Global Warming prog on Channel4

Re: Heads in the sand

If zou canät be bothered making the effort to follow the reasoning thatäs zour problem! ..erm it was a quote and not me which zou might have spotted had zou made the effort to read it!
 
Re: Heads in the sand

>>>
As a climate change scientist who is very aware of the many shortcomings with our current understanding of the climate system and humankinds impact upon it, but a firm believer in anthropogenic caused warming, I thought it was very striking (and quite reassuring) how weak the ‘anti’ scientific arguments presented were.
>>>
Or "I'm a believer and am happy to see the arguments of non-believers as weak"?

Unhelpful. We don't knw and seem, on the one hand, to risk possible climate collaps, and on the other, possible economic collapse.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

In the context of what_

The argument goes that temperature can be correlated to the sun, sunspot activitz, volcanic eruptions, 800 zear lag in oceanic release-absorption and all other natural phenoma for thousands of zears. In the last 40 an additional factor need to be added to explain temperature rise .. man made emmissions of CO2. So the sun is not irrelevant to temperature but it is in explaining recent increases in temperature. Thatäs one model which does have scientific credibilitz.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

I am glad I watched it - and kicked off this thread. The arguments presented against man's impact on the irrefutable fact of climate change were as good as any presented for it but no better. Those that put the case as beyond reasonable doubt in either direction are as blinkered as each other.

The current disease of greed and waste cannot go on - we need to manage the finite natural resources of this planet and have a responsibility of stewardship towards of the environment for future generations (including the reduction of consumption of fossil fuels).

reduce, reuse, recycle.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

I can hardly be bothered to post, as the believers will believe whatever....

Anyway, a couple of things struck me.

According to the program last night CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, approx 80% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour - clouds basically! (Where is the cloud reduction treaty when you need it?) Why the insistence on CO2 being the main problem?

If the green house effect is causing global warming, then according to the theory the troposphere should be warming faster than the surface of the Earth. It isn't. Why not?
 
Re: Heads in the sand

Troposphere - wrong!

The troposphere is the lowest bit, the bit the earth reaches up into. Zero feet to approx 30,000, depending on where you're standing. So if the earth is warming then the troposphere is too, coz they're intimately connected. Saying that the troposphere is not warming is like saying you're warm in bed, but the duvet is cold.
 
Jimi in Deutschland?

Jimi, using a German keyboard? Visiting perhaps? I've a good mind to dig up some of your old threads. Reallz /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
 
Re: Heads in the sand

Actually the argument relating to the troposphere is one of the things that struck me as over simplistic. According to the meteorological theory I have read air is constantly circulating between the surface and the tropopause layer at approx 11km up. Depression it goes up. Anticyclone it decends. This to my mind made the argument a little suspect at least. Also the bit about the solar wind struck me as rather doubtful. The argument about Co2 related to temperature being a chicken and egg thing was interesting and I am rather suspicious of the argument that it is all down to Co2 but I still think both sides are selective with their data and present it to support their argument rejecting that which doesn't completely do so.
To me ALL energy comes from the sun so any variation in output of this enormous furnace we get our heat from, even .001% either way must have an effect. What we don't have is the ability to take the media hype, and political bias out of the argument either way. If you read this whole string of posts, EVERYONE is polarised on psuedo-religious grounds. Jimi is right that the presenter of this program has had to apologise for selective journalism before. That does not automatically make everything the programme presented wrong. My son is a geologist and therefore understands the Earth sciences better than I do but he does not feel the argument is conclusive either way. Neither do I. Blind faith is not my strong suit!
 
Re: Heads in the sand

So, why not act as if they are right. Doing that, we've got nothing to lose (except maybe a tad of prosperity).

Whereas as, if we carry on as we are it could be four horseman of the apocalypse* time.

*The four horsemen are traditionally named Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death.
 
Re: Heads in the sand

[ QUOTE ]

Whereas as, if we carry on as we are it could be four horseman of the apocalypse* time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Unless of course the reverse is true and man made emissions are staving off the next glacial period with equally dire outcomes. The fact is nobody knows. Put crudely, should mankind impede technological progress on an outcome which nobody can predict. A thousand years ago the deforestation of Britain, which has since occurred, would have been interpreted as a fatal disaster for humanity. In fact, setting aside asthetic arguments, it has been entirely beneficial. I cannot think of a single scientific prediction on the time scale of 50+ years that has been borne out.
BTW, the reason for CO2 having a higher profile as a greenhouse gas than water vapour is that WV is mostly self regulating: as it increases more clouds form and the albedo (ability to reflect radiation) of the Earth increases, lowering temperature and decreasing WV.
Andy
 
Re: Heads in the sand

>I cannot think of a single scientific prediction on the time scale of 50+ years that has been borne out.<

Space flight. Antibiotics. Micro-surgery. Transistors. Boring, isn't it.

Any way, for one of your persuasion, now would be a good time to snap up a ski chalet!
 
Nothing to lose?

WE certainly don't. I would agree with your philosophy generally were it not for the generally unsolved problem of how the third world manages to catch up. We can't fiddle around the edges of the problem like we are doing now. If we REALLY believe Co2 emissions are the problem, buying a smaller car isn't going to solve the problem of India, China, etc is it? Exactly what action do you propose twisty?
And er... I know about the 4 horseman...... Please read my post again regarding this sounding like a pseudo-religious argument.....
 
Re: Heads in the sand

"approx 80% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour - clouds basically! (Where is the cloud reduction treaty when you need it?) Why the insistence on CO2 being the main problem?"

This is David Bellamy's argument!
Water Vapour, not CO2, being the culprit.
 
Re: Nothing to lose?

>Exactly what action do you propose twisty? <

a) Set an example.
b) Develop products, techniques and processes which reduce current environmental impacts, and sell/licence them to the rapidly developing countries (slightly patronising to call them the third world, doncha think?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top