The Great Climate Change Debate- Continued

[wysiwyg]

If the government wants to make a real incentive, instead of taxing to the hilt that which people need, eg transport etc, why don't they push more for greener lighting in peoples houses, most homes could be almost self sufficient in lighting with the products available on the market now, solar panels, wind turbines etc. The excess power generated by all these homes in the summer and days when maybe no-one is at home, homes not occupied, and many other instances, could then put into the power grid. Thing is, they would then loose revenue in the major electricity generators returns, so what would happen then? they would tax the power you generate yourself somehow!

Very valid and sensible proposition imo. In Portugal they already have the facility in place to sell back excess electricity to the grid.

I also live on an estate (new build) where one of the developers has built a close of houses with windmills and solar panels. Trouble is they cost about £20k more than equivalent houses without the power generation technology. Therein lies the problem - unless someone is prepared to take the altruistic view that in reality they will lose money on that house but so what, then the developers wont be building many more I'm afraid. The other problem of course is how much can be realistically generated by a couple of windmills and a few solar panels on the roof of a house.

However, despite looking decidedly tokenistic, it is a very small step in the right direction. (journey of a thousand miles and all that)

[Devonian]

Here is an article from the Times of January 1982 that I have. Professor Hubert Lamb, one of the UK's most famous climatologists believed at the time that we could possibly be embarking on the first step of another ice age. This was only 26 years ago.

At the end of his book 'Weather climate and human affairs' (1988) Prof Lamb closed with these two paragraphs:

It must be understood in connection with future climate that there is no necessary contradiction between forecasts of: 1 continued or renewed cooling over the next few decades due either to volcanic activity or solar output changes or both; 2, a rather strong warming, lasting some centuries, due to increased CO2 and other pollution from human activities; and 3 a new ice age developing quite strongly some 3000-7000 years from now and continuing with ups and down for tens of thousands of years due to the Earth's orbital variation.

The knowledge that we now have as a result of climate studies contributes strongly to the dawning appreciation of our responsibility to care for the future of the environment which Earth provides for mankind, for the animal kingdom and for the plant world.

[Point one was based on solar studies of the time (it was written in 1988) that predicted low solar cycles 1990-2000, which proved to be wrong - ho hum. Point three is still arguable though some people think AGW might put off the next ice age, point 2 is I think valid.

The last paragraph I remember reading at the time, it's as right now as it was then.

I think Lamb would not be in the 'sceptic camp' if here were alive now.]

Edited March 13, 2008 by Devonian

[snowsure]

My "finger of blame" is starting to twitch again.

Having looked at a schematic diagram of a catalytic converter I noticed that NOx, CO and HC are changed into CO2, H20 and N2. Therefore before 1974 cars did not produce CO2. This perhaps ties in with the greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last decade.

Perhaps we are not experiencing the delayed effects of the industrial revolution; Rather we are victims of yet another automotive attempt to make the world a better place.

[wysiwyg]

My "finger of blame" is starting to twitch again.

Having looked at a schematic diagram of a catalytic converter I noticed that NOx, CO and HC are changed into CO2, H20 and N2. Therefore before 1974 cars did not produce CO2. This perhaps ties in with the greater concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere in the last decade.

Perhaps we are not experiencing the delayed effects of the industrial revolution; Rather we are victims of yet another automotive attempt to make the world a better place.

CO₂ is a by-product of burning hydrocarbons (petrol + diesel included).

Cat converters just turn dangerous trace amounts of noxious gases into apparently less dangerous oxides.

Edited March 13, 2008 by wysiwyg

[snowsure]

CO₂ is a by product of burning hydrocarbons (petrol + diesel included). Cat converters just turn dangerous trace amounts of noxious gases into apparently less dangerous oxides.

I thought this was only the case in complete combustion. The internal combustion engine has incomplete combustion so only CO is produced, not CO2. However I agree with the 2nd part of your sentence.

[wysiwyg]

I thought this was only the case in complete combustion. The internal combustion engine has incomplete combustion so only CO is produced, not CO2. However I agree with the 2nd part of your sentence.

It has both types of combustion - mostly complete! What comes out of the exhaust is mainly water, carbon dioxide and unused air along with unburnt petrol and some of the noxious gases you mentioned (reduced if the car has a Cat)

Might help if you are studying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

Edited March 13, 2008 by wysiwyg

[SilverWolf]

Hi, new to this site, have little post-GCSE science or meteorological knowledge, but felt the need.....

GW, if I'm correct, is believed to be caused by high levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, caused by Man's (please excuse male word) activity. These gases, despite their 'unnatural' production exist anyway. My feeling is we simply do not have enough understanding on what is PROBABLY going to happen, and maybe do not have enough faith (or understanding) of the Earth's capability to stabilise itself. The problems I see as being more revelant are those concerning the 'unnatural' chemicals and energies (e.g. nuclear power) we are inflicting on the world, even down to carcinogenic chemicals used in food and production and water treatment, and the rise in GM production.

The whole world now uses non-biodegradable plastics and harmful chemicals in the production of everyday products and technology. The Western, so called 1st world has enough 'resource' to help, potentially and in theory, a large number of people who suffers the prospect of hunger or homelessness from GW (or any other reason!), whilst also having the potential to change all the other things I've mentioned. So maybe our (i.e the Western world's) first mission should be to eleviate, where possible, the suffering of others ( in a non-Bush not-actually-trying-to-help-but-profiting way...) through knowledge exchange, respect and communication.

The Earth will sort out the 'natural' things (including the so called greenhouses gases), is my opinion, but we have to realise that it will be on the Earth's terms and in the Earth's time frame. It has no emotion, it just does, and will always, in my opinion try to maintain a 'natural' balance, possibly through extreme means. With a worldwide attitudinal or paradigm shift, perhaps we can all help with the consequences? For the record I feel that GW does exist, but I've no idea what it will mean! Maybe in some respects it is as unpredictable as the weather after about 5 days....

Anyway, rant over - if anyone reads this you probably think I'm a hippy with rose-tinted glasses....(I'm seen as more of a goth by my friends, ironically.)

[snowsure]

It has both types of combustion - mostly complete! What comes out of the exhaust is mainly water, carbon dioxide and unused air along with unburnt petrol and some of the noxious gases you mentioned (reduced if the car has a Cat)

Might help if you are studying

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhaust_gas

Paragraph 1 suggests that incomplete combustion is prevalent in petrol engines thus causing primary pollutants (CO, not CO2). This suggests that the catcon has caused a decrease in CO but an increase in the CO2 emissions.

Do you have a reference regarding your above statement? Wikipedia is not referencing anything that backs up your comments.

PS I am not a student of this area. However I am a Physics teacher and would certainly not advise my students to get data from Wikipedia.

[Chris Knight]

Paragraph 1 suggests that incomplete combustion is prevalent in petrol engines thus causing primary pollutants (CO, not CO2). This suggests that the catcon has caused a decrease in CO but an increase in the CO2 emissions.

Do you have a reference regarding your above statement? Wikipedia is not referencing anything that backs up your comments.

PS I am not a student of this area. However I am a Physics teacher and would certainly not advise my students to get data from Wikipedia.

I would ask a colleague or two, in Chemistry and Biology, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a natural part of the atmosphere, and just happens to be one of the major products of combustion of hydrocarbons, such as petrol, in the internal combustion engine, along with water vapour. The pollutants are the incompletely combusted remnants, carbon monoxide, favoured by in-car suicides, hydrocarbon residues, particulate carbon, and nitrogen oxides, and some burnt lubricant and particulates from worn engine parts carried in the lubricant, (such as gaskets, etc.) which may contain sulphur, producing sulphur dioxide, which the cat reduces to the smelly hydrogen sulphide gas.

[Hiya]

Paragraph 1 suggests that incomplete combustion is prevalent in petrol engines thus causing primary pollutants (CO, not CO2). This suggests that the catcon has caused a decrease in CO but an increase in the CO2 emissions.

Do you have a reference regarding your above statement? Wikipedia is not referencing anything that backs up your comments.

PS I am not a student of this area. However I am a Physics teacher and would certainly not advise my students to get data from Wikipedia.

Carbon monoxide produced by pre-catcon cars will have been oxidised to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere anyway, so it all works out the same in the end.

source = chemistry degree

[wysiwyg]

Paragraph 1 suggests that incomplete combustion is prevalent in petrol engines thus causing primary pollutants (CO, not CO2). This suggests that the catcon has caused a decrease in CO but an increase in the CO2 emissions.

Do you have a reference regarding your above statement? Wikipedia is not referencing anything that backs up your comments.

PS I am not a student of this area. However I am a Physics teacher and would certainly not advise my students to get data from Wikipedia.

I don't have a reference to hand and have no desire to look for one to prove this point. There is a link in the wiki page to the constituents of the combustion cycle. I'm not really sure where you are going with this. As stated in the previous post CO would be oxidised eventually and I would rather car engines produced a medically inert gas than CO. Even if the engine produced a 100% CO and this was converted into CO₂ by the cat, I don't see how not using cats would be beneficial.

Yes cars are responsible for CO₂ pollution but to take a backwards step by returning them to "confirmed killer" status does not seem logical at all.

Actually (I know you don't like wiki) but you can probably work out how much CO and CO₂ is produced in an ICE by taking the emission standards as a worse case. The legislation has figures for cars pre- and post cat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_emission_standards

[The Eagle]

We have seen the largest temp drop across the Northern Hemisphere for the last decade...........we have seen temp drops across the Antartic that are remarkable - really excellent - how much has this been reported? - Fact is its not easy for some of those here and the 'scientists' (IPCC - dont make me laugh) to report this accurately and without predjudice.......Unfortunately us realists are in short supply.......

[laserguy]

It has both types of combustion - mostly complete! What comes out of the exhaust is mainly water,

Hmmm.... how many billions of tonnes of water vapour (a much more effective GHG than CO2)have been introduced to the atmosphere by the reaction of it's O2 content with the previously 'locked up' hydrogen in FF's? Yes,water vapour!! You can see great clouds of the stuff belching out of vehicles exhausts on cold days,and it's in much larger amounts than the comparative CO2 content. Just a thought,any comments?

[Hiya]

Hmmm.... how many billions of tonnes of water vapour (a much more effective GHG than CO2)have been introduced to the atmosphere by the reaction of it's O2 content with the previously 'locked up' hydrogen in FF's? Yes,water vapour!! You can see great clouds of the stuff belching out of vehicles exhausts on cold days,and it's in much larger amounts than the comparative CO2 content. Just a thought,any comments?

Global humidity data has been collected by the met office:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...a/HadCRUT3.html

I can't get access to it just now, something about server problems.

Apparently though there is a rise in the short data series, could be something in it.

[Devonian]

We have seen the largest temp drop across the Northern Hemisphere for the last decade...........we have seen temp drops across the Antartic that are remarkable - really excellent - how much has this been reported? - Fact is its not easy for some of those here and the 'scientists' (IPCC - dont make me laugh) to report this accurately and without predjudice.......Unfortunately us realists are in short supply.......

Darkman, I know it's you overriding wish to see cooling, but I really suggests you seek out the most recent figures rather than let your prejudices go into full flow. February was quite a warm month in the NH.

[stewfox]

Darkman, I know it's you overriding wish to see cooling, but I really suggests you seek out the most recent figures rather than let your prejudices go into full flow. February was quite a warm month in the NH.

Scary stuff :lol:

Across North America, snow cover for winter 2007/2008 was above average, the 6th largest extent since satellite records began in 1967. A series of snow and ice storms struck the U.S. since the beginning of winter. The heavy snowfall during the winter prompted more than 4,700 new daily snowfall records and several new seasonal records across the contiguous U.S. The mean North America winter snow cover extent was 51.2 million square kilometers for the 1967-2008 period of record.

In February 2008, severe winter weather continued to affect much of Eurasia, prompting the winter 2007/2008 to have the 4th largest snow cover extent over the 41-year historical period. On average, the Eurasian boreal winter snow cover extent was 85.2 million square kilometers for the 1967-2008 period of record.

Meanwhile, the February 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the second largest sea ice extent in February (27% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, behind 2003. Sea ice extent for February has increased at a rate of 3.4%/decade.

The Western, so called 1st world has enough 'resource' to help, potentially and in theory, a large number of people who suffers the prospect of hunger or homelessness from GW (or any other reason!), whilst also having the potential to change all the other things I've mentioned. So maybe our (i.e the Western world's) first mission should be to eleviate, where possible, the suffering of others ( in a non-Bush not-actually-trying-to-help-but-profiting way...) through knowledge exchange, respect and communication.

The Earth will sort out the 'natural' things (including the so called greenhouses gases), is my opinion, but we have to realise that it will be on the Earth's terms and in the Earth's time frame. It has no emotion, it just does, and will always, in my opinion try to maintain a 'natural' balance, possibly through extreme means.

Given that China produces 10 times the CO2 omission as say the UK I agree the Earth wont be interested in the per Capita omission which Tom Picken of Friends of the Earth says we should 'take into account'

As China/India develop resources i can see it only getting worse

The Metro today says 5 more Kyoto deals will be required to offest Chinas CO2 rise

[Devonian]

Scary stuff :lol:

Across North America, snow cover for winter 2007/2008 was above average, the 6th largest extent since satellite records began in 1967. A series of snow and ice storms struck the U.S. since the beginning of winter. The heavy snowfall during the winter prompted more than 4,700 new daily snowfall records and several new seasonal records across the contiguous U.S. The mean North America winter snow cover extent was 51.2 million square kilometers for the 1967-2008 period of record.

In February 2008, severe winter weather continued to affect much of Eurasia, prompting the winter 2007/2008 to have the 4th largest snow cover extent over the 41-year historical period. On average, the Eurasian boreal winter snow cover extent was 85.2 million square kilometers for the 1967-2008 period of record.

Meanwhile, the February 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was much above the 1979-2000 mean. This was the second largest sea ice extent in February (27% above the 1979-2000 mean) over the 30-year historical period, behind 2003. Sea ice extent for February has increased at a rate of 3.4%/decade.

Indeed, but a few tasty cherries are not the whole crop - you forget to mention the continuing Scandinavian 'winter' (or lack of) :lol:

Across the whole NH February was, as I quoted, a month where temperatures recovered into the warm category.

[stewfox]

Indeed, but a few tasty cherries are not the whole crop - you forget to mention the continuing Scandinavian 'winter' (or lack of) :lol:

Across the whole NH February was, as I quoted, a month where temperatures recovered into the warm category.

Point taken however one swallow doesnt make a summer. Guess March stats will never get so much interest

Global warming has been on the front pages last few days. We have 15yr old girl standing in front of westminster with a melting ice clock of to the North pole

God knows what carbon foot print she and her team will leave (cant find link to pic of clock)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england...don/7293687.stm

Nothing wrong in highlighting pollution but pleaseee :lol:

I hope the local education authority take action

However i hope any reports they make will be without Bias

-------------------

Camilla's expedition will be made into a documentary narrated by her and given to every school in the UK and US for free.

----------------

[Thundery wintry showers]

Point taken however one swallow doesnt make a summer. Guess March stats will never get so much interest

-------------------

Camilla's expedition will be made into a documentary narrated by her and given to every school in the UK and US for free.

----------------

Steve, you criticise the "global warmers" for cherry-picking warm stats, yet you do precisely the same thing with the cold stats- how is this not hypocritical? I could equally argue that one outstandingly near-average month (January) doesn't necessarily disprove global warming.

As it happens, February 2008 was less globally warm than I expected- I thought it might just sneak into the top 10 warmest, but it seems that the remarkable warmth over northern Eurasia was partially offset by cool weather over parts of the USA and southern Eurasia. It has certainly been one of the coolest winters, averaged over both hemispheres, in recent years- it's a while since I've seen the seasonal stats come in at only 15th-20th warmest. So a possible straw to clutch perhaps, for the notion that global warming might be stalling. However, the question remains, will this run of cool months continue or will it just be a blip?

[Bobby]

I've said it before but the ONLY way to say if the world is cooling or warming is from LONG TERM, GLOBAL temperature averages. This is the absolute only way. This is what climate is about. I still can't quite fathom why people seem to think a few local notable cold/snow events, over a period of months, is evidence of some kind of cool down. It doesn't work like that.

What we need to say anything about our climate is global averages over a period of at least 10 years. 30 is best. Looking at it like this, the only trend showing is warming. Even looking at temperatures globally over the last year, we see that last year was the 2nd warmest year ever recorded. So not only is there no sign of a cool down over the long term but no sign even in the short term, over 12-18 months.

However much people want there to be a cool down and new ice age, there is absolutely no evidence for it on a long term climate perspective. Even a short term perespective.

[BUSHY]

Magpie I have to query your stats for 2007. According to CRU 2007 comes in at 8th place globally and 4th for the northern hemisphere.

[stewfox]

I've said it before but the ONLY way to say if the world is cooling or warming is from LONG TERM, GLOBAL temperature averages. This is the absolute only way. This is what climate is about. I still can't quite fathom why people seem to think a few local notable cold/snow events, over a period of months, is evidence of some kind of cool down. It doesn't work like that.

What we need to say anything about our climate is global averages over a period of at least 10 years. 30 is best. Looking at it like this, the only trend showing is warming. Even looking at temperatures globally over the last year, we see that last year was the 2nd warmest year ever recorded. So not only is there no sign of a cool down over the long term but no sign even in the short term, over 12-18 months.

However much people want there to be a cool down and new ice age, there is absolutely no evidence for it on a long term climate perspective. Even a short term perespective.

At first you say all go home and wait 30yrs and then you say there is no absolutely no evidence re cool down ?

You cant have both

Steve, you criticise the "global warmers" for cherry-picking warm stats, yet you do precisely the same thing with the cold stats- how is this not hypocritical? I could equally argue that one outstandingly near-average month (January) doesn't necessarily disprove global warming.

You say Steve I say stewart we could keep going around in circles

Cherry picking of course it is ?

If you asked a 1000 punters in the high street is the Greenland ice cap going to melt totally in the next 30yrs I bet 800 would say yes ?

Why ?, cherry picking by the papers , I pick the other way

Edited March 14, 2008 by stewfox

[Thundery wintry showers]

But doesn't that come down to the old "two wrongs don't make a right" thing again?

The fact that many people cherry-pick in one direction, which is wrong, doesn't make it right to cherry-pick in the other direction.

Apologies for reading "stew" as "stev", it stems from my being partially sighted. I used to read Peter Tattum as Peter Tatturn in the old days.

[stewfox]

But doesn't that come down to the old "two wrongs don't make a right" thing again?

The fact that many people cherry-pick in one direction, which is wrong, doesn't make it right to cherry-pick in the other direction.

Apologies for reading "stew" as "stev", it stems from my being partially sighted. I used to read Peter Tattum as Peter Tatturn in the old days.

I agree in forum such as this cherry picking serves no purpose

Those who know anything about the weather will see it for what it is on both sides (im referring to media hype)

Alarmist and exaggerated claims i.e. no more sea ice in the next 20years or here is how the coast looks with a 200ft sea rise serve no purpose

Comments such as the next ice age is 20yrs away etc or look Marlborough in Montana had daily max 12c below the norm that proves global warming doesn't exist is all silly

I haven't a clue whether the Earth will warm/cool stay the same

How much impact CO2 rises will have or how they interrelate to the weather is again open to debate

I also know 'wait and see' is not a good argument

Also any 'evidence' needs to be supported by data

However, how can spending £300,000 trillion on reducing CO2 by 0.00001c be good ?

www.300,000trillion.to.reduce.CO2.by0.00001c.bush.government.outcry23sept2007

[Thundery wintry showers]

I still don't get where this spending £300,000 trillion on reducing CO2 by 0.00001c comes from. I also don't think any sane person, even in the environmentalist fringes, would approve of such an idea.