Greenhouse Gas Emissions

And what odds cause if the world heats up the capacity of the globe to grow vegetation will increase which will use up the excess carbon in the atmosphere. It'll just cycle round.

I like your logic, if only it was so. If it was the case, current carbon levels would be decreasing, not massively increasing.

In fact, drought will become a big issue in a lot of places making the situation worse.
 
Maybe we should focus on the man made global warming first.
Despite my view that we, humans, are responsible for global warming, or at least an acceleration in global warming, I actually dont believe we will stop it from happening, not because we cant, but because there is no real collective will around the world to solve it, everyone wants to just blame someone else and point the finger, unfortunately farming is bearing the brunt of that finger pointing at the moment, unfairly in my opinion.
In order for a global reduction in emissions to be achieved, whole economies would have to suffer.
Economies are built on oil and gas production, manufacturing, agriculture, tourism etc, all these have a hefty carbon footprint.
Even countries that claim to have a low carbon footprint, like costa rica, rely on large numbers of tourists visiting their country to keep the economy going, tourists mean flights, flights mean planes, planes mean emissions.
I don't agree that humans are responsible for global warming, I will agree that our activity is increasing the rate it's happening. We won't stop it because we can't. It's been happening in cycles, warming and cooling many times and for longer than humans have even been around.
 
I don't agree that humans are responsible for global warming, I will agree that our activity is increasing the rate it's happening. We won't stop it because we can't. It's been happening in cycles, warming and cooling many times and for longer than humans have even been around.

How does anyone know it's warming or not, are they going on the record temperatures of the past couple of hundred years, that is only a fraction of how long earth exists
 
How does anyone know it's warming or not, are they going on the record temperatures of the past couple of hundred years, that is only a fraction of how long earth exists
Air particles get caught in the ice, (artic for example), you test the ice for the amount of carbon in it which gives you a good representation of the amount of air in the atmosphere, and then carbon date it to test how old the ice is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paw
How does anyone know it's warming or not, are they going on the record temperatures of the past couple of hundred years, that is only a fraction of how long earth exists
The earth has been through ice ages and hot tropical ages. I head it said once, by a climate scientist, that we are technically still in an ice age as the is still ice at the poles.
 
That sounds mighty simplistic and even if it is true, it still wont solve the issue of rising sea levels, loss of natural habitat for lots of species, reduced air quality etc., all of which threaten our way of life right now, are we not better of as a species to try and solve the problem now rather than adopt a 'sure we'll wait and see, it'll be grand' approach. Also you dont take into account the huge areas of land that are lost to flooding, rising sea levels, desertification, etc. where no vegetation will grow.
As kieran says theres a big difference between the element, carbon, and the gas, carbon dioxide and their effects on the planet.

A couple of questions:

1). Didn’t the Ipcc sack there head of sea levels because he came out and said that sea levels weren’t rising?

2). Isn’t part of the problem that people expect “our way of life right now” to last forever, but in reality the earth and the environment humans and all species live in has been changing since the creation of the planet. Humans seem to think we have some Devine right to keep things exactly as they are, we don’t in my opinion
 
I like your logic, if only it was so. If it was the case, current carbon levels would be decreasing, not massively increasing.

In fact, drought will become a big issue in a lot of places making the situation worse.
Yea but in the same vein freezing poles will cease to exist. So you lose a bit and gain a bit. The earth has to heat up first to continue on in the cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paw
The earth has been through ice ages and hot tropical ages. I head it said once, by a climate scientist, that we are technically still in an ice age as the is still ice at the poles.
Did you know the Mediterranean sea has dried up twice in the history of the planet
 
Did you know the Mediterranean sea has dried up twice in the history of the planet
Atlantis was supposed to be around Malta apparently. But that's only going on what Plato heard from oul boys when he was a chap.
 
A couple of questions:

1). Didn’t the Ipcc sack there head of sea levels because he came out and said that sea levels weren’t rising?

2). Isn’t part of the problem that people expect “our way of life right now” to last forever, but in reality the earth and the environment humans and all species live in has been changing since the creation of the planet. Humans seem to think we have some Devine right to keep things exactly as they are, we don’t in my opinion
I assume you mean the apocalyptic prophets that want people to believe that they can stabilise climate by conforming to their rules?
 
A couple of questions:

1). Didn’t the Ipcc sack there head of sea levels because he came out and said that sea levels weren’t rising?

2). Isn’t part of the problem that people expect “our way of life right now” to last forever, but in reality the earth and the environment humans and all species live in has been changing since the creation of the planet. Humans seem to think we have some Devine right to keep things exactly as they are, we don’t in my opinion

One former head was sacked on sexual harassment charges. Never heard anything about them disagreeing on sea levels.

Secondly, yes of course. However, faced with a threat to our species do we not try and mitigate it?
 
I assume you mean the apocalyptic prophets that want people to believe that they can stabilise climate by conforming to their rules?
Obama is not worried about sea levels rising, just bought a BEACHFRONT property.
https://nypost.com/2019/08/22/barack-and-michelle-obama-are-buying-15m-estate-in-marthas-vineyard/
I'm looking at the sea all my life and it's still in the same place.
Try filling a glass with ice cubes and water, wait until the ice melts and see if the glass overflows.
 
Go again horse. When have you seen ice sticking above the top of the glass?
Enough space will be created by the ice under the water melting to displace the space taken up by the ice above water melting. That's if its happening at all. Even if all the ice in the world melted what would the total worst case effect be? Levels haven't budged an inch the last 40 years.
I think it's just a spook story to enable people to be taxed across borders. That COP meeting last week failed because they couldn't come up with a workable way of taxing carbon. How is making a few rich people richer going to solve the problem, that's if it really exists at all?
Also what is going on is an attempt to stop third world countries dragging themselves out of poverty by using their own natural resources.
Why don't they start with fishing all the plastic waste islands out of the sea and recycling it. Then maybe limit the carbon footprint of Al Gore, Obama and all the other environmental ambassadors who produce nothing but hot air and consume vastly more than the normal human with their massive houses and air miles. The whole thing is an industry for these wasters.
 
Try filling a glass with ice cubes and water, wait until the ice melts and see if the glass overflows.

True to a point, the ice above the water line is only up there because Ice is less dense than liquid water, throw in a bit of archimedes and it all balances out.

However........ salt water is less dense than fresh water, if you repeat the experiment with salt water and fresh ice it will overflow.

Most polar ice is in fact frozen snow and hence fresh . also, not all ice is floating. The north pole is, but the south pole isnt, greenland, and other land parts of the arctic so all of their ice will raise the sea levels if it melts.
 
Enough space will be created by the ice under the water melting to displace the space taken up by the ice above water melting. That's if its happening at all. Even if all the ice in the world melted what would the total worst case effect be? Levels haven't budged an inch the last 40 years.
I think it's just a spook story to enable people to be taxed across borders. That COP meeting last week failed because they couldn't come up with a workable way of taxing carbon. How is making a few rich people richer going to solve the problem, that's if it really exists at all?
Also what is going on is an attempt to stop third world countries dragging themselves out of poverty by using their own natural resources.
Why don't they start with fishing all the plastic waste islands out of the sea and recycling it. Then maybe limit the carbon footprint of Al Gore, Obama and all the other environmental ambassadors who produce nothing but hot air and consume vastly more than the normal human with their massive houses and air miles. The whole thing is an industry for these wasters.

First of all, they are rising. 3 inches since 1993.
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

If they were really and truly in it for the money, don't you think there's an easier way of making a pound than trying to con the whole world? As conspiracy theories go, that's up there with the flat earthers.

Nobody is against the concensus of not having plastic in the sea, it shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.
 
First of all, they are rising. 3 inches since 1993.
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

If they were really and truly in it for the money, don't you think there's an easier way of making a pound than trying to con the whole world? As conspiracy theories go, that's up there with the flat earthers.

Nobody is against the concensus of not having plastic in the sea, it shouldn't have gone in there in the first place.
Skepticalscience.com they must be right. Is it really that hard to believe, its not as if they are going to work for a living.
All the excess plastic packaging could be regulated for in the morning, but there's no money in that, that's why they are going after the intangible carbon.
 
Skepticalscience.com they must be right. Is it really that hard to believe, its not as if they are going to work for a living.
All the excess plastic packaging could be regulated for in the morning, but there's no money in that, that's why they are going after the intangible carbon.

First link I found that kept things short and sweet, but here's a peer reviewed journal report that says the same thing.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

If you want me to choose your concensus or that of 97% of the scienctific community, then I'm afraid I'll have to side with the 97%
 
First link I found that kept things short and sweet, but here's a peer reviewed journal report that says the same thing.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

If you want me to choose your concensus or that of 97% of the scienctific community, then I'm afraid I'll have to side with the 97%
So if we take what these scientists who copy each other say as true;
  • How much of it is caused by man?
  • Could volcanic or solar changes have caused some of this? The earth floats on magma which is over 1,000C and has a giant star heating it.
  • What can man do to change any of this? The world is 4.5 billion years old and has been heating and cooling all this time.
  • Is a tax on carbon going to reverse/slow any change?
 
One former head was sacked on sexual harassment charges. Never heard anything about them disagreeing on sea levels.

Secondly, yes of course. However, faced with a threat to our species do we not try and mitigate it?

Prof Niels Axel Morner is the guy I’m talking about. An world renowned sea level expert who clearly says that the IPCC are just wrong in their sea level analysis

Regarding the second point - why do we feel that we need to mitigate and control the environment? Can’t we just adapt and change with the environment as it changes. If sea levels rise a little, build better sea defences, if it’s colder in winter, wear warmer clothes. We continually think that this moment in time is how things have always been and always should be - it’s not. In the vast scheme of things this moment in time is only a drop in the ocean, literally.
 
First link I found that kept things short and sweet, but here's a peer reviewed journal report that says the same thing.

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/

If you want me to choose your concensus or that of 97% of the scienctific community, then I'm afraid I'll have to side with the 97%

What 97%???

That figure is absolute rubbish and should never be used in any argument on climate change. Do you think they went around asking all scientists are you agreeing with us??
 
Back
Top