Cambon Posted May 24, 2007 Share Posted May 24, 2007 Chinahand, my analogy may be flawed, but the point I was trying to get across was that the scientists admit that they dont know how long it will take the CO2 that is currently in our atmosphere to break down. They are predict more than a century. Other greenhouse gases like hydrocarbons can break down in 10-12 years or less, so they can predict that. But CO2 is a different kettle of fish. That said, I predict that if I was to invent some sort of photosynthesiser machine that could realistically break down CO2 that is would be snapped up by governments and I would be a millionaire, but I bet it would not go into production for years as the governments would have too much to lose on income from exploitation of the greenhouse situation. Break down? How do you break down carbon, it's a fucking element! You're suggesting there's no such thing as a carbon sink? You're wrong, and obviously clueless. BREAK DOWN CO2 NOT CARBON - READ THE POST - TWIT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ourtess Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Perhaps we should just treat it as an experiment. Keep producing as much CO2 as we can and see what happens. Then future generations will have real data instead of Mrs Thatchers skewed science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Found this good introduction to Global Warming and Climate Science on a NASA website. It has these two graphs which are pertenant to our current discussions: The first shows the sun's output over the last 30 years - if anyone on this forum can use it to explain global warming in any shape or form they are better than nearly all the world's climatologists - these people might be wrong, but I'm not placing any bets that we should be more worried about sun spots than CO2 - the 11 year sun spot cycle is clearly visible in the output - it isn't significant, and it doesn't correlate to global warming, but heck its possible something very complicated is going on, and the researchers looking into it have Albert Tatlock's support so more power to their elbows! The second shows the various CO2 senarios into the future - it shows what would happen to temperatures if we managed to stop emissions today and only had to deal with what we've put out in the past [constant CO2]. This goes directly to the recent back and forth we've had after Cambon's post saying its too late the CO2 we've already released is the main issue - my understanding, backed up by the graph is it isn't too late and we should be far more concerned about future emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 The graphs make for some interesting reading. However, everyone suddenly stopping the output of CO2 is simply not going to happen. I cannot believe the arrogance of Dubbya yesterday. He is now jumping on the bandwagon and wants all countries to get together (including China, India, etc.) and set themselves reduced emission targets by the end of next year, even though many (as well as 4 states of the american republic itself) have already set them!!! It is like saying "Ok you guys and dolls been playin' this game for a while. Now lets do it the american way. Lets start again, and pretend it is our idea. YEEE HAAAA!!!" Anyway, enough Dubbya ranting. The thing is even with reduced emissions, the earth has already warmed up. A way to help cool it may be to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Other than planting loads of trees, how do we do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 BREAK DOWN CO2 NOT CARBON - READ THE POST - TWIT! Point still stands, twit. You're making out there's no carbon sinks, which is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 BREAK DOWN CO2 NOT CARBON - READ THE POST - TWIT! Point still stands, twit. You're making out there's no carbon sinks, which is wrong: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_sink No I am not. Try to keep up Slim! What I am saying is that the existing sinks cannot cope with the excessive amount of CO2 already in the atmosphere, so we need more or better methods. It is ok talking about chemical reactions etc. but what is the environmental costs of these reactions in other areas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Agreeing with Cambon, as far as I've read it can take upto 100 years for carbon dioxide to be removed from the atmosphere - the cycle is very slow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Agreeing with Cambon, as far as I've read it can take upto 100 years for carbon dioxide to be removed from the atmosphere - the cycle is very slow! The natural cycle is slow, but he's suggesting there's no way to augment or support the natrual cycle and he's talking about carbon sinks like they dont currently exist, which is bollocks. There's lots of ways to improve the natural cycle. Promoting plankton growth in seawater for example or changing the way you deal with the waste from crops so they act like a carbon store rather than releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 The natural cycle is slow, but he's suggesting there's no way to augment or support the natrual cycle and he's talking about carbon sinks like they dont currently exist, which is bollocks. There's lots of ways to improve the natural cycle. Promoting plankton growth in seawater for example or changing the way you deal with the waste from crops so they act like a carbon store rather than releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere. Yes Slim, but the impact is still minimal compared compared to even the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Promoting the growth of plankton and sea forests (kelp) is probably a good way to start though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 Yes Slim, but the impact is still minimal compared compared to even the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Promoting the growth of plankton and sea forests (kelp) is probably a good way to start though. The main point is that it's more beneficial to promote carbon capture, reducing carbon output and trying to stop the destruction of natural sinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 I haven't been involved in the discussion for a while. The last point I was making was that an average person such as myself - with no particular interest in science and no real understanding of the complexities involved - was not being reached by all the scientific explanations. Despite the best efforts of 'Dr Dave' to address the problem, I'm afraid there is still a considerable gap between those who 'know' and those who struggle to understand. At the time, I was hoping that someone with a scientific background would manage the almost impossible task of producing a 'Global Warning For Dummies' type of guide that would explain without really talking down to us too much. the nearest i've come to it so far is Jared Diamond's book Collapse - How Societies Choose to Succeed or Fail, which I've already recommended without reservation in the 'books' section. What it did bring to my attention, however, was that although 'Global Warming' may be the 'headline issue,' and the CO2 content of the atmosphere an easily identified villain of the piece, the mismanagement of the planet's resources are a great deal more complex than is often reported. Simply cutting back on our use of carbon fuels is not any kind of answer in isolation. Without a proper understanding of methods required to properly manage resources such as forests, rivers and seas, progress will ultimately be minimal. An example: Australia - suffering one of the worst drouts in his recorded history - could be said to be suffering the effects of Global Warming. However, an examination of the facts will reveal that the attempt to impose a western (i.e. English) form of land-management and civilisation was almost inevitably doomed to fail in soil that bore little relation to that required. I would suggest, therefore, that Global Warming is merely a (reasonably) visible sign of the harm that mankind's failures have done to the planet and that it will take rather more than reduced carbon emissions to try to correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted June 1, 2007 Share Posted June 1, 2007 As we all breath out CO2, people are missing the obvious solution of simply holding our breaths for 10 minutes over every hour. I am also concerned at the amount of beer that is being sold on the island at the moment - which is full of CO2. Surely the CO2 in beer could be replaced with helium which would make drinking conversations far more fun if everyone sounded like Joe Pascale. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stupifyinjones Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Haven't any of you cloistered nuns seen the Al Gore flic, An Inconvienant Truth? A good place to start cleaning those rose coloured, salt encrusted glasses. P.S. Stu baby, keep smokin dem fags boy, the NHS needs the business. You can watch the seasons not change in the comfort of your own Iron Lung - tax payers expense naturally, though wether they can afford all your family and friends also is questionable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted June 8, 2007 Share Posted June 8, 2007 P.S. Stu baby, keep smokin dem fags boy, the NHS needs the money. You can watch the seasons not change in the comfort of your own Iron Lung - tax payers expense naturally, though whether they can afford anything if they lose their tobacco revenue is questionable. Edited for accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted July 11, 2007 Share Posted July 11, 2007 I see more of the claims in this programme have now been discredited. Science Stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.