0

Yes, there has been a rather small increase in measured atmospheric CO2. Another thought, CO2 is rather water soluble and the immense amount of water in the oceans is by no means saturated. So the small increase in atmospheric CO2 should scrub out with rainfall into ocean waters in relatively short time. This would make any long term predictions worthless.

Actually, methane is much more significant to global warming, and isn't as easily removed. Living organisms contribute a large amount of this gas.

0

I would say that C02 has increased however probably nothing as significant as they are trying to tell us and its certainly not playing much of a role in Global warming.

I would say this increase is due to alot of things and those 2 things probably play large parts in that.

0

Yes, there has been a rather small increase in measured atmospheric CO2. Another thought, CO2 is rather water soluble and the immense amount of water in the oceans is by no means saturated. So the small increase in atmospheric CO2 should scrub out with rainfall into ocean waters in relatively short time. This would make any long term predictions worthless.

Actually, methane is much more significant to global warming, and isn't as easily removed. Living organisms contribute a large amount of this gas.

cow and pig farts / burps equate to 30% of all methane

0

This earth has close to 500,000,000 cattle or similar creatures roaming around, each of these ruminants contributes an estimated 400 liters of methane gas per day. So do your calculations. Methane is considered about 10 times worse in its greenhouse effect than CO2.

0

I would say that C02 has increased however probably nothing as significant as they are trying to tell us and its certainly not playing much of a role in Global warming.

I would say this increase is due to alot of things and those 2 things probably play large parts in that.

And you are saying that as a scientist with some data behind it? Just wondering.

You may in fact be right, but unless you have some credentials in the area of concern, assertions with "I would say.." seems to bear little weight.

0

That Really good smell that you get after cutting your lawn is also methane gas. Infact in melbourne on a saturday when everyone would cut their lawn scientists were actually seeing a significant rise in the amount of methane gas over melbourne.

0

That Really good smell that you get after cutting your lawn is also methane gas. Infact in melbourne on a saturday when everyone would cut their lawn scientists were actually seeing a significant rise in the amount of methane gas over melbourne.

Is that from the grass or from the people cutting it?

0

Is that from the grass or from the people cutting it?

Trace amounts of VOCs are released when it is cut.

0

so the cow farts globally is worse than the coal fired power stations of china?

solution: bag the cow farts

0

Animals have been around letting off methane for alot longer then humans have been around. So why is it that these things are all of a sudden supposedly having an impact on the earths climate?

0

there is, if you look throughout time, the carbon
lleves fluctuate massively.

in fact ,if you look at the data, there was a spike in 12something where levels were equivilent to those in 1900.

0

Animals have been around letting off methane for alot longer then humans have been around. So why is it that these things are all of a sudden supposedly having an impact on the earths climate?

for the same reason that CO2 emissions are suddenly having an impact when they never did before (the eruption of Mnt St Helens in 1980 for example put out more CO2 and other "greenhouse gasses" in a few hours than has humanity between roughly 1700 and 2005, and such eruptions happen on average several times a year)...
In other words, no reason at all :)

0

I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh yesterday. He talked about an article, written by John Coleman, who is the founder of the Weather Channel and who has been closely following this "Global Warming" stuff for many years. He has gone public with an article about why he is convinced that all of the (so called) scientific research that proves that global warming is man made and catastrophic is "THE GREATEST SCAM IN HISTORY". Those are not my words, they are the words of John Coleman.

Here is the URL that contains the text of the article. The text of the article is preceded by the local San Diego forecast and some other stuff, so you sort of have to scan down to the bottom of the page.

The artical does not contain any specific technical information, but at the bottom are a number of references to "YouTube" pages and videos that contain the details.

http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html

Hoppy

0

Makes you wonder why the Weather Channel is pushng that "Global Warming" scare every chance they get.

0

Makes you wonder why the Weather Channel is pushng that "Global Warming" scare every chance they get.

That's interesting, I have never watched the Weather Channel. Do you know if John Coleman is still associated with the Weather Channel? If he is, then you have certainly asked an interesting question.

I did notice, when reading his piece that it seemed to have a tone to it that was remarkably similar to the piece written by that Card fellow to whom some recent posts to this thread have referred. Maybe they read the same Cliff notes or maybe they are actually on to something. I guess I'm becoming suspicious of everything anyone writes on the subject. :(

Hoppy

0

I have a question. If anyone knows the answer, I'd like to hear from you. The question is:

1. Is there really more CO2 in the atmosphere than in past years? (I suspect that there is.)

2. Did it get there because of industrial polution and automobiles (which add CO2) or from deforestation (which reduces the vegatation that consume CO2 and produce O2)?

Hoppy

We really don't know. The "evidence" given relies on ice being a hermetic seal for the atmospheric gases trapped in it.

Ice is NOT a hermetic seal for CO2, although it is for most of the other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can combine with the H2O in the ice, forming H2CO3 (carbonic acid). This can then migrate through the ice. If the ice is in contact with the ocean or rock, the CO2 is carried away to react with the minerals in the water, or with the rock. This produces insoluble carbonates, and is not a reversible reaction.

0

The Weather Channel, the History Channel, and Discovery are pushing global warming so all of the environmentalcases will watch the advertising.

0

The Weather Channel, the History Channel, and Discovery are pushing global warming so all of the environmentalcases will watch the advertising.

Yeah, that's got to be it. You have it all figured out.
:yawn:

0

We really don't know. The "evidence" given relies on ice being a hermetic seal for the atmospheric gases trapped in it.

Ice is NOT a hermetic seal for CO2, although it is for most of the other gases in the atmosphere. CO2 can combine with the H2O in the ice, forming H2CO3 (carbonic acid). This can then migrate through the ice. If the ice is in contact with the ocean or rock, the CO2 is carried away to react with the minerals in the water, or with the rock. This produces insoluble carbonates, and is not a reversible reaction.

What I am getting from all that I am reading and listening to is that there is no real evidence of any kind of climate change trend. There especially does not seem to be any evidence that the planet is facing any catastrophic global warming. There does seem to be some evidence (although it is far from convincing) that there might be some catastrophic global cooling on the horizon. If this is the case, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions could only serve to exacerbate the problem (if it has any measurable effect at all).

Most of what I am reading and hearing on this global warming issue seems to be agenda driven. (This is not necessarily directed at the quote above).

The one argument that seems to make sense to me is that we ought to take steps to protect ourselves just in case some catastrophic peril is about to befall us. And even with that comes the question: What will be the cost to us in terms of life style change? And will we be happier having taken these steps in case no catastrophe appears?

From my personal perspective, I think I would be happier if we were able to fuel our life styles in a cleaner way than we have done in the past. We might also be better off economically than if we continue to fund people (through petro-dollars) that are bent on our destruction.

0

From my personal perspective, I think I would be happier if we were able to fuel our life styles in a cleaner way than we have done in the past. We might also be better off economically than if we continue to fund people (through petro-dollars) that are bent on our destruction.

I would agree with that. Even if it were sustainable and "global warming" a baseless concern, our current energy usage and subsequent pollution is making a mess of the environment. As an outdoors enthusiast, I'd gladly welcome cleaner rivers, air, forests, etc. Hopefully innovations in energy production will one day allow us to start reversing some of the damage that's been done. I like to believe that most people don't want to pollute the hell out of everything. There just aren't satisfactory alternatives available on a large enough scale yet. Given that in the early days of oil refining, kerosene was the desired product and everything else was just discarded as waste (often into rivers), I have reasonable faith that we will find more acceptable ways to meet our energy needs in time.

1

Well global warming could be a future issue, just look at the film "The day after Tomorrow". It shows what 'could' (i use could very loosely) happen. This is just a prequel to a large ice age, much like that of the era after the dinosaurs became extinct. So if the temperature of the atmosphere stays at this high level for a longer period of time, the earth could heat up to such a point where the ice caps melt and that leads to higher seas, yada yada etc etc. But it is a very varying issue with many people saying many different things. I mean some say that the gulf stream may disappear so the UK gets the sort of temperatures that Canada experiences, but others say that there will just be a lot of flooding. It's a very difficult thing to predict or know anything about. Or as some evidence suggests it may just be one of the Earth's cycles closer to the Sun, which happens every X amount of years. Its a very strange issue indeed........

Votes + Comments
Are you certain that citing Hollywood on Global Warming is the right thing to do? After all, the High Gore is the usual cite.
0

I would agree with that. Even if it were sustainable and "global warming" a baseless concern, our current energy usage and subsequent pollution is making a mess of the environment. As an outdoors enthusiast, I'd gladly welcome cleaner rivers, air, forests, etc. Hopefully innovations in energy production will one day allow us to start reversing some of the damage that's been done. I like to believe that most people don't want to pollute the hell out of everything. There just aren't satisfactory alternatives available on a large enough scale yet. Given that in the early days of oil refining, kerosene was the desired product and everything else was just discarded as waste (often into rivers), I have reasonable faith that we will find more acceptable ways to meet our energy needs in time.

You know, I think that everyone wants basically the same thing. A cleaner, less poluted environment in which to live. I think that this holds true whether you are liberal or conservative, whether you happen to believe in global warming or not. And the good news is that the economics (which, after all is what will dictate the course that the people of the world will embrace) is turning in favor of solutions that will lead us all to clean up this planet of ours.

Hoppy

0

Of course. But the current singleminded focus on "CO2" (which isn't even a polutant) is extremely dangerous and counterproductive.

If takes billions and billions of Euros away from things that could have a real effect in making things clean and shiny with no positive effect whatsoever.
In fact the effect is largely negative in that the landscape gets dotted with wind turbines, each of which requires an access road for maintenance crews, and is a meatgrinder for migratory birds.
Each also makes a terrible racket when going and is a sore on the landscape (if you live in the middle of several hundreds of the darn things like I do you'd realise that).
Used to be you could see for miles here and have a clear view to the edge of the world, no longer.
And the environmental impact of the things is not well understood. It is known that they shift wind and rain patterns in their vicinity, leaving a strong wind shadow behind them that sees less rain than it would without the wind turbine in place.
We're already seeing a requirement for increased irrigation in areas where there are a lot of them, which means pumping up surface water with electrical pumps and spraying it to undo the damage those windmills do (while using the electricity those turbines produce to do it).

Similar effects on ocean currents are being observed around turbine farms in the sea working on tidal energy.

the longterm climate effects of such local wind and tidal changes are as of now unknown, but they may well be substantial when and if the scale of those wind and tidal energy farms grows to the size needed to supply substantial portions of the energy society needs to function.

0

Of course. But the current singleminded focus on "CO2" (which isn't even a polutant) is extremely dangerous and counterproductive.

If takes billions and billions of Euros away from things that could have a real effect in making things clean and shiny with no positive effect whatsoever.
In fact the effect is largely negative in that the landscape gets dotted with wind turbines, each of which requires an access road for maintenance crews, and is a meatgrinder for migratory birds.
Each also makes a terrible racket when going and is a sore on the landscape (if you live in the middle of several hundreds of the darn things like I do you'd realise that).
Used to be you could see for miles here and have a clear view to the edge of the world, no longer.
And the environmental impact of the things is not well understood. It is known that they shift wind and rain patterns in their vicinity, leaving a strong wind shadow behind them that sees less rain than it would without the wind turbine in place.
We're already seeing a requirement for increased irrigation in areas where there are a lot of them, which means pumping up surface water with electrical pumps and spraying it to undo the damage those windmills do (while using the electricity those turbines produce to do it).

Similar effects on ocean currents are being observed around turbine farms in the sea working on tidal energy.

the longterm climate effects of such local wind and tidal changes are as of now unknown, but they may well be substantial when and if the scale of those wind and tidal energy farms grows to the size needed to supply substantial portions of the energy society needs to function.

Thats's an interesting perspective I hadn't read before. But you are right. Those wind machines are incredibly ugly. I wasn't aware that they were also noisy. I have also not heard about their effect on rainfall.

But I have seen some of the newer horizontal units that can be installed on roof tops of high buildings. They are not visible from ground level and are apparently able to generate enough electricity to supply the entire building.

Do you see any downside to this type of wind driven generator?:?:

Hoppy

0

the ones on buildings may well work. The building itself will also effect wind patterns so putting something on top won't do much.
And they're in a noisy area anyway (inner cities) so the noise won't be heard much either.

What they will do is make roof evacuation a lot harder if not impossible, as they take up what room there is for helicopters to land and/or approach. For buildings with helipads for incoming tennants that may well be a reason to not want such a thing up there.

On most buildings you can see them from the ground though (but the ones we have here aren't on very tall buildings and usually right on the edge of the roof, shouting "look, we're green").

0

the ones on buildings may well work. The building itself will also effect wind patterns so putting something on top won't do much.
And they're in a noisy area anyway (inner cities) so the noise won't be heard much either.

What they will do is make roof evacuation a lot harder if not impossible, as they take up what room there is for helicopters to land and/or approach. For buildings with helipads for incoming tennants that may well be a reason to not want such a thing up there.

On most buildings you can see them from the ground though (but the ones we have here aren't on very tall buildings and usually right on the edge of the roof, shouting "look, we're green").

It sounds, to me, like the positives far outweigh the negatives for these units. This is especially true considering the fact that these roof-top wind machines offset the need for energy from uglier, more polluting sources.

By the way, some of the newer wind machines are actually quite nice to look at.

Hoppy :)

0

The conclusion. Should Global cooling occur you should all move to Australia because as we saw in the day after tomorrow australia was unaffected by the whole event.

0

lol

i was thinking the same thing, that if england gets flooded and sinks into the sea, scotland will get perfect weather for once ;)

0

A little off topic but has anyone seen Children of Men? Its basically set in 2037 where everywhere but england has gone to shit and all these Refuji's are trying to get into england.

Could be the same situation but as a result of global cooling rather then war.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.