ChatterBank1 min ago
Global Warming
Just been watching a programme on the telly which says that some lake in America emits 100 tons of CO2 per DAY into the atmosphere. Even if this were the only one of its kind it puts our carbon emission reduction programmes into perspective doesn't it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LewPaper. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
eltelioni: When I read your response I thought you were agreeing with Jake. Nothing wrong with that of course, it's just I thought you were wrong. It's only now I realise you were merely explaining his position. As I hope you didn't find my answer rude, I can only hope you weren't offended by it, but if you were I can only apologise. You've heard the say 'No good deed goes unpunished' haven't you?
No offence taken Lew.
In answer to New Judge, it is not unreasonable to expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to increase as a result of a long term increase in CO2 production - even if that increase is smaller than the annual variation in the production of CO2 by natural processes. The difference is that natural CO2 production will vary randomly year upon year, sometimes more, sometimes less, whereas the additional CO2 we produce is always more.
In answer to New Judge, it is not unreasonable to expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to increase as a result of a long term increase in CO2 production - even if that increase is smaller than the annual variation in the production of CO2 by natural processes. The difference is that natural CO2 production will vary randomly year upon year, sometimes more, sometimes less, whereas the additional CO2 we produce is always more.
Suppose there is an increase in natural CO2 production one year. You would expect the CO2 concentration to increase at the same time. It doesn't because the oceans absorb it. Next year the natural CO2 production is less, but CO2 comes out of the ocean to restore equilibrium. But, if we have a sustained increase in CO2 production, the CO2 concentration in the sea and in the atmosphere both increase and a new equilibrium is established.
This article:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638
gives one view of the figures. Human emissions amount to about 26 gigatons out of a total of 796 � about 3.2%. As I said, although the quoted figures may vary slightly between reports, it is in the region of 4%.
I have to say that having read the entire article, it seems the author has decided on the answer he wishes to portray and manipulates the evidence to reach his conclusion. I think this particularly when I am asked to believe that the 97% or so of �natural� emissions manage to remain precisely in balance, but the three or four per cent produced by humans cannot be dealt with by natural means and so is accumulating to alarming levels.
However, the argument can go on forever (or at least until we all die, which will almost certainly be due to causes unrelated to climate change).
My main gripe with the climate change lobby is that, regardless of whether the problem is real or perceived, I am being asked to make changes to my lifestyle which will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Meanwhile the hypocritical politicians who tell me I am responsible for all this trouble make no adjustments at all. Whilst I am sitting under my dim �eco friendly� lightbulb, with the heating turned off, the Prime Minister travels 20,000 miles touring to meet world leaders who he was due to see in London the following week; the president of the USA flies on a tour of Europe with up to 500 staff; and government buildings and the ludicrous �European Climate Exchange� in London are illuminated 24/7.
Meantime, the US (22%), China (18%), Russia and India (5% each) produce over half of all the �4%� with no indication that they will do anything about it at all. But if I switch to useless lightbulbs it will drastically cut the 2.2% produced by the UK
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11638
gives one view of the figures. Human emissions amount to about 26 gigatons out of a total of 796 � about 3.2%. As I said, although the quoted figures may vary slightly between reports, it is in the region of 4%.
I have to say that having read the entire article, it seems the author has decided on the answer he wishes to portray and manipulates the evidence to reach his conclusion. I think this particularly when I am asked to believe that the 97% or so of �natural� emissions manage to remain precisely in balance, but the three or four per cent produced by humans cannot be dealt with by natural means and so is accumulating to alarming levels.
However, the argument can go on forever (or at least until we all die, which will almost certainly be due to causes unrelated to climate change).
My main gripe with the climate change lobby is that, regardless of whether the problem is real or perceived, I am being asked to make changes to my lifestyle which will make absolutely no difference whatsoever. Meanwhile the hypocritical politicians who tell me I am responsible for all this trouble make no adjustments at all. Whilst I am sitting under my dim �eco friendly� lightbulb, with the heating turned off, the Prime Minister travels 20,000 miles touring to meet world leaders who he was due to see in London the following week; the president of the USA flies on a tour of Europe with up to 500 staff; and government buildings and the ludicrous �European Climate Exchange� in London are illuminated 24/7.
Meantime, the US (22%), China (18%), Russia and India (5% each) produce over half of all the �4%� with no indication that they will do anything about it at all. But if I switch to useless lightbulbs it will drastically cut the 2.2% produced by the UK
4% seems to be about right. I still don't think that is a strong argument against human activity being responsible for climate change. However, I do agree with the rest of your post New Judge. We are not going to fix the problem by token efforts and if the politicians are serious they need to lead by example. I doubt that will happen anytime soon.
BRIGHT SPARK - you see before you a reasoned discussion. It is pretty easy to say we are all wrong, much harder to justify the statement. Why not have a try?
BRIGHT SPARK - you see before you a reasoned discussion. It is pretty easy to say we are all wrong, much harder to justify the statement. Why not have a try?
Suppose we take that figure
This is the important point:
About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
That 4% is not being cycled
You understand compound interest I'm sure.
2% represents a doubling in 36 years
A 700% increase in a century
It's not how much we put in that's important - it's how much of what we put in that's not being taken out!
This is the important point:
About 40% of the extra CO2 entering the atmosphere due to human activity is being absorbed by natural carbon sinks, mostly by the oceans. The rest is boosting levels of CO2 in the atmosphere
That 4% is not being cycled
You understand compound interest I'm sure.
2% represents a doubling in 36 years
A 700% increase in a century
It's not how much we put in that's important - it's how much of what we put in that's not being taken out!
Some topics crop up on Answerbank that result in absolutely terrible debates.
Global warming has to be the main one. People wafting vague theories around that they half-read, or over-heard in a pub, or read on some crackpot web site, or desperately want to believe for the sake of an easy life.
No offence, like. But 90% of the people who chuck their oar in (there are notable exceptions) are applying infantile levels of science to an incredibly complex problem. Minds are made up more on political/social persuasion than any actual empirical evidence.
In fact, from reading totally unrelated threads, you could quite easily guess who sits on which side of the climate change debate before they've even piped up (me included probably). Why is that?
Global warming has to be the main one. People wafting vague theories around that they half-read, or over-heard in a pub, or read on some crackpot web site, or desperately want to believe for the sake of an easy life.
No offence, like. But 90% of the people who chuck their oar in (there are notable exceptions) are applying infantile levels of science to an incredibly complex problem. Minds are made up more on political/social persuasion than any actual empirical evidence.
In fact, from reading totally unrelated threads, you could quite easily guess who sits on which side of the climate change debate before they've even piped up (me included probably). Why is that?
I think you're dead right Quinlad. I doubt whether the discussions at the local or at the tea break in the factory are the same as those in the golf or squash club. But isn't that the same for everything? I doubt there's any real accuracy in any of the ideas or opinions put forward here, but does it matter? People who think they're right coming together each arguing their corner. Be a bit boring without it wouldn't it?
