CO2

[sandall]

And I thought I was a cynical old git..........

[alistermorton]

I take your point (I am a fan of Newton; he was a real scientist), though I have more trouble with the way data gets "adjusted" to fit pre-conceived theories

 

You and me both. There's too much massaging of eco-data and fudge factors applied to make it fit for my liking, and I'm skeptical that many eco-warriors really have a clue.That things are changing is obvious, but then anyone who expects the climate to remain in stasis ad infinitum is a fool, but I will remain skeptical of much of the research so long as there are clear indications of data that doesn't "fit" being removed or "adjusted" until it does.

 

 

 

 

[sandall]

You and me both.

You're still a cynical young git :)

[adam2]

 

 

My original point is that if an excess of CO2 is going to cause us all to be drowned in our beds (or fried, depending on which "climate science expert you believe) then it is somewhat irrelevant as to whether this CO2 was "captured" in the days of the dinosaurs, in the last century, or even last week.

 

Trying to make a distinction between "good" CO2 & "bad" CO2 seems a touch academic, if not downright delusional. If it's as bad for the planet as some would have us believe, then the habit of covering our stages with the stuff strikes me as being not very "green", even if, as noted above, it does look fantastic.

 

I can not agree.

 

The release of recently captured carbon dioxide is of very little concern. Consider the growing of barley, the growing crop removes from the air a known weight of carbon dioxide. The barley may then be malted and used to make beer. The fermenting beer returns to the air much* of the carbon dioxide recently absorbed by the growing barley. If instead the carbon dioxide is captured from the brewing vat and forced into cylinders, then it may used for theatrical or other purposes and thereby released into the air just the same.

 

Alternativly the barley might be used to make bread. As the dough rises prior to baking it emits much* of the carbon dioxide that was absorbed by the growth of the barley, there is no net increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the air.

 

Now consider what happens if for some reason the barley crop is not harvested. The plants will either rot or be eaten by animals. The rotting of the barley or the respiration of the animals that ate it will return to the air the same amount of carbon dioxide that was recently absorbed by the growth of the crop.

 

For more detail, look up "the carbon cycle" in any textbook on basic science.

 

*some of the carbon remains in the beer or the bread. This is returned to the air as carbon dioxide exhaled by the human or animal that consumes the beer or bread.

 

Now consider the burning of fossil fuel such as oil. This emits carbon dioxide that was captured millions of years ago and thereby increases the amount of carbon dioxide in the present day atmosphere. This increase is readily measured and has shown a significant increase in the last 100 years. Continued increases in fossil fuel use will lead a much warmer climate somewhat similar to that prevailing millions of years ago when the oil was formed. That would be disastrous for modern civilisation since most major cities would be submerged by increased sea levels.

 

 

 

[sandall]

I refer the honourable gentleman to the post he quotes. I learnt about the carbon cycle (& indeed the life history of barley) before he was born. I don't imagine that putting out my newspapers for recycling, rather than sending them to rot on a landfill site will make much difference to the planet; nor will taking public transport rather than driving make a huge difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, but I don't like waste, especially of precious resources, so I try to do my "bit".

 

Continued increases in fossil fuel use will lead a much warmer climate somewhat similar to that prevailing millions of years ago when the oil was formed. That would be disastrous for modern civilisation since most major cities would be submerged by increased sea levels.

Hard evidence for this assertion may be a bit thin on the ground. Curiously all those islands that were going to disappear under the waves by the millennium still seem to be there, & the polar bears that were heading for extinction appear to have greatly upped their numbers in recent years. Yes, mankind is releasing a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, but to what effect is far from clear - a few years ago the "climate scientists" were predicting that we were all going to freeze (& trotted out lots of "evidence" to prove it).

 

Yes, of course the climate is changing - that's what it's always done, but, as history shows, one volcanic eruption can have a far greater effect on mankind (& as Kerry pointed out, that's what we really bother about) than all the power-stations in China & India put together.

 

(Maybe it's time to put this thread to bed)

[alistermorton]

Harlech castle stands high and dry, but it is thought that when it was built the sea surrounded it at high tide. The sea level dropped, it's probably going to come back up again. It does that from time to time. Just like the ice at the poles periodically recedes.

[paulears]

Do you think that before the ice age, there was nobody about to complain that they caused it?

[kerry davies]

The sea has not fallen at Harlech, the dunes and burrows have risen from the sea. Sea level there has been and still is rising and Wales has adopted a policy of managed retreat quoting man-made climate change as one driving factor. Just down the road at Fairbourne they have been told that once past 2025 nobody is going to stop the sea reclaiming their homes.

 

The Welsh have always known about Cantref Gwaelod though the English needed proof yet still hang onto denial. Perhaps it is because as relative newcomers to these Islands they just don't have the folk memory stretching back millennia? That may also be why they make such a fuss when a bungalow goes to sea in Norfolk? You get used to these things once your family has been here past a tipping point of 5,000 years or so. ;)

[alistermorton]

I bow to your greater local knowledge - I was remembering a documentary about coastal change. They never mentioned that dunes and burrows had risen, only that the castle had once been surrounded.

[sandall]

Unlike Kerry I can't go back 5000 years, but in the 1830's my great-grandfather was vicar of what was, I think, the 13th church at Dunwich in Suffolk. The previous one was in ruins; the rest are now miles out to sea. Land rises & sinks, mountain ranges rise. It'll still be happening long after we're extinct.

 

Do you think that before the ice age, there was nobody about to complain that they caused it?

(or finding a way to make a buck out of it) - surely not.