This is "hot" topic just now that has got me enraged. News,TV & press is full of cr@p about reducing use of energy, recycling etc. This all costs more money than just getting on with life without caring about our effects on the global environment. George Bush got it right not signing up to the Kyoto agreement. If the West cut's carbon emmisions there is no way we wil be able to compete with China & India. My town has lost 1000 jobs this month due to companies transfering their work to cheaper manufacturing areas. I ask you what difference can a tiny island off mainland Europe with a population of 60 million hope to change the theoretical effects of mankind on the environment? If China for example [with its population of 1,400,000,000] lifted its little pinkie to lower emissions the UK's efforts would be a drop in the ocean.

I have no intention in lowering my standard of living by paying green taxes to benifit future generations.

A proposal - cancel the 2012 [millenium dome errrrrrr] Olympics. That would be the UK's contrabution the the world. A fortune could be saved in air travel. We would have any one travelling to the shores to pointlessly watch the drugged up "amateurs" huffing & puffing about.

I agree, for differnt reasons...according to the actual numbers, we're not warming - we've cooled over the last 100 years, and we should actuall have warmed (remember - we're between ice ages!). The actual numbers gathered over the last 150 or so years show we're slightly cooler on average than would be expected. Realistically, it's pretty silly of us to think that we can alter something as large and complex as our planet's ecosystem in only a few decades - and I've read that one volcano erution puts more crap into the air than all the man-made pollution combined, since the beginning of the industrial revolution!

To give an opinion to your question, I hope it wasn't rhetorical, we can lead by example, make the best use of the resources we have because in the long run it should be cheaper, (please note I completely disregarded the cost of installing clean air technology etc) and I dont want the pollution problems China has now like we had back in the good old days, unless our house is in order we cannot economically force another state to get their act together.

in the short term we must stop buying goods and services from China India et al accept that we will have to pay more for our goods and rebuild the Brittish manufacturing industry, its a matter of what we want, cheap imported goods or more expensive goods that are U.K. manufactured.

Boycott companies that use foreign call centres etc, do the french have this problem?, America rebuilt Harley D with a tax on imported bikes.

On a personal point of view you can do a lot for you're own pocket by saving energy, I think by definition we're all into recycling here so maybee you're doing your bit already.

Thats a really jumbled up bunch of thoughts, but it is late.

OH and I second your propsal!

[Edited on 25/1/07 by locogeoff]

The average temperature for 2005 was the HIGHEST we have *EVER* recorded since we have been able to record it accurately (ie, since around ~1896).

It is obviously not a con.

[Edited on 25/1/07 by scotmac]

Here's a good chart on the average global temperature from wiki:

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

There are too many variables, too large of distances and too long periods of time for us to accurately say bugger all about whats happening.
For example, the "only" thing that makes it hotter around the equator is the distance to the sun (a whole 6000miles closer if I remember right) and the angle of the light hitting it. Try as we might, we could not even begin to measure the distance to the sun that accuratly. The human time frame is also far too short to accurately predict the changes of earth. 500years is but an instant to the climate. Every time a volcano farts it changes the earths climate. CO2 levels are lower now than they ever have been, yet this is what the epa is so upset about..... seems odd.

Having said that, it is the time to start watching, and changing how much impact we have on the earth. We need to maintain our resources or we die. Simple as that. If the govts want to latch onto global warming to make us simpletons clean up our act, so be it. But I have a hard time believing what Ive heard as proven truth.

Cheers.

The polar ice on Mars is shrinking...human effect?

Yes there is a climate problem or at least climate change going on and no there is no conclusive proof that man is the cause. That not withstanding there are major economic impacts on the first world and second world (basically Europe and America) of maintaining "comfortable" living conditions according to today's expectations. At the same time we are letting go of our control of manufacture to the Chinese predominantly and blithely giving them our technical knowledge to produce high technology products. We are also "giving" them the material resources, for example several tens of thousands of tons of scrap steel are loaded at Leith docks bound for China every month. This is steel from cars, buildings , machinery etc.that would originally have been mined and processed in the UK at places like Corby in England, Ravenscraig in Scotland or one of many places in South Wales.

Why are we doing this? Mainly because of cheap labour. The UK particularly has grown fat on North Sea Oil money has been squandered on large Social Security benefits payments excessive health and safety measures all seemingly designed to destroy the industry we had, Thanks Mrs Thatcher!

Basically it is now too expensive to employ industrial and manufacturing workers in the UK except in the highest value areas at the same time our expectation of prices for goods is reducing all the time. The same thing is about to happen in the bigger service industries, particularly design, IT, construction management and all the other things we do internationally because the UK has devalued University education in the misguided aim of educating 50% of school leavers to "degree" level while university education in India and China has become more rigorous and more selective and is outputting thousands of much more able and intelligent graduates, Masters and Doctors in the world labour market. These people are taking International jobs that would have been held by British graduates as few as 5 years ago.

So back to the Environment. This is a real problem for us to decide individually what to do. Recycling is a good thing, it does not have a negative impact on our personal lives or rather it should not. Coucils should be organising doorstep collection of sorted materials just like they manage to do in most of Northern Europe and Scandinavia, they even manage to do this in California and employ low earners, (no social security there!) to sort it into different materials.

Reducing energy use: well this is the big question. Individually this gives us increasing benefits as the price of power is hiked above the world price by greedy privatised companies. Reducing travel? yes I would love to fly less, I am writing this on a train from Edinburgh to London, unless I can book this well in advance it is considerably more expensive than flying, why? Profit hungry privatised train companies supplying a public transport service. Its a different story in Europe where trains run on time with adequate capacity and reasonable fares, largely government run and subsidised where necessary with money from profitable services!

It seems that no one in Government looks at Economic History. Private railways ceased to be profitable before the First World War hence the groupings into 4 large companies after WW1 and Nationalisation after WW2 followed by decimation of the rail system in the 1960s reducing all the feeders to the main routes and massive traffic reduction, the UK network is not capable of serving enough of the population outside the South East to be the first choice for travel.

I could go on but have probably already set a record for the longest post ever AARGH!

Caber

When I have time I will write a longer explaination. But the jist of it is this: Global warming is basically an excuse to get us to be more 'careful' about carbon dioxide emissions. All human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the yearly carbon dioxide emissions (around 1% IIRC of which 85% is due to cars etc) and has as already been said a small volcanic eruption spews more CO2 into the air than all human activity since the late 19th century. There are as many eminent scientists opposed to the theory of global warming as there are for it, but guess who tends to shout loudest?!

The hottest summer on record in the UK was actually in the 1600s. People forget we live in a natural system, which is prone to natural fluctuation. Some are talking of a average temperature change of 0.3degrees, that really strikes me as odd. Likewise we are between ice ages, indeed we are technically still in the last one! So some temperture fluctuation (if you believe the figures) is inevitable.

This said I do feel there is a need to slow the rate at which we are consuming the worlds natural resources of fossil fuels and raw materials. Being more efficient with what we have is always a great thing, and will also seek to lower emissions.

This post may seem a bit contradictory, but its not mean to be...

David

PS I do agree that 'developing' nations should not be excluded from international emissions regulations for the reasons a few people have already pointed out.

[Edited on 25/1/07 by flak monkey]

Dont understand the global warming. Things are changing but I think its just an excuse for the government to con us into paying more taxses.

I belive that more CO2 is relesed from cows and farm animals farting than all the modes of transport put together.

I agree that the use natural resources ( fosil fuels ) needs to be reduced. And when it becoms available I intend to run the V8 on E85 ( bio - ethanol )

As usual the Press is making its own headlines to sell newspaper or sell advertising. I.e. arnt we all supposed to be dead from bird flu anyway

Ps not going to start on the Chinese or any of the third world ecconomies. Yes we should lead by example but why should struggling UK industries ( and Jobs ) be put at risk ( why give more companies more excuses to move there manufacturing abroad ) AKA Renult - Royston.


Anyway Rant over.

Agriv8

Whilst we may be warming in Europe the world is cooling elsewhere - New Zealand have recorded low temperatures since around 1999 & look at the recent Californian weather.
The real question is WHY? I read a report from New Zealand written by an "expert" which claimed that only around 1% of the greenhouse effect is caused by the CO2 blanket getting thicker (which it is, this is something we CAN measure accurately) the rest is caused by the amount of water in the atmosphere over which we have virtually NO control. Hence the whole man made global warming thing is bo**ox!
One further thing I would love to hear a decent explanation of (other than it was driven by massive business interests!) is why we all have catalytic converters to change CO (not a major greenhouse gas) to CO2 (the largest contributor to the "blanket". We would all be far better off had we persued lean burn technology & stopped wasting fuel with bl**dy Cats. But then that wouldn't have lined so many fat cats & politicians pockets would it!

funnily enough I was thinking about it on the way in to work.

as the climate gets warmer then
a) we will use less fuel for heating so less C02 emissions
b) we will not have to go to Tossa del Mar for out hols as it would be just as wark in Devon, less air travel.

Won;t help the polar bear though.

The climate is unbeleiveably complex, there have been many models run to try and predict whats going to happen in the future with varying results

its not just CO2 levels, there are changes in the weather to consider as well, such as the El nino to pick out a well known effect

its true that we are just inbetween ice ages, and that what CO2 amounts we are releesing is not excessive, compared to volcanoes that said the ppm of CO2 is the highest its been since we have been able to work it out as it is acculmulated since the industrial revolution.

if we are lucky the ocean will draw it down for us and sequester it into the sediments, but i doubt that will happen

it is an prob, but as usual the government has seized on it as being really important and making us pay taxes etc for it, whereas whats really needed is more research

[Edited on 25/1/07 by trogdor]

quote:

---

Originally posted by zetec7
we're not warming - we've cooled over the last 100 years,

---

I totally agree the actions being forced on us are a con. I do not see any evidence that we in the UK contribute towards global warming.

Since the demise of the coal mining industry and better controls over emmisions I have simply moved to gas to heat my home. Much better eh? I think not.

I'm of the opinion the world warms up after an ice age and will cool down again in a million years or so as we move towards the next one.

I feel I am a lot more enviromentally aware of my surroundings and the world in general. I recycle my paper and tins and glass bottles, that must be good yes? Well no. The truck that picks them up is just the start of the carbon consuming process that is invisible to me. I understand it costs more to recycle the stuff. I certainly wont ever be using my hotwater and soap to clean these bits before I put them out.
Plus when they force a water meter on us that will stop rinsing them out in cold water as well.

My car emits zero carbon running on vegetable oil is the claim but that is not true either. The engine still emits it and it still needs to be absorbed to get rid of it. Bring on boi fuels!

Sorry to be blunt but it is all a con and a total load of sh1t!! A lot of people are getting rich

quote:

---

Originally posted by flak monkey
All human activity contributes only a tiny percentage of the yearly carbon dioxide emissions ... a small volcanic eruption spews more CO2 into the air than all human activity since the late 19th century.

---

we are warming, but the temperatures are not that unusual for the Earth, it has been hotter than this and colder

something WILL happen to change our climate, its not a static environment, it will change for the worse and possibly for the better, the Earth will survive the excess CO2 emissions, but maybe at the expensive of alot of life on this planet.

[Edited on 25/1/07 by trogdor]

I saw the quotes that co2 levels are now at 380ppm as well. But they are known to have been much higher in times past.

No one has mentioned the 'global dimming' thing. First awareness made by an aussie working on another project to do with evaporation rates. The evaporation has slowed down largely and measurably since the 1950's.

The slow down in evaporation is known to be caused by less sun energy coming through. This then impacts on vegetation growth and carbon (CO2) absorbtion. Less sunlight = less growth= less CO2 absorbtion. The drop in sunlight transmission WILL end up in rapid cooling and an ice age.

The cooling will drop the amount of water in the atmosphere in a rapid switch, the planet will then warm up, the atmosphere will fill with water vapour and dust, will then dim and cool,......and the cycle will go on for millenia.

The time between cold (or ice) ages is also known to a decreasing period since these cycles have been known to exist. Millions of years, and each 'warm' period has got progressively shorter.

Then there's the sunspot cycles within cycles within cycles. No mention of the relevance of any of this either, but it is more relevant than most of the bs talked about.

Man thinking he can change the climate? You'd have more chance of pissing into a hurricane and staying dry!

Anyway, it's all a big con to get us to pay more tax and spend money on unnecessary junk, like cat converters. All to end up in the pockets of the wealthy, one way or another.

Cheers,
Syd.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scoobylav

quote:

---

I belive that more CO2 is relesed from cows and farm animals farting than all the modes of transport put together.
Agriv8

---

True a cow produces more "Greenhouse Gas" in a year than an average 3 series BMW.

Kill all the cows and eat lots of steak . . . . theres your answer

---

smart51 your spot on.. Anyone who thinks that this is not a problem will find out in the next 25-50 years if it is... As we have only one planet I would be a little worried.

Dan

I love graphs like this, just look at the temperature variation, a fraction of a degree. Measured at best by a bloke looking at a thermometer and no mention of instrument reading error at worst just a guess. For example just how accurate did people measure temperatures during medieval times!!

I produce graphs for meetings all the time and can make them show what ever I want, even utter lies!

Beware strangers bearing graphs...


[Edited on 25/1/07 by macnab]
Rescued attachment graph.png

there are many biological and chemical and physical feedbacks on the Earth that can cause increased temperatures, they can have a positive (increase temperatures) or a negative (decrease temperatures) effect

the balance of all these determines our environment, this is known as Gaia theory which is increasingly being recognised as a proper science.

as well as environment effect there are the effects of the earth travelling through space, the milankovich cycles, such as precession, Eccentricity and axial tilt

these all have an effect on the environment as they effect the Earth as it orbits around the sun

they measure temperature in the past by drilling ice cores and by measuring the varying amounts of the two main isotopes of oxygen within the core, this with some processing is an proxy for temperature

it is meant to be pretty accurate, but who knows?

Again is it accurate to a fraction of a deg...No

Ice core samples only tell you the atmospheric gas mix, not temperature. The thickness of the winter and summer snowfall bands give an indication of the climate, again just an approximation. Anyone who puts a graph on a web site with such erroneous values either doesn't understand how to produce graphs or is trying to make out that their values are worth something by showing the values changing so much. To me it is a clear indication that this person who did this graph trying to mislead.

Scientists still can’t agree on why ice ages even occur for example is it

a) sunspot activity
b) variations in sun output
c) volcanic activity
d) the solar system passing through dust clouds

etc….

Each of these groups of scientist will magically produce graphs that show amazing correlations with their theories.

its ulikely to be one thing, the earth responds to many different events and feedbacks to produce climate,

it was once said that adding enough iron to the southern ocean would start an ice age, but we now know thats very unlikely

global climate is the result of all these varying processes and we will never be able to accurately predict or understand it at any point in the near future

In my lieftime the worlds population has gone from about 4.5bn to 6Bn.
Is anyone counting all the CO2 these extra people are breathing out, and how much less Rain forest is there is to cope with it.

We need a GOOD world war to cull a few of these exponentially reproductive mammals

I believe the Planet is fighting back, and will kill the Humans off by warming it self up, melting the ice, and drowning the little buggers.

This is nothing to say what the Worlds best mate the Sun is doing to help its old friend. It too is warming up as it comes to the end of its life, and helping to warm the planet.

Who said the Earth was the 3rd rock from the Sun.. Its ALIVE, and fighting back to kill off the polluters and tossers that are pillaging its wealth of minerals and trees.

WW3, the answer to all our problems

a nuclear winter will soon have that climate under control...

if we atcually farmed and used the land properly and efficently then apparently this planets could easily suport 60billion, i am not too convinced of this as we can't even support 6billion people now.

quote:

---

Originally posted by wilkingj
I believe the Planet is fighting back, and will kill the Humans off by warming it self up, melting the ice, and drowning the little buggers.

---

quote:

---

it was once said that adding enough iron to the southern ocean would start an ice age, but we now know thats very unlikely

quote:

---

That’s funny cause it was also suggested that doing that would feed algae to produce super blooms in the ocean which would reduce co2 and increase the oxygen...pah scientists

I just remember Focus running articles claiming that we were heading into an new ice age due to global dimming and next having one on how we were going to be all drowned due to global warming!!! Give me a break.

---

wilkingj - 25/1/07 at 12:52 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Agriv8

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scoobylav

quote:

---

I belive that more CO2 is relesed from cows and farm animals farting than all the modes of transport put together.
Agriv8

---

True a cow produces more "Greenhouse Gas" in a year than an average 3 series BMW.

Kill all the cows and eat lots of steak . . . . theres your answer

---

Agriv8

---

I just went down the fields and shot 20 cows so i could go out and buy a BMW and claim I was doing "my bit" for the Global Warming thing.

I never thought to Eat the cows as well...
Silly Me

---

macnab - 25/1/07 at 12:54 PM

oh well done now the rotting corpses will increase the methane levels...now you've done it

[Edited on 25/1/07 by macnab]

---

trogdor - 25/1/07 at 12:56 PM

yeah its now been realised by scientists, that while the algae would drawdown CO2 it would also result in a rise in zooplankton eating the algae and bacteria breaking down all the dead matter etc, all these respire CO2 so the CO2 would come straight back out again, well 95% would anyway

only 1% of the CO2 that enters the oceans is buried in the sediments, this is the only sink for CO2.

there is a company on the web somewhere i beleive touting this method as a "green" way to reduce CO2 by fitting appartus to ships that will add iron to the ocean,

absolute crap as u have to be in certain areas of the ocean to start with and it doesn't work!

[Edited on 25/1/07 by trogdor]

---

macnab - 25/1/07 at 01:31 PM

quote:

---

there is a company on the web somewhere i beleive touting this method as a "green" way to reduce CO2 by fitting appartus to ships that will add iron to the ocean

quote:

---

hmm probably find the company is actually a waste disposal one dealing in old ferrous materials...and a lot of the 'iron' will strangely glow in the dark

---

MikeR - 25/1/07 at 01:40 PM

Interesting debate & one i suspect will run and run.

Some of my thoughts.

The plant is a living organism & we are a parasite. We take lots and give little in return.

Destroying the rainforrest - isn't that the lungs of the plant?

Trees do absorb CO2 when they grow but, when they die / cut down they get burnt (and release the CO2) or rot (and ... release the CO2). the best thing to do with them is to bury them in the mines and let them turn into coal over a few thousand years.

Is the planet changing - no one can say for sure, but i think its pretty obvious it is changing as its got all these parasites doing things to it.

What should we do? Well we can be ignorant and assume the planet will magically be ok, or we can realise we're slowly destroying it (i'm not saying global warming, i'm saying in general but i think global warming is probably happening) and do things to reduce our impact.

I love the idea that its not up to one country to try and fix or its not mans problem cause of volcano's. Cool, well lets just blame volcanos or someone else. If we start doing something we'll start to make an impact and maybe buy some more time - time that might be essential to find a way to stop volcanos errupting or what ever and .... save the planet.


Think its interesting people are talking about the british economy as well - i think there is a lot wrong with this country & we've only got ourselves / predecessors to blame. The biggest issue is the lack of willingness to change - we're far too comfy. Some Finnish friends are amazed how hard we DON'T work in this country and how EASY it is.

---

macnab - 25/1/07 at 02:01 PM

As I still remember ‘Smith’ from the Matrix saying -

‘I’d like to share with you a revelation I’ve had, it came to me when I was trying to classify your species. You see most creatures reach equilibrium with their surrounding but you do not, you multiply and multiply until all the resources are used up and then you move onto the next habitat.

There is another creature that behave this way it, can you guess what it is?

A virus…you’re a disease of this planet and we are the cure.’



lovely.

---

ChrisGamlin - 25/1/07 at 02:25 PM

I always assumed global warming was a load of old tosh, but as soon as I realised that Mr Bush was saying the same thing, that made me realise the Green brigade must be correct

---

smart51 - 25/1/07 at 02:33 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
I realised that Mr Bush was saying the same thing, that made me realise the Green brigade must be correct

---

Ooo, that's so hurtful.

---

ChrisGamlin - 25/1/07 at 02:48 PM

...and a joke

---

smart51 - 25/1/07 at 03:02 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
...and a joke

---

I know, but being compared to Bush, that's one big insult

---

ChrisGamlin - 25/1/07 at 03:06 PM

Thats what I thought you meant, just wasn't sure

---

robertst - 25/1/07 at 03:24 PM

great timing! i just happen to have a class on climatic change and global warming this semester, and from reading this thread, i am now completely conviced my professor is full of S***. not only that, i always thought what you guys have written here.
there has to be a cyclical tendency to climate conditions. bad thing is these cycles probably last like 1000 years and for the better or worse, we are probably in a warming up cycle which doesn't really mean it has been provoked by man, pigs effluent, or volcano farts.

which reminds me of a table i was given yesterday in class, where it compared the CO2 emissions of a plane with that of pig effluent! I mean how daft can that be? the list of most polluting to least polluting was something like:
volcanoes, planes, pig effluent, cars, mopeds...

another thing which is really an urban myth is the ozone hole. most people think theres actually no ozone in the south pole or simply a hole in that zone, it actually is just a thinning of the ozone layer.

so, how can we predict whats going to happen to global temperatures in 100 years if we cant even properly predict tomorrow's weather?!

a counter-point to this might be the example of cherry trees in New York that have already blossomed (instead of in may) and the snow line in the alps is increasing each year (something like 100m every year), i.e. there is less and less snow precipitation every year...

i say "what me worry?", scientists are just throwing cards at a table anyway basing themselves on unreliable information.

---

Paul (Notts) - 25/1/07 at 04:26 PM

"If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave"



please have a read and do some research before saying climate change is not a problem.


My little girl is only 2 1/2 years old and she will inherit the mess we have made.

[Edited on 25/1/07 by Paul (Notts)]

---

Aboardman - 25/1/07 at 04:32 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul (Notts)
If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave



please have a read and do some research before saying climate change is not a problem.


My little girl is only 2 1/2 years old and she will inherit the mess we have made.

---

and you drive a v8
are you going to swap it for a bike engine.

---

Paul (Notts) - 25/1/07 at 04:42 PM

I drive a small car the V8 does not run and the way the build is going it will be on the road in 2050.!!



Fair point but the V8 is only going to get ocassional use.. the majority of my journies will be in a much more economical but less fun car.

Paul

---

MikeR - 25/1/07 at 05:05 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul (Notts)
"If you accept the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus view of climate science, humankind is involved in an unprecedented and highly risky experiment with the only ecosphere it has, and climate sceptics are simply vandals laying a tree trunk across the train tracks which society must traverse to escape its fiery grave"



please have a read and do some research before saying climate change is not a problem.


My little girl is only 2 1/2 years old and she will inherit the mess we have made.

[Edited on 25/1/07 by Paul (Notts)]

---

here here - i tried to put a similar view (much less eloquently), i also think the problem is wider, we need to look at society and its view of OUR ONLY planet.

---

novacaine - 25/1/07 at 05:10 PM

seems strange to me that one or two scientist have proposed the idea of global warming to the government who have then (probaly) perswaded some other scientists to agree. then Mr Blair tells us the only way to avoid the ultimate end of the world in a few years that would be brought around by gloabal warming is to pay more tax.... funny that

---

Rob Palin - 25/1/07 at 05:52 PM

I agree that there are some valid concerns about the measurement methods and ultimate accuracy of changes in global average temperature over geological timescales. However it does seem significant to me that the people deeply involved in researching climate change are very serious about what they do and are the general consensus is that something is happening and we need to be cautious in case we are playing an instrumental role in buggering up the planet (technical term, that).

To say that it is a conspiracy is, i feel, ludicrous. Spend some time looking at the results of the research done into the subject done by the various international organisations and scientific institutions involved and you'll see there is a lot of supporting evidence. Better that than believing the sound-bites you see on the news, which are always 'spun' in one direction or another.

---

JoelP - 25/1/07 at 08:31 PM

Any co2 they release must come from the food they eat, and the carbon in that came from the atmosphere, so over all, cows have no net effect on atmospheric co2. Much the same way that trees have no effect, as in the long run they will rot or burn. Very little would actually get into a 'perminant' store like coal etc.

I think what people must accept is that we are on a knife edge, if the seas warm up then they will hold less dissolved co2, which would lead to more 'warming' etc. Or the same in reverse, if it gets very cold then the ice would reflect heat back to space and keep us cold. These are the extremes, but lesser effects could still be unfortunate.

I cant understand how people think man has no effect on the environment? Have you seen how many people are out there? We are like a plague of locusts stripping a field.

---

MikeR - 26/1/07 at 12:07 AM

slightly simplistic view ....... i've had flowers trying to grow in the the middle / end Dec & start Jan.

That aint normal!

---

DIY Si - 26/1/07 at 12:13 AM

True. My rose bushes are starting to sprout already! May just be down to a lack of winter this year.

---

smart51 - 26/1/07 at 08:03 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP

just a thought on cows

Any co2 they release must come from the food they eat, and the carbon in that came from the atmosphere, so over all, cows have no net effect on atmospheric co2.

---

Cows and sheep eat grass which is grown by using CO2 from the air. They convert that grass to methane which has 10x the greenhouse effect of CO2

---

trogdor - 26/1/07 at 09:42 AM

most of the CO2 released is balanced by a uptake of CO2, the main release of CO2 that is not balanced is by us burning the oil and coal that took millions of years to form yet is being released in much quicker than than that, obviously if a volcano erupts this is another main export of CO2 into the atmosphere

i tried to find that company on the web but was unsuccessful, it was there only a few weeks ago! oh well!

alot of the stuff that is seen on tv is misleading in some way, even the bbc's horizon documentry's we watched one once in a lecture, it was about the gulf stream slowing down and stopping meaning it will get really cold here etc, like that film the day after tomorrow.

however after it finished the lecturer completly ripped it apart saying it pretty much was a load of spin and hype

---

MikeR - 26/1/07 at 12:50 PM

although it does highlight the point we all hear global warming and assume it will get hotter. It should be called climate change - some places hotter, some colder, some damper, some drier.

---

ChrisJLW - 26/1/07 at 01:23 PM

The oil and coal was once CO2 as well, we're just 'repatriating' it.

The human race will survive global warming and the loss of natural resources such as coal and oil but it will take a big fall before hand. Hence the need to conserve what we have and develop alternatives for what we will lose, although I cannot see alternatives for oil based products ever being developed.

---

JoelP - 26/1/07 at 09:57 PM

the future is nuclear. Fuel cells and nuclear

---

t.j. - 27/1/07 at 08:31 AM

We all buying this crap by the media.

The sun-activity is at a high point last decades. So what happens if the sun shines?......


So arround 2012-2020 the sun is relative low.
And then watch it becomes normal.
But then the media will say....
Look what our envoirment is doing better by................

And china, india will blast more and much more....

So... ok, it is important. Only by stressing the car-owner in Europe: NO!

Nuclear fusion will bring in the future our energy. If the Oil-holding lands will not distroy us, cause that only their money-maker.

---

Rob Palin - 27/1/07 at 09:02 AM

If this is all just hype from the media, perhaps you should let the various experts know at Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College (amongst many others) that they are wasting their time researching Climate Change.

I'm sure all those professors will be glad to know that they shouldn't be fooled by what they see on the news and can get back to gardening, or whatever they would otherwise be doing...

http://www.cei.group.cam.ac.uk/directory/climate/
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/research/climate/index.php
http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange

---

Syd Bridge - 27/1/07 at 01:39 PM

There's as many 'Professors' in the 'against' camp as the 'for'. Just not given the media space. You see, they're not as controversial and shock horror doom.

Those beardies with their long hair and burned out hippy looks have to justify their bloated research grants somehow.

Cheers,
Syd.

---

jlparsons - 27/1/07 at 06:53 PM

Global warming, ozone layer, rainforest depletion, who cares? Fact is there's way too many of us and we're hyper-consuming - the planet can't support this growth in consumption and population for long. It's broke? Chuck it out, buy another.
So it gets a bit hotter - big deal. What we need to look at is long term economic stability and no politic system yet devised promotes this, long terms plans are 50 years but what the hell is that? Blink of an eye.

Spleen vented!

---

t.j. - 28/1/07 at 12:09 AM

Some years ago they had acid rain....
Then someone finds out it's normal.....
We all believed it.....costs......

Water rises by increasing ice???? it lay's on top of water.... What did you learn at fysics...

So this year:

We get a wet summer...... it's global warming
We get a cold summer...... it's global warming
We get a hot summer.... it's global warming

Don't misunderstand me, envoirment is important, but not this way.

Stay awake: http://www.realclimate.org/

[Edited on 28/1/07 by t.j.]

---

Rob Palin - 28/1/07 at 10:54 AM

Ice does not "lay on top of water" as you say, but submerges partially in it, to a depth determined by the relative densities of the sea water and (pure water) ice. Most of the ice is under the surface, hence the expression "just the tip of the iceberg".

On a physical basis though you could question whether the sea level would rise because (pure) water expands inbetween 4 degrees C and freezing so the ice takes up more volume than its equivalent mass of liquid water. The argument then being that when it melts it might not take up any more actual space than it did as ice and so the water level itself may not change. This is something you could calculate fairly easily and i'm sure they've already done it.

As far as raising the seas worldwide, however, you'd have to take into account the mass of snow / ice on top of land and, in the case of antarctica in particular, that's a hell of a lot of land!

Anyone tried going on a skiing holiday recently? Not much snow about this winter, is there?

I agree that there isn't 100% consensus on whether or not the climate is changing *entirely* because of us, but it IS changing and we're certainly not helping. As the world gets more crowded it surely makes sense to try and be a little more responsible and considerate with how we use and dispose of the natural resources which will gradually become rarer.

Has anyone ever read about the early civilisation on Easter Island (the one with the funny head statues)? They died out because they cut down all the trees on the island to use as fuel. I wonder if the bloke who cut down the last one thought "nah, it'll be alright, some more will grow soon"...

[Edited on 28/1/07 by Rob Palin]

---

MikeR - 28/1/07 at 12:36 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by t.j.
Some years ago they had acid rain....
Then someone finds out it's normal.....

---

Did they, when was this published (serious question, cause i completely missed it)

---

JoelP - 28/1/07 at 03:41 PM

he probably means 'normal' in that its just atmospheric moisture disolving gas to produce acid. Not normal is the excess of so2 etc that is the problem!

---

t.j. - 28/1/07 at 07:07 PM

read this


You don't hear about acid-rain cause the people as you and I can't do anything about it. Our car-contribution is to low now. So now they focus on the C02.

So what if we all drive electric cars which come from water- or airpropelled generators.... Yes they find out that the wheels are from rubber which produce noise and dust which is harmfull.

Over 20 years you will remember this, and smile.....

So do the things which have direct effort.

Save childern from starving, stop war, don't mess up the envoirment by flying.
Help your neighbour. Bring your chemical waste to the collecting place.

But don't focus on things which costs a lot of money and the outcome is uncertain!

And put a catalist on your BEC car

---

t.j. - 28/1/07 at 07:21 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by JoelP
he probably means 'normal' in that its just atmospheric moisture disolving gas to produce acid. Not normal is the excess of so2 etc that is the problem!

---

If you put it in to the cloudes it will fall down. Which is logic to me.

But is there really something to do about it now? NO.
So that's why you and I don't have to hear about it.
We have raising envoirment tax on electricity to reduce Co2. What a crap...!

It's only to get the money....

---

trogdor - 29/1/07 at 09:25 AM

the future would be in renewable sources of energy, nuclear fisson is a dead end as sources of suitable uranium ores are scarce, it will prob last as long as oil if we are lucky certainly not coal. if we could develop controlled fusion then that would be the way forward.

---

DorsetStrider - 30/1/07 at 06:08 PM

The fact of the matter is that the governement is more interested in collecting taxes for it's coffers than any real interest in the environment.

All the majour car manufactures have hydrogen or hybrid engine designs they are happy to start using but what would be the point when the only place that you can get hydrogen is aberdeen?

The Governement doesn't want to force in hydrogen power for the simple reason that it would upset their bum buddies in the oil/gas/coal industrys.

---

smart51 - 2/2/07 at 09:41 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6321351.stm

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.

---

G.Man - 2/2/07 at 09:58 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bluemoon
smart51 your spot on.. Anyone who thinks that this is not a problem will find out in the next 25-50 years if it is... As we have only one planet I would be a little worried.

Dan

---

I agree also, watch "An incovenient truth" Al Gores film, and come back and tell me its not an issue..

Bush is an asshole, not only for kyoto, but many other things, and many cities in the US are now ratifying Kyoto regardless of Bush, good on them...

China is an issue with them opening 600 new coal fired power plants, but they will find themselves with international sanctions and no export trade if they dont sort themselves out, and thats the way forward...

We should be talking with our wallets and not buying goods made in china so that they have to start thinking about clean nuclear enrergy...

If you see the state Tehran is in with smog and polution, you will understand why they are trying to reduce their reliance on oil and switch to nuclear..

You can only drive your car every other day there now, depending on whether it is odd or even numbered... Of course the rich twats just have 2 gas guzzling monsters to get round this



We are on the verge of a major climatic change if we dont do something, then it wont matter about money anymore as people in the northern hemisphere, US, Europe etc will be extinct!

I urge everyone to make it their business to find out about this, like smart and dan said... it is a much bigger problem than the govt's are letting us know!

---

G.Man - 2/2/07 at 10:03 AM

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnfe7Cnwfm4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8j0BngYcNaw

---

NS Dev - 2/2/07 at 10:54 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by zetec7
I agree, for differnt reasons...according to the actual numbers, we're not warming - we've cooled over the last 100 years, and we should actuall have warmed (remember - we're between ice ages!). The actual numbers gathered over the last 150 or so years show we're slightly cooler on average than would be expected. Realistically, it's pretty silly of us to think that we can alter something as large and complex as our planet's ecosystem in only a few decades - and I've read that one volcano erution puts more crap into the air than all the man-made pollution combined, since the beginning of the industrial revolution!

---

I wholeheartedly agree with the above, nice to know I am not the only one!

---

flak monkey - 2/2/07 at 11:02 AM

The fact of the matter is all of the data on the matter is skewed one way or another for the political (or other agenda) benefit of the writer. No more or less. You can make statistics tell you absolutely anything you want to depending on which method of analysis you apply to them.

I still stand by the statements I made earlier. It is imperative that we slow our use of the world's resources, however not from a global warming point of view, though the change in technology will lead to a natural decrease in emissions.

I believe the focus should be on developing true alternative fuels etc for the real reason that we ARE running out of natural fossil fuels, not for the hyped up reason that is global warming.

David

---

NS Dev - 2/2/07 at 11:13 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syd Bridge
I saw the quotes that co2 levels are now at 380ppm as well. But they are known to have been much higher in times past.

No one has mentioned the 'global dimming' thing. First awareness made by an aussie working on another project to do with evaporation rates. The evaporation has slowed down largely and measurably since the 1950's.

The slow down in evaporation is known to be caused by less sun energy coming through. This then impacts on vegetation growth and carbon (CO2) absorbtion. Less sunlight = less growth= less CO2 absorbtion. The drop in sunlight transmission WILL end up in rapid cooling and an ice age.

The cooling will drop the amount of water in the atmosphere in a rapid switch, the planet will then warm up, the atmosphere will fill with water vapour and dust, will then dim and cool,......and the cycle will go on for millenia.

The time between cold (or ice) ages is also known to a decreasing period since these cycles have been known to exist. Millions of years, and each 'warm' period has got progressively shorter.

Then there's the sunspot cycles within cycles within cycles. No mention of the relevance of any of this either, but it is more relevant than most of the bs talked about.

Man thinking he can change the climate? You'd have more chance of pissing into a hurricane and staying dry!

Anyway, it's all a big con to get us to pay more tax and spend money on unnecessary junk, like cat converters. All to end up in the pockets of the wealthy, one way or another.

Cheers,
Syd.

---

Well put Syd:

"Man thinking he can change the climate? You'd have more chance of pissing into a hurricane and staying dry!"

I completely agree. How clever do humans think they have got now, we need to wake up and smell the roses!

---

MikeRJ - 2/2/07 at 11:44 AM

quote:

---

Originally posted by G.Man
I agree also, watch "An incovenient truth" Al Gores film, and come back and tell me its not an issue..

---

"An incovenient truth" was made by a politician as a political tool, and can not therefore be taken seriously. If Tony Blair made a film about WMD in Iraq would you belive it for a second?

---