Jump to content

Climate Change & Global Warming


Atomic
 Share

How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?  

246 members have voted

  1. 1. How important is Global Warming to you in the Grand Scheme of Things?

    • Give me a break, I've enough on my plate
      17
    • I suppose there's something in it, but it's for the Politicians/Corporations/Those in power to sort out
      4
    • Yes I think it is important and I try to do my bit.
      79
    • If we don't stop it, the Planet dies in a few years, it's as simple as that.
      34
    • I think it is all hype and not half as bad as they make out
      108
    • I don't know what to think
      17

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

The difference is very fine.

 

The law suit wanted to stop the movie all togeather from being shown in UK schools. The judge ruled in a way that made it possible for the movie to be shown in an unaltered way given that teachers inform students of some details to be critical of. The judge didn't rule NO to the movie. He ruled YES to the movie as long as it is followed with some additional info in schools. That means the judge has ruled it to be an apropiate teaching aid in UK schools as long as it is discussed in a balanced manor. I have enough confidence in the UK system of education that I think that would have happened in most cases anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
Guest Anonymous

I no longer have any belief in the global warming theory as it stands , it is just a huge propaganda exercise to get us used to the fact we wont have the luxury of vast amounts of fossil fuels for transportation in years to come. And also i think global warming is great , apart from the fact the polar bears are having a bit of trouble .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest Anonymous

Having been to Franz Joseph Glacier recently , I was surprised to discover that since 1974 the glacier has been steadily growing ! , proir to that it had been in retreat since the mid 1700,s which was when they first started keeping records.

Strange I thought that it should have been in retreat since well before the industrial revolution only to have then grown significantly during the last 30+ years during the time of the highest rates of fossil fuel consumption?

Having also watched Bear Grylis hoofing it over the perito moreno hoofing it over the once again advancing glacier which grew to its largest in a long time in 2004 , I decided to have a look for some facts and figures regarding glaciers on't internet.

And I found out there are many thousands of glaciers worldwide and only a small percentage have accurate historical records of advance and retreat. Yes there are many retreating but also large number advancing ( thats of the small percentage of which accurate records are kept )

In New Zealand they have 50 glaciers which have made significant advances which appear to continue at present.

It is also worth remembering the polar ice cap once spread to damned near the equator and has retreated and advanced to many extremes many times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's incredible! All those decades of research by the world's top scientists and droilker has managed to sort the whole mess out with a few "facts and figures regarding glaciers on't internet". Brilliant! I'm convinced.

 

Nobody has denied that some glaciers are advancing, and there can be any number of reasons for that, specific to each location.

 

However, many of the "facts and figures" that can be found from a quick trawl through "t' internet" are not to be trusted, and glaciers are a good example of this.

 

One of the figures often quoted by climate change deniers is that 555 of the 625 glaciers being monitored by the World Glacier Monitoring Service are actually advancing. You can find these figures all over "t' internet", but they have been conclusively (and amusingly) shown to be the result of a typing error by David Bellamy, when writing a letter to New Scientist magazine. He meant to write 55%, but he missed the shift button.

 

The 55% figure that he intended to write (but never corrected) has also been shown to be free from any scientific basis. There is an examination of the claim here - http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/05/10/junk-science/ - complete with references and sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is thought that most of the glacial/ice cap melting is occuring in the northern hemisphere and the expansion is happening in the southern hemisphere (although this is a large generalisation). One theory is that it is due to the difference in radiative forcing exerted across the globe. The anthropogenic element of this is particulate matter and certain gases. Depending on height in the atmosphere and compound, they act as coolants (negative forcing), which is what's happening south of the equator. The northern hemisphere experiences positive forcing, which is also observed at the equator to a lesser extent. Going by this, the increasing warming rate in the northern hemisphere could theoretically be added to by the tightening restrictions on PM/sulphur dioxide emissions (been happening for decades), while the CO2, CO and CH4 levels have continued to rise. Atmospheric sciene is a really non-exact subject and there are so many factors to take into account, so the accuracy of this can't really be evaluated - I certainly don't have enough understanding to know what to believe!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Medziotojas, micro-generation and efficiency savings are all well and good, but they will only ever solve part of the problem. If you consider the UK's emissions as consisting of three parts: Home use, Transport and Industry, micro generation will only address one of these, namely home energy use. Transport will be addressed, in the short term, by using smaller more efficient cars and by moving freight onto the (electric) railways, and in the long term, by scrapping petrol and diesel vehicles altogether. That leaves Industry, which in the UK nowadays seems to be predominately office based. You can deal with that by rebuilding all of our office blocks as more efficient buildings like the new Shetland Enterprise office at the North Ness, but as has been pointed out in relation to the building of the windfarm, construction is an environmentally unfriendly business. It would surely be better (and easier) to make our energy generation carbon neutral in the first place, then the office buildings can be rebuilt over a longer time period as and when necessary.

 

You'll get no argument from me here. I know there's more to it in the bigger picture, but I feared I was already in danger of veering off topic (hence thread jumping).

 

As regards the building of offices, I think we may see a future where more people are working from home. Wherever possible this would be a step in the right direction; no need to drive, no need to heat/light the office, etc.

 

Anyway, the main point I was trying to make in my post (proposed windfarm thread) is that there are many small changes that could make a big difference which we can adopt today, now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting findings in court Al Gores nine inconvenient lies

 

Mr Gore claims that two graphs, one plotting a rise in C02 and the other the rise in temperature over a period of 650,000 years, showed "an exact fit". The judge said that, although there was general scientific agreement that there was a connection, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts".

 

Some new findings on the link between CO2 levels and temperature.

 

Story - http://www.scenta.co.uk/Home/810161/global-warming-predictions-are-underestimated-say-scientists.htm

 

Research paper - http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2005GL025044.shtml

 

Short version, they seem to be linked to each other in both directions.

 

The paper studies the changes during the "little ice age" in the 1600s and finds that an initial temperature drop because of reduced solar heating was followed after 50 years by a drop in CO2 levels (more CO2 gets stored when it is colder) which amplified the effects, dropping the temperature further.

 

If you apply that to now, the CO2 we have been putting out will have raised the temperature, which will cause more CO2 to be released during the natural cycle, which will increase the effects of the initial changes.

 

The estimate is that this effect will raise temperatures 50% more than models have predicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^

 

You're right there. There are positive and negative feedback cycles in the earth's temp regulation. Up to a certain point, the more CO2 released, the higher increase in temperature and so on, so forth - "runaway global warming" (Seas hold less CO2 when warmer, permafrost melting, inreased biodegradation releasing methane and CO2 etc. etc.). I can't be bothered to dig out my papers to get exact figures, but all ice ages have been preceded by large temperature increases, and the ice age happens when negative feedback eventually kicks in. A bit over simplified I know, but I think that's the general jist o' it!

 

With this in mind, and the fact that the whole balance is so complex and un-exact it is commonly thought that there is a lag phase of around 150-200yrs between CO2 emissions and seeing the full impact of them. Supposing that not another carbon compound was emitted by humans, there would be absolutely no difference within our lifetimes. The perceived effects of global warming would continue for many more decades. And that's without factoring in things like the Milankovitch Cycles - far too complicated for me I'm afraid!!

 

The info in your link isn't really that new - it's been known for quite a while and has been included in a fair bit of modelling. I really don't trust any of the facts and figures (AKA educated guesses) out there. It's an emerging specialism and no one, as far as I'm aware, has come close to being able to state with much confidence that the research will be accurate in a few years - never mind 300, as our knowledge is continually expanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have never suggested that CO2 levels have been static, only that the human induced rise in CO2 levels caused by the burning of fossil fuels is causing a rise in average global temperatures which is unprecedented in world history (and I'm not talking about human history here, I'm talking about geological history).

 

The changes caused by the "little ice age" and the corresponding warm periods before and after it were caused by a global average temperature change of around one degree. The changes predicted to occur this century vary from 2.5 degrees to 5 degrees, depending on how quickly we eliminate fossil fuels from our economy.

 

Also, the size of the predicted change puts us in danger of triggering feedback loops which could lead to a catastrophic release of additional CO2 from natural sinks such as peat bogs and the Arctic tundra. In fact, in the case of the Arctic tundra there is evidence that this tipping point has already been reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...