Posted By Paul Leadbetter Prads The sun is very hot and so the incoming radiation has a short wavelength and is able to pass through the atmosphere. The incoming radiation is absorbed by the earth but is then radiated by it at a longer wavelength (because the earth is at a much lower temperature than the sun). This longer wavelength radiation is then absorbed by the greenhouse gases (water vapour, methane, nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, etc.) in the atmosphere which makes those molecules move faster; this increased energy is then dissipated to other molecules by collision and so the whole atmosphere gets gradually warmer. Volcanic eruptions are very hot and so some of that radiation may pass through the atmosphere because it is a shorter wavelength (but not as short as the incoming solar radiation); I am not sure about the radiation from fires. Of course, in both these cases, there will be direct heating of the atmosphere but I have no idea of their contribution to atmospheric warming. Paul

Posted By J Knight I think it is only fair to point out that the paper in the second link dates from 1998, and that the site was founded by a man who spent his working life as a ship's officer. For an explanation given by climatologists look at the Met Office website, John

Posted By John Richards Number one: There is no evidence at all that CO2 is leading to global warming (sorry, since it isn't warming they've changed it to climate change) There is plenty of evidence that higher CO2 levels are increasing crop yields though (CO2 is plant food....yes: Really !) As for the met office....they cannot even get it right for next week....and they want us to believe that they can get it right in 2100 ? Face it, the average climate scientist has become a political and economic prostitute. Science has departed from the back door to let in money and ego (even the met offices giant new super-duper number cruncher cannot get it right for NOW, never mind in 50 years time) By the IPCC numbers the temperature should be at least 3 degrees C higher than it is.... It is what you get when you pay low-level scientists vast amounts of money to do poor science, badly. Here, have a read of the anti-green blogspot....better than friends-of-the-earth-but-not-peoples website: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/

Posted By IOSH Moderator All, You quickly need to make this discussion relevant to "workplace environmental issues" rather than global issues otherwise AUG 1 beckons. Other platforms and forums exist for arguing over the science. Regards Jon

Posted By J Knight I repeat, if you want to read what climatologists say about the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere, read the met office website. Climate change has become a political football, sadly, but there is some good credible science at the back of it, John

Posted By J Knight Colin, Greenhouse effect to one side, there is no argument against the fact that fossil fuels are in limited supply, and while they form the major source of our power we should be conserving them, as they have other, longer term uses such as raw material for plastics etc., John

Posted By Descarte I cannot understand those who still refuse to believe in any portion of climate change happening today. In the past 20 years in the UK I have visually seen many alterations, birds nesting earlier, plants germinating early, little to no harsh winters (were talking where internal major rivers freeze over so you can ice skate on them), ok a bit of snow if your lucky but nothing close to what would have been seen 20-30 years ago. Is this purley an anthopogenic change? There are too many variables to be 100% certain, is there a post industrialisation anthropogenic effect, certainly, but again it may not be the single lone contributor. Can we take action to reduce this, yes.

Posted By J Knight I'm with Descartes on this one. I have been a naturalist since childhood (and yes, I do wear clothes in public....) and the changes to me are just so obvious as to defy belief. But then journalists and economists, from which groups come most of the 'sceptics' aren't known for actually looking at the real world. My own personal view is that Anthropogenic Climate Change is a huge claim to make, and the evidence is by no means conclusive. But it does exist, and so far the evidence in favour seems to stand up to peer review better than the evidence against. So no proven, yer onor, but on the balance of probabilities it is the best theory we have at the moment. Oh, and as for the met office not being able to forecast next week's weather, so they must be worng about climate change... I can't tell you what the weather will be like on the 21st of August next year, but I can tell you it will almost certainly be warmer than the 21st of January next year. That's why we can trust the met office more on climate change than on short or even medium term forecasts, John

Posted By IOSH Moderator Sorry folks, but as posters seem to be struggling to link this to the workplace, the thread falls foul of AUG 1. As fascinating as the subjects of global warming and the alleged prostitution of science are, we just can't make them fit this forums remit. Thread locked. Jonathan