|
|
Post by patman post on Jan 10, 2023 14:29:10 GMT
The question still remains as to whether man's contribution to CO2 is the cause of significant problems. Prof Rothman has said that the natural emissions of CO2 "dwarf" human contributions by 10 times. Bearing in mind that the effect of CO2 on AGW is logarithmic rather than linear it would seem that man's contribution to CO2 isn't making much difference. Small amounts are NOT likely to tip the cycle out of equilibrium. What's more likely to be making the difference is either our removal of the Earth's stabilisers or natural effects. Surely, they're all playing a part and tipping the balance — ie, increased CO2 production, and removal of Earth's stabilisers (agriculture and livestock farming contributing to this), and naturally occurring changes such as route changing deep-sea current flows. Aren't they all likely to affect/upset a finely tuned system?
I'm 41 and unlikely to directly benefit from any reversal to climate change — though my children may catch the early fringes. But I'm likely to notice a cleaner, healthier and more attractive and enjoyable environment if pollution is reduced and the land and water is cleaned up and natural plant and animal life repopulates now barren areas...
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 10, 2023 15:43:11 GMT
Man changes many things. The dust bowls in the US were man made once the tough prairie grass was removed and the ground cropped every year, even now the large aquifer in a similar sort of region is gradually being drained with insufficient rainfall to replenish it, the Sahara has extended southwards due to overuse, the Chinese deforested Vietnam in the 14th century for the rare timbers and in the US mountain top removal in the Cumberlands has changed the area, and the effects of the weather, entirely. Why we should now be concentrating on CO2 as the sole cause of our ills seems at best a distraction from dealing with the actual problems which has obviously been, for the last hundred years, population. All that seems feasible — but it doesn't remove the fact that there's been excess CO2 caused by human activity over the last hundred years. This has been referenced by Daniel Rothman, MIT professor of geophysics:
The Earth’s natural carbon cycle moves a staggering amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) around our planet. Some parts of the planet, such as the oceans and forests, absorb carbon dioxide and store it for hundreds or thousands of years. These are called natural carbon sinks. Meanwhile, natural sources of CO2 such as undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents release carbon. Altogether the planet absorbs and emits about 100 billion tons of carbon dioxide through this natural cycle every year.
That total dwarfs humanity’s contribution, amounting to ten times as much CO2 as humans produce through activities such as burning fossil fuels.
If people emit only a tenth as much CO2 as nature does, then why are scientists so concerned about our emissions driving climate change? It is because our extra chunk of carbon emissions has tipped out of equilibrium what was once a balanced cycle.
"What's being taken out by natural processes is more or less equal to what's being put in—other than the extent to which we've disturbed it,” Rothman says. This is why the atmospheric level of CO2 continues to creep up as humans keep burning fossil fuels: Human activities tip the scales by adding carbon to the air faster than the planet’s sinks can absorb it.
It looks like we will have to learn to live with the effects of climate change — the planet would need hundreds or thousands of years to cleanse all the excess CO2 people have pumped into the atmosphere during the industrial era...
There is little dispute that man is adding to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, the point of dispute is what effect this will have and so far it seems to range from insignificant to calamity just around the corner. Most people were prepared to accept calamity just around the corner and adjust their lives accordingly. Several factors have disturbed that consensus. The continuance of the warming alarmists to seek to curtail the emissions of everyone else whilst carrying on by 'offsetting' their own enormous footprints; the questions raised as regards the 'settled science' that were rarely adequately answered; the obvious overegging of the pudding in many areas including results and the number of scientists who believe the danger, the inability of the models to predict anything with any degree of accuracy; the denigration and cancelling of those who do not toe the calamity line; the hockey stick fiasco and the separation of temperature increase from rising CO2 levels. And much more. |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Jan 10, 2023 16:57:14 GMT
I can guarantee that when they find man produced CO2 is not the cause of global warming, they will find something else we produce to be the cause. I predict hydrogen sulphide, so goodbye baked beans and pickled onions.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jan 11, 2023 7:59:31 GMT
Hmm. If they want to record lower temperatures maybe put the instruments somewhere they don’t get afterburner wash as a couple of jets are scrambled ??
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 11, 2023 10:51:46 GMT
The question still remains as to whether man's contribution to CO2 is the cause of significant problems. Prof Rothman has said that the natural emissions of CO2 "dwarf" human contributions by 10 times. Bearing in mind that the effect of CO2 on AGW is logarithmic rather than linear it would seem that man's contribution to CO2 isn't making much difference. Small amounts are NOT likely to tip the cycle out of equilibrium. What's more likely to be making the difference is either our removal of the Earth's stabilisers or natural effects. Really? Get out your kitchen scales and put 1kg in each pan. Now put 100gms in one pan. Does it tip the scales or not? |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 11, 2023 10:56:20 GMT
There are a lot of questions to be asked about the way that temperatures are now recorded - and whether they can be compared directly with historic recordings made with different equipment and in different places. It's also a fact that there are far more weather stations now than there were in, say, 1850 - so you would expect to see more "record" temperatures. And I wonder about the wisdom of recording temperatures at the side of a main runway. I think the highest temperature every recorded on Earth was recorded in 1913. And I wonder why the sea temperatures recorded by bouys (regarded as the most accurate readings we have) were discarded because they were too low to fit the IPCC graph that dismissed the "hiatus".  ....and where they are recorded. In East Anglia Norwich is regularly quoted as the lowest winter temperature yet if they were brave enough to take a thermometer and wind sock up to somewhere like Cromer, they'd find it is almost invariably colder and windier by some way. It's colder and windier at the coast than it is inland. This isn't going to win you a Nobel prize I'm afraid. It's been known for a very, very long time. Even before you were born. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 11, 2023 11:08:23 GMT
The total amount of sea ice in the Arctic has been shrinking by about 230 billion tons per year since 1980. 95% of the thick, multiyear ice has already gone. There is no doubt that at some time in the not too distant future large areas of the Arctic that are presently covered in ice during the Summer will be open water. This will result in an acceleration of Global Warming ... which some "Doom" forecasters say will "Crush humanity like a bug." It will be reverting to what it was millions of years ago as will the Sahara. The Earth's axis is moving as are deep underwater currents. Underwater currents such as the Gulf stream are changing as a result of the icecaps melting not the other way around. This is known science and a result of huge amounts of fresh water sinking at different rates to salt water thereby slowing the ''conveyor belt'' effect which generates the Gulf stream. The changing axis (obliquity) and other factors of the Milankovitch cycles (orbital eccentricity and precession) have been know about for years and are predictable. The climate is changing in ways which cannot be explained by these cycles. |
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 11, 2023 14:12:43 GMT
The question still remains as to whether man's contribution to CO2 is the cause of significant problems. Prof Rothman has said that the natural emissions of CO2 "dwarf" human contributions by 10 times. Bearing in mind that the effect of CO2 on AGW is logarithmic rather than linear it would seem that man's contribution to CO2 isn't making much difference. Small amounts are NOT likely to tip the cycle out of equilibrium. What's more likely to be making the difference is either our removal of the Earth's stabilisers or natural effects. Really? Get out your kitchen scales and put 1kg in each pan. Now put 100gms in one pan. Does it tip the scales or not? Silly analogy. The Earth's system is buffered so that if you increase the concentration of CO2 it may trap more heat but it also causes plants/trees to absorb more heat, so equilibrium can be maintained. |
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jan 11, 2023 14:31:28 GMT
Really? Get out your kitchen scales and put 1kg in each pan. Now put 100gms in one pan. Does it tip the scales or not? Silly analogy. The Earth's system is buffered so that if you increase the concentration of CO2 it may trap more heat but it also causes plants/trees to absorb more heat, so equilibrium can be maintained. The data does not support that theory. It's one of the reasons climate change deniers attack the data. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jan 11, 2023 15:07:45 GMT
Silly analogy. The Earth's system is buffered so that if you increase the concentration of CO2 it may trap more heat but it also causes plants/trees to absorb more heat, so equilibrium can be maintained. The data does not support that theory. It's one of the reasons climate change deniers attack the data. Well just on the subject of this thread asking questions about the data seems to be in order if only the met office would answer the very pertinent questions. It is the inability or unwillingness to answer questions which makes people at best suspicious. If this was in isolation there would not be a problem but across the board there are many unanswered questions. |
|
|
|
Post by bancroft on Jan 11, 2023 16:32:31 GMT
The CO2 rises are double edged.
On the one hand burning fossil fuels on the other hand destroying carbon sinks in the tropical rain forests for several centuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by steppenwolf on Jan 12, 2023 7:46:06 GMT
Silly analogy. The Earth's system is buffered so that if you increase the concentration of CO2 it may trap more heat but it also causes plants/trees to absorb more heat, so equilibrium can be maintained. The data does not support that theory. It's one of the reasons climate change deniers attack the data. Which bit of data does not support what theory? Are you disputing that CO2 causes cooling by photosynthesis? If so, this is NOT a "theory" - it's an observed effect. And there is no such thing as "climate deniers". You need to use words more accurately if anyone is to be able to make sense of what you say. |
|
