contrails

On 9 Jan, 17:38, Steve wrote:
Would the skeptics believe Al Gore if he was a TV weatherman?

Steve

NO!

Derek C

And if you are a scientist who relies on government grants all the
more pressure to fill in your own dots.

http://tinyurl.com/yex55dm

On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, delboy wrote:
On 9 Jan, 11:56, Tom Gardner wrote:

On Jan 9, 9:27*am, delboy wrote:

Have we actually proved
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas anyway,
Yes, of course it has been proven. If you can't accept
that then there is never going to be the basis of any
form of useful discussion.

So why isn't the extra CO2 in the atmosphere causing the predicted
increase in temperature?

(1) it is, within the limits expected
(2) the reasons used by the denialists: Other
Counterbalancing Factors

Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
(1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
(2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die

It would, however be OK if the dead trees were buried so
the carbon didn't resurface. Maybe in the form of a nice black solid
that we're already excavating pretty fast.

That's not to say that we shouldn't
continue to monitor the situation and to improve the model.

There we agree.

OK, So how do you propose to correct things? Lets suppose we we only
generate electricity from solar panels, wind power, hydro-electric
dams, tidal barrages and nuclear energy, and that all vehicles are
electrically powered. First of all, a lot of exotic materials such as
rare earth metals and uranium would be required, which would all have
to be mined (environmentally destructive) and processed (heat energy
required). Then you need a lot of expensive new infrastructure, and a
means of safely disposing of nuclear waste. Finally I understand that
would not be enough available copper in the world to wind all the
generating sets and electric motors (wars over copper instead of
oil?). Could an electric airliner carry enough batteries to also carry
a useful payload? If it was nuclear powered, what would happen if it
crashed?

Summary of that position: it is too difficult, so we shouldn't even
try.

Alternatively we could go back to living in caves I suppose!

When did you leave? I haven't lived in a cave since November 1981.
(or was it '80).

On Jan 9, 5:09*pm, Scott wrote:
Tom Gardner wrote:

Um, which planet earth do you live on? There have
been multiple "extinction events" which take all of 5
seconds to find on wackypedia.

Over billions of years, yes? *How long have we been burning fossil
fuels? *200 years perhaps?

You've forgotten the context in which I made my point.
Hence your points are true but irrelevant.


In particular, the "clathrate gun hypothesis" is particularly
relevant.
* ...
* However there is stronger evidence that runaway methane
* clathrate breakdown may have caused drastic alteration of
* the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth on a
* number of occasions in the past, over timescales of tens
* of thousands of years; most notably in connection with the
* Permian extinction event, when 96% of all marine species
* became extinct 251 million years ago.

And human use of fossils fuels couldn't have caused that. *We weren't
using coal to generate electricity or burning gas for our cars 251
million years ago.

Correct but irrelevant to the context in which I made my point.

Sounds pretty drastic to me!

But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.

On 9 Jan, 19:56, Tom Gardner wrote:
Could not any excess CO2 be removed by
planting more trees (or at least not chopping down the forests we
already have) anyway?

Oh, come on, don't be intellectually lazy. At least think it through.
(1) takes a long time to lock up carbon in a tree
(2) trees are carbon-neutral - think what happens after they die

Precisely. Trees are Carbon Neutral and not all the CO2 gets locked up
as wood - some of it is used for making leaves which are shed and rot
down. When a tree has reached full maturity, it can be chopped down
and the wood used as a building material, which locks up carbon for
further period of time. All the unwanted branches and offcuts can be
burnt as a fuel. This is what humans always did before coal, oil and
natural gas became available, and what we will probably have to go
back to doing after they run out. The important thing is to plant
another tree that will continue to remove CO2 from the atmosphere,
which is what we have failed to do on a consistant basis for the last
few hundred years.

Trees and all other plants also breathe out Oxygen, which we do rather
need for our own metabolic purposes. QED.

Derek Copeland

Tom Gardner wrote:


Sounds pretty drastic to me!
But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.


My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. Do we know
that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? For all we know, our supposed
man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

delboy wrote:


Suppose you measure CO2 levels in the atmosphere for a few years when
global temperatures are increasing naturally. Then you draw a graph of
increasing CO2 concentrations against Global Temperature and find that
you have a correlation.

Derek Copeland


Exactly...is increasing CO2 warming the planet or is a warming planet
increasing the levels of CO2? Which is causing which? As a homebrewer
who deals with carbonation, a warmer liquid can not hold as much gas in
suspension as a cold liquid. Maybe any dissolved CO2 in water is being
expelled as the Earth warms and the water's temperature increases...

On Jan 9, 11:24*pm, Scott wrote:
My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself

What on earth does that mean, exactly. Sounds like you
are some for of a new-age Gaia devotee.

as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help. *

Perhaps you would like earth to "clense itself" of all this
nasty oxygen, and go back to the earth's original pristine
reducing atmosphere.

Do we know
that any particular heating or cooling is man-made versus the actions of
the Earth (or sun, or moon or God)? *For all we know, our supposed
man-made global warming may ward off an ice age for a few extra ceturies
or millenium...might be a GOOD thing...who knows?

Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Tom Gardner wrote:


Summary: Can't prove what'll happen in the future. So the best thing
is
to Carry On Regardless.

Not an impressive intellectual position.

Not meant to be. Point is, can you (or anyone) prove that what we might
be doing IS harmful? Didn't think so. You don't know, I don't know.
All I know is someone seems to be making a lot of money off this issue.
Carbon credits, for example...who will get the money? Do you want
electricity? How will it get generated?

I'm not saying we should do nothing. I just know human nature...once we
have something (luxuries, etc. like easy travel, electricity) nobody
wants to give it up.

So, give me a list of what you will do to reduce your carbon
contributions...maybe it will give me some ideas.

On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 23:24:39 +0000, Scott wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:


Sounds pretty drastic to me!
But it was caused by nature, not interfering humans...

True. So what.


My point was simply that the Earth has means to naturally "cleanse"
itself as it has done in the past without interference from humans and
will likely continue to do so, with or without human help.

Quite possibly, but have you considered that temperature swings, sea
level changes and ocean acidification may wipe out civilisation as we
know it (along with an unknown number of additional species) before a
new steady state is reached?


--
martin@ | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org |