PDA

View Full Version : Dont tell me climate change is a myth..


John Hill
16th Apr 2014, 02:14
The Canterbury Plains of NZ are a patchwork of green and brightly coloured crops, sheep and contented dairy herds grazing on lush pastures.

http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/p10300gns.jpg

But it has not always been that way in fact until almost WWII it was a dry, barren, landscape of cereal crops and animals making a living on sparse pickings.

Something more like this:-
http://www.teara.govt.nz/files/p18152odt.jpg

The difference is irrigation which turned the Canterbury Plains green and all went well for 60 years or so.

Then the era of dairying came along which brought a huge increase in irrigation. The original canal type irrigation was not enough so bores were drilled and monster irrigators spraying day and night became the norm. But that was still not enough and the bores had a limited supply so farmers and district schemes began to build storage ponds each covering many acres.

The ponds get their water from peak river flows and seem like a good idea but they increased the local evaporation and lowered the temperature both over the pond and in adjacent areas. Some farms have 6% or more of their area in pondage and it appears that the effects of each pond is joining with those of the next.

We have just had 40 days and 40 nights of rain (slight exageration) so dont tell me climate change is a myth. The world, around here at least, is not getting hotter it is getting wetter.

500N
16th Apr 2014, 02:19
John

That is localized weather changes due to local factors. A micro climate so to speak, you get lots of them all over the place.

Not world wide climate change ;) :O

Lovely place BTW :ok:

rh200
16th Apr 2014, 02:43
Dont tell me climate change is a myth..

No John, climate change is not a myth, most rational people know this. Its been happening for millions of years.

What isn't known to a reasonable scientific certainty is how much of a forcing function mankind and our actions are having on it.:ok:

Dushan
16th Apr 2014, 03:06
Looks like change in arid land, or to arid land, to be more precise. We've been doing this for thousands of years. It has nothing I do with climate or weather.

500N
16th Apr 2014, 03:14
John

I never knew the plains were arid land and the dairy only came along later.

I don't think I have been to Christchurch and surrounds where it hasn't rained !!!

My GF comes from Geraldine !!! (Not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing :O)

EBCAU
16th Apr 2014, 03:24
The top photo is taken in the spring I would guess. The second may not even be Canterbury Plains. However, most of the eastern parts of the country are typically summer dry due to the rain shadow effects of the central mountain ranges, and usually looked that way in summer.
Yes, irrigation has allowed dairying in regions never before farmed that way. Is it a good thing? The jury may be out quite a while. It's good for the economy but too much of a good thing may not be helping the environment.
As for climate change, I've been around long enough, and with good reason to take note, and it sure has changed over my life. For me it changed to the better in the region I farmed. Rainfall changed little in volume but much in timing.

500N
16th Apr 2014, 03:45
John

Where did you get the second photo ?

Do you know where it is ?

Looks like quite a few places in Australia.

John Hill
16th Apr 2014, 05:07
OK, before anyone gets too aerated, I said the second picture is "Something more like this" that picture is from Otago but it is not a bad representation of what Canterbury was like before the start of irrigation.

david1300
16th Apr 2014, 06:15
Of course climate changes - it always has and always will. But some, arguably most, if not all of the scare mongering that went on under the banner of firstly Global Warming and now Climate Change is, in my view, incorrect, inaccurate, and irresponsible.

AtomKraft
16th Apr 2014, 07:33
We should start to worry when it stops changing....

tartare
16th Apr 2014, 07:38
Exactly rh200.
Changing it may be - but all part of the natural way of things.
I believe that in 100 years or so, the concept of man-made climate change will be viewed as one of the most laughable and naive fallacies in recent scientific history.

John Hill
16th Apr 2014, 08:06
I find it rather curious that we can accept localised change due to artificial factors yet totally dismiss the possibility of wider effects.

yotty
16th Apr 2014, 08:16
Is that first picture Charing Cross John? :)

John Hill
16th Apr 2014, 08:24
It does look like Charing Cross near Hororata but there are a few places on the Canterbury Plains that look like that.

BTW, Charing Cross is not far from the Te Pirita secret airfield.

John

Shaggy Sheep Driver
16th Apr 2014, 08:28
In the 1700s there was torrential rain in the Peak District, and most of the water mills on the river Bollin were destroyed in the resulting floods. Nothing like that has happened since, and at the time it was a disaster as without the mills there was no flour so no bread.

If floods like that happened today it would have been put down to man-made climate change.

alisoncc
16th Apr 2014, 08:29
It is wholly irrelevant whether one believes in Climate Change per the various reports or not. The simple fact is we are f*cking up this planet like you wouldn't believe. Google "oceans plastic waste' to see images of the garbage we as a species are producing, or click on this link Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch)

There isn't a single aspect of this planet that we aren't buggering up in some way or other. It really doesn't matter whether the seas will rise by 5cm or 5 mtrs by 20-when. What does matter is it's time to STOP pouring tons of crap into the air we breathe. Acidification of the oceans from excess carbon dioxide is happening now. Many of the life forms at the bottom of the food chain are doing it tough. My belief is that when all the krill and similar organisms die, so will mankind. Fortunately I won't be around.

onetrack
16th Apr 2014, 08:31
I find it rather curious that the IPCC has an agenda that it is obliged to follow, because the panels entire existence, and the jobs of its employees are dependant totally on continuously trying to prove that climate change is real, and it's caused by mankinds production of CO2 - and we have no choice but to do what the IPPC say. There are no alternatives, according to the IPCC.

I also find it curious that the IPCC and it's huge contingent of scientists is assuring us all this "climate change", is permanent, and getting worse continually - even though the measured period for climate records, that the IPCC is using, is less than 3 decades long - when our climate has been in existence for millions of years.

An analogy to this exercise, would be trying to gain a useful measure of the total amount of light received upon the Earth annually, by only measuring 10 seconds of sunlight in the middle of one afternoon.

tartare
16th Apr 2014, 08:37
Jeez - back to days of my yoof.
Taking the shortcut round the back of Hororata to get to Mt Hutt for a days ski-ing.
Then stop off at the excellent Hororata pub for a pie on the way home to ChCh.

PTT
16th Apr 2014, 08:38
even though the measured period for climate records, that the IPCC is using, is less than 3 decades long - when our climate has been in existence for millions of years. Ice cores and climate change - British Antarctic Survey (http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php)
Ice cores are cylinders of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland, and the longest ice cores extend to 3km in depth. The oldest continuous ice core records to date extend 123,000 years in Greenland and 800,000 years in Antarctica. Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment. Crucially, the ice encloses small bubbles of air that contain a sample of the atmosphere — from these it is possible to measure directly the past concentration of gases (including carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere.

alisoncc
16th Apr 2014, 08:51
Thanks for the link PTT.

And to quote from the report:
Factfile
Ice core. Cylinder of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.

Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now nearly 40% higher than before the industrial revolution. This increase is due to fossil fuel usage and deforestation.
The magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years.
Methane also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries.

tartare
16th Apr 2014, 10:35
There are so many inputs into global climate models that advocates of anthropomorphic theories can't account for.
The vast columns of C02 emanating from Amazon rainforests for example.
In the Science Museum in London, there is a fantastic graph, showing estimates of temperature variations over the last 10,000 years.
It shows wild swings.
The global climate is an enormous and extremely complex system, influenced by all sorts of forces, as far removed as sunspots and minute orbital variations.
To suggest that it is human influenced alone is just asinine.
It shows an ignorance of science that I personally find contemptible.
Jesus - I'm getting old, grumpy and conservative...

Fareastdriver
16th Apr 2014, 10:41
Until you get India and China to turn down the smoke, you are wasting your time.

rh200
16th Apr 2014, 11:21
Ice cores are a good example of how climate changes. But they are a coarse temporal resolution sample. Another words we know what happens on the extremely small time scale for one sample period, that is over the last say 100 years. We know what has happened in the past on long time scales.

We don't know all the different temporal modes that are possible, another words a convolution of various factors and how the climate has change over life time periods going back millions of years.

As I said before, we don't know to a reasonable statistical certianty that it is man made. What the problem is with this, is by the time we do have the data to prove it, if in fact it is true, it will be too late.

Rusty Rivet
16th Apr 2014, 11:45
Our atmosphere is now approaching a CO2 concentration of 400 parts per million. Pre-industrialisation I understand it was around 280 parts per million.

In real money that's 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air now, as against 2.8 molecules of CO2 per 10.000 then.

So all this is about the fact that we've changed our atmosphere by 1.2 parts per 10,000.

Now if anyone seriously thinks that will make much difference, good luck to them.

Of course, in theory, it must have some effect, after all CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it's effect is completely swamped by the greenhouse gas that keeps our planet habitable...... Water Vapour.

Despite CO2 levels increasing over the last 15+ years, global temperature haven't, which rather invalidates every one of the IPCC models. The one thing they refuse to acknowledge is that the models are over-sensitive to CO2 and are therefore wrong.

Climate changes, that's what is does.

Now, that's not to say were causing other environmental damage to our atmosphere, I'm thinking particle/smog pollution, but CO2 no. It's plant food.

mixture
16th Apr 2014, 12:04
Until you get India and China to turn down the smoke, you are wasting your time.

Indeed.

All the stuff the tree-huggers are making the Western countries do is, in the grand scheme of things, very minor tweaking at the edges.

Unless something is done about the root cause in the East then what is done in the West will continue to have minimal effect.

PTT
16th Apr 2014, 12:06
On the contrary, collective action will have an effect. If people stop buying Chinese and Indian goods then their manufacturing will have to change. Thing is, people think with their wallets instead of their brains. Short term financial gain is the overriding priority.

Lonewolf_50
16th Apr 2014, 12:16
The world, around here at least, is not getting hotter it is getting wetter.
To get wet is good, to get wetter is better. :ok:



(Was introduced by a Royal Navy colleague to the joys of getting wet aka having a pint or a few ... learning new slang can be broadening.)

Yamagata ken
16th Apr 2014, 13:00
Dont tell me climate change is a mythPrecisely who is claiming climate change is a myth? Strawmen?

500N
16th Apr 2014, 13:05
"To get wet is good, to get wetter is better. :ok:"


+ 1

Agree.

lomapaseo
16th Apr 2014, 13:12
Factfile
Ice core. Cylinder of ice drilled out of an ice sheet or glacier. Most ice core records come from Antarctica and Greenland.•Ice cores contain information about past temperature, and about many other aspects of the environment.
•Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are now nearly 40% higher than before the industrial revolution. This increase is due to fossil fuel usage and deforestation.
•The magnitude and rate of the recent increase are almost certainly unprecedented over the last 800,000 years.
•Methane also shows a huge and unprecedented increase in concentration over the last two centuries.



This increase is due to fossil fuel usage and deforestation.

This is a postulation and not a fact :confused:

G-CPTN
16th Apr 2014, 13:26
The largest man-made forest in Europe is, apparently, growing by 1000 tonnes per day.

rgbrock1
16th Apr 2014, 13:31
I'm glad the thread title is climate change and not "global warming". Because if it had been the latter I would have mercilessly hunted down the OP. Why?

This past weekend here in the Northeast area of the U.S. we had very nice Spring-like weather with temps in the lower 70's: sunny and warm. Ahhhh, finally, Spring. (Especially after the unusually brutal Winter we had.)

Short-sleeve shirts and shorts as well. Time to do a bit of maintenance outside.

That all came to a screeching halt last night. Although it was raining the proverbial cats and dogs all day yesterday around 20:00 last night the winds shifted from the South to the Northwest. And we here in the Northeast know exactly what that entails. An air mass from good ol' O Canada.

The rain changed over to snow at that time and we woke up this morning to 2" of snow and sheets of ice. F***ing snow and ice in April? WTF? Who's responsible for this, I want his or her name? I also want a refund. For what? The damn daffodils which the Mrs. planted this past weekend croaked over night. Probably shit themselves beforehand as well. Even the damn birds are to be seen nowhere. Probably headed south.

Last night the temps literally did a nose-dive well south of the freezing mark. The warm temps we had the past weekend have been replaced with February-like temps as well for today anyway.

I want to know who is responsible for this. (Hint: I know whoever it is lives in O Canada.) And when I get my hands on him/her......

:}:}:}

PTT
16th Apr 2014, 13:31
The largest man-made forest in Europe is, apparently, growing by 1000 tonnes per day. Not even close to making up the overall loss: http://www.unep.org/vitalforest/Report/VFG-02-Forest-losses-and-gains.pdf

500N
16th Apr 2014, 13:37
"Even the damn birds are to be seen nowhere. Probably headed south."

The birds knew a few days ago it was going to get very cold / snow.

rgbrock1
16th Apr 2014, 13:40
500N:

Well if the birds knew a few days ago about the impending doom (snow/ice/cold) why the hell didn't they tell me? :}

500N
16th Apr 2014, 13:52
RGB

You are an unobservant person, if you want to know what is going on, watch the birds - and the bees / flies.

They all know what is going to happen a few days beforehand and get out of the way of whatever is coming.

Hence why birds start flying off, you get a larger number of flies around as they migrate through etc (might not occur where you are).

You have to be "in tune" with nature to notice :O (notice I said Nature, not birds !!! LOL).


And watch the pressure ! (If you have a barometric pressure gauge in your house, if not, get one).

rgbrock1
16th Apr 2014, 14:06
Yup, 500N, I'm very well aware of the birds and the bees and what they do when the shit's gonna hit the fan. I knew something was up the other day when the usually noisy area in which we live - wildlife-wise that is - slowly became very quiet. As in: "We're outta here."

Dushan
16th Apr 2014, 14:35
Dont tell me climate change is a mythPrecisely who is claiming climate change is a myth? Strawmen?

Climate change is not a myth. It has been going on for million years. The myth is that somehow we are responsible and only in the last 100 years.

Pleeeeese....

MagnusP
16th Apr 2014, 14:54
But, but, but Dushan, does this mean you're not a climate change denier (or possibly denialist, I can't follow the soubriquets as quickly as I used to; Chuks may be able to advise)?

Dushan
16th Apr 2014, 15:03
Well I did take a barge trip on the Nile, once, so that makes me a denialist.

Shaggy Sheep Driver
16th Apr 2014, 15:07
"Climate change denier".

That's begging the question isn't it? A pretty good definition of it, actually. A bit like saying "of course god exists. It says so in the bible".

To call someone a "climate change denier" assumes climate change is a certainty and the person is denying it. Such an assumption may or may not be true, but it is certainly presumptuous. And question-begging.

rgbrock1
16th Apr 2014, 15:20
Well, we witnessed "climate change" last night. First hand too. It was, for the past few days, spring-like here in the Northeast with temps. around 70F.

It's 42F today which will hopefully melt the 2" of snow we got last night.

Climate change. Slaughtering your daffodils one flower at a time. :}

OFSO
16th Apr 2014, 15:28
climate change denial

So what are we denying ? That there's a change in the climate ? That man is/is not responsible ? That the sun's output has increased slightly over the past 100 years (don't panic folks, this happens now and then). That whatever changes man makes - if it is man doing it - will be compensated for by feedback in the eco-system ?

OK, OFSO is a denier. I deny that I stole one of Mrs OFSO truffles from the fridge last night and ate it despite it containing more than a zillion calories, BTU's, or Something Bad for me.

Further than that, I will not go.

con-pilot
16th Apr 2014, 15:30
Monday night/Tuesday morning we set an all time, since temperatures have been recorded, low record by a full three degrees fahrenheit.

That would be three full Fahrenheit degrees.

And it snowed.

So once again we have the kool aid drinking AGW scaremongers claiming that this is just weather, but when a new high record is set by a tenth of a degree, is postive proof of AGW. :rolleyes:

rgbrock1
16th Apr 2014, 15:34
hey con? That snow y'all got and we got as well? Dushan's fault, he sent it.
Take it up with him. And all the rest of the O Canadians. :}

BenThere
16th Apr 2014, 20:23
Alas, I planted my carefully cultivated, grown from seed, my own genetically bred, perfect tomato plants last week, as the temperatures rose to 70F in Southeast Michigan. Incredibly we got snow and 20F yesterday.

I was falsely convinced the last frost had come and gone after the hardest winter I ever saw in Detroit. This week was a heartbreaker.

It froze and snowed while I was out on a 5 day trip and my plants were lost.

Thankfully, I didn't plant them all, and have another half-dozen under grow lights in the basement. I'm going to wait a week or so before I put them out. Burnt fingers.

VP959
16th Apr 2014, 20:53
Why is it so hard for people to understand the difference between climate and weather?

May be I'm unusual, but to me there is a very clear difference between climate (the average temperature, level of precipitation, etc seen in a given area over several decades) and weather (the same sort of stuff but seen day to day, week to week, or year to year).

Whether homo sapiens is responsible for changing our climate may well be debatable, but there is no doubt in my mind that homo sapiens can do bugger all to effect our weather.

For what it's worth, I strongly suspect that the fairly significant human impact on our atmosphere has had an impact on climate. I'm undecided as to whether this is positive or negative, but am convinced that adding energy will result in more energetic events.

Flash2001
16th Apr 2014, 21:00
RGB

I'm starting to get a touch miffed at the American attitude that Canada is only a net exporter of foul weather. Three major ice storms here this winter originated in Texas!

After an excellent landing etc...

RAC/OPS
16th Apr 2014, 21:26
The damn daffodils which the Mrs. planted this past weekend croaked over night

Thought daffodils (and other Spring bulbs) were better planted in Autumn!
And surely if the bulbs were only planted on the weekend, they wouldn't have sprouted. The bulbs themselves should be OK underground?

Dushan
16th Apr 2014, 22:29
It's OK, Flash, he is really aiming this at me. You, being in Markham, are in the clear as the cold front comes from NW (Brampton), passes by my balcony (Bloor/St. George) and heads across the lake to punish him for voting Obama...

oggers
17th Apr 2014, 11:41
Rusty Rivet

Our atmosphere is now approaching a CO2 concentration of 400 parts per million. Pre-industrialisation I understand it was around 280 parts per million.

In real money that's 4 molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of air now, as against 2.8 molecules of CO2 per 10.000 then.

So all this is about the fact that we've changed our atmosphere by 1.2 parts per 10,000.

Now if anyone seriously thinks that will make much difference, good luck to them.

If you increased the concentration of, say, carbon monoxide in your home by "1.2 parts per 10,000" you would be dead in about 12 hours.

Climate changes, that's what is does.

5. Climate Change -- isn't it natural? - YouTube

MagnusP
17th Apr 2014, 11:50
oggers, there's a significant difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

oggers
17th Apr 2014, 12:48
Magnus

oggers, there's a significant difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide.

Irrelevant. The point is a lot of people hold on to the wrong headed assumption - brought here by Rusty Rivet - that a change of 120ppm of anything is not enough to make a significant difference.

Carbon monoxide is but one obvious example where tiny concentration are significant and arsenic is often quoted in this context too. When someone says:

So all this is about the fact that we've changed our atmosphere by 1.2 parts per 10,000. Now if anyone seriously thinks that will make much difference, good luck to them

...that might work a general rule for you, but there are many specific exceptions of which CO2 is but one. In other words -the argument is pants.

MagnusP
17th Apr 2014, 13:17
Simply nonsense. Rusty Rivet was talking about CO2, not CO, so your claim that RR postulated that a change of 120ppm of anything is not enough to make a significant difference.
is simply fabrication and a strawman argument.

Your claim that If you increased the concentration of carbon monoxide in your home by "1.2 parts per 10,000" you would be dead in about 12 hours.

Is also nonsense. 1.2/10,000 is 120 PPM, which is about the level on the street in Mexico City. Can you point me to the report that 15M people died there in 12 hours?

lomapaseo
17th Apr 2014, 14:45
oggers, there's a significant difference between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide

what's an atom or two among pendanics ?

rgbrock1
17th Apr 2014, 14:47
loma wrote:

what's an atom or two among pendanics

Atom? Didn't he have something to do with Eve? Being naughty in some garden or other? :}:}

oggers
17th Apr 2014, 15:07
Magnus

also nonsense. 1.2/10,000 is 120 PPM, which is about the level on the street in Mexico City. Can you point me to the report that 15M people died there in 12 hours?

"120ppm is about the level in Mexico City". Really? A quick and dirty google search throws up a proper study in pubmed

"The aim of this study was to explore the CO exposure experienced by street sellers working on busy roads in Mexico City. In January 1991, CO measurements were taken at street level of selected avenues in the city centre. Short term pavement CO concentrations ranged from 2.0 to 70.0 ppm with a mean concentration of 26 ppm."

...that's 26ppm not 120ppm! Please note that the levels reported - even at well below 120ppm - are already considered distinctly unhealthy which only serves to underline the original point I made. What is the source of your 120ppm btw?

Now, here (http://www.nyad.com/pdf/carbon_monoxide_danger_levels.pdf) is the chart that I checked before making the uncontroversial claim that 120ppm will actually kill you in about 12 hours. :ok:

fltlt
17th Apr 2014, 18:47
Can anyone answer a question that makes my head hurt just thinking about it.

How much air does an average human being turn into CO2 in one breath?

Then extrapolate that for the rough number of folks on the planet back in the 1600's.
Take the rough number of folk around today and do the same thing.

Then compare the two figures.

To me that would be an interesting number, roughly of course.

rgbrock1
17th Apr 2014, 19:13
fitIt:

How much air does an average human being turn into CO2 in one breath?

Should we include in this all those who are bona-fide wastes of oxygen? :}

PTT
17th Apr 2014, 19:27
fltlt

HowStuffWorks "How much oxygen does a person consume in a day?" (http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm)

World population estimates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates)

https://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061130044105AABcA6c

550l of pure oxygen per day per person is 24.5mol or 1.571kg per day.
1600 population of ~500m = 785kt oxygen used per day
2000 population of ~7bn = 11,000kt oxygen used per day

Atomic mass of O2 molecule = 16
Atomic mass of CO2 molecule = 22

785kt of O2 would have produced 1,080kt of CO2
11,000kt of O2 would produce 15,125kt of CO2

Increase in daily CO2 production due to breathing = ~14,000kt per day assuming standard temperatures and pressures.

Flash2001
17th Apr 2014, 20:42
Maybe:

Molecular mass of O2=32

Molecular mass of CO2=44

CO2 really doesn't have an atomic mass.

After an excellent landing etc...

PTT
17th Apr 2014, 21:16
Oops, my bad. Doesn't change the end result, fortunately.

gorter
17th Apr 2014, 23:08
Here's on thing i don't get as a yoof,compared to cantankerous older gents that seem to plague these forums. Can we accept one thing as given. When climate change may or may not take affect, can we agree that the majority of either side of this argument will be dead.

Accepting that let's go down to a philosophical argument. This world is currently dependant on fossil fuels. There were only x number of dinosaurs so there is only x number of barrels of oil available. When it's gone it's gone.

Let's accept that fact and let's move away from fossil fuels. At worst we spend some cash now to not have to spend some cash in the future( inflation's a whore) . At best climate change scientists are right and our dependence on fossil fuels stops. the human species lives for x number of centuries and when i die i leave a world i am happy for my daughter to live in. At worst i leave a world free of dead dinosaurs.

Honestly for all of you who disagree with human caused climate change, what harm does it do you to move away from fossil fuels. It will run out sooner or later. I'll put money it will run out when I'm a cantankerous old git like you gents are.

I may only be in my 30's and I'm not yet a cantankerous bar steward. But i want to leave my sprogs somewhere better than my parents left me.

John Hill
17th Apr 2014, 23:46
Gorter, unfortunately there are not just two sides to discussions concerning global warming, there are four.

There are the two sides, those who believe it is or might be an issue and there is those who believe it is not.

Then there are two more sides which have nothing to do with with reality but rather ones political affiliation.

fltlt
18th Apr 2014, 03:14
Thank you PTT and Flash, glad there are lots of folks smarter than me around here.
Just to clarify, if you substituted roughly the composition of the air we breathe for the pure oxygen how much, if any difference would it make?

Dushan
18th Apr 2014, 03:30
gorter, you argument doesn't make sense. If you say that using fossil fuels causes global warming, and that fossil fuels are exhaustable then stopping to use fossil fuels will stop the warming. But if it stops the warming and we do not use the fuel we are gong to be cold, freeze, and die.

Would it not make more sense to burn as much of fossil fuels we can in order to warm up the climate so much that winters are a thig of the past?


Couldn't be done, you say? I thought so.
Then what makes you think that by stopping you can prevent the warming. Warming/climate change has squat all to do with what we humans do.

Have you ever been on open ocean, thousands of miles from land? If you have you would have realized how insignificant, we humans, are.

WhatsaLizad?
18th Apr 2014, 03:43
gorter,

You are idealistic, but truly naive.

If we got rid of fossil fuels by next year, we'd also have to decide who qualifies to be the surviving group of humans and who is amongst the several billion people the planet could not support and would have to be eliminated by starvation, execution or mass casualties in war.

Explain that one to your daughter.

Honestly for all of you who disagree with human caused climate change, what harm does it do you to move away from fossil fuels.

Plenty of harm. There is currently no other substitute for the energy content of fossil fuels except nuclear which I also support. No matter what fairy tale agreements the west might make, China and India and many other countries will take of the slack of unused fossil fuel reserves for their own use. Since their energy cost will be cheaper, they will have an economic advantage in production that will doom any country taking a stance of unilateral cheap energy avoidance. Your plan makes a nice web page for the lefties and kids in school but a failure in the real world. Cheap energy will be pumped or dug out of the ground until the cost rises enough to make other forms of energy competitive. Energy is life, simple as that.

parabellum
18th Apr 2014, 04:13
Here's on thing i don't get as a yoof,compared to cantankerous older gents that enhance these forums.


There you go gorter, fixed that one for you! :)


But i want to leave my sprogs somewhere better than my parents left me.


Sorry, can't be done.


Anything that deteriorates as population increases will get worse.

oggers
18th Apr 2014, 08:27
Warming/climate change has squat all to do with what we humans do.

The greenhouse effect is not hypothetical, it is fact. Human emissions of greenhouse gases are fact. The carbon cycle is fact. To say "warming/climate change has squat all to do with what we humans do" is not skepticism. It is mere denial of fact.

onetrack
18th Apr 2014, 09:06
There were only x number of dinosaurs so there is only x number of barrels of oil available. When it's gone it's gone. Unfortunately, the idea that dinosaurs produced all our oil is not really a totally-proven, totally-unrefutable piece of science. The amount of oil reserves appears to be increasing in some areas, where it was originally estimated many years ago, that the reserves would be extinguished by now.

In addition, we have these curious facts to examine ...

1. The geographical distribution of oil seems derived from features much larger in scale than individual sedimentary features.

2. The quantities of oil and gas available are hundreds of times those estimated on the basis of biological origins.

3. The so-called "molecular fossils" found in oil and claimed as proof of a biogenic origin are simply biological contaminants, particularly bacteria that feed upon the petroleum.

4. Petroleum is largely saturated with hydrogen, whereas buried biological matter should exhibit a deficiency of hydrogen.

5. Oil and gas are often rich in helium, an inert gas which biological processes cannot concentrate.

6. The great oil reservoirs of the Middle East are in diverse geological provinces. There is no unifying feature for the region as a whole and, especially, no sediments rich in biological debris that could have produced these immense concentrations of oil and gas.

Abiotic Oil a Theory Worth Exploring - US News (http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/on-energy/2011/09/14/abiotic-oil-a-theory-worth-exploring)

Windy Militant
18th Apr 2014, 09:13
Dont tell me climate change is a myth..

Okay Iths a Mythter. :}

Sorry couldn't resist any more, Happy Easter all!

OFSO
18th Apr 2014, 09:38
If there was something the human race could do about whatever they are doing to the climate - IF, that is, they are doing something to the climate - there might be some point in discussing it. But there is no way, no way at all, you are going to change the behaviour of the over-populated teeming masses and their useless unconcerned governments, yes you Russia, Poland, China, India, Australia and yes you Germany with huge surface coal resources which you are digging up and selling to all and sundry, and closing your nuclear generating plants because of fears of a tsunami....

There is only one way you are going to save the planet from a possible human-caused climate change and that is by eliminating 90% of the present human population. Starting first and foremost with all politicians. My street wall has just been beautifully painted (by the lovely Kerry) but I would sacrifice the pristine whiteness if someone wants a wall to stand the politicians against.

Until that happy day, all this chattering is pointless.

pigboat
18th Apr 2014, 13:15
The whole atmosphere is made up of 100% of something containing 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% trace gases. Bearing in mind the whole cannot be more than 100%, if carbon dioxide is increasing in the mix which gas is it replacing? :p

PTT
18th Apr 2014, 13:54
Evolution of the Atmosphere (http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Perry_Samson_lectures/evolution_atm/)

lomapaseo
18th Apr 2014, 16:52
The whole atmosphere is made up of 100% of something containing 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 1% trace gases. Bearing in mind the whole cannot be more than 100%, if carbon dioxide is increasing in the mix which gas is it replacing?

Stratification with altitude

tilos
18th Apr 2014, 17:07
Who's fooling who?

Just]Just 2% Of The Planet | Real Science (http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/19/just-hit-the-noaa-motherlode/)

probes
19th Apr 2014, 04:18
Have you ever been on open ocean, thousands of miles from land? If you have you would have realized how insignificant, we humans, are.
oh, really. Not that insignificant when en megamasse.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/world/11/south_asia/megacities/img/slide1v2.gif

(BBC News - Asia to dominate 21st century megacities (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-13800944) - from 2011, it's worse now).

WhatsaLizad?
19th Apr 2014, 05:33
Over enhanced light map.

Typical fluffy stuff to fit the agenda of "why don't we live in huts with one dim LED light".

As crew flying into a couple of areas, anything west of Dallas Texas and enough experience over the Amazon, it gets dark real quick except for a few stray lightbulbs here and there.

Nothing like display on that graphic.

P.S. Hopefully the LED revoultion will save fossil fuels for generations in the future.

probes
19th Apr 2014, 08:19
WhatsaLizad?, you didn't get the point. What I meant was how big the human conglomerates are in some regions (versus vast oceans and polar regions). Surely the issue is not domestic light bulbs.

Probably there are maps of worst dioxine polluted areas as well (including some without much human habitation, as it tends to be airborne). Speaking of human influence as such.