Climate change or global warming and who did it?

[shrub]

No debate there Winston, pollution is a major concern that we must address. I also agree that many of the processes that produce CO2 also produce many of the nasties that cause pollution. However not all fall into this category.

What many people forget is that we are a carbon based life form. We need Carbon to survive, and our main food source, plants, need CO2 for photosynthesis. So CO2 is a fertiliser, not a pollutant..

Yes, we do need CO2 in the atmosphere, but not at the levels it is now and especially not at the levels it will be in the future. We also depend on water for our survival, but flooding is destructive. I liken it to the internal combustion engine - my Trumpy runs very nicely right now, it starts readily, delivers even power throughout the rev range, runs smoothly and is pretty good on gas, yet if I change the ratio of fuel to air by the smallest amount it runs like a bag of arseholes, if at all. it's like that with the atmosphere - we're enriching the mixture and it's already starting to run rough and if we don't change what we're doing it will stall.

Maybe I'm too focussed, but I have no trouble is seperating the climate issue from the pollution issue

Actually they're one and the same - carbon is a pollutant when you get over a certain level in the same way that some shit is normal in a river but once you get over a certain level it becomes a pollutant and destroys life.

[Winston001]

. Carbon not so sure as it just goes around and around the system and earth is based on carbon based life forms. Rumour is the Maori channel had a good program on it, Crude I think it was called.

Shrub nicely addresses this above.

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate. We are releasing all of them in 200 years. That is not the natural cycle of the planet.


Don't get me wrong by the way, I love oil and coal. I'd prefer we remained blissfully ignorant.

[oneofsix]

Shrub nicely addresses this above.

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate. We are releasing all of them in 200 years. That is not the natural cycle of the planet.


Don't get me wrong by the way, I love oil and coal. I'd prefer we remained blissfully ignorant.

If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits. The interesting thing is where they came from as well.
Wont argue that we are releasing them because that is rather obvious and it about time I freed a few more.

[Winston001]

you sure about that? In our "fight to stop carbon" we have increased use of mercury laden products after spending decades trying to decrease them, we're trying to taint & possibly poison our meat supply to try & stop something natural from farting, we are destroying the earth to produce "eco friendly" vehicles...

To be honest I'm not completely sure. Cracking oil and burning coal releases some metals while others are the result of the minerals we use to enjoy the energy.

To take your point, all the enthusiasm for electric cars ignores the gigantic amount of copper required. And it also ignores all the new cadmium and lead required for batteries. Not using petrol won't stop those being mined and spread around.

Yes - you'll find wonderful new materials discussed on the net but right now, today, if you want non-carbon energy you need lead, cadmium, and copper. Plus a lot more.

[Scuba_Steve]

The concentrated organic hydrocarbons we gleefully extract from oil and coal took 300 million years to accumulate.

If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits. The interesting thing is where they came from as well.

But lets face it our knowledge on that is about as good as our knowledge on when it's going to run out... & that's happened 3x already right??? yet here we are using more than ever.

[Winston001]

If the programme is the one I think it is you will see it took a lot less time than that for them to accumulate however it may well have taken 300 million years to convert them in to oil, gas and coal deposits.

The Carboniferous Period dates from 300 million years and that's the strata coal first appears in.

Oil - to my surprise - seems to be younger. 112 million years (although 60 million is another figure). Must say I thought they were directly related.

[Edbear]

The Carboniferous Period dates from 300 million years and that's the strata coal first appears in.

Oil - to my surprise - seems to be younger. 112 million years (although 60 million is another figure). Must say I thought they were directly related.

The problem is that dating the Earth and what's in it is, in the end, a consensus of best guesses with some very wide variations. Even the actual age of the Earth is, while generally thought by consensus to be about 4.5b years, actually varies considerably from much older to much younger depending upon the scientist.

There was some research done not too long ago that suggested the oil in the ground may have formed much faster than traditionally thought and by a different way. I'll see if I can find it. Something about not being from animal sources. Anyone seen it?

[Ocean1]

There was some research done not too long ago that suggested the oil in the ground may have formed much faster than traditionally thought and by a different way.

The abiotic theory of origin.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

[Winston001]

The problem is that dating the Earth and what's in it is, in the end, a consensus of best guesses with some very wide variations. Even the actual age of the Earth is, while generally thought by consensus to be about 4.5b years, actually varies considerably from much older to much younger depending upon the scientist.

So far as I know geologic age is well understood. The methods used are the decay rates of isotopes (carbon, potassium, radium) and the concentration of elements found in meteorites. The Earth can't be older than the Sun or the meteorites so their composition is a sound base to work from.

Happy to be corrected though.

[Edbear]

The abiotic theory of origin.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59991

That's the one. Interesting if it's true, and may mean we're not so much in danger of running out as we are from the oil-producing nations manipulating the supply.

[oneofsix]

So far as I know geologic age is well understood. The methods used are the decay rates of isotopes (carbon, potassium, radium) and the concentration of elements found in meteorites. The Earth can't be older than the Sun or the meteorites so their composition is a sound base to work from.

Happy to be corrected though.

Not arguing with you but to add a little information, that method of dating is based on the assumption that the levels of these isotopes have remained relatively constant and the rate of decay has always been the same. As for the rate of decay I have no reason to doubt that has been relatively constant, others differ, there may have been factors that ripped electrons from atoms and thereby altered the rate of decay. Given the theories on how the rocks and gases came together to form the earth and elements I could easily conceive the numbers of isotopes varying. I therefore understand Edbear's comment.

[Winston001]

Not arguing with you but to add a little information, that method of dating is based on the assumption that the levels of these isotopes have remained relatively constant and the rate of decay has always been the same. As for the rate of decay I have no reason to doubt that has been relatively constant, others differ, there may have been factors that ripped electrons from atoms and thereby altered the rate of decay. Given the theories on how the rocks and gases came together to form the earth and elements I could easily conceive the numbers of isotopes varying. I therefore understand Edbear's comment.

No problem. Just for the fun of it and to show we are still learning stuff, recent research suggests radioactive decay changes with temperature. Some isoptopes speed up and others slow down. Who knew??

That shouldn't happen because the bond is through the weak nuclear force which isn't affected by temperature.

Another theory is that the Sun emits an unknown particle which affects the rate of decay. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-082310.html

So there is plenty of room for existing theories to be varied but as we've discussed before, scientific research refines our knowledge, it doesn't destroy it. Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein.

[carbonhed]

Might be time to invest in thermal underwear shares as the suns output is projected to be heading towards a new Maunder minimum...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/1...ty/#more-41648

Thank fuck for all that extra CO2

[oneofsix]

No problem. Just for the fun of it and to show we are still learning stuff, recent research suggests radioactive decay changes with temperature. Some isoptopes speed up and others slow down. Who knew??

That shouldn't happen because the bond is through the weak nuclear force which isn't affected by temperature.

Another theory is that the Sun emits an unknown particle which affects the rate of decay. http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/a...un-082310.html

So there is plenty of room for existing theories to be varied but as we've discussed before, scientific research refines our knowledge, it doesn't destroy it. Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein.

just for the sake of pickiness and because this is KB; that last sentence holds some interesting thoughts. "scientific research refines our knowledge", yes it does and always has even before it was called science. Alchemists and astrologist used to be scientists until their own science surpassed the 'mystical' parts of their crafts and split off into chemistry and astronomy.
"Well, not since Copernicus and Einstein" same politics still confuse and muddy the picture. There was a brief period for a while around Einstein and for a little while after where science was allowed to be a god in its own right but now business and politics are back to hi-jacking it for their own purpose so the public only get the spin.

[Jantar]

Might be time to invest in thermal underwear shares as the suns output is projected to be heading towards a new Maunder minimum...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/1...ty/#more-41648

Thank fuck for all that extra CO2

I really hope the warmists are correct. Here is the report on the announcement. http://www.space.com/11960-fading-su...lar-cycle.html

I already suspected we may see a repeat of a Dalton minimum, but a Maunder? I must get in plenty of firewood.