hutton_d

That reminds me - I keep meaning to write to my local council about this one. "Can they give me figures for, say, one ton of paper in terms of the energy consumed, pollutants created etc etc" - just so they can *prove* that recycling is better..... I'll let you know what I find out ....

On the *man destroying the planet* scam ... I do agree that we should stop polluting things where we can. For example, cleaner exhausts thorugh technology (cleaning up particulates in diesel eg), stop chucking pollutants in rivers, stop covering the agricultural countryside with pesticides etc, etc etc

As for global warming, maybe we are in a warming cycle at the moment but, if so, there is b*g all man can do about it. Unless someone has a thermostat for the sun ...... :-)

Dave

PS: as one Russian scientist said (before they signed Kyoto for purely economic reasons - zero science!) 'we could do with Siberai being a little warmer .... (or words to that effect!)

hutton_d

A good site to go visit to get lots of *background reading* on the subject is http://www.john-daly.com/ Unfortunately John Daley died a year or so ago and it is not kept up to date as often as before ('cos someone else is doing it - doh...!). Everything you need to know about satellite temps., hockey sticks and (non) rising sea levels are all linked in there soemwhere.


One for those insomniacs out there is: "IPCC's Most Essential Model Errors " found at http://www.john-daly.com/forcing/moderr.htm The 3 are:

Solar impacts
Taking into account the impact of solar variability on global warming, best fit studies have revealed that solar forcing is amplified by at least a factor 4. By leaving out this 'Svensmark factor' and using an exaggerated aerosol cooling, IPCC maintains a CO2 doubling sensitivity of 2.5 °C that is about a factor 3 too high.

Carbon cycle
Our global Carbon Cycle Model reveals a half-life time of only 38 years for any CO2 excess. With present constant global CO2 emission until 2100, the temperature would only further increase by 0.15 °C. Scenario IS92a would end up with 571 ppm only. IPCC assumed that far more fossil reserves would be burnt than being available. Using a flawed eddy diffusion ocean model, the IPCC has grossly underestimated the future oceanic CO2 uptake. Hardly coping with biomass response, limited fossil reserves and using a factor 4 temperature sensitivity, all this leads to an IPCC exaggeration factor of about 6 in yr 2100. The usable fossil reserves of 1300 GtC burnt by 2090, merely cause 548 ppm – not even a doubling. The WRE 650, 750 and 1000 ppm scenarios, projected until 2300, are infeasible. Emission reduction is absolutely useless: the realistic temperature effect of Kyoto till 2050 will be only 0.02 °C.

Radiative forcing
The additional IR absorption (being evaluated here for CO2 doubling) is the energy source for global warming. HITRAN transmission spectra – the fringes being by no means saturated yet – can be used to compute this absorption, mostly occurring near ground. A simple radiative energy equilibrium model of the troposphere yields an IPCC-conforming radiative forcing which is here defined as the additional energy re-radiated to ground. Coping with water vapor overlap on the low frequency side of the 15 µm band, the clear sky CO2 forcing is considerably reduced to 1.9 W/m². With vapor feedback and for cloudy sky the equilibrium ground warming will be about 0.4 to 0.6 °C only – a factor 4 to 6 less than IPCC's 'best guess' for CO2 doubling.


Or try this one that illustrates the fact that *science* can obscure the facts: "The "National Assessment" Overview: Politics Disguised as Science" at http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/...0/national.htm

The summary is:

"The National Assessment Overview document is widely criticized for its style, its alarmist emphasis, its biased perspective, gross exaggerations, and emotive language in what was intended by the US Congress to be a scientific evaluation. But its worst aspect is its flagrant misuse of data.

The NACC Overview tells Congress that the US is warming rapidly, but conceals the fact that recent years are by no means the warmest of the 20th century. Rather, the 1930s are. No explanation or insight is provided as to how the pre-greenhouse-gas-emission 1930s could be warmer, drier, and more drought-prone than is the present. The NACC Overview fails as a scientific assessment of past, present, and future US climate.

The document informs Congress that global sea levels are rising when they are not. [2] The "apparent" sea-level rise along Atlantic seaboard and Gulf coast is a consequence of land sinking not water rising.

The NACC Overview asserts Alaska already is experiencing intense warming when station data show this to be false. Arctic sea ice is alleged to be disappearing when its own graph reveals that to be untrue.

Canadian and British models are used, selected according to criteria that never are explained. Use of the Canadian model results in the most extreme forecasts among all possible models that could have been used but is technically the most inferior model of all.

Highly resolved map graphics are presented in a way that suggests a level of accuracy and detail of which the Canadian and British models both are incapable.

A thousand years of world climate history is rewritten, in flagrant disregard of a mountain of evidence from around the world.

Congress is told the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration will treble by 2100 when available data shows this cannot and will not happen. Applying this false premise to models that produce the most extreme temperature and precipitation scenarios renders the result all the more extreme".




Basically don't believe all you see and hear ... the facts are out there ...

Dave

hutton_d

And how do all the *scientists* and *officials* get to their Kyoto junkets to debate how CO2 is heating our planet and threatening all life on it?? Nope, they don't cycle. No, wrong again, they don't walk .... try again .... Hypocrites the lot of them.

It's all about social engineering - nothing more.

dave