Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.

I think it's down to pure sefishness rather than naivity. The whole
environment needs treating with care, so any excuse not to bother is
jumped on.

At leat 200 dolphins are washed up on Cornish beaches each year
(probably greatly more as must of the Cornish coast is pretty
inaccessible), the large majority caught by totally unnecessary types
of fishing. http://www.cornwallwildlifetrust.org...r_dolphins.php

Many caught in nets are cut in half to stop them floating ashore, so
who knows what the real figure killed is.

Graham
Penzance

Bob Martin wrote:
in 221754 20070308 231307 Simon Wyndham wrote:
Bonos Ego wrote:
Just finished watching the programme, one word Brilliant.
Yes it was. Just a shame that the global warming brigade are so powerful
that nobody will take any notice of it.


Perhaps, but it takes a special kind of naivety (or worse) to think that we can
go on pumping millions of tons of crap into our atmosphere without any
detrimental effects.


Happily, it did not suggest for a moment that pollution was anything but a bad
idea. Essentially, it provided data on any causal link between higher
temperature and higher CO2, and demonstrated that the latter is caused by the
former, not vice versa.

The weak point in the programme was that an African woman was shown lighting a
fire indoors, causing serious health risks to herself and her children. A
debate ensued about the provision of electricity from coal, oil, wind, or solar.
In fact, what she really needed was to have a chimney built into the room -
that would solve her immediate problem and would not place on her the burden of
obtaining money to pay for electricity (from whatever source) were that even
possible.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

Gianna wrote:

Happily, it did not suggest for a moment that pollution was anything but a
bad
idea. Essentially, it provided data on any causal link between higher
temperature and higher CO2, and demonstrated that the latter is caused by
the former, not vice versa.


Blimey! Are you sure they said that? How did they get round the problem that
the excess CO2 can be identified as being generated artificially? Also, why
does the growth in CO2 not reflect the cycles in tempurature?

--
Graham P Davis
Bracknell, Berks., UK
Send e-mails to "newsman" as mails to "newsboy" are ignored.

Graham P Davis wrote:
Gianna wrote:

Happily, it did not suggest for a moment that pollution was anything but a
bad
idea. Essentially, it provided data on any causal link between higher
temperature and higher CO2, and demonstrated that the latter is caused by
the former, not vice versa.


Blimey! Are you sure they said that?

Yes, I am sure (-:

How did they get round the problem that
the excess CO2 can be identified as being generated artificially?

They didn't identify it as a problem, so did not need to get round it. They
stated that humans have pumped CO2 into the atmosphere but only as a tiny
proportion of the total. They further suggested that as CO2 is essential to
life, and as the total amount is (still) very small (regardless of where it came
from) it was inappropriate to describe it as a pollutant.
As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..


Also, why
does the growth in CO2 not reflect the cycles in temperature?


In the graphs they demonstrated, it did but with a delay. After the temperature
had risen the CO2 had risen, and after the temperature had fallen, the CO2 had
fallen. They attributed this to the amount of CO2 absorbed by, or released by,
the oceans in response to temperature. As the temperature changes preceded the
CO2 changes, any causality would be in that direction, rather than as stated by
the NCC deniers.

Please note that I am merely reporting here what I understand them to have said
in the programme. I believe I have done so accurately if incompletely.

I do not claim that this is (or is not) what I think as I have no clean data on
which to make such a judgement. I am generally supportive of NCC as is known
but take the view that one should not despoil one's home regardless.

I simply listen/watch/read both sides of the debate and do not assume that
someone who disagrees with me is automatically a loony.

Were I to accept the data provided by the NCC camp, I would no doubt conclude
that version was correct. Equally, if I were to accept the data provided by the
AGW camp, I would similarly conclude that version to be correct. The idea that
there is an independent source of data, untainted by either camp, is a product
of sheer ignorance.
So, the only realistic option for those not qualified to be climate scientists
(like myself) is to look at both sides carefully and without prejudice.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

in 221785 20070309 124614 Gianna wrote:

As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..

Other sources claim that CO2 today is higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
If the person(s) you quote is not disputing that then he must be referring to an earlier
period - in which case how does he know?

Bob Martin wrote:
in 221785 20070309 124614 Gianna wrote:

As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..

Other sources claim that CO2 today is higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Yes, they do.
As in any scientific debate, each camp is producing evidence in support of their
conclusions. I would have no idea which set of evidence is true in some
theoretical absolute sense. Unless someone on this group is a qualified climate
scientist with access to the primary source raw data (somewhat unlikely), then
none of us will know which side is 'correct' (if any).

From the posts I have read here, we are all reliant on the secondary sources
(or worse). So, we weigh up each case and decide which we think the most plausible.
We may then state which body of evidence and conclusion we believe - we may not
state which body of evidence is 'true' or 'correct' as we cannot know.


If the person(s) you quote is not disputing that then he must be referring to an earlier
period - in which case how does he know?


I rather had the impression that the climate scientist(s) on the programme were
disputing that. If you want more detail than was provided in the programme, you
would have to ask those who took part. I can only report what I saw/heard.

I seem to recall that they suggested that CO2 from decaying vegetable matter,
including autumn leaves, was greater in volume than that generated my human
activity. I have not sought to check that.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

Gianna wrote:


I seem to recall that they suggested that CO2 from decaying vegetable
matter, including autumn leaves, was greater in volume than that
generated my human activity. I have not sought to check that.



-my
+by

sorry


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:19:57 +0000, Gianna wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:
in 221785 20070309 124614 Gianna wrote:

As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..

Other sources claim that CO2 today is higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years.

Yes, they do.
As in any scientific debate, each camp is producing evidence in support of their
conclusions. I would have no idea which set of evidence is true in some
theoretical absolute sense. Unless someone on this group is a qualified climate
scientist with access to the primary source raw data (somewhat unlikely), then
none of us will know which side is 'correct' (if any).

From the posts I have read here, we are all reliant on the secondary sources
(or worse). So, we weigh up each case and decide which we think the most plausible.
We may then state which body of evidence and conclusion we believe - we may not
state which body of evidence is 'true' or 'correct' as we cannot know.

Gianna, I agree with your recollection of the main thrust of this
programme.

The AGW people need to answer scientifically the claim that carbon
dioxide emissions _follow_ the temperature changes - the latter is
said to be caused by changes in solar activity. The historic
comparison graph used to demonstrate that seemed to be quite
persuasive but it left me with several questions unanswered.

For example:

- What is the margin of error in the dating used to produce the graph
(of carbon doxide lag)?

- Is it correct to say (as they did) that warmer ocean temperatures
lead to a greater release of carbon dioxide than cooler ocean
temperatures?

I have many more questions - and an equal number for the GW
protagonists. I find both cases to be seriously lacking in solid
evidence never mind proof, when I look at the underlying assumptions.

There is too much circumstantial evidence, too few hard facts and too
many assumptions for my liking, on both sides.

--
Dave

Dave Ludlow wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 15:19:57 +0000, Gianna wrote:

Bob Martin wrote:
in 221785 20070309 124614 Gianna wrote:

As the proportions of atmospheric gases vary over time, the term 'excess' is
subjective. They stated that temperatures, and CO2 levels, have been higher
than they presently are, and that was long before industrialisation etc..
Other sources claim that CO2 today is higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years.
Yes, they do.
As in any scientific debate, each camp is producing evidence in support of their
conclusions. I would have no idea which set of evidence is true in some
theoretical absolute sense. Unless someone on this group is a qualified climate
scientist with access to the primary source raw data (somewhat unlikely), then
none of us will know which side is 'correct' (if any).

From the posts I have read here, we are all reliant on the secondary sources
(or worse). So, we weigh up each case and decide which we think the most plausible.
We may then state which body of evidence and conclusion we believe - we may not
state which body of evidence is 'true' or 'correct' as we cannot know.

Gianna, I agree with your recollection of the main thrust of this
programme.

The AGW people need to answer scientifically the claim that carbon
dioxide emissions _follow_ the temperature changes - the latter is
said to be caused by changes in solar activity. The historic
comparison graph used to demonstrate that seemed to be quite
persuasive but it left me with several questions unanswered.

For example:

- What is the margin of error in the dating used to produce the graph
(of carbon doxide lag)?

I cannot find that (so far) but there are a number of references which show that
the rise in CO2 followed the rise in temperature, not vice versa. It is
mentioned discussed briefly at
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...oncentrations/
but I haven't time to follow that further.

- Is it correct to say (as they did) that warmer ocean temperatures
lead to a greater release of carbon dioxide than cooler ocean
temperatures?

It seems to be correct:
"The decrease in solubility of gases with increasing temperature is an example
of the operation of Le Chatelier's principle."

http://www.intute.ac.uk/sciences/ref...em2/p01182.htm

I have many more questions - and an equal number for the GW
protagonists. I find both cases to be seriously lacking in solid
evidence never mind proof, when I look at the underlying assumptions.

There is too much circumstantial evidence, too few hard facts and too
many assumptions for my liking, on both sides.


Sadly that seems to be all there is, on either side. I suppose if there were
hard evidence either way, then there would be no debate.

I find the NCC view more probable, but as I make quite an effort to reduce my
consumption of finite resources (because they are both finite and expensive)
then even if I am wrong and AGW is right, there will be nothing more that I
could have done.

e.g. the only ordinary light bulbs I have left in use (3x 25w, 1x 40w) are in
fittings where it is not physically possible to insert the low wattage
fluorescents. They are seldom used - should that change I will need to change
the light fittings.


--
Gianna

http://www.buchan-meteo.org.uk
* * * * * * *

In message , Graham P Davis
writes
Gianna wrote:

Happily, it did not suggest for a moment that pollution was anything but a
bad
idea. Essentially, it provided data on any causal link between higher
temperature and higher CO2, and demonstrated that the latter is caused by
the former, not vice versa.


Blimey! Are you sure they said that? How did they get round the problem that
the excess CO2 can be identified as being generated artificially? Also, why
does the growth in CO2 not reflect the cycles in tempurature?

Deglaciation is triggered by regional changes to insolation (see
Milankovich cycles). One obvious positive feedback that reinforces the
end-glacial warming is albedo reduction. It appears that the end-glacial
warming also caused CO2 to be released into the atmosphere, causing more
warming. Thus the end-glacial CO2 level trend lagged the end-glacial
temperature trend. This is not the same as demonstrating that higher CO2
does not cause higher temperatures, but might be mistaken as such to the
naive or casual student.
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley