Buckrogers

Global Warming and the new “Global Dimming”!

Looks like some of the pollution we all have been pumping out has actually been protecting us, hence Global Dimming.

Cat converters, filters on gas and coal fired power stations have reduced the dimming which is increasing the warming.

Unless we reduce the CO2 emissions, they predict we are fcuked by 2100, world wide temp raise of 10o, north and south pole melting, sea level raising 8m, sand storms across desert UK!

We should rely more on nuclear powered power stations to produce energy requirements.

OllyK

Trouble is the scientists can't agree on the model, plenty of others think it is just a natural fluctuation in the Earth's temperature.

By 2100 I'll be long gone, I don't have kids and the dog and misses will be gone as well, so I don't give a rat's ***

brickboy

Quick! Everyone buy a diesel, stick an over-fuelling tuning box on it and get motoring Should do the trick in a few weeks

DrEvil

Certainly more dim people round here over the past few years

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

They mentioned that man made CO2 was originally thought to affect global warming by 1% - but now that global dimming is recognised, it was recalculated to 10%.

What it doesn't mention is the ratio of man made greenhouse gasses to natural greenhouse gasses, WRT original calculations and present calculations.

The way the report was presented it suggested that the man made greenhouse gasses and man made pollutants pretty much cancelled each other out and over the last 40 years global warming has increased by 0.6 deg C

The suggestion that cleaner emissions (less pollutants) but the same man made CO2 emissions could result in a irrepiarable 5 deg increase by 2030 seems incredable.

More worrying I feel that if ALL man made emissions were to stop tomorrow, the globe would still heat up as per the new model - as in man made CO2 does not contribute to global warming AS MUCH as the pollutants contribute to global dimming.

I'm sure the people at the top of governments, oil companies, power stations etc are aware of all this - its just a case of what they are going to do about it - IF anything can be done about what could easily be a solar season.

David Lock

Fascinating (and worrying) programme. Especially the tests done during the 3 days after 9/11 when virtually no flights and aircraft pollution over USA. DL

Hanslow

Main polluters - industry (manufacturing, power stations), and aircraft.

Still, people want to get around don't they, and planes don't burn up that much fuel in the upper atmosphere

Wonder what people will do when all the fossil fuels run out, which they predicited a while back would be about 2030 ish.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Who gives a f*ck, do we actually matter ?

Hanslow

The powers that be need some reason to tax you into an early grave

Buckrogers

???

Leslie

Hanslow, did you know that it takes 40 tons of fuel to get an average airliner across the Atlantic one way? Do you still think that is not sigbificant, especially when you add up all the aircraft flights in the world in one day. Aircraft fuel is free of tax by the way.

That was a frightening programme, its the thought of what will happen when the climate change becomes irreversible in 25 years, and when the undersea methane boils off that is really worrying. That is when it goes out of our control.

We are responsible to our descendants for what is left to them, and we should not forget that. Politicians these days live only for the next election and what may happen in 25 years does not bother them.

Les

Hanslow

Les, if you noticed the I was being sarcastic (lowest form of wit, I know) I was trying to make the point without being too blatant (apart from the first line where I said aircraft are one of the most polluting)

With people demanding cheaper flights, wanting to travel more, more air-freight, it's no wonder there are lots of emissions from fekin planes

Geezer

It is unlikely that we will kill the world off. That is not the issue. However, we will kill an awful lot of species off (maybe even ourselves).

The timescales involved for the heating up and subsequent damage are very small in the lifetime of the planet, and so are fairly inconsequential. It will regain a state of equilibrium suitable for the support of a large and varied fauna and flora.

Whenever there is a large and sudden extinction, the gap is filled by the species best adapted. Last time this happened, we were the benfactors (well, our ancestors - small mammals).

We talk about a heated planet for thousands of years, but that really is nothing. Life will go on, with or without the human race. The planet was alot hotter prior to the Tertiary period, but live thrived, and it will again.

The only issue for us is whether we wish human civilisation to continue in some form, it probably won't if we carry on as we are. But civilisation in it's current form exacerbates the problem, it's a catch 22 situation.

Geezer

hedgehog

Ice cores from the last 750,000 years have shown that rising CO2 levels have FOLLOWED an increase in temperature. The lag has been 800 - 1000 years. This is what we are seeing currently.

There is no question that things are getting warmer. What has been annoying the scientists who make their income from predicting doom is that things are not really getting very warm very fast. The last ice age melted in 50 years and there have been increases in temperature of up to 10 degress in a single human life span but the current events are nothing like as impressive despite what the media would like you to think.

I also note that within the past few months Horizon also told us that the Gulf Stream was going to stop and the UK would be a frozen wasteland. Now they think it is going to be a desert. That just about sums up the accuracy of current climate models: it's either going to be hotter, or colder, or something inbetween.

ajm

LOL!

I didn't see either programmes, but I guess that is what happens when they study and report upon two interdependent subjects in isolation.

The icecaps fuel ocean currents, including the Gulf Stream. If it gets hotter the icecaps melt. If the ice caps melt then gulfstream may cease. If the Gulf Stream ceases then the UK may get colder.....oh!

hedgehog

In a recent item in the science journal "Nature" several scientists working in the area of climate and atmospheric science addressed the possibility of the Gulf Stream stopping. I can't remeber the exact term they used but it verged on "utter *****." They asserted that the Gulf Stream would not stop until the world stopped spinning and the wind stopped blowing and that if either of these things were to happen we would all have far too much on our minds, if only for a fraction of a second, to be concerned about a temperature change.

Geezer

Whether it is utter ***** or not, no one denies the world is heating up.Whether human influence is a major factor or not is till not perfectly clear. What is clear is that all the CO2 we pump into the atmosphere has an effect, whether it be small or big, has some effect. To reduce it would be no bad thing. It doesn't take a genius to see that chopping down 70% of the worlds forests and pumping extra CO2 into the air will add to a greenhouse effect, whether that effect is originated naturally or man made.

Our rape of the planet will be our downfall. Like I said earlier, the earth won't care, it will survive, but if we care about our own existence, then things need to be done.

Even if it turned out that our influence was zero, the planet is still heating up and no one is looking at what we need to do to avoid a disaster on a scale that will make the Asian tsunami look like someone grazed their knee.

I find the attitude strange to say the least. It's like someone walking up to you with a gun saying they are going to shoot you and you make no attempt to get away.

Geezer

hedgehog

If you know the gun is unloaded and that their threat is only an attempt to gain political control over your actions you may not care to make a get away but to stand your ground.

The amount of forest on earth has actually increased in recent times, since about the 1950's as I recall. Do you know what reduction there would be in global temperature if ALL the CO2 were to be removed from the atmosphere? Do you know what the temperature on Mars is and what percentage of its atmosphere is CO2?

The temperature on the planet has always changed and there is no question that we are currently seeing a slight warming. However, even 5000 years ago it was much warmer than it is today, so much so that the peat bogs you see in Scotland and Ireland didn't even exist because it was too warm. They have only grown up in the recent cold temperatures.

I think we are far from doomed to be honest, as do 18,000 scientists who signed the Oregon Petition saying that there was no such thing as Anthropogenic global warming.

Another approach is that generally speaking the Greenpeace type environmental nutters you meet are very selfish. It is all "my children" "my environment" "my future" etc. In truth it may be that the human species might be at the end of its useful life and this is something it is hard for a selfish person to accept, it has happened before with other species and it might happen again with us and anyone with a true holistic approach to the earth and its environment would realise that maybe we are about to be replaced.

PeterPerfect

Mitigate the threat of reduced availability of the resource Earth, required by human users to satisfy their functional goal, 'to evolve'

Geezer

The problem is, we don't know if the gun is loaded or not. One camp says it is, the other it isn't. Know one knows for sure. On that basis, would you take the chance the gun was loaded?

Geezer

hedgehog

In view of the fact that our atmosphere has done this a very many times in the past and that this behaviour is well documented, even before we were around, I would feel pretty safe in taking the chance.

When you view the potential for environmental damage foisted upon us by those "saving the earth" then you start to see that it isn't a case of reducing CO2 being a benign option, these people want to return us to the stone age.

Take a look at what they want to do to the Isle of Lewis, a large island off Scotland, and you will see the huge environmental damage that the green nuts are quite happy to go along with if it fits their political agenda. The island is to get 300 miles of new road to allow access to a huge wind factory for example. Now this would be the per capita equivalent of London getting 22,000 miles of new road. Can you imagine the out cry from the green nuts if this were to be announced for London? They can build roads when it suits them, "ME ME ME" again.

Assuming that the gun is loaded isn't necessarily environmentally sound policy, in fact it may be much more damaging to our environment than just ignoring the gun altogether and letting nature take its course. Just remember the "ME ME ME" attitude of the green nuts I outlined earlier, this is why they are doing all their damage to some remote Scottish Island. Interestingly Prof David Bellamy, a well known environmentalist, described his fight against the wind factories on Lewis as "the most important of his life" and he also can find no evidence for man made global warming.

Have you found out how much the global temperature would drop by if we removed all the CO2 from the atmosphere? I'll help you with the atmosphere of Mars which is 97% CO2.

Vegescoob

So we're all (inc. T. Blair) gonna cancel our foreign holidays and overseas business travel are we?
It amuses me how many politicians talk about less emissions etc. but than talk up tourism as good and essential for their respective economies.

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

http://bbs.scoobynet.co.uk/showthrea...1&page=4&pp=20

Pea soupers over London were nothing to do with every home burning wood or coal. Thats' just plain stupid, I mean how could man affect the climate or do damage to nature. No no, it was wierd cyclic atmospherics that happen every so often, optimistic scientists said so.

Smog over Los Angeles (sp?) isn't caused by cars or factories, but naturally occuring emissions from flora and fauna, probably.

"Man can carry on burning fossil fuels at will and it'll not make any difference to the planets eco system". If I say this to myself many times I'll feel much better and it'll all go away or perhaps all those honest governments will look after us and sort it out.

F

hedgehog

Localised pollution events are rather different from global climate change.

If you fart in your living room it doesn't mean that you have destroyed the whole world, though it might seem like it to anyone else in the room with you.

Leslie

Hanslow,

Fair enough, my mistake.

At least my point about airliners underlined what you said I suppose.

Les

Floyd

iTrader: (9)

But 10 people continually farting in the same room will eventually turn the wallpaper brown and kill everyone form methane poisoning. I rest my case, no further questions

F

Geezer

hedgehog, the problem is that thousand of respected scientists say that global warming is happening (actually, I don't think nanyone actually refutes this anymore) and that CO2 is a conributary factor.

Also, as you point out, thousands say it is not. Obviously we don't know, but I'm sure that the answer lies somewhere in between.

You attack the Greens as if they are the only people crying out about this, but they are not. To use the example of how the greens have maipulated the situation on the Isle of Lewis to their advantage is to add weight to your argument in a somewhat misrepresented way. Like so many things, it is a bad example used to discredit an organisation who's actions are in the main good natured.

Also, to talk about their "ME, ME, ME" attitude is ridiculous. What about the USA? The biggest resource eaters in the world, by some considerable margin. They refuse to sign up to any accords (whether they are related to CO2 emissions or not) because it will damage their economy! How selfish is that?

Your argument about Mars atmospehere is also highly misrepresentative too. Mars is considerably further from the Sun than earth, and the energy is somewhat more dissipated out there. Wholly unlike Earth. Venus has a virtually identical CO2 content, and suffers from the worst greenhouse atmospehere imaginable. It's proximity to the Sun is what differs from Mars.

Earth, in the middle, needs a different CO2 concentration to achieve such an effect, one which is not clear, but we are adding to.

If we were to follow your path, it's a case of "oh bollocks, let's just keep stoking the fire and see what happens", by the time the spark jumps and lights the furniture, it's too late. We are currently at a point where we can control the fire.

Geezer

Jay m A

iTrader: (2)

Well said Geez

hedgehog

It is less to do with proximity to the sun and more to do with the surface pressure on Venus which is about 92 bar. If we were at 92 bar we'd know all about global warming, and wear much, much shorter trousers.

The fact is that more advanced, more sophisticated civilisations are better able to conserve their environment, the very fact that most people in the UK live to see 70 or 80 years of age is a good indication that all the stories of doom are somewhat misleading. Just over 100 years ago most people were dead well before 50.

The green nuts, on the other hand, are driven by a politics which wants to force their opinions and life style upon the rest of society and to force us into living in the stone age. As I've pointed out before the founder of Greenpeace left for this very reason, his environmental organisation had been taken over by the nutters who no longer had the Berlin Wall and the nuclear warheads to protest about. Even the person who founded the organisation no longer believes Greenpeace to be dedicated to the good of the environment.

The one thing we can't do is control nature, as we have recently seen in Asia, and it may well be that nature is exactly what has been responsible for "global dimming" as well. The baseline year they use for claims of "global dimming" is 1950 which saw the end of a 15 year period of no volcanic activity and an unprecedented peak in solar activity. So since then there has been in increase in volcanic activity (remember you get good red sunsets after volcanic activity? It's because of all the material put into the atmosphere by the eruption.) and a general reduction in solar activity. To be honest it would be more of a concern if things hadn't got less bright since then. So, don't talk to me about misrepresentation, talk to the green nuts who will use any trick in the book to fool you into thinking that you are doomed so they can control your life.

moses

i watched it bud had a shock of my life, its scary, theirs not just warming we need to worry about now but also global dimming

sort out one problem the other one will get worse, i hope they manage to find a cure

no wonder were having warmer summers now