Global warming??

Did anyone see the Channel 4 documentary on Thursday night ?-the main gist of it seemed to be that it isnt human CO2 production that is causing GW but fluctuations in the Suns output-the amount of human produced CO2 is tiny compared to that which comes from the oceans,trees,decaying vegetation,and animal ""gases"".

They showed a sequence from Al Gores ""an inconvenient truth"" where he correlates the CO2 in ice bore samples with times of GW in the past-but according to this programme,the increase in the CO2 lags behind the warming,i.e implying that it was the warming that was triggering the increased CO2 and not vice versa!

I must admit its got me thinking,are we barking up the wrong tree on this one?

Anyone care to throw in some opinions??


7 Replies

  • I didn't see it, but did see something in the paper about one of the scientists threatening to sue because what he said was taken totally out of context & he does actually believe humans are responsible.

  • I prefer the wording 'Climate Change'!

    We could experience extremes of weather not just a general overal warming.


  • It seemed to be a very logical argument, supported by what looked like very credible evidence. I have long suspected the 'global warming theory' as bandwagon political propaganda. Did you know that China erect a new coal power station at the rate of 1 per week, acccording to a recent programme. Rather puts the recycling issue into perspective if that's the case. Not that I think we shouldn't recycle. I think we should recycle and take care of our planet and act like responsible human beings. (climbs down from soapbox!)

  • Ah, Al Gore. According to his state power board, his ranch uses in two weeks the same amount of gas and electricity as the average family uses in a year.

    Climate change? Well, there was an ice age without our help, so I doubt there's very much we can do about whatever is happening now.

  • I dont think that there is anything wrong with a bit of querying of events-it certainly doesnt do any harm to use low energy bulbs etc-after all it is saving you money,and reducing pollution isnt a bad idea in the big scheme of things-but it shows how""the media"" will quite happily push one idea-that documentary was the first time I had seen anything opposing the prevaling view of the CO2/Climate change debate.

  • I watched this programme and found it quite interesting from a what came first - the chicken or the egg theory? In other words does CO2 drive climate warming, or is it the other way round, whether global warming is caused by sunspot activity, and/or ‘The Chilling Stars’- sounds far fetched but just plausible – to temperature causing a rise in CO2. as ‘evidenced’ by temperature rises in the first part of the twentieth century, before the large output of CO2 during the economic boom of 1940 -1970 (when temperatures actually fell). However what caused the warming from 1900 -1040?

    Whether global warming can be attributed to climate change or not, - and I believe that climate changes are mostly responsible for global warming- we only need one biggish volcanic eruption to send us all into a state of global cooling!

  • Unfortunately I did not see the programme, but I would offer the following observations (as he puts on his Friends of the Earth recycled wig)

    To get a clearer understanding of global warming I would say that it is easier to split CO2 generation into two types, namely; natural CO2 generation and manmade CO2 generation.

    Natural CO2 generation from living and decaying materials (i.e. which can be found all around us but it is concentrated in the world’s rain forests), increases at a constant rate (relatively speaking) with rises in temperature. The more sunlight plants are exposed to the greater the rate of photosynthesis and the greater the CO2 generation.

    The upper atmosphere (stratosphere) comprises a layer of CO2 (amongst other gases) derived from naturally emitted CO2 which has accumulated over time (millions of years). The CO2 acting rather like loft insulation retains heat and creates so-called global warming. I would say that over millions of years the planet has eventually found a natural equilibrium (relatively speaking) that best supports life (plants and animals).

    On the other hand, manmade CO2 generation from fossil fuel burning power stations, fossil fuel powered industry, fossil fuel powered transport, fossil fuel powered heating systems in our homes, etc, etc., has increased at an accelerated rate since the 1900s and continues to increase year on year thereby contributing to the CO2 layer and subsequent increases in global temperature. It’s extremely difficult to get a clear “cause and effect” understanding on the impact of CO2 emissions because the effects of increased CO2 emissions are not seen for many years after the proverbial candle has been extinguished.

    There is little that can be done to reduce naturally emitted CO2 but we can (but only with global involvement) do much to reduce the continuing trend of accelerated manmade CO2 generation. The UK only contributes something like 1% to the world’s manmade CO2 generation, so therefore, massively reducing CO2 emissions in the UK will only have a negligible affect on global warming. With the rate of industrial growth in China estimated to be in the order of 10% per year (ignoring industrial growth in Asia) it becomes clear that the UKs efforts may well have zero impact on global warming as this will be greatly overshadowed by the shear size of emerging industries (CO2 producers) in other distant parts of the world.

    Yes, it can be argued that we have a moral obligation to lead the world in CO2 reductions (being the former British Empire and former world leading industrialists) but at what cost? Or can it be argued that environmental protection is priceless and we cannot turn our back on Mother Nature when she needs us most. Perhaps another fitting example of a friend in need…

    I mean, what have we got to lose, what will be the “payback” of doing nothing. Eh.., let me see – London may be underwater by the end of the century (although some would argue that wouldn’t be such a bad thing), and many many low lying towns and cities perched on former flood plains, seaside towns, river bank towns & cities will all be washed away. But hey, who cares – I certainly won’t be around to wave my flag when London is washed away.

    I’ll leave you to make up your own mind.


    (stepping down from recycled soapbox)

You may also like...