I agree that we must clean up our act by reducing pollution. And finding an alternative method of producing energy, but until we do we must continue to use the available resources. Methane is one such resource and is created by rotting waste, something that we are not short of these days. Natural Gas is made up mainly of Methane and only becomes lighter than air above room temperature.
You say “when” the sea levels continue to rise …"
C’mon Foxy, you might be right.
Perhaps they would rise regardless, so let’s do nothing ?
If the vast, vast majority of the world’s real climatologists and governments say otherwise, however,
should we not err on the side of caution ?
Our grandchildren might wish we had.
Apparently you are all talking a load of cock.
But there again you are all climate change experts so what the hell do I know eh?
In real life the issue of CO2 or methane being heavier or lighter is moot in that portion we call the atmosphere because of the activity in the atmosphere from wind, convection currents, changes in temperature, etc. In a controlled area this can make a difference. A farmer and 13 cattle died in my area a few weeks back because of the Methane and Sulphur Dioxide released from a Manure tank. Methane is more potent as a Greenhouse gas but gets less press.
Seeing there are opinions voiced here on both sides of the debate - and somewhere in the middle,
your derogatory "all talking a load of cock "
makes no sense whatever.
And of course one can single out odd cases of dodgy statistics - but that proves nothing other than that some individuals are misguided.
I’ll still lean towards the overwhelming majority of genuine research climatologists - and their lifetimes of study and experience.
And even without a belief in human caused global warming, there are plenty of other incentives to reduce the use of coal ranging from the mining to the burning: Reduction in life expectancy (particulates, sulfur dioxide, ozone, heavy metals, benzene, radionuclides, etc.)
Respiratory hospital admissions (particulates, ozone, sulfur dioxide)
Black lung from coal dust
Congestive heart failure (particulates and carbon monoxide)
Non-fatal cancer, osteroporosia, ataxia, renal dysfunction (benzene, radionuclides, heavy metals, etc.)
Chronic bronchitis, asthma attacks, etc. (particulates, ozone)
Loss of IQ from air and water pollution and nervous system damage (mercury)
Degradation and soiling of buildings that can effect human health (sulfur dioxide, acid deposition, particulates)
Global warming (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide)
Ecosystem loss and degradation, with negative effects on health and quality of life.
G’day Shadow ! Spot-on, mate. Well said.
Far from derogatory Pummie, did you miss Rehab’s ‘Apparently’ inserted before the statement suggesting that it was someone else’s opinion (in this case the writer of the article in the Telegraph) so coupled with the article which was suggesting that temperature records were incomplete and had possibly been manipulated to demonstrate a particular outcome, the whole idea of ‘Global Warming’ has been brought into doubt. Couple this with the fact that millions of Dollars, Pounds and Euro’s have been thrown into the ring to investigate Global Warming, every would be climatologist and university have jumped at the chance to secure funding to do a study. Providing their findings agree with the general consensus.
Was it Cambridge University who had their funding removed when they dared to question the validity of the available statistics?
That’s quite a list Shadowman. It is a risky business just been born onto this planet, from the day we take our first breath we have started the long process of dying [shorter for some than others] The industrial world did not invent the chemicals and gases you refer to. They have been around long before us and all have their place in creating a balance that keeps our planet habitable. We choose to accept the many things that make our lives easier, Energy, Transport, Electronics and clean drinking water delivered to our Tap. We are walking a tightrope that will eventually break due to Wars, Natural disasters, pollution or that we simply run out of things…
So who will be first to give up their comfortable lifestyle to save the planet?
Truth is, we do not have the power to ‘Save the Planet’ we have to abide by her rules and when she is ready she will shake us off like a dog shaking off fleas and nature will carry on doing what nature does best, recycle and carry on.
To think that man can bring about a change to the evolution of this planet seriously underestimates the forces present on this rotating ball of energy flying through space.
Yes, it is possible to make small local changes by removing pollutants from the air we breath and it will certainly help the health of the residents but overpopulation will - in my opinion - eventually bring us down and until we address this problem, trying to change the natural progression of the climate is like throwing snowballs at the sun.
While large industrial regions like China and Malaysia continue to rule the world of production, and refuse to curb their emissions you are wasting your time. Here in the UK we had our industrial revolution [ no foreigners told us to cut emissions] and we came out of it pretty good with nice houses and several cars in the drive and a state who will pay you for being out of work or have come to the end of your working life. Now the Chinese people want the same things we enjoy, and why not? But how long can the human population expand and progress at it’s present rate? Global Warming should be way down on the ‘to do’ list there are much bigger issues at stake.
Interesting edition of Catalyst last night called The Anthropocene. If you can overcome geo blocking it is available on iView.
Basically says that after viewing data from 1750s from ice cores, sediment samples and other similar evidence there is a massive rise in all the base line figures for just about everything they measured from the 1950s. I can’t remember all the samples but they included things like CO2, Nitrous Oxide, Fly ash.
The researchers had expected a steady but relentless increased what they found was a steady increase until the 1950s but then a sudden and dramatic increase in the rate of increase since then in every sample measured.
The main driver seems to be consumerism and it is affecting the planet to the point that some scientists are saying this might be the start of a new epoch (hard to tell of course) but we might be at the end of the Holocene.
Hmmm, so what is the next epoch to be called, the Plasticine?
Nope. Saw that.
But I also saw his somewhat sarky
"But there again you are all climate change experts … "
which I thought justified my comment.
Close, but 11000 years too late… As stated - The Anthropocene, from anthropos Greek meaning “human” and -cene from kainos Greek meaning “new” or "recent.
It makes you wonder if humans were supposed to live here at all when you consider that most other dry land dwellers that live on this planet are either covered in Fur or Feathers with few exceptions.
Good piece by the way Bruce…
Just one point though, I would have thought that there would have been massive deposits of ash and CO2 in the Ice cores around 1883 when Krakatoa erupted and sent shock waves three times around the world and depositing enough ash in the atmosphere to block out the sun for two years and cause a false winter.
And of course, everything that goes up must come down. It has been suggested that there was more CO2 and pollution deposited in the atmosphere than fifty years of industrial pollution since. And that in just one natural event!
Hi
The Internet is a wonderous thing, it can also be a load of tosh.
Christopher Booker, the author of the piece in the link has no scientific qualifications at all…
He does not believe in Evolution and has claimed that asbestos is not dangerous. neither is passive smoking or BSE.
He has co authored with Dr Richard North, an EHO whose area of expertise is Food Poisoning.
Hardly a pair with any scientific expertise on Climate Change at all, who believe in Creationism and who dismiss Asbestos, Passive Smoking and BSE as scare stories.
I thought the temperature drop attributed to Krakatoa was caused by Sulphur Dioxide being thrown into high atmosphere mixing with water to form sulphuric acid and reflecting sunlight until it eventually all disappeared falling as acid rain (one of the old effects of burning coal but in a more localised area). I seem to remember being taught that the Krakatoa eruption was unusually rich in sulphur dioxide
It is gasses from volcanoes that encircle the planet not the dust because the latter is much heavier and even when thrown high into the atmosphere falls out within thousands if not hundreds of kms. Again that is my memory of it
Well I’m no climate expert Bruce and the Sulphur Dioxide theory is probably correct but…The finer particles of ash would remain in the atmosphere for quite a while and get blown around in the jet stream. It certainly upset flights for a couple of weeks a few years ago when the volcano in Iceland erupted, and that was on a very small scale compared to Krakatoa.
One can find slightly different figures for the Volcano versus Human CO2 issue depending on the study and when it was done. But in general now it is believed that Humans put out about a hundred times as much. https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm
The human population is growing by about 80 million per year so it is getting more difficult for nature to outdo it and what they are putting out is also increasing per capita. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
The U.S. Geological Survey is also interesting reading on the topic:
“A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question “Which produces more CO2, volcanic or human activity?” would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO2, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.” http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
But please don’t mention stopping the buying goods from China, whose steel industry is a big factor in air pollution in that part of the world.
Want a better cleaner world? Then stop buying and consuming…easy eh?
The Earth is a closed system in which every action has an equal and opposite reaction. The Earth will survive anything that humanity throws at it, even nuclear war. All it takes is time and the planet has an infinite amount of that.
What the climatologists seldom talk about is the fact that the entire solar system, the sun, planets etc are all travelling around a central point in the galaxy. Just as the Earth has its seasons because it travels around the sun and is sometimes closer and sometimes further away, so too the entire solar system must be impacted by it’s journey around the galaxy, presumably sometimes being close to that central point and other times further away. There must therefore be “solar seasons” though no-one tells us about them.
When you consider the enormous size of some of the stars out there, you have to conclude that at times those giants must have some impact to us.
Here are some pictures to show the scale.
First our planets in relation to the Sun, no shocks here:
http://www.over50sforum.com/picture.php?albumid=1147&pictureid=9515
Now look at the scale of our “huge” Sun compared to other key stars out there, look at how huge Arcturus is compared to our tiny Sun and note that Jupiter is 1 pixel here and the Earth is invisible at this scale:
http://www.over50sforum.com/picture.php?albumid=1147&pictureid=9516
Now look at even more super stars out there. See how huge Antares is compared to Arcturus and note that our tiny Sun is 1 pixel here and Jupiter is invisible at this scale:
http://www.over50sforum.com/picture.php?albumid=1147&pictureid=9517
If our Sun, infinitesimally small as it is, can exert so much impact to our planets, how much impact must there be whenever our solar system travels close to super stars like these?!
The Mayans and other ancient civilisations knew something of this galactic cycle. One orbit of our solar system around the galactic centre of our galaxy (The Milky Way) takes approx. 250 million terrestrial years. The Mayans predicted that great calamity/disaster happens routinely at a certain point. Perhaps that happens when we come closer to some of these enormous super suns and they exert their gravity and heat and radiation ? Who knows.