Cyprus-Forum.com

[OB1]

Did you know that the rise of one degree is inevitable and there is a 97% to stop the temp to rise by two Celsius. And did you know that if we don't do anything to stop the temp of rising 2C then there will be only 3% chance of changing that. Then........you don't want to know but think of starvation's, migrations ,armed forces trying to stop migrations murders , governments collapsing etc.....
IM NOT exaturating

[devil]

Stop being alarmist with your nonsense. Read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers for the truth.

[Bill]

I'm not convinced that man made pollutants are entirely responsible for the perceived present global warming.

And I'm not sure that there is much that we can do about it .

All the hype by our government of green taxes which do nothing except fill the coffers of central government are not going to stop people flying including members of the government.

Last year was the first time that shipping exceeded the emissions compared to air flight -- I don't see any government attempting to tax shipping lines or getting them to cut down on routes .

China and indeed America are churning out tons of nasties into the atmosphere and there is very little we can do about it .

But does the blame rest entirely with us not being green enough -- in my opinion NO

Everything in the world runs in Cycles and it would seem that we are in a warming stage at present which will be followed by a cooling stage in a few thousand years -- although we are making a contribution to this process the input we are having is minute compared to other NATURAL emissions .
Volcanic eruptions are the biggest culprit -- for another example even a cows fart contains ecologically harmful emissions ( and it stinks ) now how do we limit or stop them ?

Have a good read about global warming --- you may be just a little shocked to find your government taxes are one of the main reasons why we are asked to go green

Bill

[Niki]

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and a lot of money while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.

[G.Man]

whatever we do, we are screwed, china is opening 980 new coal fired power stations this year so forget worrying about your 3.0 car..

you could change to a leccy car and you will still be pissing in the sea...

[devil]

I'm sorry, I have worked many years with the United Nations Environment Programme on matters relating to atmospheric science, so I know about what I'm talking and you are all talking nonsense.

In the first place, no scientist is talking about global warming. If you look all the way through the IPCC Report, the term is not to be found. This is an alarmist term used by the popular media. The said report is not nearly as alarmist as Al Gore and other politicians and journalists. It is based entirely on science and not the haverings of those who haven't a clue about what they are talking and that includes Tony Blair, PrezPap, GWB, Al Gore, Martin Durkin and the above members on this thread.

So, please read this IPCC Report first and, only then, we can start discussing whether man is changing the earth's climate or not and how. Until you have done this, please stop spouting forth nonsense.

Actually the truest statement in this thread is made by Bill:

I'm not convinced that man made pollutants are entirely responsible for the perceived present global warming.

If he changed the sentence slightly to
"I'm not convinced that man made pollutants are entirely responsible for the present climate change",
I would agree with this sentiment:
a) the present climate change is not "perceived", it is scientifically proven and no one has seriously disputed it
b) no one has ever said that man-made pollutants are entirely responsible for it (except politicians and journalists). In fact, the cited report, which is only a short summary, takes into account such natural forcing issues as solar radiation variations, albedo changes, cosmic radiation variability, volcanoes.

And, G.Man, if everyone pissed in the sea, would not the level rise? Actually, in the Cyprus context, the electric car is not a good idea. Just think: where does the electricity come from? Burning oil. For a given power:weight ratio, running an electric car here will generate more CO2 than running a conventional car if you look at it holistically. However, a hybrid car will about halve the emissions, compared with a conventional car.

Have a good look at this site. It may be a little old, but it states the truth about things like climate change, cars, electricity, renewables, - in the Cyprus context - the fact that Cyprus is amongst the largest per capita emitters of CO2 in the world (except for the USA, Australia, Canada and the oil-producing states), >50% higher than many W. European countries. Do you think that is something to be proud about?

I am quite willing to continue this debate on real terms. I will not reply to categorical statements like "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)" unless they are accompanied by substantiation. Nor will I discuss politics or taxation, as these are outside my remit as an atmospheric scientist and engineer.

[zan]

I'm sorry, I have worked many years with the United Nations Environment Programme on matters relating to atmospheric science, so I know about what I'm talking and you are all talking nonsense.

In the first place, no scientist is talking about global warming. If you look all the way through the IPCC Report, the term is not to be found. This is an alarmist term used by the popular media. The said report is not nearly as alarmist as Al Gore and other politicians and journalists. It is based entirely on science and not the haverings of those who haven't a clue about what they are talking and that includes Tony Blair, PrezPap, GWB, Al Gore, Martin Durkin and the above members on this thread.

So, please read this IPCC Report first and, only then, we can start discussing whether man is changing the earth's climate or not and how. Until you have done this, please stop spouting forth nonsense.

Actually the truest statement in this thread is made by Bill:

I'm not convinced that man made pollutants are entirely responsible for the perceived present global warming.

If he changed the sentence slightly to
"I'm not convinced that man made pollutants are entirely responsible for the present climate change",
I would agree with this sentiment:
a) the present climate change is not "perceived", it is scientifically proven and no one has seriously disputed it
b) no one has ever said that man-made pollutants are entirely responsible for it (except politicians and journalists). In fact, the cited report, which is only a short summary, takes into account such natural forcing issues as solar radiation variations, albedo changes, cosmic radiation variability, volcanoes.

And, G.Man, if everyone pissed in the sea, would not the level rise? Actually, in the Cyprus context, the electric car is not a good idea. Just think: where does the electricity come from? Burning oil. For a given power:weight ratio, running an electric car here will generate more CO2 than running a conventional car if you look at it holistically. However, a hybrid car will about halve the emissions, compared with a conventional car.

Have a good look at this site. It may be a little old, but it states the truth about things like climate change, cars, electricity, renewables, - in the Cyprus context - the fact that Cyprus is amongst the largest per capita emitters of CO2 in the world (except for the USA, Australia, Canada and the oil-producing states), >50% higher than many W. European countries. Do you think that is something to be proud about?

I am quite willing to continue this debate on real terms. I will not reply to categorical statements like "Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)" unless they are accompanied by substantiation. Nor will I discuss politics or taxation, as these are outside my remit as an atmospheric scientist and engineer.

Devil, what about this algae that was reported only once that has proliferated so much that it can be seen from space as great green swathes. It was only reported once as being the largest producer of green house gases and evidence of it was found to be a factor in the last ice age. Is this true.

[devil]

Zan

Can you give me a link to what you are saying, please? I cannot talk about something I'm not aware of.

Generally, green algae are green because of chlorophyll. As such, they photosynthesise carbon dioxide into more complex organic compounds, such as cellulose, carbohydrates etc., just like the leaves on a tree. They would therefore be a primary sink of CO2 and therefore reduce greenhouse gases. However, there is a big 'however': what happens at the end-of-life of the algae? This would depend on the nature of the algae. If they were a stagnant freshwater species, they would form a sludge at the bottom of the pond and a small percentage would decompose into methane, which is a powerful greenhouse gas. Whether the overall negative GHG effect from the methane would be greater or less than the positive CO2 absorption is impossible to say: it would depend on many factors. If it is deep sea algae, I can more easily surmise that the pressure at the sea bed would be such that the methane would be unlikely to be released; in fact, this is how methane clathrates are formed around the outer continental shelves. Unless man intervenes, it is very rare for the clathrates to release the methane. That having been said, I believe that there is one recorded case of a spontaneous decomposition releasing a large quantity of methane, but this is really exceptional.

However, I've spoken in generalities and I'm open to consider specific cases if you can point me to the right place.

[zan]

Devil,

I really don’t know much about this and as I say saw it only once in a documentary. I was hoping you would know. I have googled it and it seems it is the lack of this alga that is the problem but I remember it as the wrong type that was growing in its place. Sorry that is about as far as my knowledge goes.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/ ... 08,00.html



http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid ... ouse+gases

[devil]

Your first link really horrifies me. This is playing the sorcerer's apprentice to a terrible extent and is very dangerous. In actual fact, there is plenty of iron in the sea, but it is present mainly as an insoluble precipitate as hydroxide on the sea bed. The soluble iron compounds are low (typically several mg/l).

What is worse is that it would be ineffective. Do you realise how much CO2 from fossil sources we add to the atmosphere each year? About 19 billion tonnes! To absorb an extra single billion tonnes would require about a trillion tonnes of algae, or a tich carpet over every water surface on the planet. This is just plumb crazy.