Global warming, an alternative view

Agrivator

Member
Scroll down a bit. What do you think?


1629224058391.jpeg
 

gatepost

Member
Location
Cotswolds
Interesting read, would be interested in hearing a peer review, I just don't know what to think, Certainly there is change afoot, but I do wonder if it is a case of human arrogance to suggest we have had that big an effect.
 
Interesting read, would be interested in hearing a peer review, I just don't know what to think, Certainly there is change afoot, but I do wonder if it is a case of human arrogance to suggest we have had that big an effect.

No how can engines running over huge areas of the Earth's surface have an effect over a hundred years & aeroplanes, power stations, factories etc. It is all lies.

It is also a proven fact that a self propelled forage actually removes CO2 from the air. I saw in on tomorrows world, shortly after Class produced the first Jaguar.
 

C.J

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
South Devon
Yes water vapour is the biggest cause of the green house effect and the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without it.

The above article attributes 25 of the 33 degrees to water vapour so about 76 % .

NASA use the figure of 75% but they do like to ignore clouds and water vapour and only talk about greenhouse gases.

However NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute) have now realised that the computer climate models are running too hot - they have overestimated the warming due to CO2 and underestimated natural causes.

So it is very likely that water vapour is responsible for more than 75% - this diagram suggests 95%

1629233280875.png
 

Turnip

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Aberdeenshire
Good price for armco barrier, isn't it?

C Gibson-Smith might be independent but certainly not unbiased. As @gatepost mentions is the article peer reviewed, and where is the paper that is being quoted from? Without source material linked this is just a fluff opinion piece, and the are like arseholes, everyone has one.
 
Ask yourself what are they trying to sell. Gibson Smith is former head of BP, BP sells fossil fuels, of course he will try to bamboozle people with outdated and discredited theories.


With £Trillions in the Oil Industry, £Trillions in the Energy industry and £Trillions in the food industry.

Do you seriously think Climate Change Policy is about pollution ?

It's all about moving lots and lots and lots of money into the pockets of a very small number of people at the expense of everyone else - who just so happen to be MPs and ex MPs.

Like Lord Deben.
 

Turnip

Member
Mixed Farmer
Location
Aberdeenshire
Yes water vapour is the biggest cause of the green house effect and the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without it.

The above article attributes 25 of the 33 degrees to water vapour so about 76 % .

NASA use the figure of 75% but they do like to ignore clouds and water vapour and only talk about greenhouse gases.

However NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute) have now realised that the computer climate models are running too hot - they have overestimated the warming due to CO2 and underestimated natural causes.

So it is very likely that water vapour is responsible for more than 75% - this diagram suggests 95%

View attachment 980361
Interesting, have you got a source for this as I would love to read more.
 

C.J

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
South Devon
Interesting, have you got a source for this as I would love to read more.
The 33 degrees is not disputed by either side of the AGW v Natural warming debate - the only arguments are how much is water vapour+clouds vs green house gases and how much of each are man made.

So without the greenhouse effect the global average would be - 18C instead of the current +15C.
UK average is about +10C so without any greenhouse effect would be -23C




1629239079307.png
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Yes water vapour is the biggest cause of the green house effect and the planet would be 33 degrees cooler without it.

The above article attributes 25 of the 33 degrees to water vapour so about 76 % .

NASA use the figure of 75% but they do like to ignore clouds and water vapour and only talk about greenhouse gases.

However NASA (Gavin Schmidt of the Goddard Institute) have now realised that the computer climate models are running too hot - they have overestimated the warming due to CO2 and underestimated natural causes.

So it is very likely that water vapour is responsible for more than 75% - this diagram suggests 95%

View attachment 980361
Increasing CO2 increases water vapour
 

Gong Farmer

Member
BASIS
Location
S E Glos
I've seen the comment elsewhere that if, say, the IPCC got their way and the world started seriously reducing CO2 emissions, after 10 years of effort, two or three volcanic eruptions would negate it all.
 

C.J

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
South Devon
Increasing CO2 increases water vapour
Chicken and Egg - which came first ?


Al gore famously produced a graph of the vostok ice core samples showing temperature and CO2 both rise during an interglacial and fall during an ice age.

What he conveniently omitted to explain was that CO2 lagged temperature by 600-800 years.

So when the atmosphere warms ,it is capable of holding more water vapour and as the seas warm more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.
 

C.J

Member
Livestock Farmer
Location
South Devon
I've seen the comment elsewhere that if, say, the IPCC got their way and the world started seriously reducing CO2 emissions, after 10 years of effort, two or three volcanic eruptions would negate it all.

The current CO2 at Mauna Loa is 414.77 ppm increasing by about 2 ppm /year


1629269288726.png




How much of this 2ppm is man made and how much is natural ? 3% is man made 97% is natural.



1629269867668.png
 

No wot

Member
Chicken and Egg - which came first ?


Al gore famously produced a graph of the vostok ice core samples showing temperature and CO2 both rise during an interglacial and fall during an ice age.

What he conveniently omitted to explain was that CO2 lagged temperature by 600-800 years.

So when the atmosphere warms ,it is capable of holding more water vapour and as the seas warm more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.
Screenshot_20210730-161736_Facebook.jpg
 

Yale

Member
Livestock Farmer
Even the scientists don’t know for sure.

There are a lot more bigger factors which control global temps,even mitigating CO2 levels.

Climate has always changed,it’s just become a stick for politicians to beat populations with.

Energy conservation is a far better goal.
 

Bogweevil

Member
With £Trillions in the Oil Industry, £Trillions in the Energy industry and £Trillions in the food industry.

Do you seriously think Climate Change Policy is about pollution ?

It's all about moving lots and lots and lots of money into the pockets of a very small number of people at the expense of everyone else - who just so happen to be MPs and ex MPs.

Like Lord Deben.

No I think climate change is about the warming of the planet caused by human activity. I don't think transferring money generates greenhouse gases, although mining bitcoin often does.
 

linga

Member
Location
Ceredigion
Chicken and Egg - which came first ?


Al gore famously produced a graph of the vostok ice core samples showing temperature and CO2 both rise during an interglacial and fall during an ice age.

What he conveniently omitted to explain was that CO2 lagged temperature by 600-800 years.

So when the atmosphere warms ,it is capable of holding more water vapour and as the seas warm more CO2 is released in to the atmosphere.
Do they not call this a feedback loop ?
The atmosphere warms because it retains more heat than before.
The question is why and people have different views but that it is happening there is no doubt
 

SFI - What % were you taking out of production?

  • 0 %

    Votes: 78 43.1%
  • Up to 25%

    Votes: 63 34.8%
  • 25-50%

    Votes: 30 16.6%
  • 50-75%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 75-100%

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • 100% I’ve had enough of farming!

    Votes: 4 2.2%

Red Tractor drops launch of green farming scheme amid anger from farmers

  • 1,286
  • 1
As reported in Independent


quote: “Red Tractor has confirmed it is dropping plans to launch its green farming assurance standard in April“

read the TFF thread here: https://thefarmingforum.co.uk/index.php?threads/gfc-was-to-go-ahead-now-not-going-ahead.405234/
Top