Global Warming

[Thundery wintry showers]

Yes, I completely agree with the above.

Interesting the point about taxation and intervention, and that intervention may become necessary eventually. Although I said I favour the carrot and stick approach, more specifically, my philosophy has generally been 'apply carrots, and only use sticks if it subsequently becomes clear that they are necessary' (the aim being to maximise protection of the environment while minimising the amount of force and unpopular decision-making required). I do get the impression that there is much in common between our views.

[parmenides3]

So, if we have a common agreement that we know what has to be done ((mitigation and adaptation), who has to do it (both the global community and the individual), and what can be done (e.g. examples like the above), the question then becomes HOW do we get the people whop have to do it to get on with it, instead of posing and posturing about how much they care?

Sixty-four dollars for the cleverest answer.

:)P

[Gray-Wolf]

Though 'think global , act local' is a fine buzz phrase to actually re-educating the many whose behaviours are passed down from parents who were baulking away from the Austerity years is difficult.

When eating meat daily is a norm (though an imaginable luxury for the generation who 'trained' them ) or that clothing is a thing to wear and discard (as a move away from 'mend and make do') or that personal transport is a 'right' and not a 'luxury' leaves the job of day to day 'right living' a very hard thing to achieve.

I feel that 'right living' is a matter of personal conscience and not a 'fix it' for the planet (which is lost).

[Mondy]

Quite an interesting chart this one:

Why it's interesting is because, the current "peak" in CO2 levels is comparable to the other "high spots" on the graph. The spacing between peaks is remarkably similar. With a spike/peak occurring about every 110K years. Could it possibly be that we are just coming into a part of the natural cycle where CO2 peaks?

But, being the biggest sceptic on here, even i don't like the look of this chart! ( )

So, they you go GW'ers - is Mondy being swayed or not?

Nah...........lol

The saving grace for me is reading these two articles:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Edited January 29, 2007 by Mondy

[Gray-Wolf]

Hmmmm? So the other 'peaks' (which don't seem to exceed 300ppm) are similar to the 'second peak' on top of the 300ppm peak we experienced in association with the last ice age?

I don't get it, a rise of 80ppm in the blink of an eye compared to the gradual (1000yrs?) rises during the environmental peaks which only made it to our 'normal 300ppm' peak?

To me it appears as though we have undergone a rapid increase above and beyond all the other peaks to the point that the graph makers have to introduce another scale to more faithfully represent the past 200yrs.

[parmenides3]

There's a short commentary, followed by a couple of hunfred comments, including Kay Scafetta in person, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...hange/#more-351

I'm not sure what the other article is supposed to show, Mondy. Solar influence is not questioned; how much solar influence has been debated over the past few year, but it cannot be made to account for the changes in temperature, based on the measurements we have. The 11 year cycle is a fairly well-established phenomenon. the ice age shifts have been much discussed, the trouble being that, assuming that we know reasonably well what caused the previous ice ages & warmings, none of the necessary elements is in place to account for the end of the graph.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Hmmmm? So the other 'peaks' (which don't seem to exceed 300ppm) are similar to the 'second peak' on top of the 300ppm peak we experienced in association with the last ice age?

I don't get it, a rise of 80ppm in the blink of an eye compared to the gradual (1000yrs?) rises during the environmental peaks which only made it to our 'normal 300ppm' peak?

To me it appears as though we have undergone a rapid increase above and beyond all the other peaks to the point that the graph makers have to introduce another scale to more faithfully represent the past 200yrs.

Yes. YES! I've digging around for that one in my mind for yonks.

What concerns me is not so much the concentration, but the rate of change. This seems a subtle point, but I don't think it is. Man has existed (I think) with significantly higher CO2 levels, and life, most certainly has.

It is the rate of change that means species are expected to adapt quicker to a changing climate that is the worry. I don't really care that millions who live in the Thames valley are going to lose a fortune when their ground-floor luxury flat floods; I care that the entire food chain may not be able to adapt.

We, as humans, are the most marvellous example of adaptation that this world has ever seen. Indeed, there are arguments that we're now outside evolutionary trends and cycles. If lower species cannot adapt that what the hell are we going to eat?

OK that sounds alarmist, and I apologise.

[edit] If we are the only mammals left after this GW exercise that means we'll have to go back to eating nuts and berries. No more fat-boys from McDonalds, then!! [/edit]

[edit2] Fortunately yeast grows in a vast variety of conditions. The excreta from yeast is currently what I'm enjoying now . . . [/edit2]

There's a short commentary, followed by a couple of hunfred comments, including Kay Scafetta in person, here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...hange/#more-351

I'm not sure what the other article is supposed to show, Mondy. Solar influence is not questioned; how much solar influence has been debated over the past few year, but it cannot be made to account for the changes in temperature, based on the measurements we have. The 11 year cycle is a fairly well-established phenomenon. the ice age shifts have been much discussed, the trouble being that, assuming that we know reasonably well what caused the previous ice ages & warmings, none of the necessary elements is in place to account for the end of the graph.

:)P

I thought the 11 year cycle didn't even show up on a (basic) fourier analysis? Am I wrong?

Edited January 30, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Mondy]

It's a given that the solar cycle is 11 years long. It can be much shorter or longer...something like 7 or 15 years.

[Gray-Wolf]

I enjoy yeast excretia as well!!! 'specially when mixed with hops and malt..........

[Stratos Ferric]

Whoops. WiB bites! lol

WiB, or anyone else, if you have a few spare hours(!) have a read of this thread. Some v. interesting replies to say the least!

Brilliant stuff. I mean, as if Pilots have any vested interest at all in whether or not AGW exists. They're bound to be objective. I think we should also start allowing criminals to set theior own sentences, in fact, hell, let's make it a condition of sitting on a jury that you're actually currently a criminal. Brilliant...

[johnholmes]

this one caught my eye

Plane Stupid, is that one of those protest groups like the one that appeared on Airline/Airport on sky protesting about pollution from aircraft but turned up in an 80 car cavalcade and sat there protesting with their engines running for two hours

there are always at least two sides to any argument.

[Stratos Ferric]

The saving grace for me is reading these two articles:

http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/2005/09/sunwarm.html

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html

Mondy, do you actually ever red the articles you post or do you employ a random "shoot yourself in the foot" generator?

The Duke article is sugesting that 10-30% of recent warming MIGHT be due to solar irradiance. That leaves what proportion of the warming unaccounted for?

And the second article, penned in 2003, suggests we'll be at a solar minimun by 2006: and in the great scheme of global temperature 2006 finished where?

I'm assuming from these articles that you have indeed changed your view and are supportive of the GW theory therefore.

What I also like, given that both these articles acknowledge warming, and you gladly post them up, is your response in another thread refusing to accept the notion of warming at all. And you wonder why your arguments are carrying little weight.

[snowsure]

Mondy, do you actually ever red the articles you post or do you employ a random "shoot yourself in the foot" generator?

The Duke article is sugesting that 10-30% of recent warming MIGHT be due to solar irradiance. That leaves what proportion of the warming unaccounted for?

And the second article, penned in 2003, suggests we'll be at a solar minimun by 2006: and in the great scheme of global temperature 2006 finished where?

I'm assuming from these articles that you have indeed changed your view and are supportive of the GW theory therefore.

What I also like, given that both these articles acknowledge warming, and you gladly post them up, is your response in another thread refusing to accept the notion of warming at all. And you wonder why your arguments are carrying little weight.

The Duke article appears to question the extent of mans influence "This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said."

If humans are only contributing 70% to the problem then the models have to change. I reckon that the action that we have to take should still the same.

The Duke report also states ""The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun," Scafetta said. "The longer the time period the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt.""

This perhaps deals with your second point, SF. The time taken for this solar minima to cause terrestrial reaction may make 2007 a less hot year.

Just a thought!

We should put thermometers on the Moon and observe the temperature changes there. It would make a more fair test!

[Mondy]

Goodness, i'm hoping my cantankerous old men jibe elsewhere hasn't upset anyone - considering both SF and JH have replied within a very short time of each other. Hmm!

If it requires you both, particularly SF, to go over old water and make me appear even more stupid, fair enough.

I did try (yet agin) to have my final say on the matter earlier. If provocation is now your ulterior motive because nobody else today is 'playing', be a jolly good chap, SF and don't respond to this.

[Gray-Wolf]

Goodness, i'm hoping my cantankerous old men jibe elsewhere hasn't upset anyone - considering both SF and JH have replied within a very short time of each other. Hmm!

If it requires you both, particularly SF, to go over old water and make me appear even more stupid, fair enough.

I did try (yet agin) to have my final say on the matter earlier. If provocation is now your ulterior motive because nobody else today is 'playing', be a jolly good chap, SF and don't respond to this.

Yer lookin' at me Fella???? I'll telephone boxin' break yer neck faster than a Bernard Mathews Turkey yer natural causes whalla..............

[Gray-Wolf]

Ooopsie the above was a joke folks.......sorry for any upset. Ian

[disco-barry]

I understand GW's thought's but SF your trying to force opinion and your quite obviously rude.

GW what should i do to help slow global warming if it exists?

[Stratos Ferric]

Goodness, i'm hoping my cantankerous old men jibe elsewhere hasn't upset anyone - considering both SF and JH have replied within a very short time of each other. Hmm!

If it requires you both, particularly SF, to go over old water and make me appear even more stupid, fair enough.

I did try (yet agin) to have my final say on the matter earlier. If provocation is now your ulterior motive because nobody else today is 'playing', be a jolly good chap, SF and don't respond to this.

Not at all: I'm neither cantankerous nor especially old. I had rather assumed that you weren't aiming that at anyone on here not least because I think better of you than that - am I mistaken? However, seeing as you see fit to respond to my coincident response in this way then you might in future at least have the courage of your convictions if you want to make a jibe at someone: make it directly instead of spraying the shot around and claiming the target is whatever you appear to hit.

My intention is not to make anyone appear stupid, but in the interests of debate in an open forum I am not going to be cowed into accepting facts that are clearly flawed, arguments that are undeniably specious, or opinions that are unfounded. If you, or anyone, want to share them openly, then accept challenge if they are seen to be flawed. I don't think I have called you stupid in this thread, and it's surprising therefore that you now choose to make a grab for that cap.

I am more than happy to have anyone challenge any of the original, or derived, data or arguments that I put forward on here. There is nothing so sad in life as a closed mind, and since the art of winning an argument requires that you open your mind to the possibility that the other side is right - how else can you disprove their belief - then you may ponder on your moan earlier that you didn't seem to make your arguments very well. That's not my fault, or John's, or anybody else's.

I loved your comment re needing to have the final say. I'll respond as and when I like if you don't mind, unless you're now the arbiter of the rules of discussion.

D-B: you fall into the huge majority on here who feel that because they have a view they are correct in that view - it seems to be a problem with society as a whole today. I'm not forcing my view on anybody; what I am doing is arguing stridently - there's a difference. If I were forcing my view I'd be denying you the right to answer back; all I am doing is demonstrating why I believe what I do (which is more than you are doing) and as and when you or Mondy or anyone else actually present a contrary view, why I disagree - if I do.

To be honest, above all else, I'm sad and disappointed. There is some good and robust debate on here, but I don't understand the point of joining in if you've already made your mind up, particularly if you have done so ipon a case that the vast majority of informed people would consider to be, at the very least, weak. You may both well sink with your ship, which would seem foolish in the extreme.

Edited February 4, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[disco-barry]

As i asked GW, What should i then do to help change ??

[HighPressure]

OK not sure if is the right thread but OK I have read many a theory on GW and the latest reports that man is responsible for 90% of global warming. If this is what many world experts are saying we must therefore also accept their projections. These paint a very bleak picture with a huge impact on every human and animal inhabiting our planet and probable irreversible change and damage to our climate.

My question is if this is the case we face the biggest global disaster in human history, therefore I find the argument for us to change our lightbulbs and to put up a few wind turbines a total and utter waste of time. The emergence or countries such as China and unwillingness of the USA to act means that if all possible UK reductions were made today they would be entirely eradicated within 3 months by China alone. Therefore as the threat is so great the only action that can be taken in reality is to stop all imports and exports to China and the USA and others of like mind. This should be followed up by UN sanctions against the offending countries and if that did not have the desired effect then military action should be sanctioned and actioned by a UN force.

Of course the problem is that the otherside have the bigger military might and sanctions will never be put in place and if they were they would be ignored. Any attempt to put sanctions on the US or China would most likely met with military force probably nuclear against those trying to save the planet. Both the USA and Chinese economies are built on the very foundations the GW lobbyist wish to dismantle, we cannot even stop these runaway trains from speeding up let alone slow them down.

I really do get angry when I read about a few lightbulbs of a tiny wind powdered project somewhere, is it just so a few can wave their hands in the air when the crap hits the fan and say look nothing to do with me I changed my lightbulbs. Lets face it if the IPCC projections are correct then this will place the USA and China at the top of the all time international terrorist league by some distance. Their failure to act now is a global act of war such is their threat to this planet and should be treated accordingly. Changing 6 lightbulbs in your house and going green by taking the train once a week is total balderdaDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me

[Pickles]

Having just skimmed over a few threads on the subject of Global Warming I chose this general thread to post my reply. what seems apparent, is that people seem to think they will have to stop doing things completely, and in an ideal world, that would happen. But there are ways of reducing the amount of emissions put into the atmosphere, yet still carry on with a normal life and not notice any change.. I provide solutions to businesses which reduce energy consumption by anything up to 55%, this is not just on a couple of processes but on a whole range of them.

For instance, a heating boiler pumps out co2 like there is no tomorrow and a lot of it is wasted because the boiler still burns energy, even when the heat exchanger cannot take anymore heat. By attaching an intelligent control unit to the boiler, it reduces the energy consumption by up to 40% meaning the emissions are reduced by 40% as well, and these controls do not cost a lot of money, in fact in most cases 1 years energy savings will pay for the unit.

It is the same with electricity, by attaching a simple control box to a power unit, energy reduction can be achieved on items such as motors, lighting and other electrical items.

I honestly cannot see why so many people consider reducing their carbon footprint such a dreadful complicated thing, when in fact it can be not only beneficial to the environment, but also to the pocket.

[Stratos Ferric]

Having just skimmed over a few threads on the subject of Global Warming I chose this general thread to post my reply. what seems apparent, is that people seem to think they will have to stop doing things completely, and in an ideal world, that would happen. But there are ways of reducing the amount of emissions put into the atmosphere, yet still carry on with a normal life and not notice any change.. I provide solutions to businesses which reduce energy consumption by anything up to 55%, this is not just on a couple of processes but on a whole range of them.

...

I honestly cannot see why so many people consider reducing their carbon footprint such a dreadful complicated thing, when in fact it can be not only beneficial to the environment, but also to the pocket.

Completely agree. I did some work for the Carbon Trust three years ago working on, I suspect, a larger scale than yur clients - and therefore less granularity - but even so significant savings were not hard to achieve. In the same way as all it would take to have a clean and tidy Britain would be for each and every one of us never to put any waste anywhere other than in a receptacle somewhere in the collection chain (and thatreallyis not great effort - the yobs who throw rubbish out of their car windows probably pass rubbish bins 100 times a day), so with more care we could reduce significantly our demands for energy, and so CO2 / GG by-products.

OK not sure if is the right thread but OK I have read many a theory on GW and the latest reports that man is responsible for 90% of global warming. If this is what many world experts are saying we must therefore also accept their projections. These paint a very bleak picture with a huge impact on every human and animal inhabiting our planet and probable irreversible change and damage to our climate.

My question is if this is the case we face the biggest global disaster in human history, therefore I find the argument for us to change our lightbulbs and to put up a few wind turbines a total and utter waste of time. The emergence or countries such as China and unwillingness of the USA to act means that if all possible UK reductions were made today they would be entirely eradicated within 3 months by China alone. Therefore as the threat is so great the only action that can be taken in reality is to stop all imports and exports to China and the USA and others of like mind. This should be followed up by UN sanctions against the offending countries and if that did not have the desired effect then military action should be sanctioned and actioned by a UN force.

Of course the problem is that the otherside have the bigger military might and sanctions will never be put in place and if they were they would be ignored. Any attempt to put sanctions on the US or China would most likely met with military force probably nuclear against those trying to save the planet. Both the USA and Chinese economies are built on the very foundations the GW lobbyist wish to dismantle, we cannot even stop these runaway trains from speeding up let alone slow them down.

I really do get angry when I read about a few lightbulbs of a tiny wind powdered project somewhere, is it just so a few can wave their hands in the air when the crap hits the fan and say look nothing to do with me I changed my lightbulbs. Lets face it if the IPCC projections are correct then this will place the USA and China at the top of the all time international terrorist league by some distance. Their failure to act now is a global act of war such is their threat to this planet and should be treated accordingly. Changing 6 lightbulbs in your house and going green by taking the train once a week is total balderdaDoh a dumb swear filter got the better of me

Sorry, but that's completely wrong and as alarmist as most of the worst extremism regarding GW. I also am not aware that GW lobbyists have any anti-commercial intent.

You make, to say the least, a quantum leap from the current problem to nuclear armageddon, barely stopping to pass go and collect £200.

Most energy is used to keep houses warm, therefore we can all make a contribution. Personal travel is also a big contributor. Yes, industry has to do its bit too, and some form of control may well be necessary, but to make an argument for doing nothing on a personal level on the basis that we are insignificant is misguided. We may be small individually, but collectively we make a massive demand on the planet's resources, whether as primary, or secondary, consumers.

Time and again posters make the same argument which to my eyes come over as a "why should I". It is PRECISELY that sort of attitude that will prevent change.

[senmut]

Do you think that sun-spots, electromagnetic activity (permanently increasing and (now) strongest per last 8000 years) are only not important changes without influence (The last 11Sun's cycle with maxima in 2011,2012 should be even according the forecastsof matrialistic scientiests strongest per last 400years/so long are there written measurements) on live creatures, on people?

Again the same politics-don't panics, nothing will happen..

Ha-Ha...

It is only next proof for approaching of Planet X to perihelia within next 5 years...in 2012.

Have you watched last enormous amount of hurricanes in Carribean area, in Japan, Australia-accompanied with earthquakes...where were hurricanes, earthquakes-there are islands-mountains-there are bands of totalities for Sun's eclipses, there are, or were (this summer) the most powerful influences of gravity of planets...!

Were and are these (and super strong winds, floods,...) only natural common phenomena too..ha...ha...

Acceleration of Earth's magnetic north pole motion, especial in last decade...goes toward north...direction Taurus, Gemini, ORION and is strongly increased! also ocenic water level rise but only on north hemisphere!

Opposition (summer 2003) of Mars-super closest-per 50000 years,

2004 (8.6) Venus transit and next in 2012, aphelia of Jupiter in 2011/during near flyby of X...are also only not important nothing saying facts!!??

Results of ice core analyses (GISP2,VOSTOK,...) and mainly last from Norway (Berilium...) show clearly 1500 year periodicity-what is orbital time of Planet X, where are stronger peaks after 5500 years....Suns activity is clearly tied with orbital motions of planets (Jupiter, Saturn)-11yers periodicity and also with Planet X periodicity-1500 years.

Astronomers, climatologists-don't be stupid and try to think about, read history texts,...!

Dendera zodiac, Senmut astronomical, map, Narmer Palette, funneral astronom. banner of markiza Tai, Bible, EnumaElish, Pol Vuh and other Mayan codexes, Chinese, Egypt.,Sumerian,Nordic,...old writings speak clearly,....

[eddie]

There is only one solution I can see to global warming and that is nuclear power. Wind, wave, and solar power all have their part to play as does using energy more efficiently but the true 'green' energy sources just can't provide enough energy and being more efficient is only putting off the invevitable.

As some have already pointed out in this thread, China and India are going through a period of huge develpment. African nations will probably soon follow so basically it doesn't matter how efficient we make cars or televisions becuase there are going to be billions more of them. What actually matters is where the energy to power them comes from.

I think the west should now be spending huge ammounts of cash on building new fission reactors so we can stop burning fossil fuels in the short term as well as pumping as much money as possible into researching nuclear fusion as safer, longer term solution.

Nuclear fusion has the potential to be a much cleaner/safer form of nulclear power and doesn't require or produce atomic bomb making material. This would make it safe to export that technology to developing nations to help them stop CO2 emissions. I believe the most developed nations have a duty to provide developing nations with an alternative to fossil fuels. We can't just preach to them about being green.

[trevw]

There is only one solution I can see to global warming and that is nuclear power.

I'm not against nuclear and think that for some countries it should definitely be looked at as part of the solution, but I read something the other day that explained that the US could provide all their current electricity demand and support their current rate of increase for a number of years using _just_ geothermal energy - cheaper to build than nuclear, using known technology and zero CO2 emission... seems a no brainer to me..