A leading economist has labelled Global Warming as one of the largest threats to the world economy over the next 100 years.
"Analysts said that they expect the Stern Review to argue that economists have under-estimated the costs that climate change will impose and over-estimated the costs of cutting emissions."
From BBC news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm
Originally posted by scottishinnzDon't worry, God will clean up the pollution.
A leading economist has labelled Global Warming as one of the largest threats to the world economy over the next 100 years.
"Analysts said that they expect the Stern Review to argue that economists have under-estimated the costs that climate change will impose and over-estimated the costs of cutting emissions."
From BBC news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe globe is getting warmer, but how do we know the cause? It could be pollution, or it could be the heat source (the sun) getting hotter.
A leading economist has labelled Global Warming as one of the largest threats to the world economy over the next 100 years.
"Analysts said that they expect the Stern Review to argue that economists have under-estimated the costs that climate change will impose and over-estimated the costs of cutting emissions."
From BBC news website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6093396.stm
If it is the sun, this is undoubtedly going to have a dramatic effect.
Pollution could also be the cause, but the effect of this seems less likely to be significant because it just goes a few miles up and percentages of pollution/air are so incredibly small.
First we need to find out if the sun is getting hotter. It can't be that difficult.
Originally posted by twiceaknightPolution actually makes the climate cooler as the sun's rays are partially obscured. This has been demonstrated by the rise in temperatures over the USA in the days following 9/11, when airline flights were suspended. The fact that polution and ozone depletion counteract each other has masked the seriousness of ozone depletion.
The globe is getting warmer, but how do we know the cause? It could be pollution, or it could be the heat source (the sun) getting hotter.
If it is the sun, this is undoubtedly going to have a dramatic effect.
Pollution could also be the cause, but the effect of this seems less likely to be significant because it just goes a few miles up and percent ...[text shortened]... y small.
First we need to find out if the sun is getting hotter. It can't be that difficult.
Originally posted by ValmoreWell, that's exactly my point. If it's the sun there is nothing we can do so we don't need to worry about creating pollution. We can just carry on living how we want and not feel bad about it because it's not our fault and there is nothing we can do anyway.
yep - and then what? Build giant fans!
Don't worry, we'll all die anyway.
Originally posted by Ian68Ozone depletion? I thought ozone stopped UV rays that cause cancer. Thats not heat, it's light. I thought it was greenhouse gasses that were supposedly making the atmosphere heat up.
Polution actually makes the climate cooler as the sun's rays are partially obscured. This has been demonstrated by the rise in temperatures over the USA in the days following 9/11, when airline flights were suspended. The fact that polution and ozone depletion counteract each other has masked the seriousness of ozone depletion.
Originally posted by twiceaknightSorry, you're right. UV radiation does not cause any significant warming. Other gases allow other forms of solar radiation to reach the earth's surface but prevent it being reflected back into space, which causes the bulk of the warming. However, it still applies that many forms of pollution mask this by reducing the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.
Ozone depletion? I thought ozone stopped UV rays that cause cancer. Thats not heat, it's light. I thought it was greenhouse gasses that were supposedly making the atmosphere heat up.
Originally posted by Ian68That's right - you are right and every climate scientist on the planet is wrong. What you apparently don't realise is that the wavelengths of light hitting the planet and those being re-emitted are on different wavelengths. The emitted radiation is in the IR spectrum, which CO2 absorbs, causing heat retention.
Polution actually makes the climate cooler as the sun's rays are partially obscured. This has been demonstrated by the rise in temperatures over the USA in the days following 9/11, when airline flights were suspended. The fact that polution and ozone depletion counteract each other has masked the seriousness of ozone depletion.
Originally posted by scottishinnzIf you had read the whole thread, including my later rewording of my point, you will see I said the same thing. But that does not alter the fact that some polution reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.
That's right - you are right and every climate scientist on the planet is wrong. What you apparently don't realise is that the wavelengths of light hitting the planet and those being re-emitted are on different wavelengths. The emitted radiation is in the IR spectrum, which CO2 absorbs, causing heat retention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Originally posted by Ian68Global dimming is a phenomenon associated with particulate matter (i.e. dust, soot etc) in the atmosphere, and has nothing to do with CO2 partial pressures.
If you had read the whole thread, including my later rewording of my point, you will see I said the same thing. But that does not alter the fact that some polution reduces the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth's surface.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd what has led to the increase in this particulate matter during the industrial age? It wouldn't be polution would it?
Global dimming is a phenomenon associated with particulate matter (i.e. dust, soot etc) in the atmosphere, and has nothing to do with CO2 partial pressures.
You seem to be trying to use polution solely as a term for greenhouse gases, when in fact they are a few specific gases but polution takes many forms.
Originally posted by Ian68Indeed, but do remember you were the one to bring the term "pollution" into this debate. Don't worry - I understand the problem admirably - I lecture on it at University level. Sure, increased albedo effect may, everything else being equal, result in global cooling, but all other things are not equal are they? Since 1750 the atmospheric CO2 concentration has went up from 280 ppm to 381 ppm (last year - this years figures are not available yet), a rise of 36%. If we look at the long term record, let's say from the EPICA or Vostoc ice cores (Vostoc goes back 420,000 years, EPICA 700,000), we see an excellent correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global temperature (as extrapolated from the 18O concentration of the ice). All throughout those 700,000 years, it should be mentioned, the CO2 concentration NEVER exceeded 300 ppm - until now.
And what has led to the increase in this particulate matter during the industrial age? It wouldn't be polution would it?
You seem to be trying to use polution solely as a term for greenhouse gases, when in fact they are a few specific gases but polution takes many forms.
By bringing in any global cooling through increased albedo effects you are doing the equivalent of worrying about your untied shoelace whilst a high speed train hurtles towards you.
1 edit
The reason I brought up the cooling effect of global dimming is because a lot of people dismiss the extent of global warming as negligible. In doing this they fail to understand that there has been another phenomenon hiding the true extent. This is especially critical now, as recent advances in so called 'clean fuels' are reducing global dimming but not global warming.