Climate Change and CO2

[mickyg]

Noticed that I can't now go more than a couple of hours in a day without coming across something about reducing CO2, carbon footprint, climate change etc.... so wondered what peoples views are because its getting up my nose.

Here's a couple of websites to help you decide if your still unsure!

http://actonco2.direct.gov.uk/actonco2/home.html


http://www.abd.org.uk/act_on_co2.htm

 

[Bodgeit and scarper ltd]

To many people on this planet is speeding up climate change. Apart from a war or plague nothing else will stop it.

 

[ToffeeNick]

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.

 

[Johnmelad502]

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.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

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?

 

[oompah]

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 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.:

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.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

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 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.:

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.

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.

 

[oompah]

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.

 

[TheOriginalTonkaToy]

and modify as necessary - that's what science does.

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.

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.

 

[oompah]

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/#

 

[empip]

... we downloaded IPCC 's latest report on “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability;. There were 380 contributors to the report [PDF of contributors]. A thorough and exhaustive analysis of the backgrounds of these experts (or were they?) was too ambitious (it's Christmas, and we have wine to drink, and mince pies to eat, too). So, we focused on the contributors who operate in the UK. Of the 51 UK contributors to the report, there were 5 economists, 3 epidemiologists, 5 who were either zoologists, entomologists, or biologists. 5 worked in civil engineering or risk management / insurance. 7 had specialisms in physical geography (we gave the benefit of the doubt to some academics whose profiles weren't clear about whether they are physical or human geographers). And just 10 have specialisms in geophysics, climate science or modelling, or hydrology. But there were 15 who could only be described as social scientists. If we take the view that economics is a social science, that makes 20 social scientists....

Ah, we shall be saved, economists, the saviours of all we hold dear - very dear !



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/

--

 

[joe-90]

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.

 

[mickyg]

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.

so is this statement below something someones made up or genuine fact?

Major changes in the earth's climate can take place in a very short time. Data from ice cores and ocean sediments suggest, for example, that 11,650 years ago the climate in Greenland switched from ice-age conditions to the current relatively warm conditions (a warming of 5 to 10 degrees Celsius on average) in only 40 years

 

[Norcon]

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.

 

[mickyg]

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.