Jump to content
Snow?
Local
Radar
Cold?
IGNORED

An Inconvenient Truth


Recommended Posts

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
So 6 billion people all coughing out CO2; building new industrial conurbations; using fossil fuels; tearing down forests, etc, etc, have nothing to do with climate change?

Come On............!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you're joking!!!!!!!

:(

The thing is that Co2 Damaging or altering the earth is a THEORY and my points are a THEORY

my evidnce is that the world has been changing since it's existance and will continue to do so!

SNOWMAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
my evidnce is that the world has been changing since it's existance and will continue to do so!

SNOWMAN2006

An unarguable truth, SNOWMAN. The only difference between now and at any time in the planet's history is that we now have 6 billion+ humans who will be affected by these climate's changes. Now I don't mean to denegrate many billions of other species, some, perhaps, with feelings and intelligence similar to our own, but they didn't have opposable thumbs and couldn't do anything about it.

It may be that we can and we can do it in a timeframe which may have benefits. There is no need for us to hide behind the natural cycle business. Even if it is a natural cycle, I believe we should try to alleviate the effects that the cycle may inflict on our species: if we can.

Paul

Edited by Dawlish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
my evidence is that the world has been changing since it's existence and will continue to do so!

SNOWMAN2006

Fair comment. :(

However......as has already been mentioned......, we're changing the world at a far faster rate than ever before. We've put the Earth on fast-forward. And we have no remote control to press to stop. :)

We're making things happen that should take millennia rather than decades and that isn't a natural change - it's man-made without a doubt. :)

but they didn't have opposable thumbs and couldn't do anything about it.

Paul

Hi Dawlish

That brought a picture to my mind of the Dutch boy with his thumb in the hole in the dyke! :)

I've a horrible feeling that we're now in much the same situation. We might plug the hole but we can't turn back time. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire
  • Location: Shrewsbury,Shropshire

The graphic on the BBC site also highlights that ice has NOT been retreating uniformly since 1980,compare 1982 to 1996 for example-there's a lot MORE ice in 1996 than 1982-how does that fit in with claims of constant warming in the same period? 1998 then shows less ice than 2000! It shows the ice is retreating in some areas and growing in others-it also highlights how thew ice is constantly shifting.

1982ice.jpg

1996ice.jpg

1998ice.jpg

2000ice.jpg

If we have warmed constantly in the same period how come the ice has grown AND retreated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Guess!
  • Location: Guess!
The graphic on the BBC site also highlights that ice has NOT been retreating uniformly since 1980,compare 1982 to 1996 for example-there's a lot MORE ice in 1996 than 1982-how does that fit in with claims of constant warming in the same period? 1998 then shows less ice than 2000! It shows the ice is retreating in some areas and growing in others-it also highlights how thew ice is constantly shifting.

If we have warmed constantly in the same period how come the ice has grown AND retreated?

It is a good question and it deserves a thoughtful answer.

We really must get away from the idea that both GW and its effects will be linear for a small area (and compared to the Earth as a whole, the Arctic is a small area).

Nobody from the scientific communuity has ever claimed that GW will be "constant warming" and they would be foolish to do so. This is a chaotic and complex system and even Global, never mind local, Warming processes will not be linear and surprisingly enough, they aren't. That doesn't change the fact that the Earth has warmed over the last 25 years (at least) and more likely to carry on doing so, than not and neither does it change the fact the Arctic ice is responding to that warming trend, by melting.

The responses of Arctic ice to the warming seem to fit well with my own predictions for the next decade and my retrospective predictions for the last decade: 7 years out of 10 being warmer than average; 1 being close to average (within 0.25C); two being below average. PLease not the "below average bit. I think the Arctic ice reflects the non-linear, but completely valid, warming trend, over the last few decades, very well.

Paul

Edited by Dawlish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
  • Location: Thame, Oxfordshire
So 6 billion people all coughing out CO2; building new industrial conurbations; using fossil fuels; tearing down forests, etc, etc, have nothing to do with climate change?

Come On............!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you're joking!!!!!!!

:wallbash:

It is a fact that there is no positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. A "slight" flaw in the AGW argument I would say.

In fact, the C02 concentration usually goes up after the temperature rise and vice versa. I'm willing to concede if someone can show me factually otherwise.

I've got no axe to grind.I assumed that the evidence was there but I was shocked when I actually did the research myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
It is a fact that there is no positive correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature. A "slight" flaw in the AGW argument I would say.

In fact, the C02 concentration usually goes up after the temperature rise and vice versa. I'm willing to concede if someone can show me factually otherwise.

I've got no axe to grind.I assumed that the evidence was there but I was shocked when I actually did the research myself.

So, CO2 isn't a ghg? No, it is a ghg and the rise in it's concentration due to our activities WILL have an effect.

Also you simply can't compare the end of ice ages, when it seems CO2 warming was a feedback effect, with now where, and this is abundantly clear, CO2 is clearly acting as a climate forcing effect. Future feedback CO2 warming as an effect of present, past and future anthropogenic CO2 forcing may well also happen.

Edited by Devonian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
The thing is that Co2 Damaging or altering the earth is a THEORY and my points are a THEORY

my evidnce is that the world has been changing since it's existance and will continue to do so!

SNOWMAN2006

No Snowman, your points are not (in my opinion) a theory. They may constitute an hypothesis, but they do not make a theory...For example, where are your data, your tests for falsification, your list of a priori assumptions, bibliography...etc., etc., etc.?

Unfortunately, your 'evidence' says nothing at all in support, or otherwise, of your conclusions...It's just a stand-alone fact, is all! :wallbash:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
No Snowman, your points are not (in my opinion) a theory. They may constitute an hypothesis, but they do not make a theory...For example, where are your data, your tests for falsification, your list of a priori assumptions, bibliography...etc., etc., etc.?

Unfortunately, your 'evidence' says nothing at all in support, or otherwise, of your conclusions...It's just a stand-alone fact, is all! :wallbash:

Well considering that only recently have humans devloped the technology to record weather but there is no evidence in the world that says your theory or my 'hypothesis' is true. Yes i dont have data the reason being that humans havent been alive long enough to record a reliable pattern. And for the same reason as before i cannot test the weather patterns due to me only living around 80 years and weatehr recordings only going back a few hundred years.

Frankly you have your opinion and i have mine but i am not going to sit back on this or any other forum and not discuss my points.

Co2 is a gas and 6 billion people are exhailing it all the time but there where far more dinosaurs than humans many years ago.

Also anopther point i may just make is that we do not ADD carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! we inhale a mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen along with some other small gases and we exhale the exact same amount of carbon dioxide. There is no greater amount of carbon dioxide being exhauled than being inhauled.

Other points are on my 'Bibliography':

http://www.gcrio.org/doctorgc/index.php/drweblog/C53/

( this site does blame humans for golboal warming but i have used it for the puropse of my EVIDENCE)

Now if i take your point of Co2 i can also state that yes C02 levels are getting higher due to deforestation. This is when tree are burnt and the C02 that the tree contains is then released into the atmosphere once more increasing c02 levels.

So i think i have enough evidence here to back up my voiews on things but whether i have enough to clas my views as a theory or not yet i will leave that to pete tattum.

SNOW-MAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
The graphic on the BBC site also highlights that ice has NOT been retreating uniformly since 1980,compare 1982 to 1996 for example-there's a lot MORE ice in 1996 than 1982-how does that fit in with claims of constant warming in the same period? 1998 then shows less ice than 2000! It shows the ice is retreating in some areas and growing in others-it also highlights how thew ice is constantly shifting.

If we have warmed constantly in the same period how come the ice has grown AND retreated?

I recall Terminal Moraine referring to an article which showed that the cold air sources for wintry weather in the British Isles had not warmed during the years running up to 2002. Thus the anomalous lack of snow during the late 1980s and 1990s could be largely put down to anomalous synoptics. The change in British temperature, however, was only partly due to synoptics as many of the warmer air sources did warm over the period.

Since 2002, the Arctic has warmed appreciably, and we have had northerlies straight from the Arctic in cases when parts of the Arctic weren't significantly colder than Britain (!), here's my favourite example: http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/ra/20...00120050213.gif

http://www.wetterzentrale.de/archive/ra/20...00220050213.gif

The changes in ice cover may well reflect the lack of warming in the Arctic up until 2002, and the dramatic warming since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Also anopther point i may just make is that we do not ADD carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! we inhale a mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen along with some other small gases and we exhale the exact same amount of carbon dioxide. There is no greater amount of carbon dioxide being exhauled than being inhauled.

SNOW-MAN2006

So why does an hermitally sealed room containing living, breathing people become oxygen-depleted and CO2-rich, then? Where does the oxygen go? Where does the CO2 come from? Could the reaction: C + O2 --> CO2 have something to do with it :wallbash:

Btw, I don't think that our breathing has any effect on GW, either... B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
So why does an hermitally sealed room containing living, breathing people become oxygen-depleted and CO2-rich, then? Where does the oxygen go? Where does the CO2 come from? Could the reaction: C + O2 --> CO2 have something to do with it B)

Btw, I don't think that our breathing has any effect on GW, either... B)

Question 1: So why does an hermitally sealed room containing living, breathing people become oxygen-depleted and CO2-rich, then?

C02 is then produced by the body from food we eat (which contains c02 like vegeatbles) so a higher c02 level

Question 2:Where does the oxygen go?

oxygen is taken into the body (blood) to provide energy for the muscles

question 3:Where does the CO2 come from?

c02 comes from carbon and a mixture of oxygen (which you did note) and the carbon comes from the lungs in a process called respiration

Final statement:

Well you or someone made a remark about 6 bliion people breathing c02 into the atmosphere will have a greenhouse effect

SNOW-MAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
Also another point i may just make is that we do not ADD carbon dioxide into the atmosphere! we inhale a mixture of oxygen, carbon dioxide and nitrogen along with some other small gases and we exhale the exact same amount of carbon dioxide. There is no greater amount of carbon dioxide being exhaled than being inhaled.

SNOW-MAN2006

I can't let you get away with that! B)

Air that we inhale contains 78% Nitrogen; 21% Oxygen; about 0.04% Carbon Dioxide and a small quantity of other gases and water vapour.

Exhaled air contains 75% Nitrogen; 16% Oxygen; about 4% water vapour and a small quantity of other gases.

The CO2 content however has risen from 0.04% to around 4%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey

The arctic was warmer in the period 1925 to 45 and the warm up was sharper then than it is now. Recordings however, show ice coverage higher in that period even though it was warmer with sharper warm up! From 45 to 75 there was a decent cooldown so continued ice melt should not have occurred. It follows too that the ice melt should not be greater now than during 25-45. Now this says a couple of things to me...the warm up is not responsible for the icemelt, not at this rate anyway...or more likely IMO is the inaccurate measuring techniques of the past which Carinthian has spoke of ie slush was classed as sea ice coverage before and not now hence the difference. It has been identified that sea ice has started to recover since the bottom out of 1998 which was attributed to the 'big' El Nino of that year.

As regards to CO2 effect, well the correlation shows that CO2 increases after warming...not the other way round.

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
The arctic was warmer in the period 1925 to 45 and the warm up was sharper then than it is now. Recordings however, show ice coverage higher in that period even though it was warmer with sharper warm up! From 45 to 75 there was a decent cooldown so continued ice melt should not have occurred. It follows too that the ice melt should not be greater now than during 25-45. Now this says a couple of things to me...the warm up is not responsible for the icemelt, not at this rate anyway...or more likely IMO is the inaccurate measuring techniques of the past which Carinthian has spoke of ie slush was classed as sea ice coverage before and not now hence the difference. It has been identified that sea ice has started to recover since the bottom out of 1998 which was attributed to the 'big' El Nino of that year.

As regards to CO2 effect, well the correlation shows that CO2 increases after warming...not the other way round.

BFTP

That's part of the story.

Data shows that, over recent millions of years when mankind wasn't involved, CO2 was a feedback warming effect. That's not surprising, CO2 is a ghg, and if warming is set off that then sets off feedbacks (like warmed seas releasing CO2) that increase CO2 concentrations increasing the warming.

But, atm, we're, by adding so much CO2, forcing the climate system - remember CO2 doesn't know if it's a feedback or a forcing it just acts as a ghg. We, not nature, are setting off the warming. No getting away from that reality. The real question is the magnitude of the anthropogenic warming, not if it's happening - oh and perhaps how much feedback warming we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
I can't let you get away with that! B)

Air that we inhale contains 78% Nitrogen; 21% Oxygen; about 0.04% Carbon Dioxide and a small quantity of other gases and water vapour.

Exhaled air contains 75% Nitrogen; 16% Oxygen; about 4% water vapour and a small quantity of other gases.

The CO2 content however has risen from 0.04% to around 4%

So carbon is put into the equation from the food we eat and it forms more carbon dioxide?

right?

SNOW-MAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Final statement:

Well you or someone made a remark about 6 bliion people breathing c02 into the atmosphere will have a greenhouse effect

SNOW-MAN2006

It defo wasn't me Snow-man... B) B) :(

Edited by Pete Tattum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
  • Weather Preferences: Southerly tracking LPs, heavy snow. Also 25c and calm
  • Location: Redhill, Surrey
That's part of the story.

Data shows that, over recent millions of years when mankind wasn't involved, CO2 was a feedback warming effect. That's not surprising, CO2 is a ghg, and if warming is set off that then sets off feedbacks (like warmed seas releasing CO2) that increase CO2 concentrations increasing the warming.

But, atm, we're, by adding so much CO2, forcing the climate system - remember CO2 doesn't know if it's a feedback or a forcing it just acts as a ghg. We, not nature, are setting off the warming. No getting away from that reality. The real question is the magnitude of the anthropogenic warming, not if it's happening - oh and perhaps how much feedback warming we'll see.

Devonian

Really? Have a read

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Also Devonian we have been naturally warming for 18000, no we didn't cause that

BFTP

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
So carbon is put into the equation from the food we eat and it forms more carbon dioxide?

right?

SNOW-MAN2006

Basically, yes...The reation C + O2 ----> CO2 is extremely simplified. It's essentially the overall result of all the myriad reactions that go into animalian metabolism, when taken as a lump - I think. A biologist may want to amend?

But even though we do add CO2 to the atmosphere via our breathing, I very much doubt that that contributes much to global warming?? :)

I have to agree with Devonian here...WE are adding billions of tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere each year...It will then act as a greenhouse gas; it will raise global temperatures just like it did at the end of the Snowball Earth episode...The difference is, that then it was building up due to geologic outgassing (coupled with almost zero photosynthesis), whereas now - we are putting it there too! :)

PS: That last paragraph was an answer to BFTP...

Edited by Pete Tattum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
  • Location: Near Newton Abbot or east Dartmoor, Devon
Devonian

Really? Have a read

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Also Devonian we have been naturally warming for 18000, no we didn't cause that

BFTP

450 million years ago the planet was SO different (continents/oceans/ocean currents and thus weather patterns/the power of the sun also lower) it's rather deceptive to simply compare then with now unless you also point out the differences (but of course it's a nice diversion...). I suspect you'd dispute data showing it to be warmer now than at any time since the ice age, but you accept (without question?) far less reliable data for 450 million years ago?

Wrt the last 18 000 years. Well, clearly the world came out of the ice age. That warming (initiated by the sun or Milankovic cycles?) gathered pace as feedback CO2 warming took effect. Increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration has climate altering effects, so messing with the concentration of Co2 is to mess with climate - period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
  • Location: Taunton, Somerset
So carbon is put into the equation from the food we eat and it forms more carbon dioxide?

right?

SNOW-MAN2006

Carbon IS IN the food we eat. That's what it's made of - to mention but a few things. :)

Organic Molecules (i.e. Food) + O2 = CO2 + H20 + heat

In English - Food we eat combines with oxygen to release carbon dioxide, water vapour and warmth inside us. :)

PS I suppose it was me who mentioned 6 billion people, etc........ :)

So 6 billion people all coughing out CO2; building new industrial conurbations; using fossil fuels; tearing down forests, etc, etc, have nothing to do with climate change?

Come On............!!!!!!!!!!

Tell me you're joking!!!!!!!

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
  • Location: Tyne & Wear
Basically, yes...The reation C + O2 ----> CO2 is extremely simplified. It's essentially the overall result of all the myriad reactions that go into animalian metabolism, when taken as a lump - I think. A biologist may want to amend?

But even though we do add CO2 to the atmosphere via our breathing, I very much doubt that that contributes much to global warming?? :)

I have to agree with Devonian here...WE are adding billions of tonnes per year of CO2 into the atmosphere each year...It will then act as a greenhouse gas; it will raise global temperatures just like it did at the end of the Snowball Earth episode...The difference is, that then it was building up due to geologic outgassing (coupled with almost zero photosynthesis), whereas now - we are putting it there too! :)

PS: That last paragraph was an answer to BFTP...

Well in my view the earth will repair itself if something was wrong

And i just got wound up by you saying i didnt have a theory but now i hope you may class it as a theory

:)

SNOW-MAN2006

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
  • Weather Preferences: Sunshine, convective precipitation, snow, thunderstorms, "episodic" months.
  • Location: Lincoln, Lincolnshire
Well in my view the earth will repair itself if something was wrong

And i just got wound up by you saying i didnt have a theory but now i hope you may class it as a theory

:)

SNOW-MAN2006

Chances are, if something is wrong, the earth will repair itself.

The question is whether humans will be able to cope during the period between something going wrong, and the earth repairing itself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: New Zealand
  • Location: New Zealand

where does Co2 come from. Hmmm.

C6 C12 O6 , commonly knoen as Glucose, (though sometimes broken down by half into C3 H6 O3, commonly known as lactic acid, in a process called "anerobic respiration")

O2, commonly known as oxygen...

Simple respiration...

C6 H12 O6 + 6O2 == 6CO2 + 6H2O

simple anerobic respiration

C6 H12 O6 == 2(C3 H6 O3) - (where the "oxygen debt" (O2) is later "repaid" producing once more 6CO2 + 6H2O)

Edited by crimsone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
  • Weather Preferences: Thunder, snow, heat, sunshine...
  • Location: Beccles, Suffolk.
Well in my view the earth will repair itself if something was wrong

And i just got wound up by you saying i didnt have a theory but now i hope you may class it as a theory

:)

SNOW-MAN2006

What worries me about what you say, I believe you will be proved right about Earth's ability to self repair, is that will that 'repaired' Earth be capable of supporting us? Using the analogy of an organism, it might merely rid itself of parasites? :)

No probs re your theory mate. I could have worded my replies a tad differently... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-28 09:16:06 Valid: 28/03/2024 0800 - 29/03/2024 0600 SEVERE THUNDERSTORM WATCH - THURS 28 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    More rain on the way: Storm Nelson brings gales Thursday, but rain and wind easing for Easter

    Spells of rain or showers with sunshine in between affecting most areas today, snow over northern hills. Storm Nelson arrives tomorrow, bringing gales to southern coasts and windy elsewhere with further showers. Showers and wind easing somewhat into the Easter Weekend. Read the full update here

    Netweather forecasts
    Netweather forecasts
    Latest weather updates from Netweather

    UK Storm and Severe Convective Forecast

    UK Severe Convective & Storm Forecast - Issued 2024-03-27 09:35:27 Valid: 27/03/2024 0900 - 28/03/2024 0600 THUNDERSTORM WATCH - WEDS 27 MARCH 2024 Click here for the full forecast

    Nick F
    Nick F
    Latest weather updates from Netweather
×
×
  • Create New...