Topic: Something that's being deliberately ignored!!

[Panzergranate]

Confused by the CO2 and Global Warming / Climate Change arguements??

I found this after digging around government sites that deal with Solar Science.

This is extremely damaging to the "CO2 is causing Climate Change" lobby. Well actually it shoots them down in flames!!

Often wondered why Sun Screens have been steadily increasing in strength over the past decade or so??

Here's the key extract from a report by the Solar Radiance Research Laboratories written in 2000 pointing out that the Sun is increasing its energy yield and show no sign of backing off:

Accounting for the seasonal variations in monthly mean daily totals of solar radiation, we can estimate the longer-term trends in irradiance for this 15-year analysis of SRRL data:

Direct Normal (Beam) = 4.7% increase
Global Horizontal (Total) = 2.1% increase

These trends must be considered with the estimated measurement uncertainties. I estimate a 1% to 2% measurement uncertainty for these measurements. I should also caution that extrapolating this data beyond the 15 years will not yield valid results. Significant variations from one decade to the next are common, and a sustained increase in solar irradiance such as that shown here would be climatically devastating.

The data so far have been the integrated, or broadband irradiance from the sun. The spectral distribution of solar irradiance is another factor for renewable energy applications.

The whole report can be found at www.nrel.gov

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

[Panzergranate]

The exact report is actually at www.nrel.gov/solar_radiation/pdfs/history.pdf

My mistake, as I put the homepage up by mistake.

[Lepton]

Number one:  This thread does not belong in the General Starfleet Command Forum.  It is more suited to Ten Forward or Engineering.

Number two:  One need only look at Venus to know the effects of a global increase in carbon dioxide and other green house gases.  The face of Venus is hot enough to melt lead.  That doesn't come from being close to the Sun.  It comes from the constituency of its atmosphere.  Where do you think atmospheric scientists got the idea in the first place?  From Venus.  There has been a global increase in the level of CO2 since the beginning of the Industrial age.  Ice core sample shows a clear association with global CO2 level and global temperatures.  The pH of the oceans is being altered by absorption of excessive level of atmospheric CO2.  And there just happens to the a planet just next door wherein the atmosphere is 96% CO2 and temperatures are 900 degrees F.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to make the connections.  Time to take off the tin foil hat and join the rest of us in reality.  There is no conspiracy and you have not been anally probed by aliens.

[Rod ONeal]

The outcome of the survey/study ALWAYS depends on who paid for it. Unfortunately, we don't know who to believe.

Even Al Gore's highly praised documentary on global warming was found in British courts to be factually wrong in many areas. A British court ruled that if it's shown in 2ndary schools as educational it has to be accompanied with explanations and disclaimers for the obvious politically motivated inaccurate content.

Now, I believe that we are killing our enviroment. Unchecked we will poison this planet. Those who are trying to prevent it though are killing their own cause by lieing and exaggerating. "When you try and plant evidence and get caught the guilty can end up getting away with murder."

I agree, this should be moved to 10 forward.

[Panzergranate]

It also focuses public attention away from Dioins, heavy metals, mercury, toxic waste and land fill seepage polution. Some of the companies claiming green credentials because they are CO2 friendly, are naughty poluters with some of the above.

Anyway, I still can't figure that if we try to reduce the 0.8% contribution that the human race makes to the planet's CO2 production, that we'll make any difference.

We survived the Medieval Global Warming period in total ignorance and that was +3 Degrees higher than the doomsday figure quoted by the "Experts".

If someone is trying to make you blindly believe something on face value and telling you to trust them, then you should ask yourself, "What would they gain out of me believing this tale??", and also, "What do I have to loose if it is a con??", and more importantly, "Why do they want me to belive this??".

It is always best to dig around for the truth yourself. Add up the numbers yourself. Check it out yourself.

If we were all more like this then used car salesmen, politicians and a whole lot of the "Believe what I say, you can trust me" brigade would have a tougher time.

Venus is a lot closer to the Sun than us.

Venus is having its atmosphere slowly stripped by the Solar Wind and leaves a vapour trail stretching out as far as the Earth's orbit. We even pass through it sometmes.

Venus has more CO2 in its atmosphere than the Earth. More than double in fact.

Most of the Carbon on Earth is tied up in life forms.

Mars has more CO2 in the atmosphere than the Earth but it is bloody cold there.

The fact still remains that the Sun is hotting up once again and scientists were aware of this years before the first CO2 Global Warming theories were sugested.

Now if they'd said, right  from the start, that the Sun is hotting up and maybe if we reduce the CO2 emissions we might be able to make a teensy weensy difference to the effect that it has on the future climate, then Joe Public would be more responsive.

It is the fact that they've ignored, surpressed and derided any mention of the Sun's activities or any scientists who points out the Sun's involvement in the Climate Crisis that is what has made Joe Public highly suspicious. Add in the sad fact that the fanatical "Hate the Automobile and Industry" Eco Nazis have seized on the Climate Crisis as a vehicle for their own ends, that has tainted the whole affair. The science was lost long ago in amongst dogma, political ambitions, reputations, agendas and social engineering plans.

Note when i refre to Eco Nazis I don't mean those honest souls who stand up and shout about toxic waste, deforestation, etc., I mean the loonies who believe that we can all go back to living a pastoral existance living off the land, dying at 40 and being at the mercy of mother nature.

Somewhere in there is the truth but the neither the Governments, Oil Barons, Industrialists, Fanatical Eco Nazis or CO2 Theorists want anybody to start digging for it. They're all frightened that it might not be what they want to hear.

The thing is that the whole Climate Crisis thing has turned into a massive Gravy Train funded by taxpayers worldwide. I don't think that the "Experts" want to give up all those lucrative lecture and seminar invites quite yet.

Oh yes, there's money being made by and paid to both camps to promote both sides of the arguement.

Maybe I should have posted this in Ten Forward.

What I'm saying is for everyone to ask awkward questons and not just accept the dogma, mantra and propoganda churned out by all parties involved.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

Why indeed.

Me thinks this thread belongs in H&S.

Where it will receive its due attention.

Nice one Panzer.

[Panzergranate]

Er.... don't forget that Islam started out as a spin off of Christianity.

A son of a rich merchant had heard the teachings of Jesus and understood that if God has blessed one with wealth and success, one should remember those not so lucky and be charitable towards them.

As for the sending sons into battle....

The New Testament states that, "God holds it against no man who talks up the sword to smite the wicked!!"

The problem, for all religions, is when those with their own political ends in mind, hijack and twist it so that they can achieve power.

Notice that those preaching hatred, just like the politicians and generals in WW1, stay well away from the actual killing and danger, conning others to die for "The Great Cause".

Islam is only now going through what the Catholics did for centuries in Europe. Why do you think that the freedom to practice whatever religious beliefs they wanted to follow without fear of persecution, is core to the US Bill of Rights??

Religion should stay well clear of politics.

[Bonk]

The fact is that THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING and here are the figures, by a government facility, to prove it!!

Why is this being kept out of the public conciousness and why??

Why indeed.

Me thinks this thread belongs in H&S.

Where it will receive its due attention.

Nice one Panzer.

No, it should remain here where it can be discussed without the bias present in H&S orations. H&S is not well suited to rational and scientific discussions. If a debate cannot be conducted in public then it is not a debate at all.

Of course the sun is causing global warming. Where else would the energy input come from? Cosmic rays? (obviously not)

The part that interests me the most is how carbon dioxide is no longer a strong infrared absorber. That has huge implications in spectrophotometry, chemistry and physical science overall. Seriously, that's like Nobel prize material. It is most incredible.

Do you realise what this means for synthetic and analytical chemistry? The pharmaceutical industry? This is huge.

The real question is why haven't any chemists or physicists stepped forward to validate this radical change in the physics of our universe?

[Bonk]

Further, the salient point to note in the report linked is:

I should also caution that extrapolating this data beyond the 15 years will not yield valid results. Significant variations from one decade to the next are common, and a sustained increase in solar irradiance such as that shown here would be climatically devastating.

However it does not say anywhere in the article that "THE SUN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING".

And of course my comments about the sudden disappearance of the IR absorbtion of carbon dioxide were facetious.

The point being, if carbon dioxide levels and solar irradiance are both increasing then it cannot be good. We'll fast hit the stage where water vapour would be a bigger factor than carbon dioxide (stronger IR absorber still), and we really do not want to go there as the article author indicates.

So, knowing that solar radiation is increasing (in Colorado, over 20 years, as measured at one lab), and that carbon dioxide is a strong IR absorber, what is the harm in minimising anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions? I don't see why the issue is so emotionally charged. (Perhaps because I do not have children?) It all seems pretty clear cut to me. There is something we can do to ameliorate the situation in our limited capacity so why not? (knowing that we have no real direct control over the sun, and that our environment is entirely dependent on the sun, by definition)

I don't think anyone is hiding anything, I think people are just forgetting that the majority of scientific data needs to be viewed with an extremely critical eye. Everyone treats papers on the subject as gospel. There is no need for papers on the subject really, as we know exactly what we can do and what we cannot. (Try reading a few scientific journals consistently for a few decades and trust me, a lot of it is pretty weak, there is only the occasional strong and significant work) Also, I have worked in government labs...

On the subject of the author's data, I think the trend he has observed is weak at best and my experience in multivariate data analysis would lead me to reject it from a larger set of data as a significant relationship. If anything the observations they recorded are valuable as record of the effect of Pinatubo and they indicate that they got more solar radiation at the surface for the last few years  (which is consistent with my memory of the climate in the last 20 years). Those two factors are enough to create the observed trend and as the author indicates, the data cannot be extrapolated beyond 15 years (and that would be a stretch in my opinion).

Take a look at the representation of the absorption spectrum of our atmosphere at the top of the last page of this report, it is illuminating.

So it is not time to panic yet, but if the trend of the last few years continues then we do have something to worry about, and one of the few things we can do is minimise or eliminate the carbon dioxide emissions we know will only aggravate the situation.

It is pretty simple.

[Panzergranate]

The point is that CO2 alone is being cited as the cause and all other reasons for Global warming are attacked and dismissed.

CO2 is a minority green house gas compared to N2O, Methane, etc.

The planet's Methane levels in the upper atomosphere are higher due to the abnormally large amounts of Herbiforous animals (cattle) on the planet as a whole. In nature, there simply wouldn't be so many.

The main Methane producers are Termites though.

It is just suspicious that CO2 is singled out as the causer of all evils, despite the total human race contribution amounting to less than 1% of the global total, when the Sun, Methane, N2O and a few other contributers to the problem are deleberately ignored.

The "Carbon Footprint" concept is more about social engineering than the climate, and, any social engineering through deception and coercion has a name.... Facism!!

I have a, coincidentaly, pretty low "Carbon Footprint" in that I don't drive a car because I ride motorcycles (the most effcient way to move one person from (A) to (B) quickly). I don't exercise other than walk up to a mile a day, thus keeping my personal expulsion of CO2 low (Shame on you joggers!!) I've never flown on civilian aircraft, only millitary, in the past.

I use Solar panel to charge up bike batteries and run fans around the house in the summer. (We didn't actually have one this year in Europe!!)

I like playing around with electric vehicles, especially fast and powerful ones. They are the future once the cheap fuel cell problem is solved.  That's all that is holding back the electric car and motorcycle, practical and cheap fuel cells.

Of course, my "Carbon Footprint" and those of everyone else on the planet has absolutely zero effect on the planet's climate.

I'll not mention my "Methane Footprint"!!

However, we all have a "Polution Footprint" with which we could all do our bit to minimalise. That has a bigger effect on the environment than the amount of CO2 we generate does.



 

[Fedman NCC-3758]

There is absolutely no correlation to anthropogenic levels of  Co2 and global climate change.

[Panzergranate]

Of cousre the nuclear lobby is very keen to raise their ugly heads and back the CO2 theory, and then say, "We can solve the world's energy problems!!"

Sure.... like we'd be stupid enough to trust those guys!!

I think that the only way to clear this up would be to have it in a court where all sides have to submit their arguments, evidence, science, funding, etc. under oath and the rules of a court of law. Then they'd have to convince a jury.

At least then all the cards would be face up on the table for all to see.

[Nemesis]

Check on the radioactive materials released by burning coal and oil.   You might be surprised how much radiation is being pumped into the environment from those 2 sources.

[Bonk]

Sure.... like we'd be stupid enough to trust those guys!!

Trust American or Soviet nuclear technology? Not in a million years.

Canadian nuclear technology however, I have the utmost faith in. I need not repeat why, as I have stated so many times and no one ever acknowledges it, perhaps because they do not have the required science knowledge, or perhaps it is just too hard for people to accept that Canada is a world leader in anything.

I think that the only way to clear this up would be to have it in a court where all sides have to submit their arguments, evidence, science, funding, etc. under oath and the rules of a court of law. Then they'd have to convince a jury.

At least then all the cards would be face up on the table for all to see.

You would trust a detailed scientific analysis to a jury? Oi. Scary thought, scary thought man. Especially when one considers the efficacy of the legal system in criminal and civil matters.

There is absolutely no correlation to anthropogenic levels of  Co2 and global climate change.

Sayeth the son of an oil man...   ...just teasing Fedman. I know you are a critical thinker and would have come to that conclusion logically. Besides, coal fired power generating stations are the big issue really much more than oil fired automobiles. (for other pollution reasonsa as well)

However, as a chemist with absolutley no interest or bias in the matter (I have no investments, I have no kids, I probably won't live more than 20 more years and I don't much care what happens after I'm dead.), my view on the matter is very simple and does not even include green house effects, it is simply a matter of accurate science and common sense. It goes like this:


Carbon dioxide is a strong infra red absorber. What that means specifically is that electromagnetic energy in the infra red region of the spectrum will vibrationally excite carbon dioxide (and other molecules). These absorptions correspond to particular vibrational states of the molecule which are of course quantised and their wavelength, form and intensity are predicted reasonably accurately by current theory. The infra-red region of the suns spectrum is small compared to the whole but is the most important thermally (precisely because IR corresponds to vibrational energy levels of molecules, much as microwave radiation corresponds to rotational energy levels - like water in your counter-top microwave).

(thank goodness we're not discussing raman spectroscopy, which while related is more difficult to grasp and explain)

Ok, so carbon dioxide absorbs infra-red light from solar and terrestrial sources. It is excited to a vibrational energy level above its ground state that corresponds to the wavelength of light that hit it. Now this molecule is moving around. The majority of vibrational relaxation processes are mechanical (particularly in the gas phase), thus the energy of the infra red radiation that vibrationally excited this molecule is ultimately transferred to the translational kinetic energy of adjoining molecules (temperature). Then the original molecule is ready for another photon at the right ir wavelength to repeat the process again ad infinitum.  (note some vibrational relaxtion processes are emissive as in a glowing metal or blackbody type radiation sources, or specific designs like those in IR spectrophotometers)

Alright, so we have established that infrared radiation increases the temperature of a mixture of gas that contains carbon dioxide (ditto for water vapour). Now it is argued about the limits of this effect and the way I see it the higher the concentration of CO₂ then the higher the temperature can get from incident and reflected IR. It would take me time to prove it but I am confident I could (damn phys chem is such a pita with math).

OK, given all that, now you tell me that the sun may be getting hotter? (As in the article linked and discussed above.) Well then, given the above, why wouldn't we want to minimise CO₂ emissions? (Especially where superior technology exists.)

(P.S. Panzer: "because it's fascism!" is no answer, while funny, it does not answer the question.)

A sample of where I'm coming from:
http://www.spectronic.co.uk/ftir-spectrophotometers/interspec200.html
http://www.thermo.com/com/cda/landingpage/0,10255,353,00.html

[Panzergranate]

Well I'm an advocate of electric propusion, which is held up by the dependance on charged battery technology. Still witing for the fuel cell the world's been promised for some time now.

The Nuclear Lobby has raised its ugly head, pointed at the CO2 issue and said that they have the answer to the world's enertgy needs......... like we'd trust those guys ever again!!

I can't see how playing around with or 0.8% contribution of the world's CO2 is going to make a big difference. It's like trying to slow down the sinking of the Titanic by closing a few doors and portholes.

Automotive CO2 amounts to 0.002% globally and so is negligable.

Out f the 0.8%:

Just over a third is human respiratory.

The rest is industry and airlines combined.

Global warming is here, and may end in 2012 when the current Solar cycle ends or it may continue into the next Solar cycle.

Meanwhile, instead of figuring how to cope with the problem, governments and envioronmentalist are more concerned with "Arranging Deck Chairs on the Titanic!!", as the famous eupherism goes.

I run Solar panels here. I recycle. I introduce a previous employer to the profitabilty of selling on otherwise dumped waste materials. I keep my polution footprint as low as practical.

I think that the whole causes arguement should be settled in a court, with a jury, under rules of law, with evidence, science, etc. laid out under oath and scrutinty, with nothing omitted, then perhaps we'd be nearer the truth.

I'm an engineer and when confronted by a problem with multiple causes, I don't leave out the largest factor when trying to calculate the solution. It would be kind of stupid. It would distort the outcome and therefore make it a nonsense.

Why can't more gadjets and things be Solar panel charged??

Mobile phones, kettles, radios, torches, microwaves, cordless drills and tool, etc. eh??

Perhaps then we wouldn't need so mains electric power, therefore less powerstation output, etc.

Nature is causing this problem, or rather, something outside of this planets's nature is causing the problem and mankind will have to engineer a way around the problem, jut like we've always done for thousands of years.

[Bonk]

The point is that CO2 alone is being cited as the cause and all other reasons for Global warming are attacked and dismissed.

CO2 is a minority green house gas compared to N2O, Methane, etc.

The planet's Methane levels in the upper atomosphere are higher due to the abnormally large amounts of Herbiforous animals (cattle) on the planet as a whole. In nature, there simply wouldn't be so many.

The main Methane producers are Termites though.

It is just suspicious that CO2 is singled out as the causer of all evils, despite the total human race contribution amounting to less than 1% of the global total, when the Sun, Methane, N2O and a few other contributers to the problem are deleberately ignored.

Note in my previous post I am not looking at greenhouse effects at all, IR absorbtion alone. And anthropogenic CO2 sure looks like more than 0.8% in any carbon cycle I've ever seen.

I can't see how playing around with or 0.8% contribution of the world's CO2 is going to make a big difference. It's like trying to slow down the sinking of the Titanic by closing a few doors and portholes.

Automotive CO2 amounts to 0.002% globally and so is negligable.

Out f the 0.8%:

Just over a third is human respiratory.

The rest is industry and airlines combined

Do you have a source for these stats? I doubt this 0.8% figure. (However, I do not doubt that even 0.8% could make a significant difference with my experience with chemical equilibria)

The Nuclear Lobby has raised its ugly head, pointed at the CO2 issue and said that they have the answer to the world's enertgy needs......... like we'd trust those guys ever again!!

* Bonk sighs...

Again with the ignoring Canadian nuclear technology! Its like we don't exist or something. Hey, our dollar is at parity with the US - doesn't that count for something? 

[Panzergranate]

The thing with Nuclear waste is that everyone sends their spent fuel rods to Britain for reprocessing!!

We have the French dumping Nuclear waste into OUR channel as well!!

The thing with Nuclear is that one idiot doing something stupid, as in Chernobyl, can kill thousands.

There was talk of building a Geothermal power station locally here in the South of England near Southampton, back in the 1980's. A few test bores were drilled but the project just halted as interest was lost.
 
Iceland, as everyone knows, is totally Geothermic reliant for power.

Anyway, CO2 is not the major problem with coal fired power stations, what about the carcenogensand other polutants??

Actually Geothermal has a lot going for it, low envioronmental inpact, free power source, simple, etc.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

why wouldn't we want to minimise CO2 emissions?

Because next to the worlds oceans, which are by far the greatest producers of Co2, we'd basically be just spitting in the wind and harming the economies of many countries.  Not to mention the hindering of developing nations. Particularly in Africa.

Human industry is no more causing global climate change now than it did during the medieval warming period that allowed Viking settlements to thrive in Greenland for 300 years.  800 AD to 1100AD.

Reminds me of the lady I met while visiting the Athabasca glacier.  They have signs showing where the glacier had been in previous decades and she remarked,"See?" "This clearly demonstrates global warming."  I said, "You're correct ma'am." " It's been receding now since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago".

In fact, if the Earth hadn't warmed up some, Manhattan would still be under a mile of ice.

[Bonk]

why wouldn't we want to minimise CO2 emissions?

Because next to the worlds oceans, which are by far the greatest producers of Co2, we'd basically be just spitting in the wind and harming the economies of many countries.  Not to mention the hindering of developing nations. Particularly in Africa.

That is no answer. And we have already covered that here:
http://www.dynaverse.net/forum/index.php/topic,163374663.0.html
(The oceans are a carbon sink in every carbon cycle I have ever seen)

Africa is not currently a concern, China yes. Even so, I would argue that a Candu solution for a developing nation in Africa is far better than six new coal generating stations. But that is not really the issue here.

The question is why add more heat if observations tell us that the sun is already heating at an alarming rate. How can it help to add more heat? I like cool weather myself. (OK there's my interest in the matter, got me, lol!)

Human industry is no more causing global climate change now than it did during the medieval warming period that allowed Viking settlements to thrive in Greenland for 300 years.  800 AD to 1100AD.

Still does not address my question, and is another arguement in itself. (Needless to say I do not agree with the statement, though find the discussion irrelevant to my question)

Reminds me of the lady I met while visiting the Athabasca glacier.  They have signs showing where the glacier had been in previous decades and she remarked,"See?" "This clearly demonstrates global warming."  I said, "You're correct ma'am." " It's been receding now since the end of the last ice age, 10,000 years ago".

How is this woman's ignorance of glaciation, climate cycles and atmospheric physics and chemistry relevant to my question?

In fact, if the Earth hadn't warmed up some, Manhattan would still be under a mile of ice.

Let's assume everyone in this discussion has a basic concept of the geological and climatic history of earth for now, OK?


So if the sun is getting hotter, why should we add more CO2 knowing it can only make us hotter still? How is that a good idea?

[Fedman NCC-3758]

why should we add more CO2 knowing it can only make us hotter still?

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

The temperature curve precedes the Co2 curve. Not vice versa.

[Panzergranate]

But why make a fuss about CO2 when we contribute so little??

Why not just reduce fossil fuel power stations, anyway, because of all the other more lethal polutants that they generate??

The UK hs gradually phased out its aging coal fired power stations since the 1980's because of the cost of fueling them compared to gas fired equivalents.

All we need to make a power station work is a means to heat water until it generates enough steam presure to spin a turbine.

All we need to do is figure out various non-poluting ways of doing this.

It has been pointed out that is Gottleib hadn't invented the motorcycle, or the motorcar two years later, it would have made negligiable difference to the situation now.

I don't own a car and never have. I've never seen the point in having more than two or three wheels and an engine to move one person from (A) to (B) quickly.

The fact remains that Mars is also hotting up and there are records for Mars observations going back more than a century or two.

Greenland is returning to the state the Vikings found it in during the Medieval Warming Period, though I think that it'll be a while before the abundant forests, game and pastures they described will be witnessed again.

Will Edinburgh have Vineyards again, something that it hasn't had since the mid 1400's??

The world was 6 Degrees wamer, back then, than it is now.

Archeologists also know that Stone Henge was built during another warming period 3,500 years ago, when Britain enjoyed the climate of Southern France.

It has happened before, before we had industry.

Why are historical facts are also being hushed up, doctored or ignored to try to make recent events more dramatic??

There are too many questions that are being avoided that need answering.

At the moment in Europe, Mount Etna is on the go so Europe's compete Carbon Reduction efforts are kind of screwed for the next 20 years.

In 2012 the current Solar Cycle ends.

Now if nothing happens and all the temperatures fall, then there are going to be a lot of angry people and a lot of discredited scientists with destroyed reputations. I predict that, if the temperatures do start to fall, a lot of turn coating, excuses, explainations, claims that a slight dip was predicted and that it'll go up again, etc. will start to appear.

The down turn started in 2006.

[Fedman NCC-3758]

But why make a fuss about CO2 when we contribute so little??

Because this isn't about science or saving the planet.  It's a political agenda.

And the hype is necessary to keep the government grants flowing.

Remember, 30 years ago we were heading in the opposite direction.

[Panzergranate]

"Ice Bergs in the Thames", was one headline back then.

The trouble is also that the climatologists disagree with the envioronmentalists over the interepation of the Ice Cores. The sea takes 80 years to react to a global temperature increase, so sea ice cores will only reflect climate events 80 years after they happened. The envioronmentalists say that the sea ice cores show events as they happened.

And then there is the arguments between the two groups as to the CO2 contained trapped in the ice and what it means.

The Climatologists correctly point out that the sea is a CO2 producer and the Envioronmentalist point out that the sea is a CO2 sink, which woul dmean that no animal life lives there.

It is more about social engineering and coercion than saving the planet.

Public transport, here in the UK is a joke!!

For me to travel to town, 2 miles away, by motocycle costs me 2 pence. If I decide to go by bus it costs me £1.50 (About $3.70). People obviously still used their cars here in the UK because there is no sensible alternative for transport.

If you cross the tale of Chicken Little with the Emporer's New Clothes, there is a similar analigy.

If the number don't add up, they don't add up. Trying to leave out all the numbers that spoil the results can't make something work out properly.

The majority of the British public are skeptical, and after the lack of summer weather (we had a Welsh summer this year, as in lots of rain!!) the UK envioronmentalists have changed "Global Warming" into "Climate Change", in the hope that the public will buy the new packaging.

I reckon that by 2009 we should see either the climate still heating up or a lot of panicking scientists and envioronmentalists,

Why is it, that when the cold war ended and we we no longer facing oblivion, the doom and gloom merchants start up with tales to keep folks awake at night.

First it was a comet / asteroid could smash into us.

Then the Ozone Hole.

Global Warming (Climate Change now for Europe!!)

If this one proves to be a dud, what next, alien invasion?? Super Virus?? No wait, they've already started that scare story just in case!!

[Bonk]

why should we add more CO2 knowing it can only make us hotter still?

There is no evidence to support this assertion.

The temperature curve precedes the Co2 curve. Not vice versa.

I'll assume that you have not even read my posts, as this statement indicates pretty clearly that you at least did not read the part where I explained the infrared absorptions of CO2. So read my post and try that again. Or are you saying that CO2 has magically stopped absorbing infrared radiation? (There would be huge implications throughout science if this is the case, and I'm sure I would have heard of it by now)

The Climatologists correctly point out that the sea is a CO2 producer and the Envioronmentalist point out that the sea is a CO2 sink, which woul dmean that no animal life lives there.

Panzer, you know this is completely wrong. We have already discussed this.


These two statements indicate that this discussion is over, as the facts that I present are repeatedly ignored to preserve political interpretations. (This is science not politics.)

I will not repeat myself any further simply to be ignored.

I have no agenda, just accurate science. I'll decline the drama and present the science and my questions. If you choose to ignore them then there is nothing I can do about that.

[Panzergranate]

The whole climate debate is political and became that the moment that the climatologists started to try and influence governements to start meddling in people's lives, futures and properity.

By attempting to restrict or prevent 3rd world development, the crusade to dorp CO2 emission will condem millions to poverty, starvation and stagnation, instead of allowing them to progress.

And the fact that teh science is questionable and that contary science is attacked, dismissed or slandered in the prusuit of a Green political goal means that it has now become a political issue. The Greens moved it into the political arena, not the public, and use scientists allied to their cause to promote their lobby.

So NASA is lyingabout the Solar system heating up?? The Martian ice poles melting are just a misiterpretation or mistake or dust on the camera??

It is this, and other attacks on anyone questioning the CO2 cause or accidentally publishing any findings that contravene the "concensus" as dictated by the Green bank rolled scientists, that has Joe Public suspicions raised.

Accusing any scientist or person who raises a hand and says, "Hey, this doesn't add up or fit the eveidence!!" as receiving back handers from the oil barons, etc. is Politics and not science.

When only those scientists approved are allowed to discuss Climate Change are allowed on the media.

Scientists with doubts are bullied and fearful to raise a hand to speak up, having seen the character assasinations handed down to those who dared to question the mantra. You only have to search the web for examples how the Eco-Nazis attack and attempt to discredit contrary scientists who refuse to sing from the hymn sheet.

Everyone will nod, "Yes" when threatened with dire consequences.

Hence the so called claim that the majority of scientists agree with the CO2 cause...... because if they dare voice their doubts, well.

The CO2 issue has become a tool for fanatics to realise their political dreams and they're determined to deter all who might derail it by fair means or foul.

The Politics overtook the science years before we started this debate.

I just want to see the whole Climate Change issue to return to proper open scientific scrutiny, without fear of censure, as is in place at the present time, with all the factors involved are stated, quanified, etc. Then, perhaps, we can engineer a way around the problem.

I quit my funding supporting Greenpeace when the disenfrancised anti-capatalists and communists hi-jacked the movement for political ends, pushed out the founder and started on their own agenda.

[Bonk]

I agree, its all far too political, its about science and science tells me that adding CO2 to our atmosphere can only make it warmer. This is doubly significant if the sun is getting hotter.

I don't think that reducing CO2 emissions is condemning developing nations in the least. (My government has no real control over that anyway.)

The CO2 issue has become a tool for fanatics to realise their political dreams and they're determined to deter all who might derail it by fair means or foul.

That's not my fault and does not change what I know about gas phase IR absorption. (As clearly I have no political aspirations, ack! I'd rather die than enter public politics...)

I'm not a politician, just a chemist. What I know tells me that if I had money I would be investing in top refridgeration and air conditioning technologies.

I have a better idea than just sooking out on the discussion as in my last post.

Let's be real geeks and perform an experiment in parallel! 
(with regard to the oceans as carbon sinks vs sources - the odd idea that a carbon sink is fatal to life that Panzer keeps bringing up)

I propose the following protocol:
- take four clean glasses of tap water (use the same type of glass for all four - and make it glass not plastic).
- label them 1-4
- get four packaged straws and label them 1-4 (keep them clean, separate and near their own glass - but don't actually clean them)
- into each glass place 250 ml of water and a pinch (1/8 teaspoon max) of salt. (mark the level of the water on the outside of the glass)
- into glasses 3 and 4 add 1/4 teaspoon of sugar
- stir each glass with its own straw slowly for the count of 10
- keep all three glasses near to each other in a stable room temperature location.
- Now, the important part, into glasses 2 and 4, use the straw to blow bubbles for the count of 30 seconds once a day (~6x5 second  or 3x10s slow exhalations). Also, use breath actually exhaled from your lungs, not just air taken into your mouth.
- Also make the same motions with the straws for glasses 1 and 3 but do not actually blow any bubbles.
- On the second day and each day thereafter, top up the water from the same tap carefully and gently.
- Do not cross contaminate the samples in any way.
- Record the progress of any growths with good notes and photographically if possible.
- (Advanced) Using the same roll of broad range pH paper monitor the pH of each glass before and after the daily bubbles procedure by using its allocated straw as a pipet to withdraw a few drops from the center of the sample then deposit a drop on the pH paper and record the results.
After several weeks of this procedure,we could then asses the carbon content of each glass by a number of means. (hopefully without having to pay someone)

I'm reasonably confident that the results will show you that a carbon sink is perfectly capable of supporting life. I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure it will work as designed, though wildlife has a tendency to grow pretty freely in my kitchen! 

So what do you think - game?

[Panzergranate]

Trying to cut down on personal CO2 emmissions is pointless anyway. We have Mount Etna spewing out 20 years worth of Europe's total CO2, cancelling out everyone's efforts in one hit.

Nature is uncontrolable, even by today's human race.

Nature sorts out atmospheric CO2 by iitself with Trees, Plants and rain.

It rains virtually constantly in Wales, the country is famous for rain. In fact there is no word in Welsh for drought!! Rainwater is Carbonic Acid, varying in strength depending where you experience it. Therefore, Wales (and Seatle) is a goo Carbon sink!!

 

[FCM_SFHQ_XC]

Trying to cut down on personal CO2 emmissions is pointless anyway. We have Mount Etna spewing out 20 years worth of Europe's total CO2, cancelling out everyone's efforts in one hit.

Nature is uncontrolable, even by today's human race.

Nature sorts out atmospheric CO2 by iitself with Trees, Plants and rain.

It rains virtually constantly in Wales, the country is famous for rain. In fact there is no word in Welsh for drought!! Rainwater is Carbonic Acid, varying in strength depending where you experience it. Therefore, Wales (and Seatle) is a goo Carbon sink!!

No matter if or if not 98%-99% of out CO₂ is coming from nature itself, there still is that extra 1%-2% coming from us. Despite if Mt. Etna makes it seem like a small amount, I still have 1-2% extra CO₂ floating around that should not be there. That 1%-2% is not negligible in any way. While I am not gonna argue over if its the sun or not causing global warming, I do think that extra CO₂ is bad. Cut down on the pollution even if it is only 1%-2% of the total CO₂ produced. It still is 1%-2% too much.

[Panzergranate]

It is the smog and carcenogen gases that are the biggest concern to the human race.

It's bad enough that it isn't safe to eat a fish caught out of some rivers in the world.

CO2 can be dealt with naturally, toxic waste doesn't go away for centuries.

Some places in the owrld, are still poisoned by toxic waste activity from the 19th century, Europe and the US included!!

To dispose fo excess CO2 just plant more trees.

It annoys me that a lot of companies claiming Green credentials through publicly boasting their "Carbon Neutrality" are causing polution behind their backs.

The lame "Carbon Neutral" proganda cheme, at the moment, is pointless. Automotivve vehicles are a molecule in the drop in the ocean whenit comes to Carbon Emissions.

The environmentalists have been wrong before. Remember the 2 stroke ban in the US back in 1977, which was lifted 5 years ago after US givernment scientist bothered to test the 2 stoke engine and found it to be enviornmentally cleaner than the 4 stroke or Diesel?? Knee jerk blind legislation due to envionmentist presure, with out serious unbiased scientific research is never a good idea.

A 2 stroke emits 2% N2O per volume of fuel compared to 48% per volume of fuel created by a 4 stroke. You also only need 2/5ths the size of a 2 stroke engine to achieve the same torque and horsepower of a 4 stroke motor. Most automobile manufacturers in the world are now looking at the 2 stroke ad emission controls and cat converters have the 4 stroke's days numbered. Two stroke don't need a cat converter.

The advent of synthetic oil has inproved theor emissions a lot and no more scraping out a small coal mine of hard carbon dust deposits every 4 months or so.

Diesels are, by far, the most poluting engines, according to US government research. However, what else can an 18 wheeler be powered by, eh??!!

 

[Lieutenant_Q]

Its really time for the Rail system, the back bone of the United States Economy for over one-hundred and fifty years, to get a good look at.  Currently the preferred method of transporting goods is either by plane (quickly) or by Truck (Cheaply).  Neither one of these is good for the environment.  Meanwhile our Rail Lines have been slowly deteriorating since the 60s.  Why?  The locomotives of the trains put out more pollution than the Millions of trucks on the highway daily?  Not anymore.  And if we would invest some money into the rail lines, we could also get faster, and cleaner mass transportation.  Freight Trains can be run on an electrified rail that would almost eliminate all pollution from the train itself.  If the local power grid supplying the energy to Rail is clean, then the transportation itself is clean.

Why are the airlines getting Billions in tax breaks and gov't relief, when a cheaper and potentially faster alternative is available?

[Bonk]

The lame "Carbon Neutral" proganda cheme, at the moment, is pointless. Automotivve vehicles are a molecule in the drop in the ocean whenit comes to Carbon Emissions.

The environmentalists have been wrong before. Remember the 2 stroke ban in the US back in 1977, which was lifted 5 years ago after US givernment scientist bothered to test the 2 stoke engine and found it to be enviornmentally cleaner than the 4 stroke or Diesel?? Knee jerk blind legislation due to envionmentist presure, with out serious unbiased scientific research is never a good idea.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a chemist. I have no financial, political or emotional interest in the matter whatsoever.

Adding carbon dioxide (no matter how minute the amount) to a mixture of gases that is exposed to infrared radiation can only increase the temperature of that mixture of gases. This is plain scientific fact, no theory whatsoever. There is no question in the matter, debating the point is even absurd, I'm surprised that I've had the patience to explain it slowly this many times.

[parmenionsShade]

To put all of my biases out in the open: I'm a right-leaning American undergraduate studying theoretical physics.

The I see this is: the arguments in favor of reducing green-house gas emissions are that CO2 increases the temperature of any gas mixture in which it is contained, that the level of CO2 emissions caused by the human race has increased dramatically over the last (insert time period-I've seen various numbers quoted), and that the mean temperature of the planet has been increasing over the same time period.

All of these are simple facts, and anyone who argues against them is in denial of modern scientific knowledge.  This being a rational, well-educated crowd, no one has.

But the reason we need to Do Something is that if we keep producing CO2 at current rates dire things will happen to our planet.

This is where things get sticky.  The predictions of a submerged Florida and co. are based on computer modeling of the Earth's climate.  There are several problems with this.  First of all, the first rule of complex computer simulations is that they have little predictive power: you use them to determine the sensitivity of a system to changes in various variables.  Second, many of the parameters in the description of the Earth's climate are unknown; the simulating scientists need to make estimates.  And very slight changes in variables/parameters can result in widely different results in simulations.  Chaos theory was developed when a climate modeling scientist rounded off decimal places on a variable and got widely different results.  So the predictions of doom are based on using a tool for a purpose for which it was not designed, and ignoring its limitations.  Clearly, the computer modeling data is of negligible value.  Example: computer models in the seventies were telling us we'd all be snowed under right now.

So what's making the Earth warmer?  Sure, we're pumping a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere, but there are a lot of other things going on as well.  The sun is getting warmer, and the sun is BY FAR the most important parameter in the system.  Mars is experiencing global warming as well, and I think we can all agree that human-based CO2 emissions on Mars are trivial.

It appears to me that the Sun is the primary factor.  I also don't think my more southern relations will have to buy SCUBA gear any time soon.  The Earth has been much warmer than now within recorded history.  The best examples have already been brought up: Viking settlements in Greenland and vineyards in Britain.

[Panzergranate]

I see, on another post, that cattle and other ruminants emit 18% of the greenhouse gases, Methane.

Now perhaps the answer there would be to shove fillters up their arses (and a few flatulent people's arses too!!) in the cause of "Climate Change"!!

Somehow I think that natire is determined to undergo Climate Change or Global Warming, depending om where one lives. All our efforts are pointless against the massive machine that is nature.

We can't ban Cattle or Sheep, I mean the Welsh need Sheep for sex!! (You'd understand once you realise that Welsh women have PMT for 28 days of the month and for the rest they're just in a foul mood!!)

And if we all became Vegans, er..... Vegans fart a lot plus always look pasty grey and scrawny. Then there's the long term health implications too.

We're all riding a runaway and there are no brakes to apply. Best brace for impact!!

[Fedman NCC-3758]

What's the número uno greenhouse gas?

Water vapor?



We're doomed.

[Panzergranate]

Perhap, like the Millenium Bug scare scam us engineers foisted on the gullable world, to make a few bucks....aw feck, let the cat out of the bag there!!

Anyway, like the Millenium Bug paranoia and scare, it'll probally turn out nothing like the doom and gloom merchants are describing. I'm betting on nothing bad happening at all!!

[Tulwar]

The question is mute.  Anybody notice that the debate on global warming substantially came to an end just as everyone realized that the occupation of Iraq is an unmitigated disaster?  The political and military control of the Western powers over the petroleum producing regions of the earth is waning at the same time the same powers are declaring that the over-use of petroleum is destroying the world.  It is an excellent coincidence.  It encourages the West to stop using resources it cannot control, lessening the value of those resources.  Do not knock the science behind global warming unless you really want to bow to the likes of Putin, Chavez, and Bin Ladin.

Talk about using your dinner plate for a toilet!

[Bonk]

What's the número uno greenhouse gas?

Water vapor?



We're doomed.

You expect me to be surprised? I'm not. I'm a chemist. Nor does this defeat my argument that anthropogenic carbon dioxide can only increase the temperature of our atmosphere and aggravate any solar warming trend that may be occurring.

Now, let me tell you about water vapour and infrared absorptions, as I have been discussing IR absorptions. Yes water is the strongest greenhouse gas, but it is also a strong infrared absorber. (I have not been discussing greenhouse effects here at all, as that is a matter of physics (optics in materials of graduated/variable index of refraction - i.e. the atmosphere). We can get to those later if necessary.

Water is a strong infrared absorber much as it is a strong microwave absorber. The geometry of water is well suited to vibrational and rotational energy levels corresponding to strong EM absorbtions. Water is more trouble than anything in analytical infrared spectrophotometry as it is so pervasive and pernicious. Not to mention the optics in the system that will dissolve in it. Water is the bain of infrared spectrophotometry for these reasons... ok, chemistry side rant over...

Now what determines the partial pressure of water vapour in our atmosphere? Temperature. Water is the critical gas in global warming. You see, as increased carbon dioxide will increase the temperature, this will allow for a greater partial pressure of water in the atmosphere, thus increasing the temperature and eventually water establishes its own self sustaining warming cycle. This is referred to as the "critical point". (not to be confused with the critical point that defines a supercritical fluid)

OK, now compound that self sustaining trend with anthropogenic carbon dioxide ready to explode in developing nations with a market that must continually grow feeding that self sustaining upward trend. This obviously cannot go on forever. That is the point here ultimately.

I have heard estimates that this critical point may be reached as early as 2013, though have no source and doubt any estimate could be accurate to the year, except in the year it is observed.

I used to think we were doomed and actually cared about it, though I do not anymore and seem to have a little more faith that education will win, and that the earth's equilibrium will bounce back.

So lets definitely keep the focus on the scientific discussion here. I'm glad you brought up water Fedman, as it illustrates perfectly the cascading effect of perturbations in related natural equilibria, and how a small perturbation in one system can result in a very large one in another.

[Soliton]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6290228.stm

Last Updated: Tuesday, 10 July 2007, 23:00 GMT 00:00 UK

A new scientific study concludes that changes in the Sun's output cannot be causing modern-day climate change.

It shows that for the last 20 years, the Sun's output has declined, yet temperatures on Earth have risen.

It also shows that modern temperatures are not determined by the Sun's effect on cosmic rays, as has been claimed.

Writing in the Royal Society's journal Proceedings A, the researchers say cosmic rays may have affected climate in the past, but not the present.

"This should settle the debate," said Mike Lockwood, from the UK's Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory, who carried out the new analysis together with Claus Froehlich from the World Radiation Center in Switzerland.

[Panzergranate]

A machine failing becaue of pushing it slightly over the edge, is called "Catastropic Failure" in engineering. Think of a suspension bridge loosing one to many cables or the straw that broke the Camel's back.

However, in machines that can compensate for conditions, like poking a spinning top so that it wobbles for a while, they will eventually correct and stabalise themselves.

Nature is one such compensating system.

The human body is another such system.

I see that farting, more over cattle farting generate more greenhouse gases. Unfortunately, there are far more cattle than nature would normally allow on the planet in the wild. They're numbers are kind of out of balance with nature, just like ours and a few other creatures.

The planet is determined to warm up, just like its done before and mankind is just as helpless to stop it as King Canute was in stopping the incoming tide. We couldn't stop the last one, which started in 900 AD and couldn't prevent its sudden end in the late 1400's, which brought in the Mini Ice Age. Back then they just believed that it was the will of God or the forces of nature, put up, and just dealt with it.

"All the plans of mice and men, all amount to naught!!"

At least we're forewarned that its coming and, just like a storm, can at least prepare for it.

However, there are other goverrnment Solar monitoring Stations that say that the Sun is heating up.

The Amateur radio wolrd has had the best "Lift" and "Skip" season ever, due to the increased charging of the Earth's ionisphere. Only Solar activity drives this and it follows the 11 year Solar energy cycles.

There is a lot of evidence that the Sun is chucking out more radiation. Several scientific and other bodies, with no interest or stake in the Climate Debate, have reported the effects.

It's strange that the Royal Society has seemingly ignored Solar pyrometer and other measurement data from observatories in dozens of other countries all around the globe, which have reported an increase in Solar activity.

Perhaps this report is biased towards the CO2 debate, or maybe the report was just based on the Rutherford Laboratory's own independant measurements and data. However, it seems strangely odd that they've ignored NASA, world wide Solar observatories,the SOHO sateliltes and other data.

We've had a very poor summer this year in the UK, and the envioronmentalists here have replaced talk of "Global Warming" to "Cliimate Change", obviously as Britain and Europe are cooling down.

They also keep harping on about the sea levels rising in the UK, so much so that a leading geolgist had to publicaly, on TV,  point out that the UK is slowly rising on the North coast of Scotland and sinking in the South Coast. In the past 300 years some parts of the North Coast of Scotland have seen the sea recede more than 8 miles!!

Why don't the various scientific bodies talk to each other before making various claims in ignorance of understanding the mechanisms and true causes.

It become the stage where if one report says one thing against the CO2 argument, the writers are accused or suspected of being in the pay or in league with the oil barons, and if the report is pro CO2 arguement, the writers are suspected of being in the pay or in league with the fanatical envioronmentaists.

And they wonder why Joe Public is so skeptical over the whole thing, especially when the mud slinging starts between scientists et all!!

And ten we have governemnts, here in Europe and the UK, trying to put "Green" taxes onto us, in the name of "Climate Change Prevention" and social engineering, so that only the rich can afford fuel for thier vehicles and the proles end up using expensive and unreliable public transport, which is a big joke in the UK.

 

[Sirgod]

I found this kinda Interesting when I saw it today...

http://www.livescience.com/environment/071019-ap-ozone-hole.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Antarctic ozone hole is back to an average size, shrinking about 16 percent from last year's record high, NASA said Friday. But it's still the size of North America.

But what jumped out at me, was this part...

Warmer weather and more storms this year are the reason the hole is slightly smaller, Newman said. "There's no way we could say we're seeing real improvement, but it's smaller because of the weather situation,'' Newman said.

Could there be any more of a contradiction in science?

We are told the hole needs to be fixed or we all die yet global warming seems to be the cure but that will cause us all to die...

and people wonder why so many doubt these climatologists...

Stephen

[Sirgod]

The lame "Carbon Neutral" proganda cheme, at the moment, is pointless. Automotivve vehicles are a molecule in the drop in the ocean whenit comes to Carbon Emissions.

The environmentalists have been wrong before. Remember the 2 stroke ban in the US back in 1977, which was lifted 5 years ago after US givernment scientist bothered to test the 2 stoke engine and found it to be enviornmentally cleaner than the 4 stroke or Diesel?? Knee jerk blind legislation due to envionmentist presure, with out serious unbiased scientific research is never a good idea.

I am not an environmentalist. I am a chemist. I have no financial, political or emotional interest in the matter whatsoever.

Adding carbon dioxide (no matter how minute the amount) to a mixture of gases that is exposed to infrared radiation can only increase the temperature of that mixture of gases. This is plain scientific fact, no theory whatsoever. There is no question in the matter, debating the point is even absurd, I'm surprised that I've had the patience to explain it slowly this many times.

Bonk you are for the most part correct here. I think what alot of us Anti-Global warming , if that's even the name are on about, is that Man is the cause. Look at all the herd animals we had in the past that outnumbered us to this day. Granted, we have let alot of pollutents into the atmosphere, and I am all for a safer Environment, But to claim that Man is the  root cause, is very debatable.

Stephen

[Panzergranate]

Living out in the English countryside, a few miles from a small town, I hate going into cities, London especially.

You can taste the air in London about a day after leaving there. It has to be the most ugly captial city in Europe. (Prague is the best, but I might have a beer bias there!!)

The polution is caused by N2O and CO in the ground level air plus all the residue of the additives put into fuel now that Tetra Ethyl Lead isn't allowed in it anymore. They reckoned that city kids were thick because of the leaded petrol, now they've realised that they're simply thick because of the culture that they're raised in!!

So to cut back on the N20 from four strok car engines they fit Catalytic Converters, which sap just under 20% of the car's engine power, trap some of the N20 and convert the CO into CO2, thus trebbling the vehicles CO2 emissions!!

If they were serious about CO2 from vehicles then they'd ban Catalytic Converters!!

A friend had the Catalytic  Converter removed from his BMW GS 1100 motorcycle, as bikes don't have to have them here in the UK, and the before and after Dyno test showed a 27 BHP increase in engine power output. His fuel economy gained jut over 10 UK MPG as well.

The medieval Globall Warming period wasn't man made and it was 3 Degrees hogher than this one is predicted to peak out at. I mean, there are historical records of Edinbrugh's Vine Yards. It has to be pretty consistantly hot to grow grapes in Scotland!!

If the last one wasn;t man made then why should this one be, eh??

Global Warming will come whatever we do or if we still all lived in mud huts. Nature is in the driving seat and playing King Canute won't stop it. It's like trying to stop a Hurricane by everyone whistling the same tune.

The "Carbon Neutral" and "Carbon Taxes" thing is more about social engineering than the climate. The US lifted theirs 5 years ago after discovering that they're, er,
cleaner smog wise.

Europe banned the import or sale of new two stroke motorcycles over 98cc two years ago, on the back of "Global Warming" bullsh*t. Youngsters now have to spend their 125cc learner bike days on gutless 125cc four strokes that struggle to hit 60 MPH instead of the 100 MPH two strokes that they could have instead. My son is lucky that I managed to find him a decent 125cc two stroke to trundle to college on.

The fact that two strokes make up a fraction of the percentage of road traffic, and that Diesels and cars polute far more wasn't considered. It was a political "knee jerk" move so as t be "seen to be taking action" type of thing.

How many more "knee jerk"  political reactions are in the pipeline?? Air travel tax is in the minds of the legislators over here, to limit the numbers of people (those not wealthy enough) to ly on airlines.

Whatever method of taking money out of your pockets and making it damned expensive or difficult for you to travel even to work independantly, you'll be told the same old excuse mantra of, "But its to save the planet from Global Warming!!"

Next they'll be trying to stop classic vehicles from using ppublic roads "because they emit a lot of CO2".

The Eco-Nazis are going to milk this for whatever they can gain from it. It's up to the world's governments not to have the wool pulled over their eyes when deciding, realistically, what actually polutes in significant numbers, and what is simple an Eco-Nazi vendetta target.

[Lepton]

Panzer, I am sorry but I really cannot take your hysterical argumentation seriously.  The Earth was a great deal warmer at any number of points within the history of the Planet.  To argue that it was once hotter when Man was around but had no industry therefore Man cannot be cause of global warming is silly to say the least.

[Panzergranate]

I'm just pointing out that history repeats itself, and so does nature.

It is that some even deny that the Medieval Warming event took place, because it detracts from the drama, that is worrying.

This kind off pisses of the historians a lot.

Meanwhile, while everyone is pre-occupied with the atomosphere, others are taking the oportuinty to continue to poison the rivers and soil, China in particular. So they poison their own rivers, so what. That don't affect me does it??!!

Er, these feed into the Oceans and currents can carry mercury, dioxins, PCBs et all thousands of miles. Don't forget the migrating fish shoals, which means that the food chain might just land a piece of Chinese industrial polution eventually on your plate, or mine.

And the media and governments are just concerned with their CO2 emissions??

So when we survive and adapt to climate change, will the world regret not having acted sooner on other more serious polution concerns earlier??

[Fedman NCC-3758]

To argue that it was once hotter when Man was around but had no industry therefore Man cannot be cause of global warming is silly to say the least.

Then perhaps you'd care to explain what caused the end of the last ice age?   Cause it sure could not have been anthropogenic levels of Co2.

[Nemesis]

Then perhaps you'd care to explain what caused the end of the last ice age?   Cause it sure could not have been anthropogenic levels of Co2.

Two similar events can in fact have different causes. 

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Ah, Cro-Magnon Man then, modern industry today.    j/k

[Nemesis]

Ah, Cro-Magnon Man then, modern industry today.    j/k

Since you want to pick related but similar points how about this.

1/  Modern man burning fossil fuels.

2/ Earthquake releases oil field to surface and ignition occurs.

Both result in the release of CO₂ from fossil fuel sources. 

For a non fossil fuel one how about a colder Earth means less plant  and animal life.  If for example the amount of life is cut in half then the half that was eliminated will decay and release its carbon back to the atmosphere.  It could take centuries or even millenia due to the cold conditions but it would increase the CO₂ levels.

Personally I am unsure of global warming and if it does exist the human role. 

[Fedman NCC-3758]

Anthropogenic levels of Co2 are not the cause of the 0.6 degree increase in temp over the past 100+ years.

The hyperbole surrounding global climate change is absurd.

The Earth's climate has never been stagnant.

We couldn't control the Earth's climate if we wanted to.

And over the past decade the temp has been stable.

Go figure.

[odb]

co2 my ass, as hemah always says if u build it were gonna fly it. till the gas runs dry were gonna kill this planet for sure!

[Panzergranate]

The previous Ice Ages came and went in accordance to increases and decreases in the Sun's energy output.

The Ice Ages were causes when the Sun backed off it's overall nuclear activity and radiance, for reasons unknown. The same thing occured, to a lesser extent, during the Mini-Ice Age, which started in the 1400's and lasted until the early 1800's.

The Solar scientists believe that the Sun runs in 3 cycles, with the well known 11 year cycle, the 800 - 900 year cycle and a longer term cycle lasting many thousands of years, all of which run concurently. The last Ice Age ended 8,000 years ago and there have been several spaced at about the same intervals.

Thirty years ago the Climatologists were warning us that another Ice Age was decending upon us, based on their interpretation of global temperature records to that date. As we're not all up to our balls in ice and snow, I figure they may have made a mistake somewhere.

However, it does prove that they are prone to falability and miscalculations.