not even co2 though is it, the buzz word is 'carbon'. When did carbon ever do anyone any harm? Come to think of it, when did carbon dioxide do anyone any harm? I firmly believe the whole blaming 'global warming' thing on co2 is a bunch of BS, and I resent the fact that we get it rammed down our throats all the time these days. In fact i'd be willing to bet that the majority of people (or should we say sheep) don't even know what a 'carbon footprint' is and why they would want a smaller one. :/
pc's are co2 producers
- Thread starter FrostedNipple
- Start date
You may resent the fact that it's being rammed down our throats, but that's because we've been polluting the atmosphere for nigh on 200 years without thought or care for it. If something isn't done within a very short time frame the world will be a worse place to live in - electricity prices will go through the roof because it will be very difficult to generate. Besides, oil reserves and gas reserves are finite, we would need to stop using them anyways, but the fact that CO2 pollution causes the greenhouse effect means that we must stop using them as much before it runs out. Carbon has been around since the beginning of time, it's an element... But the location of it has changed immensely in the last 200 years. We have released much of it that was locked away for millions of years in coal and oil reserves, and now we've got to do something about that before it's too late... Nobody wants to have to, but the fact is that if we all do a little bit to help, the young people in this world (ie. Me and my generation) will be able to live in the same vein that more older people have, just without the ignorance to the damage CO2 can do.
Sorry i was so rambling there
But to sum up - carbon emissions, in the form of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels cause the world's climate to change - this is a scientific fact. To preserve our world, way of life and ultimately our lives we must stop the climate change effect before the increase has become too much and therefore irreversible (the 'magical number' is a +2 celsius rise in world temperatures). The melting of ice caps and increased desertification would devastate the planet and cause much problems for the older generations children to sort out. Everyone has a moral duty to sort it out, but ultimately the governments of the world need to lead by example, imo, they need to invest in renewables and research, in order to help and persuade the people like us that it'll be worth it.
The point is no one knows what would happen to the world if we crossed that threshold so they'd rather not let it happen.
Sorry i was so rambling there
But to sum up - carbon emissions, in the form of CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuels cause the world's climate to change - this is a scientific fact. To preserve our world, way of life and ultimately our lives we must stop the climate change effect before the increase has become too much and therefore irreversible (the 'magical number' is a +2 celsius rise in world temperatures). The melting of ice caps and increased desertification would devastate the planet and cause much problems for the older generations children to sort out. Everyone has a moral duty to sort it out, but ultimately the governments of the world need to lead by example, imo, they need to invest in renewables and research, in order to help and persuade the people like us that it'll be worth it.
The point is no one knows what would happen to the world if we crossed that threshold so they'd rather not let it happen.
Last edited:
Squarehed said:
all the stuff about having to stop co2, electricity price ect ect.
why cant they put the same venom behind doing something useful like real polutents like heavy metals, smog, carbon particulates ect.
rather than something that
a) doesn't have a large effect
B) you will not be able to lower it what ever koyot agreement they draw up.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
I think that was tongue in cheek.Gaverick said:
From what i've read up on the subject, greenhouse gases are agreed by scientists to be the biggest cause of climate change, by a process called 'Radiative forcing'.AcidHell2 said:
While there are other greenhouse gases, Carbon dioxide is regarded as the main cause of the greenhouse effect, as the large increase in the last 50 years since 1960 (roughly 310ppm to nearly 380ppm measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii and directly corroborated elsewhere in the world) correlates with the increase in temperatures in the last 50 years.
So i woulnd't say that reducing Co2 emissions has little effect, on the contrary, if it was neutralised or possibly reversed (ie the crops we plant can take more out of the air than we put in for a time) it would have a very large effect on the climate change situation.
Now that's where i agree with you more. But, we have a responsibility to try and get something done before it's too late. And the govts. of the world agreeing to a new UN discussion is good but progress needs to be actually made rather than agreeing to talk about it more. There's also newly industrialised countries that must be helped, obviously they will be angered that we expect them to not use carbon fuels, so they must be helped with finance, research etc. But interestingly, i read that the people of these countries such as India which has a massive potential as a polluter are more climate aware than those who have been industrialised for many years, so perhaps there is promise. Another possible hope is that China's govt. are known to be very worried about climate change so even though they were expected to be difficult to sign up to a Kyoto-like treaty, they again could be more easy to persuade.
But yes, this point of yours is more accurate, it will be very difficult but it doesn't mean we should give up on carbon emission cutting.
Last edited:
dirtydog said:Unsubstantiated speculation and guesswork. Yawn
Well i wouldnt call it unsubstantiated, i don't claim to be an expert but i'm just trying to get the points i've taken in accross...
Basically, a 2 celsuis increase is what the EU and most climate-conscious organisations agree is the manageable threshold for climate change. An increase over this could possibly cause a much larger increase/change to occur. Because this increase could trigger much bigger events such as the melting of perma-frost in Siberia, for example, where 450 billion tons of carbon would be released if the area thawed (this is in the form of both carbon dioxide and methane, another greenhouse contributed, but both containing carbon). This would cause an irreversible change in our climate levels.
Also, as carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this means that by radiative forcing, it basically warms the earth. If we managed to reduce the levels in the atmosphere, then it follows that this effect of radiative forcing would be lessened and therefore stop its warming effect on the earth and the earth would be able to cool better. The great thing about the makeup of our atmosphere is that it enables the planet to support life, we have a responsibility to everything on the planet, especially ourselves to keep it at the right levels so no catastrophic changes occur.
Squarehed said:
the thing is if all the guess work is right(which i doubt). then it's not enough reducing emissions we have to stop all human man made co2 production and the reduce what is already in the atmosphere. It's a additive process so simply cutting emissions by 90% isn't going to do anything, it's just going to slow it down a bit.
What I find so funny is the government spin, especially the co2 car adverts, pump your tyres up, remove things from your boot.
Doing those inst even going to reduce co2 emissions by 0.00001%. But at least the government looks good for saying it.
co2 is a very very poor green house gas, cloud cover and water vapour is 100 times more effective as a green house gas, even methane is 25times better than co2.
Inquisitor said:
Of course.
but.....
Has anyone actually quantified how much Co2 WE produce..
How many of us are there alive today. 6 Billion !!
The "into context" quote helps one realise how many people 6 Billion is..
"There are more people alive today than have EVER lived"
Andy
It's hardly guess work. It's done by scientists who devote lives to the research they produce. I love how people call it 'guesswork' like someone's gone out and stuck a finger in the air to measure the changes in CO2 and temperature. Were the people who produced the Smallpox vaccine, for example, described as guessing, I wouldn't describe it as that certainly.
Just because it could inconvenience us, we shouldn't degrade the research by calling it guesswork. We've made progress by trusting scientists for hundreds of years, why stop now when they're continuing trying to keep us going forward.
Just saw your addition AcidHell2, while I know what you say about methane to be true, it is around 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, i think it is all relative. I assume that is why scientists have established CO2 as the major factor because i think there is much more of it in the makeup of our atmosphere and we're increasing that number further.
Just because it could inconvenience us, we shouldn't degrade the research by calling it guesswork. We've made progress by trusting scientists for hundreds of years, why stop now when they're continuing trying to keep us going forward.
Just saw your addition AcidHell2, while I know what you say about methane to be true, it is around 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas, i think it is all relative. I assume that is why scientists have established CO2 as the major factor because i think there is much more of it in the makeup of our atmosphere and we're increasing that number further.
Last edited:
I understand the rationale. The UK puts out a tiny amount of CO2 and even if the UK sank into the sea tomorrow, it would barely scratch the surface of world CO2 levels. So why should we let the government con us into thinking making tiny reductions in what is already a tiny figure is going to make any difference to anything. It's like going to the seaside, scooping seawater into a teacup and expecting sea levels to fall; futile and stupid.Squarehed said:
If a lot of people are wrong or stupid, they're still wrong or stupid. They need to produce dire predictions to justify their existence and get funding. Any scientist who breaks ranks and goes against the herd is trampled underfoot and ridiculed.Squarehed said:
Squarehed said:
because it's guess work at best. the models they use to predict increase4 in temperature are shoddy. The thing is they use only a few variable instead of the millions that represent are real climate. this is why co2 is slewed so heavily. it's also *** reason that the European body on climate change has had to reduce the global temperature increase and the global effects of co2 year in and year out since it was set up.
But surely, if there was something like much bigger contributer than CO2, the science community would know about it 
. These are highly intelligent people who have access to reams of data and information they are surely best qualified to advise the public on the implications of different types of emissions etc.
Not doubting you or anything, i'm just interested where have you read this as i'm fairly interested in it, if you'd point me to the site/article whatever, it'd be cool.
And by the way, i'm not for one second saying CO2 is the only thing we need to worry about, i'm just agreeing that it is the number one priority. Of course there are other problems that you mention like particulate matter. I'm studying a GCSE Geography Case Study of Cairo's pollution at the moment where matter from lead smelters is causing the average IQ there to drop by 3 points, so there's plenty more to be done in terms of emissions, i just think that CO2 is from information given to us, the biggest priority.
. These are highly intelligent people who have access to reams of data and information they are surely best qualified to advise the public on the implications of different types of emissions etc.Not doubting you or anything, i'm just interested where have you read this as i'm fairly interested in it
, if you'd point me to the site/article whatever, it'd be cool.And by the way, i'm not for one second saying CO2 is the only thing we need to worry about, i'm just agreeing that it is the number one priority. Of course there are other problems that you mention like particulate matter. I'm studying a GCSE Geography Case Study of Cairo's pollution at the moment where matter from lead smelters is causing the average IQ there to drop by 3 points, so there's plenty more to be done in terms of emissions, i just think that CO2 is from information given to us, the biggest priority.
Last edited:
The UK puts out 2% of world CO2 emissions. So can you explain why reducing THAT by 0.00001% will have any effect on anything.
The government loves the bogus 'climate change' nonsense because it gives them a ready made excuse to hike taxes, which all too many people fall for.
The government loves the bogus 'climate change' nonsense because it gives them a ready made excuse to hike taxes, which all too many people fall for.