The number of flumes over the Burnley area this morning was diabolical. Must be a case for green forumites to set an example, write to their MPs, and call a stop to aviation expansion. The sky would have been cloudless save the pollution.
The number of flumes over the Burnley area this morning was diabolical. Must be a case for green forumites to set an example, write to their MPs, and call a stop to aviation expansion. The sky would have been cloudless save the pollution.
Contrails could be a significant issue and one not yet focussed on with everyone getting worked up about CO2. People on the Eastern Seaboard of USA were astonished to see how clear the sky could be the day after 9/11 when all flights were grounded. In clear weather conditions, the ice crystals tend to spread and coalesce forming a thin veil of very high cloud. This probably contributes more to global warming han CO2
Simon Blease
Monmouth
9/11 provided a unique opportunity for some environmental scientists to assess the true effects of contrails over the New York region. Basically temperatures immediately jumped. This relates to Global Dimming - the loss of sunlight hitting the ground due to pollution effects from NOx and other particles which cause cloud formation. The clouds then reflect the sunlight. In a way this mitigates global warming except in reality it adds to the ticking bomb, especially as the pollution activities also produce greenhouse gases. The atmosphere is pretty complex chemistry!
Feb 1916 was a good bit warmer than this year, why when we had no cars and no jet aircraft. Nothing to do with the solar activity--perish the thought!
Sorry, I thought it said flames. I was going to say it was the fans burning their season tickets!Originally Posted by Deek
Particularly around Verdun, where it was postively balmy. Fair bit of mud as well.
Well, adding fuel to RobG's geeky thread, I've just finished reading "Atmospheric Processes and Systems" (Russell Thompson; Routledge) which does a good job at explaining what the title suggests, and am currently into "The Great Ice Age" (Wilson, Drury & Chapman; Routledge) which looks at non-human causes of climatic change. First books a bit heavy and disjoint towards the latter half but can recommend both books.
And yes, it is rather involved as dungbeetle says but I reckon reading up on the science gives a great insight into the political, populist bollocks which is sprouted. After all, who believes Blair et al would have given a monkey's if it hadn't become so much in the public domain?
(Mind, do you know how much methane the average dungbeetle produces during an average AM race? Scary)
...there's a hill nearby missing its fool...
Roger all that Stick!
Don't worry Stick I'm not influenced by Blair pseudo nonsense! He problably thinks god will save us..... In contrast I base my opinion on the peer reviewed science. Climate change is indeed a natural process. Just over 10,000 years and the ice sheets had only just receded from my neck of the woods. And as toddie states solar activity has a role to play, though the solar activity scientists find their models do not fit the last 20 years of temperature change due to anthropengenic affects - e.g. us! A point missed when climate sceptics quote this science. As a scientist type I am under no doudts that industrial pollutants, CO2, and Methane (especially from billions of farting cows,) are significantly altering natural cycles. Dungbeetles help in this cycle since we use the end of product of the cows to good effect!!
The good news is chemistry is not irreversible (as quoted) - we just need to be more sensible in how we use resources and travel. For my small tiny insignificant part I intend to avoid flying. Many small tiny efforts cause change...............
I was going to stop flying as well. Do you think its manageable? Its a bit to do with keeping up with the Jones's. When you go into work and have to admit to going to Scotland rather than the Maldives they think somethings up with you. It needs a cultural shift.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote