Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » I never doubted that the increase in human exhalation was relatively trivial compared to other sources, however it’s not certain that the sinks are keeping up with carbon inputs or we wouldn’t be where we are.
ch750536 wrote: » Am I missing something? We don't make CO2 when we breathe, we just remove the oxygen?
Akrasia wrote: » Dense has absolutely zero understanding of the science behind this, it's laughable, in a different thread he seriously suggested that human body heat could be the cause of global warming.
Akrasia wrote: » Our cells respire and CO2 is a byproduct of respiration. The CO2 is carried away from our cells in our blood to the lungs, When we breath, we exchange the CO2 in our blood with oxygen from our lungs, and we exhale the CO2 as a waste product.
Akrasia wrote: » The massive difference between co2 released by breathing, and co2 released by burning fossil fuels, is that all the CO2 we release by breathing comes from the food we eat, which had only recently absorbed that CO2 from the atmosphere. Our breathing is carbon neutral, we breath the co2 that plants sequestered when they were growing. CO2 released by burning fossil fuels is completely different, it is taking carbon that was sequestered under ground and releasing it back into the atmosphere at a rate far greater than the natural carbon cycle can sequester it. CO2 atmospheric concentrations have gone from 280ppm to over 400ppm. There is absolutely zero doubt that this is anthroprogenic (from burning fossil fuels and changing land use) from anyone who has any credibility on this matter. (this is really basic stuff, I'm genuinely surprised that Gaoth Laidir posted that)
Akrasia wrote: » Ok, fair enough. Regarding John Sweeey's alleged comments to Pat Kenny, I didn't bother checking before, but I had suspected that Dense might have been misrepresenting Prof Sweeney. I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence. Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.
dense wrote: » PK: Of course even as we are conversing here together we are breathing out co2 so, JS: We are, we are indeed, and that is part of the problem. But of course a lot of that will end up in the Artic a lot of that will cause the problems we've been discussing.http://www.newstalk.com/podcasts/The_Pat_Kenny_Show/Highlights_from_The_Pat_Kenny_Show/171314/The_global_cost_of_rising_Arctic_temperatures
Akrasia wrote: » He was interrupted mid sentence by Pat Kenny who made a throwaway comment about breathing out CO2. You are acting as if he brought up, on his own the idea that humans breathing is causing climate change. Anyone can be quote mined this way by someone looking to discredit them rather than honestly try to represent their views. And of course, you repeated this claim multiple times so that now, instead of us talking about climate change, you've successfully derailed the thread into analysing the exact sentence John Sweeney said in a radio interview on newstalk 2 years ago. Success?
Akrasia wrote: » I've just listened to it now, and unsurprisingly Prof Sweeney was taken completelyout of context. Professor Sweeney said that each Irish person is responsible for about 12 tonnes of CO2 emissions a year, then PK jumps in saying 'even now, we are breathing out CO2' and Prof Sweeney said 'We are indeed' and then moved on to finish his sentence. Dense didn't disappoint as usual, blatant quote mining and 'poisoning the well'.
Mountainsandh wrote: » I just like to read everything, and my mind is never fully made up on this topic. A lot of interesting posts in this thread. Don't thank me Dense, I often think you're over the top or nonsensical on some points, just like I often think the other side are manipulating and alarmist. No offense intended. There are plenty of posters to point out when your posts or points seem disingenuous or nonsensical, so I think it's only fair to point out readers can also note manipulation or weaknesses in other posts. Just going back to reading now.
Akrasia wrote: » The climate predictions for Ireland are for wetter summers on the west, but drier summers on the east, so Claremorris is in line with this, and we should expect a drier trend from a town on the eastern part of Ireland
Oneiric 3 wrote: » Regarding Prof Sweeney's comments on 'The Big Wind', I don't agree. Ireland is placed on a well documented storm track, and it not out of the bounds of reason to suggest that severe storms such as that in 1839 naturally happen on occasion. Also, I do recall that he alluded to 'Storm Darwin' back in 2014 as being a result of climate change on the same program, which is strange, given that Darwin was not an exceptional storm historically speaking. Misleading in the extreme, and his 'qualifications' stand for nothing if this type of disingenuous narrative is being pushed by him and those of his ilk who have them.
dense wrote: » What are his qualifications? None are necessary to make stupid and misleading statements. I know he's a Lead Author for the IPCC and according to An Taisce's Climate Change Spokesperson, the activist John Gibbons, must represent the "97% scientific consensus" when he now claims that co2 exhaled in human breath is not carbon nuetral and causes climate change.http://www.thinkorswim.ie/page/6/ Being obsessed with climate justice should immediately disqualify him from holding any official advisory position if it's causing him to publicly make stupid and misleading claims like that. He appears to be unhinged, personally obsessed with climate justice, and will say anything to promote his personal obsession, to a brainwashed audience that obviously lacks the mental ability to check his claims.
To conclude: both of us know that climate change is a huge problem and both of us presumably agree that BAU is simply not an option. I think we could both agree that the Irish media largely ignores this story, and when it is covered, often focuses on dissent rather than consensus. As a journalist, citizen and parent, I feel compelled to do what I can to try to improve our understanding and communication of climate change, and will happily work with anyone to that shared end. Unlike you, I am not an expert, nor do I pretend to be. I occupy that ill-defined niche of a science communicator.
Gaoth Laidir wrote: » In that piece on his communications to Ray Bates, Gibbons freely admits (as suspected) that he is not qualified to comment on climate science, but only sees himself as a science communicator, i.e. lobbyist. Yet he sees fit to shout down someone whom he admits IS an expert. What's his agenda, I wonder?
"Minister for Communications, Climate Action and Environment Denis Naughten said the results of the assembly demonstrated that “as a nation we are engaged and ready to move on from the model we inherited from the Industrial Revolution."
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
"3 February 2015 - The Top UN Climate Change Official is optimistic that a new international treaty will be adopted at Paris Climate Change conference at the end of the year. However the official, Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement."
Oneiric 3 wrote: » I'm no scientist, but basic meteorology would suggest that with an Arctic region warming faster than the mid or tropical latitudes, that Atlantic storms would become less frequent and less intense, given that the basic ingredient that leads to such storms developing, and that is, strong thermal gradients, is being eroded all the while, and this is what we are actually seeing being played out in the stats, which I have alluded to more than once on this forum.
Akrasia wrote: » When you watch Bates talk, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Mauritsen paper completely vindicated Lindzen and Choi, and his own paper, but in reality, his study is based on a lot of unproven assumptions, and several that are highly questionable given that they rely on poor quality satellite data.
Akrasia wrote: » It's more complex than that. The Jet Stream seems to be losing some of it's power already, and is meandering more, this is dragging cold arctic air further south, where the fronts come into contact with much warmer tropical systems which can drive extreme weather events such as the blizzards that have hit the USA last month. When the Arctic is ice free in summer, there will be all kind of changes to atmospheric and oceanic currents which could have unforeseen impacts on our weather. Actually, I'd be interested in what the weather experts on here think the impact of an ice free arctic summer will be on Irish weather. The NAO seems to be swinging more violently which has seen its variability double over the last century and could lead to more extreme weather events in these parts.
