Global Warming

In article <[email hidden]>, usenet01
@artybee.net says...

Quoted message said:

I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

I like that, I'll have to remember it for future use.
--
..paul

If at first you don't succeed...
Skydiving is probably not the sport for you.

Richard Bates said:

I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

Yep, we need to fire a rocket load of acne cream at the sun.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

Tony

"Richard Bates" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times and what
melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times

But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated,
varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that
prefer a warmer climate?

Quoted message said:

and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

Farting mammoths? :-)

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the
[censored] we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is
not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change
our behaviour?

Graeme

Richard Bates said:

I made a comment at work today about global warming. My colleague
replied "Yes, I was thinking about that in the car the other day. It's
getting out of hand isn't it".

You've obviously got a genius for a colleague, given that all the data
showing the need to worry about global warming is incredibly complex
and presumably requires one to be a pretty good climatologist, ideally
working in front of a computer in a lab.

Sorry, I thought the above paragraph was an insight into the way
people think about things and how opinions are actually formed and how
little they have to do with the evidence. But it's not clear from what
I wrote.

Ambrose

Quoted message said:

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations

Indeed, and some aperiodic ones as well. Global cooling started
before the black death, although the black death didn't help

(it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice

Quoted message said:

Fair" on the Thames).

Indeed. Not since they got rid of the bridge piers of old London
Bridge, which restricted the tidal flow etc. I do know somebody who
walked across the Thames at Oxford in 1963, though

Quoted message said:

How many people are confident enough to say that the
[censored] we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or

more is

Quoted message said:

not responsible for the current change

Probably it is responsible for a chunk, but don't forget the rebound
from the Little Ice Age of the 18th century. The foot and a quarter
rise in high tide level at London Bridge, during the last century,
however, has nothing to do all that. The water level rise is because
of the see-saw effect as the Scottish end of Britain continues to
bounce up owing to the recent (in geological terms) melting of all
the ice-age ice up there.

and it is not worth trying to change

Quoted message said:

our behaviour?

I'm not bothered. I haven't heard of *anyone* yet who has turned
their house thermostat down. I suppose we should thank Arthur
Scargill for discouraging burning of lumps of carbon in Britain,
thank the East Germans similarly for all of East Germany's industry
being switched off, and thank the French for building lots of nuclear
power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish
neighbours. Everybody seems to be against encouraging the Amreica\ns
from paying to clean up the dirty industry of China.

If the ice did all melt, it would be really neat to see the ecology
of Siberia return to what it was before the ice age. How did all
those tree behave when it got dark for three meonths in the winter?

Jeremy Parker

Jeremy Parker:

Quoted message said:

and thank the French for building lots of nuclear
power stations so they can sell clean energy to their more squeamish
neighbours.

No, the French built lots of nuclear power stations to stop the Germans
invading and nicking their coal.

d.

Graeme said:

"Simon Mason" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Yet it was warm enough to grow grapes in Yorkshire in Roman times

But would they not have been more "wild", i.e. less developed/cultivated,
varieties rather than the high yielding varieties you get these days that
prefer a warmer climate?

Quoted message said:

and what melted all the ice covering Northern Europe in 10 000 BCE?

Farting mammoths? :-)

The Earth's climate does go through some fairly large, long period
variations (it's been a while since they've been able to hold an "Ice
Fair" on the Thames). How many people are confident enough to say that the
[censored] we've been chucking into the air for the last hundred years or more is
not responsible for the current change and it is not worth trying to change
our behaviour?

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to
decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider
the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is
manmade global warming real?"

If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and
reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment
to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last
longer, people might be fitter and healthier and economic growth might
have slowed.

Conversely, if it turns out that manmade CO2 really is creating a
atmospheric greenhouse but we have decided to do nothing, the
implications for the planet, civilisation and the human species are
uncontemplatable.

I'm undecided as to the reality of global warming but I am very clear
that we must act to reduce CO2 emissions.

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

If it turns out to be spurious science but we have gone ahead and
reduced C02 output, what is the downside of this incorrect assessment
to individuals and society? Not much, really; the oil will last
longer,

Tangible, physical effect.

Quoted message said:

people might be fitter and healthier

Tangible, physical effect.

Quoted message said:

and economic growth might have slowed.

Abstract.

I'm with you on this one!

Jon

Not Responding said:

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to
decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider
the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is
manmade global warming real?"

But what if, as climatology seems to indicate, we are actually in one of
the warm periods between ice ages? Perhaps we need a bit of global
warming to rescue us ;-)

My view FWIW though is that we have been through some massive natural
climate changes over history. Man's activity from massive historical
deforestation of the planet to urbanisation have had little noticeable
effect and I suspect that CO2 emission is just another one. Methane is
a natural greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2 and
comes,inter alia, from livestock. Yet it rarely gets mentioned.

Tony

In article <[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Not Responding said:

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

Global warming may or may not be driven by man made CO2 and we have to
decide whether or not to change our behaviour and reduce CO2. Consider
the implications of getting the wrong answer to the question "is
manmade global warming real?"

But what if, as climatology seems to indicate, we are actually in one of
the warm periods between ice ages? Perhaps we need a bit of global
warming to rescue us ;-)

Dangerous territory.

Quoted message said:

My view FWIW though is that we have been through some massive natural
climate changes over history.

One such massive natural climate change may have been responsible for
the annihilation of the dinosaurs. No mean feat really!

Quoted message said:

Man's activity from massive historical
deforestation of the planet to urbanisation have had little noticeable
effect

Are you sure about this? Deforestation has led to quite significant
changes in terrain in the more extreme climates. Removal of trees (And
their stability-inducing root structure) has led to soil erosion and
changed flooding patterns within recent history. We don't have detailed
scientific records of weather patterns going back far enough to make any
judgements on whether historical deforestation has had any effect.

Urbanisation has created micro-climates. I've frequently found weather
to be quite different in a city centre than 5 miles out from the city
edge (Sunny in the centre, snowing outside!) and that's the effect of
fairly small cities.

Quoted message said:

and I suspect that CO2 emission is just another one. Methane is
a natural greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2 and
comes,inter alia, from livestock. Yet it rarely gets mentioned.

When I was taught about the greenhouse effect in school, methane and CO2
were the two culprits and were always mentioned hand in hand. While
livestock may well produce methane, intensive farming has increased
livestock levels (in many places) and I'm not sure what the comparitive
levels are to the methane that leaches from landfill sites.

As mentioned earlier, the effects may have nothing to do with us, but
while we have no evidence either way, it would be sensible to err on the
side of caution.

Jon

Jon Senior said:

Urbanisation has created micro-climates. I've frequently found weather
to be quite different in a city centre than 5 miles out from the city
edge (Sunny in the centre, snowing outside!) and that's the effect of
fairly small cities.

Quite. And spreading urbanisation moving ground weather stations from
rural to urban locations is thought to be one of the reasons that
satellite tropospheric temperature measurements have not seen the same
global warming that ground stations have. The US has taken much greater
care to remove urbanisation from the temperature measurements and do not
show the same warming that the global weather station network does.
Have a look at the graphs on the NASA Goddard site for examples
-http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

My view FWIW though is that we have been through some massive natural
climate changes over history. Man's activity from massive historical
deforestation of the planet to urbanisation have had little noticeable
effect and I suspect that CO2 emission is just another one. Methane is
a natural greenhouse gas that is 20 times more potent than CO2 and
comes,inter alia, from livestock. Yet it rarely gets mentioned.

Strangely water vapour doesn't get mentioned either, but these
climatalogists have to come up with something dramatic otherwise their
grants get cut.

--
Simon M.

Simon Mason said:

Strangely water vapour doesn't get mentioned either, but these
climatalogists have to come up with something dramatic otherwise their
grants get cut.

No sweating on the bike then ;-)

Tony

Jon Senior <jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove> wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Urbanisation has created micro-climates. I've frequently found weather
to be quite different in a city centre than 5 miles out from the city
edge (Sunny in the centre, snowing outside!) and that's the effect of
fairly small cities.

There was a arial photo in one of the local papers here in Australia a few
weeks ago. It showed an area of "cultivated" land, i.e. a vast expanse of
red soil, right next to an area of uncultivated bush land. The aircraft the
picture was taken from was flying below the cloud cover. You could clearly
see that the cloud cover was over the uncultivated land and stopped almost
exactly at the fence line. Apparently this wasn't a fluke photo as
meteorologist say they see this effect quite often. This was given as an
illustration of one reason why the level of rain fall in Australia has
dropped quite considerably.

It was a *very* vivid picture of how our activities may affect climate.

Graeme

in message <[email hidden]>, Jon Senior

('jon@restlesslemon_DOT_co_DOT_uk.remove') said:

When I was taught about the greenhouse effect in school, methane and
CO2 were the two culprits and were always mentioned hand in hand.
While livestock may well produce methane, intensive farming has
increased livestock levels (in many places) and I'm not sure what the
comparitive levels are to the methane that leaches from landfill
sites.

The total number of large herbivores is not a function of the total
number of domestic cattle. Historically, there were vast herds of wild
herbivores on all continents. Human hunting has reduced them to
fractions of a percent of their former numbers. Whether the total
methane produced by the wild herbivores of the past was greater or less
than the total produced now is not easy to assess.

What is certain is that methane produced by herbivores is recycling
carbon from the surface environment, just as burning firewood is;
provided the total biomass remains more or less the same the same
amount of carbon compounds of carbon compounds will be recycled. If
cattle don't eat the grass and [censored], the carbon will still be released
at the year end, because grass is an annual plant and the dead plant
matter will rot.

The increase in carbon in the environment comes from the release of
carbon which had been taken out of the environment - by fossilisation -
many millions of years ago. No amount of cattle grazing is equivalent
to that.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

[ This .sig intentionally left blank ]

Simon Brooke <[email hidden]> wrote in news:klhns1-2ba.ln1
@gododdin.internal.jasmine.org.uk:

Quoted message said:

Historically, there were vast herds of wild
herbivores on all continents.

See, I was right! Farting mammoths I tell you!

:-)

Graeme

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 11:51:19 +0100,

Tony Raven said:

Quite. And spreading urbanisation moving ground weather stations from
rural to urban locations is thought to be one of the reasons that
satellite tropospheric temperature measurements have not seen the same
global warming that ground stations have. The US has taken much greater
care to remove urbanisation from the temperature measurements and do not
show the same warming that the global weather station network does.
Have a look at the graphs on the NASA Goddard site for examples
-http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/

There has been some significant reanalysis of these tropospheric (O2?)
temperatures and the temperature signal has included a significant
proportion of the stratopheric (O? O2) signal (20%IIRC).

Tim.

Nature 429, 55 - 58 (06 May 2004); doi:10.1038/nature02524

Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred
tropospheric temperature trends

QIANG FU, CELESTE M. JOHANSON, STEPHEN G. WARREN & DIAN J. SEIDEL

From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the
mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit
(MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower
troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per
decade (refs 1-3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations
however, exhibit a larger warming of 0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and
global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural
factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is
somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase. Here we show
that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the
instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large
cooling trend offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming. We
quantify the stratospheric contribution to MSU channel 2 temperatures
using MSU channel 4, which records only stratospheric temperatures. The
resulting trend of reconstructed tropospheric temperatures from
satellite data is physically consistent with the observed surface
temperature trend. For the tropics, the tropospheric warming is 1.6
times the surface warming, as expected for a moist adiabatic lapse
rate.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t,"
and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 10:17:17 +0100, "[Not Responding]"
<[email hidden]> wrote in message
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

As the gamble is of such a magnitude, whether to reduce CO2 emissions
is one of the few questions that should be answered with the
precautionary principle.

And the process of reducing energy consumption (and hence CO2
emissions) is what engineers call "efficiency" :-)

So, which do we prefer to risk? An unnecessary increase in efficiency
or global meltdown? Tough call...

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University