Crosswords1 min ago
Still think makind makes a difference
http://news.sky.com/s...ears_Of_New_Ash_Cloud
Volcanoes are pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the atmosphere constantly, the link is just the latest of many. So how does mankind's emissions compare to mother nature's own? I haven't even mentioned the largest source of Carbon!
Volcanoes are pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the atmosphere constantly, the link is just the latest of many. So how does mankind's emissions compare to mother nature's own? I haven't even mentioned the largest source of Carbon!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
@Birdie - Interesting, isn't it. On many issues, especially relating to science and religion and other things, we are in agreement - but on this particular issue I am completely and utterly opposed to your view. To paraphrase your own comments to me, I am amazed that educated people such as yourself seriously doubt whats happening.
You appear to be claiming that any climate change we are currently seeing, any increase in global temperature, is entirely due to natural cycles - Is that what you actually mean? And if so, do you seriously think that somehow all the the various national academies, all the climate scientists, have somehow missed this, or not taken the natural, cyclical patterns into account? I mean, come on, really?
Does your objection to the science, all the published, peer reviewed, replicated articles dating back probably 30-40 years now really amount to claiming that the scientists performing these experiments are incompetent and undeducated? Or are you claiming they are all amoral money grasping conspiracists, whipping up fear and falsifying data purely to gain research grants? How else can you explain the dissonance between your view and every single national academy of sciences?
And you continually rubbish the hockey stick graph, claiming it has been comprehensively shown to be false- Not in any reports or articles that I regard as authoratitive or reputable - Indeed, the dozen or so serious papers on the topic, peer reviewed and published since, have broadly come to the same conclusions.
I honestly cannot understand your stance Birdie, and I think we are probably going to have to agree to disagree. The only parallel I can think of, and the only place where I have seen such heated disagreement over fundamentals, the same levels of denialism, is in those arguments between creationists and any other scientist!
The world is heating. Such global changes on the climate will have especially profound effects on the most vulnerable areas of the world.Natural cycles have all been considered, and cannot explain the observed changes. Anothropogenic contributions are significant and the science shows why and how. Common sense (never mind global warming) dictates that we move away from our addiction to fossil fuels, and find a better, renewable way.
You appear to be claiming that any climate change we are currently seeing, any increase in global temperature, is entirely due to natural cycles - Is that what you actually mean? And if so, do you seriously think that somehow all the the various national academies, all the climate scientists, have somehow missed this, or not taken the natural, cyclical patterns into account? I mean, come on, really?
Does your objection to the science, all the published, peer reviewed, replicated articles dating back probably 30-40 years now really amount to claiming that the scientists performing these experiments are incompetent and undeducated? Or are you claiming they are all amoral money grasping conspiracists, whipping up fear and falsifying data purely to gain research grants? How else can you explain the dissonance between your view and every single national academy of sciences?
And you continually rubbish the hockey stick graph, claiming it has been comprehensively shown to be false- Not in any reports or articles that I regard as authoratitive or reputable - Indeed, the dozen or so serious papers on the topic, peer reviewed and published since, have broadly come to the same conclusions.
I honestly cannot understand your stance Birdie, and I think we are probably going to have to agree to disagree. The only parallel I can think of, and the only place where I have seen such heated disagreement over fundamentals, the same levels of denialism, is in those arguments between creationists and any other scientist!
The world is heating. Such global changes on the climate will have especially profound effects on the most vulnerable areas of the world.Natural cycles have all been considered, and cannot explain the observed changes. Anothropogenic contributions are significant and the science shows why and how. Common sense (never mind global warming) dictates that we move away from our addiction to fossil fuels, and find a better, renewable way.
-- answer removed --
LG, I think birdy, judge and myself would just like to hear how 4% of something can have more effect than 96% of something. No one is rubbishing the labs the hockey stick etc it's just baffling to me that, for example, one Icelandic eruption can pump the same emissions into the air as mankind has managed in 50 years, yet Earth can somehow handle that but it seems some how to find mankind's feeble efforts to be deadly. If you can explain that adequately then I think you'll convert us. why do you never answer these questions?
My utility bills are not rising because of the scarcity of energy supplies, LG. They are rising because of (1) The greed of utility companies; (2) the ineptitude of successive governments in not securing the UK’s independent energy supplies, particularly in failing to increase nuclear (nil emissions) generating capacity; (3) the preposterous (deliberately hidden) “green” taxes levied on consumers which are used to fund the construction of expensive, inefficient wind turbines - which have to have “spinning standby” of conventional capacity as backup - and to pay wind turbine and solar panel owners up to five times the value of the energy they produce.
Yes it does make sense to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels but only because they will eventually run out, not because of the hysterical prophesies put about by the Climate Change fanatics. Nuclear is the answer, not windmills or solar panels which will never even scratch the surface of the UK’s energy requirements.
Yes, if there is a problem at all it is indeed a global problem. It is no use suggesting that it is OK to pee in a swimming pool provided you only do so in the shallow end. Therefore the ridiculous European Emissions Trading Scheme (which forces industries to pay for the right to burn fossil fuels) is doing nothing to reduce emissions. It is a tax raising scam which simply transfers the emissions from Europe to elsewhere (such as China who are not so foolish as to follow such regulation) and merely raises funds for European governments to waste. Into the bargain it is jeopardising the competitiveness of European industry and is having a huge adverse effect on European economies.
People in Europe need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is bad enough that they have been fooled into believing that mankind is doomed. But having fallen for that they are now told that if we build enough windmills, buy some useless and sometimes dangerous light bulbs and turn off enough street lights (whilst still allowing shopkeepers to heat the street through their open doors in the dead of winter) everything will be OK. Meantime China opens one new coal fired power station almost every week and uses the energy it produces to poach European manufacturing business. People should not be surprised at the state of the European economies whilst they have lunatics running the asylum.
Yes it does make sense to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels but only because they will eventually run out, not because of the hysterical prophesies put about by the Climate Change fanatics. Nuclear is the answer, not windmills or solar panels which will never even scratch the surface of the UK’s energy requirements.
Yes, if there is a problem at all it is indeed a global problem. It is no use suggesting that it is OK to pee in a swimming pool provided you only do so in the shallow end. Therefore the ridiculous European Emissions Trading Scheme (which forces industries to pay for the right to burn fossil fuels) is doing nothing to reduce emissions. It is a tax raising scam which simply transfers the emissions from Europe to elsewhere (such as China who are not so foolish as to follow such regulation) and merely raises funds for European governments to waste. Into the bargain it is jeopardising the competitiveness of European industry and is having a huge adverse effect on European economies.
People in Europe need to wake up and smell the coffee. It is bad enough that they have been fooled into believing that mankind is doomed. But having fallen for that they are now told that if we build enough windmills, buy some useless and sometimes dangerous light bulbs and turn off enough street lights (whilst still allowing shopkeepers to heat the street through their open doors in the dead of winter) everything will be OK. Meantime China opens one new coal fired power station almost every week and uses the energy it produces to poach European manufacturing business. People should not be surprised at the state of the European economies whilst they have lunatics running the asylum.
New Judge - Every post of yours on this topic is the same.A screed denouncing the EU. Those pesky girly scientists, getting all hysterical over nothing, and not able to parse the science itself, they are so incompetent. All those National Academies, scared and greedy at the same time. With you, the concept is that its all hysterical hand waving, or its a conspiracy of fat cats, or a bit of both.
Even when you recognise that we have to move away from fossil fuels, you reject renewable alternatives in favour of a power system reliant on dangerous and scarce minerals of its own - one that creates dangerous waste that is a pollutant for 1000s of years.
All those scientists - all incompetent or lying. All those national academies, involved in a cover up in order to gain funds. All those insurers and actuaries, hard headed business men one and all, quietly rewriting insurance policies in anticipation of the problems caused by climate change.
Show me some reliable, peer reviewed evidence that fits the observations and offers a closer, more scientific narrative to explain those observations, and I will listen. Thats because I am a scientist, and believe in rationalism and evidence.
Given you are or were a judge, I am surprised to find you posting opinion based upon nothing more than one particular brand of politics. As I am sure you know well, you cannot reason someone out of a faith based position - and thats where you seem to be now.
Even when you recognise that we have to move away from fossil fuels, you reject renewable alternatives in favour of a power system reliant on dangerous and scarce minerals of its own - one that creates dangerous waste that is a pollutant for 1000s of years.
All those scientists - all incompetent or lying. All those national academies, involved in a cover up in order to gain funds. All those insurers and actuaries, hard headed business men one and all, quietly rewriting insurance policies in anticipation of the problems caused by climate change.
Show me some reliable, peer reviewed evidence that fits the observations and offers a closer, more scientific narrative to explain those observations, and I will listen. Thats because I am a scientist, and believe in rationalism and evidence.
Given you are or were a judge, I am surprised to find you posting opinion based upon nothing more than one particular brand of politics. As I am sure you know well, you cannot reason someone out of a faith based position - and thats where you seem to be now.
Geezer - I am not a climate scientist. This is my understanding of the CO2 contribution, but given the chaotic complexity of the climate will be subject to revision.
The continual presentation of additional carbon dioxide from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, deforestation etc - carbon dioxide that had effectively been locked away into one of the natural carbon sinks - is the issue. The Global dynamic CO2 equilibrium is being effected by this - A system that was broadly in balance, over geological time lines, now has to adapt to that extra contribution. Much of that extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere for significant periods of time.Water Vapour is the most significant greenhouse warming agent.The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is increased with increasing temperature, a positive feedback loop. The water vapour cycle and balances ( rain, snow, oceans, lakes, evaporation etc) is short lived and cycles rapidly.
CO2 is also a greenhouse gas.Increases in levels of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in global temperature. This, in turn, will cause more water vapour to be aborbed, which in turn will further increase the temperature.
CO2 cycles much more slowly, and the equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and that in the "carbon sinks" reacts much more slowly, in geological terms - So a rapid increase in CO2 levels cannot be dealt with rapidly by the natural equilibrium mechanisms.The consequence of this is an inexorable increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn means an inexorable increase in the greenhouse gas effect, which inexorably raises the atmospheric temperature, which inexorably increases the water vapour in the atmosphere, which inexorably raises global atmospheric temperature.
Isotopic measurements of the 12C/13C ratio of samples from tree rings and ice cores show a significant increase of Carbon isotopes from fossil stores over the last 150 years - this can only be from anthropogenic activity, industrialisation,etc.This is recycling carbon that had already been absorbed out of the atmosphere.Deforestation does the same kind of thing.At no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what might be expected if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.
All Volcanic activity by the way produces only a small fraction of CO2 compared to that produced by human activity. Anthropogenic CO2 contribution to total global CO2 is indeed small compared to the volumes attributed to all of the various natural sources - but those natural sources have already established, over geological time,a dynamic equilibrium with the various carbon sinks. Of the extra CO2 contributed by man, that equilibrium can accomodate around 30-40% in the carbon sinks over geological time, but the rest is retained in the atmosphere, cumulatively and inexorably contributing to increasing temperature, which in turn will effect the amount of water vapour absorbed, which in turn further contributes to increases in the temperature.
Global temperatures are rising, decade on decade.Observational,recorded data from 1000s of measurement points confirms this.No other model or combination of climate /solar cycles currently advanced as an alternative to Co2 enhanced global warming can explain the observational changes in the climate.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is around 380 -390ppm, and has been shown to be increasing at a rate of nearly 2ppm / year in the decade between 2000 and 2010.Some 30 years earlier, the measured rate of change was around 1ppm/year - so the rate of increase in CO2 levels is accelerating.These measurements already take into account the seasonal fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 due to growing seasons etc. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is the highest for around 600,000 years.
The continual presentation of additional carbon dioxide from human activities such as burning of fossil fuels, deforestation etc - carbon dioxide that had effectively been locked away into one of the natural carbon sinks - is the issue. The Global dynamic CO2 equilibrium is being effected by this - A system that was broadly in balance, over geological time lines, now has to adapt to that extra contribution. Much of that extra CO2 remains in the atmosphere for significant periods of time.Water Vapour is the most significant greenhouse warming agent.The amount of water vapour in the atmosphere is increased with increasing temperature, a positive feedback loop. The water vapour cycle and balances ( rain, snow, oceans, lakes, evaporation etc) is short lived and cycles rapidly.
CO2 is also a greenhouse gas.Increases in levels of atmospheric CO2 will cause an increase in global temperature. This, in turn, will cause more water vapour to be aborbed, which in turn will further increase the temperature.
CO2 cycles much more slowly, and the equilibrium between CO2 in the atmosphere and that in the "carbon sinks" reacts much more slowly, in geological terms - So a rapid increase in CO2 levels cannot be dealt with rapidly by the natural equilibrium mechanisms.The consequence of this is an inexorable increase in the CO2 in the atmosphere, which in turn means an inexorable increase in the greenhouse gas effect, which inexorably raises the atmospheric temperature, which inexorably increases the water vapour in the atmosphere, which inexorably raises global atmospheric temperature.
Isotopic measurements of the 12C/13C ratio of samples from tree rings and ice cores show a significant increase of Carbon isotopes from fossil stores over the last 150 years - this can only be from anthropogenic activity, industrialisation,etc.This is recycling carbon that had already been absorbed out of the atmosphere.Deforestation does the same kind of thing.At no time in the last 10,000 years are the 13C/12C ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the 13C/12C ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what might be expected if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning.
All Volcanic activity by the way produces only a small fraction of CO2 compared to that produced by human activity. Anthropogenic CO2 contribution to total global CO2 is indeed small compared to the volumes attributed to all of the various natural sources - but those natural sources have already established, over geological time,a dynamic equilibrium with the various carbon sinks. Of the extra CO2 contributed by man, that equilibrium can accomodate around 30-40% in the carbon sinks over geological time, but the rest is retained in the atmosphere, cumulatively and inexorably contributing to increasing temperature, which in turn will effect the amount of water vapour absorbed, which in turn further contributes to increases in the temperature.
Global temperatures are rising, decade on decade.Observational,recorded data from 1000s of measurement points confirms this.No other model or combination of climate /solar cycles currently advanced as an alternative to Co2 enhanced global warming can explain the observational changes in the climate.
The current atmospheric CO2 level is around 380 -390ppm, and has been shown to be increasing at a rate of nearly 2ppm / year in the decade between 2000 and 2010.Some 30 years earlier, the measured rate of change was around 1ppm/year - so the rate of increase in CO2 levels is accelerating.These measurements already take into account the seasonal fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 due to growing seasons etc. The CO2 level in the atmosphere is the highest for around 600,000 years.
Although it has not been unknown for me to denounce the EU, LG, I do not believe I have mentioned that esteemed organisation in relation to this particular issue. When I use the term “European” I mean the European nations, not necessarily the EU. The reaction of the European nations would be the same whether the EU existed or not.
My opinion is not based on politics at all. All the main political parties take a similar stance on this issue (thus giving us climate change deniers nobody to vote for who will end this madness). It is based more upon experience of the multitude of catastrophic disasters that various “experts” have warned me of over the years. I won’t go into them as I’m sure you’re as well aware of them as I am. Sufficient to say that none of them has materialised as forecast and I don’t suppose this one will be any different. Normally these prophesies of Armageddon can be ignored as the work of harmless cranks. This time it’s different. This time the proposed solutions are seriously jeopardising the well being of this nation.
Your scientific explanation makes interesting reading and I note it is “subject to revision”. But it does not explain the “96%” conundrum. Effectively you are saying that this proportion of greenhouse gases (which must vary – often considerably) is somehow “in equilibrium over time” whilst the other 4% is not. And we’re asked to accept that without question. But as I said in my first post, I am no longer interested in the argument over whether climate change is evident. I’ll accept that it is (simply for peace and quiet). I am more concerned with the ludicrous proposals that European governments are proposing which, it is said, will combat the evil. Again we come up against a mathematical conundrum. European emissions amount to about 14% of the total and it is proposed (unrealistically) to reduce this by half. Meantime, the four nations which contribute more than 50% of the total plan to increase their contribution significantly. And again we’re expected to accept that the European efforts (which will prove extremely costly, very inconvenient and almost certainly ineffective) will cure the global problem.
If the debate on whether climate change is evident is over that concerning the proposals to combat it has never taken place. The electorate needs to be properly consulted and asked whether they want their nation’s economy even further trashed than it already is and whether they want to live under the very real threat of power shortages, or whether instead they’d care to take their chances that this latest scare will mirror all the others that have been falsely prophesied. It is not sufficient for politicians to simply say that we need to take these measures “just to be on the safe side”.
I think that’s enough from me.
BTW - I have never claimed to be or to have been a judge any more than you have claimed to be an indolent firearm.
My opinion is not based on politics at all. All the main political parties take a similar stance on this issue (thus giving us climate change deniers nobody to vote for who will end this madness). It is based more upon experience of the multitude of catastrophic disasters that various “experts” have warned me of over the years. I won’t go into them as I’m sure you’re as well aware of them as I am. Sufficient to say that none of them has materialised as forecast and I don’t suppose this one will be any different. Normally these prophesies of Armageddon can be ignored as the work of harmless cranks. This time it’s different. This time the proposed solutions are seriously jeopardising the well being of this nation.
Your scientific explanation makes interesting reading and I note it is “subject to revision”. But it does not explain the “96%” conundrum. Effectively you are saying that this proportion of greenhouse gases (which must vary – often considerably) is somehow “in equilibrium over time” whilst the other 4% is not. And we’re asked to accept that without question. But as I said in my first post, I am no longer interested in the argument over whether climate change is evident. I’ll accept that it is (simply for peace and quiet). I am more concerned with the ludicrous proposals that European governments are proposing which, it is said, will combat the evil. Again we come up against a mathematical conundrum. European emissions amount to about 14% of the total and it is proposed (unrealistically) to reduce this by half. Meantime, the four nations which contribute more than 50% of the total plan to increase their contribution significantly. And again we’re expected to accept that the European efforts (which will prove extremely costly, very inconvenient and almost certainly ineffective) will cure the global problem.
If the debate on whether climate change is evident is over that concerning the proposals to combat it has never taken place. The electorate needs to be properly consulted and asked whether they want their nation’s economy even further trashed than it already is and whether they want to live under the very real threat of power shortages, or whether instead they’d care to take their chances that this latest scare will mirror all the others that have been falsely prophesied. It is not sufficient for politicians to simply say that we need to take these measures “just to be on the safe side”.
I think that’s enough from me.
BTW - I have never claimed to be or to have been a judge any more than you have claimed to be an indolent firearm.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
LG thanks for your explantation, I was aware of that and take it on board but none of that explains why a feeble amount of mankind's emmisions is in some way more dangerous that one Volcano in Iceland producing 50 years worth of mankind's emmissions in one go. Then there is "son of Krakatoa" which has been erupting constantly for 150 years. I take on board the evidence that some of the carbon is man produced but I just don't accept that it is in some way pivotal.
Latest Posts
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
ChatterBank8 mins ago
ChatterBank10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.