Climate Change.

[ChrisJones 7,973]

14 minutes ago, Francie said:

Not really no, the african forest is sucking up 1/5 of the co2, an as the study shows, the trees are loving it, an getting bigger an thicker.

What about the amazon forest, or the aborial forest in russia, those two are much bigger forests the the african ones, so there bound to be sucking up another two fifths?

An what about the rest of the forests around the world?

 

How can co2 be poisonus to the planet when its obviously a plant nutrient?

How about we just plant more trees problem solved mate?

Your original article says...

Quote

"It's good news for now but the effect won't last forever. The trees can't keep on getting bigger and bigger."

 

What if the "fifth" is extrapolated across the globe? What if the remaining 82% (as suggested in your article) is simply hanging around in the atmosphere which is what the spectroscopy studies are actually showing us?

I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't affect plant growth. I'm not arguing that more trees wouldn't help. I'm saying that dumping domestic and industrial pollutants and saying it's okay, whilst simultaneously cutting forests down is a bad thing.

I also want to see some peer-reviewed material that climate change is a hoax despite the world's trees. The study you posted is interesting even if it has already been challenged and the results not replicated but it certainly doesn't debunk the mountain of evidence that says climate change is absolutely real and we're part of the problem.

Edited November 4, 2017 by ChrisJones
Clarity

[kanny 19,509]

A super volcano could fart more co2 in a single  tantrum  than man has ever in his time on this planet. ... FACT!

[walshie 2,804]

5 minutes ago, kanny said:

A super volcano could fart more co2 in a single  tantrum  than man has ever in his time on this planet. ... FACT!

Only a super one? What about a normal one?

[ChrisJones 7,973]

6 minutes ago, kanny said:

A super volcano could fart more co2 in a single  tantrum  than man has ever in his time on this planet. ... FACT!

Good point that Kanny.

Volcanoes release CO2 which is indistinguishable from man-made CO2. They do it a constant rate which is measured at around 200 million tonnes a year. However, an additional 29 billion tonnes is added to the atmosphere from other sources. While you're absolutely right we're well on course for eclipsing this super volcano.

Edited November 4, 2017 by ChrisJones

[secretagentmole 1,701]

1 hour ago, ChrisJones said:

Where's that figure from?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/

[walshie 2,804]

Don't forests give out CO2 at night instead of absorbing it? If so, is it more. less or the same as it absorbs during the day? 

[kanny 19,509]

1 minute ago, ChrisJones said:

Good point that Kanny.

Volcanoes release CO2 which is indistinguishable from man-made CO2. They do it a constant rate which is measured at around 200 million tonnes a year. However, an additional 29 billion tonnes is added to the atmosphere from other sources. While you're absolutely right we're well on course for eclipsing this super volcano.

Mount st helens spewed out 10 million tons in 9 hours ...the last super volcano was 74,000 years ago  spewing over 1,000 cubic kilometers of ash and rock into the air, which is approximately 250,000 times more than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. We are due another one Yellowstone is primed  so just crack on I say .

[secretagentmole 1,701]

Volcanoes do not release at a constant rate, that is why they erupt!

[kanny 19,509]

Anyway I'm of out to set fire to a huge pile of wood in the middle of a field like millions of others this weekend. ...I will have a think about it

[ChrisJones 7,973]

Damn this new layout!

37 minutes ago, secretagentmole said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/29/epa-document-supports-3-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-is-attributable-to-human-sources/

Thanks for that. Your article contains an update from the author that says the figure is the annual increase, not the total amount.

30 minutes ago, kanny said:

Mount st helens spewed out 10 million tons in 9 hours ...the last super volcano was 74,000 years ago  spewing over 1,000 cubic kilometers of ash and rock into the air, which is approximately 250,000 times more than the 1980 Mount St. Helens eruption. We are due another one Yellowstone is primed  so just crack on I say .

A super eruption will be catastrophic acutely rather than chronically. Rock and ash at that level will pollute the atmosphere way more than we could!

25 minutes ago, secretagentmole said:

Volcanoes do not release at a constant rate, that is why they erupt!

Volcanic activity is measurable and averages around 200 million tonnes per year. That's been fairly constant over the last half of a century.

~

The easiest analogy I can use is a bucket of water with a hole drilled in the bottom. The bucket is the earth. The water pouring in from the tap is CO2. Until the industrial revolution, the level of water in the bucket has remained fairly constant. The tap filling it runs at the rate of the hole draining it from the bottom. With the increase in industry, we've been taken the garden hose and started trickling more water in and over the decades the level of water is rising faster than the hole can drain it. We're at the point where that level is about to brim and spill over.

What that will cause is anyone's guess. What will happen I don't know. Dumping industrial and domestic shite, whilst simultaneously cutting forests is not a long-term sustainable strategy and I'm sure we won't disagree too much on those numbers.

Edited November 4, 2017 by ChrisJones

[ChrisJones 7,973]

11 minutes ago, kanny said:

Anyway I'm of out to set fire to a huge pile of wood in the middle of a field like millions of others this weekend. ...I will have a think about it

I've already got my log burner going. All dead trees though through tamarisk beetle infestation. Alas, my 89 diesel truck is a super volcano on wheels... Take that hippies!

Edited November 4, 2017 by ChrisJones

[Francie 6,362]

48 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Your original article says...

 

What if the "fifth" is extrapolated across the globe? What if the remaining 82% (as suggested in your article) is simply hanging around in the atmosphere which is what the spectroscopy studies are actually showing us?

I'm not arguing that CO2 doesn't affect plant growth. I'm not arguing that more trees wouldn't help. I'm saying that dumping domestic and industrial pollutants and saying it's okay, whilst simultaneously cutting forests down is a bad thing.

I also want to see some peer-reviewed material that climate change is a hoax despite the world's trees. The study you posted is interesting even if it has already been challenged and the results not replicated but it certainly doesn't debunk the mountain of evidence that says climate change is absolutely real and we're part of the problem.

Chris i beleive its real too, but i think its natural, not man made.

[WILF 44,459]

A big step imho, if politicians were really serious  about climate change, would be measures to make solar cheaper......and I mean solar systems that can actually run a house.

Helping small shops and local farmers to supply their own areas would also be a massive step.

I tend to get a bit of stick for saying the world needs to go backwards, with the normal smart arse comments about “life was better with rickets etc”, but I would love to see the difference in our environmental impact in say 1940 compared to now.

 

 

 

[secretagentmole 1,701]

26 minutes ago, ChrisJones said:

Damn this new layout!

Thanks for that. Your article contains an update from the author that says the figure is the annual increase, not the total amount.

A super eruption will be catastrophic acutely rather than chronically. Rock and ash at that level will pollute the atmosphere way more than we could!

Volcanic activity is measurable and averages around 200 million tonnes per year. That's been fairly constant over the last half of a century.

~

The easiest analogy I can use is a bucket of water with a hole drilled in the bottom. The bucket is the earth. The water pouring in from the tap is CO2. Until the industrial revolution, the level of water in the bucket has remained fairly constant. The tap filling it runs at the rate of the hole draining it from the bottom. With the increase in industry, we've been taken the garden hose and started trickling more water in and over the decades the level of water is rising faster than the hole can drain it. We're at the point where that level is about to brim and spill over.

What that will cause is anyone's guess. What will happen I don't know. Dumping industrial and domestic shite, whilst simultaneously cutting forests is not a long-term sustainable strategy and I'm sure we won't disagree too much on those numbers.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/

Edited November 4, 2017 by secretagentmole

[ChrisJones 7,973]

1 hour ago, WILF said:

A big step imho, if politicians were really serious  about climate change, would be measures to make solar cheaper......and I mean solar systems that can actually run a house.

Helping small shops and local farmers to supply their own areas would also be a massive step.

I tend to get a bit of stick for saying the world needs to go backwards, with the normal smart arse comments about “life was better with rickets etc”, but I would love to see the difference in our environmental impact in say 1940 compared to now.

3

I tend to agree my friend. The problem is there is still trillions of tonnes of barrels of the black stuff waiting to be pumped and profit has a way of messing up any kind of do-gooder initiative!

I'd guess that the 1940's was a lot less simply because of the number of people. Half of today's global population.

1 hour ago, secretagentmole said:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-much-of-atmospheric-co2-increase-is-natural/

http://dailysignal.com/2009/03/27/man’s-contribution-to-global-warming/

The conclusion of the first article the author is quoted...

Quote

By itself I don't think this proves anything. But it does show that since warm years tend to cause greater natural emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere, we should at least consider the possibility that the long-term warming trend (whatever its cause) is contributing to the increase in atmospheric CO2.

1

It is considered and it is a factor but we can physically measure the amount of man-made CO2 that's pumped into the atmosphere and I refer the honourable gentlemen to my analogy above. While he may be right and accepted truths wrong it still doesn't excuse the fact that we're dumping far too many industrial and domestic pollutants into the environment, whilst simultaneously cutting the worlds respiratory system.

The rebuttal to the second article written by the economist I'll link to here