komis wrote:Did I mention I'm removing my catalysts as well?
As perhaps you already know, it takes work to get the exhaust gases thru a cat so you'll increase your your MPG. Ironically that will help reduce your greenhouse emissions
Here's a reply I've just recieved from an email I sent to minister for the Environment David Miliband at DEFRA about the Global Warming Swindle programme. My view is DEFRA give no explanation in their email for the six points I make in my summary of the programme. They admit that CO2 has
NOT been the driver of past climate changes, so how can they be so absolutely positive it is now ? Especially bearing in mind the warm period of medieval times and the cold period of the little ice age occurred without any changes in CO2 levels.
Also current trend of rising temps started 50 years before planes and cars appeared and dropped from 1940 to 1975 when CO2 levels were increasing. DEFRA personel appear somehow to have the mysterious ability to interpret data as correlating regardless of the fact that it doesn't correlate !
Government institutions pick & choose bits of information to suit the way they wish to see things rather than the way things might actually be. Just as they did when they wanted to find a reason to invade Iraq:-
"CCU 6th Floor
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London
SW1A 3JR
Email:
ccu.correspondence@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Website:
www.defra.gov.uk
Dear Sir
‘THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING SWINDLE’
Thank you for your email of 13 march to David Miliband regarding ‘The Great Global Warming Swindle’. I have been asked to reply.
The programme was unbalanced and did not accurately represent the scientific consensus on the role of human activities in causing the current global warming. The recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) leaves us in no doubt that human activities are responsible and that we need to act urgently to avoid dangerous climate change.
The IPCC is the world's most authoritative voice on climate change and the UK fully supports its work in rigorously assessing all scientific and technical aspects of climate change. The Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC, like its earlier reports, draws on the breadth of peer-reviewed research and has been prepared on an objective, open and transparent basis by thousands of scientists, worldwide.
There is evidence that temperature changes have preceded CO2 changes through glacial-interglacial cycles in the distant past. However, this just suggests that CO2 was not the initial driver of the glacial cycles. The evidence suggests that CO2 levels rose as a result of warming, possibly as the surface of the ocean warmed. As CO2 has a warming effect on the climate, it would then act as a feedback, stimulating additional warming. Now human emissions are causing the rise in CO2 levels, and therefore, the resulting warming of the climate.
It is also true that the trend in CO2 concentrations over the last century does not exactly match the trend in temperature. But we do not expect it to. This is for two key reasons. Firstly, there is a time lag between warming and changes in CO2, caused by the inertia in the climate system. Secondly, greenhouse gases are not the only determinant of temperature. Aerosols, which are also emitted from human activities, are also important and can be shown to explain much of the cooling seen in the middle of the 20th century.
Climate models represent the lag in the response of the climate, and the influence of many external factors. These show that the trend in temperatures does match what we would expect. Based on these analyses and others, the recent report of the IPCC concluded that most the warming over the past half century has been caused by the rise in greenhouse gas concentrations.
Human emissions are relatively small compared to natural emissions, particularly from ecosystems and the oceans. However, these natural emissions are in balance: the amount emitted is then reabsorbed. Human emissions tip the balance and lead to an accumulation of gases in the atmosphere. The human source can be shown through, for example, examining the chemical make-up and distribution of CO2 in the atmosphere.
It is clear that changes in solar radiation are a significant driver of the climate changes seen in the distant past. However, there is strong evidence that changes in solar radiation could not have caused the rapid warming observed over the past half century. The warming effects of changes in solar output since pre-industrial are less than around one tenth that of human emissions of greenhouse gases.
Despite recent claims, there is no scientifically robust evidence suggesting that cosmic ray variations have, or could even, play a significant role in recent warming. Variations in cosmic rays over the past few decades can not explain the long-term global warming trend.
As you mention, water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapour alone. It is however, not considered as a "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarly, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation.
CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system.
I hope that this letter addresses your concerns.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Morrissy
Customer Contact Unit "
.
- The most powerful letter in the world.
, BMW Z1, BMW M3 CSL, Z4M Coupe
