Global warming - a Bollockquilism

less than 10% failed

  • yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • no

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
Re: Non Blind denial

Dimwit yourself!

Volcanoes also emit ash, which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere, masking any warming effect from greenhouse emissions.

There's good evidence that the series of harvest failures which preceded and triggered the French Revolution were caused by eruptions of the Hekla and Skapta Jokul volcanoes in Iceland, which threw enormous quantities of ash high into the air, that ash circling the globe and persisting at high altitude for years.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Volcanoes also emit ash, which has a cooling effect on the atmosphere, masking any warming effect from greenhouse emissions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe tongue in cheek....could be a crude form of climate control....get a lot of ash in the atmosphere, temps drop, CO2 gets reabsorbed into the oceans. Hmmm.

Problem would tend to be nuclear winter.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Dimwit yourself!

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never contested anything different and I don't pretend not to be. I also don't believe in MMGW. Nothing wrong in that is there?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Benjamin Frankin described a post-volcanic climate...

"During several of the summer months of the year 1783, when the effect of the sun's rays to heat the earth in these northern regions should have been greater, there existed a constant fog over all Europe, and a great part of North America. This fog was of a permanent nature; it was dry, and the rays of the sun seemed to have little effect towards dissipating it, as they easily do a moist fog, arising from water. They were indeed rendered so faint in passing through it, that when collected in the focus of a burning glass they would scarce kindle brown paper. Of course, their summer effect in heating the Earth was exceedingly diminished. Hence the surface was early frozen. Hence the first snows remained on it unmelted, and received continual additions. Hence the air was more chilled, and the winds more severely cold. Hence perhaps the winter of 1783-4 was more severe than any that had happened for many years."

The volcanic event behind Franklin's observation was Icelandic...

"The 25 km long crater row called Lakagigar was created during a relatively short, intensive, and catastrophic eruption between the 8th of June 1783 and February 1874. It was among the biggest and poisonous lava eruptions of the earth during historical times. It created two vast lava fields with a total area of 565 km², and the total volume of tephra emitted was estimated to have been 12,3 km³. The consequences were enormous. Between 53% and 82% of the domestic animals and 20% of the human population perished as a result."

If you visit the lava fields now, they are very eerie. The lava hasn't supported the return of any normal vegetation, but they are covered in a thick, velvety, grey-green moss. It's a bit as if someone has thrown a huge, thin, grey-green duvet over miles and miles of landscape.

f45a9a8f1914351276d5af96869397a1.jpg
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say current day volcano's /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Baah

[/ QUOTE ]

That one post, more than any other I have ever read on here, makes me despair.

Somehow, that combination of ignorance, bad manners and bad grammar squeezed into half a dozen words, marks a new nadir for me.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Tch! Tch!
Leave you lot alone for several hours while I emulsion my ceiling and you are all calling one another dimwits, talking total bollocks ( I agree with Jimi actually) and generally throwing your toys out of your cots without any help from Lakesailor or me!

Could I point out to the esteemed gathering that the global warming we are talking about is generally over the last 50 years, not in the dim distant past when dinosaurs roamed the earth, although judging by some of the posts on here some of the dinosaurs are still around.....

As I posted before, the Fraser report states quite clearly that the increase in temperature in this very recent period cannot be explained by sunspots, volcanos, or any other natural phenomena. In fact since 1979 we should have experienced a slight reduction in temperature if you discount greenhouse gasses. Bloody pointless talking about plus or minus 40degrees. That was before man evolved and he certainly wouldn't survive if anything like that ever happened again.... (Doh!)
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Oh that's all right then. Let's see, according to the link you provided this happened, what, 2.3 billion years ago. And the early forms of mankind's ancerstors were, say, about six or seven million years ago. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Before computers then?
 
The same "experts" were predicting an imminent ice age 30 years ago. Its all bollocks.
I remember also Governments in the 1950's and early 1960's telling us railways were an obsolete form of transport and lifted almost all the UK's railway tracks. Marples was Minister of Transport. HE owned the biggest construction Co in the UK and got the contract to build the M1.
Now they are telling us they have to tax us to save the planet.
What a load crap. Same bunch that cant look after a couple of cd's.
Plonkers all of them.
 
"Plonkers all of them."

Oh yes. But climate change is not something the Govt enthusiastically conceived as a revenue raising mechanism. It's something it had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept, under pressure from eco-lobby groups and its own Met Orifice and Chief Scientific Adviser. It was only when conventional politicians in marginal constituencies started worrying about votes leaching away to the Green Party that they discovered ecospeak. And they still manage to get it wrong, most of the time.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
marks a new nadir for me

[/ QUOTE ]

If postings on an internet forum contribute to make this is an all time low for you.... haven't lived much have you.
No wonder you are prepared to believe everything you're told. I suggest you get out a little. Or is it as with all you lefties you're just being a drama queen?
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Tch! Tch!
Leave you lot alone for several hours while I emulsion my ceiling

[/ QUOTE ]

You hypocritical little f#ckwit! Have you considered that emulsion paint which contains solvents and Volatile Organic Compounds adds to your carbon footprint, causing global warming & climate change?

Musch better to wallpaper your ceiling that reclaiming carbon from the atmosphere through the fibres from trees.
 
But there's still one thing I don't understand......





Burning 'fossil fuels' (coal, oil, natural gas, etc.) is the commonly cited source for 'man made' CO2 emissions. Surely these materials only contain carbon that was once in the atmosphere anyway ? (Until it was captured by the living things that died to become the coal / oil deposit).

Therefore, unless there's been some 'new' carbon created, burning the coal and oil is only putting the carbon back where it belongs (before it was locked up by a freak of nature).


Andy
(crawls back under stone)
 
Re: Non Blind denial

How dare you call me "little" you caledonian midget?
I'll paint my ceiling with what I like.......
Er.... why has the top of my head gone spotty? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

If a man does not keep pace with his companions it could be because his legs are too bleedin' short.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

"Surely these materials only contain carbon that was once in the atmosphere anyway ?"

Yup. Trouble is today's released fossil carbon was last free atmospheric carbon during the imaginatively named carboniferous period, when much of the uninhabited-by-mankind globe was covered in luxuriant forests and jungles. We don't have enough plant cover today to reabsorb the released fossil carbon.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

At the risk of being on the receiving end of further abuse may I ask a question or two.

Our sun is in the process of becoming a red giant. At some point during this process the Earth will be destroyed.

As a part of this process the sun will heat up and more energy will be absorbed by our atmosphere.

Has this heating process contributed to the temperature rises that are being noted?

The belief is that as more energy is applied to the atmosphere CO2 in the atmosphere will be destroyed causing massive deforestation and destruction of most plant life.

If this is the case will the excess of CO2 effectively self correct by this same process?

Related to Carbon capture - I vaguely remember from O level Chemistry that CO2 is a soluble gas.

Do we know how much CO2 is dissolved in the sea?

If so will increasing sea temperature cause more to be dissolved?

Since most power stations are close to large volumes of water can we dissolve a meaningful amount of CO2 directly into the cooling water that all power stations use?
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Trouble is today's released fossil carbon was last free atmospheric carbon during the imaginatively named carboniferous period, when much of the uninhabited-by-mankind globe was covered in luxuriant forests and jungles. We don't have enough plant cover today to reabsorb the released fossil carbon.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but it gives an indication that even if we burned all the fossil fuel (not that I am advocating that course of action), that the Earth would cope, it would just get a bit 'tropical'.

Andy
 
Re: Non Blind denial

Hi Beadle, the process of ecoming a red giant has'nt started. Our sun is in a stable state (apart from sunspot and solar flare activity) and will continue to be so for several billion more years.
 
Re: Non Blind denial

[ QUOTE ]
Do we know how much CO2 is dissolved in the sea?

If so will increasing sea temperature cause more to be dissolved?

[/ QUOTE ]

288042788_c5147a5da2_o_d.gif


(I can't remember the units on this graph - it might be millions of tonnes, but they are consistent)

I think that the solubility of CO2 decreases with temperature, and one of the 'positive feedback' mechanisms postulated is that if increasing CO2 levels in the atmosphere cause an increase in average sea temperatures then there will be a further net loss of CO2 from the sea to the atmosphere (hence leading to further temperature increases, etc. etc.).

Andy

(edit) the units are billions (i.e 10^9) tonnes of carbon, so there would appear to be 38,000 billion tonnes of carbon, or ~140,000 billion tonnes of CO2 dissolved in the ocean. The figure in the Independent article cited above is (I think) the total of 'man made' CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution, but it's a very badly written article, IMHO).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top