1. Visiting from the US? Why not try DIYnot.US instead? Click here to continue to DIYnot.US.
    Dismiss Notice

Climate Change and CO2

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by mickyg, 26 Oct 2009.

?

Is human produced CO2 causing Climate Change?

Poll closed 13 Jun 2015.
  1. Yes

    13 vote(s)
    37.1%
  2. No

    22 vote(s)
    62.9%
  1. mickyg

    mickyg

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Messages:
    15,997
    Thanks Received:
    3,323
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
  2. Bodgeit and scarper ltd

    Bodgeit and scarper ltd

    Joined:
    18 Jun 2007
    Messages:
    476
    Thanks Received:
    2
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    To many people on this planet is speeding up climate change. Apart from a war or plague nothing else will stop it.
     
  3. ToffeeNick

    ToffeeNick

    Joined:
    4 Jul 2008
    Messages:
    51
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    Shropshire
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    I, like many of the British people with common sense, do not disagree with the fact that the climate is changing. The climate has always changed though and this is the point the climate ayatollahs always play down by saying that it has never happened this fast before. I don't think the speed of it changing has any relevance, the fact of the matter is, it will get where it needs to go and there is nothing we can do to stop it.
     
  4. Johnmelad502

    Johnmelad502

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2008
    Messages:
    2,923
    Thanks Received:
    52
    Location:
    Cumbria
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Of course we are adding CO2 to the climate, and we have been doing so since man lit his first fire.

    But there is nothing we can do to reduce natures own CO2 footprint; forest fires, bush fires, volcano's etc. they add a huge amount of CO2, and always have.

    Do you believe what a Government prooven beyond all doubt to be made up of greedy and corrupt politicians tells you?

    What will be will be, live with it.
     
  5. TheOriginalTonkaToy

    TheOriginalTonkaToy

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2008
    Messages:
    294
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Oh it's real alright.

    I've studied this as part of a general science module and also as a part of an Earth Science module with the OU. The rate of change of partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is much faster than any natural system would achieve and this is having an effect on climate systems worldwide. The real problem is that we don't know when the systems will change from what is essentially negative feedback (controlled) to positive feedback (runaway) - the so-called 'tipping points'. There is a wealth of well researched evidence to say that some of these are approaching very quickly. A specific example the thawing of tundra landscapes and the potential for the release of methane bound up in clathrates - we're talking about gigatonnes of methane. Then there are the clathrate deposits on continental shelves - there's evidence to show increased outgassing around the Norwegian shelves.

    The common counter argument is that our climate is cyclical anyway. Yes, the Milankovitch cycles mean that our climate shifts from time to time, but these are a series of cycles that operate over periods of tens to hundred thousands of years (the shortest is 41,000 years) the changes that are being recorded are happening too fast.

    Global warming/climate change isn't a simple matter of the global mean surface temperature increasing slowly as if somebody had turned the thermostat up, it means wild oscillations of climatic conditions ranging from extreme cold spells to droughts, increasing storm frequency and amplitude as the natural governing cycles go increasingly out of control.

    The trouble is that nobody is listening to the scientists who have the data - it's being used as a political issue and that's not good. We can do a lot to slow things down but we do have to make some serious decisions and changes very soon.

    But still, the Daily Mail says it's all nonsense so it must be eh? ;)
     
  6. oompah

    oompah

    Joined:
    18 May 2007
    Messages:
    5,384
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Devon
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    A good article but there in lies the problem it is open to Interpretation you mention scientists, it is all down to how man decides what to base his findings on.There can not be an excact measurement of global warming, what was the mean average temperture say 1 million years ago?no one knows a guestimate is made based on what a scientist or a ordinary lay person decides what it should be measured against.As a footnote we are enjoying a warm autumn if its global warming may it continue.
     
  7. TheOriginalTonkaToy

    TheOriginalTonkaToy

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2008
    Messages:
    294
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Actually, it's possible to get reasonably accurate idea of the GMST and climate trends 1ma and even further back by using proxy indicators. These can be quantitative (e.g. accurately measurable isotope ratios) or qualitative (e.g. indicators for the presence of glaciers - dropstones, moraines, eskers, etc). The science is a lot better than most people realise. As for interpretation, all anyone can do is measure the indicators and effects, make reasonable extrapolation from that, test it ad infinitum and modify as necessary - that's what science does.
     
  8. oompah

    oompah

    Joined:
    18 May 2007
    Messages:
    5,384
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Devon
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    quote="TheOriginalTonkaToy";p="1384438"]

    and modify as necessary - that's what science does.[/quote]
    Why modify it ,it either rings true or not.Lets take time as an example of measurement it takes 365 days for the earth to orbit the sun,(no it doesn't it takes 365 and a bit days)thats why we have a leap year to bring us back in sync.So not an excact science, time is a measurement invented by man and as we can see not an accurate one.So why should we believe that a backward looking measurement is accurate.Climate change is happening,what the causes are is open to interpretation it is a natural cycle or man made.Why would someone put themselves on a pedestal and say although we (Humans)have in terms on length of time on this planet been here a blink of an eye we can destroy or save it at will, is beyond me.
     
  9. TheOriginalTonkaToy

    TheOriginalTonkaToy

    Joined:
    22 Jan 2008
    Messages:
    294
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Why modify it?

    Let's look at a historical example. People once thought that the Earth was at the centre of everything, with the planets and the stars revolving around it. Then somebody noticed that the inner planets exhibited retrograde motion so a smart chap called Ptolemy fixed that by placing the inner planets on epicycles. A few hundred years later, another smart chap called Copernicus realised that the whole thing could be sorted out by simply placing the sun at the centre of the system. That's how ideas evolve, and that's how science works.

    Time measurement is a bit of a compromise as far as things go - or more specifically, the calendar is. However, on the scale of geological time the odd leap year doesn't matter. 1 milion years ago is 1 million years ago and the measurements made at that scale are surprisingly good.

    As for humankind making a difference in the short time they've existed, the evidence is there to be seen by all. A thousand years ago the UK would have been covered by forest as would a lot of temperate zone. Humankind cut the forest down for fuel and to build things. That's a major impact and it's still going on today. In the last 200 years, we've put carbon that was sequestered in the natural carbon cycle over 300 million years ago back into the atmosphere via coal burning - remember that we've already removed a lot of the natural mechanisms for re-sequestering it - and likewise in the past 50 or so years, we've done the same for carbon that was sequestered over 150 million years ago by burning oils. We've disrupted the carbon cycle significantly.

    It's all about evidence and it's all there if you look for it.
     
  10. oompah

    oompah

    Joined:
    18 May 2007
    Messages:
    5,384
    Thanks Received:
    13
    Location:
    Devon
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    What about the sahara desert it is generally regarded as beeing a vast area of greeen jungle some 100,00 years ago where is mans influence in this area turning into the desert it is today.There have been various reports of the margins of the sahara beginning to support plant and animal life due to global warming bringing back much needed rain.Nature will balance itself out.It is only the woh is me thrice woh brigade predicting the doomsday scernario sponsored by idiots like Brown and this buffoon. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/n...e-silliest-statement-ever-on-climate-change/#
     
  11. empip

    empip

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Thanks Received:
    139
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Ah, we shall be saved, economists, the saviours of all we hold dear - very dear !

    :rolleyes:

    Steve McIntyre is a thorn in the side for a few :-
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7556

    Roger A. Pielke Sr - worth a read.
    Comments On AP Story “Statistics Experts Reject Global Cooling Claims”
    http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.c...tistics-experts-reject-global-cooling-claims/

    --
     
  12. joe-90

    joe-90

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2005
    Messages:
    31,284
    Thanks Received:
    1,060
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Why does it have to be either/or cyclic change and CO2 emissions?
    Why can't it be a bit of both? Either way, reducing the CO2 output may slow the natural cyclic change.
    And yes, the Earth will adapt - but whether it will support a burgeoning population is doubtful.
     
  13. mickyg

    mickyg

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Messages:
    15,997
    Thanks Received:
    3,323
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    so is this statement below something someones made up or genuine fact?

     
  14. Norcon

    Norcon

    Joined:
    17 May 2008
    Messages:
    8,418
    Thanks Received:
    357
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    The ice cores don't lie. ;)
    I had though that it was proved beyond doubt that man IS the culprit.
    Saying that , what man (especially in western economies) would welcome such news? And its clear many don't, hence the head in sand syndrome.
    Most people are more concerned about the cash for their second foreign holiday and maintaining the X5 on the drive than worrying about who/what is causing (so called) climate change.
    The more (lying cheating) governments push the argument, the more people will tell them to go and stuff themselves.
     
  15. mickyg

    mickyg

    Joined:
    24 Aug 2005
    Messages:
    15,997
    Thanks Received:
    3,323
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Personally I'm not 100% convinced either way, hence the original post. The trouble is as people have found out there's much money and credibility to be gained off the back of the argument. The trouble is now, every bit of "evidence" has been altered to suit the argument of the person using it. It does appear the CO2 argument is being blown way out of proportion to suit carbon taxes, but at the end of the day I'm no scientist, what am I to know other than what I can read and hear. Alot of the scientists putting across the CO2 argument seem to be part of organisations funded by governments, again which puts suspicion into peoples minds.
     
Loading...

Share This Page