What If It's Not C02 ?

[Mr Sleet]

I'll kick it off

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_ar...erecomesthe.htm

[Methuselah]

That particular theory may have some, if limited, merit???

But this quote: 'Too many people have too much riding on greenhouse global warming -- research grants, business subsidies, personal prestige, bureaucratic power and political agendas -- to permit another theory to supplant it.' could be read as the realization that it's perhaps flawed in some way??

See the Woowoo Credo in my sig?

[PersianPaladin]

That particular theory may have some, if limited, merit???

But this quote: 'Too many people have too much riding on greenhouse global warming -- research grants, business subsidies, personal prestige, bureaucratic power and political agendas -- to permit another theory to supplant it.' could be read as the realization that it's perhaps flawed in some way??

See the Woowoo Credo in my sig?

Ahh, but there may be some truth in that quote Pete.

A good sceptic looks at all the arguments and tries to scrutinise and disseminate logic and balance from all of them. The reality is however, that in some subject fields there is a lot more grey than just a standard black and white dialectic.

Edited May 30, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[RedShift]

I'd never heard of the Scientific Alliance before. But after a bit of searching...one of its co-founders was Robert Durward (along with a former Downing street civil servant), a businessman from Lanarkshire with some erm....interesting views. His latest project is to launch a new political party in Scotland called the New Party (it may be coincidental that this was also the name of Oswald Mosley's first party)

David McLetchie, the ex-Tory leader in Scotland claimed the party was "fascist and undemocratic". Some Robert Durward quotes;

"It is time for Tony Blair to try the "fourth way": declare martial law and let the army sort out our schools, hospitals, and roads".

Durward is "'a businessman who is totally fed up with all this environmental stuff... much of which is unjustified, such as the climate change levy. We also have the aggregates tax, which will put the UK quarry industry out of business." He is also opposes the 'witch-hunt' against drink drivers.

See...gmwatch.org

gaurdian.co.uk

scotsman.com

scotsman.com

Maybe it's just me, but I wouldn't trust anything found on the Scientific Alliance website.

[The PIT]

Okay if you don't like it from that site try it from the authors web site instead.

http://www.phys.huji.ac.il/~shaviv/

Click on the link.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The other problem for this theory is, that even if CO2 has no effect, it doesn't mean that human activity is not in any way responsible for the change in global climate.

I would've thought that changing the planet's albedo, creating urban areas, chopping down rainforests, and releasing methane, ozone, oxides of nitrogen and sulphur, contrails etc. are all possible influences that could potentially result in changes in the global climate.

There's also the "global dimming" phenomenon- whether it causes a cooling or a warming, it is a human-induced climate condition.

[Guest Mike W]

Except global dimming isn't happening any more [it finished in the 80's] due to ever more vigorous clean air acts across the first world mainly in North America and Europe, the clean air act does nothing about Global Warming, in fact it's part of the cause in that accelerates it. In fact if the clena ir acts were to be scrapped right now, it would take decades to notice, certainly at least 1 decade due to how stringent it has become.

Edited May 30, 2006 by Mike W

[Scribbler]

I'll kick it off

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_ar...erecomesthe.htm

I note that the date of the Scientific Aliance report is July 2003

I've a feeling that what they say has been analysed and refuted to death in the past three years.

[Methuselah]

Ahh, but there may be some truth in that quote Pete.

A good sceptic looks at all the arguments and tries to scrutinise and disseminate logic and balance from all of them. The reality is however, that in some subject fields there is a lot more grey than just a standard black and white dialectic.

True. But a codicil such as that doesn't really belong at the bottom of a scientific argument; it adds NOTHING to the 'theory'??

I agree that there are times when fuzzy logic is more useful than Hegelian dialectic for finding 'truth'. But I don't think that that allows for the use of wholly irrelevant red herrings...If that theory flounders, it's because of its lack of explanatary power compared to CO2, and not necessarily because of one conspiracy or another?

[BrickFielder]

SO2 can have a very rapid affect on climate (often cooling) but CFC's are probably the main contributor to global warming along with Methane (CH4).

The percentages are:

Greenhouse gas % of sources related to

energy use

CO2 All sources: 2-4%

Man-made sources: 75-90%

CH4 All sources: 20 + 10%

Man-made sources: 32_ 16%

N2O All sources: 20_ 10%

Man-madesources: 70_ 20%

CFC-11

CFC-12 Man-made sources: 5 _ 10%

Tropospheric O3 None direct but tropospheric O3 is influenced by energy related sources of NOX, CH4, CO and other VOCs

Concentrating solely on CO2 will not solve the problem and some of the supposedly green political decisions are certainly suspect.

For instance although a diesel engines may have lower CO2 emissions than petrol ones thay have higher NOX and particulate emissions and to some extent this may have a larger affect on climate.

Another example is that to meet emission regulations that catalytic converters must last for more than 150000 miles manufacturers have achieved this by keeping the catalytic converter cooler than before especially at start up by pumping more unburnt petrol through the exhaust systems of the latest cars. This uses more petrol and increases certain gas emissions.

[Mr Sleet]

Thanks to all who have taken the time to contribute.I do not have an agenda but am getting a bit exasperated at the current " it's definitley man-made warming, done and dusted" fashion.

I have noted that the recent rise in temps started before the CO2 level began to rise-this is something that ahs happened in the

past as well.

I found this piece with a simple Google search.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

I expect someone will tell me this site is dodgy too !

[drgl]

Thanks to all who have taken the time to contribute.I do not have an agenda but am getting a bit exasperated at the current " it's definitley man-made warming, done and dusted" fashion.

I have noted that the recent rise in temps started before the CO2 level began to rise-this is something that ahs happened in the

past as well.

I found this piece with a simple Google search.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

I expect someone will tell me this site is dodgy too !

I think the reason behind that is there is a lag between what we do and the effect on the Earths atmosphere-if you take a boiling pan of water off the cooker the water isn't cold in seconds. Any changes to our outputs take time to effect the Earth. What bugs me is the Earth has been much warmer AND much colder in the past-who's to say this isn't just a nother shift? No doubt our emissions have had an effect on the climate BUT what caused the massive shifts in climate and global temps in the past? You can't blame us as we weren't around then! The UK has been tropical and burried under ice in the past(as far as we know).

[Mr Sleet]

I think the reason behind that is there is a lag between what we do and the effect on the Earths atmosphere-if you take a boiling pan of water off the cooker the water isn't cold in seconds. Any changes to our outputs take time to effect the Earth. What bugs me is the Earth has been much warmer AND much colder in the past-who's to say this isn't just a nother shift? No doubt our emissions have had an effect on the climate BUT what caused the massive shifts in climate and global temps in the past? You can't blame us as we weren't around then! The UK has been tropical and burried under ice in the past(as far as we know).

Point is though the temp rises then the CO2 starts to go up. CO2 solubility decreases as water temp rises.

[drgl]

Point is though the temp rises then the CO2 starts to go up. CO2 solubility decreases as water temp rises.

Interesting,any links to info?Thanks

[Methuselah]

Point is though the temp rises then the CO2 starts to go up. CO2 solubility decreases as water temp rises.

In the 'natural' situation, yes, I'd agree 100%...But that doesn't alter the FACT that we are adding CO2 that otherwise wouldn't be there. And that that additional CO2 will then inevitably exacerbate the positive feedback mechanism you highlight??

[Mr Sleet]

In the 'natural' situation, yes, I'd agree 100%...But that doesn't alter the FACT that we are adding CO2 that otherwise wouldn't be there. And that that additional CO2 will then inevitably exacerbate the positive feedback mechanism you highlight??

Yes you are right. But a doubling of C02 levels will most likelyo nly raise global temps up to 2.7degC.

See these pieces of work. Interesting that the energy input to the atmoshere of a doubling in CO2 is about 4 watts per sq metre.Most of these climate models include adjustments to energy flows of 100 watts per sq metre. Food for thought.

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15726

Interesting,any links to info?Thanks

With pleasure

http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/abstract.cgi/j...f?sessid=6006l3

[Dawlish]

Here's an interesting article (Thank you for the link Tracey!), which hints at a possible mechanism for warming - the earth "farting" CO2, rather than it being farted from 4x4s. Here's a short extract.

"New evidence from Arctic ice cores has shown that at the Palaeocene/Eocene Thermal Maximum, 55m years ago,

reveals that before 55 million years ago, the surface waters of the Arctic Ocean were ice-free and as warm as 18C (64F).

But the sudden increase in greenhouse gasses boosted them to a balmy 24C (74F) and the waters suddenly filled with a tropical algae Apectodinium"

Apparantly, the waters of the arctic changed be much less saline, allowing the bloom.

It's a possibility for the cause of Global Warming, but sadly, the article does not give a mechanism for the release of the terrestrial CO2. Maybe the earth just had a late Paleocene curry, or something.....

Paul

[SNOW-MAN2006]

Right

Having read all of your posts on this topic i have come to a resonable decision on the matter after many years of debate

i believe that Co2 is having no effect what so ever on the climate (like scribler's link said)

-BUT-

I do believe that Co2 levels are rising so Asthma may become more common as the body will have to work harder to filter out gases that it dosnt need

-So-

We are not effecting the climate but effecting ourlife style and if we continue at such a rate of burning C02 gases into the atmosphere then oxygen may eventually run out as forests are also being demolished

SNOW-MAN2006

[Mr Sleet]

Right

Having read all of your posts on this topic i have come to a resonable decision on the matter after many years of debate

i believe that Co2 is having no effect what so ever on the climate (like scribler's link said)

-BUT-

I do believe that Co2 levels are rising so Asthma may become more common as the body will have to work harder to filter out gases that it dosnt need

-So-

We are not effecting the climate but effecting ourlife style and if we continue at such a rate of burning C02 gases into the atmosphere then oxygen may eventually run out as forests are also being demolished

SNOW-MAN2006

But where is your DATA snowman ?

[I can't believe it's not better]

I do believe that Co2 levels are rising so Asthma may become more common as the body will have to work harder to filter out gases that it dosnt need

There's only a tiny fraction of Co2 in air. I doubt it would affect asthma. (I'd point the finger at cats and aroesols and carpets).

Edited June 1, 2006 by I can't believe it's not better

[Gray-Wolf]

There's only a tiny fraction of Co2 in air. I doubt it would affect asthma. (I'd point the finger at cats and aroesols and carpets).

I think you'll find that the Asthma 'blip' co-incides with the increase in electrical activity in peoples homes.......including the use of remotes (T.V. etc) and mobile phones. We are as much an electrical beastie as we are chemical and battering our synapses with strange chemicals will promote change but so will battering them with strange levels of potential difference (though in our 'electrical' world it doesn't do to dwell on it eh?)

If you're looking for a 'smoking gun' for the PETM then the opening of the Atlantic/flooding of the Deccan trapps or our own Tertiary volcanics would do nicely.

[Dawlish]

Right

We are not effecting the climate but effecting ourlife style and if we continue at such a rate of burning C02 gases into the atmosphere then oxygen may eventually run out as forests are also being demolished

SNOW-MAN2006

errrrrr.....

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

I'll kick it off

http://www.scientific-alliance.org/news_ar...erecomesthe.htm

Yep, very good post and topic. CO2 consequence or causation? Warming has invariably always started before CO2 rises...for me that is a big point because why should we warm before CO2 rises, and why should the planet plummet into an iceage with CO2 levels still on the up? Must be another cause and that explanation is a pretty good one IMO. After all without the sun there would be no warmth would there? :blink:

BFTP

[Methuselah]

Yep, very good post and topic. CO2 consequence or causation? Warming has invariably always started before CO2 rises...for me that is a big point because why should we warm before CO2 rises, and why should the planet plummet into an iceage with CO2 levels still on the up? Must be another cause and that explanation is a pretty good one IMO. After all without the sun there would be no warmth would there? :blink:

BFTP

That's possibly quite true in the 'natural' situation, BFTP?? I don't know, I wasn't there...

But, it's an indisputable fact that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere: ergo, it hasn't all got there by 'natural' means. So, whatever the causal (possibly entirely cryptic and undecypherable?) link that may connect temperature to CO2 in the 'natural' situation is, it may simply not apply here...We are not directly warming the planet; but we are pumping out billions of tonnes of CO2...along with other greenhouse gases.

IMO, we are creating a causal link of our own here; and it's that that we can do something about??

[johnholmes]

I have to say that the more I read the less certain I am of just what is the cause of our planet warming. It is warming, there is no doubt about that. Just what is responsible for it is much more open to debate as various threads on this site show.

None of us, however well educated in science or mathematics has the answer. One has only to read the sources of our information, be it for much of it being man made, sun made, some other reason, or a combination of part or all these.

Back in the late 1980's when global warming, by man, first really became fashionable, as opposed to the earlier theory that we were on the edge of an Ice age, I found it fascinating reading and(I was pretty privileged with my job) listening to some 'experts' propounding their various theories. I said then, and I cannot see that anything has changed, that for each argument for one cause of warming you can find another equally respected scientist who suggests the opposite.

John