Climate change, real or no deal.

[Screwdriver]

Was the carbon stored in fossil fuels once " just floating around in the air"? It seems like to me, you're incorrectly asserting it wasn't when you state "It is a byproduct from living organisms so not as you may wish to believe just floating around in the air".

We both know the living plants which formed the base of the food chain that comprised the organic carbon molecules stored as fossil fuels, got their carbon from the atmosphere. So why are you asserting otherwise??

Have I got the wrong end of the stick and it's just a typo or something? Seems too simple a thing to be arguing about. Apologies if that's the case!

Then I am afraid you are wrong unless you are suggesting that the elemental form of carbon was indeed just floating about in the air. While going back to check it appears you do!

Similarly, dismissing people like morrisman when they rightly point out that the Carbon now burried was once atmospheric is counterproductive.

That is where you are going wrong. Carbon does not float about in the air, most elemental forms of carbon are safely locked up in all manner of interesting substances, the vast majority of which are not gaseous.

Only a small fraction of elemental carbon on earth is in the form of CO2 or methane. Morrisman was not correct in his assertion and neither are you.

 

[DAPPH]

There , that told you all

 

[ronan]

The above did make me - an old man smile!


Funny I can watch charity adverts of poor starving African children with flies round their eyes - and I am OK with it. I think I have seen so many I am hardened to it (desensitized?).

It is the donkey charity TV ads that affect me - show me donkey with a whole pallet of bricks on it's back with bent wonkey legs - wounds where a makeshift harness has cut into its flesh and it touches my heartstrings! I don't like looking at these adverts at all...

Manipulation at its finest. The charitys here are a disgrace. One recently used the proceeds, or a sizeable lump of them, from a christmas appeal to pay staff christmas bonuses. Very little of the money you actually give them would get to the donkeys or starving or whatever. Much better off giving to a local animal refuge of something like that.

 

[premmington]

Then I am afraid you are wrong unless you are suggesting that the elemental form of carbon was indeed just floating about in the air. While going back to check it appears you do!


That is where you are going wrong. Carbon does not float about in the air, most elemental forms of carbon are safely locked up in all manner of interesting substances, the vast majority of which are not gaseous.

Only a small fraction of elemental carbon on earth is in the form of CO2 or methane. Morrisman was not correct in his assertion and neither are you.

Prey please explain - no really please enlighten me!

I want the answers - the solution to this.

Are we not with population growth and the industrial revolution of last century and the tech revolution of this century - just not relasing more carbon into the atmosphere - by doing lots more of the same?

No explain it to me - I am not after a row here - I want the facts - I need to understand - I really do...

This thread is tittled "Climate change, real or no deal."

What is the deal? I am interested in your answer?

 

[roofman]

How come so many ecological scientists hang about a welding forum every night?

 

[Screwdriver]

What is the deal? I am interested in your answer?

More CO2 released into the atmosphere causes more global warming due to the greenhouse effect, net warming has a dramatic effect on the global climate.

The climate will change, the only uncertainty is what that change will be, how quickly it will happen and whether or not it's too late to stop it.

 

[premmington]

More CO2 released into the atmosphere causes more global warming due to the greenhouse effect, net warming has a dramatic effect on the global climate.

The climate will change, the only uncertainty is what that change will be, how quickly it will happen and whether or not it's too late to stop it.

I think I understand the science behind this (I think we all do).

The big question is...?

What do we do to stop it - global warming...?


If I in the UK stop releasing any carbon (carbon neutral is the curent buzz word) and 280million new inhabitants born this year in the growing third world do. Am I wasting my time...? (I hope the answer is not YES).

I am confused here - the other option is nuking developing countries and this does not sit well with me either (plus nuclear explosions release huge amounts of carbon as well).

What I am after is answers to my question...?

Because to honest - everybody is explaining the issues to me - the problem - I see it on TV - from the UK govt - to nice well meaning Gretta - even my wife - pictures of melting iceburgs - rising sea water.

But nobody has any idea what needs to be done on a global scale - to curb the problem...


---------------------------


Am I being dumb here? Say yes if you think I am.

But more of us - consuming more - must be the problem. It is the ultimate "R number" in maths is it not?

 

[Gareth J]

Then I am afraid you are wrong unless you are suggesting that the elemental form of carbon was indeed just floating about in the air. While going back to check it appears you do!


That is where you are going wrong. Carbon does not float about in the air, most elemental forms of carbon are safely locked up in all manner of interesting substances, the vast majority of which are not gaseous.

Only a small fraction of elemental carbon on earth is in the form of CO2 or methane. Morrisman was not correct in his assertion and neither are you.

Don't patronise me, I'm well aware of the differences between elemental Carbon and CO2. I can perfectly legitimately say that the Carbon locked up in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere.

Just to be clear, you're seriously standing by your assertion that the Carbon that is found in fossil fuels wasn't once just floating around in the atmosphere....is that right? If so, pray, enlighten us, where did the plants that did their photosynthesis (which animals then ate) find all those Carbon atoms....? I've asked you this in this thread already but you haven't answered...oh yes, it's because all those Carbon atoms were indeed once "just floating around" in the atmosphere a the "C" bit in CO2 molecules.

Can you see where you've gone wrong now?

 

[anto44]

How come so many ecological scientists hang about a welding forum every night?

Cause the ecological forum is full of people wanting to know which chinese welder should they buy

 

[Screwdriver]

Don't patronise me, I'm well aware of the differences between elemental Carbon and CO2. I can perfectly legitimately say that the Carbon locked up in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere.

Just to be clear, you're seriously standing by your assertion that the Carbon that is found in fossil fuels wasn't once just floating around in the atmosphere....is that right? If so, pray, enlighten us, where did the plants that did their photosynthesis (which animals then ate) find all those Carbon atoms....? I've asked you this in this thread already but you haven't answered...oh yes, it's because all those Carbon atoms were indeed once "just floating around" in the atmosphere a the "C" bit in CO2 molecules.

Can you see where you've gone wrong now?

No. You are boring me now. You're wrong. Suck it up and move on. The grown ups are having a serious conversation here.

 

[gaz1]

same no matter where you go

here your lovely tires

 

[Screwdriver]

What do we do to stop it - global warming...?

But more of us - consuming more - must be the problem. It is the ultimate "R number" in maths is it not?

There is no simple answer. If AGW is real (and there's a fair bit of argument largely from the oil industry and their cronies) then pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will make things worse.

What is less clear is what would happen on the off chance we stop releasing so much CO2. One assumes the number of ppm for CO2 would decrease naturally over time but in a warmer climate, ice sheets are melting, more water vapour can persist in the atmosphere (water vapour is also a greenhouse "gas") and frozen tundra is also melting releasing methane (a much worse GHG than CO2).

Dunno is the simple answer. Personally, I think it's already too late and the climate will slowly continue its path to some other steady state equilibrium in a generally warmer environment. Since we should be quite happy with the way things are (or were!), chances are any change will be for the worse. Rising sea level will be quite a large problem for many low lying countries and islands. Once sea water permeates the water table, no more fresh water and no more crops.

We're doomed, doomed....

 

[premmington]

There is no simple answer. If AGW is real (and there's a fair bit of argument largely from the oil industry and their cronies) then pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere will make things worse.

What is less clear is what would happen on the off chance we stop releasing so much CO2. One assumes the number of ppm for CO2 would decrease naturally over time but in a warmer climate, ice sheets are melting, more water vapour can persist in the atmosphere (water vapour is also a greenhouse "gas") and frozen tundra is also melting releasing methane (a much worse GHG than CO2).

Dunno is the simple answer. Personally, I think it's already too late and the climate will slowly continue its path to some other steady state equilibrium in a generally warmer environment. Since we should be quite happy with the way things are (or were!), chances are any change will be for the worse. Rising sea level will be quite a large problem for many low lying countries and islands. Once sea water permeates the water table, no more fresh water and no more crops.

We're doomed, doomed....

Thanks for your input

 

[mike os]

There is no simple answer. If AGW is real (and there's a fair bit of argument largely from the oil industry and their cronies)

As opposed to the greeniess and their cronies?

 

[Screwdriver]

As opposed to the greeniess and their cronies?

Slight difference in their respective levels of funding and vested interests.

Have to agree that at the extremes, both "sides" make some pretty outrageous claims in the name of "science".

 

[mtt.tr]

.thats ample time for the first evolution of intelligent life to occur!

You are feeling rather optimistic tonight

 

[mike os]

Problem is if one side is automatically tainted because of the backer or who commissioned the research then it applies equally to both parties, and knowing how climate 'science ' is funded makes me more likely to believe a report commissioned by a oil magnate than a green organisation

 

[Wedg1e]

Manipulation at its finest. The charitys here are a disgrace. One recently used the proceeds, or a sizeable lump of them, from a christmas appeal to pay staff christmas bonuses. Very little of the money you actually give them would get to the donkeys or starving or whatever. Much better off giving to a local animal refuge of something like that.

My daughter works for an autism charity and at the top is an Asian guy who swans around in a flash car, lives in a big house, takes a fat salary and annual bonuses (plus, presumably, an expense account). So much for charity beginning at home.
We had a guy at work who'd served his apprenticeship with the RNLI; he said not to feel guity about not dropping coins in the box as their biggest revenue by far is from bequests - people (especially former seafarers) leave their entire estates to the RNLI - who then have a whale of a time wasting it.

Anyway, back to the main topic...

 

[Gareth J]

No. You are boring me now. You're wrong. Suck it up and move on. The grown ups are having a serious conversation here.

Im not wrong and you know it, otherwise you'd be able to answer the question I've asked you several times. Or at least explain what on earth you did mean.

You make a mistake, that's ok though, we all make mistakes, simple ones too!

 

[Gareth J]

Problem is if one side is automatically tainted because of the backer or who commissioned the research then it applies equally to both parties, and knowing how climate 'science ' is funded makes me more likely to believe a report commissioned by a oil magnate than a green organisation

An interesting aside, have a listen to the BBC series "how they made us doubt everything". A fascinating look at how the tobacco industry tried to muddy the waters and suggest the link between smoking and cancer might not be clear. Then how the oil industry used very the same tactics, even employing some of the very same people involved! to try the same thing. And it worked for a while. Even now there are a lot of people who aren't convinced man made climate change is a thing even though, as you point out, the big oil companies no longer pretend it might be a non issue