For those of you that don't believe in global warming

I've hosted and thumbnailed the plots as it makes them more appealing. Sources at the end.


[1]

This chart shows carbon dioxide concentrations (or proxies of) reconstructed to 500 million years ago. You can see that generally co2 concentration is all over the place, but certainly it used to be much higher than it is now (perhaps 8000 ppm). In fact, we didn't have any ice caps until 34 million years ago due to these high co2 concentrations[4]. I would consider the ice caps a pretty important feature of our planet (understatement).

For scale, life has been around for some 3.5 billion years (about 7 time further than this chart shows) and the dinosaur extinction event happened about 65 million years ago (way on the left hand side). So, mammals have dominated only for this tiny region on the left, where co2 concentrations were certainly < 1000 ppm.


[2]

This shows co2 and temperatures back to 400,000 years. They are correlated, though whether one lags the other is moot. The point is they are related in some incredibly complicated way to each other and everything else. co2 concentration can be seen to vary between ~180 and ~290 ppm, temperature anomaly ~-8 to ~3 degrees C.

For scale, homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago, or half way along this chart.


[3]

Here we have much more recent co2 concentrations, the last 1100 years, using ice core data and measurements from Mauna Loa (Hawaii). Having "zoomed in" this far the co2 concentration looks pretty flat, until about 1850 where it takes a huge jump from ~290 ppm (the maximum value seen in the last 400,000 years) to the current 391 (a 35% increase)[5].


So what have we learnt? CO2 concentration gives us a good idea of the temperature of the Earth. Generally more = hotter. This concentration has varied greatly throughout the Earth's history, but has been fairly low, and relatively stable, since the dinosaurs became extinct.

In the last 400,000 years, twice as long as humans have existed, the co2 concentration has kept within extremely tight limits (only 180-290 ppm).

Now, since 1850, we have seen co2 concentrations jump from 290 to 390.

This is why we are concerned.

Making this post has been extremely educational for me, and I hope it will be for you.


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere
[2] http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/tem...in-the-atmosphere-over-the-past-400-000-years
[3] http://iter.rma.ac.be/en/img/CO2-concenNEW_EN.jpg (not sure about the reliability of this one, but probably legit)
[4] http://www.treehugger.com/files/200...link-between-c02-and-antarctic-ice-sheets.php
[5] http://co2now.org/
 
The penalties for being wrong about global warming, but thinking it was correct are a lot less than being wrong about global warming being wrong.

So from that perspective, it makes sense for us to hedge our bets, to try to do the best we can to reduce emissions (but let's not focus solely on CO2) and our reliance on fossil fuels.

If it turns out we're completely wrong, oh well...
 
daz said:
to try to do the best we can to reduce emissions (but let's not focus solely on CO2) and our reliance on fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

How hard to try though? The Kyoto Protocol set the EU an 8% (on average) decrease, which is simply not enough.

Also it's all good to say "reduce out reliance on fossil fuels", but how to do it. After all, you can't fabricate a solar panel without extracting and transporting your raw material to the factory (in trucks), making the things (energy intensive), transporting them to the site (in trucks), etc. etc.

Imagine the fossil fuels burned to build a nuclear plant and extract the ore!

We should be using our dwindling supplied RIGHT NOW to get a new system in place, because we can't get ourselves out of this reliance without using some of what's left of the fuels.
 
daz said:
The penalties for being wrong about global warming, but thinking it was correct are a lot less than being wrong about global warming being wrong.
Click to expand...

But it's not to reduce emissions by anything like the level needed to be useful, if it is caused by humans, would cripple most economies and be completely infeasible.

not to mention countries like the uk would have to reduce to practically zero to even attempt to counter the increases by china.

It's a choice between cripple yourself now while your competitors don't and still don't do enough so you now get hit by the effects, and are in a weaker position.

Or don't weaken yourself, make hay while the sun shines and be in a better position if it kicks off.
 
joeyjojo said:
How hard to try though? The Kyoto Protocol set the EU an 8% (on average) decrease, which is simply not enough.
Click to expand...

I'm not a climate scientist, but don't you think we'll be kicking ourselves metaphorically if we hadn't done anything given the chance? We don't know what the future holds but we only have one earth so let's not mess it up too bad...

Also it's all good to say "reduce out reliance on fossil fuels", but how to do it. After all, you can't fabricate a solar panel without extracting and transporting your raw material to the factory (in trucks), making the things (energy intensive), transporting them to the site (in trucks), etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Hybrid vehicles, ethanol powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. There are lots of alternatives that will come about when they start to become economically viable, as oil rises in price. A lot of those will need power from the grid, however that can be generated using a number of sources - tidal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear should all be a part of our future energy strategy. It would be irresponsible to rely on only one source.

Or don't weaken yourself, make hay while the sun shines and be in a better position if it kicks off.
Click to expand...

There's a number of arguments for and against moving towards a lower CO2 economy. If we don't yet reduce our output significantly, let's at least increase funding for energy related research within the UK.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
would cripple most economies and be completely infeasible
Click to expand...
Then so be it. Humans are just one of millions of species. Our framework is no more impressive than the habits of a dung beetle.

Tefal said:
not to mention countries like the uk would have to reduce to practically zero to even attempt to counter the increases by china.
Click to expand...

China have the tightest reduction targets in the world. About 8 times the EU's.

Tefal said:
It's a choice between cripple yourself now while your competitors don't and still don't do enough so you now get hit by the effects, and are in a weaker position.
Click to expand...

Game theory in action.

Tefal said:
Or don't weaken yourself, make hay while the sun shines and be in a better position if it kicks off.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I think we agree we need more interest/investment/faith in renewable energy.

daz said:
Hybrid vehicles, ethanol powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. There are lots of alternatives that will come about when they start to become economically viable, as oil rises in price. A lot of those will need power from the grid, however that can be generated using a number of sources - tidal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear should all be a part of our future energy strategy. It would be irresponsible to rely on only one source.
Click to expand...

How are you going to build them? The crude oil needed just to produce all the plastic in a car is huge.
 
daz said:
Hybrid vehicles, ethanol powered vehicles, electric vehicles, hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles. There are lots of alternatives that will come about when they start to become economically viable, as oil rises in price.
Click to expand...

All of them are pretty polluting to make though, especially the hybrids.


fuel cells wont become common still we can find something slightly cheaper and more abundant than platinum either.


A lot of those will need power from the grid, however that can be generated using a number of sources - tidal, hydro, wind, solar and nuclear should all be a part of our future energy strategy. It would be irresponsible to rely on only one source.
Click to expand...

Can't power a ship or heavy goods transports (outside of trains) with electricity though.


There's a number of arguments for and against moving towards a lower CO2 economy. If we don't yet reduce our output significantly, let's at least increase funding for energy related research within the UK.
Click to expand...

Sure but if you base a huge chunk of your energy into wind, tide and solar that's going to get destroyed/rendered inefficient by the climate changes/sea levels though isn't it?
 
joeyjojo said:
Then so be it. Humans are just one of millions of species. Our framework is no more impressive than the habits of a dung beetle.
Click to expand...

Yet we will struggle to survive as much as any beetle.


And so we should.

Not going to roll over and die just because we happen to wipe out a few other species, you don't see any of the other animals doing that?
 
Conscript said:
Why not? Serious question. I was under the impression that electric motors are an ideal power choice in nearly all applications.
Click to expand...

yes electric motors are excellent.

Batteries however are not.

The only way to store enough energy for the trips in a small enough space atm is either nuclear or oil products.


Nuclear is too expensive and risky for mass civilian use in shipping and too bulky, expensive and hazardous for trucks.
 
Last edited:
Tefal said:
yes electric motors are excellent.

Batteries however are not.

The only way to store enough energy for the trips in a small enough space atm is either nuclear or oil products.


Nuclear is too expensive and risky for mass civilian use in shipping and too bulky, expensive and hazardous for trucks.
Click to expand...

Oh, I knew that. Thought you meant that they might be suitable for some reason other than energy storage.
 
for those of you who don't believe in the religion of global warming join our church today, we are offering bonus environmentalism points where you can win a tree and save a chicken.

CO2 is not a pollutant, let me repeat that for the mainstream scientists in here. CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT. in fact plants live off co2 and humans breathe it out when they exhale.

the only reason co2 got mixed up with the climate change was due to the theory of green house affect which apparently says that certain gases reflect the sun and so we need less of that gas.

Even though co2 is a very small percentage of the total atmosphere and evidence of the reflective properties of co2 has not be disclosed...
 
Last edited:
This has been debated at length over in Speaker's Corner.

The general consensus is "There isn't enough good science to support it".

Basing climate science on 30 years worth of data (If that!) is nonsense.
 
I don't understand why people say that there is only 30 years of data, when the graphs posted by joeyjoe date back hundreds and thousands of years. I saw these same graphs used by my lecturer during a module on global warming that I took while at uni, so I assume they are legit.

I guess when ppl hear the word "conspiracy" they just like to believe that every piece of evidence under the sun is corrupt and bogus.
 
you see what the "scientists" like to do is forget about the obvious arguments and get you lost in the data (that has been compromised) so that you forget your basic logic and end up agreeing because of the complexity that they present. Ancient tactics.

yea then when you present logic that is so true and goes against everything they say, then they use the tactics of trying to make the person out to have no credibility by throwing words like conspiracy around.

I am not saying anything but simple logic, you can believe whatever you want to in regards to what dictates temperature. There is no denying that the SUN is the biggest factor and not co2.
 
Last edited:
groen said:
you see what the "scientists" like to do is forget about the obvious arguments and get you lost in the data (that has been compromised) so that you forget your basic logic and end up agreeing because of the complexity that they present. Ancient tactics.
Click to expand...

I've tried to make my post clear (101), if you have any questions I would love to try and answer them.
 
To those saying we should drastically cut emissions. I hope you've done your research and noticed that reduction of pollution (not CO2) in the upper atmosphere could result in even more rapid heating of the planet due to more sunlight getting through.

How about we just stop being wasteful and stop all the scaremongering and revenue raising scams?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom