Um, for those wh doubt that we can have any effect at all on the atmosphere, may I just mention the hole in the ozone layer?

But this is the point i fail to grasp, Richard, that somehow there are millions of people who are "owed" the Earth's fossil fuels. Well sorry but i just don't buy that. This planet is a living organism, and there are over six billion of us - that sounds small but it's six thousand MILLION people all contributing to one of the biggest strains the atmosphere has ever had to cope with.

And you know what? When i see all the noxious ****e being pumped from chimneys into the air, into the sea, you can bet your last damned penny that i'll STAND by the assumption, such as it is, that it is a cause AND a problem. It just makes me so angry, as you can tell, that people are putting SO much energy into trying to pursuade us that it's all a big hoax, a big con. FFS. So as and when cutting down on polluting the place we live is proven beyond doubt to be " the wrong thing to do", i'll fully support all measures to get man to change his selfish, wasteful habits, even if it's just by a little bit.

Curious, though how it increased dramatically over a time period when CFCs were actively being released into the atmosphere, and now that they're bannned in every country on the planet, the hole is starting to shrink. Coincidence? Stretching it a bit...

Wasting precious energy and pumping polution everywhere is bad and wrong. It must be controlled. But politicians have tried to sell us this costly idea for the wrong reasons and all the evidence is now telling us that this will not change the climate. And in doing so, it deflects our effort from looking at other extremely important issues, that are the result of climate change.

Okay, so things are warming up. What's the underlying trend, and what are the the short-term, perhaps localised peaks like El-Ninyo? Are rising temperatures likely to increase natural threats like this, tsunamis etc, and if water levels are going to rise, by how much and where? What can be done about it and at what cost?

These are very important questions about things we can, and must, act upon now. There are many, many more, no doubt. It's a complicated business.

I guess that's my point really. It's complicated and not just a simple question of, say, switching from fossil fuels to nuclear energy. Furthermore, I'm saying that making such a switch for the wrong reasons will ultimately make things worse, not better.

Richard.

If you're so angry, and so intent on putting so much energy into convincing non-believers and the apathetic that human activity IS the cause of global warming, what are you doing to mitigate these circumstances. Have you stopped using your car? Planted more trees? Stopped using gas and electricity? Why are you even using a computer since it also burns fossil fuels? So does that mean its ok to contribute to global warming just as long as it doesn’t mean you don’t go without? Is that not selfish and wasteful? Are you going tell your children, that despite knowing that doing what you are doing everyday is contributing to global warming, that you still carried on contributing to global warming?

I guess maybe you feel that you are doing “enough” for environment to ease your conscience, but not so much that you and your family are uncomfortable.

ps. Not getting aggro with you, just wishing to discuss

You see, that's the opposer's usual banal line of reasoning, you have to be a field living tree hugger or you're a total hypocrite. I'm not saying we should all live in caves, but i certainly think most of us could make significant changes to our energy usage patterns. I know i have. I'm not perfect, and i'm not asking anyone else to be. What we need to do for a start is to curb the excesses of Western living, and it isn't difficult to do. Profligate wastage is our number one priority, not a self-righteous focus on whether those who are concerned are squeaky clean.

Got to agree with Tel on that. There is a huge amount of waste. How many offices do you see lit up throughout the night when no-one's in them? Walk round your workplace and see how many PCs are left switched on when people leave for the night. Have a walk down your street after dark and see how many houses have all the lights on. How many of your neighbours will get the car out to drive half a mile to get a newspaper? How many electrical items are on standby in your house when you're not using them? What about energy saving lightbulbs? How many bins are full to overflowing when the refuse collection comes round?
You don't have to make big changes to your lifestyle. And it might just save you some money into the bargain.

Er, what? Are you incapable of making that decision yourself? The choice is aready there. Nothing that I mentioned there involved 'the powers that be' making more controlling legislation or the energy producers promoting this (oh, about a year ago, my energy supplier offered its customers free energy saving bulbs). All I said was "if it's not in use, switch it off".

In what specific ways do you think the utility companies actively encourage us to increase usage?



You beat me to it, Tony!

[QUOTE=TelBoy]
Profligate wastage is our number one priority
QUOTE]

And reducing it, presumably Got to be a good plan, but what has it got to do with climate change?

And number one priority in comparison to what? Peace in the Middle East, famine in Africa, Muslim extremism, cancer?

We're way off topic.

Richard.

My only problem was with the claim that those were IPCC figures.

If there is a 'tipping' point and it's only 10-15 years away, we're pretty much fcuked. I don't think the collective governments of this planet will be able to change things significantly to avert a global disaster in that short time. If it doesn't happen and it was a ruse to go nuclear and get us to spend more on energy efficient stuff and extra taxes, then thank God that's all that happens. I'd rather that scenario than apoclypse!

So what if the world governments are all in a conspiracy to save fuel and resources under the global warming banner? Perhaps the real problem is that the oil will run out sooner rather than later and there's not enough alternatives to replace it? Lets face it if India and China catch up with the western world's economy (undeniable), then their populations will want car's and consumer goods and 'things' just like us. Except there's billions of them How long will the fuel last when that happens? Look at Saudi Arabia and other Oil producing countries; they are all changing their income source to tourism and luxuary living. Perhaps they can see what's around the corner?

So what happens when we have a fuel strike/shortage? They country comes to a standstill and people literally fight over fuel. Multiply that everywhere...

F

Actually it isn't shrinking at all. This year is expected to see the largest hole, due to the extremely cold conditions over Antarctica this year, since measurements began and that is the key to the problem. Measurements only began in the late 1950's and when they noticed that the hole changed in size many people pondered what this indicated. Others, however, always keen to get their names in the press and keep the donations from suckers rolling in decided that because it had only been happening since the 1950's the expansion of the hole must be caused by man. "Since the 1950's the hole has been growing, fridges came into common use then. Repent and make sacrifices for your sins, give us your money, dump your modern lifestyle. Doomed I tell you, Doomed!" went the cry, making no mention that we have not the slightest notion what the hole was doing before the 1950's.

So, now we have, for quite some years, stopped releasing CFCs into the atmosphere and the hole continues to get bigger, or smaller, or about the same size, but of course the various groupings of green nutters don't talk about that any more. "Forget the hole!" they cry "it's global warming that now deserves your sacrifices and we take all popular credit cards."

Of course perhaps that is an abstract treatment of the hole, all that measuring and so on. If something is changing there must be something bad going on is what the green nutters would like us to believe. On a simpler level my problem always was that the hole was caused by CFCs, CFCs were released by people, the vast majority of people live in the northern hemisphere, the hole was over the south pole. Does this mean that CFCs migrate south in winter? As you say "Coincidence? Stretching it a bit..."

I understand as I wasn't very clear on how the IPCC came to be involved, the figures were based upon the IPCC figure of the 0.6 degree warming in the last 100 years. Peilke used that figure as a starting point to calculate, based on best knowledge, how much of that warming could actually be caused by the increase in atmospheric CO2 that we have seen during that time. He also used other IPCC figures in the calculation from what i recall such as the atmospheric CO2 concentrations etc.

It should be noted, however, that the error bars on the IPCC measurements of temperature increase and global average temperature are +-0.7 degrees, so the potential measured increase is actually within the error tolerance for the measurement.

Of course the theory is built on actual chemistry, not some ludicrous conspiracy. Chlorine is released by CFCs in the upper atmosphere, where it effectively "converts" an Ozone molecule it encounters into two oxygen molecules (using an extra oxygen atom). Because the Cholorine atom is not destroyed in this reaction, it can go on to react with many more ozone atoms, turning them into oxygen too. That is why it takes very little CFCs to over time take out a lot of ozone.

CFCs remain in the atmosphere for a very long time. The mechanisms for removing them are slow. It will be many decades before the ozone hole starts to noticably shrink.

What error bars? I mean how do you know? Have you seen them? I have never seen any IPCC temperature trend for last century with the error bars that large.

[quote=TelBoy]...all it takes is some minor modifications to your probable prodigal behaviour at present... [quote]

Minor mods aren't going to do anything - like fitting a free flow back box on your Scoob it might sound noisier and you feel you're going faster - but you are achieving nothing apart from annoying your neighbours

With 96.5% (est) of C02 being natural productivity and therefore 3.5% shared between 6,000,000,000 people on the planet - "minor modifications to your probable prodigal behaviour at present" will not cut it! - You need to die - and so do the rest of us if this hypothesis is true... Wee need to completely stop all unnecessary CO2 emisions!!! - Then we 'might' 'Save the Planet' - or it might all be a red herring to divert us from what is really happening in the world...

What happend to the Euro? - do the government still want us to join???
Why are people around the world being locked up, killed and tortured for their political and religious beliefs?
Why are minority groups becoming top political agenda above everybody else?
Why are emergency services continuing to be abused and attacked by rebellious youths?

add your own important questions below...

people still have to make a living even in the energy industry /air line /car etc

Warming or cooling, it makes no difference. We have, as a parasite on this planet, gone a long way towards destroying it. Take a look at google earth and see for yourself how much of the earth we have conquered, there are few areas left virgin anywhere

Its also depressing when a native Eskimo near the polar circle asks what the brown hazy layer on the horizon is and the interviewer says its pollution from the rest of the world

More news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../ncosmic04.xml
expanded on in the first entry here http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

[QUOTE=Mick][quote=TelBoy]...all it takes is some minor modifications to your probable prodigal behaviour at present... That's true,but the 96.5% of CO2 is all cycling round as part of the carbon cycle. It isn't actually putting any extra into the atmosphere. Deforestation/burning fossil fuels is what's ADDING the extra.

Hold on hold on. 3.5% might sound small, but what all of a sudden made YOU the environmental expert who can say with 100% certainty that that 3.5% (itself an arbitrary statistic and you know it) isn't the critical extra CO2 in a finely balanced ecosystem that will make all the difference??

How can all the doubters BE so self-righteously sure that everything humans are doing is "insignificant". Just where is the harm in at least TRYING to head in the right direction?? I honestly think the arrogance of some people is breathtaking with respect to this issue. The Euro, political minorities and whatever else you care to list won't matter one iota if we're all busy rebuilding our houses or finding dry land to live on.

Nearly everyone who posts on this forum, either drive or have driven highly polluting cars, do track days, drive for pleasure, praise people for having driven their cars entusiastically or modifying theirs cars for more performance, own more that one car, or wish they could own/dive a high performance car/supercar/SUV.

And then same people are advocating a fact that we are destroying the eco system, using up earths valueable resources, destroying the future for our children, preaching of impending doom and armagedon etc. Why then aren't you practicing what you preach? Give up your polluting performance car(s) or at least change it to a hybrid/electic cars (performance diesels don't count since they're petrol alternative tuned more for performance than economy). Go figure...

I've "gone figure" by already answering precisely that point earlier in the thread.

All these arguments can be turned exactly back on themselves... You know it's true!

Have you read any of Hedgehogs posts????

What I object to is the mountain of evidence that suggests global warming is happening as part of a cycle and will turn back arround in time coupled with the most unlikely scenario that man is making the critical difference of whether our world cooks itself or remains stable - being paid for by taxes paid to the government in my country...

TV documentrys show islands being flooded saying things like 'this is the worst flooding here for 40 years' - implying that global warming is responsible. So 40 years ago there were worse floods than these - but global warming wasn't responsible then! - Honestly I don't see the logic!

The anti pollution thing is great - we have a responsibility to take care of our environment! CO2 and water are natural waste products of energy utilisation. Plants take in the CO2 and water and produce food and fuels - wonderful design.

Pollutants - soot particles, airbourne lead, benzine, radioactive waste, tobbacco smoke in enclosed public areas these are things I am concerned about. They are immediate, real and we know they do damage. Well done to the government for sorting out some of these. But now due to the panic that 'the sky might be falling in' they are getting desperate and talking about building more nuclear power stations... I thought we were trying to get away from that!

Interesting arument though...

Cheers

Mick

Yep, i've read Hedgehog's posts, and a few of the links in them too. They're self-serving, i don't see your point. If you're a doubter you'll love them, if you're a supporter you'll view them as propaganda. And vice versa. Same for any issue about which there is no definitive answer.

The nuclear issue is a different topic, but i think most people now concede that nuclear power stations are far less polluting than their conventional counterparts, irrespective of the dwindling natural resourses argument. We need to do something, at the end of the day.

If you're a doubter you don't understand why the govenment wants to spend so much on a problem that isn't there, if you're a supporter you'll view it as the only thing worth worrying about.