2 edits
In reply to CalJust who suggested a new thread:
Yes man made CO2 is indeed small in comparison to naturally occuring CO2, which goes up and down naturally anyway as a result of temperature and not the other way around, but with an 800 year lag and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Fiddling around the edges, like attempting to decrease man's contribution will achieve nothing other than economic disaster.
It is a well known fact that the Earth's constituent gases consist of 77% Nitrogen, 21% Oxygen with the 2% balance comprised of the so-called 'greenhouse gases'. These trace gases are water vapour (averaging about 1% ), followed by carbon dioxide at 0.038%, methane at 0.00015% and even lesser concentrations of minor gases. So how can a gas that occupies a measly 0.038% of our atmosphere warrant so much attention? (see http://www.nzcpd.com/guest43.htm)
Of this 0.038% due to CO2, a measly 3% is due to mankind!! That puts things into perspective. It is even sillier when you consider the Kyoto requirements to reduce this 3% of 0.038% by a percentage!! And THAT slight adjustment to a measly amount of a non-poisonous gas (a gas that plants thrive on for God's sake!) is somehow supposed to 'correct' the climate and haul the earth back from the brink of catastrophe!! Yeah right!
All the fuss over climate change being due to man-made CO2 is utter bloody nonsense if for no other reason than the fact that the numbers simply do not stack up, let alone the myriad issues over the vagaries and flaws involved with computer modelling. The AGW movement is politically and emotionally driven (as evidenced by the fact that the IPCC is a UN funded and driven committee).
Originally posted by SpastiGovHow is becoming more energetically efficient going to bring about economic disaster? Surely it makes sense not to waste energy, which is obviously going to become more expensive as fossil fuels get harder and harder to reach.
In reply to CalJust who suggested a new thread:
Yes man made CO2 is indeed small in comparison to naturally occuring CO2, which goes up and down naturally anyway as a result of temperature and not the other way around, but with an 800 year lag and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Fiddling around the edges, like attempting to decrease man ...[text shortened]... lly driven (as evidenced by the fact that the IPCC is a UN funded and driven committee).
You're arguing that we should bury our heads in the sand. Fine, you do that, but please, make sure it's somewhere where you won't get in the way.
Where's the math showing that 3% is due to mankind? Or do you just believe pretty much everything this guy says?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores/
read this about CO2 being a factor in climate change.
What possible political motives could the "AGW political movement" have?
First point: Even if man's CO2 output quadrupled, it would still be such a small fraction of natural CO2 there would be no discernible difference in global temperatures or climate.
What is this absolute volume? I posted something before on this very point about radio isotopes in reply to this post. You're obviously too smart to read it as if you happened to read it, it would prove you wrong, and with fewer points to argue, you might start to realise that you're wrong. Either way, your point that if we quadrupled the CO2 levels, our contribution would only be a small fraction... so either nature is increasing it's output because it feels like it, or our contribution in that circumstance would be 75%. I guess that is a tiny fraction.
Second point: Temperatures went down for thirty years in the 20th century while CO2 levels went up!
What's this about the big picture? You pounce on natural fluctuations and ignore the big picture. Again.
Third point: Current climate change theory/anthropogenic global warming theory is dependent upon computer modelling.
Massively sweeping statements in that paragraph, either show specifics or don't bother. Unless of course its just that you have a natural aversion to computers.
Yes, of course computer models are never going to be entirely accurate, but they're the best guess we have, and generally they are in the right ballpark.
Fourth point: The "big picture" as you put it is the very thing I'm interested in!
Yes, fine, the sun is an important factor, I've repeatedly acknowledged that. Please try to get it in your skull that the atmosphere is also a factor. Our influence is large enough to change temperatures by a few degrees; enough to upset the climate.
You're the one being naive if you don't think that we can do what we want and have no effect on our environment.
Originally posted by SpastiGovyou don't need a large quantity of co2 to produce an effect retard. you have much less ozone and it shields you from uv rays.
In reply to CalJust who suggested a new thread:
Yes man made CO2 is indeed small in comparison to naturally occuring CO2, which goes up and down naturally anyway as a result of temperature and not the other way around, but with an 800 year lag and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Fiddling around the edges, like attempting to decrease man ...[text shortened]... lly driven (as evidenced by the fact that the IPCC is a UN funded and driven committee).
2 edits
Originally posted by mrstabbyThe only way to decrease CO2 output in any measureable quantity is to hinder economic progress and development. It's a constituent part of many industrial processes and reducing it or eliminating it is not a cheap option. That is what could cause economic ruin, especially for developing countries.
How is becoming more energetically efficient going to bring about economic disaster? Surely it makes sense not to waste energy, which is obviously going to become more expensive as fossil fuels get harder and harder to reach.
You're arguing that we should bury our heads in the sand. Fine, you do that, but please, make sure it's somewhere where you won't on't think that we can do what we want and have no effect on our environment.
Yes it makes sense not to waste energy, but how far do we have to take it in order to avert some supposed climatic catastrophe? Do you really think reducing INDUSTRIAL!! CO2 emissions and energy consumption by a few percent globally is going to make any difference? How feasible do you really think that is going to be anyway? Are YOU prepared to walk to work, plant your own veges, milk a cow, do without TV and MacDonalds and many or all of the conveniences of your present life style that you take so much for granted, all the things that have made your life comfortable, things like cell phones and TV dinners and soda pop, on the strength of a THEORY? An unproved highly debatable THEORY? Are you prepared to take your lifestyle back to the Middles Ages when we produced no CO2 to speak of, on the assumption that doing that will start to reduce the earth's temperature? Do you still believe in Santa Clause?
Yes we could go back and forth banging away at each other with links and articles till the cows come home. I read that link and wasn't ipressed. I could equally post another that says the exact opposite (for instance: http://www.uni-leipzig.de/~meteo/MUDELSEE/publ/pdf/lag.pdf and http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712 and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965.)
I said "if we quadrupled OUR CO2 levels"! If we quadrupled MANKIND'S CO2 output, it would still represent a tiny fraction of the total and an even tinier fraction of the atmosphere. I also said NATURAL CO2 goes up and down all the time for whatever reason and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. You need to distinguish between natural CO2 and industrial CO2. We can only influence industrial CO2, but there's no point because it's too small an amount in the "BIG PICTURE", in the "SCHEME OF THINGS" to make any difference.
Yessiree... natural fluctuations ARE the big picture! Man's fluctuations are piffle, the little picture... neither here nor there.
Computer models are exactly that: models! They rely on assumption! Guesswork! Conjecture! Fudge factors! None of which amounts to a FACT! There is very good reason to be wary of such practices because they have a nasty habit of attaining an undeserved degree of fashionable respectability as though they can do no wrong. It is a mistake to depend on the resultant data that began life as an assumption because there were too many variables to take into account. You should know this already. Or do you think they are infallible?
Mankind's industry and cities might be sufficient to affect localized temperatures over short time frames, but certainly not enough to alter global climates. THAT is a naive belief! Nature does that on its own and there's nothing you or I or anyone can do to change its course. Despite what Al Gore and other clowns think.
Originally posted by SpastiGovnice view upon the world. it basically absolves us of any responsibility, of any guilt. mankind could do anything, chop as many forests, burn as much oil, dump as much garbage because we cannot possibly do any damage. because the earth is so big and smart and tough that it can recover from anything we throw at it.
The only way to decrease CO2 output in any measureable quantity is to hinder economic progress and development. It's a constituent part of many industrial processes and reducing it or eliminating it is not a cheap option. That is what could cause economic ruin, especially for developing countries.
Yes it makes sense not to waste energy, but how far do w ...[text shortened]... anyone can do to change its course. Despite what Al Gore and other clowns think.
quadruple the co2 levels and we would still not make a dent. wow. your intelligence astounds me. how could i been so blind
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy do I bother? You're comparing ozone with CO2 as though they are close enough chemically to be able to say, "Well it only takes a small amount of ozone to do such and such, so it should only take a small amount of CO2!" Excellent! I suppose you also think that if it takes a small amount of cyanide to kill a horse, it must also take a similar amount of something else"?
you don't need a large quantity of co2 to produce an effect retard. you have much less ozone and it shields you from uv rays.
I suggest you get your train set out again and go play.
Originally posted by SpastiGovWhat's going to cause more economic ruin; reducing CO2 emissions in a controlled manner, or being forced to use less energy as we can't get fossil fuels/uranium out of the ground quick enough?
The only way to decrease CO2 output in any measureable quantity is to hinder economic progress and development. It's a constituent part of many industrial processes and reducing it or eliminating it is not a cheap option. That is what could cause economic ruin, especially for developing countries.
Yes it makes sense not to waste energy, but how far do w ...[text shortened]... anyone can do to change its course. Despite what Al Gore and other clowns think.
As for saving energy, I'm talking about reducing packaging, using more efficient lighting, designing buildings so they don't need aircon etc etc. Reducing waste is economically beneficial, it's incredibly simple.
As for doing without modern conveniences, society managed without McDonalds, TV dinners, soda and TV 100 years ago (Aside note - McDonalds, TV dinners and soda are dependent on oil). We will be forced to cut back on all modern conveniences when the energy crisis worsens, unless of course like the roman empire western civilisation is invincible. And yes, I actually do plant my own food as far as possible and keep livestock, I try to be as independent as possible from society for my food. There is far more to life than mere trinkets of western society, which most of the world gets along quite happily without.
Your polarising my argument is infantile, try providing satisfactory responses to my points. No, I don't think we should go back to the Middle Ages, as unlike you I don't see everything in black and white.
That point about the middle ages did remind me of a postulation that the black death caused a mini ice age:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4755328.stm
Probably wrong, but a nice little idea.
The theory is debatable, as is all science, and we're doing the best we can with the information we have. The scientific consensus is that the recent global warming trend is likely to be due to man's effect. I'm assuming that you accept the consensus as previously in this thread you had no response to my debunking of the polls you produced, along with a survey of over 1000 abstracts of scientific papers, none of which disagreed with AGW.
As for my link, why are you not impressed? Explain. If it's that bad then surely you'd have something even slightly in depth to say about it.
The Leipzig paper just states the trend again, it doesn't state mechanism or anything. It doesn't say whether or not temperature causes a rise in CO2 levels, it just says a rise in temperature precedes the rise in CO2.
The second link states that CO2 levels rise after deglaciation. Not sure how that fits in.
The third link... If you're going to cite something from a newspaper, back it up with the relevant peer reviewed paper(s). Also don't bother using the Daily Mail in a serious argument, it's embarrassing.
It's interesting how you spend the rest of your post, instead of seriously debating the links prattling on and reiterating your emotive side of the argument.
Yes, "natural" CO2 is a greater source than industrial. Industrial CO2 introduces CO2 into the biosphere. Picture natural CO2 as a water fountain. What we're doing is pouring more water into the fountain so that it starts overflowing. The CO2 released by us took millions of years to lock away, and we're releasing it in a fraction of that time. We've released enough in the past 150 years to increase atmospheric levels by over a third. Even if the annual release is dwarfed by that of nature, our release is cumulative, as we are bringing CO2 in from outside the biosphere.
Are you saying we should completely ignore computer models, or take them alongside other evidence? I've never said they're infallible, but if they weren't in the right ballpark then scientists wouldn't bother using them. Incidentally, a lot of scientists condemned the models and the IPCC for being too conservative in estimates. All the models used have massive error margins (to compensate for the guesswork), all of which are well within the temperature increasing over the next hundred years or so.
Mankind's industry has an effect on the atmosphere. Nature influencing the climate neither proves nor disproves that man is (as part of nature) influencing the climate.
I strongly support mrstabby's argument - well put!
In summary: saving energy and resources is a good thing in itself, and can be justified on its own merits. And it can create, and not destroy, jobs. In Germany, 100,000 new jobs have been created in industries related to energy efficiency since environmental tax reforms began in 1999. (I cannot place this source right now, if you don't believe me, no sweat.)
Secondly, nobody is denying that "natural" GHG production is more than that which is man-made. What we ARE saying is that the OVERALL CO2 concentration has gone up sharply, and that this coincided with the Industrial revolution.
Finally, one of the key issues is not that this rise in CO2 has never happened before (which nobody is asserting) but that it has never ever before happened so rapidly. The latter seems to indicate that it is man-made.