Electric Car Drivel

[JohnW2]

I think simonh2 made my point rather well

Maybe you do but, as I've just written, I do not understand his point

Well we know from the ice record the contribution of just plants, and it shows a marked difference prior to the burning of fossil fuels

I don't doubt it, but you are again back to the circumstantial evidence relating to the chronological changes in the atmosphere and the burning of fossil fuels.

It could, but evidence I have seen suggests global photosynthesis is on the rise, and has been for the past 200 years.

I'm not sure how one could ascertain that since it is so confounded with other things. How was this evidence obtained?

Most herbicides don't linger in the ecosystem and are broken down quite quickly.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting that the toxins had to be recognised herbicides. I was merely illustrating that chemical substances have the potential to interfere with photosynthesis. In any event, even if the chemical is 'broken down quite quickly', if it is constantly fed into the environment, it will always be present in levels potentially high enough to have an effect. The water in the water tank in your house is 'used up quite quickly' but, because it is constantly being replenished, the tank will nearly always be nearly full!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

Well you cited him (Cook) as a source of information, but now you are saying that he s/b ignored. You seem rather confused.



So rather than responding to my points, which were supported by data, you merely throw in a snide comment.

Normally (always?) the sign of a week or non-existent argument.

Sorry I am having a quite sensible discussion with John. I won't argue with someone who points to 4 or 17 years worth of data as a representative sample, and thinks that heat islands will inflate a warming trend (they might change C but not m, as in y=mx+c)

 

[mikeey84]

I don't doubt it, but you are again back to the circumstantial evidence relating to the chronological changes in the atmosphere and the burning of fossil

Quite, but without a valid alternative theory, it's very strong circumstantial evidence, which for the majority of science is all you get.

I'm not sure how one could ascertain that since it is so confounded with other things. How was this evidence obtained

I skimmed the paper I quoted. It seems they looked at carbonyl sulphide as an indicator, as it's absorbed during photosynthesis as well

 

[JohnW2]

When that tree (that is now oil) grew, the atmosphere had a much higher level of co2 in it than it does now. Reintroducing that carbon has the effect of shifting the equilibrium of carbon in the cycle upwards.

I can't make any sense of that - the atmospheric CO2 at the time the tree was alive seems to be an irrelevance. One tonne of 'tree carbon' is one ton of 'tree carbon', regardless of when it was created or what the environmental conditions were at the time, and burning one ton of 'tree carbon' will (regardless of where it came from) always result in the same amount of CO2 being released into the atmosphere.

It would be neutral if that tree was replaced now, as it would soak up as much carbon as was released by burning it. But we are not replacing the trees that we are burning.

Arrrgghhh! Are you moving the goalposts back again? It was you that said that you were assuming that burnt trees would replaced when I asked you why burning present-day trees would be nearly carbon-neutral whilst burning million-year-old ones would not!

So the carbon in fossil fuel is part if the cycle, but has been removed from the atmosphere (when carbon levels were much higher)

It was removed from the atmosphere a million (or whatever) years ago, so might have resulted in a reduction of atmospheric CO2 back then (despite the fact that CO2 removal from the atmosphere was also thereby reduced), but that has no bearing on changes in the last 60, or 160, years, does it?

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

Maybe you do but, as I've just written, I do not understand his point

The level of carbon on earth is relativly fixed. Some is in the air, some in the trees, some in the ground.

The carbon in the ground was once in the air and trees, and subsequently atmospheric co2 levels were much higher.

Now some is stored in the ground, the carbon active in the trees and air is at a much lower level. We are now reintroducing the carbon from the ground, upsetting the balance of the system (as it typically takes eons for the trees to affect a significant reduction in atmospheric carbon)

Is that any clearer?

 

[mikeey84]

Arrrgghhh! Are you moving the goalposts back again? It was you that said that you were assuming that burnt trees would replaced when I asked you why burning present-day trees would be nearly carbon-neutral whilst burning million-year-old ones would not!

Sorry i meant trees as in coal trees. If we planted the equivalent trees now in terms of the coal and oil we burn, it would be more carbon neutral, but we can't (or wont)

 

[JohnW2]

Quite, but without a valid alternative theory, it's very strong circumstantial evidence, which for the majority of science is all you get.

I've always accepted that, but people (including yourself) are attempting to throw 'evidence' at me which is meant to support that ('very strong') circumstantial evidence - whereas the best it is really doing is attempting to rule out alternative theories.

I know it's silly, because there is no theoretical basis, but I imagine that one could find 'strong circumstantial evidence' (correlation) that increases in CO2 in the past 2 or 3 decades had been 'caused' by an increase in prevalence of portable electronic devices! That's the sort of thing that (in relation to more sensible hypotheses) one has to be careful about! I spend a fair bit of my time having to deal with iffy attempts to draw conclusions about causality from correlation.

I skimmed the paper I quoted. It seems they looked at carbonyl sulphide as an indicator, as it's absorbed during photosynthesis as well

Fair enough. I haven't got a clue about that, so would have to do some reading to understand!

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry i meant trees as in coal trees. If we planted the equivalent trees now in terms of the coal and oil we burn, it would be more carbon neutral, but we can't (or wont)

Quite - so, as I keep saying, if one is going to replace them with (equivalent amounts of) newly-planted trees in either case, it doesn't make any difference whether we burn current-day trees or those which turned into fossil fuels a very long time ago. Are we agreed on that?

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

Now some is stored in the ground, the carbon active in the trees and air is at a much lower level. We are now reintroducing the carbon from the ground, upsetting the balance of the system (as it typically takes eons for the trees to affect a significant reduction in atmospheric carbon)
Is that any clearer?

As I've just written, it's only clearer if one does not plant new trees to replace those (even if they died a million years ago) which one has recently burnt.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

As I've just written, it's only clearer if one does not plant new trees to replace those (even if they died a million years ago) which one has recently burnt

Yes, agree totally on that point.

We could counter act the co2 increase by planting millions (if not billions) of trees. Unfortunately a lot of the places these trees grew are now sea or desert so that may be problematic.

I think I will bow out now, we seem to have reached a slight consensus.

Enjoyable discussion, and apologies if my explanations/analogies were muddled or confused. It all sounded fine in my head!

 

[JohnW2]

I think I will bow out now, we seem to have reached a slight consensus.

Me, too.

This has been a very interesting discussion, but I really haven’t go the time to continue discussing it in detail, and an ‘Electrics DIY’ forum is hardly an appropriate platform, anyway!

However, from my viewpoint, I think the discussion has served a purpose. It seems to me that, despite what some seem to believe, it has illustrated that there definitely is a need for ongoing research, discussion and debate - not about whether ‘ACC’ exists, but about details of the mechanisms of climate change and, in particular, how big a part the burning of fossil fuels has had on the changes we are seeing..

What is, and will be, happening to the climate is clearly a complex multi-factorial business, and my fear is that those who (seem to) think that reducing (or, ultimately, eliminating) the burning of fossil fuels is a panacea could end up disappointed, even if we did dramatically reduce that activity.

It goes without saying that, no matter what the mix of mechanisms, the man-made pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere has got to make things worse, so it has to make sense to address that. One thing that doesn’t seem to get discussed much is that it does not necessarily have to be an ‘either/or’, since we theoretically have the technological ability to burn fossil fuels without putting appreciable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - but that may not be ‘cost-effective’.

Fortunately, research, discussion and debate clearly are ongoing, and we can but hope that they result in effective measures being taken.

Given our (inevitable) current reliance (largely) on what I call 'circumstantial' evidence, the real test will come if/when we ever manage to bring about an appreciable global reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. We will then be able to see if the atmosphere and climate respond in the way, and to the extent, that current theories predict - and then will hopefully have a much clearer idea of what is going on.

As you say, it's been an enjoyable discussion.

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

Me, too.

This has been a very interesting discussion, but I really haven’t go the time to continue discussing it in detail, and an ‘Electrics DIY’ forum is hardly an appropriate platform, anyway!

However, from my viewpoint, I think the discussion has served a purpose. It seems to me that, despite what some seem to believe, it has illustrated that there definitely is a need for ongoing research, discussion and debate - not about whether ‘ACC’ exists, but about details of the mechanisms of climate change and, in particular, how big a part the burning of fossil fuels has had on the changes we are seeing..

What is, and will be, happening to the climate is clearly a complex multi-factorial business, and my fear is that those who (seem to) think that reducing (or, ultimately, eliminating) the burning of fossil fuels is a panacea could end up disappointed, even if we did dramatically reduce that activity.

It goes without saying that, no matter what the mix of mechanisms, the man-made pouring of CO2 into the atmosphere has got to make things worse, so it has to make sense to address that. One thing that doesn’t seem to get discussed much is that it does not necessarily have to be an ‘either/or’, since we theoretically have the technological ability to burn fossil fuels without putting appreciable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere - but that may not be ‘cost-effective’.

Fortunately, research, discussion and debate clearly are ongoing, and we can but hope that they result in effective measures being taken.

Given our (inevitable) current reliance (largely) on what I call 'circumstantial' evidence, the real test will come if/when we ever manage to bring about an appreciable global reduction in the burning of fossil fuels. We will then be able to see if the atmosphere and climate respond in the way, and to the extent, that current theories predict - and then will hopefully have a much clearer idea of what is going on.

As you say, it's been an enjoyable discussion.

Kind Regards, John

I think I just about (!) agree with all of that.

Thanks for the stimulating debate.

Now about how we charge those electric cars.....

 

[ban-all-sheds]

It seems to me that, despite what some seem to believe, it has illustrated that there definitely is a need for ongoing research, discussion and debate - not about whether ‘ACC’ exists, but about details of the mechanisms of climate change and, in particular, how big a part the burning of fossil fuels has had on the changes we are seeing..

To what end?

When it comes to ACC no matter how many people with real expertise in the subject conclude, nor how strongly they conclude, you will never agree with them.

 

[JohnW2]

To what end? When it comes to ACC no matter how many people with real expertise in the subject conclude, nor how strongly they conclude, you will never agree with them.

Never agree with them about what?

I certainly agree that 'ACC' exists, that it inevitably has some impact on climate and, indeed, that it relates, or potentially relates, to a lot of other human activities in addition to the burning of fossil fuel (although that is probably the predominant component).

In fact, I don't really 'disagree' with anything - but I do not think we know enough to know, let alone be certain, as some people seem to be, that all recent (and predicted future) climate change is the consequence of 'ACC' or, even worse, that all that climate change is due to the burning of fossil fuels .... and I strongly suspect that most of the "people with real expertise in the subject" field would probably agree with me.

To use a recently discussed abbreviation, one does not need to be an "SME" to understand what interpretations of available data are scientifically 'water-tight' - Scientific Method is Scientific Method, whatever the subject/discipline.

Kind Regards, John

 

[StephenOak]

Sorry I am having a quite sensible discussion with John. I won't argue with someone who points to 4 or 17 years worth of data as a representative sample, and thinks that heat islands will inflate a warming trend (they might change C but not m, as in y=mx+c)

Well if all you can do is be snide and then disagree with things that I did not say (I note that you don't quote where I did the things you accuse me of) then you clearly are not interested in a productive discussion or in learning anything. So I won't waste any more time on you.