Global Warming/Climate Change 2

[sargeant]

Posted on july 2nd 2013 after a long winded attempt by me to get you to accept that deforestation/urbanisation are major causes

But the biggest fault of the GW argument is this indoctrinated dogma that it is solely due to CO2 and deforestation/urbanization has nothing to do with it which is so wrong its bordering on the insane

to now have you post

Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.

How can you equate the Roman deforestation with the deforestation that has gone on over the last 50 Years beggars belief in light of your persistent denial that deforestation is neutral. PLUS the subsequent Urbanization to even vaguely try to compare it and yet still insist that the present day deforestation/urbanization is a minor cause is laughable.
What next an oops sorry post Roman chariots were petrol powered.

It is just this pull a rabbit out of a hat inconsistency which is exactly why the septics keep on going

either deforestation/urbanization IS a factor or it IS NOT you cannot have it both ways

[Dannie Boy]

...that climate change itself is ironically immutable

Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.

You cannot compare ancient deforestation across Europe to what has happened in many areas of the world over the last 30-40 years, particularly Central Africa, parts of Asia and the Amazon Rainforest. However, if there is an indisputable link between deforestation and climate change, then it would be more pronounced now than 2000 years ago!!

[Frank Hovis]

...that climate change itself is ironically immutable

Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.

And is the world warmer or cooler now than at the time of the Romans [Empire] ?

[STEVE G]

Quote:
Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.


How can you equate the Roman deforestation with the deforestation that has gone on over the last 50 Years beggars belief in light of your persistent denial that deforestation is neutral.

The Romans locally changed rainfall patterns by deforestation, they noticed it themselves, I never mentioned anything about C02 or temperature changes. I was merely demonstrating how humans can influence the climate as a poster above stated that the climate is immutable, which basically suggests that it can't be changed.
The temperature of the earth is influenced by the resistivity of it's atmosphere, if it wasn't the earth would be much cooler than it is. No one scientifically doubts this theory but for some reason when you mention that altering the consistency of the atmosphere will obviously lead to a change in resistivity and consequently temperature, it generates disbelieve which is a bit irrational to be honest.

Here is a bit of reading:
Venus & Mars

In the 1960s and 1970s, observations of Mars and Venus showed that planets that seemed much like the Earth could have frightfully different atmospheres. The greenhouse effect had made Venus a furnace, while lack of atmosphere had locked Mars in a deep freeze. This was visible evidence that climate can be delicately balanced, so that a planet's atmosphere could flip from a livable state to a deadly one.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Venus.htm

[sargeant]

The Romans locally changed rainfall patterns by deforestation, they noticed it themselves, I never mentioned anything about C02 or temperature changes. I was merely demonstrating how humans can influence the climate as a poster above stated that the climate is immutable, which basically suggests that it can't be changed.

Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.

Spinning on ones own petard methinks
In both you refer to climate change but then talk of rainfall patterns (weather) BOTH are probably correct but you are still clinging to the its all down to CO2 bandwagon
So answer me just what did the romans do with all the deforested trees then
i will give you a clue they burnt them guess what was released into the atmosphere when they did their slash and burn
Now tell us if the Amazon and Indonesia are doing anything differently

I believe in GW so if i can put up arguments like this one using your own words why do you not understand that by ignoring or belittling your own words you are handing the septics a freshly deforested club to hit you on the head with
As i say the atmosphere and climate are directly and complicatedly linked but clinging to the single CO2 bandwagon as the ONLY reason flies in the face of facts and in the future generations will blame the believers as much as the septics

[STEVE G]

Are you claiming that adjusting the level of C02 in the atmosphere will have no effect on the temperature?

[sargeant]

Oh do please behave that is a ridiculous suggestion and way way beneath sensible debate.

I have been fully behind the belief that CO2 is a factor. It is disingenuous of you to pretend i am not. It is well documented on where i stand on GW1 and this thread.

It is your good self that is propagandized into blaming Fossil fuels full stop.

I have consistently stated that it is CO2 deforestation urbanization and population growth combined that are to blame it is you that has consistently poo pooed that and rigidly tried to manipulate its science to your sole belief that it is CO2 and CO2 alone that is causing GW.
The fact is they do not know what the exact science of the climate is but the politicians on both sides have politicized it and you have taken a side.
I have not taken a side because i almost certain both sides have it totally wrong.Although i do believe GW IS happening

It is also that sort of propagandized reply/argument that leaves the septics a way to carry on.

[STEVE G]

It is your good self that is propagandized into blaming Fossil fuels.....

It's up to you if you want to consider just about every science text book on the subject over the last thirty years propaganda but the fact of the matter is that if man had never used fossil fuels we wouldn't have this problem, so surely that is what needs fixing. Deforestation and population growth are completely different problems and a separate issue entirely.
Incidentally, here is a way of reducing C02 in the atmosphere, a technology known as BECCS, Bio-Energy Carbon Capture and Storage. Basically you derive your energy from bio-mass, farmed trees, algae fuels, palm oil or whatever, the growing of which absorbs C02, then you capture the C02 released by burning it in power stations and pump it back down deep underground to take it out of the carbon cycle and so restoring the balance that we had before using fossil fuels.
It's a long way away from being practical at the moment but it shows that there are ideas out there that would potentially solve the problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-energy ... nd_storage

[sargeant]

but the fact of the matter is that if man had never used fossil fuels we wouldn't have this problem,

I disagree fossil fuels are a part maybe a large part but they are not NOT NOT the sole reason

Deforestation and population growth are completely different problems and a separate issue entirely.

I note you leave out urbanisation
and are you seriously saying that the GW they are causing is not the same issue. Because if you are all i can say is what utter nonsense

A small nudge to remind you of what you said TODAY because it suited you at the time

Not at all, even the Romans manged to change the climate through extensive deforestation.

I dont think their chariots were fossil fueled and i doubt they were using coal or oil to any degree
some logic if the romans changed the climate with deforestation it takes a lunatic to decide it doesnt happen now.
I reiterate i believe GW is happening but how much is due to fossil fuels deforestation and urbanization i have no idea but i am not so stupid as to think the overall cause is NOT over population

[STEVE G]

... i have no idea but i am not so stupid as to think the overall cause is NOT over population

Well obviously more people cause a larger problem on all levels but seeing as we're stuck with the people surely we have to address the problems that they cause and not just give up. With a renewable energy source such as solar you could potentially supply the future energy needs of far more people than the earth could ever feed without damaging the environment. A large population only causes damage from an energy consumption viewpoint if you derive that energy from sources that cause harm.

[Frank Hovis]

I was merely demonstrating how humans can influence the climate as a poster above stated that the climate is immutable, which basically suggests that it can't be changed.

The statement I made was that "climate change itself is, ironically, immutable".

Perhaps it wasn't clear that what I meant was that climate is always changing and there is no way for humans to stop the climate changing. They may be able to influence it slightly but they cannot stop climate change; hence my reference to Cnut the Great who knew he could not stop the tide, no matter how important his courtiers thought he was.

Nothing on our planet is in equilibrium for any length of time, temperatures have been much hotter and much cooler, CO2 concentrations have been much higher and much lower, sea levels change, continents move, new islands appear overnight while others sink beneath the waves or are blown apart by volcanoes, but the world and the organisms that live on it continue; there is no constant except change and to fight it is as futile as to stop the incoming tide.

[sargeant]

and there is no way for humans to stop the climate changing.

I disagree completely because i believe Mankind is changing the climate

Therefore Mankind only has to stop doing what it is doing that IS changing the climate

here is the problems
1.- Man has no idea what it is doing that is changing the climate
2.- Man will not deal with what it obviously needs to do to ie depopulate
3.- Man has allowed itself to become politically polarized on the issue and both sides are blinkered
4.- As long as both sides keep CO2 as the ONLY problem nothing will change

A Question what happens if fossil fuels stop tomorrow and the GW continues all i know is whatever it is it will be too late to deal with it. It is this single silver bullet approach that is wrong wrong wrong.

[STEVE G]

A Question what happens if fossil fuels stop tomorrow and the GW continues all i know is whatever it is it will be too late to deal with it. It is this single silver bullet approach that is wrong wrong wrong.

If you reduce the amount of C02 in the atmosphere, the temperature will drop, this is pure physics and irrespective of whatever caused any warming in the first place. If you get rid of all greenhouse gasses, the average temperature of the earth would be about -18 C! To be honest, if it wasn't for the huge amounts of greed in the fossil fuel industry, there would be no controversy about this at all, when you use the same scientific theory to explain the temperatures of other planets in the solar system, it generates no disagreement whatsoever which illustrates that it's now purely a political problem and not a scientific one.


Greenhouse gas highest since the Pliocene, when sea levels were higher and the Earth was warmer.
http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/ne ... e-400-ppm/
"What everything is telling you is that the system is very sensitive," says Raymo. "The threshold for losing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets is very close to where we are now. Everything in the geologic record says we're very close. You don't need a lot of CO2—you just need a little bit of warming, and it doesn't matter how you get it."

It took between a thousand and a few thousand years, at the end of Stage 11, to melt all or most of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The whole interglacial lasted 30,000 years, nearly three times as long as ours has lasted so far. So the warming had a long time to build up. That's the good news.

But at 400 ppm, CO2 is much higher now, and it's still climbing fast. And even if we could stop that rise tomorrow, the planet's temperature would still climb for centuries.

"For me personally that's the scary thing," says Raymo. "We really don't know what we've already committed ourselves to."

[Frank Hovis]

I disagree completely because i believe Mankind is changing the climate

The climate is always changing, it's not static. To try and impose a cap on how much the climate can change by is plain stupid.
To impose a cap on 'man-made' CO2 production, population growth, deforestation and urbanisation is possible as that is all within the control of our species, whether it will have any discernible effect on climate is questionable.

Man will not deal with what it obviously needs to do to ie depopulate

I see no signs that humans are overpopulated, quite the opposite in fact, as a species we are thriving.
Life expectancy all over the world is at it's highest and is still increasing.
Infant & child mortality rates are at their lowest and still decreasing.
Food is abundant, as shown by the increase in obesity all over the world.
Fresh water must be abundant for direct use and for growing crops to feed everyone.
Most diseases are controllable if not curable and the diseases that are on the increase are those associated with longer lives and obesity.
Most of this is driven by our use of fossil fuels, should fossil fuels run out then we must adapt and find another resource or our population will decline naturally to a level that is supportable by whatever resource we have available.
Are you really suggesting a preemptive cull or controlled breeding program in order to reduce the use of fossils fuels for the purposes of extending the period of our dependence on them?

[sargeant]

what happens if fossil fuels stop tomorrow and the GW continues

I have repeated the question steve and enlarged the most important bit and put it in red

you really should try politics the art of blather blather blather and avoiding answering seems to run riot amongst the believers and septics that have become fanatically polarised