. Fgrav = (m1 * m2)/d^2 so actually I guess it will get further away. The fact it populations of any species in any contained area will tend to crash once it reaches a certain level. This can be caused by wars, famine, disease etc. People tend to ignore this fact when we are talking about our own species, but the fact is the world can only support a finite population and we are probably already above the long term sustainable quanitity at the current consumption. GW if it exists may just be the way of wiping a large number of us off the planet. Anyone who doesnt think we have an effect by polution needs to fly into cities like Chicago, or look at DC from the blue ridge mountains on a clear day. Or visit China and have a swim in yanksee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_m Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 Anyone who doesnt think we have an effect by polution needs to fly into cities like Chicago, or look at DC from the blue ridge mountains on a clear day. Or visit China and have a swim in yanksee. This is the point I made earlier, there are lots of things we do to the environment that we ought to stop doing but they get overshadowed by the GW issue. The things the environmentalists were campaigning for a few years ago until they realised the threat of GW could also be used to tax us, stop us using cars etc, which is far more attractive as a campaign to them than simply stoping raw sewerage beig pumped into the water. If we were able to take a sensible, balanced approach to polution then we could deal with these things but there's no chance now, it's GW and CO2 on the agenda and that's it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 @NRW What are you talking about no correlation? 10000 years is relatively short there was a slight downward trend in temperature with a constant CO2 level and when we almost double the CO2 the trend jumps up! @webmaster Fgrav = (m1 * m2)/d^2 Fcentrifugal = m1*v^2/d Hence the only way to influence the distance to the sun is to lighten the sun. Actually it looses 100 billion kg per second just because of E=mc^2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spence Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Hang on can you see the line where nasty humans play a part in global warming. Wheres my magnifying glass. www.ImageShack.us" /> Ummmm sun spots nothing to do with it then? Scientists can't agree. Funny how politicians who tax us KNOW 100% what the problem is. Funny that!!!! Something tells me I smell a dirty great rat and it STINKS!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 0.28% would give already a 0.2 K increase in Temperature ((1.0028)^(0.25)-1)*280. I seriously doubt that the numbers are correct because we always had around 250 ppm CO2 and now we are at 390ppm. If we take the 5% that is not water vapour the humans would then be responsible for the 140 extra ppm which is 36% of the 5% an that would be 1.8% and a temperature increase of 1.2K (ignoring methane because although it is a 23 times better greenhouse gas per kilo than CO2, the massfraction in the atmosphere is 552 times smaller than CO2) Second graph is interesting, do you see the phase lag in the early 1900's? The minimum in sunspot numbers was in 1895 the lower seasurface temperature in 1905. Now take a look around 1975. The temperature starts to increase before the sunspotnumber. If it would be casued biy the sunspots we would have the same 10 year lag and not an increase before the sunspot increase. Nice graphs could you give the references? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 That chart loses all creditability by having IPCC on it. *ALL* of the scientist's in the program that kicked this thread off were ex-IPCC, they all left because they science was being ignored and the politicians were doing excatly what they wanted. No change there then... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man On The Clapham Omnibus Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Like NRW, I hesitate to comment simply because I don't know what the truth is and freely admit it. But, on the tv news last evening there were two glaringly obvious examples of what does inestimable harm to the cause(s) - either way. Gordon Brown said that we have to do these things in this order:- Stop the use of standby in the home; stop using filament lamps in the home; and THEN "...completing insulation..". Exactly in the wrong order. Does the man not realise that standby uses about 2watts only and that it's a drop in the ocean compared with wasting heat through poor insulation? And as for light bulbs; lighting is not a big user of electricity in the home and anyway, the heat given off contributes to the warmth of the house in winter when most lighting is used longest. "Insulation, insulation, insulation" must be the watchword first and foremost. The second thing was showing Happisburgh coastline being reinforced with rocks paid for by the locals. The newscaster said that the Happisburgh residents were suffering from the "rising sea levels caused by climate change". Surely that is not true - is it not simple coastal erosion from wave action? If 'normal' events like this are laid at the door of climate change, the whole credibility of any argument goes to the dogs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 That chart loses all creditability by having IPCC on it. Not my graph NRW came up with it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Keene Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Yours, NRW, Mine, God's... Still carries little credibility having IPCC on it IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Whoever it came from It it a nice example of representing the data so that it suits your needs. Compare it with the late 10000 years on this graph Wiggleing around at 250, just taking this timespam might cause you to believe that there is no correlation. (There is but I explaned that before) But if you look at a longer timespan such as this graph it becomes painfully obvious! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Think that the Clouds and sun spot has much more credability than the CO2 arguement but how do you tax a cloud or sun spot....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Just look at the facts please! CO2 concentrations increase surface temperature (undisputed) Human CO2 emissions increased concentration 50% (undisputed) Sure other factors play a big role. But do we really have to add to the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilb Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 QUOTE CO2 concentrations increase surface temperature (undisputed) I think that it is. CO2 is at best a weak green house gas, clouds have much bigger influence on greenhouse effect (undisputed) everyone knows that and can feel the effect on a hour to hour basis, so why is all the science concentrating on the small amount of CO2 and discounting the stuff that makes up the majority of the atmosphere. The simple truth of the matter is the CO2 is an easy villain and can be readily taxed QUOTE Sure other factors play a big role. But do we really have to add to the problem? Start by telling people the truth, CO2 is a problem because we are running out of western controlled oil, gas and coal. Look at the climate change predictions they tell you that in 50-100 years time we will have change the planet but in the same time frame we will have run out of oil, gas and coal so if you can slow down the rate out usage by taxing the waist product it’s a win win for the western governments, buying time to get new technologies in place to replace oil power and find new ways of controlling oil reserves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geelhoed Posted March 13, 2007 Share Posted March 13, 2007 Clouds are cooling but watervapur has a warming effect. A warmer surface would create more evaporation and thus more clouds and vapour. This matter is highly complex and I don't have the knowledge to comment on it further as this is also amonst climatologist a matter of debate. CO2 adds to the surface temperature and although as you say it is a small portion of the greenhouse effect you also might have heard about a straw and the back of a camel. upsetting the (oscillating) balance is something we should avoid. http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/l13.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.