Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?

[Devonian]

C-Bob..have you seen the latest. You couldn't make this up...now we're all supposed to give up working and live in a caravan. It gets better - wait until you see how she heats it!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287107.stm

eh???????????

A wood-burning stove, for chrissakes ! And what does she think you get when you burn wood?

If ever i saw a case of self-righteous finger pointing [gone wrong] , then it's this.

Crikey, you've a lot to learn about the carbon cycle ...

Look, fossil fuels have been locked away out of the carbon cycle for millions of years - burning them is, in the time scales that concern humanity, to make a major addition to the carbon cycle. Trees on the other hand absorbed from the atmosphere the carbon that they release when they are burnt. So the CO2 the realise when they are burnt came from the atmosphere (from the carbon cycle, not from outside it). Net effect on atmospheric CO2 over the plants lifetime? Zero. That much ought to be fairly obvious?

Edited January 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Mondy]

Thank god the BBC don't do cynicism, they'd go to any expense for the services of you two ...

She wants to live in a caravan and not fly? Then it's her choice. Shes's not dictating how others live. But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

cynics.

I'd be interested if you could find a factual figure with regards air travel and co2 emissions. When you do, and you'll be surprised, do let others know.

[Mondy]

Crikey, you've a lot to learn about the carbon cycle ...

Look, fossil fuels have been locked away out of the carbon cycle for millions of years - burning them is, in the time scales that concern humanity, to make a major addition to the carbon cycle. Trees on the other hand absorbed from the atmosphere the carbon that they release when they are burnt. So the CO2 the realise when they are burnt came from the atmosphere (from the carbon cycle, not from outside it). Net effect on atmospheric CO2 over the plants lifetime? Zero. That much ought to be fairly obvious?

It's really quite simple....

The whole debate (though I use that term loosely) seems to be biased or more accurately anchored to one side. Surely someone, somewhere has to cool down the hysteria that is pumped out to the masses via the equally sensationalist media. I feel a great unease at having this strategic issue completely hijacked and exagerated to dangerous new levels to an ever more ignorant public.

[Devonian]

I'd be interested if you could find a factual figure with regards air travel and co2 emissions. When you do, and you'll be surprised, do let others know.

Well, you're the disinterested, objective observer you tell me

I do know air travel isn't the be all and end all of CO2 emissions, but I also know it's a form of travel, and thus CO2 emissions, rapidly increasing. No?

It's really quite simple....

The whole debate (though I use that term loosely) seems to be biased or more accurately anchored to one side. Surely someone, somewhere has to cool down the hysteria that is pumped out to the masses via the equally sensationalist media. I feel a great unease at having this strategic issue completely hijacked and exagerated to dangerous new levels to an ever more ignorant public.

Could have fooled me. Just how large have the reductions in atmospheric CO2 been thanks to this 'biased' debate? How much have CO2 emissions been curbed?

Besides, what has talk of 'hysteria', 'hijacked' and 'exaggeration' go to do with the simple reality of the carbon cycle????

Edited January 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Mondy]

Well, you're the disinterested, objective observer you tell me

I do know air travel isn't the be all and end all of CO2 emissions, but I also know it's a form of travel, and thus CO2 emissions, rapidly increasing. No?

Ok, back to the BBc magazine link and I quote:

So instead of a departure hall at Heathrow and a possible stopover in Kuala Lumpur, Barbara went via Moscow, Beijing, Hanoi, Bangkok, Singapore and Darwin in an epic journey taking nearly two months and taking in train, boat and bus.

Train, boat and bus through regions/cities in the Far East that probably couldn't care less about "GW"..

Moscow.

Beijing.

Hanoi.

Bangkok.

Singapore.

So how much fuel/oil/emissions were used in this "travel exercise"?

Again, if you thoroughly check co2 emissions with regards air travel, you'll be surprised, probably very surprised. Goo on, Google Co2 emissions and Global Warming (not just the pro GW links,mind )

The whole argument with this story is the "do-gooding society" getting it all wrong.

It's comedy and i suspect you might know it!..

[Devonian]

Ok, back to the BBc magazine link and I quote:

Train, boat and bus through regions/cities in the Far East that probably couldn't care less about "GW"..

Moscow.

Beijing.

Hanoi.

Bangkok.

Singapore.

So how much fuel/oil/emissions were used in this "travel exercise"?

Again, if you thoroughly check co2 emissions with regards air travel, you'll be surprised, probably very surprised. Goo on, Google Co2 emissions and Global Warming (not just the pro GW links,mind )

The whole argument with this story is the "do-gooding society" getting it all wrong.

It's comedy and i suspect you might know it!..

Sorry, I can't keep up. Do you mean to talk abou this one womans journey, or, as I thought, air travel as a whole?

I know a little about air travel, I understand full planes compare in efficiency with single (or is is multi, can't remember) occupancy cars quite well in reality (you see, I don't deny good evidence...), the problem is the sheer scale and increase in air travel, and the sheer amount of CO2 as a whole being shoved willy nilly into the atmosphere - of which air travel is a increasing part.

The day some cynic like you acknowledges some of the mass of evidence about climate change as real instead of denying it you can criticise me

Whatever, I'm proud when I 'do-good' as you so complimentarily put it. What's the alternative? A 'do-bad' society? Civil unrest?

Edited January 23, 2007 by Devonian

[Mondy]

Well, and to be fair, i do respect your answer/reply..

I feel i should again counter your reply/argument, but by going round in circles, which has occured on this thread and others before, isn't really constructive considering we are both so "far apart" from agreeing.

In truth, there's probably no reasoning.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Thank god the BBC don't do cynicism, they'd go to any expense for the services of you two ...

She wants to live in a caravan and not fly? Then it's her choice. Shes's not dictating how others live. But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

cynics.

Getting a wee bit aggressive there, Devonian...? I never claimed that she was dictating how others should live - I was not attacking her thoughts, beliefs or actions: I was commenting on the BBC's decision to make her an example of Wonderfulness. Anyone remember Sting? Probably the most environmentally conscious popular figure I can think of off the top of my head - Save the Whales, Save the Rainforests, Save the Planet - and yet he gets crucified in the national media for being on the final flight on the Concorde. "How can a man who claims to care about the planet have the audacity to fly?! In the world's most polluting aircraft, no less!!" Yes, thoroughly appalling.

Even more amusing than their hero-worship of this woman is the fact that they show, quite effectively, the economic implications of "going green" (as I alluded to in my previous post). They always seem to talk about the economic viability of Kyoto and future "Green" proposals, and yet show how vastly much more it costs to avoid "polluting" forms of fuel. I think the media's bias on this issue is absolutely laughable.

The Carbon Cycle...hmmm...The Carbon Cycles-Within-Cycles would be a more appropriate name. The fact is that fossil fuels contain carbon that was taken out of the equation long ago. By releasing that carbon back into the air we are simply balancing the equation. I'm not saying that we should be burning fossil fuels per se, but the argument that fossil fuels aren't part of the Carbon Cycle is nonsense. I still think that the Earth's ability to adapt to change is severely underestimated. But time will tell.

G'night

C-Bob

EDIT!! - Here's a link worth having a quick look at...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

Edited January 24, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

Getting a wee bit aggressive there, Devonian...? I never claimed that she was dictating how others should live - I was not attacking her thoughts, beliefs or actions: I was commenting on the BBC's decision to make her an example of Wonderfulness. Anyone remember Sting? Probably the most environmentally conscious popular figure I can think of off the top of my head - Save the Whales, Save the Rainforests, Save the Planet - and yet he gets crucified in the national media for being on the final flight on the Concorde. "How can a man who claims to care about the planet have the audacity to fly?! In the world's most polluting aircraft, no less!!" Yes, thoroughly appalling.

Even more amusing than their hero-worship of this woman is the fact that they show, quite effectively, the economic implications of "going green" (as I alluded to in my previous post). They always seem to talk about the economic viability of Kyoto and future "Green" proposals, and yet show how vastly much more it costs to avoid "polluting" forms of fuel. I think the media's bias on this issue is absolutely laughable.

The Carbon Cycle...hmmm...The Carbon Cycles-Within-Cycles would be a more appropriate name. The fact is that fossil fuels contain carbon that was taken out of the equation long ago. By releasing that carbon back into the air we are simply balancing the equation. I'm not saying that we should be burning fossil fuels per se, but the argument that fossil fuels aren't part of the Carbon Cycle is nonsense. I still think that the Earth's ability to adapt to change is severely underestimated. But time will tell.

G'night

C-Bob

EDIT!! - Here's a link worth having a quick look at...

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question192.htm

What a strange argument. On the same basis we could 'liberate' all the CO2 in carbonacious rocks to restore the 'balance' to the cycle - would that be good? Or we could destory life and send the oxygen back into the rocks like it was pre life in the distant pre Cambrian. That would be to restore the initial 'balance' of this planet - no?

No, sceptics really need to realise this is now, not try to fudge the issue by going back to the distant past way before their beloved Stone Age. It's about what we are doing now. It's about how the carbon cycle was before we interferred. It's about us not experimenting with the atmosphere.

Also, I see you try to work in the old 'back to the Stone Age' argument - you must like the past . There are people who think doing nothing about Aclimate change also risks economic cost in our future, the bit we have still to live through....

Edit: 'aggressive'? No, far from it. But, 'deeply concerned'? Too right I am.

Edited January 24, 2007 by Devonian

[parmenides3]

Morning, all.

Mondy:

The whole debate (though I use that term loosely) seems to be biased or more accurately anchored to one side. Surely someone, somewhere has to cool down the hysteria that is pumped out to the masses via the equally sensationalist media. I feel a great unease at having this strategic issue completely hijacked and exagerated to dangerous new levels to an ever more ignorant public.

If your cynicism about the AGW debate is based on this, I find myself very much in agreement with you. It is very similar to the comments made by Mike Hulme, of the Tyndall Centre, in his BBC op-ed. He is worried that the media are looking at the whole thing the wrong way, thus misinforming the public about the real issues and problems, and instead looking for the next 'disaster' to run with.

Where you differ from Mike Hulme is in your response to this unease: his response is to work to educate and inform the public and the media about the science and the real [long-term] issues. To me, it looks as if your response is to cast scorn on any talk of AGW at all ( though I note that much of your cynicism is directed at the 'daft stuff'). But I am not sure how this helps people understand this 'strategic issue'. Perhaps if you could be a little clearer on what it is you are aiming at (for those of us who are apt to get easily confused), it would help others understand where you are coming from. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to spoil your fun.

As far as the debate (sic) being anchored to one side, this is probably because flat-out denial (as distinguished from challenging the conclusions/science) of AGW is pretty much a dead duck in most scientific and political circles, now.

:)P

[The Penguin]

The Carbon Cycle...hmmm...The Carbon Cycles-Within-Cycles would be a more appropriate name. The fact is that fossil fuels contain carbon that was taken out of the equation long ago. By releasing that carbon back into the air we are simply balancing the equation. I'm not saying that we should be burning fossil fuels per se, but the argument that fossil fuels aren't part of the Carbon Cycle is nonsense. I still think that the Earth's ability to adapt to change is severely underestimated. But time will tell.

What a strange argument. On the same basis we could 'liberate' all the CO2 in carbonacious rocks to restore the 'balance' to the cycle - would that be good? Or we could destory life and send the oxygen back into the rocks like it was pre life in the distant pre Cambrian. That would be to restore the initial 'balance' of this planet - no?

No, sceptics really need to realise this is now, not try to fudge the issue by going back to the distant past way before their beloved Stone Age. It's about what we are doing now. It's about how the carbon cycle was before we interferred. It's about us not experimenting with the atmosphere.

One of the things that bother me about this whole discussion is the use of, and interpretation of the idea of balance. As far as I can now remember balance is used to describe an event that is either unchanging, or more likely, at a constant rate of change.

Most observers, having taken even a cursory glance at the various historical climatic measurements, would agree that balance does not enter the equation. I doubt it ever has, and so an unbalanced or erratic progression is the norm in the context of the global climate.

We are aware of the many changes the planet has gone through, and whether through long-term tectonic realignment or short-term traumatic events, the planet’s climate has changed, modified and realigned itself sufficiently to support life for a long, long time. I would argue that it is due to these climatic changes, whether progressive or catastrophic, that global evolution resulted in the creation of our species. (It also created other species of course, but they don’t think about such things and so don’t matter.)

Surprising then that it is precisely this concept of our climate changing that gets people in a tizzy. It’s as if they expect balance, expect predictability in a system they don’t even fully understand. The carbon cycle is a case in point; we know that we don’t know everything about how and where and when and why carbon moves about but we’ve no idea how much more is to be learned. We assume there’s a tipping point but we don’t know where that is and we don’t know how other elements in the earth’s atmospheric system will react as that point (if it exists) is reached.

To an extent I can see the point in appreciating environmental tidiness and taking steps not to clutter up the atmosphere with unpleasant secretions. But if balance and predictability are the goal then we’re wasting our time, because even if we give up all technology and move back to the caves, something will intervene to ensure that poo will still hit the fan.

[Admiral_Bobski]

That's an important point you've raised there Penguin. It is true that nature is very rarely in a perfectly balanced state, but when talking about balance in nature we are talking about the natural tendency for natural systems to try to establish an equilibrium. Natural processes are often referred to as being in a state of Dynamic Equilibrium, meaning that they are more or less balanced, but constantly tipping one way or the other as different elements enter and leave the system the system. If, for example, excess CO2 is pumped into the atmosphere then the natural tendency towards equilibrium will compel the environment to find a new equilibrium. Left to its own ends, this is precisely what the environment would do - the temperature may increase to establish the new equilibrium, or it may stay the same and other elements of the system (such as CO2 sinks) will alter, or there may be a combination of the two.

My argument all along has been that while CO2 may, in and of itself, create a warming effect, this is not the only way an equilibrium with that increased CO2 can be established, and I believe that other factors have not been taken sufficiently into account.

We see an apparent warming trend and we know that CO2 is increasing and can cause warming, so we immediately point the finger at CO2 as the culprit without, I believe, sufficiently investigating other potential factors.

To Devonian, if I may quote you:

What a strange argument. On the same basis we could 'liberate' all the CO2 in carbonacious rocks to restore the 'balance' to the cycle - would that be good? Or we could destory life and send the oxygen back into the rocks like it was pre life in the distant pre Cambrian. That would be to restore the initial 'balance' of this planet - no?

I never said that releasing the CO2 would be beneficial (nor did I specifically say that it would be detrimental), merely that your definition of the Carbon Cycle is somewhat limited in scope. There is a bigger picture.

No, sceptics really need to realise this is now, not try to fudge the issue by going back to the distant past way before their beloved Stone Age. It's about what we are doing now. It's about how the carbon cycle was before we interferred. It's about us not experimenting with the atmosphere.

I'm not trying to "fudge" anything - I'm trying to get to the bottom of the GW issue. How can we expect to help if we aren't certain what the problem is? There's no reason to presume that the fossil fuels we currently use would remain "safely" buried away, undisturbed for all eternity - they are a part of the Carbon Cycle too...

Also, I see you try to work in the old 'back to the Stone Age' argument - you must like the past . There are people who think doing nothing about Aclimate change also risks economic cost in our future, the bit we have still to live through....

I was? When did I try to do that?

Edit: 'aggressive'? No, far from it. But, 'deeply concerned'? Too right I am.

I'd call accusations that I am destroying your perfect world aggressive, yes... As implied in this paragraph:

But those who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with. So, as per usual, the cynics have it back to front - it's people like you fellas who are doing the dictating by your intransigence towards any change that might reduce our impact.

C-Bob

[Devonian]

To Devonian, if I may quote you:

I never said that releasing the CO2 would be beneficial (nor did I specifically say that it would be detrimental), merely that your definition of the Carbon Cycle is somewhat limited in scope. There is a bigger picture.

I'm not trying to "fudge" anything - I'm trying to get to the bottom of the GW issue. How can we expect to help if we aren't certain what the problem is? There's no reason to presume that the fossil fuels we currently use would remain "safely" buried away, undisturbed for all eternity - they are a part of the Carbon Cycle too...

I was? When did I try to do that?

I'd call accusations that I am destroying your perfect world aggressive, yes... As implied in this paragraph:

C-Bob

CB, humm, I know of no natural way that the amount of carbon buried and then used by us as oil/coal/gas in a century or two could also liberated in a century or two? What mechanism have you in mind? Surely the whole point about ACC (and it's not just to do with CO2) is the speed of it and the speed (rate) of CO2 release (and other changes)? Of course, given weathering and erosion, some of the oil and gas we've burnts would get exposed to the atmosphere and the thence CO2 incorporated into the carbon cycle, but that would take (at a guess) millions upon millions of years. The planet could cope with that rate of change - it would be normal and the Carbon would get laid down again as carbonacious rocks.

Re aggression. It's news to me that you and Mondy are the two people in the world "who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with" and that "people like you fellas" means you two only, rather than you two being examples of the millions who, it seems, wont lift a finger to reduce emissions but resist said like mad - but you learn something every day . But, do I think you play your small parts as two of those millions? Of course. Millionths of it.

[Admiral_Bobski]

CB, humm, I know of no natural way that the amount of carbon buried and then used by us as oil/coal/gas in a century or two could also liberated in a century or two? What mechanism have you in mind? Surely the whole point about ACC (and it's not just to do with CO2) is the speed of it and the speed (rate) of CO2 release (and other changes)? Of course, given weathering and erosion, some of the oil and gas we've burnts would get exposed to the atmosphere and the thence CO2 incorporated into the carbon cycle, but that would take (at a guess) millions upon millions of years. The planet could cope with that rate of change - it would be normal and the Carbon would get laid down again as carbonacious rocks.

Ah, so fossil fuels are only not part of the carbon cycle if we burn them? I see! Now I understand where I have gone wrong - you are implying, therefore, that humans aren't part of the natural order of things...? Or are you just using our little part of the Carbon Cycle as support for AGW (or ACC)? The fact is that, regardless of how quickly the carbon is released, it is still released - it's all part of the same cycle. It's interesting to me that the only cycles considered noteworthy are ones that occur within a comprehensible timeframe - the moment a span of millions (or even just tens of thousands) of years is mentioned, suddenly it's somehow not relevant. Strange.

Re aggression. It's news to me that you and Mondy are the two people in the world "who fly willy nilly and generally burn fuel dictate to those like me what kind of atmosphere I have to live under and how much anthro climate change I have to put up with" and that "people like you fellas" means you two only, rather than you two being examples of the millions who, it seems, wont lift a finger to reduce emissions but resist said like mad - but you learn something every day . But, do I think you play your small parts as two of those millions? Of course. Millionths of it.

Your comments were directed at "people like us". Whether your aggression is directed at two people or two million, it's still aggression. I was not offended by the original comment, just intrigued by the degree of your vitriol.

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Ah, so fossil fuels are only not part of the carbon cycle if we burn them? I see! Now I understand where I have gone wrong - you are implying, therefore, that humans aren't part of the natural order of things...? Or are you just using our little part of the Carbon Cycle as support for AGW (or ACC)? The fact is that, regardless of how quickly the carbon is released, it is still released - it's all part of the same cycle. It's interesting to me that the only cycles considered noteworthy are ones that occur within a comprehensible timeframe - the moment a span of millions (or even just tens of thousands) of years is mentioned, suddenly it's somehow not relevant. Strange.

Strange? What's strange is the unearthing and buring of oil/coal/gas at the rate we see atm, it IS unquestionably unnaturally fast. Humans are clearly natural, what we are doing in burning all these fossil fuels, releasing the 'locked up' (buried) CO2 to the atmosphere, is happening unnaturally fast. I say that's obvious. Surely you must see that? You don't? Then check out the current carbon cycle.

Your comments were directed at "people like us". Whether your aggression is directed at two people or two million, it's still aggression. I was not offended by the original comment, just intrigued by the degree of your vitriol.

C-Bob

I can live with a few unfounded character attacks , you, of course, are of unassailably good character .This is a debate, I've seen far worse from both sides.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Strange? What's strange is the unearthing and buring of oil/coal/gas at the rate we see atm, it IS unquestionably unnaturally fast. Humans are clearly natural, what we are doing in burning all these fossil fuels, releasing the 'locked up' (buried) CO2 to the atmosphere, is happening unnaturally fast. I say that's obvious. Surely you must see that? You don't? Then check out the current carbon cycle.

I can live with a few unfounded character attacks , you, of course, are of unassailably good character .This is a debate, I've seen far worse from both sides.

But still, the speed with which the oil/coal/gas is being burned is not really relevant to that oil/coal/gas's place in the carbon cycle. Surely you must see that? The carbon wasn't put there by aliens. In fact, the diagram of the carbon cycle in the wikipedia article you like to actually includes "fossil fuels and cement production" within the cycle. Also note the following passage (relevant portion highlighted by me):

Models of the carbon cycle can be incorporated into global climate models, so that the interactive response of the oceans and biosphere on future CO2 levels can be modelled. There are considerable uncertainties in this, both in the physical and biogeochemical submodels (especially the latter). Such models typically show that there is a positive feedback between temperature and CO2. For example, Zeng et al. (GRL, 2004 [2]) find that in their model, including a coupled carbon cycle increases atmospheric CO2 by about 90 ppmv at 2100 (over that predicted in models with non-interactive carbon cycles), leading to an extra 0.6°C of warming (which, in turn, may lead to even greater atmospheric CO2).

I'll leave it at that for now.

C-Bob

PS - I shall rescind the Aggression comments - I don't mind the odd character-assassination attempt, but there's really no need for it in a rational debate on climate!

Edited January 24, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Devonian]

But still, the speed with which the oil/coal/gas is being burned is not really relevant to that oil/coal/gas's place in the carbon cycle. Surely you must see that?

C-Bob

A joke? It must be? We could burn the whole lot of fossil fuels, send atmospheric CO2 way above 1000 ppm and it's not relevant? Of course it is, and of of course time and context are relevant.

PS - I shall rescind the Aggression comments - I don't mind the odd character-assassination attempt, but there's really no need for it in a rational debate on climate!

No need, all part of debate I rekon, I'm not perfect etc etc

Edited January 25, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

A joke? It must be? We could burn the whole lot of fossil fuels, send atmospheric CO2 way above 1000 ppm and it's not relevant? Of course it is, and of of course time and context are relevant.

No need, all part of debate I rekon, I'm not perfect etc etc

Time and context are not relevant to the nature of the Carbon Cycle. Given sufficient time, the Earth would eventually establish a new equilibrium - even if all the fossil fuels were burnt simultaneously. The fact that this may have a detrimental effect on living creatures is beside the point, in the context of this argument - namely that fossil fuels do not constitute a part of the Carbon Cycle. I am arguing that they most certainly are.

Just to emphasise what I said originally, I shall highlight a bit that may have been missed:

..the speed with which the oil/coal/gas is being burned is not really relevant to [its] place in the carbon cycle...

While the speed with which we are burning fossil fuels may be relevant to our immediate future, it is not relevant to their place in the Carbon Cycle. Do you see my point? I am highlighting a flaw in the "Not Part Of The Carbon Cycle" argument.

Anyway, it's nice to know that we're all friends again!

C-Bob

[Lettucing Gutted]

It has made little or no difference: I already believed in AGW. I am worried. Very worried about the future...

[Nath]

It has made little or no difference: I already believed in AGW. I am worried. Very worried about the future...

Same here, I think that within 10 years there is going to be massive changes to this planet. No scientific reason, just my take on it.

[Stratos Ferric]

...The fact is that, regardless of how quickly the carbon is released, it is still released - it's all part of the same cycle. It's interesting to me that the only cycles considered noteworthy are ones that occur within a comprehensible timeframe - the moment a span of millions (or even just tens of thousands) of years is mentioned, suddenly it's somehow not relevant. Strange.

The point of a cycle in equilibrium is that input and output balance. The carbon cycle, even if these fossil fuels were to be released naturally (they wouldn't be), would probably correct, such that reabsorption rates would increase. In slow change most natural systems retain equilibrium. The point at present is that "locked" carbon (i.e that which nature cannot quickly get at) is suddenly being released much faster than the system can correct and reseal it.

It would be the same as the Bank of England printing loads of money - as happened in the 70s in fact: we all have more money, but with no more goods in production in the short term all that happens is you get rampant inflation; there aren't more things to buy, so we just spend more money per item because we compete for purchases.

C-Bob..have you seen the latest. You couldn't make this up...now we're all supposed to give up working and live in a caravan. It gets better - wait until you see how she heats it!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287107.stm

:lol: eh???????????

A wood-burning stove, for chrissakes ! And what does she think you get when you burn wood?

If ever i saw a case of self-righteous finger pointing [gone wrong] , then it's this. :lol:

Yes and no Mondy. Wood is recently locked carbon and one of the reasons why electricity generators are looking at wood as a fuel. Coal was laid down millions of years ago; as were oil and gas. You can plant a new tree and have a decent source of fuel in 20-30 years (if you grow fast growing softwood). If you burn one large tree a year you only need to plant one new tree, assuming you already have a "float" of the thirty.

[Gray-Wolf]

The point of a cycle in equilibrium is that input and output balance. The carbon cycle, even if these fossil fuels were to be released naturally (they wouldn't be), would probably correct, such that reabsorption rates would increase. In slow change most natural systems retain equilibrium. The point at present is that "locked" carbon (i.e that which nature cannot quickly get at) is suddenly being released much faster than the system can correct and reseal it.

Maybe if you took a damed reservoir as an example. A slow 'overflow stream' causes no problems downstream (the system copes with minor fluctuations) but if the dam were to fail then many new types of event will occur downstream (and not just a scaling up of the 'normal ' processes)

We have blown up the Carbon dam.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

The point of a cycle in equilibrium is that input and output balance. The carbon cycle, even if these fossil fuels were to be released naturally (they wouldn't be), would probably correct, such that reabsorption rates would increase. In slow change most natural systems retain equilibrium. The point at present is that "locked" carbon (i.e that which nature cannot quickly get at) is suddenly being released much faster than the system can correct and reseal it.

Yes, SF.

Naturally one would expect an increase in CO2 to lead to an increase in vegetation which maintains the equilibrium - although this is much too simplified; plants just do not grow quick enough to absorb our CO2 output, and deforestation, and other 'land-use' changes certainly doesn't help either.

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

The fact that the N-weather temp tracker has only dropped to 7.2c through the influence of our shot at winter (nearly TWICE the 71-2000 average) and with temps now set to rise surely this must count for something.

MetO and uni E. Anglia predict the warmest year Globaly so how hot will it be this year?. Winter is over, spring is begining so just how warm will the Atlantic become this year (if last years anomalies are the baseline for this years increases)???? If our warm and stormy Autumn/winter are bourne on the back of the high SST's south of Greenland how will we fare next winter if we start warming the warm pool that is already there?

The pedants can grasp at their straws but the global changes this winter must surely open the eyes of the rest of us. For so many regions to be experiencing extreme weather events at the same time, instead of as individual events happening in isolation, must count for something (even the 'happened before' brigade must question the timing/clumping together of these events).

EDIT: watch for the Arctic melt this year, not only polnya's but the disintegration of the sheet facing the /bearing Straights and to the North of Svalbard due to the breaks the winter storms have caused in the sea ice (both old and new ice).

Edited January 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[noggin]

The pedants can grasp at their straws but the global changes this winter must surely open the eyes of the rest of us. For so many regions to be experiencing extreme weather events at the same time, instead of as individual events happening in isolation, must count for something (even the 'happened before' brigade must question the timing/clumping together of these events).

Certainly not aimed at anyone in particular , but it remains my firm belief that that the media (which is, after all, where we get our info from) is heavily biased and skewed and caught up on a frenzied, almost hysterical bandwagon. It's a bit like a witch-hunt! The weather fluctuates. It's Nature and Nature plays by her own rules. Maybe she will decide that at some point we will need a bite on the bum or a kick up the backside, I don't know, but we are totally at the mercy of Nature, which has infinitely more power than mankind.

As always though, we have to respect our Earth and Nature's bounty. Beyond that, we are at her mercy.

I acknowledge that I am a boring person who keeps on playing the same old record.

Edited January 26, 2007 by noggin