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

[Admiral_Bobski]

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.

Hi SF!

Just to clarify my point, I'll quote what I said before with the key part highlighted:

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.

I believe that the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is being somewhat overhyped, and that our effect upon the atmosphere is not as significant as is being made out, but quite aside from that I am arguing the suggestion that fossil fuels are somehow not a part of the Carbon Cycle. The fact that fossil fuels were "taken out of the equation" millions of years ago means that the "equation" became unbalanced (some would argue it bacame unbalanced in our favour). Now that fossil fuels are being burned their Carbon is simply being put back into the equation, thereby balancing it (in the grand scheme of things).

I have attached the Carbon Cycle diagram from wikipedia (I hope that's not breaching any copyright!), with my own red highlight.

Even the diagram-makers acknowledge the place of fossil fuels in the Carbon Cycle!

:blink:

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Hi SF!

Just to clarify my point, I'll quote what I said before with the key part highlighted:

I believe that the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is being somewhat overhyped, and that our effect upon the atmosphere is not as significant as is being made out, but quite aside from that I am arguing the suggestion that fossil fuels are somehow not a part of the Carbon Cycle. The fact that fossil fuels were "taken out of the equation" millions of years ago means that the "equation" became unbalanced (some would argue it bacame unbalanced in our favour). Now that fossil fuels are being burned their Carbon is simply being put back into the equation, thereby balancing it (in the grand scheme of things).

I have attached the Carbon Cycle diagram from wikipedia (I hope that's not breaching any copyright!), with my own red highlight.

Even the diagram-makers acknowledge the place of fossil fuels in the Carbon Cycle!

:blink:

C-Bob

Arrgghhh!

CB, surely you must see that the fossil fuels are being released at a speed that simply couldn't happen without us? I simply can't believe you don't get that? So, please, lets agree on that else I'll think you're mischief making or deeply misunderstanding things. OK?

Whether or not the fossil fuels would eventually be 'released' isn't pertinent - unless you think those of use alive now will live for millions of years? No, what matters, and what you're refusing (for some reason...) to accept is the problem of the speed of the release of 'locked' up CO2. It is like GW's lake - you can't compare a drip over time to a flood, even if both are indeed the same ammont of water, yet you persist in avioding this reality. Why?

So, again, please set my mind at rest and confirm you accpet that the speed of release of 'locked' up CO2 as we burn fossil fuel is (IS) unnaturally fast.

[The Penguin]

I think the point, Cap'n Bob, is that while CO2 is in fossil form it has no effect on atmospheric thermo inertia, whereas in fuel form, once burnt, it does. Whether fuel burning produces a significant amount of CO2 in comparison to naturally emitted atmospheric CO2 is, of course, the issue here.

[Upgrade]

That, is not statistically significant, I'm afraid (especially considering the vast climate record - 10 years means absolutely nothing), and could simply be just a blip. As I said, the next 2/3 years will provide some statistical certainties (not much, but enough) to really nail the last few nails in the coffin either way.

what about sudden climatic shifts which can happen over a decade? and change to a new climate for the next thousands of years, are these real ? are we in one of these now?

[Mondy]

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

Jeezus. The argument against global warming is very, very simple.

Vesuvius, Tambora, Krakatoa, Etna, Hekla, Santorini and Yellowstone all blew spectacularly in the past, throwing up millions, if not billions of cubic kilometres of ash, rock, dust and chemicals. Far more pollutants than any attempt by man.

But the biosphere recovered after a year or two.

Is that difficult to accept? Or are some on here unable/unwilling to see through their own doom-laden visions?

I really am not convinced that anything we humans do will ever have much of an effect on the way planet Earth changes. It warms, it cools and the processes by which it does this are imperfectly understood ... we simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

Is the world overpopulated? Definitely not. If you gave every person on the planet one square metre of ground to stand on, the entire population would cover an area approximately one quarter of the size of Sicily. That doesn't seem like over-population of a planet which has a land area twenty thousand times that big.

All it will take will be one big volcano spew and things will cool down again. When Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature drop of nearly one degree. It seems to me that no matter what we puny humans do, we may be overestimating our ability to have much effect on climate. We simply don't have the evidence to support that conclusion.

Ps, Devonian, aviation is responsible for a tiny 1.6% of emissions, the majority comes from the fuels we use for household heating and lighting.

I'm off to hibernate now. I may be some time..

[Admiral_Bobski]

Arrgghhh!

CB, surely you must see that the fossil fuels are being released at a speed that simply couldn't happen without us? I simply can't believe you don't get that? So, please, lets agree on that else I'll think you're mischief making or deeply misunderstanding things. OK?

Whether or not the fossil fuels would eventually be 'released' isn't pertinent - unless you think those of use alive now will live for millions of years? No, what matters, and what you're refusing (for some reason...) to accept is the problem of the speed of the release of 'locked' up CO2. It is like GW's lake - you can't compare a drip over time to a flood, even if both are indeed the same ammont of water, yet you persist in avioding this reality. Why?

So, again, please set my mind at rest and confirm you accpet that the speed of release of 'locked' up CO2 as we burn fossil fuel is (IS) unnaturally fast.

For crying out loud, how much clearer can I make this?! I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that fossil fuels would have burned naturally as quickly as they are being burned by us, but that wasn't the point I was making at all!

You originally said:

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?

...to which I replied:

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.

Your argument that fossil fuels are not a part of the carbon cycle is clearly wrong - they may not be a part of the bit of the carbon cycle you are interested in but that's beside the point. Even after a dam bursts the water eventually subsides - we can't burn more fossil fuels than actually exist in the world, so the amount of released CO2 will eventually subside. The question, though, is whether the CO2 we release through fossil fuels is akin to a dam flooding solid, impermeable rock, or is it more like a dam flooding an extraordinarily absorbant sponge?

Does this make any kind of sense to you? If not then I fail to see the point of spending any more time explaining it.

Yes. I agree. Fossil fuels are being burned quicker now, by us, than if they had been left alone.

Does this mean they are not part of the Carbon Cycle? No. The water behind the dam is still a part of the water cycle!

You seem to think I am arguing something entirely different.

C-Bob

[Devonian]

Jeezus. The argument against global warming is very, very simple.

Vesuvius, Tambora, Krakatoa, Etna, Hekla, Santorini and Yellowstone all blew spectacularly in the past, throwing up millions, if not billions of cubic kilometres of ash, rock, dust and chemicals. Far more pollutants than any attempt by man.

Volcanoes throw out rocks, which soon falls to Earth, lava, which flows away, aerosols, which if the get high enough take time to fall, and ghg's in quantities so small they don't register on the global record.

But the biosphere recovered after a year or two.

Yes, because aerosols only take years to fall out. Anthro changes are bigger and longer lasting.

Is that difficult to accept? Or are some on here unable/unwilling to see through their own doom-laden visions?

[

Got the jibe in I see :blink: . No one here is denying volcanic eruption or their effects. Several people still deny the effect of the changes we are causing to the atmosphere

I really am not convinced that anything we humans do will ever have much of an effect on the way planet Earth changes. It warms, it cools and the processes by which it does this are imperfectly understood ... we simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

And the evidence you present is? Well, to be convincing you'll need to re write atmopshere physics!

Is the world overpopulated? Definitely not. If you gave every person on the planet one square metre of ground to stand on, the entire population would cover an area approximately one quarter of the size of Sicily. That doesn't seem like over-population of a planet which has a land area twenty thousand times that big.

All it will take will be one big volcano spew and things will cool down again. When Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature drop of nearly one degree.

...

And that cooling effect lasted a few years...

[Upgrade]

Jeezus. The argument against global warming is very, very simple.

Vesuvius, Tambora, Krakatoa, Etna, Hekla, Santorini and Yellowstone all blew spectacularly in the past, throwing up millions, if not billions of cubic kilometres of ash, rock, dust and chemicals. Far more pollutants than any attempt by man.

But the biosphere recovered after a year or two.

Is that difficult to accept? Or are some on here unable/unwilling to see through their own doom-laden visions?

I really am not convinced that anything we humans do will ever have much of an effect on the way planet Earth changes. It warms, it cools and the processes by which it does this are imperfectly understood ... we simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

Is the world overpopulated? Definitely not. If you gave every person on the planet one square metre of ground to stand on, the entire population would cover an area approximately one quarter of the size of Sicily. That doesn't seem like over-population of a planet which has a land area twenty thousand times that big.

All it will take will be one big volcano spew and things will cool down again. When Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature drop of nearly one degree. It seems to me that no matter what we puny humans do, we may be overestimating our ability to have much effect on climate. We simply don't have the evidence to support that conclusion.

Ps, Devonian, aviation is responsible for a tiny 1.6% of emissions, the majority comes from the fuels we use for household heating and lighting.

I'm off to hibernate now. I may be some time..

1) volcanic eruptions dont spew out "billions of cubic kilometres of rock, gas, chemicals" . Krakatoa spewed out 25sq km .

2) I'd like to see you try to feed everyone in the world using 1sqm of land per person (and provide all their other material requirements). The planet is totally overpopulated to the tune of about 4bn, but no one will talk about it. We could and should reduce the world population by 4/5ths within 50 years - quite achievable if world governments put their minds to it .

3) pinatubo did cool the earth by 1 degree, for about a year as a result of a week long eruption. It soon revovered. We have been putting WARMING onions in the atmos for hundreds of years and continue to squirt it out from every smokestack, car exhaust and factory in the world at increasing rates at ground level, every single day and from aeroplanes at high level. This has to have an inpact on the atmosphere. We are small and the world is big but you only have to fly at high level around Asia in the summer and autumn to know that haze you encounter at 35,000 feet stretching from Bombay to Thailand Indonesia and the Philipines is NOT natural and CANT be doing the atmosphere or us , any good whatsoever. These are large feature things you can see with your own eye and which are down to us to do something about. We are changing the atmosphere, for the worse, and are fouling our own nest. If we don't as a species attempt to do anything about it , we and the planet's ecology will be destroyed.

4) I flew over the Amazon in the autumn , in the dark, on a plane back from Chile. The skies were clear, a little hazy, but all over these little semicircles of orange light from down below shone back at me, all over the place, for an hour or two as we flew. At first i thought how unusual the towns shapes were, then it dawned on me, these were forest fires, lit by people, burning out of control all over the jungle. the haze was from the burinng forests , all those particulates in the atmosphere. and it brought home the reality of what we're doing to the world and it is profoundly depressing.

We are having a BIG impact, we are changing the world faster than you know and its not for the better. How long it may take to change back after we stop having this impact is unknown but at the current time do you see us changing anything for the better anytime soon? If not, id suggest that , just as the pinatubo event was a week long eruption who's effect on the climate lasted a year, our hundreds of years of continous "effort" at spewing out this stuff will keep continually changing our climate until we stop.

[parmenides3]

Hi, Mondy.

I'm glad you've taken the opportunity to put your thoughts across. Now, (in the politest possible way), I'm going to try and explain why I disagree with you. I hope you don't mind.

Your first point seems to be that our contribution is relatively small when compared to large volcanic eruptions, for example. You seem to have overlooked the point that the material contribution of aerosols, sulphates & particular matter is relatively short-term, which is why the cooling effect only lasts a couple of years, whereas well-mixed GHGs have a 'lifespan' in the atmosphere of c. 200 years. So, whilst one big volcano does throw out more rubbish than one years'-worth of CO2, for example, it needs to compared to 200 years'-worth, instead, for a more accurate comparison. On this measure, the total output over 200 years of human-produced CO2 ranks quite highly in comparison.

As a side point, the effect of volcanoes is already considered and incorporated into climate models' output. Whilst a 'big blow' is not predictable, the average output of the world's volcanoes is. The climate projections therefore take this into account, as best they can.

It seems like arrogance - hubris, if you like - to believe that we insignificant creatures can have an impact on earth's systems. This does not, though, mean that we don't; only that we don't like imagining/believing it. Though not a comparison, it should be noted that pollution, for example, has a direct and measurable short-term impact on systems, so we can have a direct effect on our planet and the way it changes. A better example might be the ozone hole: CFCs were banned, internationally, now it appears that the ozone hole is recovering, somewhat (though it looks like CC may be catching up with this, too).

You say that we don't have enough information to draw conclusions about why the earth warms or cools, and that these processes are imperfectly understood. The whole point of the IPCC and similar reports is to demonstrate how much we do know, and to draw conclusions from that knowledge. The last technical report ran to several hundred pages; the next one is likely to be longer. The balance of evidence was very strongly in favour of the conclusion that we are warming the planet through our emissions and other activities. Next time, the balance of evidence is likely to be overwhelmingly in favour of this conclusion.

I would also draw a distinction between systems being 'imperfectly understood' and those either 'well-understood', or 'not understood'. The processes which warm or cool the earth are well-understood. That our understanding is not perfect is a given, but it is also not relevant; the conclusions are drawn in the light of the knowledge of the imperfections, and we should be able to understand that our knowledge of the earth, its climate and its cycles, is good enough to reach meaningful conclusions. That is the belief of a huge number of scientists; if we choose not to accept it, is our rejection rational?

On the matter of population, it isn't just about how many, but also about where. The issue is not about how much space there is, but whether the availability and distribution of resources (like food and water) is able to sustain local populations, and what happens if they can't.

As you say, a big volcano, like Pinatubo, will cool things down again - for a little while - but this will not stop the underlying trend from continuing into the future. Pinatubo didn't 'stop' global warming, it simply caused a 'hiccup', as did the '98 El Nino. Of course, if we had a blow on the next scale up, in the right/wrong place, then how warm or cold the planet is may well become academic, as large-scale system shutdown could be on the cards.

One human is puny. Six billion humans is not. Think locusts. What it seems to boil down to is that you don't believe we have enough evidence to support the AGW argument. Whilst you are entitled to believe this, your belief is misguided, for the reasons I gave earlier.

Finally, I'd very strongly recommend this, by MIT Meteorology professor Kerry Emanuel: http://bostonreview.net/BR32.1/emanuel.html

It is one of the most lucid discussions of the subject I have read in a long time. In fact, I'd recommend anyone reading this to print off a copy and sit and read it for a while. If it still doesn't answer your questions/doubts, post again and put the question...

I have tried to be as polite and respectful of your feelings as possible, whilst also trying to show why I disagree with you. I hope you don't get upset by anything I have written.

Regards,

:)P

[Devonian]

For crying out loud, how much clearer can I make this?! I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that fossil fuels would have burned naturally as quickly as they are being burned by us, but that wasn't the point I was making at all!

You originally said:

...to which I replied:

Your argument that fossil fuels are not a part of the carbon cycle is clearly wrong - they may not be a part of the bit of the carbon cycle you are interested in but that's beside the point. Even after a dam bursts the water eventually subsides - we can't burn more fossil fuels than actually exist in the world, so the amount of released CO2 will eventually subside. The question, though, is whether the CO2 we release through fossil fuels is akin to a dam flooding solid, impermeable rock, or is it more like a dam flooding an extraordinarily absorbant sponge?

Does this make any kind of sense to you? If not then I fail to see the point of spending any more time explaining it.

Yes. I agree. Fossil fuels are being burned quicker now, by us, than if they had been left alone.

Does this mean they are not part of the Carbon Cycle? No. The water behind the dam is still a part of the watercycle!

You seem to think I am arguing something entirely different.

C-Bob

No, I think your line of argument is irrelevant. It matter not at all whether the CO2 is or isn't part of the cycle (it is but not over the time scale that matter) what matters is the speed of emission wrt time.

If the Earth was a sponge how come CO2 conc is doing this http://tamino.wordpress.com/files/2007/01/eos1.gif? Answer, becuase while the planet is in a way sponge like, it's overwhealmed by the speed and quantity of CO2 emissions atm...

[Admiral_Bobski]

Jimmyay, just a quickie... You said:

2) I'd like to see you try to feed everyone in the world using 1sqm of land per person (and provide all their other material requirements). The planet is totally overpopulated to the tune of about 4bn, but no one will talk about it. We could and should reduce the world population by 4/5ths within 50 years - quite achievable if world governments put their minds to it .

What, exactly are you suggesting here...?

:blink:

C-Bob

[dapick2002]

Jimmyay, just a quickie... You said:

What, exactly are you suggesting here...?

C-Bob

introduce an age limit lol :blink:

[Admiral_Bobski]

introduce an age limit lol :blink:

Anybody here seen the film Soylent Green? Worrying...

C-Bob

[The Penguin]

Sorry to continue off topic, but if the age limit was over-40's only, the A in AGW could be sorted in fifty years. That would make a lot of people happy. Or not.

[parmenides3]

Hi, C-Bob.

Your argument that fossil fuels are not a part of the carbon cycle is clearly wrong - they may not be a part of the bit of the carbon cycle you are interested in but that's beside the point. Even after a dam bursts the water eventually subsides - we can't burn more fossil fuels than actually exist in the world, so the amount of released CO2 will eventually subside. The question, though, is whether the CO2 we release through fossil fuels is akin to a dam flooding solid, impermeable rock, or is it more like a dam flooding an extraordinarily absorbant sponge?

You appear to have misunderstood what the carbon cycle is. Fossil fuels are not a part of the carbon cycle - the natural process of production and absorption of carbon by the earth's systems - except in the longest, most inclusive sense. The carbon in fossil fuels has been taken out of the system by being buried deep underground. Without human intervention, it would never be released, therefore the system operates without consideration of it. This is why your analogy, with water, does not work. Oil and coal are not in a dam waiting to be released; they are inert unless brought to the surface and burned.

You are right, of course, that eventually, we will have used all the fossil fuels in the world; in about 41 years for oil and about 150 years for coal. But that does not mean that GW stops at these times; the CO2 from their burning and its warming effect continues for hundreds or years. An important question is how rapidly we add it to the system, and how rapdly thereby we stimulate changes in the systems which, under natural conditions, would take thousands of years, but with our intervention, may only take decades, or a couple of centuries.

:)P

Edit: surely, it should be 'Logan's Run'! :(P

Edited January 26, 2007 by parmenides3

[Admiral_Bobski]

Sorry to continue off topic, but if the age limit was over-40's only, the A in AGW could be sorted in fifty years. That would make a lot of people happy. Or not.

It is a little off-topic, I suppose, but it's an interesting part of the whole debate - perhaps we should wait until jimmyay clarifies the point he made, but if people are so anxious about AGW that they're willing to seriously consider the concept of population control (or, worse, yet, population purging) then it is a worrying knee-jerk side-effect of the hysteria surrounding the subject.

C-Bob

EDIT - To P3 (just seen your post!)

Without human intervention, it would never be released, therefore the system operates without consideration of it. This is why your analogy, with water, does not work. Oil and coal are not in a dam waiting to be released; they are inert unless brought to the surface and burned.

Never say never! There's nothing to say that geological processes can't regurgitate the coal and oil, and that it can't then spontaneously combust (by a natural process). Certainly this may not happen within millions of years, but that's not to say that it can't happen, and therefore they remain a part of the Carbon Cycle. I have not misunderstood the carbon cycle at all - I am taking the entire cycle into account, not just the portion of it (human time-scales) that people seem to think somehow relevant. (You even say yourself "except in the longest, most-inclusive sense" which, scientifically speaking, is the most correct sense.)

You are right, of course, that eventually, we will have used all the fossil fuels in the world; in about 41 years for oil and about 150 years for coal. But that does not mean that GW stops at these times; the CO2 from their burning and its warming effect continues for hundreds or years. An important question is how rapidly we add it to the system, and how rapdly thereby we stimulate changes in the systems which, under natural conditions, would take thousands of years, but with our intervention, may only take decades, or a couple of centuries.

Again, people are reading things in to what I have said - I never suggested that any supposed GW from fossil fuels would somehow magically stop once all the fossil fuels are burned. What I said was that the Earth would adjust to the change by attempting to establish a new equilibrium. One last time I shall say this - I was merely clarifying a point of order, namely that fossil fuels are part of the carbon cycle. Excluding them biases the information being given (much like VillagePlank's Dihydrogen Monoxide thread - by excluding vital parts of the picture, such as the fact that it is vital to life on this planet, he made water sound dangerous).

The argument that this is turning into is about how much CO2 affects global temperatures - we've been there before, and to my mind the jury is still out...

:blink:

C-Bob

Edited January 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Stratos Ferric]

Certainly not aimed at anyone in particular :blink: , 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.

Noggin,

you realy need to look at some of the graphs I post on here. Yes the weather fluctuates, but for a long time now the fluctuation has all been above the mean. he price of petrol fluctuates, but would you honestly suggest that it is EVER going to be as cheap as it was even 2-3 years ago. It's not; it's on a rising trend (in real terms i.e. over and above the standard inflation that comes with any economy).

Yes, the media occasionally overhypes things, but any argument that what is going on at present in the UK is merely "natural and normal" fluctuation really has to be corroborated with some data please, because all the facts and data I have say exactly the opposite.

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.

Great analogy in terms of the release effect.

[VillagePlank]

Without human intervention, it would never be released, therefore the system operates without consideration of it. This is why your analogy, with water, does not work. Oil and coal are not in a dam waiting to be released; they are inert unless brought to the surface and burned.

Given that you believe that, then I am absolutely certain that you are going to fall off your seat to learn that nuclear fission occurs naturally, right here on earth, here

[Stratos Ferric]

Hi SF!

Just to clarify my point, I'll quote what I said before with the key part highlighted:

I believe that the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere is being somewhat overhyped, and that our effect upon the atmosphere is not as significant as is being made out, but quite aside from that I am arguing the suggestion that fossil fuels are somehow not a part of the Carbon Cycle. The fact that fossil fuels were "taken out of the equation" millions of years ago means that the "equation" became unbalanced (some would argue it bacame unbalanced in our favour). Now that fossil fuels are being burned their Carbon is simply being put back into the equation, thereby balancing it (in the grand scheme of things).

I have attached the Carbon Cycle diagram from wikipedia (I hope that's not breaching any copyright!), with my own red highlight.

Even the diagram-makers acknowledge the place of fossil fuels in the Carbon Cycle!

:blink:

C-Bob

Putting things in the context of geological epochs might on the one hand appear to be a smokescreen, but you do raise important points - ot least the period of time it takes for cycles to equilibrate. In fact, most natural cycles exist in constant disequilibrium, they ar always trying to move to an equilibrium but when they get there a new set of forces is being exerted; this occurs not least because there is inertia in the system, but also because of external forcing.

The worrying thing in this present situation is that re-equilibration might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer, at which point we may never return to here we are now without significant external forcing. And, by the way, it's only "worrying" if you determine that the consequyences for life on earth would be catastrophic. The big lump of rock which is "this island Earth" will be here for a long time, come what may.

[parmenides3]

Given that you believe that, then I am absolutely certain that you are going to fall off your seat to learn that nuclear fission occurs naturally, right here on earth, here

The article says that it would have happened 2 billion years ago and the conditions on earth are no longer suitable. That nuclear material is fissile is not controversial, so what are you trying to get at? Your post suggest that my belief is ill-founded. I suggest you read about the carbon cycle. My statement is not a matter of belief. The article was interesting, but I'm not sure what it's relevance might be.

:)P

[VillagePlank]

The article says that it would have happened 2 billion years ago and the conditions on earth are no longer suitable. That nuclear material is fissile is not controversial, so what are you trying to get at? Your post suggest that my belief is ill-founded. I suggest you read about the carbon cycle. My statement is not a matter of belief. The article was interesting, but I'm not sure what it's relevance might be.

:)P

My suggestion (and that's all that was intended) is that a belief that coal, oil, or gas, does not burn naturally seems a little too all encompassing - and rather like the belief that nuclear fission cannot be contained within nature - flawed and without scientific basis.

Given that large amounts of deposits are in ground level shale that burns very easily, is it not conceivable that nature burns some of this stuff, too? I mean forest fires have been around forever haven't they? If nature can ignite a forest, why can't it ignite an oil-shale?

Thanks for the suggestion that I read all about the carbon-cycle. I shall keep that in mind next time I mention err 'the carbon-cycle'

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Stratos Ferric]

Jeezus. The argument against global warming is very, very simple.

Vesuvius, Tambora, Krakatoa, Etna, Hekla, Santorini and Yellowstone all blew spectacularly in the past, throwing up millions, if not billions of cubic kilometres of ash, rock, dust and chemicals. Far more pollutants than any attempt by man.

But the biosphere recovered after a year or two.

DIFFERENT THING: volcanic particulates are heavy and settle: CO2 is gaseous and takes longer to be relocked

Is that difficult to accept? Or are some on here unable/unwilling to see through their own doom-laden visions?

I really am not convinced that anything we humans do will ever have much of an effect on the way planet Earth changes. It warms, it cools and the processes by which it does this are imperfectly understood ... we simply do not have enough information to draw any conclusions.

If there's nothing that would convince you then there's little point engaging in a discussion about it. What WOULD change your mind? Or are you simply didactically opposed to any such notion?

Is the world overpopulated? Definitely not. If you gave every person on the planet one square metre of ground to stand on, the entire population would cover an area approximately one quarter of the size of Sicily. That doesn't seem like over-population of a planet which has a land area twenty thousand times that big.

Over population is nothing to do with area, and everthing to do with sustainability. Jupiter is a darn sight more massive than Earth, but putting even one person on Jupiter would, from that person's perspective, be overpopulation. Why is Greenland / Antarctica not urbanised (though the day will come)?. Not al of the earth's surface is habitable, far from it: what's more, there does eventually come a point with increasing population, exacerbated if we gat major shifts in climate, where the earth will not be able to supply all our needs.

All it will take will be one big volcano spew and things will cool down again. When Pinatubo erupted in 1991, it caused a global temperature drop of nearly one degree. It seems to me that no matter what we puny humans do, we may be overestimating our ability to have much effect on climate. We simply don't have the evidence to support that conclusion.

Ps, Devonian, aviation is responsible for a tiny 1.6% of emissions, the majority comes from the fuels we use for household heating and lighting.

I've a sneaking suspicion the ration for aviation is abit higher than that, and it will grow, but you're quite right that heating/cooling accounts for the biggest chunk.

I'm off to hibernate now. I may be some time..

[Admiral_Bobski]

The worrying thing in this present situation is that re-equilibration might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer, at which point we may never return to here we are now without significant external forcing. And, by the way, it's only "worrying" if you determine that the consequyences for life on earth would be catastrophic. The big lump of rock which is "this island Earth" will be here for a long time, come what may.

Thanks SF!

I agree entirely with what you say - even with the "might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer" part. Yes, establishing a new equilibrium might mean increased temperatures. It all depends of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, how effective the global CO2 sinks are, and (as far as our predictive models are concerned) how many, and exactly what forms of different sinks are there. Finally somebody gets what I've been saying! Thank you!

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

My suggestion (and that's all that was intended) is that a belief that coal, oil, or gas, does not burn naturally seems a little too all encompassing. Given that large amounts of deposits are in ground level shale that burns very easily, is it not conceivable that nature burns some of this stuff, too? I mean forest fires have been around forever haven't they? If nature can ignite a forest, why can't it ignite an oil-shale?

Thanks for the suggestion that I read all about the carbon-cycle. I shall keep that in mind next time I mention err 'the carbon-cycle'

VP, it might, but the fact is that the huge bulk of locked carbon was laid down millions of years ago, and is locked in deep reservoirs. It would not, ordinarily, re-enter the "real-time" cycle suddenly or catastrophicaly.

[Upgrade]

Anybody here seen the film Soylent Green? Worrying...

C-Bob

i'm not a nut , but i think its a subject that dare not speak its name, yet is the root of our problems. if we only had a quarter of the people , the problems would be much less. why is ever increasing population not complained about . a global one child per family programme would be so , so sensible. what's the point of african people having 8 kids each when there's no food to feed them, for example? no wonder people are already escaping these envoriromentally dire places to new lives and risking their lives to do so . its not just an economic thing, its a survival thing increasingly.

similarly , the worlds growing population needs ever more buildings and infrastructure to house these people. our natural resources are raped for this. look at the emerging mega cities all over the world. once new york a tokyo were the only cities with a "manhatten" style skyline. now there are countless cities, ones you wouldnt even recognise the names of, each with 5 million or more people, all looking like this, a 22nd century forest of skyscaper cities is emerging globally now which have all been produced from scare materials and natural resources and devastating the surrounding natural environments - and what for?

you should go to haiti if you want to see a dark vision of the future of the world, a place where rampant population growth outside the scope of the natural envorironment to deal with it, combined with the unbridled, selfish use of natural resources has created truly hell on earth for virtually all its people.

this could be the future for everywhere else too, unless we do something about it. curbing population growth and even reducing population seems a good place to start, to me.