Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Leggy - the "big con" refers to the fact that Global Warming by "man-made" CO2 is speculative.
Indeed, if the "90 percent" figure that it is all down to "man-made" CO2 was true - then this would be demonstrable.
I do not JUST believe that government ARE using this as tax theft excercise - and they made it more punitive on the poor - this is a FACT.
This can be seen most clearly with the congestion charges and road charging policies.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
The "90 percent certain that human production of greenhouse gases is the main driver behind global warming" - so what percentage of that is CO2?
According to the US Department of Environment, (in 2001) 84 percent of (US) anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were CO2. If you do a bit of searching you can probably find data for other countries and other years and for the world as a whole. |
| |
|
|
I think that dihydrogen monoxide should be banned. That has a far greater effect on the environment than carbon dioxide and it is used so much in the different industries that it has found its way into virtually everything we eat and drink.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
I do not JUST believe that government ARE using this as tax theft excercise - and they made it more punitive on the poor - this is a FACT.
This can be seen most clearly with the congestion charges and road charging policies.
As a cyclist living in London (who could never really afford to run a car) I thought the congestion charge was a good thing, but it was brought in by Ken, not by central government. I think it was only on seeing the success of the congestion charge that the government got serious about road pricing. But these things are always talked about in terms of easing congestion, not cutting emissions, which perhaps you feel is dishonest. I think the problem with them is they're overly complex and I think it would be much simpler to just increase the tax on petrol and increase road tax, particularly for gas guzzlers. I think the government has been too reticent in doing things like that, though they were stung by the road lobby early on. It was a huge mistake caving in to them and now they need to stand up to them and really start making polluters pay, and being totally upfront about why they're doing it. And the money raised should be used to improve public transport, subsidize rail travel (which I think is currently the most expensive in Europe) plus tax relief on eco-friendly cars and bicycles and better cycle lanes. |
| |
|
|
Wouldn't it be better to improve public transport before forcing people out of their cars?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by legjoints: quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
The "90 percent certain that human production of greenhouse gases is the main driver behind global warming" - so what percentage of that is CO2?
According to the US Department of Environment, (in 2001) 84 percent of (US) anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were CO2. If you do a bit of searching you can probably find data for other countries and other years and for the world as a whole.
This does not mean that 84% of Global Warming is down to man-made CO2 - indeed from what I have seen they seem to grossly underestimate and understate the effect of Methane from animals used for human consumption towards GW. Nor does it answer the other simple questions e.g. the main one: prove "90 percent certain that human production of greenhouse gases is the main driver behind global warming". I suppose my main point of contention is this; it seems a half-*rsed attempt at preventing GW if we really are responsible for it. The world will end - but not if we pay government a lot more taxes and allow companies to buy carbon credits to get around any limits put on them? Yes - sure! At best from what we have seen of government efforts; they will force several thousand of the most poorest drivers off the road - saving minimal CO2 - but it will make roads less crowded for government and their rich friends. Meanwhile - the airplanes pump loads of rubbish directly into atmosphere and plans are afoot to get more airplanes into the skies. What else have the government done or said they are going to do exactly? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
Leggy - the "big con" refers to the fact that Global Warming by "man-made" CO2 is speculative.
I'm not sure what you mean by "speculative". I don't think it's any more speculative than the theory that there is a link between smoking cigarettes and cancer. Indeed, if the "90 percent" figure that it is all down to "man-made" CO2 was true - then this would be demonstrable. [/QUOTE] As for being demonstrable, demonstrable to who? Demonstrable to other scientists or demonstrable to the general public? There are a number of websites such as the one that started this thread that explain things in a way that most non-scientists should be able to understand, but there's quite a lot of reading there. If having read all that you still want more then you're really got to start reading the scientific papers themselves and training yourself to be a climate scientist - not something you can do in an afternoon. Climate science is a complex subject and you or I can't expect to read a peer-reviewed scientific paper and fully understand it, at least not in the way that someone trained in this field and working in it for many years would understand it. The General Thoery of Relativity has been demonstrated to be accurate within a high degree of accuracy, but if we were shown that demonstration would it mean much to any of us? And if you do a bit of Googling you can probably find websites claiming that the General Theory of Relativity is a load of nonsense, a hoax even. That doesn't mean we just have to sit back accept whatever someone with letters after their name says. We can at least understand how the peer review process for scientific papers works, how scientists spend ages testing one another's theories searching for errors. With such a system in place any kind of conspiracy is unimaginable. And we can act like a jury in a court case presented with testimony from forensic experts. We don't need to necessarily understand all the science, but we can make a judgement on the credibility of the witnesses. If the scientific community was split 50/50 on this then I could understand your skepticism, but they're not. You have the 2000+ scientists of the IPCC, the scientific academies of all G8 nations plus those of China, India and Brazil, virtually all peer-reviewed scientific papers of the past 10 years. I think that's overwhelming. If you think you know better than them because you've Googled onto a few dodgy blogs telling you it's all a scam, or simply because you think you know better, then that's just plain arrogant. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
This can be seen most clearly with the congestion charges and road charging policies.
In the case of London, the overriding factor was too much traffic in the centre. Toll roads on the other hand, are more to do with making money. I haven't used a toll road in the uk, but elsewhere in the world, it doesn't charge by how clean your car is. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: quote: Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.:
OK lets go through them then.
1 Some volcanoes are said to emit more greenhouse gasses than the entire carbon of industry. I have heard that before but not done the calculations myself so I neither know whether it is correct or not. However this does not imply that they have a significant effect on global temperature, which is where the bone of contention lies. I have never seen that claim before but the volcano thing is really to say if natural greenhouse gasses dwarf man-made then cutting back on man made gasses is not going to do anything. This does not mean the natural processes like volcanoes cause global warming since this is using the contentious arguments of the GW lobby. There is some faulty logic here which I hope you can see.
2 I'd say it was not precisely cyclic because there is not a lot to drive it in a cyclic way. There is the 11-year sun spot cycle which can have an effect on the weather due to charged particles in the ionosphere and there are a few perturbations in planetary orbits, but these are not very cyclic, they are far more complex functions. Even if you look at things like pole shifts and ice ages they are not cyclic because cyclic refers to repetition at a fixed interval. They repeat but not at fixed intervals so we can pin it on something that repeats at the same rate. Ice ages appear to be nearly cyclic but pole shift are much less predictable except to say there will be another one after the last one.
3 Yes the weather is driven by the sun, it is the energy source. However you also need to look at the role of sunspots. These have been successfully used to make long-term weather forecasts of upto 6 months in advance. Insurance companies use this data to set premiums when insuring against bad weather when someone wants to take out an insurance policy for say something like an outdoor event.
4 It is foolhardy to say that the trend is this or that. You are looking at a chaotic function. It's a bit like looking at the FT 100 share index and putting a bet on whether it will go up or down in the next week. Such predictions are nearly always a gamble, you have a 50% chance of being right, but that's about it.
1. One large eruption may be possible but overall, volcanic activity is less than 10% of human emissions. 2. If that's case, the cyclical theory is very much in its infancy. 3. Again, the sun theory is very much in its infancy. 4. But the trend in the last hundred or so years has been going up. That is fact. But thanks anyway, at least it's good detailed explanations you have presented.
I agree, there is not much known about the effects of cosmic rays and solar winds affecting the weather. We know that they do and we know of mechanisms that are involved but you know it just does not attract the grant money. I think the same can be said for much of this high altitude physics and I suppose it's got quite a lot to do with the difficulty and expense of such research. They did send a probe up in the direction of the sun, I'm not sure exactly why but that is the sort of thing you need to do and to take various measurements. The normal weather satellites can't see everything. However I'm happy to admit that there is a lack of knowledge in this area, I don't go around saying that there is proof of this or that because we are a long way from understanding it. The idea that you can model the entire planet on a computer without knowing some of the fundamental mechanisms involved or even what is up there is pure idiocy. I know the public get impressed by giant computers but without feeding them the correct models then they are as good as useless. You can do a kind of finite element analysis to compute the weather a few days in advance but to compute what it will be in 50 years time! Crazy. Too many parameters, Too many unknowns, inaccuracy in historical data, difficulty in taking enough sample points and so on. Did they predict that this summer it would rain for three months at twice the average? I didn't see them do so. Now when they can prove they can make easy predictions correctly then we might start taking them a bit more seriously. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MadWorld: quote: Originally posted by legjoints: quote: Originally posted by MadWorld:
The "90 percent certain that human production of greenhouse gases is the main driver behind global warming" - so what percentage of that is CO2?
According to the US Department of Environment, (in 2001) 84 percent of (US) anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were CO2. If you do a bit of searching you can probably find data for other countries and other years and for the world as a whole.
This does not mean that 84% of Global Warming is down to man-made CO2 - indeed from what I have seen they seem to grossly underestimate and understate the effect of Methane from animals used for human consumption towards GW.
How do you know they underestimate it or understate it? I don't know if methane from cows used for human consumption would be counted as anthropogenic emissions or not, but I've heard that cutting down trees to make way for cattle (which I think they were doing in the Amazon a while back - don't know if they still are) has a double whammy effect on the environment, trees being a carbin sink and cattle greenhouse gas producers. And when you add in the emissions caused by the transportation of that beef long distances before it reaches your plate (or bun) it's even worse. It's not just about direct emissions from cars, planes and power stations, it's just as much about our land use and our diets. Forests cannot just be seen as an asset that's sold to the highest bidder and then plundered at will in whatever way makes the greatest short-term profit, and we have to examine what we choose to eat and what effects our choices have on our environment. |
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.:
I agree, there is not much known about the effects of cosmic rays and solar winds affecting the weather. We know that they do and we know of mechanisms that are involved but you know it just does not attract the grant money. I think the same can be said for much of this high altitude physics and I suppose it's got quite a lot to do with the difficulty and expense of such research. They did send a probe up in the direction of the sun, I'm not sure exactly why but that is the sort of thing you need to do and to take various measurements. The normal weather satellites can't see everything.
However I'm happy to admit that there is a lack of knowledge in this area, I don't go around saying that there is proof of this or that because we are a long way from understanding it. The idea that you can model the entire planet on a computer without knowing some of the fundamental mechanisms involved or even what is up there is pure idiocy.
I know the public get impressed by giant computers but without feeding them the correct models then they are as good as useless. You can do a kind of finite element analysis to compute the weather a few days in advance but to compute what it will be in 50 years time! Crazy. Too many parameters, Too many unknowns, inaccuracy in historical data, difficulty in taking enough sample points and so on.
Did they predict that this summer it would rain for three months at twice the average? I didn't see them do so. Now when they can prove they can make easy predictions correctly then we might start taking them a bit more seriously.
Unfortunately, that is the way it is, just probabilities. And the probabilities will change as more data becomes available. The only thing climate scientist have predicted correctly is the record warm summers and the record warm winters. That's not to say it's not just part of a cycle, afterall, the medieval period may have warmer than what we are seeing now. It may be just the earth is moving to a warmer planet after a cooling period, or we could be reversing the cooling period. However, there is no real understanding how this cycle works. Until then, shouldn't we side with caution and accept that humans are the most probably cause given that humans have created an inequilibrium in the system. |
| |
|
|
Irrational caution could be so very counterproductive. We only have limited resources and a lot of problems. If we divert nearly all these resources to some highly improbable scenario then something else will catch us out unaware. For example a legitimate environmental problem would be something like endocrine disrupters. Fish are being born with some kind of mutated genetics and they swim in the water we drink.
As it is I find this hype so very counterproductive because I know it is wrong. To make a prediction that the British weather will change, well that's such a safe bet. Then to add that global warming can make things cooler! I know that is rubbish because even if the scenario were correct it would not have instant effects. Also the positive feedback, small change= large effect is nonsense. On the contrary the entire atmospheric system we have is extremely robust and must achieve this with some kind of negative feed back regulator action. Indeed this is accomplished via water vapour. The global warming lobby probably does not even know about such things. They are an embarrassment to themselves.
|
| |
|
|
Hmmm I see the GW Poll has somehow disappeared  I talked earlier about Field Climatologists calling the largely theoretical model based prediction into question, due to a lack of evidence. It also tackels Manns Hockey Stick. Just Search for Doomsday Called Off and follow the obvious links. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Baron von Lotsov.:
As it is I find this hype so very counterproductive because I know it is wrong.
If you know it's wrong, prove it. quote: To make a prediction that the British weather will change, well that's such a safe bet. Then to add that global warming can make things cooler! I know that is rubbish because even if the scenario were correct it would not have instant effects.
That doesn't follow at all. "I know that STATEMENT X is incorrect because if STATEMENT X were correct it would not have instant effects." How does this demonstrate that STATEMENT X is incorrect? By the way, climate change can certainly result in local cooling. Changes in the ocean currents for instance, such as the gulf stream, could give northern Europe the same climate as similar latitudes in Canada - ie. considerably colder than at present. quote:
Also the positive feedback, small change= large effect is nonsense.
Demonstrate why you believe this to be nonsense. (Or just hold a microphone in front of a speaker.) quote: On the contrary the entire atmospheric system we have is extremely robust and must achieve this with some kind of negative feed back regulator action. Indeed this is accomplished via water vapour.
In a stable system you will find negative feedback. That keeps the system stable. However, if some change occurs pushing the system into a state of instability... [ quote: The global warming lobby probably does not even know about such things. They are an embarrassment to themselves.
By the global warming lobby do you mean the 2000+ scientists on the IPCC, the scientists who have written peer-reviewed papers on climate change, the scientific academies of the G8 nations plus those of China, India and Brazil? It sounds like you don't understand the science and yet you're convinced you know better than trained scientists who have spent their entire working lives studying this subject. I find that really arrogant. |
| |
|
|
Maybe because you stuck a link with it. Don't be too suprised if C4 remove it. I got banned for posting a link because I broke policy.
Saw the above documentary. It is very well presented and factual and puts together a good case for 'non human' factor. Though the evidence in it is very compelling, it still falls short, because it doesn't seem to put forward whether there is climate change or not.
On one hand, the programme presents a good case no warming nor sea level rise, yet also says the warming is part of a cycle of moving from the end of our cooling period and moving into a warming period.
Good programme, but lacking a central message and leaves the viewer asking whether the skeptics believe the globe is heating or not? And if the globe is heating, what is non-human factor causing it?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Raver Ron: given the chance you would cruise in a Capri? Not really a babe magnet anymore, maybe you should upgrade to an Audi tt.
If one was cruising for hairdressers - a tt would suffice. The capri is just an old car - 2 decades old at best - four at oldest. But as a car only uses on the road 10% of the energy it takes to make - its pretty green for a 2.9 24v. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al: quote: Originally posted by Bioethanol: If its managed well - greenhouses in the sahara could be our best hope.
and what plant would grow under such extreme conditions with virtually no nutrients?
Al - Greenhouses. I.E. controlled climate, recycled water, composting plant waste, c02 from brewing recycled to feed plants etc... What nutrients does a plant need that can't be got from composting the same plant? |
| |
|
|
AGW is yet another scam in the age of scams that so obviously following the agenda of fear mongering on a global scale (the war of terror is the other major one).
Think of our childrens future they cry,when we know they don't give a stuff about them.
All you need to do is look up at the sky and observe all those trails of pollution left by jet aircraft everyday,most do not dissipate over a few minutes but linger,spread out and merge with the cloud cover.
These are not contrails of mostly water vapour,
these are chemicals sprayed into the air above us and are known as Chem Trails AKA Chemical trails.
This is not an uncommon phenomenon as they are occuring over most of the planet,and are seen in sattelite images.
Google chemtrails and observe.
|
| |
|
|
Tinfoil hat for table 3!
|
| |
|
|
2 ways to save the world:
===============
1.
I remember on "tomorrows world" (a programme from the last century that used to celebrate all kinds of real science on prime time BBC1), they showed a spinning little drum of green water that was going to be the key for space trave,
It was a soup of organisms with chlorophyl that scrubbed the co2 out of the air and excreted it in the form of sugar.
Imagine if every home had one in the window and the council could come round and pick up vats of syrup along with your recycling bin to be fermented and distilled on a local level into bioethanol....
----------------------------------------------
2.
Plant waste is cellulose - a tough form of condensed starch - which is in itself condensed sugar.
If we can culture the right kind of mould, or breed the right kind of ant or woodworm that can 'chew' the cellulose down to starch, we could turn a kilo of garden waste into a litre of bioethanol.
Hey presto - renewable fuel as plentiful as compost, grass cuttings, old newspapers, yellow pages and autumn leaves.
------
Or we could spend billions on yet more climate research.
If i heard a storm was coming - would you spend your time nailing everthing down - or building a wind measuring centre so you could prove that your neighbour's estimate of how blowy it is going to be may be wrong to three decimal places?
Priorities?
|
| |
|
|
