CLIMATE CHANGE AND GLOBAL WARMING

[hartley353]

As for the Mail on Sunday, Hartley needs to broaden his reading material whereby he would discover that the Mail's David Rose is good at misinterpretation and misusing other people's data. Some of the scientists concerned have had to complain because he doesn't seem to understand the data or statistics and is misrepresenting them.
The Committee on Climate Change's response to the Mail is here:
http://www.theccc.org.uk/ccc-blog/

After reading this I find a lot of bread and not much meat. Reminds me of that hackneyed phrase." They would say that wouldn't they."

[hartley353]

Some thing for the ignorant scientists to read,it may still many tongues.

Do you really want to go back to the old days when the lifespan was around 40 years? I'm happy with the benefits technology has brought. Genetic modification speeds up what occurs naturally. I agree there are risks, but mutations can and do happen in Nature also.

Before long there will be 7 billion people demanding the resources of this planet. Either let Nature do its worst to bring the population to sustainable levels, something like a global plague or disaster, or develop the technology to provide the resources required.

The life span of a person is immaterial, it is what they do with the time that is important,yes nature has genetic modification,but never as monstrous as scientific meddling,and should natures mistakes be wrong they do not prosper. And yes nature will probably prevail,even after the nuclear event.

[PanBiker]

The life span of a person is immaterial, it is what they do with the time that is important,yes nature has genetic modification,but never as monstrous as scientific meddling,and should natures mistakes be wrong they do not prosper. And yes nature will probably prevail,even after the nuclear event.

I assume that with your aversion to all things scientific you will never have called on the services of a doctor. Or are you perfect enough not to have succumbed to disease injury or illness and so never required their meddling?

[hartley353]

Think I once had an aspirin about 1958,later in life I had regular medicals with a doctor in Blackpool this was compulsory for offshore working.He never found ought wrong, why do you ask?

[staylforth]

Obviously, the physicists that invented the transistor and the integrated circuit weren't scientists or you wouldn't be soiling yourself by using a computer.

[hartley353]

Obviously, the physicists that invented the transistor and the integrated circuit weren't scientists or you wouldn't be soiling yourself by using a computer.

Paid my dues I worked on the installation of the first commercial main frame in Manchester, when only time share was available to business.

[Stanley]

"But what he said agrees with what I believe, and for me that is good enough"
Is it an April Fool post?

[hartley353]

Sorry Stanley I have a sense of humour,but it doesn't stoop to infantile April fool pranks. In the future when I'm proved right have the decency to apologise, it will be accepted Graciously.

[hartley353]

Chinatyke, I agree with your response to Hartley about the need for producing more food but I don't support your post on climate change and CO2. The web links you use to support your comments are to pages written by Monte Heib who is well-known as a coal industry man who promotes use of fossil fuels. His claims are crafted to distract readers from the scientific evidence by using `straw man' arguments, by taking information out of context, and by citing facts without further explanation. His claims have been refuted many times but they still get regurgitated often on the Web. Let's take your comments one at a time...

"Of the 186 billion tons of CO₂ that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants."
Quite so. Scientists don't claim otherwise. These amounts can be estimated and are scientific facts. But it's meant to give the impression to the reader that the CO2 from human activity is irrelevant which is wrong. The cycle of CO2 involves billions of tons of the gas but it has been in balance for a long time - until now when human activity has started to add extra CO2 to the cycle that can't be taken up fast enough.

"At 368 parts per million CO₂ is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present."
Agreed, a fact. But that doesn't make it insignificant or unimportant. That tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere holds the Earth's temperature in a state fit for human life. It's a very sensitive system and it only takes a small increase in CO2 to boost the temperature.

"Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO₂- impoverished."
There have been times in the distant past (millions of years ago) when the CO2 concentration was much higher - but so was the temperature. Scientists don't claim that higher CO2 would destroy the Earth or even destroy life, they only warn that it will have a serious effect on humans and on civilisation. That serious effect would occur if we move to those higher temperatures.

"CO₂ is odorless, colorless, and tasteless."
What's that got to do with it? Oh yes, a `straw man' argument meant to distract us by saying "Look, this CO2 stuff won't harm anyone." Scientists don't claim atmospheric CO2 will directly harm humans.

"Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product."
Yes, this is known as photosynthesis. It occurs in daylight using the sun's energy. Plants also "breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product."

"Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO₂ as a waste product."
So do plants. I'm not sure what this has to do with the debate other than try to put CO2 in a good light.

"Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it."
CO2 is both a nutrient and a pollutant, as is oxygen (oxygen is toxic to life and living organisms had to develop mechanisms to protect themselves from the toxicity). Animals don't benefit from more CO2 in the atmosphere, and nor do all plants. And too much CO2 in the oceans is toxic to coral reefs.

"All life on earth is carbon-based and CO₂ is an essential ingredient."
All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is part of the carbon cycle. Nobody is saying we should eliminate CO2 from the Earth.

"When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide."
Under controlled, enclosed conditions and with certain types of plant.

"CO₂ that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide."
This comes back to my comment at the beginning: "The cycle of CO2 involves billions of tons of the gas but it has been in balance for a long time". It is held in balance by feedback mechanisms. Molecules of CO2 are continuously cycled through the atmosphere, the oceans and the rocks (calcareous rocks such as limestone, chalk). But the extra CO2 being added to the atmosphere in a short time scale (by geological standards) is now forcing the system out of balance, the extra CO2 can't be taken up fast enough and a proportion of the excess that has been released from burning fossil fuels will remain for centuries even if we stopped burning these fuels now. A small proportion would remain for thousands of years. We worry about storing radioactive waste but we are unwittingly storing up another problem in excess CO2.

"If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!"
Not true, we can improve the prospects. And the least costly initiative - cutting back on our energy use - would have the greatest effect, but is anathema to the fossil fuel lobby. Our biggest problems are getting the politicians in countries worldwide to work together and countering the campaigns of the vested interests.

"Just another revenue raising scheme, there was life on Earth during the Carboniferous Period when CO₂ levels were much higher."
You try living a 21st century life under those conditions!

Tizer you will not hear my applause, but I have no contention with the generality of what you say. Fossil fuel lobby not a problem, Alternative energy lobby is.

[Tizer]

"But what he said agrees with what I believe, and for me that is good enough"
Is it an April Fool post?

Apparently not, but it tells us all we need to know about how Hartley analyses information!

[hartley353]

"But what he said agrees with what I believe, and for me that is good enough"
Is it an April Fool post?

Apparently not, but it tells us all we need to know about how Hartley analyses information!

Oh! Those slings and arrows,and still they come. Is that scientific proof that empty kettles make the most sound,Yes I think so.

[chinatyke]

Chinatyke, I agree with your response to Hartley about the need for producing more food but I don't support your post on climate change and CO2. The web links you use to support your comments are to pages written by Monte Heib who is well-known as a coal industry man who promotes use of fossil fuels.

Al Gore is also biased and making a lot of money for himself. Governments use the arguments to raise money.

Who knows what will happen in the future? For instance, if a clean, limitless, free source of energy was found (fusion reactors?) we could remove O₂ from CO₂ and make CO which could then be used to replace fossil fuels, or we could freeze the CO₂ and dump it on the ice caps. Today's problems may be solved by tomorrow's solutions in ways that we can only dream about.

Believe me, I'm not saying that pollution should go unchecked, we only have one World and we must look after it. Governments are right to protect the planet but it is at a cost: increasing the cost base only moves jobs elsewhere.

Sorry: edited because I got the chemistry wrong! And I was a Chemist! Tut Tut!

[Stanley]

"In the future when I'm proved right have the decency to apologise, it will be accepted Graciously."
Tiz, let's just leave him in his cosy little world and get on with our flawed lives.

Back to reality. Have a look at this LINK for a fascinating account of the latest measurements by Radar of the bedrock under the ice in the Antarctic and how it has modified estimates of the quantity of ice in the cap. Interesting to see how little the original findings have been modified.

[hartley353]

Thank you stanley, Many of us will be out there battling on for your protection, we will do this without thanks, or a penny from your pocket. You seem to have adopted the stance keep your enemies closer, what ever works for you.

[Pluggy]

Bump

[Stanley]

I posted about the Hawaii weather station recording over 400PPM CO2 for the first time but it was lost. See this LINK.

[Tizer]

Yes. I saw your original post and replied with a long post about how the deniers still try to claim that the rise in CO2 is due to increased volcanic activity, yet volcanoes account for the equivalent of less than 1% of global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels burned by human activity. I backed up what I'd written with figures from the US Geological Survey and the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.

[Stanley]

Hopefully we're back on track now. The dinosaurs appear to be quiet. Could be something to do with the fact that there is a fault on the site at the moment, If you aren't already lo0oged in the portal won't let you in. Pluggy is looking at it.....

[Stanley]

Flooding in central Europe as the major rivers reach flood levels. Prague under threat at the moment. Rhine and Danube particularly bad.

[Stanley]

The EU report that the flooding in central Europe is the worst for over 100 years. It was caused by two months worth of rain falling in two days.... So, at the very least, an exceptional weather event.

[Tizer]

It's a taste of what will come with increasing global temperatures, when the Alps will no longer have glaciers and snow and the high alpine rainfall will wash straight down into the rivers and flood the plains.

[Tripps]

Problem is that "exceptional weather events" are becoming unexceptionable.

[Stanley]

Dead right Tripps. The flood waters are working their way down the system. 10 meters above normal levels at some points. They'll be watching developments carefully in the Netherlands!

[Stanley]

The consequences of the floods are not over yet. See this LINK.

[Tizer]

The consequences of the floods are not over yet. See this LINK.

According to an a Austrian university spokesman, Walter Hoffmann, quoted in the Daily Telegraph: "A flood like this usually does not even come along once in a century. It's the sort of thing one sees only once every 2,000 to 10,000 years." Millions of animals have died and their carcasses are rotting, leading to plagues of rats and cockroaches. There are also warnings about swarms of mosquitoes, and cattle have been found dead apparently due to thousands of mosquito bites. Have you noticed how we are hearing very little of this news in the UK? Instead we get Nelson Mandela at the top of the BBC headlines.