Global Warming

[LewPaper]

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?

[Julnar]

I accept that Global Warming is occurring, but am still not convinced it's all the fault of wicked humans. The Earth experiences cycles and this could well be one of those. I think it's right that we make an effort to improve things, but this may prove no more successful than Canutes attempts to hold back the tides.

[Twenty20]

There was a report a few years ago which concluded that cows are responsible for 18% of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. This is apparently more than all forms of transport (aeroplanes, cars etc) put together.

Get rid of the cows, or stop them farting, and there wont be a problem.

[R1Geezer]

The oceans, Volcanoes, forest fires, cows farting etc etc, mankind has control of 4% of the Carbon available. Global warming is part of planetary cycles, nothing to do with mankind.

[LewPaper]

I agree Julnar. At no time in our history have we been able to measure so accurately differences in weather patterns. But again, as you say, it doesn't do any harm at all trying to reduce the CO2 even if it won't make any difference. We've got to find an alternative to fossil fuels at some point anyway.
And Twenty, perhaps we should supply them with a lighted candle attached to their tails so these gases could be burned at source.

[tiggerblue10]

I saw a programme a few years back that said if all the snow/ice melts in Siberia masses of CO2 or sulpher which is trapped underneath will be released into the atmosphere which could be catastrophic.

[LewPaper]

Well, that's set me up nicely for Monday morning!

[webbo3]

of course everyone forgets the huge swathes of rain forest being destroyed which would help get rid of some of the c02.
if the famous actors/actresses who protest against air travel ect then jet off round the world bought some of this pristine wilderness to preserve it.
then it might just help a bit more than just protesting.

Dave.

[webbo3]

oh and i forgot this as well, so its not all man made..

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports /environment_sciences/report-77211.html


Dave.

[jake-the-peg]

Geezer

Can you point us to where you get your 4% figure from please?

[jake-the-peg]

By the way Lew.

That Lake in America that emits 100 tonnes of CO2 a day.

Compare and contrast with just one Coal powered powerstation in the UK that emits 27,000 tonnes a day

It sure puts it into perspective!

[LewPaper]

Thanks Jake. Makes our meager attempts even more futile.

[jake-the-peg]

What? that one UK power station puts more CO2 into the atmosphere that 270 lakes full of rotting material?

I think you miss the point.

In 1800 CO2 in the atmosphere was 280 ppm, now it's 360 ppm ( the highest it's been for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years)

Where do you suppose all that has come from?

A sudden increase in lakes? Has there been a recent rush in volcanoes that's passed me by?

[LewPaper]

Jake, what ARE you on about?

[eltelioni]

Jake is clearly saying that lakes are not responsible for the increase in CO2 in recent times.

[eltelioni]

It is irrelevant to quote the volumes of CO2 from natural sources. They have always been there and there was a balance. We have created new sources of CO2 and the balance is adjusting to a state which may not be beneficial to human civilisation.

[eltelioni]

Lew - your attempts are not futile. The power station produces the CO2 because we use the power it generates. So, if everyone reduces their energy consumption by 10% that power station will reduce its CO2 output by 10%.

[LewPaper]

Thanks for your contributions eltelioni, but I can't remember saying they were. Let me read my post again. No, nothing there which even implies your assertion. Certainly they're an INGREDIENT in the recipe, but if you can see where I said they're responsible please point it out.

I was merely making the point that if so much is generated naturally what are we doing working so hard yet saving precious little, at least in comparison.

[New Judge]

I have seen the 4% figure quoted in many sources, jake, and I do not think it is essentially disputed. I�ll have a scout round for some articles.

The �naturally occurring� emissions must vary either as much or more than the man made ones (the level of volcanic activity and so on is by no means constant). So what eltelioni suggests is that the earth is able to cope with variations in the 96% of emissions that are not man made, but cannot cope with a variation in man�s 4%. Clearly ridiculous.

Europe itself contributes very little towards this 4% and the far larger contributors (the US, China and India) have no intention of cutting their emissions.

Until they do I am not going to sit reading the Daily Telegraph by the light of an unsuitable dim light bulb that upsets the electrics in my house and contains enough toxins to make me ill.

[eltelioni]

Lew - I was simply answering your question.

Jake said "... Where do you suppose all that has come from? A sudden increase in lakes? "
You said "Jake, what ARE you on about?
I said "Jake is clearly saying that lakes are not responsible for the increase in CO2 in recent times."

[eltelioni]

New Judge - 4% was suggested by someone else, not me. They were asked where it came from but there has been no answer yet.