Campaign against Climate Change

[Ukwildlifeo]

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

I suggest you don't listen to skewed media soundbites and get a brain. CO2 does NOT and has never preceded a temperature rise. My god just look up the beer/lambert law.

Wow I guess all the palaeoclimate stuff Ive spent the last year learning about was just all wrong...and all the peer reviewed politics free papers I read...

[thwick in 'ead]

Has anyone else noticed that those who make the decisions on "alternative energy" sources such as wind farms, and those who voices are heard most loudly in the media in support of such schemes, are nearly all city dwellers, who probably would never dream of setting foot in the countryside (what's left of it) for fear of getting their designer shoes dirty.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

96.6% of annually cycled C02 occurs naturally... and C02 is not a strong greenhouse gas, water vapour is the daddy.

your facts are accurate - but irrelevant to the argument.

96.6% of annualy cycled c02 occurs naturally but GW isnt about the anual cycle its about the increase in CO2 from release of sequestered carbon - which is ocurring principally from anthropogenic sources

water vapour is indeed a more potent GH agent in lab conditions - but as there is no sequestered water the ammount of vapour cannot significantly increase (actually this isnt quite true because increase global temps do lead to increased evaporation from the oceans) and also water vapour doesnt acumulate in the upper atmosphere it hangs arround in the lower atmosphere and falls as rain.

and actually water vapour isnt the daddy either - thats methane , which is 20 times as potent as Co2 and is another anthropogenically increased gas.

and finally the govt isnt using GW as a stalking horse for increased taxation - they are actually very resistant to the idea of GW , because mitigation will cost more than the increased tax and thus be a net cost on the general exchequer.

Its also interesting that GG suggests that greens get back to the good work like preventing rainforest deforestation , when the principal raison detre for this campaign was to preserve the rainforest as a carbon sink.

I have no problem with people disputing the existence of GW as everyone is entitled to their opinion , but i do wish that anti GW proponents would at least establish a basic understanding of the facts, arguments, and science arround the debate - particularly before suggesting that anyone else grow a brain !

[Coley]

Originally Posted by Ukwildlifeo

Wow I guess all the palaeoclimate stuff Ive spent the last year learning about was just all wrong...and all the peer reviewed politics free papers I read...

Yeah, just like the year I spent studying A level Enviromental Science makes no difference to anyone when you try to convince them that climate change/global warming is real and a bad thing.

[Coley]

Originally Posted by richardkm

archaeological and historical timescales to support the natural occurence of climate change in this country.

During the Iron Age, the climate changed to warmer and wetter, while in the 14th Century, there was the start of the "mini ice age" which is very likely to be what we are emerging from today, hence the climate changes in the UK.

Mass deforestation back in the very old days, to build dwellings, farm crops and cook food. That's not very natural. Trees are good for combating rising Co2 levels I hear.

[thwick in 'ead]

Originally Posted by Coley

Mass deforestation back in the very old days, to build dwellings, farm crops and cook food. That's not very natural. .

Mass deforestation? in the Iron Age? I think you overestimate the population density of those times.

Eeyore, you may try to baffle us with science with all your clever clever terms and initials, but there is a huge move within the scientific community away from global warming as a man-made phenomenum.

Frankly, there is simply no evidence to prove the greenhouse effect and no real evidence to show that we are getting warmer globally.

[thwick in 'ead]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I'm not sure the book of revelation could really be described as a clear and concise account of anything - unless the world is really going to end with a pale rider on a dark horse of course.

You OBVIOUSLY miised the point here. The bit about revelations was said tongue in cheek, because it's as relevant as the utter rubbish that's being put out about climate change by the "greens"

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by thwick in 'ead

Eeyore, you may try to baffle us with science with all your clever clever terms and initials, but there is a huge move within the scientific community away from global warming as a man-made phenomenum.

I have a sense of massive deja vu (again ) actually there isnt any such move by any credible scientist - matt covered this in depth above if you read the whole thread. What there is is a whole load of junk science websites largely funded by oil companies and or the american far right whose arguments dont stand up when examined with any degree of scientific literacy.

Originally Posted by thwick in the head

Frankly, there is simply no evidence to prove the greenhouse effect and no real evidence to show that we are getting warmer globally

This is a classic example of what i was saying about climate change deniers not even having a firm grasp of what they are denying.

The greenhouse effect (refered to as GHE for brevity) is the mechanism by which the planet is said to be warming - ie that CO2, methane (CH4), and other gasses in the upper atmosphere act like a pane of glass (in lay terms) and reflect Infra red radiation - ie heat- back to the planet. This is easily provable in the lab and is generally accepted by scientists on both sides of the debate.

Likewise the fact that the planet is warming is a matter of scientific record , not something that can be easily contested.

The actual argument/debate is not about what is happening but why - some (but very few credible scientists) claim that the warming is a natural effect not influenced by man.

The "other side" of the debate which includes the IPCC (international panel on climate change - who have been studying the phenonema for over 15 years) say that although natural change may be occuring we are accelerating the process by releasing the sequestered carbon (in lay terms by burning coal, oil, gas etc)

While it is not 100% proven that anthropogenicly inspired climate change is happening there is actually ample evidence that it probably is (read the summaries of the IPCC reports - or the whole thing if you have the time)

like i said i dont mind / care that you disagree with my opinion on whether we are causing climate change , but to say that there is no evidence on the pro side of the debate is simply wrong

[Paul mabbott]

Relatively, yes - certainly the Romans had a major impact on British woodland - you only have to dig down into some of the moors to find tree remnants dating from Iron Age times. Deforestation and wood-burning increased even more from the Middle Ages. [A clearer example is seen in the Mediterranean - in ancient texts the area around Athens (Attica) is described as wooded but, apart from planted olives there have been no trees there for millennia.]

So removal of carbon sinks and corresponding burning of fuel have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This was massively, exponentially, increased by use of fossil fuels.

Frankly, I cannot believe that anyone could write this:
"Frankly, there is simply no evidence to prove the greenhouse effect and no real evidence to show that we are getting warmer globally"
I can only suggest that you go back to some elementary school physics or chemistry text books and read up about the 'greenhouse effect'; perhaps go back to Fourier (1824) or Arrhenius (1896). Without the 'greenhouse effect' the Earth's average temperature would be around -10C. There would be no life on this planet.

I've said before that people like you should either try to catch up with the simple science involved in this topic or shut up.

If and when you have understood the basic science then you may wish to add to the debate about the effect and extent of human interference with greenhouse gases and how that is enhancing climate change ... but I suspect that you won't ....

Originally Posted by thwick in 'ead

Mass deforestation? in the Iron Age? I think you overestimate the population density of those times.

Eeyore, you may try to baffle us with science with all your clever clever terms and initials, but there is a huge move within the scientific community away from global warming as a man-made phenomenum.

Frankly, there is simply no evidence to prove the greenhouse effect and no real evidence to show that we are getting warmer globally.

[Paul mabbott]

I don't see any reason to be offensive and I don't quite see what Beer-Lambert has to do with this
Beer's Law - Theoretical Principles

Your message has a heavy tone of paranoia - especially the reference to an 'increasingly leftist government'. Perhaps you've been out of the country but most of us have been suffering under right-wing monetarist governments for thirty years now ...

Finally, at least, unlike some corresponednets, you do agree that there are such things as greenhouse gases and, of course, some have stronger effects than others. In practice, when we are discussing enhanced global warning we are only concerned with the two gases that have been increased by human activity - CO2 and CH4

Originally Posted by griffgrouch

I suggest you don't listen to skewed media soundbites and get a brain. CO2 does NOT and has never preceded a temperature rise. My god just look up the beer/lambert law.

96.6% of annually cycled C02 occurs naturally... and C02 is not a strong greenhouse gas, water vapour is the daddy.

C02 is just a stick to beat the people from an increasing leftist government and an anti consumerist left wing populus.

LISTEN PEOPLE: C02 is not a climate driver and has never been one. GREENS... go back to doing good work like deforestation. You have been foolishly dragged into the European governments agenda of taxing us to the hilt. Do you REALLY think this money isgoing into 'green' issues? No, of course not. They KNOW it's stuff that comes from a bovines' bottom.