Donate SIGN UP

Still think makind makes a difference

Avatar Image
R1Geezer | 20:24 Thu 07th Jul 2011 | News
38 Answers
http://news.sky.com/s...ears_Of_New_Ash_Cloud
Volcanoes are pumping thousands of tons of carbon into the atmosphere constantly, the link is just the latest of many. So how does mankind's emissions compare to mother nature's own? I haven't even mentioned the largest source of Carbon!
Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Maybe the hockey stick graph is a temporary blip which will flatten out when judged over a longer period using rolling averages?
^^^ If you're talking about Michael Mann's hockey stick graph, it's utter nonsense anyway. It has been proven to be one of the most fraudulent piece of peer reviewed 'science' ever published.
-- answer removed --
Assuming that CO2 drives temperature (and that certainly isn't established), the (supposed) link is logarithmic rather than linear, so a doubling of the total amount of atmospheric CO2, let alone man-made CO2, doesn't mean a doubling of temperature. The effects of increased anthropogenic CO2 are absolutely minute and insignificant.
-- answer removed --
Question Author
The main green house gas is in fact water vapour!
Think I will forward this link to every scientific academy and every scientific institution around the globe - they obviously have completely overlooked the motion of the earth, completely missed the fact that water vapour is the single largest contributor to global warming.

AB for the win! Problem solved - Nobel prizes all around :)
Question Author
clouds keep in more heat that co2 by a factor of thousands, even the most ardent eco warriors accept that.
Show me a single Scientific Academy or Institution that does not state that water vapour is the single largest greenhouse gas. You make that statement (clouds, water vapour) as if it is not already known, has not already been considered.
All things being equal, I will attach more weight to the reports from such bodies as the Royal Society over a couple of posters on here ;)

http://royalsociety.o...e-summary-of-science/

As to whether Mankind makes a significant difference to the process of climate change- Of course, without doubt - How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.
-- answer removed --
@pixi - good fer you! Methane has an even greater forcing effect than CO2 :)
It is no use, Geezer, trying to apply logic to this argument. I have long since given up and have now turned my attention to the ridiculously ineffective (but hugely expensive, very inconvenient and sometimes dangerous) measures which are proposed to combat this supposed problem.

It is widely accepted, even among “experts”, that only 4% of gases which are allegedly soon to bring about the end of life as we know it are the product of man’s activities. The rest come from volcanic activity, reactions that take place in the sea and other non-human origins. It has never been satisfactorily explained how the planet can cope with variations in the latter but not the former. We are asked to accept (because “the debate is over” or “the science tells us” or Lazy Gun’s assertion “Of course, without doubt - How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.”) that the huge variations in things like the volcanic activity that has been mentioned can somehow be catered for, but the relatively small variations (in absolute terms) in manmade activity cause the hysterical responses we have witnessed in recent years.

There are signs, admittedly very small signs, that the worm is beginning to turn and some commentators and indeed politicians are starting to show signs of the heresy which is levelled against climate change deniers. This is good news, but it may be too little too late. The damage being done to economies and environments and the threats posed to (particularly) European nations’ energy security is immense and will take decades to reverse. People will find that the cure is far more unpleasant than the supposed disease.

If climate change is evident and if humans are responsible (two very big “ifs”) it will not be reversed by European nations changing their light bulbs and covering the continent with useless wind generators.
Well, now I am being patronised by a judge, I know I am right ;)
Quite, LG. But that doesn't explain the 96%/4% conundrum.
I disagree profoundly new judge. I think the reason we should be concerned about specifically man-made contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is really very simple to understand, but hey ho.
pixie, you'll need to go around the farmyards with all the cows other animals too, causing methane gas.
Try to explain it to me (and others) then, LG, 'cos I'm only a simple lad. In particular I'm interested in the difference between man-made CO2 (4% of the total with which, apparently, the planet cannot cope) and naturally occurring CO2 (96% of the total with which, apparently, it can).

After that, perhaps you would help me understand how the ludicrous proposal to reduce the UK’s Carbon output by half (which is neither achievable, practical nor desirable) will help matters. Particularly when considering that the UK’s contribution to global poisoning is 2% (of the 4%) and when China (23%); USA (18%); India (7%) and Russia (6%) have no such proposals and indeed are forecast to increase their emissions enormously. Or do the emissions of those nations somehow enjoy some special dispensation which means they do not contribute to the perceived problem in the same way that our do?
@New Judge. Its a global issue, and just because someone else produces more than us doesnt mean we should not move away from a fossil fuel economy, and a glimpse at your utility bills or in your shopping baskets should tell you why.
From a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to move away from a dwindling,increasingly expensive resource.
If you really wish to challenge your own preconceptions surrounding climate change, you could do a lot worse than watch this video - This guy has a lot more patience than I have in going over the basics.

http://www.youtube.co...layer_embedded#at=637
LazyGun - “As to whether Mankind makes a significant difference to the process of climate change- Of course, without doubt - How anyone can think otherwise is beyond me.”


That may be so but it doesn't detract from the fact that last IPCC report stated that they were 90% certain that anthropogenic CO2 was causing the global temperature to rise to dangerous levels. That means that they freely admit that there is a 10% chance that they are completely and utterly wrong. This is important because any student of mathematics and statistical analysis will tell you, that a P value of less than 0.05% (95%) is regarded as statistically insignificant and therefore unproven.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value


It absolutely staggers me that educated people such as yourself believe that mankind is having a dangerous effect on climate when there is absolutely no direct observable evidence that this is the case. I have yet to read any credible reports of sea level rises, substantial glaciation decline or any significant change in climate in any part of the world that is unusual or unprecedented since records first began or that deviates significantly from the reconstructed proxy data for any given time frame.

The climate is slowly changing. It always has and it always will. It does so not as a consequence of mankind's current actions but despite them.

1 to 20 of 38rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Still think makind makes a difference

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.