Greenhouse Gas Emissions

6600 said:
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?
Click to expand...
To find out how much is caused by man is quite difficult to quantify. However, if you look at the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's blatantly evident that we are causing an increase much larger over a comparable time period ever seen before, as can be seen in the graph below.

APP_CO2_levels_V4.png

Volcanos are responsible for 1% of co2 emissions, way way less than that from fossil fuels.

volcano-v-fossilfuels-1750-2013-620.png

The point is that yes it will heat and cool but we are exacerbating the problem. If your house was on fire you'd pour water on it rather than leave it burn.

No a tax on carbon won't fix the problem. But increased investment in green energy will.

Tipp_Man said:
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??
Click to expand...

The 97% relates to a concensus among published peer reviewed journals. Peer reviewed means whatever you write and publish is judged by your peers, be they of conflicting or approving standings on your viewpoint. They're there to be impartial, review your research, and call you out if your bullshitting. You may find it surprising to know that you won't last long within the scientific community if your research is twaddle and your funding will be pulled.

farmerjack said:
That 97% has been called out years ago, surely you still aren’t believing it?
Click to expand...

Above. And https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

If your going to reply to me with a daily telegraph article don't bother.

If any of you read back in this thread or any of the other threads pertaining to climate change and ghg emissions, you would find that I myself was skeptical of climate change a year ago or more. I weighed up the evidence on balance, and came to be of the opinion that I am now.

I wrote my undergrad thesis on the design of components for offshore oil and gas. My masters thesis is on offshore wind. I'm indifferent to the two, but find them both very interesting. All my work has been on energy and climate, so I feel I am in some position to comment on it.

On the subject of financial gain, the oil and gas industry pays better than the renewables so if it was indeed all hogwash, I would be shooting myself in both feet by perpetuating it. When companies like shell have stopped burying their head on the sand over this, its time to wake up and smell the coffee.
 
Kieran97 said:
To find out how much is caused by man is quite difficult to quantify. However, if you look at the rate of change of CO2 in the atmosphere, it's blatantly evident that we are causing an increase much larger over a comparable time period ever seen before, as can be seen in the graph below.

View attachment 72732

Volcanos are responsible for 1% of co2 emissions, way way less than that from fossil fuels.

View attachment 72733

The point is that yes it will heat and cool but we are exacerbating the problem. If your house was on fire you'd pour water on it rather than leave it burn.

No a tax on carbon won't fix the problem. But increased investment in green energy will.



The 97% relates to a concensus among published peer reviewed journals. Peer reviewed means whatever you write and publish is judged by your peers, be they of conflicting or approving standings on your viewpoint. They're there to be impartial, review your research, and call you out if your bullshitting. You may find it surprising to know that you won't last long within the scientific community if your research is twaddle and your funding will be pulled.



Above. And https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

If your going to reply to me with a daily telegraph article don't bother.

If any of you read back in this thread or any of the other threads pertaining to climate change and ghg emissions, you would find that I myself was skeptical of climate change a year ago or more. I weighed up the evidence on balance, and came to be of the opinion that I am now.

I wrote my undergrad thesis on the design of components for offshore oil and gas. My masters thesis is on offshore wind. I'm indifferent to the two, but find them both very interesting. All my work has been on energy and climate, so I feel I am in some position to comment on it.

On the subject of financial gain, the oil and gas industry pays better than the renewables so if it was indeed all hogwash, I would be shooting myself in both feet by perpetuating it. When companies like shell have stopped burying their head on the sand over this, its time to wake up and smell the coffee.
Click to expand...
Only 3% of the 0.04% of co2 in the atmosphere is caused by man’s activities 97% us caused by natural causes any scientist will tell you that.
 
farmerjack said:
Only 3% of the 0.04% of co2 in the atmosphere is caused by man’s activities 97% us caused by natural causes any scientist will tell you that.
Click to expand...
Any evidence to support that?

The first graph I posted shows co2 concentrations are higher than they've been for 800000 years, longer than we've been around. If we're not the cause of that, give me an alternative.
 
Arthur said:
I love this, who measured levels 800000 years ago.
Click to expand...
You didn't have to be around 800000 years ago as I explained before.

You take a sample of ice which will be representative of the air at the time the ice was formed, as Air particles will have become trapped in the ice. From that, you can measure what the carbon content was in the air at that time. Using carbon dating, you can age the sample.

Keep taking samples and you get a representation of levels throughout history. Don't worry, I'm not that much of an eejit :rolleyes2:
 
Ah lads are we going to abandon reason altogether and deny humans have any affect on climate change, flying in the face of overwhelming amounts of scientific research and opinion?

If so could it at least be moved into the members only section.. we are trying hard to scrape a few shillings out of Brussels based on the fact that farmers are working hard to do their bit to combat climate change.

Publicly rubbishing the whole idea doesnt do much for our modern green carbon sequestering image.
 
Paw said:
Why limit evidence from the last few 100,000's years?
In the last 600 million years of Earth’s history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm.
View attachment 72734

https://medium.com/@ghornerhb/heres...e-for-the-last-600-million-years-f83169a68046


https://notrickszone.com/2013/05/17...-are-still-dangerously-low-for-life-on-earth/
Click to expand...

Towards the end of the that period, there was a large extinction. Atmospheric make up was largely different too with much more oxygen.

The time it took for levels to change was also much larger than recent years. The rate at which the change is occurring in the last 200 years is 50000 times faster than the cambrian period for example. It takes millions of years to change it normally, not hundreds.

The current concentration is the highest in our time on the planet, so it clearly is due to human activity.
 
Kieran97 said:
You didn't have to be around 800000 years ago as I explained before.

You take a sample of ice which will be representative of the air at the time the ice was formed, as Air particles will have become trapped in the ice. From that, you can measure what the carbon content was in the air at that time. Using carbon dating, you can age the sample.

Keep taking samples and you get a representation of levels throughout history. Don't worry, I'm not that much of an eejit :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Even if that works they are only able to take samples from the North Pole.
 
Kieran97 said:
You didn't have to be around 800000 years ago as I explained before.

You take a sample of ice which will be representative of the air at the time the ice was formed, as Air particles will have become trapped in the ice. From that, you can measure what the carbon content was in the air at that time. Using carbon dating, you can age the sample.

Keep taking samples and you get a representation of levels throughout history. Don't worry, I'm not that much of an eejit :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...
Carbon dating is only considered accurate to 50,000 years.
 
Arthur said:
Carbon dating is only considered accurate to 50,000 years.
Click to expand...
The long term accuracy of carbon dating is debated alright. However, ice samples in Antarctica contains dust from volcanoes that contains uranium, which never fully decays. The amount of it left can also be used.

farmerjack said:
Even if that works they are only able to take samples from the North Pole.
Click to expand...

It does work, and it's all the same air
 
Lads I’m enjoying reading this. If it was any later in the day I’d head to the pub and continue to watch it unfold over a few pints of Guinness and a whiskey.
 
CORK said:
Sorry if this has been aired on the forum but what kind of bollix is this?

https://www.rte.ie/lifestyle/food/2...ur-dairy-consumption-to-help-the-environment/
Click to expand...

Exactly that. It’s bollox. People are going around repeating this rubbish without any underlying understanding and in this time of shallow insight into issues it can get a lot of traction. I came across an example of it recently with a colleague who attaches importance to his educational status (otherwise he would not add to his total DR and PHD). Anyway when I challenged him on how “eating a salad for lunch and having no meat was better for his health and was doing his bit for reducing his carbon footprint” he had no answers that held water. This is all part of this Greta Twitberg stuff where people just latch onto it without doing anything meaningful in their own lives that would make a direct and positive difference.
 
Ptk44 said:
Exactly that. It’s bollox. People are going around repeating this rubbish without any underlying understanding and in this time of shallow insight into issues it can get a lot of traction. I came across an example of it recently with a colleague who attaches importance to his educational status (otherwise he would not add to his total DR and PHD). Anyway when I challenged him on how “eating a salad for lunch and having no meat was better for his health and was doing his bit for reducing his carbon footprint” he had no answers that held water. This is all part of this Greta Twitberg stuff where people just latch onto it without doing anything meaningful in their own lives that would make a direct and positive difference.
Click to expand...
Same lad be hungry an hour later and start snacking. I often ate one of those large burger king burgers at lunch time and didn't need anything for the rest of the day
 
I don't believe in man made climate change at all, you can even see from paw's graph just how long it takes for temperature to follow co2 and vice versa.
There is debate around practically every single part of climate change research. The worst is how climate scientists(and it's debated how credible even the title is as climate change covers so many different fields they can't be experts in them all) reject debate! We could be here for the rest of our lives debating it.
Just as met eireann couldn't predict a storm during this week we can't predict accurately how the weather will change in the future.
I think the reason is as I said before we have a need to ensure stability in our lives and uncertainty basically loses us money. They wish to create a stability, a comfort blanket that if we do X,Y and Z our lives will be perfect, can't happen won't happen. Green policy cripples new industry or ideas because energy prices are soaring. If you aren't basically vetted by the EU right now to become exempt from green policy or be subsidised for your green energy costs then you can't get any major new product off the ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top