Climate change

[View From The Top]

This one is the more more likely culprit, but volcanic activity also plays a big part:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

 

Interesting, thanks for the link.

[Whitey Grandad]

Interesting, thanks for the link.

My pleasure. Sunspots are only an indication of what's happening internally in the sun and the mechanism is not really understood, if at all. It is unusually quiet at the moment and should be building up towards 2011. I have always promised my wife I'd take her to see the Northern Lights so I have been waiting for the activity to increase but I may have to wait a little longer.

 

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/01apr_deepsolarminimum.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/090504-sun-global-cooling.html

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_climatechange14.htm

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/181839-Solar-Activity-Lowest-in-Almost-100-Years-Implications-for-Climate-Potentially-Significant

 

All good reading but we shall have to wait a couple of years to see if the spots come back.

[yorkiesaint]

LOL at all the climate skeptic mongs, think they know more about the climate than 200 professors of climatology

[Whitey Grandad]

LOL at all the climate skeptic mongs, think they know more about the climate than 200 professors of climatology

I've met a lot of professors. Don't believe all you read. Keep an open mind.

[Whitey Grandad]

LOL at all the climate skeptic mongs, think they know more about the climate than 200 professors of climatology

Are you talking about these professors?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

[Thedelldays]

yorkiesaint is now a "mong"

[badgerx16]

Are you talking about these professors?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

 

To summarise, there are 42 names on that list, grouped as follows;

 

3 "deniers", 1 of whom says the world is cooling ( ! ), and another is directly linked to the coal industry.

 

4 who say that the science is not yet good enough to be used to accurately predict what is happening.

 

23 debate the cause, but accept the warming is happening.

 

9 say the cause is yet to be proven as man-made or not.

 

And the last 3 simply say it's nothing to worry about.

 

And I would point out this key clause "For the purpose of this list, a scientist is a person who has published at least one peer-reviewed article during their lifetime in the broadly-construed area of natural sciences, though not necessarily in recent years nor in a field relevant to climate."

 

So maybe not quite as conclusive as you had expected ?

 

And it could be countered by this similar link, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus, which includes the statement "The majority of climate scientists agree that global warming is primarily caused by human activities such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation".

 

I must say, WG, that you do at least present your case in a polite and sensible manner, unlike some I will not mention.

Edited 22 December, 2009 by badgerx16

[Whitey Grandad]

I must say, WG, that you do at least present your case in a polite and sensible manner, unlike some I will not mention.

I never actually said that this was my case. I am an engineer and my whole career has been based on the practical appliance of science and scientific methods. I was taught at an early stage to verify for myself all the 'facts' and information that was presented to me. If I ask questions of those who have been convinced, then it is to encourage them to re-examine their convictions and perhaps they will see things in a new light or perhaps they will have their beliefs strengthened. I would hate for any of us to rush headlong on a course of action without having thoroughly considered all aspects of the situation as we currently see it.

[Whitey Grandad]

And in the interest of further debate:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo01.htm

[saintkiptanui]

And in the interest of further debate:

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_globalwarmingpseudo01.htm

 

That graph is a typical over the top projection, why is it that every graph I see like that the warming goes off the scale as soon as it goes projected??

[St Landrew]

They're not going off the scale, they are at the top of the scale. What's the point of drawing a scale that's many increments higher than the data goes..?

[Whitey Grandad]

They're not going off the scale, they are at the top of the scale. What's the point of drawing a scale that's many increments higher than the data goes..?

It's the same reason that every country's map just fits onto the page.

 

The more relevant question is what happened just off the left of the scale. All graphs that are published are used to justify the presenter's viewpoint, or else they would not publish them.

[TopGun]

It's the same reason that every country's map just fits onto the page.

 

The more relevant question is what happened just off the left of the scale. All graphs that are published are used to justify the presenter's viewpoint, or else they would not publish them.

 

As an engineer WG, why would you think that a coal power generation company such as Drax that emits the largest amount of CO2 in western Europe from its single operational base accepts the theory of man-made climate change?

 

http://www.draxpower.com/corporate_responsibility/climatechange/

[Saint George]

As an engineer WG, why would you think that a coal power generation company such as Drax that emits the largest amount of CO2 in western Europe from its single operational base accepts the theory of man-made climate change?

 

http://www.draxpower.com/corporate_responsibility/climatechange/

 

I can answer that one.....Its called appeasement....As it's now legal in the UK to vandalize the premises of CO2 emitting industries in the name of saving the World. They don't have much choice, but to try and appease the Eco Fascists, because as the 'Kingsnorth Six' trial demonstrates, the Law is not going to protect them.

 

****ed up yes, but nothing surprises me over there anymore

 

Oh and look who's just come to light as having a 'very' long snout in a very 'deep' trough....LOL you couldn't make this up.....Looks like he's in a race with Big Al to be the first Green gravy train multi Billionaire.....If they're not already

 

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019821/climategate-with-business-interests-like-these-are-we-really-sure-dr-rajendra-pachauri-is-fit-to-head-the-ipcc/

[Whitey Grandad]

As an engineer WG, why would you think that a coal power generation company such as Drax that emits the largest amount of CO2 in western Europe from its single operational base accepts the theory of man-made climate change?

 

http://www.draxpower.com/corporate_responsibility/climatechange/

It doesn't really say much except for a few platitudes. As an engineer, carbon capture and sequestration is the only solution for coal-fired power stations if you believe that emitting CO2 is causing a problem. It's expensive and won't happen until somebody forces them to do it and until the technology is readily available. It would push up the cost of energy.

 

There is a more serious point about the proposed reduction in CO2 emissions that no-one has touched on here. All plants need CO2 in order to grow and crop yields would fall dramatically if CO2 levels were restored to those of 50 years ago so depending on who you believe we'll fry, drown or starve.

 

We're doomed, I tell ye.

[Thedelldays]

It doesn't really say much except for a few platitudes. As an engineer, carbon capture and sequestration is the only solution for coal-fired power stations if you believe that emitting CO2 is causing a problem. It's expensive and won't happen until somebody forces them to do it and until the technology is readily available. It would push up the cost of energy.

 

There is a more serious point about the proposed reduction in CO2 emissions that no-one has touched on here. All plants need CO2 in order to grow and crop yields would fall dramatically if CO2 levels were restored to those of 50 years ago so depending on who you believe we'll fry, drown or starve.

 

We're doomed, I tell ye.

 

as I have said before..how ironic is is that those who went militant (and still blame maggie) in favour of the miners in the strike would now be demanding (in an equally militant way) the closure of said industry

[Whitey Grandad]

as I have said before..how ironic is is that those who went militant (and still blame maggie) in favour of the miners in the strike would now be demanding (in an equally militant way) the closure of said industry

We're sitting on 400 years of energy supplies but we're not allowed to use them ( until the next ice age ). I was speaking to someone in south Wales about the closure of the pits and he said that you'd never get anybody to go down them again. Today's youngsters wouldn't hack it.

[badgerx16]

 

There is a more serious point about the proposed reduction in CO2 emissions that no-one has touched on here. All plants need CO2 in order to grow and crop yields would fall dramatically if CO2 levels were restored to those of 50 years ago so depending on who you believe we'll fry, drown or starve.

 

 

Well that is certainly incorrect. As has been mentioned many times on here, there are many sources of CO2, whether biological, geological, or man-made. The increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is fuelling the greenhouse effect, if the level can be stabilised, ( or preferably brought down a little, by removing the influence of humans, the effect should halt. Therefore we need to look at how we can reduce the man-made part of the equation ; the natural and geological sources, which balance the needs of the plant and animal kingdoms, will remain. ( Note, plants can only absorb CO2 during daylight, when they photosynthesise, at night they respire and can actually produce CO2. )

You also need to factor in the effect that man is having on the natural CO2 'sinks', the rainforests and the oceanic photoplankton.

 

Crop yields are far more likely to fall due to increased temperatures and declining rainfall in arable farming areas, caused by AGW.

[Whitey Grandad]

The Amazonian rainforest canopy has increased by about 10% due to the increased level of CO2. This increase cannot been measured by satellite measurements of ground area.

[badgerx16]

The Amazonian rainforest canopy has increased by about 10% due to the increased level of CO2. This increase cannot been measured by satellite measurements of ground area.

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deforestation_in_Amazonia

 

Plus, of course, you need to include the asian forests, which are similarly coming down at an alarming rate.

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Deforestation_in_Amazonia

 

Plus, of course, you need to include the asian forests, which are similarly coming down at an alarming rate.

What the locals don't understand is that the forest itself is more valuable commercially than the land that they 'create'.

[badgerx16]

What the locals don't understand is that the forest itself is more valuable commercially than the land that they 'create'.

Most of which is only usable for about 3 years because the soil is so thin. The forests are so dense because of the leaf litter and other biological waste they trap and recycle. Take away the trees and there is nothing to sustain the ecosystem.

[Verbal]

Most of which is only usable for about 3 years because the soil is so thin. The forests are so dense because of the leaf litter and other biological waste they trap and recycle. Take away the trees and there is nothing to sustain the ecosystem.

 

Quite so. And forests do re-grow, even on the thin top soil (assuming it hasn't been washed away).

 

But secondary forest has nothing like the rich eco-system as primary forest. In Borneo about ten years ago, I remember we measured daytime temperatures under the canopy of rain forest and adjoining re-grown forest. The rainforest was 6 degrees C cooler!

 

You could see the effects in temperature difference by just looking at the forest floors. The secondary forest was parched and plagued with tangled undergrowth that drove out any diversity. The rainforest next door, of course, was a mass of mosses, tropical ferns, insect life - and you could see for what seemed like miles through the shaded interior.

[View From The Top]

as I have said before..how ironic is is that those who went militant (and still blame maggie) in favour of the miners in the strike would now be demanding (in an equally militant way) the closure of said industry

 

It's not the mining industry but the generation industry that produces CO2.

 

One day your IQ may catch up with your age, but I'm not hopeful.

[Thedelldays]

It's not the mining industry but the generation industry that produces CO2.

 

One day your IQ may catch up with your age, but I'm not hopeful.

cheers you bring turd...

 

again, I pity your kids xmas morning, all the hope of a good xmas then you come down the stairs..

[Whitey Grandad]

It's not the mining industry but the generation industry that produces CO2.

 

One day your IQ may catch up with your age, but I'm not hopeful.

We were only mining coal for the generation industry. Nobody else was buying it. Well, almost nobody now that there are no steam choo-choos.

[No 2 to Maybush]

We were only mining coal for the generation industry. Nobody else was buying it. Well, almost nobody now that there are no steam choo-choos.

 

And there I was thinking Cardiff was built on the exportation of coal. As well as the family fortune of the Marquis of Bute.

[View From The Top]

We were only mining coal for the generation industry. Nobody else was buying it. Well, almost nobody now that there are no steam choo-choos.

 

Our retarded sailor seems to think that people would be demanding the closure of the mines as opposed to finding a solution to the CO2 problem during burning.

 

He tries hard but struggles to keep up.

[Whitey Grandad]

And there I was thinking Cardiff was built on the exportation of coal. As well as the family fortune of the Marquis of Bute.

Exports from Cardiff ended in 1964. That's one of the reasons why the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was established, inside the defunct Coal Exchange building, to redevelop the Bay and provide employment. Welsh anthracite was used especially for steam trains and at the height of the running of steam locomotives on the railways 40% of the coal moved by railways used for powering the trains themselves, the rest was for heating. Until oil relaced it coal was the prime energy source for British industry.

[View From The Top]

ugg, ugg, ugg,

 

You need another bib, your shirt is wet from all the dribbling.

[View From The Top]

Quite so. And forests do re-grow, even on the thin top soil (assuming it hasn't been washed away).

 

But secondary forest has nothing like the rich eco-system as primary forest. In Borneo about ten years ago, I remember we measured daytime temperatures under the canopy of rain forest and adjoining re-grown forest. The rainforest was 6 degrees C cooler!

 

You could see the effects in temperature difference by just looking at the forest floors. The secondary forest was parched and plagued with tangled undergrowth that drove out any diversity. The rainforest next door, of course, was a mass of mosses, tropical ferns, insect life - and you could see for what seemed like miles through the shaded interior.

 

So your saying, and I hope I've got this right, that the primary canopy will, given time, replace itself but below that the eco-system cannot replicate itself once destroyed?

[Thedelldays]

Our retarded sailor seems to think that people would be demanding the closure of the mines as opposed to finding a solution to the CO2 problem during burning.

 

He tries hard but struggles to keep up.

shut up you aids infested ****

[Whitey Grandad]

So your saying, and I hope I've got this right, that the primary canopy will, given time, replace itself but below that the eco-system cannot replicate itself once destroyed?

Eventually the forest would be restored but not for many generations and far too late for us.

[View From The Top]

ugg, ugg, ugg.

 

Calm down simpleton and wait for mummy to get the safety scissors out.

[Thedelldays]

Calm down simpleton and wait for mummy to get the safety scissors out.

just think your kids will be ever so let down xmas morning...may even result in bullying at school....shame

[View From The Top]

Eventually the forest would be restored but not for many generations and far too late for us.

 

So the stabilisation of the top soil is the key aspect here as opposed to the actual destruction of the forest, as without the soil the forest will not have an opportunity to re-grow.

[badgerx16]

So your saying, and I hope I've got this right, that the primary canopy will, given time, replace itself but below that the eco-system cannot replicate itself once destroyed?

It will, but it will take hundreds, if not thousands, of years for it to happen. The secondary forest will tend to be comprised of tree species that can grow and spread quickly, rather than those that inhabit the 'ancient' parts. These species will be accompanied by other opportunistic, fast growing / spreading, ground cover plants, which strive to stifle the much slower germinating/growing 'old forest' species.

The "old" forest will nibble away at the boundary with the "new", and will in time supplant it, but it needs time for it's offspring to gain a foothold. Once the giants get going, however, they will eventually cut out the light that the infiltrators need. The other plants such as mosses and ferns will only spread once the conditions of temperature and humidity have stabilised beneath the new high-level canopy.

[Verbal]

So your saying, and I hope I've got this right, that the primary canopy will, given time, replace itself but below that the eco-system cannot replicate itself once destroyed?

 

If that happened, perhaps it wouldn't be so worrying. But no, the species of trees that grow in secondary forests in Borneo are quick-growing deciduous trees. They're not the species you find in rainforests, which are adapted to growing over millennia on little more than mulch (hence their characteristically vein-like root spread above ground).

 

Sometimes the two types of forest can look similar. But there's an easy way to tell them apart. We've watched enough jungle war movies to think that rainforests are full of thick, impenetrable undergrowth. But only secondary forests have this. Walking through primary rainforest is like walking through a gigantic cathedral, with long clear aisles leading in every direction. Thick undergrowth is impossible because the canopy cuts out all light. In Borneo's secondary forests, the light floods in - hence the temperature difference.

 

I've seen far worse in Madagascar, where the primary forests are even more delicate. The mulch is so thin that it is usually washed away within a few weeks. So if you look at any aerial view of Madagascar - particularly in the highlands and the rivers - you'll see huge red scars in the hills and the water runs vivid red.

 

Google 'Betsiboka' and you'll see what I mean - you'll get something like this...

 

[View From The Top]

just think your kids will be ever so let down xmas morning...may even result in bullying at school....shame

 

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[badgerx16]

So the stabilisation of the top soil is the key aspect here as opposed to the actual destruction of the forest, as without the soil the forest will not have an opportunity to re-grow.

The issue is that 'ancient' rain forest actually has very little soil in the first place. The conditions beneath the canopy enable rapid re-absorbtion and recycling of dead materials, so soil never gets formed from the detritus.

[Thedelldays]

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

can go all day..you keep having a dig, I can get even more personal

 

how about, we both just leave it there...?

 

merry xmas

[View From The Top]

If that happened, perhaps it wouldn't be so worrying. But no, the species of trees that grow in secondary forests in Borneo are quick-growing deciduous trees. They're not the species you find in rainforests, which are adapted to growing over millennia on little more than mulch (hence their characteristically vein-like root spread above ground).

 

Sometimes the two types of forest can look similar. But there's an easy way to tell them apart. We've watched enough jungle war movies to think that rainforests are full of thick, impenetrable undergrowth. But only secondary forests have this. Walking through primary rainforest is like walking through a gigantic cathedral, with long clear aisles leading in every direction. Thick undergrowth is impossible because the canopy cuts out all light. In Borneo's secondary forests, the light floods in - hence the temperature difference.

 

I've seen far worse in Madagascar, where the primary forests are even more delicate. The mulch is so thin that it is usually washed away within a few weeks. So if you look at any aerial view of Madagascar - particularly in the highlands and the rivers - you'll see huge red scars in the hills and the water runs vivid red.

 

Google 'Betsiboka' and you'll see what I mean - you'll get something like this...

 

 

That's very interesting, thanks for that. I shall go and do some more reading on the subject.

[View From The Top]

can go all day..you keep having a dig, I can get even more personal

 

how about, we both just leave it there...?

 

merry xmas

 

You can say whatever you want Jack, I couldn't give a fat rat's arse.

[Whitey Grandad]

So the stabilisation of the top soil is the key aspect here as opposed to the actual destruction of the forest, as without the soil the forest will not have an opportunity to re-grow.

I was thinking more about how long it takes to grow a big tree. Mind you, with all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere it would be quicker than before.

[badgerx16]

I was thinking more about how long it takes to grow a big tree. Mind you, with all this extra CO2 in the atmosphere it would be quicker than before.

Most canopy and emergent trees live between 300 and 400 years, but some can survive for over 1000. With reference to our own landscape, view them as oaks or yews, rather than pines or birches.

[Junction 9]

[Ponty]

Being fair, half of those degrees are largely irrelevant. Besides, "degrees"? I've got an engineering degree but I don't feel qualified to talk with authority on global warming, man-made or otherwise.

[Whitey Grandad]

And how many of those 12,944,000 green people 'agree' ?

[dune]

With unprecedented (in recent times) cold weather forecast for this winter it's perfectly conceiveable that the natural warming of earths climate could have stopped. What action would the Socialist climate know-it-alls on this thread recomend then? Are we all to burn as much fossil fuel as possible to increase global tempertaures?

 

At the end of the day Global Cooling would be a problem for British farming. But hey who cares about Britain when according to the Socialist Nuts we should only be bothered about the self inflicted problems of badly run African nations. But of course that's all our fault and a throwback to Imperial rule.

[badgerx16]

With unprecedented (in recent times) cold weather forecast for this winter it's perfectly conceiveable that the natural warming of earths climate could have stopped. What action would the Socialist climate know-it-alls on this thread recomend then? Are we all to burn as much fossil fuel as possible to increase global tempertaures?

 

At the end of the day Global Cooling would be a problem for British farming. But hey who cares about Britain when according to the Socialist Nuts we should only be bothered about the self inflicted problems of badly run African nations. But of course that's all our fault and a throwback to Imperial rule.

Why don't you go away and actually do some reading on the 'theory'. It is entirely predictable that an overall warming effect can cause such cold spells, they can be induced by changes in trans-oceanic currents that are caused by heat absorbtion by the sea. Historically, Britain's climate has been out of phase with the continent due to the warming effect of the trans-Atlantic currents, we have generally warmer winters than our neighbours. As these currents change course, and use a more southerly track, we come more into the influence of colder northern waters drawn down from the Arctic.