Quiz on climate science

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

This quiz is simplistic nonsense.

No one can be sure what the outcome will be, but:

1. Are we adding an ever increasing amount of CO2 to what is naturally occurring?

2. Is CO2 a good gas to breath.

3. Are the forests being reduced at an ever increasing rate.

4. Do the forests reduce CO2 gas from the air.

5. Does the CO2 gas eventually gets pushed up into a layer high in our atmospher and held there to accumulate.

6. Will a thick layer of CO2 surrounding our planet be a good thing.

I'm not sure what the answers are, maybe someone with some real scientific understanding can answer my questions for me.

These are good questions the simple answer to each is

1. Yes we are adding a small amount of CO2 but the reason is more to do with the rise in average temperatures than what we create from burning fossil fuels.

2. CO2 is non poisonous CO is. It was once used as a revival gas in cases of lost conciousness to stimulate breathing.

3. Yes forests are being reduced which is a bad thing but if they are replaced with quick growing agriculture the conversion of CO2 back into C and O2 will actually be faster. (This is the carbon cycle which is completely ignored by the climate change lobby)

4. Yes forests remove CO2 and give off O2 but faster growing vegetation does it quicker.

5. CO2 is heavier than air so it will always tend to come down to the ground where it is absorbed mainly by sea water. However the sea water will give up much of the absorbed CO2 if its average temperature rises.

6. That is a good question There is not enough CO2 to do this even if all the carbon on earth was burnt to form CO2 it would still be insignificant compared to other gases.

The climate change lobby uses statistics to try to prove its point. They say that CO2 is causing the rise in temperature but the same statistics can be used to show the rise in temperature creates the increase in CO2.

The one thing that is sure is that CO2 is absolutely insignificant as a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere when compared to other gases, mainly water vapour.

Barry

[mithrandir (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

Ok lets be scientific there has been a great experiment that shows what happens in a runaway greenhouse effect it's called VENUS a planet the same size as EARTH roughly anyone want to go live there. As to whether the anti climate change lobby is being censored I find that very hard to believe as you cant even turn on the TV or read a newspaper without hearing from them. In fact I think that they tend to drown out the Science.

Venus is not like earth. It is closer to the sun, so higher solar input, so its gasses are more energetic. It is smaller, so less gravity, so less able to retain hydrogen. The sun swept up more of the hydrogen in the inner solar system than in the outer. What do you need to have to make water to react with the carbon and sulphur dioxides?

As was said before. It's really easy to censor anyone whose research you don't happen to like. You just stop them getting any funding. You don't invite them to conferences. You don't quote them in the mass media.

This applies equally to any science. Not just climate. Has anyone considered how stem cell research was being blocked to satisfy some churches?

I'm not defending the quiz. I want real science. Not the media circus we get.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Venus is not like earth. It is closer to the sun, so higher solar input, so its gasses are more energetic. It is smaller, so less gravity, so less able to retain hydrogen. The sun swept up more of the hydrogen in the inner solar system than in the outer. What do you need to have to make water to react with the carbon and sulphur dioxides?

As was said before. It's really easy to censor anyone whose research you don't happen to like. You just stop them getting any funding. You don't invite them to conferences. You don't quote them in the mass media.

This applies equally to any science. Not just climate. Has anyone considered how stem cell research was being blocked to satisfy some churches?

I'm not defending the quiz. I want real science. Not the media circus we get.

Well said!

Barry

[Barrykgerdes]

I would like to say one thing about climate change.

Climate change has been going on for millions of years without the assistance of man. Our position in the solar system keeps our average temperature within quite close limits of only a couple of degrees.

Man does influence the climate in some ways by changing the landscape (called progress) by buildings, agriculture etc. that change the air currents which are the principal regulators of our climate.

Barry

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Can we just start seperate threads, one for man induced climate change, one against man induced climate change and one for no climate change. Then have each thread limited to the Pro's of their argument.

I dont think that we will ever solve the problem here, but if we post the reasons and information in there own particular thread, then we may just slightly be able to educate one another, without flaming one another.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by mithrandir

Venus is not like earth. It is closer to the sun, so higher solar input, so its gasses are more energetic. It is smaller, so less gravity, so less able to retain hydrogen. The sun swept up more of the hydrogen in the inner solar system than in the outer. What do you need to have to make water to react with the carbon and sulphur dioxides?

As was said before. It's really easy to censor anyone whose research you don't happen to like. You just stop them getting any funding. You don't invite them to conferences. You don't quote them in the mass media.

This applies equally to any science. Not just climate. Has anyone considered how stem cell research was being blocked to satisfy some churches?

I'm not defending the quiz. I want real science. Not the media circus we get.

I was pointing out VENUS as a result if we are leading EARTH to a runaway greenhouse effect I fail to see the argument if we are wrong about the danger to earth then we will have some financial difficulties because of the measures taken to combat it but if we are right and we don't take steps to counter the effects we will still have financial difficulties as well as having to cope with climate change. But if we are right and do take steps to counter the effects we will still have the financial difficulties sure but we may actually survive to me it seems an easy choice Survival of civilization with financial difficulties if Global Warming is real human caused or otherwise or the end of our civilization as we know it with the financial difficulties as well. BTW I don't see that anyone is being censored noone has censored any of the things being said in this forum as long as it is civil towards each other.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

Can we just start seperate threads, one for man induced climate change, one against man induced climate change and one for no climate change. Then have each thread limited to the Pro's of their argument.

I dont think that we will ever solve the problem here, but if we post the reasons and information in there own particular thread, then we may just slightly be able to educate one another, without flaming one another.

It really doesn't matter what is causing it it is a problem that needs to be dealt with whatever the cause I think we should agree to disagree about the cause and all get together to deal with the results.

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

It really doesn't matter what is causing it it is a problem that needs to be dealt with whatever the cause I think we should agree to disagree about the cause and all get together to deal with the results.

Yep - let's start at home - stop littering, plant more trees and control our water better. That we can control and it's easily fixed. Then the pollies can go back on about feeling good about themselves and think they can lead the world and fix everybody else in the climate crusade.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Richard - I guess that it's all a case of concentration. Even oxygen is toxic to humans - look up references to the "Paul Bert" effect in relation to scuba diving.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Barry, please explain why CO2 is non poisonous. I don't know if you are a chemist or a scientist in other fields but a simple search on the net tells me that CO2 is toxic. The more concentrated it gets the more toxic it is.

What we need to do is make sure that we don't allow or cause the CO2 to increase. It is okay at the moment but if we keep going the way are the CO2 will increase.

It is classed as non poisonous. It can asphixiate you from oxygen starvation but is not strictly a poison. However CO (carbon monoxide) is classed as poisonous because it reacts with our biology to cause death.

Barry

PS
I am not a scientist as such my only science was in school where I considered science, Physics and Chemistry to be free periods because I never needed to study it or even attend the classes to get top marks.

[Barrykgerdes]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Yes, but this is where we are heading, more concentration of CO2.

More burning of fossil fuels, more farm animals, and a lot less forests.

Is it?

That is what the pollies would like us to believe.

CO2 is not a problem with the concentrations we are likely to achieve in the near future. While our temperature is rising the concentration of CO2 will rise but when the temperatures start to fall again the excess will dissolve back into the oceans. Nor is methane from animals. Methane breaks down into other less harmfull products quite quickly.

What is a problem however is our way of living and over population for that way of living that is causing pollution of our eccosystem with non biodegradible materials which destroy our food generation/regeneration system.

Don't forget the fossil fuels were once forests etc. But that is another story.

Barry

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

I think this video explains what I meant in my earlier post this was linked to late last year in another thread about this subject.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8...1&feature=fvwp

[Vartigy]

The silly thing is. Knowledge is dangerous.
The fact is that over the last 100 years human evolution has reached a stage where our technology and learning capacities are at a point where they are increasing at an exponential rate.

The fact that we are self-aware as to the Causality principle (Simply Newton's Reaction law) may ultimately bring about our own destruction. The probability of this occurring remains yet unknown.
*please explain*
In the 1600 - 1800's, while the human race was happily passing through the 'Enlightenment Period' we were blissfully unaware of the sciences of Environment alteration.

But now, we are at a point where we 'think' we know how the climate works, in the space of a few decades, and we are doing everything humanly possible to 'correct an apparent climate change'.

The earth has been around for millions of years, possibly billions.
What makes us think that suddenly we've become experts on our home planet after merely a few hundred years of 'playing with technology'.
How do we know that we are having an impact on the equilibrium point of the earths climate?

I'm a scientist/engineer myself. So I'm all for trials and experiments that apparently prove certain conditions and causes.
But it still doesn't sit well with me.

But I'm a firm believer that there are greater forces at play on this planet than us. No none of that religious mumbo-jumbo. In fact, religion is the cause of 80% or more of the worlds problems today.
No, I'm talking about what we all cast our eyes up to of a dark night.
We are but a speck, an almost insignificant proportion of a much larger creation that has it's own path through time.

And I'm sorry to say that whether we as a race, or earth as a planet is meant to be a long standing part of that, is not up to us.

I think what it comes down to is this. We need to respect the time that is allowed to us.

/passes-the-peacepipe-on.

[supernova1965 (Warren)]

Originally Posted by anfo

The silly thing is. Knowledge is dangerous.
The fact is that over the last 100 years human evolution has reached a stage where our technology and learning capacities are at a point where they are increasing at an exponential rate.

The fact that we are self-aware as to the Causality principle (Simply Newton's Reaction law) may ultimately bring about our own destruction. The probability of this occurring remains yet unknown.
*please explain*
In the 1600 - 1800's, while the human race was happily passing through the 'Enlightenment Period' we were blissfully unaware of the sciences of Environment alteration.

But now, we are at a point where we 'think' we know how the climate works, in the space of a few decades, and we are doing everything humanly possible to 'correct an apparent climate change'.

The earth has been around for millions of years, possibly billions.
What makes us think that suddenly we've become experts on our home planet after merely a few hundred years of 'playing with technology'.
How do we know that we are having an impact on the equilibrium point of the earths climate?

I'm a scientist/engineer myself. So I'm all for trials and experiments that apparently prove certain conditions and causes.
But it still doesn't sit well with me.

But I'm a firm believer that there are greater forces at play on this planet than us. No none of that religious mumbo-jumbo. In fact, religion is the cause of 80% or more of the worlds problems today.
No, I'm talking about what we all cast our eyes up to of a dark night.
(We are but a speck), an almost insignificant proportion of a much larger creation that has it's own path through time.

And I'm sorry to say that whether we as a race, or earth as a planet is meant to be a long standing part of that, is not up to us.

I think what it comes down to is this. We need to respect the time that is allowed to us.

/passes-the-peacepipe-on.

A flea or a tick can kill it's host insignificant things can have a huge effect on their environment. We can't know until the outcome has arrived but like in the video which column do we want to place our bets on.

[el_draco (Rom)]

Originally Posted by supernova1965

It really doesn't matter what is causing it it is a problem that needs to be dealt with whatever the cause I think we should agree to disagree about the cause and all get together to deal with the results.

Ahmen to that brother. Everyone seems to have a wheel barrow to push but a bit of common sense makes it clear. The planet can't support the population we have... a basic, (grade 8), understanding of population dynamics demonstrates that rather emphatically, and the planet CERTAINLY can't sustain our lifestyle.

You all ought to take a look at this web site: http://gpso.wordpress.com/

and you might like to do a search on a Labour MP called Kelvin Thomson who is about the only Polly in this country who is talking sense.

Of course, he's shouted down by the vested interest lobbies, but he is on the money ecologically speaking.

[bojan]

Yes..
Whenever I think of far (and not so far away) future, I imagine Earth became something like Trantor or Steel Caves (from Isaac Asimov novels) as the best scenario/outcome.
It may happen.... or it won't (because there will be no-one to build Trantor).
Or, another extreme: "Mote in the God's eye" by Niven/Pournelle.. Are we really heading towards such a fate? Very likely so...

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

But it is inevitable that if the current population keeps on burning fossil fuel at this rate, whilst at the same time continues to clear forests, the pollution will continue to increase to a level where the CO2 is TOXIC.

Don't think so Richard. At the moment, CO2 is a trace gas consisting only 0.038% of the current atmosphere - that's 380 parts per million. For CO2 to be toxic we need around 1% (or 10,000 parts per million) for some humans to even start to be drowsy. There needs to be over 7% in the atmosphere by volume for dizzyness to occur - at which point it really is poisonous. That's 70,000 ppm, or 184 times the current levels.

I don't think so - not in ours or our childrens lifetimes. This is not to say that at these levels, the greenhouse effect would likely be greatly exacerbated.

When are we all going to stop discussing the politics of climate on this astronomy forum?

[Dennis79 (Keith)]

Well I don't know if the climate change stuff is real or not. The scientific data etc doesn't seem to be very scientific to me. Trying to determine what impact humans have had and will have to not going to have with the limited understanding we have about climate mechanics is a waste of time.

Having said that, I do believe that pollution is not good for the environment and that we should look after the world we live in. I DO NOT agree with the idea of carbon tax, I fail to see why the government should benefit from this but that is a whole other discussion point.

Environmentally products should be made because it is the right thing to do, the decision to make/not to make or use/not to use environmentally friendly products should not be made solely based on money and profit.

[el_draco (Rom)]

[QUOTE=Omaroo;551179]Don't think so Richard. At the moment, CO2 is a trace gas consisting only 0.038% of the current atmosphere - that's 380 parts per million. For CO2 to be toxic we need around 1% (or 10,000 parts per million) for some humans to even start to be drowsy. There needs to be over 7% in the atmosphere by volume for dizzyness to occur - at which point it really is poisonous. That's 70,000 ppm, or 184 times the current levels.

I don't think so - not in ours or our childrens lifetimes. This is not to say that at these levels, the greenhouse effect would likely be greatly exacerbated.
QUOTE]

You might like to read up a bit about the permafrost regions in the northern hemisphere. The number of frozen days per year has plummeted and scientists are now contemplating the realease of enormous volumes of Methane as the region deteriorates.

If Carbon Dioxide is an issue now, it'll fade into insignificance compared to the Methane problem.

Anyhow... I suspect that the biosphere will self correct in the not so distant future. Shut down the mid Atlantic Conveyor and kiss much of the Northern Hemsiphere good night. The planet is warning us... time to stop talking and take notice I suspect.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by richardda1st

Chris, can't see what's wrong with this discussion, every body has been well behaved and civil.

It started out as a thread referring to a quiz. Now it's inevitably turned into a climate debate again, which is against the TOS - for a very good reason.

I'm out - there's no right or wrong answer, whatever your own thoughts are.