What a sad bastard

[diplodocus]

maybe I could learn more about the subject from a science professor, not a music one

the natural processes you described keep the earth about 30 degrees warmer than it would be otherwise
We know from looking at gases found trapped in cores of polar ice that the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now 35 per cent greater than they have been for at least the last 650,000 years. From the radioactivity and chemical composition of the gas we know that this is mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the production of cement and the widespread burning of the world's forests. The increase in global temperature is consistent with what science tells us we should expect when the levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase in the way that they have.

plus your argument about the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from volcanoes is wrong, these account for less than one per cent of the emissions due to human activities


Steve you will never convince a scientist to ignore the evidence, maybe if you were a professor of atmospheric chemistry I would take you more seriously

[Steve R]

The figures you are quoting are totally wrong.

Ice core samples show that the atmosphere has contained over seven times the current level of CO2.

Incidentally, the evidence shows that periods of global warming have CAUSED increases in CO2, not the other way round.

I did not claim to be a scientist (read above) only to have learnt what I know of this subject from scientists at Yale University. Sadly, most scientists now dare not question this ridiculous scare.

Anyway, deal me out now.

[diplodocus]

well if the figures are wrong then institutions such as the Royal Society are peddling misleading figures and our universities are teaching incorrect data in their higher degrees

plus the 'positive feedback' effect you mention is caused by ocean activity in response to natural warming and cooling

most scientists question everything (me included), that's what make us scientists

we obviously have polar views, pointless continuing

[crofter]

I think it is a case of believe what you want to believe with global warming, me personally I just find it quite amusing that us mere mortals seem to be able to control something as huge and evolutionary as this planet and the workings of it.

I think lots of these green barstards realise that they have bought the "golden ticket" when it comes to all things global warming and are simply keeping themselves and their establishments in a job for life by spewing all sorts of scare mongering "facts".

So to sum up, this planet not 20 years ago was supposed to be getting ready for an ice-age now we find that the scientists got that one all wrong and it is global warming caused by mankind that is the root of all evil - how could they get that so wrong then if we are to take them and their "findings" seriously??

[diplodocus]

the difference was that it was a handful of scientists who predicted the ice age, now we have massive more computing power to model predictions and the vast majority of the scientific community are pretty convinced of the findings. The recent IPCC project carried out probably the biggest review of data ever undertaken, this work was then peer reviewed by hundreds of independent scientists, the results were pretty well agreed upon from all sides

[Sam Slater]

The temperatures you quoted mean nothing because different greenhouse gases warm up different altitudes of atmosphere due to the combined atomic weight of those molecules. Were the temperatures taken at the surface, a mile up, or 23 miles up?

The two main greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4 (carbon dioxide & methane) are very different in how they heat up the atmosphere. Methane, like carbon dioxide, has the single carbon atom, but only four hydrogen atoms attached, making it a pretty light compound. Carbon Dioxide molecules are nearly 3 times heavier than methane molecules due to the pair of oxygen atoms (a single oxygen atom is nearly 16 times heavier than a hydrogen atom).

The basic facts are that carbon dioxide heats up the atmosphere closer to the surface than methane which causes more water vapour. The short wave radiation from the sun passes through the atmosphere ok, but the longer wave radiation reflecting back into space is being trapped at the lower altitudes of our atmosphere. Temperatures at altitudes above this region will show little in the way of change.

As for animals, oceans, bacteria and volcanos producing CO2......so what? Your average 12 year old learns about the carbon cycle and releasing billions of tonnes of trapped carbon from under the earth isn't part of that cycle.

Of course, CO2 emissions fluctuate naturally, but if you actually check up on the facts, you'll notice that a thousand years of high CO2 is always followed by a massive spurt in fauna populations for the next 10,000 years or so, which creates a fall in CO2, followed by a fall in fauna (ad infinitum.....kinda).

This time round, due to deforestation, there isn't enough plant life to absorb the C02 we're releasing into the atmosphere. Nature had a pretty decent safety valve, and we've just about eradicated it.

I'd laugh at an evolutionary bologist telling you how to play the violin. You get my point?

[crofter]

It maybe was a handful of scientists who predicted the Ice Age, but the facts are it was taken as gospel by every Government on the Planet.
Surely these model predictions you speak of are purely hypothetical, what's to say that the world won't suddenly start cooling down again, starting tomorrow?? I mean how do you predict the future ... utter bollocks if you ask me.

[Sam Slater]

It always amazes me how people either rely solely on experts when it suits them, but ignore other experts when it doesn't.

If you were diagnosed with a brain tumour tomorrow I'm sure you'd listen wholeheartedly to those 'experts' and hang on their every word.

I mean, how can you predict the future? (or how a tumour will grow?) Utter bollocks right?

!laugh!

[crofter]

Well I probably would listen to the expert on that occasion - but I don't really think he would be able to tell me too much about global warming so not sure why you used that analogy Sam??
The fact remains that the very same "experts" were predicting not too long ago that the world was going to be cooling down. So how do you predict the future - when it might just change in one instance and go off on a different tangent.

[Sam Slater]

The analogy is pretty tight. I didn't mean asking a cancer specialist to provide info on global warming. I meant that they're both experts in their chosen field.....one you choose to accept as a specialist, the other you don't.

Scientific prediction can be wrong, but it's sensible to act upon the best available evidence at the time. To ignore it is stupidity because then it's just the equivalent of crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

I think it's unfair to doubt a certain, generally accepted theory just because a few scientists from 35 years ago were wrong.

Who knows that in 50 years we may look back on chemotherapy as being just as dangerous as the cancer it was treating? Right now, chemotherapy is the only treatment for cancers that cannot be safely operated on, so we go with the best available knowledge at the time.

If, in 100 years global warming really is a fallacy, then we've lost nothing of importance in being careful. The alternative is making the planet inhospitable which will definitely lead to wars over land and resources.