Climate Change bamboozles taxpayers

Last post 07-08-2009 12:55 PM by Robin Shaw. 36 replies.

• 07/02/2009 04:45 PM	In reply to
  TimelessGardens Location: Traverse City Mi Joined on: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 11	Reply | Contact And because climate is changing does not mean that mankind is responsible. We have been on a cooling kick recently. The climate will continue to fluctuate whether we are here or not.  But I can't change your mind about this, and I don't care too.

• 07/02/2009 04:53 PM	In reply to
  TimelessGardens Location: Traverse City Mi Joined on: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 11	Reply | Contact I stand corected on my figures, however my arguement still stands with yours. Plants consume more than human produce.

• 09/02/2009 07:00 PM

  In reply to

  HarryOnNorthDowns Location: Surrey Joined on: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 4

  Reply | Contact Boggy - I am intrigued you find climate and weather are different conditions. For my part I always find any deviation or change in the atmospherical nature can be put down to weather or climate change. Perhaps it depends on the way one argues? Have not looked in the Oxford Dictionary to study their assessments. Everyone else - thanks for your comments. If the world's rapid increase in population does not foretell a dire ending on our planet, here are two points to ponder : (1) inhabitants of Easter Island destroyed their vegetation and became extinct; (2) the Amazonian rainforest is being destroyed at the rate of one and a half acres per second, 24 hours a day.

• 09/02/2009 08:43 PM

  In reply to

  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043

  Reply | Contact TimelessGardens you are right plants do take up more CO2 than humans produce and they always have. You should understand that there are other sources of CO2 than human activities. This is called the carbon cycle and is a natural phenomenon. The point about climate change is that the balance of plants taking up CO2 and the natural production of CO2 by the carbon cycle has been distorted by the extra CO2 produced by human activities. To some extent plants (and the oceans) can absorb the extra CO2 produced by man. If I understand the rather confusing posts you made earlier correctly you think that the plants grow better in the presence of CO2 and this will even things out. Unfortunately although plants will grow better in the presence of elevated CO2 they won't grow well enough to mop up the surplus of CO2 and therefore it accumulates leading to climate change. Boggy Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 09/02/2009 09:00 PM	In reply to
  Digger Location: Northern UK Joined on: 18 Jul 2005 Posts: 4,743	Reply | Contact So what happens to all the excess C02, after it has accumulated in the atmosphere? will it not eventually be used up by the plant life? digger

• 09/02/2009 09:15 PM

  In reply to

  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043

  Reply | Contact HarryOnNorthDowns - here is an explanation of the difference between climate and weather: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html As to population, are you saying that overpopulation will get us before climate change? Surely the two are linked - climate change will disrupt food supplies and therefore the world will sustain fewer people than it otherwise might: http://beta.wfp.org/stories/feeding-ten-billion-global-food-security-21st-century Boggy Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 09/02/2009 09:23 PM	In reply to
  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043	Reply | Contact Presumably yes, in the very long term; CO2 remains in the atmosphere for over a century, but in the meantime... and in any case CO2 output is rising and there is evidence that the removal of CO2 by natural processes is slowing down. Also there are other,longer lasting, greenhouse gases. Boggy Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 09/02/2009 09:27 PM	In reply to
  Digger Location: Northern UK Joined on: 18 Jul 2005 Posts: 4,743	Reply | Contact So are we reaping the legacy from the days of steam power, when every town was dependent on coal? or is it a twentieth and twenty first century problem? digger

• 09/02/2009 09:54 PM	In reply to
  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043	Reply | Contact Greenhouse gas levels have risen since the start of the industrial revolution, but picked up momentum as time passed. Further, global temperatures have risen in step with the rise in greenhouse gases: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/457000/457037/html/nn2page1.stm Boggy Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 20/02/2009 05:26 AM

  In reply to

  TimelessGardens Location: Traverse City Mi Joined on: 04 Feb 2009 Posts: 11

  Reply | Contact Thats just not true, they have not risen much at all since the Industrial revolution. The Climate has become colder during the second halve of the last 100 years. The major rise in temperature from 1900 to 2000 was before the industrial era. It was not that long ago that science feared the next ice age, then  it was warming to rapidly.  Now it's just changing.    Time will tell who is right on this matter. Man made problems or just the fluctuation of a climate that has always changed. One thing is for sure,  we have about as much chance as a snowball in hell at changing eachothers mind on the matter, thats kind of how debates go.

• 20/02/2009 08:25 AM

  In reply to

  bogweevil Location: Joined on: 02 Mar 2004 Posts: 2,043

  Reply | Contact On the contrary the average temperature has risen and has risen in line with carbon dioxide levels.  Carbon dioxide levels rose slowly from C18 but as industrialisiation became global in the C19 so CO2 levels shot up and continue to rise steeply.  The weather has and will continue to fluctuate but the overal trend is upwards.  There are cyclic events such as the warmer temperatures in the North Atlantic for the last twenty years that probably contributed more to the mild European winters in the last few decades than climate change, but these have been taken into account. I am happy that the illogicality of your position will become too much to support and you will realise how deeply mistaken you are.   Boggy   Beware the bat-eared bogweevil

• 21/02/2009 11:06 AM

  In reply to

  Ant Location: Berkshire Joined on: 20 Jan 2009 Posts: 13

  Reply | Contact An interesting debate. The big change over the last century is that of world population Population (in billions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Year 1804 1927 1959 1974 1987 1999 2012 2025 2040 As about 60% are in Asia where industrial development is at its greatest at the moment then humans are obviously going to affect the climate. Climate is only one part of the problem; there is water use and natural resources as well. This planet is not going to have an easy time in the next few hundred years! Yours, Ant.

• 21/02/2009 11:09 AM	In reply to
  Ant Location: Berkshire Joined on: 20 Jan 2009 Posts: 13	Reply | Contact Sorry, the population table format got changed but hopefully you can get the idea. Ant.

• 24/04/2009 04:55 PM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 114

  Reply | Contact http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8013709.stm   Pollution 'fights global warming' By Matt McGrath BBC News science reporter Air pollution may be helping the fight against global warming by enhancing the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide, scientists say. Since the 1960s, increased levels of atmospheric pollution have enhanced plant productivity by as much as one quarter, research has found. In terms of carbon dioxide, this means that an extra 10% has been stored in the soil. The research was published in the scientific journal, Nature. It is a common assumption that plants grow best in clear sunny weather, but scientists say this is not always the case. Research has shown that forests and crops can also thrive in hazy conditions because clouds and particles in the atmosphere scatter sun light so that it bathes more leaves. That enhances photosynthesis, the process by which plants turn light and carbon dioxide into food. Global dimming Researchers have now analysed the impact on plants of the dimmer, hazier skies that have resulted from increases in air pollution around the world since the 1960s. They have calculated that this so-called "global dimming" is responsible for increasing plant productivity by as much as one quarter from 1960 to 1999. Dr Lina Mercado from the UK's Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, the lead author of the study, said: "This resulted in a net 10% increase in the amount of carbon stored by the land once other effects were taken into account," she was quoted as saying by the Press Association. This study highlights some of the complications that arise when we try to tackle global warming. As the world attempts to reduce the amount of smog and particulates in the atmosphere to improve human health, it will require even greater efforts to cut back on carbon dioxide. This new research shows that plants will simply not absorb as much carbon dioxide in cleaner air conditions. The research will also add weight to arguments about geo-engineering, the idea of curbing global warming by adding reflective materials to the atmosphere. US President Barack Obama's chief scientific adviser, Professor John Holdren, recently told reporters that such ideas, once dismissed as half-baked, would have to be seriously discussed, such was the scale of the climate challenge.

• 24/04/2009 04:59 PM

  In reply to

  headfullofbees Location: Cheadle Hulme Joined on: 13 Feb 2006 Posts: 114

  Reply | Contact http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8008473.stm   The Sun is the dimmest it has been for nearly a century. There are no sunspots, very few solar flares - and our nearest star is the quietest it has been for a very long time. The observations are baffling astronomers, who are due to study new pictures of the Sun, taken from space, at the UK National Astronomy Meeting. The Sun normally undergoes an 11-year cycle of activity. At its peak, it has a tumultuous boiling atmosphere that spits out flares and planet-sized chunks of super-hot gas. This is followed by a calmer period. Last year, it was expected that it would have been hotting up after a quiet spell. But instead it hit a 50-year low in solar wind pressure, a 55-year low in radio emissions, and a 100-year low in sunspot activity. According to Prof Louise Hara of University College London, it is unclear why this is happening or when the Sun is likely to become more active again. "There's no sign of us coming out of it yet," she told BBC News. "At the moment, there are scientific papers coming out suggesting that we'll be going into a normal period of activity soon. "Others are suggesting we'll be going into another minimum period - this is a big scientific debate at the moment."