Certainly, I agree that some of the understanding of the processes of climate change is still somewhat sketchy. Existing models have been flawed by some scientists as being … “oversimplified and incomplete”. Their projections of what the future might be like are beset with uncertainties.
I’ll make an attempt later, on the science forum, what these uncertainties are.
Actually it's all lies damn, lies and statistics. Here is one for you; there has not been a rise in temperature from levels recorded in 1940. Now the opposition can cite a steep rise in temperature in the last 20- 30 years. Why? Because it depends on how you take your measurements. Climates have long-term variations as well as short ones. Sometimes a whole century can be abnormally warm or cold, because climate has a chaotic function over any time scale.
Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.: Actually it's all lies damn, lies and statistics. Here is one for you; there has not been a rise in temperature from levels recorded in 1940. Now the opposition can cite a steep rise in temperature in the last 20- 30 years. Why? Because it depends on how you take your measurements. Climates have long-term variations as well as short ones. Sometimes a whole century can be abnormally warm or cold, because climate has a chaotic function over any time scale.
Oh dear you've been listening to the senile old fool David Bellamy again haven't you.
Do you accept that the build-up of greenhouse gases in teh atmosphere is, in effect, an inadvertent by-product of human population growth and economic development?
I am disappointed that mainstream media are reluctant to challenge the assumption that man made CO2 is the major culprit in global warming. Recently a number of scientists have come up with some strong scientific evidence that shows a more likely natural cause. Despite the robustness of their arguments they are struggling to be heard as if it were some global blasphemy. This might seem to appease the right wing and corporate sections of society - but it still needs to be heard and debated. Burying ones head in the sand when so much is being invested in CO2 reduction at the expensive of other green initiatives is not a safe thing to do. I am looking to news rooms like yourself to give more air time to this subject in the name of justice. This could be the biggest mistake ever made by mankind
From ice core analysis over the past 400,000 years it has been shown that global warming has occurred regularly, like clockwork, every 100,000 years. There is a natural global warming cycle where temperatures rise rapidly, we are currently on one of these peaks, temperatures are expected to rise even without the existence of humans, so the question is, what is the impact of the extra contribution of CO2 pollution? Scientists will tell you that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that is correct, but what they don’t have is a model that can determine the impact of the CO2 contribution over and above the natural phenomena, is it marginal or large?
Water vapour is the 3rd most prevalent gas in the atmosphere, on average it is 100 times more concentrated than CO2 which is only about 0.035% of the atmosphere. Water vapour is also known to be 50 times more effective as a greenhouse gas than CO2 and methane combined. Water vapour currently is accountable for 2/3 of the greenhouse effect. Increased levels of water vapour will have more impact than CO2, is water vapour increasing and why? Interestingly, ice core samples has shown that rises in CO2 levels have occurred in conjunction with global warming in the past on every occasion of natural global warming. The surprising thing is that the increase in CO2 lags the increase in warming, so which is the cause and which is the effect? CO2 may be getting released from the permafrost and peat as the ice receeds.
Looking at the last 600 million years of the planets history, we are currently at the lowest levels of CO2 and global temperatures ever recorded. Scientists have determined that the pre-cambrian period was the period when the earth had the greatest diversity of life and numbers of new species appearing, at this time CO2 was 19 times more concentrated than it is today. So CO2 is not a direct threat to life.
Because CO2 is the latest trendy fashion theory for politicians and the media we are not expending any energy in making sure that we are making good decisions and getting our priorities right. We are in danger of making erroneous decisions on issues like Nuclear power on the basis of CO2 emissions, when maybe we should be spending money on more pressing environmental needs lke pollution in general, consumerism, resource management and water quality.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Do you accept that the build-up of greenhouse gases in teh atmosphere is, in effect, an inadvertent by-product of human population growth and economic development?
Any additional CO2 from man-made sources is a fraction of a percent of the total carbon cycle. The carbon cycle itself is complex and involves many different sources and sinks that could change for many reasons. CO2 levels over 100 years ago were recorded to be over 500 ppm and fluctuate widely, though it is probable the early measurements had large errors there is still no stable levels of CO2.
It is a harmless gas but more so than that it is an essential gas because plants need it to breath like we need oxygen to breath. I think it is impossible to accurately model this system for exactly the same reason it is impossible to model the weather for more than a few days. The system is too complex and many of the parameters cannot accurately be measured anyway.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Do you accept that the build-up of greenhouse gases in teh atmosphere is, in effect, an inadvertent by-product of human population growth and economic development?
Any additional CO2 from man-made sources is a fraction of a percent of the total carbon cycle. The carbon cycle itself is complex and involves many different sources and sinks that could change for many reasons. CO2 levels over 100 years ago were recorded to be over 500 ppm and fluctuate widely, though it is probable the early measurements had large errors there is still no stable levels of CO2.
It is a harmless gas but more so than that it is an essential gas because plants need it to breath like we need oxygen to breath. I think it is impossible to accurately model this system for exactly the same reason it is impossible to model the weather for more than a few days. The system is too complex and many of the parameters cannot accurately be measured anyway.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of plant/tree life we have destroyed over the last 200 years or so, this would impact on the amount of CO2 we have produced over the same period.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Do you accept that the build-up of greenhouse gases in teh atmosphere is, in effect, an inadvertent by-product of human population growth and economic development?
Any additional CO2 from man-made sources is a fraction of a percent of the total carbon cycle. The carbon cycle itself is complex and involves many different sources and sinks that could change for many reasons. CO2 levels over 100 years ago were recorded to be over 500 ppm and fluctuate widely, though it is probable the early measurements had large errors there is still no stable levels of CO2.
It is a harmless gas but more so than that it is an essential gas because plants need it to breath like we need oxygen to breath. I think it is impossible to accurately model this system for exactly the same reason it is impossible to model the weather for more than a few days. The system is too complex and many of the parameters cannot accurately be measured anyway.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of plant/tree life we have destroyed over the last 200 years or so, this would impact on the amount of CO2 we have produced over the same period.
Even though they bleat on about destruction of rain forests the least of these worries are CO2 related although I’m against it on the grounds of declining species. The thing is that CO2 is consumed by so much, I mean everything that is green and alive is part of the cycle. Also even if you cut down trees there is a large amount of greenery that will spring up in its place and the only limiting factor is available light. So you have a negative feedback system where the system is stable. A bit more CO2 makes quite a significant impact on plant growth and the optimum is about 1200ppm, anything higher and the plant just ignores the rest.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Do you accept that the build-up of greenhouse gases in teh atmosphere is, in effect, an inadvertent by-product of human population growth and economic development?
Any additional CO2 from man-made sources is a fraction of a percent of the total carbon cycle. The carbon cycle itself is complex and involves many different sources and sinks that could change for many reasons. CO2 levels over 100 years ago were recorded to be over 500 ppm and fluctuate widely, though it is probable the early measurements had large errors there is still no stable levels of CO2.
It is a harmless gas but more so than that it is an essential gas because plants need it to breath like we need oxygen to breath. I think it is impossible to accurately model this system for exactly the same reason it is impossible to model the weather for more than a few days. The system is too complex and many of the parameters cannot accurately be measured anyway.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of plant/tree life we have destroyed over the last 200 years or so, this would impact on the amount of CO2 we have produced over the same period.
Even though they bleat on about destruction of rain forests the least of these worries are CO2 related although I’m against it on the grounds of declining species. The thing is that CO2 is consumed by so much, I mean everything that is green and alive is part of the cycle. Also even if you cut down trees there is a large amount of greenery that will spring up in its place and the only limiting factor is available light. So you have a negative feedback system where the system is stable. A bit more CO2 makes quite a significant impact on plant growth and the optimum is about 1200ppm, anything higher and the plant just ignores the rest.
And the bits we concrete over as populations expand, the rise in one coupled with the decline of the other must make some difference?
Ah but not all countries are equal. The English population growth rate and birth rate is at an all time low and well below sustainable. While we get taxed for every gram of carbon and work so hard we don't have the time to raise a family over in China there is no regulation on energy consumption. That’s why we buy everything from this despot these days and fuel its growth. I'm not into an exponential population growth but the planet could sustain many times the number it does at the moment. I mean look at America; they only live on the coast. Just think if the entire inland were like Manhattan, there would be billions of them. However the problem would be quality of life and I for one do not want to live in a shoebox so the population is best kept as it is.
The issue of population growth and economic development does appear to be gaining extra weight all the time, in terms of explaining why the earth's temperature is rising.
I was reading a scientific journal recently that looked at the phenomenon from space. In this article, the mathematics of a circle and sphere were discussed and how the surface area of a sphere is four-times that of a circle: in that, when individual rays of radiation are spread across the earth the surface area of a spherical globe allows much, more to be absorbed.
This issue is of course much social science as it is physical science.
... It would be interesting to know what percentage of plant/tree life we have destroyed over the last 200 years or so, this would impact on the amount of CO2 we have produced over the same period.
US foreign and economic policy must take a large share of the blame through how it handles deforestation. Many tropical rainforests - such as the Amazon - have been destroyed, that acted not only as environmental sinks but areas of massive biodiversity, which have also been destroyed in the process.
Removing such vast swathes of vegetation creates a situation where had that CO2 been taken up by plants and trees, was, instead, put back into the atmosphere.
The difficulty about climate change and global warming is the composition of the atmosphere itself. For example, the constituent parts of the stratosphere are very much different to the molecular base at ground level. It is with this is mind that question marks can legitimately be placed against he so-called 'mathematical proofs'.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Baron von Lotsov.:
The issue of population growth and economic development does appear to be gaining extra weight all the time, in terms of explaining why the earth's temperature is rising.
I was reading a scientific journal recently that looked at the phenomenon from space. In this article, the mathematics of a circle and sphere were discussed and how the surface area of a sphere is four-times that of a circle: in that, when individual rays of radiation are spread across the earth the surface area of a spherical globe allows much, more to be absorbed.
This issue is of course much social science as it is physical science.
Not kidding on the social science aspect, which should be discussed MUCH more. Starting with our reaction to all these issues. Many people appear to be motivated towards an opinion before they even get to the physical science for a start.
If you believe the man-made climate change theorists, we have entered a critical phase, and our actions/inactions now, will seal our fate. We had better not screw up due to social reasons clouding our judgement.
Are you aware of the views and philosophy put forward by Professor James Lovelock, under his GAIA Theory? Although GAIA is not a new phenomenon – it stems back to the 70s – is does provide some heavy social influences which seem to be addressed more and more in today’s era.
In your reply to me, you do make brief reference to nuclear energy. The CO2 output in connection with having nuclear power driving our energy needs is so negligible that it is often overlooked. However, saying that, you will be aware of the environmental concerns that nuclear power does pose, such as waste, disposal and decommissioning costs. Sizewell ‘B’ is Suffolk, which provides a high input into the national grid, is a good example and model of how things can be run safely and effectively.
Originally posted by BritishAirman: Baron von Lotsov.:
The issue of population growth and economic development does appear to be gaining extra weight all the time, in terms of explaining why the earth's temperature is rising.
I was reading a scientific journal recently that looked at the phenomenon from space. In this article, the mathematics of a circle and sphere were discussed and how the surface area of a sphere is four-times that of a circle: in that, when individual rays of radiation are spread across the earth the surface area of a spherical globe allows much, more to be absorbed.
This issue is of course much social science as it is physical science.
It's just as well really because do you know how cold it is on the moon? You certainly won't be doing any sun bathing if you ever visit it and all because it does not have the atmosphere to create a greenhouse effect. The earth is a self-regulating system and that’s why our atmosphere has survived for billions of years despite dramatic climate changes. The minute amount of carbon is insignificant to this and the claim that you will get a thermal run away situation or what is known as positive feedback with an accompanying exponential temperature rise is simply a lie. It's scare mongering and unfortunately fears sells. Hopefully a bit of a cold spell will bring everyone back to sanity, but will it be reported if the global temperature takes a drop? I mean, it will do sooner or later as it is in a constant state of change.
Has the mathematics not proved beyond doubt that global warming and climate change is a very real issue as advocated by Revelle and Suess?
'proved' is a bit of a strong word - considering that there has been no warming of the Southern Hemisphere you should not claim 'proof' of anything.
Why is it on this subject it is always that with the melting will come coastal flooding. All ancient civilizations record a massive flood, most likely causing the submergence of the famed Atlantis. Which implies that there was more land during a time where more of the water was in the atmosphere and the climate was lush in the middle east. Doesn't it make at least as much sense that any rise in temperature would correspond to an equivalent or even more increase in the general level of moisture in the air and that the only ones in danger of global warming is the inevitable re-cooling that then floods the new land masses that arose due to the increased water vapor that then falls back down and submerges those land masses that once again became habitable?
