A few years ago the Met Office - a leading organisation in the CO2-global warming field, published a 'brochure' which showed 11 or 12 major effects on the global temperature. One of these was known to a 'high' level of confidence - that of CO2.
Four of the effects were stated to be known only to a 'very low' level of scientific understanding. One of these was atmospheric dust, and was shown IIRC with a huge error band.
Recent work now shows that ocean temperature is greatly affected by this atmospehric dust, implying that while the CO2 effect may be known with a high level of understanding, it might not be the major player.
Not mentioned in the graph were things like sunspots. The next solar cycle is about two years overdue, and lack of sunspots is thought to be associated with a cooling planet.
Erm... CO2 is absorbed by plants in a process called photosynthesis from the air. Unlikely to run out of CO2 if dead wood stopped rotting, the theme of this thread being to much CO2 in the air. Nutrients are absorbed by plant roots by a process called osmosis.
Quite and these days most bags bio-degrade within a year or two on the surafce and faster actually buried. Even in the cool, dry and dark they start to fall aprt after a few years. Now old bags say ones older than 10 years, they hang about for a very long time.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:04:23 +0100 someone who may be Terry Fields wrote this:-
"?It?s the sun, stupid?"
"Objection: The sun is the source of warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is likely due to changes in solar radiation.
"Answer: It's true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation, so if the temperature is going up or down, the sun is a reasonable place to seek the cause.
"Turns out it's more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. Detectors on the ground are susceptible to all kinds of interference from the atmosphere -- after all, one cloud passing overhead can cause a shiver on an otherwise warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the output of the sun -- versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface through clouds, smoke, dust, or pollution -- is by taking readings from space.
"This is a job for satellites. According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.
"There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century, which coincides with the warming from around 1900 until the
1940s. It's not enough to explain all the warming from those years, but it is responsible for a large portion. See this chart of observed temperature, modeled temperature, and variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.
"RealClimate has a couple of detailed discussions on what we can conclude about solar forcing and how science reached those conclusions. Read them here and here."
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:34:17 +0100 someone who may be Big Les Wade wrote this:-
Things like .
I would want to see what he actually said, rather than relying on claims of what he said.
What he may well have said is something rather different, that plastic bags are not the only source of plastic pollution or even the worst source. As the old saying goes, the longest journey starts with a single step.
On 15 Apr 2009 08:03:37 GMT someone who may be andrew@a20 (Andrew Gabriel) wrote this:-
Indeed. The world has remained stable for at least 650,000 years (the last time I checked, some time ago, as far back as we could then measure). That does not mean that carbon dioxide levels have stayed the same for that period, they have varied, but they have varied between limits. We have now gone outwith those limits.
The graph at
shows this, though that graph goes back only about 450,000 years. IIRC An Inconvenient Truth has a graph going back 650,000 years.
I'm not sure what you are saying, but the plastic bag restrictions in Ireland have had an immense effect on the appearance of the place, particularly in the countryside. I for one am very grateful.
On Wed, 15 Apr 2009 10:39:57 +0100 (BST) someone who may be "Dave Liquorice" wrote this:-
There are two sorts of bags, degradeable and bio-degradeable, which the manufacturers would like the public to confuse.
The first sort are standard plastic bags, with even more chemicals added to them to make them fall to bits more quickly. However, they do not break down in the sense of a chemical reaction, they just fall into ever smaller pieces.
Bio-degradeable bags break down by chemical reactions. Provided they are composted this happens in conditions where there is air. If they are dumped in landfill sites then they break down in the absence of air and a different and worse set of reactions take place which increase greenhouse gas emissions.
As the major greenhouse gas is water it would appear obvious that investigations into removing it should be made. However it is not included in any of the "official" figures as it is regarded as natural. I would have thought that burning some dirty fuels like coal and putting out lots of dust would remove lots of water vapour from the atmosphere and would reduce GW. In fact hasn't a lot of the temp rise been since we stopped burning dirty fuels?
In the aromatic garden of alkanes A butterfly drifts by with translucent wings Made entirely Out of polyethylene terephthalate. While, lit by paraffin wax candles, we pass on to our destiny.
The obvious solution is to reclassify the woodland between the carriageways as no longer being part of the motorway, thus reducing the number of motorway deaths caused by tree impacts.
Motorway crash barriers (also known as safety barriers) are designed to prevent vehicles from crossing from one carriageway to the other and to prevent vehicles from impacting or entering roadside hazards. The barriers are also intended to absorb some of the energy from the impact caused by the vehicle striking it and to redirect the vehicle along the line of the barrier so that it does not turn around, turn over or re-enter the stream of traffic.
I would call a tree a roadside hazard in this case.
The solution Dennis came up with would need two crash barriers. One either side of the trees.
Adam
PS Crash barriers do work. I hit one at 70MPH on the M5.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.