• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

Visage said:
Opinion pieces arent a substitute for scientific research. Though I suppose Lovelock is somewhat more credible than Clarkson, so we should at least be grateful you're heading in the right direction.
Click to expand...

You did notice that some of my other links did reference published papers? Indeed, you seem to have ignored some of my references.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Rubbish, I've been assertive but have kept my language in check. The science isn't settled and there is plenty of science out there to demonstrate that. All I have done here is present a view which challenges a common misconception.
There is a debate and I am happy to continue it. Yes, I am passionate about it but surely that is a good thing?
For the moment ridicule seems the only answer to my valid points, surely unethical on this forum.
I will post some interesting stuff later.
Click to expand...

circle-of-trust.gif
 
Im still somewhat confused by your argument that temperature rises cause CO2 rises, rather than the other way around.

Given that we are currently seeing CO2 levels higher than ever before, then when was the warm period that caused them? Especially given that the period from 1650 to 1850 was notable for not for its warmth, but for its coldness - its commonly referred to as the 'little ice age'.
 
Visage said:
Im still somewhat confused by your argument that temperature rises cause CO2 rises, rather than the other way around.

Given that we are currently seeing CO2 levels higher than ever before, then when was the warm period that caused them? Especially given that the period from 1650 to 1850 was notable for not for its warmth, but for its coldness - its commonly referred to as the 'little ice age'.
Click to expand...

An assumed correlation? There are many more variables than you are owning up to.
NB your assertion that CO2 levels have never been so high is entirely false and when higher some would suggest bio-diversity was higher. Phone posting so links later.
 
Last edited:
Welcome back. I trust you'll do us the honour of answering some questions this time. Namely:

Visage said:
The paper you've quoted claims that CO2 increases are caused by temperature increases, rather than the other way around. How can that be when:

a) prior to the recent increase there was actually a period of cooling (the mini ice age)
and
b) we're only now seeing a temperature increase?
Click to expand...
 
Visage said:
Welcome back. I trust you'll do us the honour of answering some questions this time. Namely:
Click to expand...

I see your point but wouldn't historical out gassing of CO2 following warming indicate low sensitivity to CO2?
It is the focus on a single variable in the climate system that annoys me, control theory suggests Earth is a lot more stable than you suggest. The Earth has gone through glacial cycles for millions of years. We are in an interglacial, what makes a few billion humans significant in that process?
 
There hasnt been any outgassing. CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been, certainly for the last few millennia. And the rise in C02 levels started just about the point that mankind discovered fossil fuels.

Are you really saying that those two facts arent linked? That the earth through, some unexplained natural occurrence, started accumulating CO2 at the exact same time as we started burning billions of tonnes of oil, coal and gas?

If the increase in CO2 is down to natural, rather than manmade phenomena, where did all the manmade CO2 go?
 
Visage said:
If the increase in CO2 is down to natural, rather than manmade phenomena, where did all the manmade CO2 go?
Click to expand...

Slightly on a tangent, but seeing as methane is lighter than air I can only presume that every single fart ever pumped has ended up in space. Hence why spacemen where helmets, there's plenty of oxygen up there it just fucking stinks.
 
Visage said:
There hasnt been any outgassing. CO2 levels are higher than they've ever been, certainly for the last few millennia. And the rise in C02 levels started just about the point that mankind discovered fossil fuels.

Are you really saying that those two facts arent linked? That the earth through, some unexplained natural occurrence, started accumulating CO2 at the exact same time as we started burning billions of tonnes of oil, coal and gas?

If the increase in CO2 is down to natural, rather than manmade phenomena, where did all the manmade CO2 go?
Click to expand...

Nobody has correlated CO2 increase in the atmosphere with anything like a measured warming effect.
I look at graphs from disperate sources and I get noise about some fanciful *ideal* global temperature average.
 
Last edited:
Why don't you answer the question asked, rather than one you think you can answer?
 
Visage said:
Why don't you answer the question asked, rather than one you think you can answer?
Click to expand...

I did answer the question, the man made CO2 is unimportant unless you are a government accountant.
 
Last edited:
Visage said:
So you agree that the increase in atmospheric co2 over the last 200 years is man made?
Click to expand...

I do not think it is a big deal if it is. Life forms have modified the planet since life was invented.
Claiming an understanding of complex chaotic systems to justify taxes and non-solutions such as wind turbines angers me.
 
Last edited:
Good. Progress.

So, we have a concensus that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made.

Now, onto the rest of the argument. As I have mentioned before, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation readily, and it is infrared radiation that the earth radiates most strongly. SO mankind has doubled the concentration of a substance that absorbs the predominant for of heat radiating from the earths surface.

At the same time, we have seen global temperatures increasing.

To clarify, I have a simple question: is it your position that this is coincidence?
 
Visage said:
Good. Progress.

So, we have a concensus that the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere is man made.

Now, onto the rest of the argument. As I have mentioned before, CO2 absorbs infrared radiation readily, and it is infrared radiation that the earth radiates most strongly. SO mankind has doubled the concentration of a substance that absorbs the predominant for of heat radiating from the earths surface.

At the same time, we have seen global temperatures increasing.

To clarify, I have a simple question: is it your position that this is coincidence?
Click to expand...

You will have to modify "doubling". 20-40 ppm maximum, so far on a base of 350 ppm, natural sequestration might account for some, who knows? Carbon dioxide remains a trace gas any which way. Open your eyes and look for the elephants in the climate room.
Controlling climate by international treaty is just bonkers.
 
Last edited:
Atmopsheric concentrations of CO2 passed the level you're claiming them to be now (270-290ppm) in approx 1920.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

On the other side of the ledger, I admit they have not yet doubled from their pre industrialised levels of 250ppm. At current rates that wont happen for another 40 years.

And as for the notion of it being a 'trace gas' - you do realise that CO2 sustains all plant life on earth, right? Pretty significant for a trace gas. The lesson is, of course, that one has to consider the effect of a substance as well as its concentration.

So.

a) CO2 has increased significantly since man started burning fossil fuels - up by 60%
b) CO2 strongly absorbs the kind of energy that the earth emits
c) We're now seeing an increase in global temperatures.

The conclusions are obvious.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top