Climate change conference and all it involves, might not see much in the way of rapid results. However, certain countries like China and Saudi Arabia are building massive solar farms (for want of a better word).

Can anyone say how solar panels will not contribute to global warming any more or less than the damage caused by the pollutants we excrete already ? The way I see it, is that the solar panels must bounce the heat from the sun , back into the atmosphere making the climates hotter, causing different problems. There again, I am not a scientist !

Dont know about the technicalities granny, but I was amazed at the extent of the farms as well. Quite astonishing .

The energy is absorbed and converted (not very efficiently in a solar panel), don't forget that we can't see most of the energy that arrives from the sun. The reflected energy is probably comparable to the reflection off the sea or the re-radiation from land.

I've been reading up on global warming quite a bit recently as I am a non-believer in man-made global warming. The more I read, the more incredibly ridiculous a lot of the claims are.

I am yet to find any article that explains how a greenhouse gas increases the earth's temperature, it is always washed over. The very basic comments actually show why greenhouse gases should cool the earth.

The biggest greenhouse gas by far is water vapour, it has the highest quantity (by far) and also absorbs more energy than CO2.

I think with some solar farms the sun's rays are focused onto a collector which uses that heat to boil water to make steam to power turbines to generate electricity.

If I remember rightly methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, much more so than CO2; there is an awful lot of that locked up in permafrost, apart from what's emitted by intensive cattle farming and so forth, and rotting matter in landfill. A moderate rise in temperature will add that to the mix.

its all a con

totally agree.

This is where I fail to understand. The sun's rays are one thing, but the heat from the sun's rays usually get absorbed into the earth, desert or oceans. In these solar farms, is the heat being absorbed as well as the rays. I find that difficult to understand ? Even reading the simplest explanation for 'kids' is a bit daunting, to say the least !!

http://discoverykids.com/articles/how-does-the-sun-provide-heat-and-light/

The energy gives off different kinds of light, like infrared light, ultraviolet light and visible light. Microwaves, radio waves and X-rays also come from the sun. The sun also gives off energized particles that make up solar wind. The energy from solar wind warms the Earth and influences the weather

Heat and light from the sun is the same thing, just a different colour.

My OH has also read everything he can get his hands on re the topic and come to the same conclusion. It causes terrible rows with the younger end of the family who think he is 'deliberately blind to the situation' . He's set them the same problem youve highlighted -- to bring out a credible scientific article proving exactly how global warming is being caused by humans, and is still waiting for them to provide it!!

That is another widely quoted myth. Methane only has two very narrow absorption frequencies so most of the visible and infrared spectrum goes straight through it.

Here are three graphs showing what frequencies water vapour, CO2 and methane absorb.

Interesting! Perhaps there is a lot less methane than CO2. Stil wouldn't like to be on the tundra when it starts to thaw, though - whiffy...

And here is an even more interesting graph showing the regular cycles of CO2 and temperature long before man started polluting the atmosphere.

An intersting aspect is that it shows we don't really have ice-ages, we have the opposite, hot eras.

Well I think no matter what we do, Mother Nature always finds a way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-32452085

You are probably right, providing she is given enough time to heal the wounds.
That Chernobyl is encouraging. Last time I saw pics of it, it was just laid to waste. Dreadful and a very scary peep into what the future could hold.

Piers Corbyn- the brother of Jeremy- was interviewed last Thursday night by Andrew Neil on the BBC. Piers runs a weather forecasting company. It must be successful as people organising company events and who need to know what the weather conditions are likely to be actually pay him for his forecasts. That said, the guy doesn't believe in the man made climate change/global warming stuff. No matter how much Neil pressed him, he would not be shaken from his belief that it is a con.
The reason the scientists are promoting their case -as if it was some new form of religion - is because, he believes, that if our carbon emissions are greatly reduced, so will our productivity. Thus the third world countries will have an opportunity to exploit our weakness enabling them to benefit from a greater share of the world's wealth. The words I have used are my choice but in essence that is what he was saying.
I was quite surprised to hear his very forthright views as I would have thought he would be inclined to share in his brother's left wing ideology. He was certainly suggesting that many of the leading scientists promoting the climate change cause are left wing.

You should be a newspaper reporter .....

Piers clearly stated that its not a left or right wing political issue, it is evidence that matters.

Andrew Neil stated that the majority of climate scientists are right wing and Piers replied that there are plenty of left wing scientists - he did not challenge Andrew's statement.

The point on third world industrial transfer might not have been given as a reason, it seemed to be given as an example of the absurdity of reducing CO2 production in this country when a direct consequence of this is that CO2 production is simply transferred to 3rd world countries.

Climate change and population growth is worrying
An interesting film
click 10 billion

Will it be too late to do anything when vested interests keep producing their experts to counter the arguements of those warning us.
Most of us are treated as mushrooms (kept in the dark and fed a load of s**t)

Does sound like its worth a watch . Where have you seen it Derek? Is there an online link to the actual film?

I knew we'd met somewhere before, Derek !

[youtube]MeMIzUJSpsA[/youtube]

Constantly listening to conflicting views really makes a joke of what really is. Getting a bbc newsreel backed by David Attenborough, is not really proof of anything. When we are given some sort of proof, it is then argued to be wrong. Who are these people that can have such diverse opinions on what 'is'.. ? Obviously they are not so experienced in their field, as they would like us to think.
No matter, it will still become a problem eventually (you only have to read the 'good book' to get a forecast which could be sooner rather than later), so in the meantime, we might as well make changes for posterity.

@derekdwc That is why many of are annoyed at all the wasted resources being spent on man-made global warming, it is nothing more than a political diversion to avoid real problems we have got.

Interestingly as a race we tend to decry real solutions to real problems. Look at China, they desperately needed to reduce the population growth, so they did - they outlawed having too many children and what an uproar that brought to the rest of the world.

There was no other solution for China, the population was outgrowing its resources, the normal route of taxation to limit things would have just brought more poverty to a country that already had a major poverty problem.

We need to face up to reality and stop letting politicians choose issues that suite their electioneering.

There is no evidence of man-made global warming on a level that will cause problems. The concept of CO2 creating a greenhouse effect is being challenged by many scientists and I've still not found any document that explains how it could, the rise in CO2 is Earth's natural reaction which cools itself - it is part of the controls which regulate earth's temperature.

It is on my NOW TV - Entertainment package - catchup - Sky Atlantic

I think you got my gist. I suppose I should have downloaded it and disected it more carefully, as I suspect you must have done following my post.

I thought you were making his comments sound more political sided than they were - but that might might not have been your intention.

Jeremy is also a man-made climate change sceptic iirc but is going along with party policy - he may be like many others that go along with this, its not the climate change aspect that worries them, its the pollution and its effect on health but most CC policies reduce pollution so it is still a win.

If you ask a scientist the following two questions and they answer yes to both, it does not mean they believe there is a crisis in man-made climate change. In fact if any scientist says no to either question, they are lying.

1. Do humans contribute to an increase in temperature of the planet?
2. Is the planet undergoing climate change?