|
Global Warming and CO2 levels
(Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!)
Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. However there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger it's magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden atmosphere form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at a low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than anything man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the balance. AWEM |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Thu, 8 Mar 2007 22:55:27 UTC, "Andrew Mawson"
wrote: (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. I expect a long rebuttal from Mr Hansen soon. His masters won't have approved tonight. -- The information contained in this post is copyright the poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by http://www.diybanter.com |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Andrew Mawson wrote:
(Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. However there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger it's magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden atmosphere form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at a low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than anything man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the balance. Very good program, and about bloody time. -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message ... (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported that Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel drive exploration vehicles to blame. Colin Bignell |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Global warming is a good thing the hotter the better - bring it on.
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message ... (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. However there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger it's magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden atmosphere form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at a low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than anything man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the balance. AWEM |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
in 622366 20070309 005911 "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
"Andrew Mawson" wrote in message ... (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported that Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel drive exploration vehicles to blame. So, the antis were right all along and can now go back to destroying the Earth's atmosphere with a clear conscience? Last night's programme was as biased and one-sided as all the pro-GW programmes which went before it. I'm not saying that last night's contributors have vested interests but almost everyone decided years ago whether they were pro or anti and have just reinforced their own prejudices ever since. I've yet to meet someone who has had a real change of mind. We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Grunff wrote:
Andrew Mawson wrote: (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. However there is historically excellent evidence that earth temperature follows sun activity. The stronger the sun activity the stronger it's magnetic field, and the more cosmic rays are deflected away from earth. Apparently the cosmic rays entering a water laden atmosphere form clouds which reflect the sun, so when the cosmic rays are at a low, so is the cloud cover and up the temperature goes. After a considerable lag the ocean temperature rises a bit, and as CO2 is less soluble in warm water than cold water, more is released into the atmosphere. Apparently the volume of CO2 dissolved in the oceans and naturally being released is orders of magnitude greater than anything man is releasing. Small changes in sea temperature alter the balance. Very good program, and about bloody time. Not a mention of it on the BBC this morning, which is surprising. Well, no, it isn't surprising at all. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Bob Martin wrote:
We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. No, that is the last thing we need - you can't do real science on TV. Getting the moronic masses to debate the subject (contrary to popular opinion) is not science, nor will it help you reach a conclusion. -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Stuart Noble wrote:
Not a mention of it on the BBC this morning, which is surprising. Well, no, it isn't surprising at all. Indeed, we were talking about this during the program. Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries? And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased behemoth? -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote:
Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries? And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased behemoth? Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence. -- Frank Erskine |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote: Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries? And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased behemoth? Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence. Even if I wanted to totally do away with watching TV (which I could quite easily), I still like watching DVDs and playing games. -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:40:51 +0000, Grunff wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote: On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote: Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries? And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased behemoth? Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence. Even if I wanted to totally do away with watching TV (which I could quite easily), I still like watching DVDs and playing games. You could use a monitor for watching DVDs and playing games. HTH - -- Frank Erskine |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Frank Erskine wrote:
You could use a monitor for watching DVDs and playing games. Not as big as my TV :-) -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"Bob Martin" wrote in message ... in 622366 20070309 005911 "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: "Andrew Mawson" wrote in message .. . (Highly relevant to anti 4x4 lobby !!!) Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. It seems that there is very strong evidence that although CO2 levels historically have been high when the earth warms up, the level of CO2 LAGS the temperature rise so isn't the cause, but a symptom. That has been argued for some time. It has also recently been reported that Mars appears to be suffering global warming - must be those all-wheel drive exploration vehicles to blame. So, the antis were right all along and can now go back to destroying the Earth's atmosphere with a clear conscience? You mean doing things like eating? The IPCC report rated agriculture as the predominant source of methane and nitrous oxide and a significant source of CO2. They are not even sure that human intevention has anything to do with the changes, which the data from Mars suggests would happen anyway. The IPCC assessment of human intervention being responsible for various climate changes ranges from 'likely' - warmer and fewer cold days and nights over land / warmer and more frequent hot nights over land - to, for most, 'more likely than not', which means there is a high level of uncertainty. Last night's programme was as biased and one-sided as all the pro-GW programmes which went before it. I'm not saying that last night's contributors have vested interests but almost everyone decided years ago whether they were pro or anti and have just reinforced their own prejudices ever since. I've yet to meet someone who has had a real change of mind. I have not decided on the subject, but I have yet to see anything to convince me that changing the way we live, particularly in Britain, is going to make any difference. If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. However, that is not a very visible way of doing it and therefore is not going to get a UK politician many votes. We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3 should make interesting reading when they are published. Colin Bignell |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
in 622388 20070309 082622 Grunff wrote:
Bob Martin wrote: We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. No, that is the last thing we need - you can't do real science on TV. Getting the moronic masses to debate the subject (contrary to popular opinion) is not science, nor will it help you reach a conclusion. I'm not suggesting that the masses debate it - I want to see pro and anti scientists putting their views to each other face-to-face. Some of the more ridiculous claims - on both sides - would be exposed for what they are. What else are documentaries for? |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Bob Martin wrote:
What else are documentaries for? The sole purpose of a documentary is to influence the opinions of those watching it, pushing the consensus in one direction or the other. -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On 9 Mar, 09:08, Grunff wrote:
Bob Martin wrote: What else are documentaries for? The sole purpose of a documentary is to influence the opinions of those watching it, pushing the consensus in one direction or the other. -- Grunffhttp://www.greendoug.com- a forum for all things environmental I've always treated any talk of human activity affecting the world's weather/temperature with the contempt it deserves. I remember all the talk of the upcoming 'big freeze' from the 70s, and that almost overnight it changed to the danger of 'warming'. As I recall, scientists said that up until the 1940s we had been coming out of the last (little) ice age and temperatures had been rising. Since the 40s however temperatures started dropping and we were heading for the next ice age. What'll happen if temperatures start dropping again now? No doubt the environmentalists would claim victory and say it was due to the measures that they'd forced us into taking... It was interesting to hear about how it was supposedly Maggie Thatcher's war against the miners that seemed to start the whole thing off! |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
In article ,
Grunff wrote: Even if I wanted to totally do away with watching TV (which I could quite easily), I still like watching DVDs and playing games. In which case you don't need a licence even if using a TV to do so. -- *I'm planning to be spontaneous tomorrow * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past decades? Apart from the change from coal to gas for electricity generation I'd thought the talk of doing so translated mainly into hot air. And, of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to control the prices we pay for their goods? -- *Why is it that to stop Windows 95, you have to click on "Start"? Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In which case you don't need a licence even if using a TV to do so. I thought you needed to disable the tuner, that simply disconnecting the RF feed wasn't enough - is that not the case? -- Grunff http://www.greendoug.com - a forum for all things environmental |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Grunff wrote:
Frank Erskine wrote: You could use a monitor for watching DVDs and playing games. Not as big as my TV :-) If all you do is watch DVDs and play games then you don't need a license for the TV... -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Grunff wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In which case you don't need a licence even if using a TV to do so. I thought you needed to disable the tuner, that simply disconnecting the RF feed wasn't enough - is that not the case? If you are not using it to receive then you are legally ok. TVL Gestapo will try to convince you otherwise of course and send you a tirade of hysterical threatening letters, but you can just ignore them. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
In article ,
Grunff wrote: In which case you don't need a licence even if using a TV to do so. I thought you needed to disable the tuner, that simply disconnecting the RF feed wasn't enough - is that not the case? No - provided you never watch TV you can still own one. Might be difficult to prove if push came to shove, though. -- *Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 22:55:27 +0000, Andrew Mawson wrote:
Interesting documentry on channel 4 tonight about global warming. ... Surely the point is not whether human activities are causing the change[1] but whether (a) the change is threatening our existence on this planet (b) we can do anything about it. Nobody would say a possible asteroid collision was 'our fault' but everyone[2] would agree we should try to avert it. We've got to the technological stage now where a small proportion of residents of this planet are fairly well protected against the effects of natural disasters which have been our lot since the year dot. We could be aiming to do that on a global - indeed extra-global level (and maybe even aiming to protect 100% of the population). Or we could sit around squabbling while it all happens. Perhaps it's time for a B-Ark :-) [1] typical lawyer/politician knee-jerk response: "who's to blame?" [2] with the possible exception of some religious nutters who'd say it was the Sky Fairy's will and we should sit back and take it up the botty. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past decades? Apart from the change from coal to gas for electricity generation I'd thought the talk of doing so translated mainly into hot air. And, of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to control the prices we pay for their goods? The most interesting thing for me was that London has regularly frozen solid, and yet been able to produce wine, all within recorded history. Perhaps concentrating on something the scientists can't argue about might be more fruitful |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
John Stumbles wrote:
Perhaps it's time for a B-Ark :-) A good idea, but I've always felt the A-Ark should have gone first. 'Great leaders'?. And, after last night, 'scientists'? |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Mar 9, 9:00 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname
here.uk.com wrote: The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3 should make interesting reading when they are published. There'll never be a balanced view until such time as the consensus is that the world won't boil next week after all. Arguing against GW is as futile as arguing before 01/01/2000 that the risks of Y2K were grossly overstated. The "debate", such as it is, is entirely one- sided. Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after "comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on last night's programme ? Whatever, I found it an interesting documentary. The observed correlation between solar activity and global average temperature was striking, especially over the timescales involved. Since all the surface conditions on this planet are directly associated with the interaction between its atmosphere and solar radiation, this should hardly be surprising, but it was. I was a little less happy with the suggestion of an 800-year lag in their claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature - no-one seemed to suggest which event in the middle ages might link to what we can observe now - but it did see to me that previous cycles of high temperature and high CO2 does rather weaken the argument that somehow we might be entering a "runaway" phase. The evidence from long-term trends was that increasing CO2 didn't apparently cause any acceleration in the warming phase. I can't follow the argument at all that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really. A risk might be that we have managed to remove a moderating factor, and the loss of vegetation over the tropical regions is certainly of concern, not to say wasteful, but the chances are that the primary moderator of temperature and water vapour concentration and CO2 is the world's oceans. There's an awful lot of junk science in the global warming debate. An awful lot. -- "On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7." |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
John Laird wrote:
On Mar 9, 9:00 am, "nightjar" nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. Chapters 2 and 3 should make interesting reading when they are published. There'll never be a balanced view until such time as the consensus is that the world won't boil next week after all. Arguing against GW is as futile as arguing before 01/01/2000 that the risks of Y2K were grossly overstated. The "debate", such as it is, is entirely one- sided. Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after "comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on last night's programme ? Whatever, I found it an interesting documentary. The observed correlation between solar activity and global average temperature was striking, especially over the timescales involved. Since all the surface conditions on this planet are directly associated with the interaction between its atmosphere and solar radiation, this should hardly be surprising, but it was. I was a little less happy with the suggestion of an 800-year lag in their claimed correlation between CO2 and temperature - no-one seemed to suggest which event in the middle ages might link to what we can observe now - but it did see to me that previous cycles of high temperature and high CO2 does rather weaken the argument that somehow we might be entering a "runaway" phase. The evidence from long-term trends was that increasing CO2 didn't apparently cause any acceleration in the warming phase. I can't follow the argument at all that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really. A risk might be that we have managed to remove a moderating factor, and the loss of vegetation over the tropical regions is certainly of concern, not to say wasteful, but the chances are that the primary moderator of temperature and water vapour concentration and CO2 is the world's oceans. There's an awful lot of junk science in the global warming debate. An awful lot. -- "On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7." A lot seems to hinge on whether the Medieval Warm Period was global or a local blip. There's also a lot of disagreement about how much CO2 volcanoes contribute. One would have thought they could at least agree on that |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:
The IPCC report is about as balanced a view as you can get. As I understood it the program maintained that the IPCC report's authors had suppressed contrary views. Another Dave -- change nospam to f2s in e-mail |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"John Laird" wrote in message ups.com... .... Will this be an IPCC report with any contrary views excised after "comments from governments and various organisations", as hinted on last night's programme ? There does not seem to be any significant difference between the consultation documents and the final published version. There are much greater variations between what the report actually says and what has been reported it says. ... I can't follow the argument at all that says that we shouldn't tinker around with CO2 levels because we don't know how sensitive the "system" might be. Human contributions to CO2 are small and if the system was sensitively balanced then you would have to argue that the remaining 90%+ was somehow naturally invariant, and once you have added in the much much larger "greenhouse gas" effect of water vapour, this doesn't hold much weight really.... One physicist from the Cavendish laboratories has suggested that CO2 is irrelevant, as only 15% of the current atmospheric level should absorb 100% of the energy available at the relevant infra red wavelengths. Water vapour does have him worried though. Colin Bignell |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
I've yet to meet someone who has had a real change of mind. We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. Patrick Moore (the one on the programme) changed his mind. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote: If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. Have you figures which proved we've reduced our CO2 output over the past decades? I was referring to the difference between what we produce and what we would be producing if we were still using Third World technologies. ... of course, we source most of our manufactured goods and foodstuffs from abroad. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to 'expect' those countries to to reduce their CO2 outputs while we effectly also try to control the prices we pay for their goods? When I was still manufacturing, my direct energy costs were less than 1% of my overheads. My labour costs were 25% of my income. It is not because their energy is cheap that we buy from them. Colin Bignell |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"Huge" wrote in message ... On 2007-03-09, Grunff wrote: Frank Erskine wrote: On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:31:30 +0000, Grunff wrote: Why is it that the BBC are incapable of producing original, cutting-edge documentaries? And how can I opt out of paying my license fee to this extremely biased behemoth? Get rid of your TV set and you won't need a licence. Even if I wanted to totally do away with watching TV (which I could quite easily), I still like watching DVDs and playing games. In which case you don't need a license. (Cue the standard "Yes you do", "No you don't" argument, which I shall completely ignore.) If its a TV then by definition it is capable of receiving TV transmissions so should be licensed. If it has the receiver disabled in some way it is not a TV so doesn't need a license. Its pretty easy IMO. As someone said gluing a panel over the aerial socket may be enough, removing the tuner should be. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"Bob Martin" wrote in message ... Last night's programme was as biased and one-sided as all the pro-GW programmes which went before it. How can presenting evidence be biased? Especially the evidence that shows tempreture rises preceed the increase in CO2. Its the greens that use the same evidence to prove CO2 causes global warming that are biased. I'm not saying that last night's contributors have vested interests but almost everyone decided years ago whether they were pro or anti and have just reinforced their own prejudices ever since. I've yet to meet someone who has had a real change of mind. We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. It was balanced.. or maybe its only balanced if it supports your view? |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 12:28:31 +0000, Joe wrote:
A good idea, but I've always felt the A-Ark should have gone first. 'Great leaders'?. And, after last night, 'scientists'? Which one were the TV documentary makers in? |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message ... If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. However, that is not a very visible way of doing it and therefore is not going to get a UK politician many votes. How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done? They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have, they don't heat their houses much, they don't cook much and they don't have cars. Changing one 100W lamp for a CF will probably save more CO2 than killing off a third world inhabitant. If you actually believe CO2 is a problem then you are going to have to contribute. I will contribute where it saves me money as I don't think CO2 is the cause of global warming, there is no evidence that CO2 has an effect AFAICS. What is a concern is things like the destruction of the tropical forests which are a buffer and a large buffer is better than a small one. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
In message , Stuart Noble
writes There's an awful lot of junk science in the global warming debate. An awful lot. -- "On a scale of 1 to 10, 4 is about 7." A lot seems to hinge on whether the Medieval Warm Period was global or a local blip. There's also a lot of disagreement about how much CO2 volcanoes contribute. One would have thought they could at least agree on that But then it was stated that there was far more water vapour than CO2, and that water vapour is worse than CO2 from a global warming point of view -- geoff |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
dennis@home wrote:
"nightjar .uk.com" nightjar@insert my surname here wrote in message ... If we seriously want to reduce CO2 emissions, which it is far from proven will help, it would be far more effective to help third world countries achieve the same reductions we have made over the past decades. However, that is not a very visible way of doing it and therefore is not going to get a UK politician many votes. How is reducing the CO2 output of the third world going to be done? They don't have the same industries, etc. that we have, they don't heat their houses much, they don't cook much and they don't have cars. Changing one 100W lamp for a CF will probably save more CO2 than killing off a third world inhabitant. If you actually believe CO2 is a problem then you are going to have to contribute. I will contribute where it saves me money as I don't think CO2 is the cause of global warming, there is no evidence that CO2 has an effect AFAICS. What is a concern is things like the destruction of the tropical forests which are a buffer and a large buffer is better than a small one. I thought that kelp in the oceans absorbed more CO2 than the rain forests. The programme mentioned that some scientists benefit from global warming funding but the biggest losers, if the ideas in the programme were accepted, would be the carbon offset companies. |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 10:34:03 +0000, John Rumm wrote:
Grunff wrote: Frank Erskine wrote: You could use a monitor for watching DVDs and playing games. Not as big as my TV :-) If all you do is watch DVDs and play games then you don't need a license for the TV... Quite so; the licence is for equipment _capable_ of receiving TV broadcasts. It would be a wise precaution to remove the tuner module from your TV (and video if you still have one), this may or may not be possible. -- Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter. The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards |
Global Warming and CO2 levels
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 08:26:22 +0000, Grunff wrote:
Bob Martin wrote: We need some *balanced* programmes with both sides represented. No, that is the last thing we need - you can't do real science on TV. Getting the moronic masses to debate the subject (contrary to popular opinion) is not science, nor will it help you reach a conclusion. BTW where has "Horizon" gone, hasn't been any for months or have they moved it to day time ?! -- Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter. The FAQ for uk.diy is at http://www.diyfaq.org.uk Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html Choosing a Boiler FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/BoilerChoice.html Gas Fitting Standards Docs he http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFittingStandards |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter