Global Warning – the Big Debate

[Guest starspirit]

Taxation now should pay for needs now and in the immediate future.

 

For example we would have struggled to pay the yanks back for WW2 over the last 60 years if inflation had not seriously devalued their loans to us.

 

Similarly if we had, as a nation, been 'saving up' for the Gulf wars over previous years we could never have saved enough.

 

Similarly it pays to buy a house now rather than wait five years because the cost is fixed at today's value.

 

Similarly how can what we pay now possibly help future generations?

 

What we do is a very different matter and I have no issue with incentives to encourage responsible living allied to increased taxes to 'punish' those who are outrageously wasteful.

 

I just don't see why we normal folks should be penalised to fund Grasping's Global Aspirations.

 

So our vans are not carbon friendly and all that crap - neither is flying - but I don't see aviation being taxed to anything like the degree that private motorists are in the UK.

[Philman]

Wasn't a dollar five bob in the good old days ? So who benefitted the most from the variation in exchange rates ?

 

Phil.

[Basil]

[red]Well, Bas, it's been fun, but I suspect everyone else is bored by now![/red]

 

Well Brian, I am genuinely sorry to see you have such a closed mind! This is exactly how only one side of the debate has come to the fore. I am prepared to look at and explore all sides of the discussion, I have not completely decided what I believe yet, though the Global Warming Theory when examined has some serious flaws in the argument

 

[red]I will investigate water vapour as a greenhouse gas, but it occurs to me that the earth has evolved to its present state with, more or less, the water vapour its atmosphere presently contains. Are you suggesting water vapour is the culprit, or just that CO2 can't be, because there is more water vapour?[/red]

 

There is some very good information on the internet, just open your mind and look at both sides.

I'm not suggesting either water is the culprit or CO2, I am just pointing out that the argument for both Greenhouse Gas being the culprit is not as clear cut as some would have you believe and furthermore the human contribution to CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas is not as dramatic as some would like you to believe, natural occurance being far greater, but we can't alter that so we will ignore it!!

 

[red]Seems you know something about CO2 that practically the whole of the world's climate scientists have overlooked. But then if we have contributed 25% of the present atmospheric greenhouse gases, which is a quite startling figure, I'll settle for that 25% being the culprit. The problem with the 3.4% annual growth is that it compounds, just like interest, so over 150 years or so......... That is an awful lot of CO2.[/red]

 

Why do people have to resort to snide comments when the discussion doesn’t correspond to their beliefs.

I have never said I know something climate scientists don’t, in fact I believe they do and are promoting this in a way that suits their cause.

You have hit the nail on the head there with Climate scientist/ Meteorologists who for years have been the poor relation to most other disciplines and as for their predictions, weather forecasts hmmmmm. Strangely it is only a high percentage of them that agree, most other disciplines don’t e.g. 89% of geologists don’t.

You have either misread, misunderstood or just done the trick that is currently being used! I never stated we have contributed 25% of the present atmospheric greenhouse gases far from it. Its not actually a lot of CO2, if you recall I said in a previous response that H2O accounts for 90% of greenhouse gases, that is made up from water vapour which accounts for about 70% and clouds (mostly water droplets) accounts for another 20%, thus water in it's various forms is 90% of the greenhouse effect, leaving 10% for non-water greenhouse effect. Of this remaining 10%, mainly atmospheric carbon, humans might be responsible for 25% of the total accumulated atmospheric carbon, thus 0.25 x 0.1 = 0.025 x 100 = 2.5% of the total greenhouse effect in the 150 years since the industrial revolution.

 

[red]Alternative fuels due to finite resources: fine. Agreed.[/red]

 

Well at least we agree on something! However I thought this was a debate to expand knowledge not an argument.

 

[red]Brazil and its bio fuel. Don't know, but Brazil has a very low population density compared to us. As I said, we'll probably be left with the choice between travelling and eating![/red]

 

I would agree about the population density, however those that are in the emerging Bio Fuels industry believe we have a perfectly feasible and workable products in sufficient quantities already without affecting food. How many farmers are being paid by the EU to set aside fields? How big a grain mountain do we have?

 

[red]The biggest problem I have with your argument overall, is this grand conspiracy theory in which all the politicians and scientists have to be proto-dictators for it to work. In reality, they all started where we started, as ordinary folk.[/red]

 

I find this completely irrelevant, people who are paid to prove a point in the main are not going to be dissenters, though there are some, Bjorn Lomberg for instance who was initially one of the founder members of the theory but came to the conclusion that it was wrong and is now castigated by the rest for dissenting, however it doesn’t mean he is wrong any more than the others are right.

 

[red]Many of the scientists who have argued that the climate has been changing due to man's activities were until recently regarded as renegades by both the scientific establishment and by governments. A number have been advancing this argument, from the sidelines, for over 25 years. It seems a bit thick to charge them with being political lackeys now that they are being accepted.[/red]

 

Exactly my previous point, now they have the ‘Ear’ they are not going to be dissenters are they?

 

[red]Final point, the nuclear lobby is just as stuffed with scientists, and feted by politicians as the green lobby. What's so different about the integrity of those scientists/politicians that you agree with, them while suspecting the green oriented ones of being rogues?[/red]

 

You need to re read previous posts, I have not disagreed in principle to what you said and I have not said anything about the integrity of those scientists. I too am concerned about the safety and waste side of Nuclear Generation but being a practical person Nuclear is the only viable source of continuous electrical energy into the future in my opinion. At the end of the day we will be relying on it more and more, but we will be buying it in from the French if we don’t produce our own, so it will still be our waste!

 

Bas

 

 

[olley]

Hi guys very interesting discussion and no I am not bored yet. I can't add anything to the debate as my knowledge is based only on want the media has told me ie. C02 emissions are the cause, very interesting to learn that 90% of the green house effect is caused by water vapour, i wonder if this is true?

 

I do agree with starsprite, that nothing will be done, we will continue to waste resources and pollute the world, it cost's money to clean our act up and that's the last thing anybody wants to spend on something that probably won't effect us directly.

 

And I can't see the killing stopping, as someone said years ago "wars good for business"

 

Olley

[Philman]

I blame the Americans :-D

 

Phil.

[Dave Newell]

One of the problems with cleaning up our act is the sheer volume of fuel required to meet current electricity usage. Our local power station, Ironbridge, is a 1000 MW station and when its running at full capacity it can burn 10,000 Tonnes of coal in 24 hours! That's a hell of a big coal pile for a small station. Just think how much some of the bigger stations, like Drax or Ferrybridge must get through.

 

Pollution matters aside, we cannot afford to keep burning coal, gas and oil at this rate because there isn't enough left to last any sensible length of time, I seem to remember reading that there is just 20-30 years worth of coal left in the world at our current rate of use.

 

We need to act now and this argument of "why should we bother when the Yanks and Chinese won't?" doesn't work. The whole world needs to change its energy usage patterns or we'll all go down the pan but someone has to take the first step!

 

Personally I think the best solution to domestic energy needs is for us all to generate our own electricity. A combination of wind and solar genrating systems to supply each house independently with low voltage DC coupled with more energy efficient housing would help.

 

Nuclear energy can produce enough to run the world as we know it but what about the waste products and the inherent danger of nuclear stations, I know I don't like Ironbridge power station very much as a coal fired unit but I'd really hate to see it replaced with a nuclear unit!

 

As for this global warming issue, I'm not entirely convinced about the greenhouse effect but Brian's earlier comment holds water; What if its true? Both sides of the argument are theories but in 25-50 years time we should know which one is the truth. If it is the global warming theory then we're all stuffed!

 

D.

[Basil]

olley - 2007-02-05 1:58 PM

 

Hi guys very interesting discussion and no I am not bored yet. I can't add anything to the debate as my knowledge is based only on want the media has told me ie. C02 emissions are the cause, very interesting to learn that 90% of the green house effect is caused by water vapour, i wonder if this is true?

 

Olley

 

Olley

 

You do add to the debate simply by asking any questions that arise from what the media tell you and weighing up the answers you are given. It is because people are just accepting without question that we have only heard one side. Thats how I got a bit hooked, someone said something on a forum that just did not add up, until that point I had not really questioned anything just like you and the vast majority of the population.

If you are interested in what Greenhouse Effect is the following is a fairly easy to read article for starters (there is a lot more scientific mathmatically articles too).

 

www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

It is something that makes you think and maybe start to wonder, read more and you can really start to question what you are being told.

 

Also I don't know if you are aware that the report that was thrown all over the media last week supposedly supporting the theory after six years of study has been embargoed and has gone back for a rewrite as, I understand, there was evidence within it that disproved the theory. Smacks of WOMD dossiers to me!

 

However there is a site that has issued the second draught as they want people to be able to see what has been doctored.

 

 

Dave

 

I agree with your analysis of our fossil fuel use in that we do need to find replacements and quick.

I actually live within around 15 miles of a Nuclear power station and have been on visits to the visitor centre. I do not have any worry about it at all quite happy, it is completely clean and unsmelly putting no noxious products into the atmosphere but I still have concerns about the time it takes to neutralise the waste.

 

I have no axe to grid but I also can't accept things that don't add up, I also want the world to continue for my childrens sake so I would like to see more effort put into researching those things that also look like they have a possibility of causing the problem the trouble is some of them, as with water vapour we can do nothing about.

 

Bas

 

Edit sorry address should have been

 

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html#anchor2108263

the other is the same article but a page further in and is a bit numbery but very interesting as well.

[Guest starspirit]

So, are the problems of nuclear waste disposal any different in magnitude to the problems of a climatically uninhabitable planet when push comes to shove?

 

At least if we go nuclear in a big way we will have tried to save the planet - always assuming of course that the planet is at risk?

 

But can we risk the risk of finding out as time passes?

 

That is of course if the politicians can overcome the oil and coal lobbies?

 

I for one am not averse to taxation specifically to fund a proper nuclear programme.

 

I am against the continuation of weak excuses to hit my pocket for money to be diverted into to spending on wars, unsustainable benefits for scroungers, new parliamnet buildings, jobs for the boys, non new members of the EU, French farmers, eurocrats, Gordon's Global ambitions, etc etc.

[Basil]

starspirit - 2007-02-05 3:04 PM

 

So, are the problems of nuclear waste disposal any different in magnitude to the problems of a climatically uninhabitable planet when push comes to shove?

 

At least if we go nuclear in a big way we will have tried to save the planet - always assuming of course that the planet is at risk?

 

But can we risk the risk of finding out as time passes?

 

That is of course if the politicians can overcome the oil and coal lobbies?

 

I for one am not averse to taxation specifically to fund a proper nuclear programme.

 

I am against the continuation of weak excuses to hit my pocket for money to be diverted into to spending on wars, unsustainable benefits for scroungers, new parliamnet buildings, jobs for the boys, non new members of the EU, French farmers, eurocrats, Gordon's Global ambitions, etc etc.

 

You make some valid points starspirit and I agree with your analysis of nuclear waste, which is why I tend to be in favour if hesitantly. At the end of the day with the likes of Korea and Iran using nuclear energy i don't think we are going to influence what they do with the waste, do you?

 

Bas

[olley]

hi Bas just read that clearlite link, very well argued point about water vapour, unfortunately no doubt the other side could put forward (to me)just as convincing arguments. Where does that leave me? stuck in the middle, I lack the technical knowledge to distinguish between fact and fiction.

 

Who do you trust? our government after BSE, the war in iraq, no. The UN?. A site on the internet written by an "expert"??

 

Last I heard David Bellamy was on your side Bas, is that still the case?

 

Olley

[Philman]

By coincidence one of the letters on BBC Ceefax today concerned this very subject. The writer made the, IMO, valid point that we have known about Global Warming for over 40 years and we still do not know what is causing it. 8-)

Phil.

[Brian Kirby]

As I said Basil, it's been fun.  It is, in reality far too complex a subjct to argue out on here.  However, having, as you have several times pointed out, a closed mind and a tendency to snide comments, I will attempt not to revert to type, but this will be my final post on this subject.

I looked into the water vapour question and, very simply stated, it appears the amount of water vapour/droplets in the atmosphere is dependent on average ambient temperatures.  This seems reasonable, as does the argument that average relative humidity remains broadly constant, so that as tempreature rises more water vapour is absorbed until the point of equilibrium is re-established.  It is claimed that ice cap evidence points to the relative humidity remaining broadly unchanged as far back as the ice record can be traced, implying that atmospheric water vapour variation is an effect, and not a cause, of global temperature variation.

It seems no one is claiming absolute truth, but the majority view among the climatological scientific commumity, is that is the best working hypothesis at present is that climatic warming is now outside the normal range of variation, and is due to increasing atmospheric CO2, caused by the burning of fossil carbon.

Your link, in your post to Olley, is to a website run by an acknowledged amateur fossil hunter named Heib, who is a mining safety engineer employed by a coal mining company.  He is neither a scientist, nor a climatologist.  There are numerous references to him and a number of sites in which his arguments are dissected and pretty much debunked.

I don't think I really have a closed mind, I'm open to persuasion, but the facts, as you yourself say, have to stack up.  What I can't yet see is a convincing alternative hypothesis.

That isn't a closed mind.  It isn't even a sceptic.  It is just someone you haven't convinced, but who has been convinced by alternative and more convincing argument.

[olley]

Hi Brian just trying to get my head around some of this, if the air temperature rises, wouldn't that mean that the air would hold more water, and so increase the green house effect? (warm air holds more moisture than cold air) If so why don't we already have a runaway green house effect.

 

Olley

 

PS Not surprised at bas's link being sus. I have a great scepticism of all things on the net.

[Brian Kirby]

olley - 2007-02-05 9:22 PM Hi Brian just trying to get my head around some of this, if the air temperature rises, wouldn't that mean that the air would hold more water, and so increase the green house effect? (warm air holds more moisture than cold air) If so why don't we already have a runaway green house effect. Olley PS Not surprised at bas's link being sus. I have a great scepticism of all things on the net.

Olley

Correct.  The point was, as I understand it, that the natural cycles in the earth's temperature, ice ages, warmer phases etc, all show signs of variations in CO2 and water vapour.  The mechanism of change is presently thought to be CO2, which causes the initial warming/cooling, and the air then dumps or takes up moisture to maintain its "normal" relative humidity.  If the CO2 rises, the air temperature increases, atmospheric moisture vapour increases, and that, being the largest greenhouse constituent, causes further temperature rise, moisture, etc.  That, you would expect to run away as you suggest.  However, it appears from the ice record that it does not. It seems it stabilises at its "natural" relative humidity level with the temperature rise initiated by the CO2, carried on by the added water vapour, but limited by the fact that the water vapour does not go on accumulating as any surplus condenses out after a short time (a few days is mentioned).

That is the natural cycle in global warming/cooling, with the CO2 being re-absorbed (much of it by the oceans) very much more slowly than it is naturally released.  Over relatively short periods of a few tens of thousands of years, therefore, the carbon accumulates and is then re-absorbed, and the earth warms and then cools accordingly. 

However, we are now adding to that effect with fossil carbon, so the temperature rise due to CO2 is greater than we, as a species, have experienced.  The earth has been there before, but with much higher sea levels and a much more violent climate.  The higher sea levels would have a significant impact on the amount of habitable land, and the changed climate would restrict areas where agriculture is viable on the one hand, and make production more unpredictable on the other.  Hence the collective view that we should at least try to reduce the carbon we add, to around what the earth can re-absorb, and so avoid the worst of the foreseeable consequences.

I still think this is common sense, since it is the "fail safe" option.  The alternative, of doing nothing until there is proof positive of the effect, risks our descendents being unable to control a journey into what, for them, would be totally uncharted waters.  It just depends how much you think they'll enjoy Russian roulette, I guess!

If you Google global warming, follow the "Wickipedia" link, and then follow some of the links from the main article, you'll get enough information to keep you in asprin till next Christmas!

[Guest bil h]

Everyone is making the argument more complex and it is not so.

 

You're all getting tied up in fantasy's

 

Its oh so simple. Go and read my notes on a similar subject on this forum

 

bil h

[olley]

hi Brian had a look at wikipedia, so now we have Water, Co2, Solar, Atomic etc. all which may or may not be the cause or have some effect.

 

Your fail safe option seems sensible, but as I said before I can't see any government commiting large sums of money to something which will not win votes.

 

dubua has just published his budget for 2008 $481 billion on defence (that should be attack) and he's nicking money from medical care to do this so what chance does global warming stand.

 

Olley

[Bill]

First off, most of the scare stories about “Global Warming” are presented by journalists, who have degrees in Meeja Studies and wouldn't know a scientific method unless one bit them. And even then, they wouldn't let it get in the way of a good story.

 

They always try to fit the facts to their hypothesis, rather than the other way round.

 

Point out that the Romans had vineyards against Hadrian's Wall, and that it is now too cold for grapes, and they will say Hadrian must have had a hardier strain of grapes.

 

A few scientists get in on the act. But, scratch the surface and there is a sub-text along the lines of “We don't really know, so more study is needed to make sure. Bung me a few million of the taxpayers' money and I'll do it for you”.

 

Much of this GW drivel comes from computer simulations. As a professional computer programmer, one of the first acronyms I was taught was GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. These simulations all assume that the heat of the Sun is a constant, which is garbage, so it is no great surprise that the output is garbage too.

 

[As an aside it is shameful how little we know of the sun. The Space Age will be 50 years old this October, and to date there has been exactly one probe (SOHO) dedicated to solar research.]

 

The one thing we do know about the Sun is that there is an 11-year sunspot cycle, and its output fluctuates with that. It may well fluctuate in all sorts of other ways too. Nasa has detected rising temperatures on a number of other bodies in the solar system – if those measurements are accurate they presumably amount to circumstantial evidence that the sun is getting hotter.

 

Now consider the measurements which “prove” global warming. First off, you need to measure over at least a century to get a meaningful reading. Instruments 100 years ago were not as accurate as they are today, and the tiny differences could just as easily be instrument error.

 

Much more important, you need to make the measurements at the same place(s), to ensure you are not comparing apples and oranges. But, a century ago, motor vehicles and their radiators were virtually non-existent; today they exist in their thousands. So those roadside measuring stations are being locally heated by passing traffic, and you can't move them away from the roads else you get back into the apples and oranges issue.

 

GW is becoming a sort of latter-day religion, and that is where the real danger lies. My father used to say that if the Bible was true, then all the fanatical devotion of Middle Ages Christians was totally justified – but if it was not true then it was the biggest con job in history. Much the same is true of GW.

 

The people who tried to bring down capitalism in favour of “the vastly superior system in the Soviet Union”, are still trying to bring it down, only now they have latched onto GW. As with the earlier attempt, they are aided by what Karl Marx called “useful idiots”. The anti-GW campaign merges seamlessly with the anti-globalism campaign, the tax-the-airlines campaign, and sundry other Luddite tendencies.

 

I am grimly amused that the Meeja Studies crowd have failed utterly to pick up on what, from their GW standpoint, is the most important story of the decade. The USAF has successfully converted one of its B-52 bombers to run on liquid methane; given that the engines don't know whether they are powering a bomber or an airliner, it follows that it is possible to convert airliners too. Possibly the Meeja Studies lot don't understand enough physics and chemistry to appreciate what this means – methane is a much smaller member of the paraffin family than kerosene, and consequently contains a much lower percentage of carbon, and therefore produces much less (around 75% less) CO2.

 

They are so busy disparaging George Bush that they also have failed to notice how this ties in with his recent State of the Union message. The USAF has not suddenly got worried about GW. They are actively seeking energy sources which do not come mainly from Muslim and other unfriendly sources.

 

 

 

 

 

[olley]

hi bill I can't see liquid methane being the answer, to liquify it you need a pressure of at least 650psi at a temperature of -82.6C, and at 1 atmosphere needs to be below -161C might be ok for lorries but sounds as if all the gear to do this would weigh to much for commercial airlines to consider it.

 

Olley

[Guest starspirit]

Interesting point about the bible Bilh and I think a new thread on the subject is called for, so I will start it now in order that it does not detract from this topic.

[Bill]

olley - 2007-02-06 12:08 PM

 

hi bill I can't see liquid methane being the answer, to liquify it you need a pressure of at least 650psi at a temperature of -82.6C, and at 1 atmosphere needs to be below -161C might be ok for lorries but sounds as if all the gear to do this would weigh to much for commercial airlines to consider it.

 

Olley

 

Everything you say applies equally to bombers - and the USAF has done it successfully on a B-52.

 

Oxygen has much the same liquefaction characteristics as methane, and as long ago as the 1960s lox was used in Atlas missiles with a skin thickness less than the thickness of a sheet of paper.

 

And before that, in WW2, the German V-2 rocket also used lox, admittedly in much heavier tanks, but with the added problem that the launcher were mobile.

 

 

[olley]

Hi Bill just because it can be done, doesn't mean it will be. every ton used to keep an aircraft in the air is a ton less earning potential.

 

Can't see military using it, less weight for bombs. :-D

 

Olley

[Basil]

olley - 2007-02-05 3:37 PM

 

hi Bas just read that clearlite link, very well argued point about water vapour, unfortunately no doubt the other side could put forward (to me)just as convincing arguments. Where does that leave me? stuck in the middle, I lack the technical knowledge to distinguish between fact and fiction.

 

Who do you trust? our government after BSE, the war in iraq, no. The UN?. A site on the internet written by an "expert"??

 

Last I heard David Bellamy was on your side Bas, is that still the case?

 

Olley

 

Let me say I don't neccessarily take sides but I can see some things that don't hang right with flawed computer models and some of the so called proof. Yes David Bellamy still argues that it is wrong and is still being castigated for it as is Bjorn Lomborg who was origionally one of the people that put the theory forward but now believes it is wrong also Patrick Moore.

 

I accept your comment Olley and there lies the problem. As the link, which I gave as it was easy but covered what is being debated ( I don't class a debate as an argument by the way), has been rubbished which is no less than I would expect as that is exactly what has been happening to anyone who decides to go up against the 'accepted view' have a look at this one

 

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

 

but no doubt that will be rubbished as well. If that does not make you think have a read of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press - 2001 by Bjorn Lomberg.

 

I state again I am not convinced one way or the other but find it strange that such a small amount of added CO2 from human contamination can have the effect that is being suggested. If we were to stop all carbon fuelled transport, not just restrict, it would make a difference to greenhouse gas of around 0.02%, I just cannot see how that will have the effect suggested (no one has shown me how by the way). Yet there is a direct corellation (and I mean exact) between the temperature increases and Solar Activity and furthermore NASA has discovered that the same effect is occuring on other planets within our Solar system. Why have we heard little of this, answer we are to busy following the party line IMO.

 

Bas

 

 

[tonyishuk]

One thing that has not been mentioned (I think and if it has been mentioned I apologise) is that if planes are removed from our skys, the high level cloud cover will decrease and the world will fry even faster.

 

I forget the name given to this hypothosis, but it was being investigated prior to the 7-11 attack. When the ameicans grounded flights for 2 to 3 days, the solar gain shot up over America and increased significanly over other countries.

 

Bedtime reading:

 

http://www.dlr.de/ipa/Schumann/Dokumente/schumann-029-033.pdf

 

Although you may not get to sleep *-)

 

[Basil]

Which adds weight to another of the theories that says we have actually made the atmosphere to clean.

In parts of India the increase in smog, not that I'm suggesting that we should do smog, has actually caused a reversal in warming, so pointing to Sun activity and UV and IR gain.

This is the problem when not all ideas are looked at with the same enthusiasm.

 

Bas

[W3526602]

Hi,

 

I reckon Global Warming will fade away during the next five years,and there will be lots of sports programs on TV. Then in 2012 we will have the Olympics....after which global warming will start all over again.

 

Rising sea levels? If you drop a block of ice into a jar of water, and measure the water level, then wait for the ice to melt...will the water level rise or fall? OK, doesn't apply to ice that isn't floating.

 

602