Global Warming

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

What should we do about it? Lets not flatter ourselves

BFTP

[The Penguin]

You do what you like BFTP, it's your fault after all. We in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be off the hook. Ah, that feels so good.

[senior ridge]

Here's my input for the GW debate.

Admittedly very left of centre but no one has mentioned the idea of "Weather Modification" as an explanation of (man made) climate change at all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2084

Edited September 19, 2006 by senior ridge

[Dawlish]

Here's my input for the GW debate.

Admittedly very left of centre but no one has mentioned the idea of "Weather Modification" as an explanation of (man made) climate change at all.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...;articleId=2084

I think it is more of a local, weather modification, thing, rather anything to do with climate change, SR. Countries are still experimenting with this; the Chinese, Russians and Americans especially. Apparantly the Russians dusted the skies above the Madonna stage, before her recent Moscow(?) concert, with Silver iodide crystals to precipitate any rain beforehand. Paul Simons, in "The Tombs" reported that the concert stayed dry!

Paul

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

You do what you like BFTP, it's your fault after all. We in Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland appear to be off the hook. Ah, that feels so good.

Mmmm yep considering I am Welsh and spent most of my life there it must be my fault Ah yes of course Britain experiencing warm weather clear and guaranteed sign of AGW

BFTP

[senior ridge]

I think it is more of a local, weather modification, thing, rather anything to do with climate change, SR. Countries are still experimenting with this; the Chinese, Russians and Americans especially. Apparantly the Russians dusted the skies above the Madonna stage, before her recent Moscow(?) concert, with Silver iodide crystals to precipitate any rain beforehand. Paul Simons, in "The Tombs" reported that the concert stayed dry!

Paul

Hi Paul,

So why has the UN had to produce a treaty against weather modification?

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm

[Dawlish]

Hi Paul,

So why has the UN had to produce a treaty against weather modification?

http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4783.htm

I don't blame them SR. If there's an edge to be had, militarily, someone will devote money and resources into it; but when this treaty was developed in 1972, it was, as far as possible, all-encompassing. To my knowledge (which, of course, in the field of secret military research, is a little limited :blink: :o ) the sitiuation in the same now, as in 1972 - people are able to modify the weather (though probably hit and miss, on a short term basis) but not the climate - mainly because the latter is still not possible, except on a global, unthinking, indirect, way with CO2....... maybe!

Paul

Edited September 20, 2006 by Dawlish

[parmenides3]

There are some in the USA, no doubt elsewhere, who seriously propose ignoring emissions and injecting sulphates into the atmosphere to produce a 'cooling' effect. I have an opinion about such ideas.

A more interesting idea, which i can't find the link to now, is to generate low-mid layer cloud in the Pacific by use of micro-sprays of sea water above the surface; I've no idea if it would work, but it sounds a heck of a lot less scary than the above suggestion!

:blink: P

[The Penguin]

There are some in the USA, no doubt elsewhere, who seriously propose ignoring emissions and injecting sulphates into the atmosphere to produce a 'cooling' effect. I have an opinion about such ideas.

That stinks!

Seriously, this is how chemistry set interference will get us all killed. Pump in this, wait and see what happens, pump in that to negate this, and wait to see what happens, pump in something else etc. etc. etc. The fact is we're not smart enough to see where interventionism will take us, so let's not try, eh.

[parmenides3]

That stinks!

Seriously, this is how chemistry set interference will get us all killed. Pump in this, wait and see what happens, pump in that to negate this, and wait to see what happens, pump in something else etc. etc. etc. The fact is we're not smart enough to see where interventionism will take us, so let's not try, eh.

Yep, that's pretty much the opinion I mentioned having. :)P

[Snowly does it]

Yep, that's pretty much the opinion I mentioned having. :)P

Quite so.

Tinkering is the worst possible solution. I can only imagine what sort of mess we would get into if we start artificially cooling the climate and suddenly (as they are wont to do) a major volcanic eruption occurs.

Then where will we be? literally! The climatologists wil be asking 'where the hell are we under all this adjustment and tinkering?'

[Dawlish]

Quite so.

Tinkering is the worst possible solution. I can only imagine what sort of mess we would get into if we start artificially cooling the climate and suddenly (as they are wont to do) a major volcanic eruption occurs.

Then where will we be? literally! The climatologists wil be asking 'where the hell are we under all this adjustment and tinkering?'

When I mentioned the word "tinkering", I certainly didn't infer this! :o I meant tinkering with reducing CO2 emissions and that alone - which I think is exactly what will happen, for the reasons I've stated earlier!

Paul

[Snowly does it]

When I mentioned the word "tinkering", I certainly didn't infer this! :o I meant tinkering with reducing CO2 emissions and that alone - which I think is exactly what will happen, for the reasons I've stated earlier!

Paul

Fair enough Paul, but I am stealing the word tinkering to make the point specifically about sulphate injection etc, I.E artificial and direct attempts to cool things rather than mitigation of warming.

[Dawlish]

Fair enough Paul, but I am stealing the word tinkering to make the point specifically about sulphate injection etc, I.E artificial and direct attempts to cool things rather than mitigation of warming.

I know. I feel fleeced! :o

Paul

[Snowly does it]

I know. I feel fleeced! :o

Paul

Ah well, you were a worthy victim

[parmenides3]

Found another one!

I don't know whether you might think The Economist is balanced or biased. Either way, this article, from 7th September, makes for an interesting read:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...tory_id=7884738

Comments?

P

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Just a thought provoking thought.

But has anyone ever thought of this:

1) CO2 rises can be shown to link it with Global Warming

2) We, whether as a nation or world, are trying (or however you wish to put it) reduce CO2 emissions

In regards to point 2, have we actually calculated the minimum plato value? What effect will this minimum value have on our environment?

What I mean is, we will still be producing CO2, and pumping it into the atmosphere. When we reach the minimum value of CO2 being produced, what effect will this have? Will Global Temperatures still rise, when we have reached our minimum?

If so, where do we go from there?

[parmenides3]

Just a thought provoking thought.

But has anyone ever thought of this:

1) CO2 rises can be shown to link it with Global Warming

2) We, whether as a nation or world, are trying (or however you wish to put it) reduce CO2 emissions

In regards to point 2, have we actually calculated the minimum plato value? What effect will this minimum value have on our environment?

What I mean is, we will still be producing CO2, and pumping it into the atmosphere. When we reach the minimum value of CO2 being produced, what effect will this have? Will Global Temperatures still rise, when we have reached our minimum?

If so, where do we go from there?

Sorry, ChrisL, can you clarify 'plato value'? is this a typo, or something I haven't heard of yet? And your post is asking about minima - should that be maxima, or am I being dense this morning?

:)P

[Shiny_Bottom_1]

Sorry PP. Its probably me being unclear

CO2 Levels are rising

Global Temperatures are rising

There is a correlation between the two

Globally we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions

However, we are not planning to STOP CO2 emissions

Therefore, reducing CO2 emissions, will still leave a level of CO2 being ommitted into the atmosphere.

At some point, there will be a minimum saturation point (The minimum level of CO2 being omitted into the atmosphere)

Is this minimum CO2 value going to stop or reduce global warming, or will temperatures still continue to rise (albeit at a slower rate).

What I am thinking is, is our minimum CO2 level after reduction is still causing Global Warming, where do we go from there?

[parmenides3]

Sorry PP. Its probably me being unclear

CO2 Levels are rising

Global Temperatures are rising

There is a correlation between the two

Globally we are trying to reduce CO2 emissions

However, we are not planning to STOP CO2 emissions

Therefore, reducing CO2 emissions, will still leave a level of CO2 being ommitted into the atmosphere.

At some point, there will be a minimum saturation point (The minimum level of CO2 being omitted into the atmosphere)

Is this minimum CO2 value going to stop or reduce global warming, or will temperatures still continue to rise (albeit at a slower rate).

What I am thinking is, is our minimum CO2 level after reduction is still causing Global Warming, where do we go from there?

The currently 'fashionable' idea is to reduce new emissions over the next four decades, so that the saturation of CO2 in the atmosphere can be stabilised (i.e., not increased) at 450 parts per million (ppm) by around 2050. After 2050, the aim would be to emit no more than was being lost through natural chemical processes. By that time, some countries may have the money, technology and planning to be able to emit no CO2 at all, while others, in the developing world, for example, will still be emitting because they need more energy production for industrial growth than other sources can hope to supply, at the right price.

If (and at the moment this looks very unlikely), we were able to limit CO2 levels at 450ppm, we would continue to see a greenhouse effect until about 2200, with the effect slowly declining in the 22nd century. This, broadly, is the assumption of the more optimistic global climate models, which forecast an average increase in temperatures of 2-3C by 2100.

Even if other greenhouse gases, or other climate forcings, were to come into play, almost all of the climate science community accepts that this is a reasonable scenario; there is still a lot of disagreement though, about how good the models' predictive capability is, so there is still uncertainty, though this does not include uncertainty about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas; none of the attempts to disprove this have yet been accepted as credible.

So; (I repeat, this is the current most accepted theory, not written in stone fact) it is likely that temperatures will continue to rise for the next 200 years, even if we stop emitting CO2 by 2050.

Hope this helps.

P

Edited September 23, 2006 by parmenides3

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Sorry PP. Its probably me being unclear

CO2 Levels are rising

Global Temperatures are rising

There is a correlation between the two

I think your wrong. Yes CO2 levels are rising and yes it currently seems that the earth is warming but this world has been around for many years with many changes in her shape and climate. I feel that the earth is not in any danger. I think Climate change is happening however. The earth will continue to make changes to her shape and climate, very much like she has done millions of time. Only time will tell whether the human race is doomed however in the short term i do suggest we stop using all these natural resources which will soon run out and then we are in trouble...

SNOW-MAN2006

[parmenides3]

I think your wrong. Yes CO2 levels are rising and yes it currently seems that the earth is warming but this world has been around for many years with many changes in her shape and climate. I feel that the earth is not in any danger. I think Climate change is happening however. The earth will continue to make changes to her shape and climate, very much like she has done millions of time. Only time will tell whether the human race is doomed however in the short term i do suggest we stop using all these natural resources which will soon run out and then we are in trouble...

SNOW-MAN2006

I am sure that the earth is not in danger, but several thousands species of plant and animal, and as many as 2 billion humans, may well be. This regardless of the causes of change. As for the resources, that is another problem. there are those who believe that toxicity is soon going to be a bigger risk to life than climate change, but while we continue to consume, the resources will continue to be used.

P

Edited September 23, 2006 by parmenides3

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I have found some very interesting reading on this. I am at work and am still running throught the findings...I think one will find it very interesting. When I have read it I will post the link.

BFTP

[Guest Viking141]

I have found some very interesting reading on this. I am at work and am still running throught the findings...I think one will find it very interesting. When I have read it I will post the link.

BFTP

I am agog! Chop chop Blast!

[parmenides3]

I am agog! Chop chop Blast!

Ditto

:)p