Sea levels not really rising?

[Daniel]

http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+ Data/article9978.htm

I bet this gets reported on the BBC and in the media and so on. NOT :)

How can we trust the IPCC if they are falsifying data? :mark:

I accept that the doubters (of which I am one) could be wrong but if we're wrong then why does the IPCC need to falsify, manipulate and calibrate data to suit their theory (it is just a theory at this point in time)

I'm a firm believer in renewable energy and becoming more efficient but when science starts predicting that things are going to get more unpredictable then something's up. Well at least a lot of scientists are getting lots of grant money. Something good is coming out of it I spose :) After all who's going to pay for research into a problem which doesn't exist.

[J4MIE]

Believe nothing, question everything :up:

[Daniel]

Believe nothing, question everything :up:
It is funny how a lot of the people who question the government on everything don't seem to question the IPCC and it's theories. Strange to say the least.

I think this eco-zealot-nazi thing actually hurts their own cause as it makes enemies of people like myself who are firm believers in making cars more efficient and not having the energy footprint of a small african nation (Al Gore wakey wakey your hypocritical moron!!!)

I make a point of doing things like buying energy efficient bits for my PC and Al goes around travelling in a motorcade of the least energy efficient cars he can find :) I think my left testicle is more worthy of a Nobel Prize than he is.

[Drew]

How dare you doubt them, Daniel. :angryfire ;)

TBH, I've given up on listening to scientists and reports, one week being fat is good for you the next it's bad, meh.

[rah]

http://www.dailytech.com/Noted+Sea+Level+Expert+Accuses+IPCC+of+Falsifying+ Data/article9978.htm

I bet this gets reported on the BBC and in the media and so on. NOT :)

How can we trust the IPCC if they are falsifying data? :mark:

I accept that the doubters (of which I am one) could be wrong but if we're wrong then why does the IPCC need to falsify, manipulate and calibrate data to suit their theory (it is just a theory at this point in time)

I'm a firm believer in renewable energy and becoming more efficient but when science starts predicting that things are going to get more unpredictable then something's up. Well at least a lot of scientists are getting lots of grant money. Something good is coming out of it I spose :) After all who's going to pay for research into a problem which doesn't exist.

Nice to know you are willing to judge the entire IPCC because of one article. Its interesting that his claims differ from what the real recorded data indicates.

Why do you attack science so often. There are many scientists doing work totally unrelated to AGW.

[Daniel]

You mean the real MANIPULATED and "CORRECTED" data indicates?

[Magnus]

In Sweden it is common to question IPCC for having to low figures, it is said that they are under influence from oilcompanies and so on...
s:

[leopard]

IPCC gave us alert from destroying our environment, using their barometer that sometimes countries accused of being the biggest emitter have objection on the result as it may use different method used by the said countries.

Besides the growing industry, number of population of a country and the decreasing of forests would be a hint that they contributed to the global warming.

btw, Are you from absolut Sweden? :)

[leopard]

oh ... sorry that my question about your origin has prompted you signing out. I am not used to leave person with unanswered question.

Please ignore it! :)

[Daniel]

IPCC gave us alert from destroying our environment, using their barometer that sometimes countries accused of being the biggest emitter have objection on the result as it may use different method used by the said countries.

Besides the growing industry, number of population of a country and the decreasing of forests would be a hint that they contributed to the global warming.

btw, Are you from absolut Sweden? :)
I don't mean to be rude but it's almost impossible to read some of your posts :mark:

[rah]

You mean the real MANIPULATED and "CORRECTED" data indicates?

Yes well obviously one person has said it so it must be true. Try and avoid jury duty dude.

These records are public.

[Magnus]

I would also like to point out that the article is based on the thoughts of a highly criticized person in Sweden: Nils-Axel Mörner. He also believes in Feng Shui and Curry-lines...

[Daniel]

Yes well obviously one person has said it so it must be true. Try and avoid jury duty dude.

These records are public.
Before making silly comments like this read one of the links in the story

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

It's clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that more money is being devoted to research supporting climate change and if you say "Hey I want money to prove that climate change isn't happening" you get told to go get bent and the only people who will fund you are oil companies and that seemingly instantly makes your findings irrelevant.

As I said before it's extremely unpopular to have the view that we aren't causing global warming. The only thing that's worse than this is to be a Holocaust denier which for obvious reasons is wrong. As Tinchote pointed out the research community needs to have jobs too and you don't get grants for unpopular studies.

Funnily enough this story hasn't surfaced on the BBC site. Funny that!

Magnus. Funny you should mention curry lines which I believe are similar to ley lines. My girlfriend believes in ley lines as well as global warming :p

[Magnus]

Daniel: I believe there are very good points from boths sides, for me personally it all comes down to that I have difficulties in knowing what to believe, hence I normally rest my case in this matter...

[Captain VXR]

At one time science told the earth was flat,science said the sun goes round the earth and science said we were at the centre of the universe, now science says a gas causes global warming. If CO2 traps sun rays in, it must block the same amount out like if you run at a brick wall you won't get through either side. Al Gore is a hypocrite; and having seen both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle I know which I beleive. When water freezes, doesn't it expand?

[Daniel]

Daniel: I believe there are very good points from boths sides, for me personally it all comes down to that I have difficulties in knowing what to believe, hence I normally rest my case in this matter...

It's not so much people who believe it's possible that we are warming the planet that I object to. It's people who are 100% certain that we are and who look at the facts which contradict their theory and say that they're wrong or false.

[Daniel]

At one time science told the earth was flat,science said the sun goes round the earth and science said we were at the centre of the universe, now science says a gas causes global warming. If CO2 traps sun rays in, it must block the same amount out like if you run at a brick wall you won't get through either side. Al Gore is a hypocrite; and having seen both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle I know which I beleive. When water freezes, doesn't it expand?
Water which is frozen and is floating on water still displaces the same amount of water as it weighs. It's how a boat stays afloat. If a boat weighs 10,000 tonnes it will need to displace 10,000 tonnes of water to stay afloat. So an iceberg that weighs 10 tonnes is already displacing 10 tonnes worth of water to float to when it melts the net sea level rises by 0 :)

It's ice that's on land which melts and then goes into rivers that will raise the level of the sea.

[Magnus]

At one time science told the earth was flat,science said the sun goes round the earth and science said we were at the centre of the universe, now science says a gas causes global warming. If CO2 traps sun rays in, it must block the same amount out like if you run at a brick wall you won't get through either side. Al Gore is a hypocrite; and having seen both An Inconvenient Truth and The Great Global Warming Swindle I know which I beleive. When water freezes, doesn't it expand?

Well, actually it was the church which stood for these ideas. regarding green house effect; CO2, methane, water vapour amongst other green house gases causes a green house effect of abt 33 degrees, without it we wouldn´t exist; maybe only Loeb would be around. The question is wheather we change the greens house effect or not, not if we cause it.
besides: what is science telling us? I do not know actually, but there are a lot of different interpretations.

[CCFanatic]

Shoot! I need a bigger car. Cut the exhaust off. I hate the cold. Warm this planet up I say. Shoot!

[rah]

Before making silly comments like this read one of the links in the story

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_20-29/2007-25/pdf/33-37_725.pdf

It's clear to anyone with an ounce of intelligence that more money is being devoted to research supporting climate change and if you say "Hey I want money to prove that climate change isn't happening" you get told to go get bent and the only people who will fund you are oil companies and that seemingly instantly makes your findings irrelevant.

As I said before it's extremely unpopular to have the view that we aren't causing global warming. The only thing that's worse than this is to be a Holocaust denier which for obvious reasons is wrong. As Tinchote pointed out the research community needs to have jobs too and you don't get grants for unpopular studies.

Funnily enough this story hasn't surfaced on the BBC site. Funny that!

Magnus. Funny you should mention curry lines which I believe are similar to ley lines. My girlfriend believes in ley lines as well as global warming :p

Silly comments? everything you post on AGW is silly. That article for instance is ridiculous. Thanks for posting it by the way, the things this bloke says is just plain wrong. And that website looks remarkably like a think tank to me.

That story has not been widely publicized because it is rubbish. Not because of bias.

The whole grants thing is always pulled out by AGW skeptics. Its getting a bit tiring.

[Daniel]

Silly comments? everything you post on AGW is silly. That article for instance is ridiculous. Thanks for posting it by the way, the things this bloke says is just plain wrong. And that website looks remarkably like a think tank to me.

That story has not been widely publicized because it is rubbish. Not because of bias.

The whole grants thing is always pulled out by AGW skeptics. Its getting a bit tiring.
All talk no substance. Come back when you can actually prove something rather than just poo-pooing other's ideas without factual backup.

[rah]

All talk no substance. Come back when you can actually prove something rather than just poo-pooing other's ideas without factual backup.

Lol prove something? since when have you proved something?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
That is a link to the sea level rise data. This is public record and available to all. Do you suppose that a few scientists changed the data without anyone noticing? Or that it is a global conspiracy and that Dr Morner is the lone crusader?

His views on glacial melting and the ice pack melting in Antarctica are either ill informed or deliberately misleading. There is plenty of data out there for it.

Did you even try to find out who this Dr Morner is? Did you try to find out anything about the subject matter of the article? or did you just find something that fit in with your views and go for it.

[Daniel]

Lol prove something? since when have you proved something?
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
That is a link to the sea level rise data. This is public record and available to all. Do you suppose that a few scientists changed the data without anyone noticing? Or that it is a global conspiracy and that Dr Morner is the lone crusader?

His views on glacial melting and the ice pack melting in Antarctica are either ill informed or deliberately misleading. There is plenty of data out there for it.

Did you even try to find out who this Dr Morner is? Did you try to find out anything about the subject matter of the article? or did you just find something that fit in with your views and go for it.
Which is very much different to what NASA says.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/121630main_slr_thermal.jpg

[rah]

Which is very much different to what NASA says.

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/121630main_slr_thermal.jpg

Am I missing something? The two graphs cannot be compared. Did you post the graph to show that sea levels have are increasing?

[Daniel]

Silly comments? everything you post on AGW is silly. That article for instance is ridiculous. Thanks for posting it by the way, the things this bloke says is just plain wrong. And that website looks remarkably like a think tank to me.

That story has not been widely publicized because it is rubbish. Not because of bias.

The whole grants thing is always pulled out by AGW skeptics. Its getting a bit tiring.
I should point out that the site is not a "thinktank" :rolleyes: as the name suggests it's a technology site..... Stop trying to rubbish the sources I post for no real reason. Just because someone doesn't agree with what you think or what you want to believe doesn't make them wrong. Your problem is you present a site as undesputable fact. When I go to a site and see a graph that supports my theory I think. Does this site have a bias, does it have an agenda and where does it say how the data is gathered and calibrated and how do we know that like a lot of scientists they don't merely gather data in a manner that supports their hypothesis.

Why don't you just accept that scientists do things to support their theories. We all want to be right.... right?

Have a read of this ENVIRONMENTALIST site which actually supports global warming but pokes a lot of holes in it at the same time

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411

What really irks me is that the hysteria generated by the constant bombardment through the media of yet more global warming stories. If you're going to go crazy and bombard us with the message at least try and suggest a solution that doesn't make the situation worse. That's is bad science. Why there isn't outward condemnation of the biofuel movement is beyond me. If this is real biolfuel is just going to make it a whole lot worse by deforesting lots of nice warm equatorial land....

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=443

[leopard]

I don't mean to be rude but it's almost impossible to read some of your posts :mark:
I can't get your point, I can't see myself exactly problems with my posts :\

[rah]

I should point out that the site is not a "thinktank" :rolleyes: as the name suggests it's a technology site..... Stop trying to rubbish the sources I post for no real reason. Just because someone doesn't agree with what you think or what you want to believe doesn't make them wrong. Your problem is you present a site as undesputable fact. When I go to a site and see a graph that supports my theory I think. Does this site have a bias, does it have an agenda and where does it say how the data is gathered and calibrated and how do we know that like a lot of scientists they don't merely gather data in a manner that supports their hypothesis.

Why don't you just accept that scientists do things to support their theories. We all want to be right.... right?

Have a read of this ENVIRONMENTALIST site which actually supports global warming but pokes a lot of holes in it at the same time

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411

What really irks me is that the hysteria generated by the constant bombardment through the media of yet more global warming stories. If you're going to go crazy and bombard us with the message at least try and suggest a solution that doesn't make the situation worse. That's is bad science. Why there isn't outward condemnation of the biofuel movement is beyond me. If this is real biolfuel is just going to make it a whole lot worse by deforesting lots of nice warm equatorial land....

http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=443

Sorry, to be more precise I was rubbishing larouche. That site is scary.

As far as I recall, all the sites I have linked to claim there sources of information. I cannot say the same for yours.

There are many fine scientists doing work that have disproved their's or their colleagues theories. Please do not make gross generalisations about all scientists.

Thanks for the link, not a bad site although I disagree on a few things. It is always good to have another point of view.

Your fears on biofuel are well founded. There are many exciting advances with biofuel however I doubt that it will ever be produced enough to satisfy demand. The deforestation is a terrible side effect and one not widely publicised.

And that last article you linked was not bad. But it contradicts what is in your original post.

[airshifter]

I think it's safe to say that anyone without any bias on the situation would have to say that there is no sure answer. There is far too much information from both sides that is conflicting.

The way I see it, we have nothing to lose by trying to reduce emissions either way.

And I agree to some extent that biofuels have been jumped into without much thought, but there are instances that it is an alternative with lesser impact overall. Ethanol from corn here in the US isn't a good thing, but ethanol from other crops in certain parts of the world is much more efficient in production and land use.

[Daniel]

That's what I'm trying to say airshifter. But i get treated as if i'm denying the holocaust or something. I'm merely trying to balance things ott.

[airshifter]

That's what I'm trying to say airshifter. But i get treated as if i'm denying the holocaust or something. I'm merely trying to balance things ott.


I think the problem lies in the fact that your original posts came across as if you supported the theory that we don't cause global warming, rather than saying you're not sure.

We can prove the holocaust did in fact take place. As I see it if the big scientists can't agree on anything concerning global warming and the cause, I can't possibly think my view is the only correct one.

Unless of course I say that we may or may not be experiencing global warming, which may or may not be influenced by man and his various devices.

[Magnus]

I must say airshifter: well spoken, applause and the round is on me!

[Daniel]

Exactly. My first post was merely there to show that the ipcc isn't being the best in the way it's measuring changes. I don't necessarily believe that we aren't causing change. Just that it's not been proved.

[airshifter]

I think one thing is fairly certain. IF at some point it is proven without doubt that fossil fuels and greenhouse gasses did affect global warming, then most likely all the debate that took place on various outlets such as the internet and television, not to mention the meetings and travel, only accelerated it.

I should find someone to give me some grant money so that I can begin research. :D

[Daniel]

Shouldn't be hard :) As you said before it can only be good to live as if global warning is being caused by us though. Energy efficiency is good for a number of reasons.

[iks]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094332.htm

Not surprising really since 1934 is the warmest year on record in the US and five of the ten warmest years on record occurred before WW2.

[Daniel]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071210094332.htm

Not surprising really since 1934 is the warmest year on record in the US and five of the ten warmest years on record occurred before WW2.
Thing is the CO2 levels are so much higher now yet the US is cooler than it was in 1934. Simply put we just don't know what makes the climate of the planet and the climate of our continents tick. I just don't see it being as clear cut as it seems to be portrayed as :) I just don't see greenhouse gases as being the one culprit solves all solution that they're billed to be. I wish the sort of effort being undertaken to prove that we are causing global warming was being taken to combat the possible future energy shortage and ways to deal with the world changing which it can and will do.

Stop trying to prove the unprovable and do something useful like develop cheaper ways of harnessing renewable energy (cheaper solar panels and more efficient wind turbines) and stop pimping biofuels as the solution to this problem when it can only make it worse.

[iks]

Well it is pretty clear to me that CO2 has no effect on changes in climate. I'm not one to pointlessly debate but it is just common sense that water vapour, wind patterns, gulf stream patterns, ENSO, ocean circulation patterns, ocean sea-surface temps, cloud density, how many clouds there are, what kind of clouds there are, the solar magnetic fields, sunspots, and solar irradiance are more likely to dictate our insignificant planet's climate. Even the magnetic fields of the sun have a greater effect us more than our own magnetic field.

But what ultimately controls all the things I listed above? Well, I know some will roll their eyes (unless you already did, then get ready to do so again) and mindlessly start regurgitating the same BS that the media/IPCC spews out but there is evidence that the Earth's position in the Milky Way (and the galaxy's position in the universe) influences our planet's climate over long periods of time.

Simply put, when Earth is in close proximity to exploded or exploding stars, cosmic rays from those supernovae eventually reach Earth. When they do they facilitate low cloud formation. More cosmic rays = more low cloud formation. When the Earth is in a quiet part of the galaxy, there are less cosmic rays and thus less low clouds (they always have a presence though). Low clouds have a NET cooling effect, whereas higher clouds have a NET warming effect. Low clouds are denser and thus reflect more of the sun's energy. The sun's energy passes more efficiently through high clouds because they are less dense and they retain heat to a degree. Low clouds retain what heat there is also but prevent too much from getting through. In our planet's past, there have been times where the entire planet was tropical or times where the entire planet was covered in ice and snow. These extremes are controlled by extreme losses or extreme gains of cosmic rays.

Why has the interior of Antarctica been averaging below the mean in the last 25 years or so? Above average cloud cover. Why was Britain's 2007 summer so cool (and wet!)? It was directly caused by more clouds...obviously! Why did the sea ice in the Arctic melt to a "record low" this past late summer? Below average cloud cover. It does not matter if the temperature is below or above freezing. Ice will eventually melt if it is exposed to the sun for long periods. Pretty common sense actually. It is the same case in eastern Africa. Since the 1970s (there about), Kilimanjaro doesn't receive hardly any new precipitation and is thus slowly losing it's glacier(s). This is not due to higher temperatures but due to less cloud formation.

On a different note, volcanic regions could also make more use of geothermal energy sources, which is sadly under-promoted in the media. Iceland is benefiting from it though thanks to their geological area and common sense.

[rah]

Ok a few issues here. If I miss some please feel free to point it out.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Its effect on the atmosphere has been known for a very long time. It can be easily seen in lab experiments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://www.csiro.au/resources/ps3cw.html
http://www.eo.ucar.edu/basics/index.html
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.html

These are a few good links to get your head around the subject.

This is a link to better explain your 1934 issue. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/1934-and-all-that/

However please remember that we are talking about Global warming, not USA warming.

While I agree that cloud cover, wind strengths sea temps, solar mag fields, sunspots, solar radiance all have an effect on our climate, they are all easily measured and quantifiable. In fact cloud cover and sea temps change due to AGW.

There has been some correlation between our climate and cosmic rays in the past, however this stopped being the case in the 70's-80's. For a link that will explain it better than I ever will: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/cosmic-rays-don%e2%80%99t-die-so-easily/

Re geothermal, absolutely agree. But it is not just volcanic regions. There are areas in the US and AUS that are not volcanic yet have prodigious amounts of hot rock potential. Thos are areas that can supply enough power for several cities for a few thousand years.

[BM]

The best way to gauge what the truth about anything is just find out what the Beeb's position is, then realise the exact opposite is the case.

Have a look at this http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/12/more-irrelevance-and-lies-on-climate.html and http://devilskitchen.me.uk/2007/12/skewing-data-lying.html and also the many other posts about it on that blog, they are lying gits.

[iks]

So, if in 5 years, the mean temperature of the world began to cool by 2°C (arbitrary number mind you) over a period of 50 years, would you attribute this solely as an effect of decreasing levels of CO2?

What would you think if CO2 levels increase while the mean temperature of the world decreased? Or, what would you think if CO2 levels decrease but the world continues to warm? Or are these scenarios not possible when adhering to the politicized science of AGW...(ok, all mainstream science has become politicized unfortunately but...)

[Daniel]

So, if in 5 years, the mean temperature of the world began to cool by 2°C (arbitrary number mind you) over a period of 50 years, would you attribute this solely as an effect of decreasing levels of CO2?

What would you think if CO2 levels increase while the mean temperature of the world decreased? Or, what would you think if CO2 levels decrease but the world continues to warm? Or are these scenarios not possible when adhering to the politicized science of AGW...(ok, all mainstream science has become politicized unfortunately but...)
Thing is if sea temperatures in any one area decreases then in general so does rainfall. Too many things are dependant on other things which then influence other things and so on for climate science to be anywhere near as accurate as it's being portrayed as being :)

[Magnus]

One thing I do not understand is the claims that the CO2 rates come after the rise in temperature, as the AGW claims. I have not heard anyone explaining this from the GW-side. Since it is quite an interesting claim that put part of Gore´s thoughts in high tide, so to speak, it would be very interesting to have it explained by some authority in the matter.
How would btw cosmic rays cause more condensed watervapour, which we generally call clouds?

Je suis don´t understand anything...
:s

[leopard]

It should be about the balance of CO2 and any other gwp in the atmosphere that has direct correlation with the rise of temperature. The overabundant and higher concentration CO2 in the air was in the level cannot be absorbed for photosynthesis activity of the plants or forest which notably their number was significantly decreased by human activity.

Another potentially important indirect effect of gwp is the fact that they contributes to ozone formation, which subsequently they contribute to higher temperature and general climate change, that a research said at least double previous estimates as a result of this effect.

Nations where agriculture is the important sector supporting any other industries may experience the more apparent effect from the global warming, that has caused deviation of the length of dry and rain season e.g phenomenon of El nino and La nina.

Besides as far as possible implementing friendly environment industry principle,
the rest of the world may simply rely on nations whose their tropical forest are still exist such as Brazilia and Indonesia. Although some of them criticize that the tropical forest nations did not support the program to prevent this world from the danger of global warming. :\

[rah]

So, if in 5 years, the mean temperature of the world began to cool by 2°C (arbitrary number mind you) over a period of 50 years, would you attribute this solely as an effect of decreasing levels of CO2?

What would you think if CO2 levels increase while the mean temperature of the world decreased? Or, what would you think if CO2 levels decrease but the world continues to warm? Or are these scenarios not possible when adhering to the politicized science of AGW...(ok, all mainstream science has become politicized unfortunately but...)


No of course not. The global temp is easily measured, the atmospheric CO2 is easily measured. The effects of CO2 on the atmosphere are know. If the global temp dropped over 5 years (not sure if this is enough for a trend) and the atmospheric CO2 also dropped you could say there is a link. If the global temp dropped and the CO2 continued to rise there would be something else having an immediate effect such as volcanic eruptions or another cause for an increase in sulfur or particulate matter.

Many scenarios are possible as there are many positive or negative feedbacks that will have an effect. Things such as an increased ability of the oceans to use more CO2 have masked some of the effects of AGW. Another one is sulfur from old power stations, this masked AGW for some years.

[rah]

One thing I do not understand is the claims that the CO2 rates come after the rise in temperature, as the AGW claims. I have not heard anyone explaining this from the GW-side. Since it is quite an interesting claim that put part of Gore´s thoughts in high tide, so to speak, it would be very interesting to have it explained by some authority in the matter.
How would btw cosmic rays cause more condensed watervapour, which we generally call clouds?

Je suis don´t understand anything...
:s

This is probably the best article I can think off that discusses the point.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Its an article that helped get me looking in the right direction when I came upon the same argument.

[leopard]

There is simple method to prove which first initiate another.
If you are the first person come to office don't turn the AC on and keep the window closed. You might be ok with temperature of the room.

Once your office mate came and more persons in the room, You will not convenient to be in it without switch AC on or let the window open. There must be more CO2 in the room as the result of human respiration which initiate the room getting hotter.

[Daniel]

There is simple method to prove which first initiate another.
If you are the first person come to office don't turn the AC on and keep the window closed. You might be ok with temperature of the room.

Once your office mate came and more persons in the room, You will not convenient to be in it without switch AC on or let the window open. There must be more CO2 in the room as the result of human respiration which initiate the room getting hotter.
I'm sorry but that's not a very scientific way of looking at things. The situation you're describing is basically that of a greenhouse. Of course you're going to get the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse. I think even Rah will agree that your example is a bit bogus.

[Mark]

There is simple method to prove which first initiate another.
If you are the first person come to office don't turn the AC on and keep the window closed. You might be ok with temperature of the room.

Once your office mate came and more persons in the room, You will not convenient to be in it without switch AC on or let the window open. There must be more CO2 in the room as the result of human respiration which initiate the room getting hotter.

That's as a result of heat and/or water vapour from their respiration i.e. humidity, it has little to do with CO2

[leopard]

I'm sorry but that's not a very scientific way of looking at things. The situation you're describing is basically that of a greenhouse. Of course you're going to get the greenhouse effect in a greenhouse. I think even Rah will agree that your example is a bit bogus.
It looks like opinion without sufficient scientific involved. :)

Respiration involves series of proses like diffusion of O2 on the lungs, pulmonary, and heart, it was basically the exchange of O2 and CO2 which resulting vapor H2O.

The above example is the easiest method how these substances give effect to the climate at smallest scale of the world. I would say that two rooms with different number of people inside, provided any other conditions are equal, those with bigger number of people have hotter temperature than the lesser one.

It was obvious that both CO2 and vapor are the main substances for the climate changes. Like CO2, vapor has character as blanket that performs as emitter. As the result of human activity, may cause to disturb the balance of ideal number of CO2 and vapor in atmosphere. We may find weather extremely cold at night and extremely hot at the day.

[leopard]

That's as a result of heat and/or water vapour from their respiration i.e. humidity, it has little to do with CO2
It could be like that, CO2 and the vapor are strongly correlated with humidity.

[Daniel]

Yes that may be true but a building with windows is not an atmosphere. The whole idea behind CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that light energy comes into the atmosphere and is reflected back at a different wavelength which CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs. In the atmosphere away from a city or a factory the net source of energy/warmth is the sun. In a building the sun is warming the building but you also have people, PC’s and other appliances giving out heat. We had a day here in summer where the air conditioning died on a day where is was about mid 20’s outside and it got up to about 32 degrees inside. The effect of greenhouse gases have have been responsible for a very very small amount of this warming. The issue is the fact that building can’t get rid of the hot air inside quick enough.

[leopard]

Yeah, at least it amplified which one first initiates another between the rise temperature and CO2.

[rah]

Yes that may be true but a building with windows is not an atmosphere. The whole idea behind CO2 as a greenhouse gas is that light energy comes into the atmosphere and is reflected back at a different wavelength which CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs. In the atmosphere away from a city or a factory the net source of energy/warmth is the sun. In a building the sun is warming the building but you also have people, PC’s and other appliances giving out heat. We had a day here in summer where the air conditioning died on a day where is was about mid 20’s outside and it got up to about 32 degrees inside. The effect of greenhouse gases have have been responsible for a very very small amount of this warming. The issue is the fact that building can’t get rid of the hot air inside quick enough.

No you are wrong wrong wrong. Oh wait sorry, standard response, you are spot on.

[Daniel]

No you are wrong wrong wrong. Oh wait sorry, standard response, you are spot on.
You are agreeing with me? :eek:

I think we may have reached the tipping point!!!!! :eek: :uhoh:

[rah]

You are agreeing with me? :eek:

I think we may have reached the tipping point!!!!! :eek: :uhoh:

I am sure we agree on many things, but lets not talk about those. Not as fun.

[Daniel]

I am sure we agree on many things, but lets not talk about those. Not as fun.
Yes :) I've always maintained that life would be a total bore without confrontation and disagreement. Perhaps I indulge in a bit too much confrontation but I think it's healthy.

I think rather than having this (pointless argument) we should have a thread which discusses what should be done to combat the possible threat of global warming.

Stop all development on biofuels till we can make enough food for the world and not stupidly inflate the price of it by making biofuel which is no greener than the stuff we pump out of the ground.

Provide large cities with proper public transport systems that people will want to use and make it cheap.

Invest in renewable energy, make it attractive to the average joe and make it so that if you sell energy to the grid you get the proper wholesale price for your energy.

Ban gas water heating in places like Australia where solar hot water is the smart choice and works just fine.

Impose more stringent average fuel effiency limits across car manufacturers ranges of cars as they've recently done in the US.

Encourage building of new businesses in places that are more green and by that I mean not building businesses huge distances from their workforce.

Make insulation mandatory on all properties. Free for pensioners and low income earners and for those who can't afford to pay it all in one go give them an interest free loan which they can pay off over a long period of time.

Stop businesses lighting themselves up while they are closed.

Utilise more of the waste energy from industry to help with the energy needs of other industries. One example I saw last night was a large greenhouse which was using waste heat/steam from a manufacturing plant to heat it up.

I'm sure there are a lot more :)

[Daniel]

Had a brainwave :)

A "not having a baby" bonus :)

[rah]

Re Biofuels: not all are as bad as each other. The worst is corn based ethanol. It is only 2-3% better than using oil as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. Sugar cane is much better, ethanol from non food crops are better still and ethanol from waste paper or other cellulose products the best.

That being said, I think it will only ever be a supplement instead of a replacement. This is due largely to the conflict with food crops and deforestation. Not to mention that ethanol is harder to transport than oil based fuels.

Re renewable energy: already in most states in AUS and other countries you can sell your excess power back to the grid at the rate you purchase it. Even better is Germany and South Australia (I think) where you sell it back at 4 times the price you purchase it.

There are large movements of farmers worldwide that are putting up wind farms to supplement their income. The USA is actually putting up more wind farms than any other country at the moment.

There are also plans to build large solar power arrays in the middle east and north Africa to supply power to Europe.

The regulations for car efficiency are a bit of a joke in most countries. Soon the US will not be able to supply cars to China. This is because of their fuel efficiency regulations that will come in soon.

Green buildings could be a huge saving to greenhouse gases. Around 40% of the energy we produce goes into buildings. But this is actually quite a progressive area and most cities are initiating schemes to start green building projects. Green roofs are a big thing at the moment.

[Daniel]

Thing is here in the UK you get nowhere near wholesale price for electricity which is stupid. Like you said the main problem with biofuels is not the fuel so much as where it comes from and what gets cut down to make it. While I don't subscribe to the fact that we're causing global warming it doesn't take a genius to realise that chopping down huge bits of rainforest isn't good. Another thing that should be done is to make appliances more efficient. I made a point of getting a high efficiency power supply for my pc as a lot of cheap power supplies simply waste a lot of electricity by turning it into heat. Cfl's. Do what is being done and phase out traditional incandescent lighting where possible and start to progress towards led lighting in the home. The thing that makes me angry about this whole thing is that the solution is quite easy and it will save money rather than cost money.

[Daniel]

Just watching a David Attenborough program and I thought about this thread. How is Hydrogen good when it gives out water vapor which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide :mark:

[Drew]

Will hydrogen be extracted from sea water? We already have enough problems with water shortages (apparently) are there any plans to lessen the effect?

[Malbec]

Just watching a David Attenborough program and I thought about this thread. How is Hydrogen good when it gives out water vapor which is a worse greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide :mark:

Because water vapour which will be produced at ground level by cars etc wiil condense out as water.

CO2 will spread itself according to partial pressure gradients throughout the atmosphere and therefore to the stratosphere.

[Daniel]

ok cheers for that dylan. Was just a passing thought.

[leopard]

doesn't CO2, besides those dissolved in the sea, have its own lifespan in the atmosphere?

[Magnus]

I am not sure of what you mean leopardsleeping, but CO2 stays in the atmosphere for several thousand years, so the CO2 cycle is hence rather slow. or at least: it takes long time for the rate to normalize if there have been some abnormal bahaviours going on :)

[leopard]

Seems it wasn't clear, what would happen after it stays in the atmosphere for several thousand years? :)