|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 6:06:39 GMT
Do any of you think increased atmospheric Co2 can cause global warming?
|
|
|
|
Post by Montegriffo on Jun 2, 2023 8:44:19 GMT
I was wondering what the overall view is on here regarding climate change. You all know my view, but if you don't. I think manmade climate change is very real and is now urgent. This comes off the back of the fact that I have mentioned several times that there is a cost to doing nothing about climate change, just as there is to do something about it. Be good to see your vote and your views. I voted twice. My initial vote was spoiled lol. I ticked the top option by mistake. I meant to tick the second option. So the one vote in the top option is in fact, void.  You can unselect it by clicking on it again if you wish. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jun 2, 2023 8:56:55 GMT
My option isn't on there.
"There is a potential problem, but the risk is being massively exaggerated for nefarious political purposes"
Net zero is settled government policy (so settled, it's hard to think how it could be stopped democratically) and yet it is such a hysterical and pointed over-reaction it almost looks like sabotage
The government's policy seems more focused on causing damage and inconvenience than doing anything useful.
Nuke solves the problem and removes the lever - is this why we aren't doing it?
|
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 2, 2023 13:28:03 GMT
I'm not trying to blur any issue. I don't know what the issue is and I don't see history as an issue. I find the history of the earth interesting, and that includes its climate. Milankovich cycles are accurate but their influence on climate are still not properly understood. In the early part of the quaternary period there appeared to be a direct correlation between axial tilt and glacial and interglacial periods that relationship broke down about 1 million years ago at what is known as the mid-pleistocene transition. While interglacial and interglacial periods and the transition between them may take place over millennia the rate of change isn't. when a glacial or interglacial period is in full swing the rate of change is rapid. The last glacial period was extreme once it got going, the change in global temperatures was extreme, the level of glaciation was extreme, as it came to an end global temps were at an all time low and temps were relatively stable for 1000s of years. As the current interglacial period got going the rate of change has been extreme, as it comes to an end, temps will stabilize for a long period of time before cooling starts to pick up pace. There is nothing to suggest the rate of change seen over the past 30 years is dramatically different to the rate of change during many other interglacial periods that have occurred over the past 500 million years. Could you define extreme in glacial terms? Temperature changes measurable in 10's of years? I'm also interested in the subject, good to talk to you. 1) a shit load more ice than other glacial periods. 2) silly question |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 2, 2023 13:34:52 GMT
Do any of you think increased atmospheric Co2 can cause global warming? No. It can and does influence the rate of warming as well as the rate of cooling, but it does not in and of itself cause it. Massive increases and decreases in CO2 have been identified as a result of warming and cooling in the archaeological record |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 16:28:10 GMT
My option isn't on there. "There is a potential problem, but the risk is being massively exaggerated for nefarious political purposes" Net zero is settled government policy (so settled, it's hard to think how it could be stopped democratically) and yet it is such a hysterical and pointed over-reaction it almost looks like sabotage The government's policy seems more focused on causing damage and inconvenience than doing anything useful. Nuke solves the problem and removes the lever - is this why we aren't doing it? Don't agree with you on any of this. Nuke is the poor option because of cost. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 16:36:58 GMT
Do any of you think increased atmospheric Co2 can cause global warming? No. It can and does influence the rate of warming as well as the rate of cooling, but it does not in and of itself cause it. Massive increases and decreases in CO2 have been identified as a result of warming and cooling in the archaeological record The chicken theory. Which came first the Co2 or the heat. In ice cores during warm periods they found increased Co2 but there was some evidence that the warming came first and the warmed soil released the Co2 which then increased warming by trapping heat. So when you talk of Co2 not causing warming you are referring to its Duvet effect. A Duvet does not cause warming, but everyone knows that if you put it on your bed and climb in you get warmer. No one ever says duvets don't make beds warmer because everyone knows what you mean when you say my duvet makes my bed cosy. So to rephrase the question: Does anyone think increased atmospheric Co2 does not increase water vapour content which in turn traps infrared heat emanating from the earths surface. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2023 18:39:10 GMT
Do any of you think increased atmospheric Co2 can cause global warming? Why is there any need to ask us on a forum, Zany? Didn't you tell us the "science" is settled? 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 18:44:32 GMT
Do any of you think increased atmospheric Co2 can cause global warming? Why is there any need to ask us on a forum, Zany? Didn't you tell us the "science" is settled? 😂 I'm interested in opinions. For instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 2, 2023 18:53:34 GMT
Why is there any need to ask us on a forum, Zany? Didn't you tell us the "science" is settled? 😂 I'm interested in opinions. For instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening. Well, I think I've already made it clear in other threads that I'm not a believer in A.G.W. I admit the earth has been warming since 1880, but that levelled off and as it is natural, there's nothing we can do about it. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 19:12:02 GMT
I'm interested in opinions. For instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening. Well, I think I've already made it clear in other threads that I'm not a believer in A.G.W. I admit the earth has been warming since 1880, but that levelled off and as it is natural, there's nothing we can do about it. Thank you. I'll wait to hear others opinions. |
|
|
|
Post by colbops on Jun 2, 2023 19:35:38 GMT
Why is there any need to ask us on a forum, Zany? Didn't you tell us the "science" is settled? 😂 I'm interested in opinions. For instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening. Why not just be honest and say what you really think rather than dancing around whatever you think the issue is and what must be done about it. Climate change has been occurring since the earth was formed. The climate is relatively stable for short periods of time during periods of transition from a warming cycle to a cooling cycle. During those cycles once they get going change is relatively rapid and often quite extreme. There have been rapid and extreme periods of change during humanity's brief existence and that of its immediate ancestors. The land mass that is the british isles has gone through periods where it has been uninhabitable to being a relatively comfortable place to call home. Places that were once inhabitable and inhabited are now inhospitable, some are even under water. I doubt very much anyone would argue that climate change doesn't exist. There is nothing about the current interglacial period now that is so unusual that it couldn't be happening exactly as it is now had humans never existed. Before deciding what 'must be done' probably best to decide what the goal is. What do you want to achieve? Try to work out and eliminate any human influence and let the chips fall where they may? Try to control the climate so it remains as it is now forever? make the climate how it was 100 years ago and fix it there, 200 years ago, 500 years ago? Maybe you'd like to try to make everywhere in the world a green and pleasant land with mild temps and oceans that are comfortable to bath in? Controlling the environment is going to be the biggest human endeavour ever and going to take a lot more than CO2 control so you may as well think big. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 20:06:42 GMT
I'm interested in opinions. For instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening. I have on the long previous thread about climate change. This thread was a follow up to see how many people on here still believed it has nothing to do with human activity. People who are willing to confuse eons with decades in order to claim this is down to natural events that have happened before. Ah, here's one now. On cue, that relatively rapid again with no clarity (despite repeated requests) as to what you mean by relatively. All with known causes, what's the known cause this time? In relatively short periods of time, say a few million years. You are king of misrepresentation aren't you. Is this your idea of winning an argument. To change peoples words to ones you can argue against instead of having to actually address their more difficult ones. I said "or instance there is no point in discussing how we might mitigate it and the costs involved if no one on here believes its happening." clearly in reference to AGW. and not general climate change or whether woodpeckers are made of wood. How can there be a goal if AGW does not exist. Yep. Nope just allow it natural pace of change. Sigh. So long as you pretend the climate changes naturally at the same pace as we are seeing now then you can also pretend its natural. So long as you don't feel a need to explain what's causing the current warming beyond a vague 'the climate changes and has always done so' I guess your argument holds. But without those answers it doesn't work for me |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jun 2, 2023 20:08:18 GMT
My option isn't on there. "There is a potential problem, but the risk is being massively exaggerated for nefarious political purposes" Net zero is settled government policy (so settled, it's hard to think how it could be stopped democratically) and yet it is such a hysterical and pointed over-reaction it almost looks like sabotage The government's policy seems more focused on causing damage and inconvenience than doing anything useful. Nuke solves the problem and removes the lever - is this why we aren't doing it? Don't agree with you on any of this. Nuke is the poor option because of cost. It is still a lot cheaper than net zero. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jun 2, 2023 20:14:12 GMT
Don't agree with you on any of this. Nuke is the poor option because of cost. It is still a lot cheaper than net zero. Have you any figures to back that claim? Not sure where your gonna get your nuclear central heating or nuclear cars. |
|
