"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

kneemos

Rubeter wrote: »

I wonder if any of the skeptics here could show a mechanism whereby we could pump masses of a known greenhouse gas into the atmosphere and not change the climate.

This is a good representation of the amount of "Air" surrounding us, I think some of the less enlightened around might think The Atmosphere is some huge reservoir of gasses, it isn't, it is relatively a very small amount.

What's the amount of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere? 2% or something like that.

Turtwig

kneemos wrote: »

What's the amount of manmade CO2 in the atmosphere? 2% or something like that.

Yes it's tiny. Water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas. What's your point exactly? That something small can't be significant? If you really believe that expose yourself to a tiny amount of ricin or sarin*.

*Disclaimer : Please don't under any circumstances do that!

kneemos

Jernal wrote: »

Yes it's tiny. Water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas. What's your point exactly? That something small can't be significant? If you really believe that expose yourself to a tiny amount of ricin or sarin*.

*Disclaimer : Please don't under any circumstances do that!

Doubt one or two percent makes much difference.

_Redzer_

kneemos wrote: »

Doubt one or two percent makes much difference.

It makes a massive, massive difference. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere should be below 1%. I don't think you get how sensitive our atmosphere is. It's extremely thin so the addition of a few extra % of CO2 goes a long way in making an impact on climate.

kneemos

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It makes a massive, massive difference. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere should be below 1%. I don't think you get how sensitive our atmosphere is. It's extremely thin so the addition of a few extra % of CO2 goes a long way in making an impact on climate.

So a large volcanic eruption would be the end of us all then?

Turtwig

kneemos wrote: »

Doubt one or two percent makes much difference.

Regardless of one's position on human emissions. C02 contributes to 2/3's of the greenhouse effect. (Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas but it's not present in enough quantities to be as significant as C02 currently is.) For such a small percentage C02 makes a huge difference. The reason being is how the molecules in the atmosphere interact with solar irradiation. Also C02 molecules stay in the atmosphere a lot longer than water molecules. Put simply, assuming there was some way for us to artificially emit Water Vapour levels by halting those emissions we'd could reset the levels to default within one week. With C02 we'd have to wait a few centuries. Once it gets up there, it doesn't come back down for a lOOOOONGGG time.

_Redzer_

kneemos wrote: »

So a large volcanic eruption would be the end of us all then?

An extremely large one would, yes, but not by CO2. Volcanoes spew up far more ash and debris into the atmosphere than they do CO2, which is very low by comparison, and if a mega volcano like Yellowstone erupts, it'll throw up enough ash to block out the sun and cool the planet. So yeah, it could kill us all.

That's the beside the point. Compared to what we emit, volcanoes emit nothing by comparison -just to give you an idea of the scale by which we're pumping this stuff out. No natural event so far can rival what we're doing, I think you underestimate the amount of CO2 we emit.

Turtwig

kneemos wrote: »

So a large volcanic eruption would be the end of us all then?

Depends what you mean? C02 wise they make almost no difference to C02 levels over the short term. Obvioulsy over a period of several million years they can influence climate. (Although being pedantic that's down to methane not C02.). Over the last century they've added almost no C02 to the atmosphere. And if a supervolcano were to erupt it's C02 wouldn't exactly be our concern at all!

But yeah to answer your question it could indeed be the end of us!

_Redzer_

Jernal wrote: »

Regardless of one's position on human emissions. C02 contributes to 2/3's of the greenhouse effect. (Methane is an even more potent greenhouse gas but it's not present in enough quantities to be as significant as C02 currently is.) For such a small percentage C02 makes a huge difference. The reason being is how the molecules in the atmosphere interact with solar irradiation. Also C02 molecules stay in the atmosphere a lot longer than water molecules. Put simply, assuming there was some way for us to artificially emit Water Vapour levels by halting those emissions we'd could reset the levels to default within one week. With C02 we'd have to wait a few centuries. Once it gets up there, it doesn't come back down for a lOOOOONGGG time.

That's the whole reason why people have to start coping the fuck on now because if they keep denying it for another 50 years or more until the problems become very serious to the point they can't run away from it, and then they decide to want to do something about it, it'll do little to no good for a very long time.

Celticfire

_Redzer_ wrote: »

It makes a massive, massive difference. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere should be below 1%. I don't think you get how sensitive our atmosphere is. It's extremely thin so the addition of a few extra % of CO2 goes a long way in making an impact on climate.

It's well below 1%, its 0.04% at the moment .... up from 0.37% and we contribute approx 3% of that amount.

_Redzer_

Celticfire wrote: »

It's well below 1%, its 0.04% at the moment .... up from 0.37% and we contribute approx 3% of that amount.

Yet that tiny increase is having an effect on global temperature which only lends to the point that the atmosphere is extremely fragile.

Do you think that just because it's not a massive 30% increase to the atmosphere means that it's not having any effect at all and is not worth bothering with? Baring in mind that if it were not for that tiny <1% or so of CO2 in the atmosphere we'd all be frozen over.

If you're just as keen on small percentages, every tablet you swollow actually has a minute percentage of an active drug in it, the rest is bulked up to make it easier to take. Yet that tiny, seemingly insignificant amount can still have a profound impact on you. Same applies to the atmosphere.
If you're dealing with tiny percentages it makes any increase to that all the more serious.

Hitchens

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Hitchens

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Because some places stopped warming up, the changing weather patterns caused some places to cool down

riffmongous

Deleted User wrote: »

Solar irradiance is lower during the solar minimums and the magnetic fields are lower thus allowing more cosmic rays into the upper atmosphere where they produce more clouds thus reducing the solar energy reaching the Earth's surface.

Won't that depend on the type of cloud created though? Not all clouds cause the same effects

Turtwig

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

They did it because of aliens. Or they never did it at all.

Hitchens

Deleted User wrote: »

Because some places stopped warming up, the changing weather patterns caused some places to cool down

wrong, see jernal's post above, 'they' never changed it but bandwaggoners always fall for it when you put the question to them

Turtwig

riffmongous wrote: »

Won't that depend on the type of cloud created though? Not all clouds cause the same effects

Clouds are an area of confusion. It was initially thought that clouds would contribute towards a cooling effect. (Not an overall climate cooling, just clouds for their part would contribute towards cooling the earth.) This became more complicated when at night time more warming was recorded than during the day. Then it got even messier when the various structures of clouds were analysed. Depending on the properties of the water vapour in the cloud they might actually add a warming effect. In short, it's not clear what effect clouds have, whatever it is it's not really going to be significant to change things either way.

kupus

If they just asked retired scientists instead of those that need to feed off the teat that feeds them, then I could be a little bit more subjective.

but until then I'll keep thinking global warming cooling whatever they call it these days is a pure money making racket.

And Al gore the saviour of the environmental left....... well did you know that before he became this great crusader he and his buddies were pumping money into green energy and environmental companies... Coincidence, maybe. Maybe not. I'll let you decide.
When it comes to money I dont believe in coincidence.

Mardy Bum

I find the sheer amount of conspiracy theorists in this thread alarming. Mention the Illuminati and you are rightly laughed out the door and on the other hand accept a scientific study conducted by a number of governments and you become a sheep!

_Redzer_

kupus wrote: »

If they just asked retired scientists instead of those that need to feed off the teat that feeds them, then I could be a little bit more subjective.

but until then I'll keep thinking global warming cooling whatever they call it these days is a pure money making racket.

And Al gore the saviour of the environmental left....... well did you know that before he became this great crusader he and his buddies were pumping money into green energy and environmental companies... Coincidence, maybe. Maybe not. I'll let you decide.
When it comes to money I dont believe in coincidence.

And what about oil companies breeding conspiracists because they fear people switching to other fuels? Oh that's right, you probably believe that doesn't happen at all, it's just all the scientists that want to keep a job. That must be the only explanation because that's not retarded thinking at all...

NuckingFacker

Hitchens wrote: »

why did they change the name from global warming to climate change?

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.


The angles wrong. They should be concentrating on "the effects of climate change on mankind" and how we react to it. Crediting ourselves with somthing that will really mess up our days regardless of our action is backwards.. how we plan to cope on a practical, sensible level would be effort better spent. Seas rising? Raise defences, don't raise taxes on fuel.

kneemos

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.

The rain forest destruction is the real environmental disaster happening at the moment,yet there's seldom a mention of it anywhere.
Perhaps if there was more research money thrown at it we would hear more about it .

Turtwig

NuckingFacker wrote: »

Global sea ice increased by 60% last winter..which is an inconvenient truth... and plants love CO2, need it as it happens..and CO2 level were higher in Victorian times...and they're finding more oil constantly using new techniques... and when the last ice age happened, was that man-made as well? And the ones before? Climate changes, fact. People don't change it, it manages that all by itself, were flattering/fooling ourselves if we think we do. There's big money involved though, so lots of angles will be exagerated for gain. Me personally, I'm sceptical as to our impact. Cutting down the rainforests has more impact than any other factor, and that's still just a blip. Mankind as a species is just that, a species. We'll come and go, and the Planet will go on regardless.

Not 100% on the global sea ice. Obviously it grows in winter, though I think overall it diminishes year on year. (Some glaciers grow, others don't. Such is the way of things. On the whole, Ice is disappearing in the artic and appearing in the antartic ?)

C02 is good for most plants but not in excess and certainly not in excess for the environment surrounding plants.

C02 levels in the victorian ere were way way lower than they are now. Our current C02 levels are higher than they were in a few million years. Regarding Ice Ages they occurred for several different reasons. Orbital changes of the earth, solar output, natural catastrophes, and of course net accumulation of greenhouses gasses like methane and C02. The important thing to note for the latter is that the rate at which this occurred was really slow spanning thousands of years. In less than 150 years we've achieved what normally takes the planet 10,000 years! Our rate of C02 output is incredibly rapid for such a short duration and that rate is increasing!

PopePalpatine

Corkfeen wrote: »

Damn, you got there before me. Hitchens only by username.

More like Peter than Christopher IMHO. :rolleyes:

Gummy Panda

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

darkpagandeath

Are we not overdue an ice age by 2-4 thousands years previous to them happening is there not a lot of short long term climate/weather fluctuations ? with the amount of earthquakes and tsunamis going off surely that has released tones of stored C02 into the atmosphere. furthering the speed toward the eventual melting of the icecaps in turn pumping fresh water into the gulfstream and so on causing that water to cool off and sink to the bottom. That then stops warm currents globally furthering the rush towards the coming ice age. Or did people think that Ice ages only happen in films or only in the past and we will never have one again ?

Turtwig

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

Not really but the gas they do emit is a really potent greenhouse gas. So reducing their farts would definitely help. Or a state of the art filtration system in pubs and other places where alcohol and smoke tend to mix. A better way of looking at is remove all artificial sources of GHGs and cows and humans would be able to fart to their hearts content for many centuries at a much higher volume than they do. (Or is actually healthy for them. What is the world record emission for a fart anyway?)

galwayrush

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Is it because of the cows and their farting?

Bacteria apparently by their sheer numbers do more damage than the cows.

riffmongous

You know there is money in other areas of science too, but somehow it's only the climate physicists who have become corrupted?

And you know there still isn't that many jobs in climate science really, especially compared to standard meteorology, and most of the people working in those jobs could also easily work in other areas of science too

Sh1tbag OToole

How much extra tax do I have to pay, or will I have to pay?

The issue is not that the earth is getting warmer or cooler, it was always going to be one or the other. The issue is that the government either wants our money or to limit our freedom so they might as well stop going on about the environment or global warming and get straight to the point