Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.  (Read 4001 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline redrumloaTopic starter

  • Original Omega User
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 10126
    • Show only replies by redrumloa
Someone has to state the obvious and that someone is me!
 

Offline blobrana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 4743
    • Show only replies by blobrana
    • http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/blobrana/home.html
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2005, 02:52:09 AM »
Hum,
i also think that most ppl don’t realise that a warmer planet also means more cloud cover, that `hides` the true extent of the effects of any pollution.

" This means that the climate may in fact be more sensitive to the greenhouse effect than thought. " - from article.

The danger here is that while we cannot point to any one climatic event and say that was due to global warming - a threshold maybe reached that accelerates the frequency of these events....


Offline T_Bone

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 5124
    • Show only replies by T_Bone
    • http://www.amiga.org/userinfo.php?uid=1961
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2005, 10:16:48 AM »
 :roflmao:
this space for rent
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2005, 11:07:20 AM »
If we burn fuels which create excessive amounts of carbon particulates then this had the effect of reflecting sunlight and heat back into space, as it acts as a kind of insulator.

When Krakatoa went pop in the 19th Century, there were vaired reports of crimson skies at dawn and dusk, accompanied by a significant drop in average global temperatures which led to several crop failures.

This was because of the amount of dust ejected into the atmosphere, reflecting a significant percentage of solar radiation back into space, cooling the atmosphere of the planet and leading to all kinds of meteoroligical shenanigans.  It's also the principle behind the "nuclear winter" theory.

Right now we have a sharp rise in greenhouse gas emissions within the last century.  This is accompanied by unprecedented particulate emissions (carbon particles make great solar reflectors) hence the problem.

Solution?  If we stop emitting carbon tomorrow then the greenhouse effect might accelerate.  If we stop emitting CO2 tomorrow then global cooling might accelerate.

There's so much we don't know.  Our weather patterns are finely balanced and are co-dependant on so many factors that we can't produce an accurate model of climate change yet.  The sun is behaving oddly of late (solar radiation is increased), the ocean's plankton which process more CO2 than all the rainforests in the world put together is in decline, rainforests themselves are being cut back and we're emitting greenhouse gasses from industry, domestic heating, air travel, power generation and road/rail transport.  New Zealand is even introducing a "Fart Tax" on livestock farming to counter methane/Co2 emissions, but we aren't addressing the issues quickly enough.
Cecilia for President
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16878
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2005, 08:01:03 PM »
Quote

redrumloa wrote:
Those wacky British are at it again! Now we will all die if we stop polluting.


Either you misread it totally or the article has changed since you posted it :-)

That's not what the article says at all. It says that, due to particulate pollution reflecting solar radiation, we have yet to feel the full impact of global warming. It also states the opinion that since particulate pollution is coming under control and greenhouse gas emissions are not then the current temperature rise model has to be revised upwards.
int p; // A
 

Offline FluffyMcDeath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 3440
    • Show only replies by FluffyMcDeath
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2005, 08:23:52 PM »
Quote

redrumloa wrote:
Those wacky British are at it again! Now we will all die if we stop polluting.


Yes, it's very funny, isn't it. We have gotten to the point where we are basically pooched either way.

As to oil use, that is almost accademic since we will be out of affordable oil in a decade or two.

On the other hand, there is plenty of coal and that burns nice and dirty so we should still have a nice shroud of sulphites to keep us cool with the only downside being that they are bad for us, bad for plants, bad for the world generally.

It'll all work itself out in the end. Once we cannot sustain 6 billion people on the earth there will be a big die off and we'll get back to more sustainable levels, a few hundred million or so. It'll be fun.

But that's the choice we make. You can either live frugally for your whole life, or you can live like a king and let your kids live in the stoneage.
 

Offline Wilse

Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2005, 08:59:05 PM »
Don't talk to me about 'so-called' global warming.

We haven't had decent snow for four years (and that was a blip), while it used to pretty much guaranteed.

Still have my fingers crossed for this year though.

Offline KennyR

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Mar 2002
  • Posts: 8081
    • Show only replies by KennyR
    • http://wrongpla.net
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2005, 09:06:34 PM »
Quote
Wilse wrote:
We haven't had decent snow for four years (and that was a blip), while it used to pretty much guaranteed.


Don't forget we had a storm last week with wind gusts that could have matched something that hit Florida last year. I don't know about you, but I remember January as actually being cold. And not having hurricanes.
 

Offline redrumloaTopic starter

  • Original Omega User
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 10126
    • Show only replies by redrumloa
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2005, 10:02:15 PM »
Quote

Karlos wrote:
Either you misread it totally or the article has changed since you posted it :-)


Nope! Reread it. Buring coal, wood etc is causing global dimming, a cooling effect. They say this cooling effect is offsetting the so called global warming. IE if we stop using fossil fuels, the climate will really heat up.
Someone has to state the obvious and that someone is me!
 

Offline Speelgoedmannetje

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2002
  • Posts: 9656
    • Show only replies by Speelgoedmannetje
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2005, 10:10:02 PM »
Cooler?
well, not cool enough
wetter?
sure
more moderate (as in, less warm and less cool, more in-between)?
sure
And the canary said: \'chirp\'
 

Offline zudobug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 914
    • Show only replies by zudobug
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #10 on: January 14, 2005, 10:18:27 PM »
Are we "wacky" because we don't just dismiss this stuff?

Some info I just read from the dimming faq:

Quote
What's the range in the figures on global dimming? Is there a consensus or are they as open to interpretation as global warming figures?
I don't think the figures on global warming are open to interpretation. It is an established fact that global temperatures have risen by 0.6°C over the past century. It is also an established fact that carbon dioxide levels have risen by about 100 parts per million over the same period due to human activity. It is a matter of the basic laws of physics that an increase in carbon dioxide will trap more heat in the Earth's atmosphere, which is why almost no respectable and independent scientist doubts the causal link between these two established facts.

The only surprise is that the warming has not been greater - which is where global dimming comes in. Unfortunately, there is still a very large range in the estimates of the cooling effect of dimming - by up to a factor of four. What seems to have been established already, however, is that the cooling effect of dimming is far larger than previously thought. This may explain why the world has not already warmed more strongly - the cooling effect of particle pollution has been offsetting the warming from carbon dioxide. If so, then we are in for far faster warming in the future as particle emissions are brought under control while greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise.


I think this doesn't mean "if we stop using fossil fuels, the climate will really heat up".. If I am interpreting this correctly it means if we reduce particle emissions but continue using up fossil fuels, the climate will really heat up. So the best thing to do is reduce all emissions.

Thats probably a good idea regardless of whether this current theory is correct. On that:

Quote
Are scientists often sceptical of findings that go against the current orthodoxy?
Yes, for good reason - usually the orthodoxy is correct. A famous physicist once told me that if you doubt every new idea in science you will be right 90% of the time, but you will be wrong the only time it matters.


-zudo
Realtime amiga.org chatting on irc.synirc.net - #amiga.org and #coffeehouse
 

Offline FluffyMcDeath

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jun 2002
  • Posts: 3440
    • Show only replies by FluffyMcDeath
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2005, 11:42:25 PM »
Quote

zudobug wrote:
So the best thing to do is reduce all emissions.


Back in the seventies we didn't have emmissions.
Back then we had good old fashioned pollution. Why the change? Polluters don't like being called what they are. They like to be emitters so they can continue to pollute but sound nicer. It's still pollution.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16878
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2005, 11:57:18 PM »
Quote

redrumloa wrote:
Quote

Karlos wrote:
Either you misread it totally or the article has changed since you posted it :-)


Nope! Reread it. Buring coal, wood etc is causing global dimming, a cooling effect. They say this cooling effect is offsetting the so called global warming. IE if we stop using fossil fuels, the climate will really heat up.


Your first post made it appear is if you meant "burning fossil fuels does not cause global warming".

This is not true, nor does the article suggest it is.

I read it as follows

1) Burning fossil fuels produces CO2 -> greenhouse effect -> global warming

2) Burning fossil fuels produces particulate pollution -> dimming effect -> cooling

Now the article says that currently the (2) seems to counterbalance (1).

However, particle emission is being brought under control faster than C02 emission. Therefore unless we curb C02 emissions *as well as* particle emissions, we can expect the global warming effect to be worse than previously predicted.
int p; // A
 

Offline zudobug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 914
    • Show only replies by zudobug
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2005, 12:28:27 AM »
Related news:

U.S. faces global warming suit [Reuters]

Quote
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Green lobbyists and several U.S. cities hope a lawsuit against U.S. development agencies will force the government to act on global warming, even though President George W. Bush has long insisted there's no scientific proof linking human activity to warming.

Environmental lawyers say the suit will be closely watched as lawsuits against utilities and the government tied to global warming increase. Last July, for example, eight U.S. states and New York City sued five U.S. power companies, accusing them of stoking climate change.

"Any court that rules that global warming is a problem that needs to be addressed, just that headline, would be huge for the people trying to do something about global warming," said Pat Parenteau, a professor at Vermont Law School's Environmental Law Centre.


One to keep an eye on.

-zudo
Realtime amiga.org chatting on irc.synirc.net - #amiga.org and #coffeehouse
 

Offline zudobug

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2002
  • Posts: 914
    • Show only replies by zudobug
Re: Burning fossil fuels has opposite effect on so called Global Warming.
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2005, 07:36:37 PM »
UK Peeps,

The Horizon about global dimming is on tonight, 8:10pm - 9:00pm BBC2

-zudo
Realtime amiga.org chatting on irc.synirc.net - #amiga.org and #coffeehouse