If you want people to change should you tell them its "too late" to try?

mike65

Which is almost the case with the statement below.

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Climate change is "largely irreversible" for the next 1,000 years even if carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions could be abruptly halted, according to a new study led by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

The study's authors said there was "no going back" after the report showed that changes in surface temperature, rainfall and sea level are "largely irreversible for more than 1,000 years after CO2 emissions are completely stopped."

Clearly there are other reasons to get off carbon, not least because its finite nature, but the Green lobby may now have more work to do than expected as people shrugg thier shoulders about climate change being fixable.

ART6

An interesting quote. There are a few billion people breathing out CO2 at the moment, and a great number of industries spewing out carbon into the atmosphere - but where does it all come from since the building block of everything in our world is carbon? The only thing that is adding to the carbon balance is fossil fuels, since they are releasing carbon that was trapped in deposits millions of years ago. People are essentially carbon neutral since like plants they absorb carbon in being formed and then release it again later. Biofuels are carbon neutral for the same reason.
Then there is the opinion of Professor David Bellamy in the UK -- If the atmospheric carbon content increases, more plants will grow to absorb it eventually. That I can understand having been associated with large vegetable producers who inject CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth.

I wonder if the real problem is not CO2 but methane, which is a much more serious greenhouse gas than CO2? It comes from landfill sites and (surprisingly) ruminants that we farm for food. This, in my opinion, is not a simplistic matter of cutting CO2 emissions. It has more to do with a long and detailed look at all of the factors.

Húrin

mike65 wrote: »

Which is almost the case with the statement below.

Clearly there are other reasons to get off carbon, not least because its finite nature, but the Green lobby may now have more work to do than expected as people shrugg thier shoulders about climate change being fixable.

You misunderstand. The "green lobby" (why give the climate campaigns such a name?) does not claim that climate change can be stopped or reversed by radical emissions cuts. It just says that we are less likely to tip into irreversibly rapid rises in temperature if we cut emissions. This study says that temperature change is guaranteed, but it doesn't say how much, because that depends on how much emissions cuts there are.

This report does underline the importance of using technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere as well as to stop emitting it.

gerky

In the space of just over one hundred years we went from horses and carts to cars/planes and even space travel, I wouldn't doubt for a second that in the next hundred let alone thousand years we will have advanced to the point where we'll be able to properly capture emissions back out of the atmosphere.
Even now there are several groups around the world working in this area and some already have working models.

But this isn't about the change that's already happening or what's coming in the future, its about limiting the degree of change to levels that hopefully won't cause catastrophic climate change.

art6 wrote:

An interesting quote. There are a few billion people breathing out CO2 at the moment, and a great number of industries spewing out carbon into the atmosphere - but where does it all come from since the building block of everything in our world is carbon? The only thing that is adding to the carbon balance is fossil fuels, since they are releasing carbon that was trapped in deposits millions of years ago. People are essentially carbon neutral since like plants they absorb carbon in being formed and then release it again later. Biofuels are carbon neutral for the same reason.
Then there is the opinion of Professor David Bellamy in the UK -- If the atmospheric carbon content increases, more plants will grow to absorb it eventually. That I can understand having been associated with large vegetable producers who inject CO2 into their greenhouses to encourage plant growth.

David Bellamy is a very talented botanist and a dedicated environmental campaigner but is an hard-line sceptic, in the late 80s-90s he wrote books that backed the consensus of AGW but in recent years he has published stories which have been shown to be rubbish and regularly makes claims that he was kicked out of the bbc for not agreeing with climate change even though he hasn't been on bbc since 94.

Most of what he claims in relation to climate change has been shown to be wrong but he won't accept it and claims it all a scam.*





*wonder if bellamy is casey:)

Capt'n Midnight

the problem with global warming is that there are several tipping points that would be hard to undo

sea floor methane hydrate release
drying of the western amazon enough to start a cycle of fires and drying that will generate large areas of grass/scrub
release of siberan methane due to permafrost melting
ice sheets melting and all that

derry

gerky wrote: »

In the space of just over one hundred years we went from horses and carts to cars/planes and even space travel, I wouldn't doubt for a second that in the next hundred let alone thousand years we will have advanced to the point where we'll be able to properly capture emissions back out of the atmosphere.
Even now there are several groups around the world working in this area and some already have working models.

But this isn't about the change that's already happening or what's coming in the future, its about limiting the degree of change to levels that hopefully won't cause catastrophic climate change.



David Bellamy is a very talented botanist and a dedicated environmental campaigner but is an hard-line sceptic, in the late 80s-90s he wrote books that backed the consensus of AGW but in recent years he has published stories which have been shown to be rubbish and regularly makes claims that he was kicked out of the bbc for not agreeing with climate change even though he hasn't been on bbc since 94.

Most of what he claims in relation to climate change has been shown to be wrong but he won't accept it and claims it all a scam.*


*wonder if bellamy is casey:)

So when a trained scientist looks all the facts and the facts dont add up to the cult followers desires then he gets classed as a hardline sceptic by the cult followers

I too used to believe the CO2 global warming model concept whatever. Over time when looking into the source of this concept and why the fashion in academic circles moved from the early 70s thesis we were going into a ice age to the 1990's thesis that our goose was cooked from the CO2 GW issue it throws up to many problems with the CO2 thesis

For me science come first over and above academic fashion or trendy cult followers of stuff that most believe in close to religious fervour so I have no problem to ditch CO2 GW science when so much evidence shows that it is probably a over hype of a small side effect issue from natural cycles the planet goes through

Many feilds of science all through history have taken dead end trips and other sections of science have come to the rescue to redress the balance back to true science and less following the trendy fashion.Far to much in CO" GW Forcing is closer to suedo science and DEEPLY tangled up in neo fachist think tanks that want to control all strands society from individual rights to use how much CO2 through to rights to breed

just look this BBC 2 newsnight show last night mon 2/2/2009
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00hhnfx/b00hhn55/Newsnight_02_02_2009/
[ you need to be UK to see it online unless you know trick like IP spoof that fools the bbc to think your IP is in the uk ]

basically the TV progrm is a rehash of the sunday times
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece
cull the world population theme which us Irish saw in the famine and the brits still want to push this agenda using CO emmissions

where we see a right wing think tank which says we need to cut down population so as to cut down CO2 emmisions .Translated that means dictate to the rest of the world why you have to kill them off so you can save the planet

Bellamy last week on the late late show stated that even if humanity doubled the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere from 380PPM about 0000.38% (or put more logically 996,620 parts per million are not CO2 )
to 760PPMM about 0.076% (or put more logically 996,240 parts per million are not CO2 ) the global temperature rise would be at most ~2 Centegrade

For humanity to double the CO2 levels it would require we burnt up all the known reserves of oil & gas and 1/3rd of all known coal reserves (1000 years known reserves means burn 300 years of this )

Quite simply we cant possibly to do that any time soon and would need mayby 150 to 300 years to do that even if we tried

What works against even reaching this target is the real fact that the world as whole minus humans is belching out anually 520 gigatons of CO2. Humanity belches out a mere 30 Giga tons or 1/20th of the total CO2 emmisions .So Bellamy guite correctly points out that as we are in a normal warming period the oceans are belching out stored up CO2 that has been there for eons long before humans were here.The much Higher CO2 is a result of natural heating cycle.The heating cycle we are in is tempory and we will go into a cooling cycle and the oceans will stop belching out CO2 and then probaly start to soak up CO2 as they normaly do.With the CO2 uptake from nature from plants and the oceans abilty to soak up the CO2 we are nowhere near these end of the world senarios that some cult followers wish we are going to.

One day when the end of the world cult folowers drift off to do something else we will see that this gloobal warming Forcing theory was a theory tht hasnt passed the test of time aand that science will bin it in the history of other cult following concepts like that the world was doomed to be dead from overpopulation as early as ~1800

Bellamy is in the subject of science .Lots of other science is in the feild of science and remain extremly sckeptical about CO2 GW forcing.They run the numbers a huge atmoshere with a trace gas CO2 with extremly marginal evidence at best 2.5watts extra heating per square meter at the tropics from average ~1400 watts per square meter is at most ~0. 15% extra heating world wide( if the forcing CO2 theory can be proved and lots of scientists do not think the forcing is provable with such miniscule numbers ) and every day new proof comes in the warming is so extemly marginal that its not an issue to be concerned about compared to many real issues out there


As Bellamy states his lack of enthusuim for wind power alternitives that was the BBC pet project and many of his statements that questioned how severe the GW issue relly was are now seen to be still corrrect but has made him person non grata with BBC. Bellany is a scientist who will go down in history as true scientist and doesnt mince his words and isnt interested to lead some cult followers to nirvana .If the CO2 GW forcing cant be shown to exist as realistic threat to the planet then I am sure he can show you some real threats like real in your face local polution that is killing the planet like our plastic rubbish floating in the sea or polluting water tables ..

There are many things like why was the water in Galwy not fit to drink or what the damage from fly tippers is doing than to be hung up on maybe samll heating effect from Rising CO2 when the possibily is that many of these problems will reverse as the world gets cooler

Derry

blackbox

derry wrote: »

... cull the world population theme which us Irish saw in the famine and the brits still want to push this agenda using CO emmissions

where we see a right wing think tank which says we need to cut down population so as to cut down CO2 emmisions .Translated that means dictate to the rest of the world why you have to kill them off so you can save the planet

Derry

I'm not an apologist for the Global Warming lobby, but haven't you heard of contraception? - there are ways to reduce population without killing people.:D

This sounds a bit like it belongs on the conspiricies forum.

espinolman

If you want people to 'change' well then why not start by telling them the truth .
Global warming or global governance?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067427439443

djpbarry

ART6 wrote: »

Then there is the opinion of Professor David Bellamy in the UK -- If the atmospheric carbon content increases, more plants will grow to absorb it eventually.

That’s a pretty simplistic statement – plants depend on far more than just CO2 to grow.

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

So when a trained scientist looks all the facts and the facts dont add up to the cult followers desires then he gets classed as a hardline sceptic by the cult followers

If David Bellamy told you that the sky was green, would you accept his “facts” just because he was a “trained scientist”?

derry wrote: »

For me science come first over and above academic fashion or trendy cult followers of stuff that most believe in close to religious fervour so I have no problem to ditch CO2 GW science when so much evidence shows that it is probably a over hype of a small side effect issue from natural cycles the planet goes through

So where is all this scientific evidence that shows increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be entirely natural?

derry wrote: »

Bellamy last week on the late late show stated that even if humanity doubled the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere from 380PPM about 0000.38% (or put more logically 996,620 parts per million are not CO2 )
to 760PPMM about 0.076% (or put more logically 996,240 parts per million are not CO2 ) the global temperature rise would be at most ~2 Centegrade

That’s a pretty big increase, is it not?

derry wrote: »

For humanity to double the CO2 levels it would require we burnt up all the known reserves of oil & gas and 1/3rd of all known coal reserves (1000 years known reserves means burn 300 years of this )

Source?

derry wrote: »

…Bellamy guite correctly points out that as we are in a normal warming period the oceans are belching out stored up CO2 that has been there for eons long before humans were here.The much Higher CO2 is a result of natural heating cycle.

The source of atmospheric CO2 can be determined by comparing the concentrations of different isotopes:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6533/abs/375666a0.html

derry

djpbarry wrote: »

If David Bellamy told you that the sky was green, would you accept his “facts” just because he was a “trained scientist”?

get real?

djpbarry wrote:

So where is all this scientific evidence that shows increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations to be entirely natural?

520giga tons annually is from somewhere else .About 30 giga tons annually is from mankind (Source is author of Gaia.which you can locate in my other posts ) That places something else I presume nature or green sky aliens whatever as the major emissions of CO2 and is some 20 times what mankind creates in emissions annually

djpbarry wrote:

derry wrote:

Bellamy last week on the late late show stated that even if humanity doubled the amount of the CO2 in the atmosphere from 380PPM about 0000.38% (or put more logically 996,620 parts per million are not CO2 )
to 760PPMM about 0.076% (or put more logically 996,240 parts per million are not CO2 ) the global temperature rise would be at most ~2 Centegrade

That’s a pretty big increase, is it not?

Yes we can easily see going from 996,620 parts per million are not CO2 to 996,240 parts per million are not CO2 is big increase

The increase of 2 degrees Centigrade for 760PPM is a lot lower than the GW or climate change projectors who say 10 degrees Fahrenheit about ~4C and is worst case if we can believe the GW ~1.63 watts heat increase per meter from the Global warmers science

djpbarry wrote:

derry wrote:

For humanity to double the CO2 levels it would require we burnt up all the known reserves of oil & gas and 1/3rd of all known coal reserves (1000 years known reserves means burn 300 years of this )

Source?

David Bellamy late late show January 2009 for links to see show got to RTE1 TV .The term he used was 1/3rd of all known coal reserves in the world. I added sub note ~1000 years as coal reserves are huge in the world last I recall was 1000 years with USA at 500 plus years

djpbarry wrote:

The source of atmospheric CO2 can be determined by comparing the concentrations of different isotopes:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v375/n6533/abs/375666a0.html

That link is about as useless as a hole in the head .Most people cant access the article without huge issues like going to local library to request the information be sent to your local library ands that can weeks

Even then so what we can see which carbon is which .We know humanity from above is responsible for ~5% of annual CO2 accumulation
So what is the isotope gonna tell us . Little green men under the Arctic are burning something that account for the other 95% of the CO2 emissions



Derry

djpbarry

derry wrote: »

The increase of 2 degrees Centigrade for 760PPM is a lot lower than the GW or climate change projectors who say 10 degrees Fahrenheit about ~4C ...

An increase of 2 degrees Celsius in the mean global temperature would represent a rise of approximately 14%. Are you trying to say that’s not significant?

derry wrote: »

David Bellamy late late show January 2009 for links to see show got to RTE1 TV .

Sorry, that’s not good enough. Bellamy has already demonstrated a propensity to dish out nonsense when it suits him.

derry wrote: »

Even then so what we can see which carbon is which .We know humanity from above is responsible for ~5% of annual CO2 accumulation

No, human activity is responsible for about 5% of annual CO2 emissions, not accumulation. Very important distinction.

derry wrote: »

So what is the isotope gonna tell us .

Specific isotopes are associated with specific sources:

Fossil fuels also contain less carbon-13 than carbon-12, compared with the atmosphere, because the fuels derive from plants, which preferentially take up the more common carbon-12. The ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere and ocean surface waters is steadily falling, showing that more carbon-12 is entering the atmosphere.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638