Global Warming

[GrowingChillis]

Hey

did anyone watch the program on channel 4 tonight all about climate change?

they basically said that climate change is barely affected by carbon dioxide and is a lot more dependant on the activity of the sun.

the whole issue of global warming is apparently just exaggerated to enable scientists to get more funding and for ant-capitalism campaigners to have something to shout about

I thought it was very interesting

[GrowingChillis]

[Si]

Make no mistake... The Earth's temperature will have increased by between 1.4 and 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100. This assumes that if we stop producing greenhouse gases tomorrow, then we rise by 1.4°C and if we continue with the current rate of greenhouse gas release, we warm up by 5.8°C. You may ask why there will be a rise even if we stop producing greenhouse gases... well that is because we are naturally going to experience global warming (due to our position from the sun).

The question I put to you, should we try to prevent 3rd world countries from using fossil fuels and if so, will this effect their development? Thus when climatic events do occur, will they be able to rebuild?

[Robert_Brenchley]

We've got two things happening in parallel; firstly a natural increase in the sun's activity, secondly, global warming that we cause. Unfortunately there are people out there using the first phenomenon to disguise the reality of the second.

[GrowingChillis]

Is there any proof that greenhouse gases are affecting the world temp?

With regards the third world, I really don't know. If we leave them doing what they do at the moment then they will die in the thousands, but then if they burn loads of fossil fuels then everyone (apparently) will die from global warming.

[Robert_Brenchley]

What do you mean by proof? The weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour.

[GrowingChillis]

Sorry I really don't know much about climate science, and it is difficult to make a judgement when one party is saying one thing and the other another thing.

I have been reading a thread on another forum all about this, and have learnt some interesting things and also found a really good website:
http://www.realclimate.org/

[Robert_Brenchley]

That's the problem with science; there really is no such thing as ultimate, absolute 'proof'. A theory is simply the best available explanation of whatever has been observed, so it's more on the lines of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Nothing could have been more certain than Newton's laws of motion, which work extremely well as a way of predicting the motion of objects; only a very few, very minor glitches had ever been noticed. Then Einstein looked at the glitches and showed that Newton't thory was inadequate. One day someone will find something Einstein doesn't predict, and come up with an even better theory. When you get something as complex as global warming, it's extremely easy to confuse matters to the point where you can pull the wooll over people's eyes, and there are major commercial interests devoted to doing exactly that, as the tobacco companies did in the 1970's with lung cancer. Suffice it to say that the scientists have been tearing the channel 4 programme to pieces.

[Bambi.1]

I watched the programme and found it really interesting,apparently the earth was a lot warmer during the Bronze age and the Medieval times and it's just a normal cycle of the earth.
There was a lot of very interesting science information that disproved the that we are responsible for global warming, including core samples showing that in the medieval times the temp was higher than it is now and that the vine yards [hence why there are a lot of street names with Vine in them from that time] and other things did well. As mentioned about the sea and the CO2 levels, it takes longer for the sea to warm up as the earth warms up so as it does warm up the CO2 increases. So in 1940 as the earth starts to warm up again so does the sea but it takes decades to do so and as such the CO2 levels start to increase many decades later and this has always been shown - Earth warms up, many decades later the CO2 catches up as the sea increases in temperature. And ... this goes back to the biggest culprit of all - The SUN! Everyday we get blasted by solar flares and solar winds, which all contribute.

I don't think they can turn around now and say anything,otherwise 6,000 jobs or more will disappear,funny that  ::)

http://www.functionpix.com/index.php/article/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle/1270/

[theothermarg]

In my humble opinion weather GW is down to us or not we are using and throwing away too many of the earths resources. plastic amongst many other things that we use once and just chuck away to just lie somewhere for years needs oil to make, and one day we will run out of oil and get swallowed up in our own rubbish
what ever you believe about GW this is a fact
marg :(

[Bambi.1]

I agree Marg,we still need to keep the air clean from pollution,at least we don't have the bad fogs we had years ago.

l recycle everything l can,even my old T-bags,when dry l empty the tea leaves onto the garden and the paper bag goes into the paper,plastic bottle etc wheely bin  ;D

[GrowingChillis]

As I said I have been reading another thread on this and I found a guy who is on a university course and got this sent to him by his lecturer :

"I was going to send this just to students on ESRM in year 2, but it seems worthwhile to bring this to everyone's attention.

You may have seen a documentary on Channel 4 last night called "The Great Warming Conspiracy". This was a highly
partial view of the global warming issue. In a nutshell, it trotted out various discredited "objections" to the scientific consensus that the climate is warming rapidly and that man-made CO2 emissions are primarily responsible.

This concerns me because (1) I have come across students who have been "duped" by highly questionable climate-sceptic material on websites, with detrimental effects on their work; (2) you are all citizens of the world, and as geography graduates of the near future, ought to be better informed than most.

So, I would urge you to check reliable, reputable sources of information on climate change. A great example is "Real Climate", which is essentially a blog maintained by researchers working in the publicly-funded, peer-reviewed science community.

Here are a couple of articles which address myths and misconceptions in last night's documentary:

The suggestion that CO2 lags behind temperature in some ice-core records and so CO2 doesn't cause climate warming is dealt with here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

The myth that scientists were predicting an imminent ice age in the 1970s is dealt with here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...ooling-myth/en/

... and so it goes on. This goes to the heart of academic endeavour and also our attitude to the Earth and how we live on it - again, I urge you to educate yourselves and not be drawn in by sensationalist material in the media."

[Robert_Brenchley]

I couldn't agree more, GC! I've been worried about this for years, ever since a very senior scientist at a conference I attended showed me a confidential document he'd been sent on global warming, and gave me a load of thoroughly bad science to try and discredit it in my eyes. I teach Environmental Science, and do my best to warn my students! The problem is that it's so easy to give partial data, resulting in people getting a totally wrong picture. For instance:

There was a lot of very interesting science information that disproved the that we are responsible for global warming, including core samples showing that in the medieval times the temp was higher than it is now and that the vine yards [hence why there are a lot of street names with Vine in them from that time] and other things did well.

Sure, we did have a warmer climate at times; nobody's disputing that. The difference is that this was a local variation not a global one. Sea level, for instance, remained unchanged, showing that there was no melting of the ice caps. Our situation now is that they're showing every evidence of rapid melting, and there's already been a small inhabited island off the coast of Bangladesh which has had to be abandoned because of rising sea levels. does anyone think countries like the  Maldives would be so worried about melting icecaps if they didn't have very good reason to think that sea levels were rising?

[GrowingChillis]

showed me a confidential document he'd been sent on global warming, and gave me a load of thoroughly bad science to try and discredit it in my eyes.

Why did he show it to you, then try and discredit it?

The channel 4 program is the first big piece of media I have seen trying to discredit the view that we are causing global warming.
Being an environmental scienentist what do you suggest is the main thing we can do to stop all the bad things that are happening eg sea level change. Obviously there are a lot of things we can do, but what do you see as the main one regarding slowing down the rise in temperature?

[mokanoo]

I saw the programme and although it is good to hear the other side of the argument let's not forget that nearly everyone on the show will have their own agenda, including the programme makers and channel 4. I agree that GW is a fluctuation that occurs naturally. Whether human interaction is currently having an impact on GW at the moment I really haven't got the foggiest. What I do know is that surely there are other arguments for trying to cut down on polluting activities. Health reasons such as an increase in asthma in children....waste from fossil fuel mining and other modern activities. This surely must be the reason for cutting back on polluting activities. Well that's my thought on a rather late night.

[OliveOil]

if we do nothing about carbon emmissions and it turns out we ARE having a devastating effect then we will be very sorry!

If we do something about carbon emmissions and it turns out global warming continues and it emmissions have little impact then at least we have done something.

I would much rather do something good than regret doing nothing at all!

At our school we have had to show every student 'An inconvenient truth'  one teacher went absolutely spare saying it was propaganda and how dare we force the kids and brainwash them, that there is no proof about global warming etc etc.... I was shocked, but imo  kids need to make their own minds up and need educating about the global effects we have on our world, whether it be carbon emissions, culling the amazon or whatever!

[Robert_Brenchley]

showed me a confidential document he'd been sent on global warming, and gave me a load of thoroughly bad science to try and discredit it in my eyes.

Why did he show it to you, then try and discredit it?

He was showing off. 'Look at me, I've got access to this highly confidential inter-governmental report, and I know it's nonsense'. He forgot that I've had a scientific education as well, and that I know nonsense when I hear it.

[Si]

If we do something about carbon emmissions and it turns out global warming continues and it emmissions have little impact then at least we have done something.

I would much rather do something good than regret doing nothing at all!

... Hence we insist that 3rd world countries cut down their carbon dioxide emissions. Does this not mean that they have slower development? (I honestly don't know). Then, given that such third world countries are in areas that will be most effected by global warming, will they not suffer more when the Earth heats up naturally? 

[GrowingChillis]

The point they made on the program regarding developing countries and renewable energy is that it is the most expensive kind of energy and they are obviously the poorest people. They showed a medical centre with solar panels, but they were only able to either use the lights or the fridge, not both at the same time!

I read somewhere that some countries in Europe are looking into a new kind of solar paower. They have developed a new kind of solar panel which is more efficient. they proposed they were going to put them in the deserts in Africa or the Middle east(cant remember which) and that they would produce a lot of electricity that would then be piped to Europe, and the new efficient piping would mean they only lose 10% of the energy on the way to Europe. They quoted that if just 0.05% of the worlds deserts were covered with these panels then that would supply enough electric for the whole world.

Whether any of that is correct I couldn't say or claim to know, I just remember reading it somewhere. If anyone knows any more feel free to correct me.

[Robert_Brenchley]

Independent article here. There's more and more coming out exposing this programme for what it was.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

[glosterwomble]

I sat down about a fortnight ago with my partner to watch 'An inconvenient truth' with Al Gore. I expected to be told the same old stuff and I thought I was generally up to date with global warming and thought that I was good at being green...how wrong! I was totally gobsmacked, if you have the chance to watch this documentary you should, if we all do a small thing it can only make the world a better place.

Why don't we all replace our bulbs to low energy for example? We save money (using less electricity) we use less energy, pump out considerably less pollutants and if we really are being conned and WE are not the effect of global warming what have we lost???? NOTHING, we saved some money in the process!

Surely we're not that stupid to think that the way we live is natural??? Pumping out exhaust fumes, churning out pollutants from power plants etc I'm not angelic, yes I drive, yes I fly and I'm sure my carbon footprint could be even less but I am trying to change my ways and recycle, drive less, change bulbs and many other small changes that aren't painful and surely must help?