Climate Change & Global Warming

[Spinner72]

Thankfully, it's not true. But unfortunately, the Global Warming craze is very visible just now, unlike WMD's and the other scaremongering propaganda you so rightly liken it to.

 

I've always thought it was a relatively harmless way of a few people keeping themselves in a job, but sadly, this is no longer the case.

 

People need to wake up and stop subscribing blindly to anything the authorities shove in front of them, and encourage real change. Global warming isn't a threat. But the political and pseudo-moral craze that surrounds it is a reality thats already killing people, and it needs to stop.

[Ina]

People need to wake up and stop subscribing blindly to anything the authorities shove in front of them

 

I dare say the authorities were just about the last of the thinking masses who decided to accept that climate change does exist. So, if you don't believe in global warming, how come the ice caps are melting?

 

This is a serious question - I've always wondered how the deniers of climate change can explain that...

[ArabiaTerra]

I dare say the authorities were just about the last of the thinking masses who decided to accept that climate change does exist. So, if you don't believe in global warming, how come the ice caps are melting?

 

This is a serious question - I've always wondered how the deniers of climate change can explain that...

It is indeed a serious question and I have repeatedly asked the deniers on this forum to come up with some evidence to support their clams. So far they have come up with nothing, nada, zero.

 

The reason for this is because there is no evidence to support their claims. They're a bit like creationists in this respect.

 

Q. Why don't you believe in climate change?

A. Because!

 

It's like banging your head off a brick wall sometimes, but I persevere.

[Spinner72]

^^ Its melting because of the increase in temprature caused by the increase in sunspot (flare) activity. Very simple and obvious.

 

Nothing particularly new or ground breaking about it, just a normal, natural occurance. Or do you think the sun just stays the same all the time?

 

 

The very terminology so often used, that of having to either "believe" in global warming or not, is so indicative of what it is.

 

Facts are facts, you only have to "believe" something if it can't be proven.

[Njugle]

^ There is the distinction between man-made and sun-made, to coin a phrase.

 

Though man may be at the crux of what is happening here, those who question man's singular impact upon it also draw evidence from the warming of other planets in the solar system.

 

I haven't seen many people here answer with a mere 'because' answer, though few have returned with the same level of theory as those of the accepting side of the argument. That in itself is indicative of the level of theoretical proof available.

 

James May's program on Sunday night was very interesting. The level of technology being designed to reduce fossil fuel usage was truly heart warming. The Sahara solar array was again mentioned, in Seville they already have a solar power-station, In Stamford Lough they have a tidal turbine capable of powering a town. There is technology afoot to manufacture petroleum from CO2 and water, using a solar furnace and wind energy has a future in the jet-stream using kites, beyond the current trend for ground based turbines.

 

Great stuff.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^ Its melting because of the increase in temprature caused by the increase in sunspot (flare) activity. Very simple and obvious.

And wrong. The solar theory as a cause of global warming has been comprehensively discredited. At most, a warming sun can only account for around 15-20% of the observed warming.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080717224333.htm

 

So, once again I'll ask the question. Where is your evidence that global warming is not man-made?

[Malachy]

Just to inject a note of reality into proceedings here. This argument about other planets warming is a bit of a red herring.

For obvious reasons, measuring temperatures on other planets is a somewhat less exact science than measuring it on Earth - much of it seems to rely on guesses and assumptions - so it can't be given nearly the significance that climate science on this planet can. Also, only six planets/moons of those observed are thought to be warming. Others, like Uranus, are cooling.

 

Of the six thought to be warming, sun spot activity is actually not the consensus opinion on their warming among scientist (only among climate change sceptics). Each body has its own reason for its climatic changes. The following is taken from a website whose authority I cannot vouch for, not being a climate scientist or astronomer, (but then the evidence presented by others on the sceptic side can hardly be vouched for either). Anyway:

 

* Martian climate is primarily driven by dust and albedo and there is little empirical evidence that Mars is showing long term warming. [only one scientist I can find has actually linked Martian warming to sunspots, but lots of bloggers have]

* Neptune's orbit is 164 years so current brightening is a seasonal response (Neptune's southern hemisphere is heading into summer).

* Triton's warming is due to the moon approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years.

* Jupiter's storms are fueled by the planet's own internal heat (the sun's energy is 4% the level of solar energy at Earth). When several storms merge into one large storm (eg - Red Spot Jr), the planet loses its ability to mix heat, causing warming at the equator and cooling at the poles.

* Pluto's warming consists of two observations 14 years apart noting a difference in atmospheric thickness which implies warming - scientists are unable to explain why yet. But considering Pluto's orbit is equivalent to 248 Earth years, this says nothing about climate change. It's like saying Earth is warming when comparing winter to summer. Plus Pluto is more than 30 times farther away from the Sun than the Earth is. If the Sun were warming up enough to affect Pluto at that vast distance, it would blowtorch the Earth.

[Njugle]

Surely that's a contradictory statement AT:

"comprehensively discredited...........account(s) for 15-20% of the observed warming"

 

So it hasn't been discredited, it has been registered as a significant factor of lesser relevance than man-made carbon-emissions.

 

there is evidence to show that after the last glaciation, over the last 10,000 years and before industrial activity commenced, fluctuations in the sun's magnetic energy regulated most of the Earth's climate variations.”

[ArabiaTerra]

I haven't seen many people here answer with a mere 'because' answer, though few have returned with the same level of theory as those of the accepting side of the argument. That in itself is indicative of the level of theoretical proof available.

Ok, so I was being a bit flippant with that one. But the fact remains, I have read all of this thread and none of the sceptics has produced one single piece of evidence that can't be refuted by 30 seconds on google or the Science Daily site (A prime example being Spinner 72's nonsense above about the sun causing the warming).

James May's program on Sunday night was very interesting. The level of technology being designed to reduce fossil fuel usage was truly heart warming. The Sahara solar array was again mentioned, in Seville they already have a solar power-station, In Stamford Lough they have a tidal turbine capable of powering a town. There is technology afoot to manufacture petroleum from CO2 and water, using a solar furnace and wind energy has a future in the jet-stream using kites, beyond the current trend for ground based turbines.

 

Great stuff.

The reason I am so disappointed with the worlds response to this emergency is not because the technology isn't there, but because governments are doing next to nothing to get the technology implemented. We know coal is bad, yet they are still looking at building more coal fired power stations. We know aviation is bad yet they are still pursuing airport expansion. We knew 4WD vehicles were bad for at least a decade before the government did anything about it, and even then it was such a half-hearted move it achieved virtually nothing, the roads are still clogged with the things.

 

The world is finally taking climate change seriously, but we have wasted 20 years thanks to big business, the Bush regime and the gullible fools who believed their propaganda. I just hope that we don't come to regret those 20 wasted years but I fear we will.

[Njugle]

Man's hunger for business and indeed cash is a powerful incentive. Even to the most altruistic scientist a financial reward is a kick up the jacksie. There is currently a $2million dollar reward for those who come up with a working design for a space-elevator. The stuff of mad science-fiction formerly, but the promise of an extra-terrestrial solar array means some of the finest minds in the field are now busying away to create a method. Look what happened with the X-prize.

[ArabiaTerra]

Surely that's a contradictory statement AT:

"comprehensively discredited...........account(s) for 15-20% of the observed warming"

 

So it hasn't been discredited, it has been registered as a significant factor of lesser relevance than man-made carbon-emissions.

 

there is evidence to show that after the last glaciation, over the last 10,000 years and before industrial activity commenced, fluctuations in the sun's magnetic energy regulated most of the Earth's climate variations.â€

In the context of Solar warming explaining all of the observed warming, as the sceptics claim, then I would consider that pretty comprehensive. It's certainly a lot more comprehensive as anything they've come up with ie: it actually contains evidence quoted from actual scientists! All we've had from the sceptics is propaganda, lies and distortion from oil companies, the American car industry and government, and, of course from a few crackpots like David Bellamy, Nigel Lawson and Michael Crichton, none of whom are climate scientists.

[ArabiaTerra]

Man's hunger for business and indeed cash is a powerful incentive. Even to the most altruistic scientist a financial reward is a kick up the jacksie. There is currently a $2million dollar reward for those who come up with a working design for a space-elevator. The stuff of mad science-fiction formerly, but the promise of an extra-terrestrial solar array means some of the finest minds in the field are now busying away to create a method. Look what happened with the X-prize.

Agreed. The problem is that it is up to government to put up the prizes, create the incentives and distort the markets to produced the desired results. This is something which, worldwide, governments have so far failed to do.

 

Edit: Won't the space elevator be cool though.

[ArabiaTerra]

I've been banging on for a while now on this thread about how we need to completely eliminate fossil fuels from our economy. This report highlights the magnitude of the task.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg20026786.100-special-report-why-politicians-dare-not-limit-economic-growth.html

 

It seems we're going to need to make some pretty profound changes in how we manage our society this century if we are going to avoid disaster and at the same time bring the prosperity and security we enjoy to the rest of the world.

[Para Handy]

A herd of cows belches out more climate-changing gas than a family car, a university researcher said today.

 

Dr Andy Thorpe, an economist at the University of Portsmouth, explained that 200 cows burp the annual equivalent amount of methane to the energy produced by a family car being driven 111,850 miles..

The amount of methane produced by a herd was the same as the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions produced by a car burning 21,400 litres of petrol, he said.

 

He added that while CO2 emissions have increased by 31 per cent during the past 250 years, methane, which has a higher warming potential and a longer lifetime in the atmosphere, has increased by 149 per cent during the same period.

 

Dr Thorpe added that methane in the atmosphere was believed to be responsible for one-fifth of global warming experienced since 1750.

 

The main animal producers are domestic animals, particularly cows, sheep, goats and camels which have an additional stomach, he said.

 

They produce large amounts of methane as they digest their food and then belch out most of it through their mouths.

 

A dairy cow in New Zealand will typically produce around 176lb (80kg) of methane per year.

 

Dr Thorpe explained that much of the methane increase was taking place in the developing world where cows and other domestic animals are often bred for food.

 

He said: "Methane emission growth, like CO2 growth, has been increasing exponentially in the developing world due to a rise in incomes leading to an increased demand for meat, and the 'hamburger connection' where developing countries make a lucrative profit supplying meat to developed countries.

 

"If anything, methane emissions in the developing world are likely to increase."

 

Dr Thorpe said methane was covered by the Kyoto Protocol on climate change but much of the developing world had not signed up to the agreement.

 

He explained that up to 75 per cent of animal methane emissions came from developing countries, with India and Brazil being the leading producers.

 

He said efforts were being made to reduce the emissions, including providing different feed and using vaccinations, but added that they were in early stages of research.

 

And he said there could be problems with downsizing herds as working animals could end up being replaced by petrol-driven vehicles and a reduction in meat could lead to a "disastrous" increase in demand for fish and cereals.

 

Dr Thorpe, whose paper has been published in the journal Climatic Change, said: "Developing countries are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol's bid to limit emissions so there is currently little incentive for them to sacrifice foreign exchange earnings and/or eat less meat by herd downsizing."

 

Each year, around 600 teragrammes of methane is produced worldwide with between 55 per cent and 70 per cent coming from man-made sources.

 

This stupied goverment will now fit all cows with a Catalytic converters

[ArabiaTerra]

Did i hear a report correctly today that 18% of greenhouse gases come from the rearing of livestock for food? Vegetarianism anyone? More effective than ditching the car.

At the most basic level this is true, a large amount of greenhouse gases do come from the rearing of livestock. But the thing is, there has always been livestock of one form or another. Look at the plains of Africa, all those millions of wildebeest, zebra and antelope of various kinds, then consider the millions of bison which used to roam the plain of North America. Then there are the steppes of Asia which must have supported similar massive herds of herbivores before man came along and wiped them out.

 

All we have done is replace the wild herds with herds of domesticated animals. The amount of meat "on the hoof" is probably similar now to what it was in the epochs before man domesticated animals and began rearing them for food. Or to put it another way, there have always been cows (of one form or another), and they have always been farting.

Ok, so I said farting when I should have said belching but the argument stands. Methane produced by living bio-mass is part of the natural carbon cycle . It's the stuff that comes from fossil fuels and melting permafrost which is dangerous.