Global Warming

[Headbanger]

O.K Here's one for you: We all agree the world's weather is getting more extreme. Traditional "wisdom" says it's all due to pollution,so we have to pay taxes on our fuel bills. It's a massive con. The planet is getting warmer BECAUSE we are reducing pollution, so more of the sun's rays reach us. The real cause of "global warming" is the massive deforestation happening throughout the world. The more trees we cut down, the more extreme weather we get - simples!.The politicians won't admit it though because of economic interests.

[Hopkirk]

"The planet is getting warmer BECAUSE we are reducing pollution"

Utter tosh

[Headbanger]

Surely if the atmosphere above us is purer, more of the sun's rays will get through.
In the bad old days of smog etc, less of the sun's rays got through, and the Thames froze over.

[Canary42]

Smog and Thames freezing over were NOT in the same period.

[jim360]

I suppose that means you would advocate a return to choking in smog-like conditions? Surely not.

The "real cause" of global warming is, in fact, a number of factors. 2015 was the warmest on record (most likely) by a decent margin, attributable to human activity mixing with the effects of a strong El Nino. Human activity can cover a whole host of factors, each on their own complex enough without considering the effects of their mixing. At any rate, greater pollution is unlikely to help matters.

[Zacs-Master]

'Surely if the atmosphere above us is purer, more of the sun's rays will get through'

I suggest you do a it of research headbanger, before you discredit your intellect totally.

[Zacs-Master]

Bit

[Headbanger]

Sorry Canary..history never was my strong point, but didn't it coincide roughly with the industrial revolution (17th to 19th century.) No, of course I don't advocate going back to the bad old days. I want my grandchidren to grow up in an unpolluted world. My point was, as Jim says, there's many factors at stake, but I strongly believe that it suits governments to emphasise the pollution factor, whilst conveniently overlooking the effects of deforestation.

[jim360]

Well, certainly regardless of where you stand on the climate change issue, it's clear that politics gets tangled into the thing. That is probably what puts people off taking the scientific consensus seriously, suspecting financial and political motives for pushing an agenda.

Deforestation is also important, and harder to deal with. Our vegetarian friends (I am an unashamed carnivore myself) would also argue that our demand for meat also drives things forward, cows being notorious emitters of methane (not to mention yet more deforestation to clear land for larger farms). Both contributions are easy to overlook due to political pressures, there's no doubt about that.

All the same, the primary drive to the human contribution to climate change is the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

[EDDIE51]

Headbanger .The Thames froze over due to a major cooling of the world's climate called 'the little ice age' which lasted for over 200 years.
Smog was a phenomena of the 1950 s caused by burning huge quantities of high Sulphur coal. The 2 events were over 200 years apart and in no way connected.

[EDDIE51]

When winter really was winter,the 'Little Ice Age'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/when-winter-really-was-winter-the-last-of-the-london-frost-fairs-9100338.html
It ended 200 years ago after lasting from the 1700 s.
Smog was due to not being able to afford to import high quality coal due to post war finances , so we burned the cheap but dirty high Sulphur UK coal with disastrous results.

[Headbanger]

I posted this in response to the "where are all the Chatterbankers" post. I read an article in the Mail, by a respected scientist, expressing a similar sentiment. I accept that my Thames remark was incorrect. It's difficult to research a subject when there are is much conflicting information on the internet.

[atalanta]

Imagine a country with very few mineral resources, but heavily covered in thick forests. If wood is its only export, who are we to stop its citizens from cutting down trees and exporting wood ? Are we to tell them they must stop using their main asset, and live in penury instead ? If deforestation in some countries is causing such a difference, how are people living in other countries supposed to stop it, anyway ? Subsidise a whole country in order to prevent them using this asset ? Really ?

[New Judge]

The last time the Thames in London froze over to any significant degree (and the last time a Frost Fair” was held on its frozen surface) was in 1814. It is true that the climate was becoming milder but it is unlikely that it would freeze today even in the same temperatures because the Thames is much faster flowing today than then. This is due to it being narrower, thanks to the building of the various Embankments. Also the demolition of the old London Bridge, which had many piers, has freed up the river’s flow.

The worst “Smog” in London occurred in 1952. From December 51 to March 52 the sun was scarcely seen due to a high pressure system over the UK which trapped low cloud and soot particles at low level. This situation was not a product solely of the weather but at that time virtually all energy was obtained by burning coal. It was estimated to have caused around 12,000 deaths in London alone.

And that’s all I’m contributing to this question :-)

[atalanta]

headbanger - if you think we are reducing pollution, try Shanghai.
Vast areas elsewhere in the Far East are just as dangerously polluted.

[jno]

smog goes back centuries, especially in London. They've only just managed to scrape all the grime off St Paul's that it accumulated since it was built about 1700. It had the entire industrial revolution to get dirty, and so did people's lungs.

http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/londons-historic-pea-soupers