14 replies to this topic

[Thushara]

Is global warming a true phenomina? or it is agenda of developed countries to slow down the growth of few developing giants?

[latexman]

Global warming is a theory. There is not enough data to prove it yet.

[Enginer]

Is global warming a true phenomina? or it is agenda of developed countries to slow down the growth of few developing giants?

I believe that most people involved is the "global warming" debate sincerely believe their positions. However, I also believe that upwards of 90 % of those expecting the oceans to continue to rise have no clear basis for their beliefs. Has the earth been warming? Of course. Is it natural or man-caused? Obviously both.

Man cleared the forests at the base of Mt. Kilamanjaro, dropped the local humidity (it was a tropical rain forest, for heaven's sake!) and almost wiped out the snowpak. The UHI effect, source of some of the temperature increase, is obviously man made.

On the other hand, CO2, a nutrient as necessary as P2O5, Nitrogen or K2O, might account for as much as 15% of the increase in corn yield since 1940. But a major cause of global warming? I think not.

The anti-alarmist site WattsUpWithThat.com will help and it's interesting to boot. Especially note the present confirmation of the Svensmark-Marsh paper on the effect of solar magnetic effects on cloud formation.

http://wattsupwithth...ional-estimate/

Elsewhere, note that warming is stopping and the new fear is freezing, crop failure and starvation.

[kkala]

Opinion of majority of people here in Greece, and most probably all European Union, is that Global warming has a serious contribution from actual human activities.
Probably this opinion cannot be scientifically based (yet). I cannot judge how much of global temperature increase is due to increase of CO2 concentration from 280 to 390 ppm. But global warming is a fact, affecting tropical countries more, where a lot of people live. Some believe that evidence of anthropogenic activity to it is serious and clear. Can we assess this belief objectively?
1. The global heating due to CO2 had been predicted some 50 years earlier or more. We had read about it in the University books, but then the risk looked academic. I think it is also reported in "Momentum, heat and mass transfer" by J Myers & C. Bennet (McGraw-Hill, 1962).
2. I have not heard of a plan of global warming against developing nations. Certainly there are interests for (e.g. suppliers of windmill and other renewable energy equipment) and against (e.g. not support of Kyoto protocol by President Bush for the interests of Petroleum companies).
3. Northern European countries would have some benefits from global warming, e.g. passage through Northern Ocean, less cold in winter, etc, but they support measures due to foreseen ecological damage (home limitation for polar bears, seals, sea elephants). The only rumor I heard once is delay of measures, since they are less affected.
4. Freon has proved to be destructing for atmospheric ozone layer, but the doubts, arguments, etc, against this opinion (apparently ignited by interests) delayed the measures for about 20 years (approx 1975-1995), causing serious ecological damage. Such delays had better not occur again.
Indeed global climate has unexplained cycles of cold and hot not due to CO2, e.g. Greenland was much colder around 1400 than in 1940. And icebergs were some 6000 years ago down to Italian Alps, while now there are in Iceland (and probably somewhere else in the far North). We cannot do something against this natural procedure, but it is the first time that this warming may be anthropogenic. I doubt if we have the luxury of investigation up to certainty before taking measures. But research to find the reason of present warming should be intense. I do not know whether it really is.

[JMW]

Majority in Greece and other European countries?

I doubt this. In fact, surveys tend to suggest that it is not a majority that believes in AGW and of those that do, not all agree we can do anything about it.

The problem is that too many people in positions of power or influence have too much to gain from the AGW agenda to want to let go.

The Climategate scandal resulted in a whitewash that wasn't about finding the truth but covering up the lies and manipulation.

It has to be curious that the raw data shows no evidence of warming but it is evident in the “homogenised data”; i.e., it is an artifact of the corrections applied to the temperature data.

The response of the warmers to anything that suggests the contrary, that there is cooling, is that these effects are “masking the true extent of warming”. This argument has now been applied to reports that sunspot activity suggests we are entering another little ice age.

Our problem is that we may suspect that the sun has something to do with our climate. It isn't a constant energy source. The correlation between sunspot activity and climate has long been recognised but there has been a problem finding the mechanisms that link it to climate change. Why should low sunspot activity result in cooling?

The possible mechanisms are beginning to emerge and the logical link is with clouds.

Global chilling, one of the first effects recognised to be “masking the true effects of warming” and caused by particulates and their interaction with clouds is another hint in this direction.

Curious that many fossil fuel power plants were actually GW neutral because, while they emitted CO₂, they also emitted particulates such as SO_X - which are cooling agents. Of course, we have been busy removing SO_X and NO_X which ought to enhance warming and some scientists have suggested actually introducing particulates and Sulphur by rockets or artillery to bring about just that effect.

One of the targets for SO_X, NO_X and CO_X reduction is marine emissions. Now the fact is that shipping is one of the most efficient and least polluting transport means... on a ton per 100 kilometers travelled basis. The real effect of legislation is to reduce SO_X and NO_X. These are not because of warming but morbidity - The effect on life expectancy. The fact is that this legislation will benefit the wealthy northern hemisphere populations best, the ones with the highest life expectancy already, with good nutrition and good health care. It certainly won't benefit sub-Saharan economies with poor infrastructure and where fuel costs are a critical factor in export revenue - you know, the populations which have poor life expectancy, poor nutrition, poor health care, etc. To that extent I can see that the OP's original question has some validity.

Whether this is deliberate or incidental is another matter. I rather think that some of the environmentalist activity is actually directed at bringing down the western economies. Global warming measures result in high levels of taxation, high fuel costs and lead to a loss of competitive edge in a global market. Far from having a negative impact on some emerging economies it is having the opposite effect. Wind turbine production, for example, is increasingly dominated by Chinese manufacturing at the expense of western manufacturing economies.

Many of the measures proposed often prove to have fallen foul of the law of unintended consequences... assuming these negative effects were unintended. A recent injunction has shut down a wind farm in “Green” Scotland because of noise issues. Biofuels not only are forcing up food prices (not the only cause, the other is deregulation of the commodities markets but in combination these are contributing to the political problems in the Middle East) and are causing valuable habitats to be destroyed putting at risk the Indonesian Rhino and the Orangutan, but studies now suggest that there is no net green benefit because of the net CO₂ accounting. (Just as the Prius was found not to be the least polluting car. In a study of ashes to ashes it came 63^rd in the list and at the top was the bette noir of environmentalists, a Jeep 4x4. The Prius has admirable fuel economy but uses expensive materials all of which require a high energy investment. The Jeep uses conventional steels and has a very, very, long life. Amortising the manufacturing and scrapping energy costs - and the associated CO₂ - resulted in these surprise results. This is a pattern repeated elsewhere. So whether or not we accept AGW or our ability to do anything about it, many of the measures do nothing, some do more harm than good, and it is costing a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere with more tangible and beneficial results. The recent agreement on vaccines for example, is likely to do far more good than the equivalent money spent of something as nefarious and contested as GW.

Speaking of Greece: with its current financial crisis, this is country that depended on Lignite - brown coal - fuel for a long while, but now depends to a greater extent on natural gas. So, can the present Greek economy afford the measures to combat global warming? Can the UK?

The GW scientists seem long ago to have given up the role of impartial observers, fulfilling the role of informing policy makers but have now taken on the role of creating and promoting policy. Some reports make no pretense of impartial advise and are loaded with emotional semantics. These are scientists intent on a new world order, it seems, and the Copenhagen summit was intended to create a sort of bureaucratic super EU style world order... one with its own tax raising and enforcement powers. Formerly global issues have been dealt with through treaties. Treaties at least ensured fairness because they rely on the consent of the affected nations.

Increasingly I regard the continued AGW campaigning as a threat not just to western economies but to all national groups.

Sadly, I don't think we have much chance of bringing this nonsense to an end.

[mxmaciek]

.... Wind trubine production, for example, is increasingly dominated by Chinese manufacturing at the expense of western manufacturing economies....

...Increasingly i regard the continued AGW campaigning as a threat not just to western economies but to all national groups.
Sadly, I don't think we have much chance of bringing this nonsense to an end.

True. And, similarly to the Prius, the wind turbines are... not so "eco friendly" as majority of GreenPiss activists would like to (I know that DaliyMail isn't a very scientific source, but I don't think they lie in this case...)
:
Wirnd turbines production effect... in China

[Anuja Sawant]

The world has already passed the point of no return for climate change and civilisation as we know it is now unlikely to survive, according to James Lovelock. By what I understand of what he meant, I agree to the fact that earth has undergone changes without humans in the past, ice-age and warming. Human activities are only making the environment harsher to survive by polluting it.
Is the butterfly effect with respect to anthropogenic emissions worth worrying about?

Edited by Anuja Sawant, 25 September 2011 - 12:09 PM.

[kkala]

http://www.cheresour...9774#entry49774 is actually dealing with global warming, despite its starting title about icebergs. I happened to notice it today, those interested in the subject can have a look at it.

[kkala]

News about reactions / comments on the US Global Change Research Program (released 2009, next revision planned 2013) can be seen in http://www.care2.com...3679641/3474651 '> http://www.care2.com...3679641/3474651 - numerous relevant web references.

[T.S.MURALI]

Yes, there is bound to be global warming as the entropy of the system is on the increase always.

[Technical Bard]

The earth's surface environment is not a closed system, so your statement about entropy isn't necessarily true.

[T.S.MURALI]

When one talks of closed system ,one can draw example of activated carbon in a filter in orderly state and scattered carbon in disorderly state which can be spread/which can occupy a football field or a Cricket ground!, when spilled.
If entropy is a measure of disorderliness ,then one can come to a conclusion!

[T.S.MURALI]

Flares, lost heat,stars decay ,sun burning out ,emissions volcanic eruptions are all examples of increase in entropy and disorderly state.

As lay student one can comprehend the logic.

One can say otherwise until it is proved that disorderly masses of the cosmos reappears as say congealed mass of/and energy back into the system -dQ=+ dQ, ------according to some studies going on now



Further quotes;


In almost every process there is an increase in the entropy in the universe. For example, lets say your room is dirty so you think you are decreasing entropy by cleaning it up (decreasing disorder). The truth is that you expend a great amount of energy cleaning your room, and that energy is ultimately released into the universe as heat energy. That heat energy is a less ordered form of energy than the form you received it in, which are the chemical bonds in food. The chemical bonds in food are relatively ordered, but heat energy is very random. heat energy dissipates into the universe randomly, with little order or integrity. So you see, no process conserves all the energy in the process, as some energy is dissipated, or "wasted", as heat energy. When you hit a pool ball into another, the friction between the balls takes some of the energy of the collision away, in the form of friction. Friction generates heat (as you know from rubbing your hands together in the cold). I hope these brief examples demonstrate that all processes increase the entropy of the universe (in the form of heat energy).

[jklasers]

Yes, it is. Global warming will destabilize the weather in other ways. In all likelihood, it will change worldwide weather patterns, leading to droughts in some areas and flooding in others. Global warming will also mess with seasonal water cycles. Many rivers are powered by mountain glaciers which grow in the winter and thaw in the summer, producing seasonal flows. As these glaciers melt, these rivers could decrease or even dry up.

[afaruque]

I suggest this documentary to everyone.

 

http://www.imdb.com/...ref_=fn_al_tt_4