Climate Change: Scientists Say "Last Chance"

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
ever heard of the carbon cycle?
Ever heard of the Law of Conservation of Mass? Where was all that CO2 before it was captured in massive carbon sinks and why wasn't it having a catastrophic warming effect (along with the water vapour that higher temperatures would produce)?
 
You tell me - it's all referenced.
Believe it or not, I don't actually want to spend my weekend looking up dull journal articles.

I was just wondering if you knew, given you're happy to quote the graph.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
When it comes to lies, climate change is in the same league as the bible and anyone that dares to say otherwise is simply lead away to be stoned for being a heretic. It's all part of the plan for maintaining control of the human population with the two 'constants' that keep the unwashed in check, those being 'Debt' and 'Fear'. Because when people have neither then they become allot harder to control so what better way to deal with those people than by creating a Fear in the form of Climate Change.
Not 'Climate Change', Man-made Climate Change. Climate Change per se is as real as a real thing - it's why the cultists try to conflate the two and hope that no-one notices.
 
No, I was just being very careful because I know how you argue.

Now you've conceded that biomass is biomass and extends far beyond simply hydrocarbons to include limestone and chalk, where was all that CO2 before life began and why wasn't it keeping the Earth toasty?
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Believe it or not, I don't actually want to spend my weekend looking up dull journal articles.

I was just wondering if you knew, given you're happy to quote the graph.
Fair challenge.

Whenever I find something which is very convenient for the argument I'm trying to make or that my opponent's trying to make, I look for rebuttals. In this instance I haven't found any and I came upon this graph when I saw a headline about why climate change activists don't go back more than 400 million (may be out by a K or so) years. As a sometime lobbyist, I'm deeply suspicious of data which is unnecessarily selective. Very often you can demonstrate a trend for or against simply by your choice of start point.
 
Very often you can demonstrate a trend for or against simply by your choice of start point.
Your post reminds me of something that I learned yonks ago in college while doing stats, you can prove just about anything you want without even falsifying stats, it's very much a matter of how you present them or select them.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
You wrote:

The water vapour fell as rain and would have promptly evaporated again, removing heat from the surface and transporting it to the atmosphere where it could be radiated into space.

Unless you significantly alter energy inputs, e.g. switch the Sun off for a while (and remember that the IPCC didn't accept that the Sun was a forcing factor until it was left with no choice in the mid-Noughties), that explanation cannot produce a net cooling effect - you're simply describing a cycle.
 
You wrote:

The water vapour fell as rain and would have promptly evaporated again, removing heat from the surface and transporting it to the atmosphere where it could be radiated into space.

Unless you significantly alter energy inputs, e.g. switch the Sun off for a while (and remember that the IPCC didn't accept that the Sun was a forcing factor until it was left with no choice in the mid-Noughties), that explanation cannot produce a net cooling effect - you're simply describing a cycle.
I don't understand your claim - how can heat being radiated into space not provide a cooling effect for the Earth?
 
When it comes to lies, climate change is in the same league as the bible and anyone that dares to say otherwise is simply lead away to be stoned for being a heretic. It's all part of the plan for maintaining control of the human population with the two 'constants' that keep the unwashed in check, those being 'Debt' and 'Fear'. Because when people have neither then they become allot harder to control so what better way to deal with those people than by creating a Fear in the form of Climate Change.
There is no point in being scared of Global warming, like death it is happening in front of us.
 
There is no point in being scared of Global warming, like death it is happening in front of us.
There is every point in being scared of climate change. Especially if you live just above sea level.

Is burning fossil fuels the cause? Almost certainly.

Can we be sure of this. Almost certainly.

How? Because the rise in global temperature far exceeds what we would expect from the observable evidence of the various solar cycles. These have not changed significantly so the increase is not coming from the sun.

A quick search online shows we have burned the following fossil fuels over the last 100 years:

Coal: 380,000,000,000 tonnes
Gas: 19,500,000,000,000 tonnes (compressed natural gas, converted from M^3)
Oil: 231,000,000,000 tonnes (converted from barrels @ 290lb/barrel)

Most of that has ended up in the atmosphere, overwhelming the natural carbon cycle.

In addition there are fuels like peat and wood, which I have ignored.

We also produce additional contributors to warming such as water vapour, methane, soot and nitrous oxide.

I would be interested to know how the gigatonnes of carbon based products we have burned could not affect the atmosphere/temperatures.
 
There is every point in being scared of climate change. Especially if you live just above sea level.

Is burning fossil fuels the cause? Almost certainly.

Can we be sure of this. Almost certainly.

How? Because the rise in global temperature far exceeds what we would expect from the observable evidence of the various solar cycles. These have not changed significantly so the increase is not coming from the sun.

A quick search online shows we have burned the following fossil fuels over the last 100 years:

Coal: 380,000,000,000 tonnes
Gas: 19,500,000,000,000 tonnes (compressed natural gas, converted from M^3)
Oil: 231,000,000,000 tonnes (converted from barrels @ 290lb/barrel)

Most of that has ended up in the atmosphere, overwhelming the natural carbon cycle.

In addition there are fuels like peat and wood, which I have ignored.

We also produce additional contributors to warming such as water vapour, methane, soot and nitrous oxide.

I would be interested to know how the gigatonnes of carbon based products we have burned could not affect the atmosphere/temperatures.
And how do you sustain present levels of development, population size and maintain law and order, if you ever managed to convince enough governments to decarbonise ??
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
I don't understand your claim - how can heat being radiated into space not provide a cooling effect for the Earth?
Because it needs to exceed the energy input.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
There is every point in being scared of climate change. Especially if you live just above sea level.

Is burning fossil fuels the cause? Almost certainly.

Can we be sure of this. Almost certainly.

How? Because the rise in global temperature far exceeds what we would expect from the observable evidence of the various solar cycles. These have not changed significantly so the increase is not coming from the sun.

A quick search online shows we have burned the following fossil fuels over the last 100 years:

Coal: 380,000,000,000 tonnes
Gas: 19,500,000,000,000 tonnes (compressed natural gas, converted from M^3)
Oil: 231,000,000,000 tonnes (converted from barrels @ 290lb/barrel)

Most of that has ended up in the atmosphere, overwhelming the natural carbon cycle.

In addition there are fuels like peat and wood, which I have ignored.

We also produce additional contributors to warming such as water vapour, methane, soot and nitrous oxide.

I would be interested to know how the gigatonnes of carbon based products we have burned could not affect the atmosphere/temperatures.
What did the natural carbon cycle look like and what was the effect of CO2 before living organisms created the carbon sinks that you object to being emptied?
 
Irrelevant.

The question is what effect has the release of gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere had.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
Irrelevant.

The question is what effect has the release of gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere had.
If you answer my question, you'll answer your own.
 
Your question is irrelevant.

The question is how can the release of gigatonnes of carbon (primarily from fossil fuel burning) coupled with massive deforestation of what were carbon sinks not affect the atmosphere.

Where does it go and how rapidly? My argument is that this vast release of carbon overwhelms the natural cycle. Most of the processes affecting carbon in the lithosphere, sea etc are pretty much on an even keel - plate tectonics hasn’t changed much.
 
Your question is irrelevant.

The question is how can the release of gigatonnes of carbon (primarily from fossil fuel burning) coupled with massive deforestation of what were carbon sinks not affect the atmosphere.

Where does it go and how rapidly? My argument is that this vast release of carbon overwhelms the natural cycle. Most of the processes affecting carbon in the lithosphere, sea etc are pretty much on an even keel - plate tectonics hasn’t changed much.
it is interesting to note that the Holocene started when the isthmus of Panama closed and set up the current thermohaline circulation pattern. It’s why the previous behaviour of the climate is not necessarily analogous to today’s.

after all, a quarter of the uk’s heat budget comes from NAD. The location of the continents and ocean circulation patterns has a huge impact on the climate.
 

anglo

LE
it is interesting to note that the Holocene started when the isthmus of Panama closed and set up the current thermohaline circulation pattern. It’s why the previous behaviour of the climate is not necessarily analogous to today’s.

after all, a quarter of the uk’s heat budget comes from NAD. The location of the continents and ocean circulation patterns has a huge impact on the climate.
What can be done to correct this climate change ?
It seems to me, people that are shouting about climate change have no idea what to do about it
or have solutions that cannot be carried out, IE, stop people using energy
 
What can be done to correct this climate change ?
It seems to me, people that are shouting about climate change have no idea what to do about it
or have solutions that cannot be carried out, IE, stop people using energy
More to the point, do we really need to do anything? Fossil fuel supplies are limited, the actual projections (Not the extinction rebellion nonsense) are minimal impact on most of the world, the problem will probably fix itself.
 

Latest Threads

Top