Climate change questions

YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!
YOU'RE A DENIER!
TO THE HANGING SQUARE!

Seriously, to all the "climatologists" who have a degree in f#ckall and read Facebook to understand science, you should be extremely concerned if the climate didn't change, if it became stable.
That would mean that the earth is dying.
As rightly pointed out, climate have always changed, at times a lot faster than now.
With higher levels of co2 the earth thrives.
See the jurassic era.
Plants feed on co2 and more plants mean more oxygen, more life, more abundance for all living creatures.
I too would like to ask: "What the hell do you do with environmental taxes? Do you pay mother nature to stop rotating the planet???"
No, you put it in your pocket, no 2 ways around it.
What these protesters should be more concerned is pollution, especially plastic pollution which is suffocating the environment.
That's where we can make a difference.
You know, my dear environmentalist, you could do without a plastic cup for your soya latte.
Start from there and then when you've cleaned your own act, try to get the politicians on board to pass legislation to clean our habits.
Not scams like the Prius imposition which is enslaving entire population in Africa and South America and causing more pollution than keeping our existing vehicles, but real effective changes, first of all the ban on single use plastic and wrapping.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect is strong in this one.
 
Sponsored Links
I have been thinking about climate change, probably like most people, of late & have some questions that I cannot find an answer to.
How long do pollutants ( CO2 etc. ) stay in the atmosphere?
Are these pollutants dissolved to any extent as they pass through clouds on the way to the atmosphere?
If heating our homes is our biggest problem, therefore highest in winter, how will trees capture CO2 in winter when they have no leaves ( or the majority of them at least )?
I'm sure some of the more informed members here will be able to help so thanks in advance.
C02 is re-absorbed - mostly by oceans and plant life. These are called carbon sinks. The rest hangs around in the atmosphere. Of course oceans also emit C02 (it's a cycle) Most of the Earth's atmospheric C02 is natural - about 97%. Humans account for the other 3%. The problem is that the difference between absorption and emission is in deficit - so more and more hangs around in the atmosphere.
 
If all fossil fuels and their derivatives, as well as trees for paper and construction were banned in order to save the planet, reverse the Greenhouse Effect and stop deforestation; then there is only one known annually renewable natural resource that is capable of providing the overall majority of the world's paper and textiles; meet all of the world's transportation, industrial and home energy needs, while simultaneously reducing pollution, rebuilding the soil, and cleaning the atmosphere all at the same time... and that substance is -- the same one that did it all before -- Cannabis Hemp... Marijuana!
 
Sponsored Links
I don't think using trees is the issue, (from a C02 point of view) in fact the opposite is true. Many power stations use chipped wood now as a supplement. Some even grow trees specifically to cut for burning. This isn't an issue because it is carbon neutral. The trees grow and absorb C02 - and when burnt emit exactly the same C02. The cut trees are immediately replaced and the cycle continues - if I recall on something like a 5 year cycle.
 
I don't think using trees is the issue, (from a C02 point of view) in fact the opposite is true. Many power stations use chipped wood now as a supplement. Some even grow trees specifically to cut for burning. This isn't an issue because it is carbon neutral. The trees grow and absorb C02 - and when burnt emit exactly the same C02. The cut trees are immediately replaced and the cycle continues - if I recall on something like a 5 year cycle.
I think it is just the short rotation willow that is 5 years, but that seems to have went out of favour, see very little of it now. , most of the stuff I see going into the biomass power stations at longbenton and lockerbie seems to be 30 to 40 year old soft woods. Biomass pockets are deep with grants, they outbid the sawmills, hence the stupid price of home grown timber

But yes all of this type of energy is considered as carbon neutral since the carbon has only recently been borrowed from the atmosphere. But we still need to create permanent new forestry to permanently take carbon out of the atmosphere - as well as create habitat for wildlife.
 
Global warming new ? i wonder what they were burning in roman times that the UK was hot enough to have substantial vineyards as far north as lincolnshire
 
Global warming new ? i wonder what they were burning in roman times that the UK was hot enough to have substantial vineyards as far north as lincolnshire
Well, that brings up the Grand Solar Maxima, meaning it was a lot warmer then than now. Conversely, we have just started on the Grand Solar Minimum, (in 2020) which will be the opposite - it will reduce global temperature. Minima and maxima occurs on a cycle, which normally doesn't have much of a noticeable affect. But there is an additional 'Grand' cycle and we are just entering one of those now. It will reduce temperature and some are saying it will last 40 or 50 years.

PS, this has nowt to do with anthropogenic global warming.
 
99.9% of the science you think is guiding you towards the light, is sponsored & generated by the corporations who stand to benefit the most from that science.

You can continue to think that anything that goes against that which you believe is wrong, but hear me now, in a few very short years time you are going to need to be fairly well off to own a personal form of motor transport, you will be unable to afford a foreign holiday except perhaps a once in a lifetime experience, your diet is going to change drastically, you will not recognise the life of children from the life of your childhood.

You will own nothing & you will be happy.
 
99.9% of the science you think is guiding you towards the light, is sponsored & generated by the corporations who stand to benefit the most from that science.

Any actual evidence for that?
 
We have one hell of a task to turn this around, Here is the rolling average of CO2 in th atmosphere over the last 50 years - We have not even begun to slow the rate of increase down.

CO2 PPM versus time
keeling1.gif
As usual, the graduated in f#ckall only look at the minuscule irrelevance of a nanoparticle to feel they're right.
In this case is 50 years, basically an instant in terms of earth life.
Try this:
CO2climateRaeetal20211600px.jpg
 
That graph is to show that climate closely matches CO2 throughout the geological record. It is explained on https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm, a site which supports climate change.

I do believe you have just shot yourself in the foot.



Quite
That shows that there were much higher levels of co2 in the past.
And when talking about geology, even a 5 year old knows that 50 years is a grain of sand in the desert.
I have no knowledge of geology, but I can see with my own eyes that co2 is not at record levels today.
Unless you pretend that the earth is 50 years old...
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top