Peat bogs and climate change

[wobs]

. Quick factoid for Johneds, Volcanos, the nasty dirty brutes, contribute about 2% of global CO2 emission. Not very important. Volcanos probably did make quite an impact in the Permo-Triassic warming. There was a great outpouring of lavas in what is now Siberia over a very long period of time. Quite unlike today's situation.

Apologies for picking up an old post, but it should be pointed out that volcanoes do seem to attract differing views in the global warming debate.

First off, is the biggest eruption in recent years, Mt Pinotubo had a measured effect on the global temperature, both in terms of warming and cooling over a number of years.

However, I've heard differing views points as to whether volcanoes emit more or less the quantity of gases that mankind do. The highly disputed Global Warming Swindle documentary claimed that mankind's emission pailed into insignificence compared to volcanic activity.

How much volcanoes emit overall (and not just a single event) per year on average, is something that few discuss, and yet would seem an important factor.

 

[biffvernon]

If volcanoes aren't discussed much it's because they aren't very important. When I gave a figure of 2% I hadn't bothered looking it up. Actually it seems that 1% is a better estimate. That Channel 4 programme was just a bunch of lies.

The most authoritative source on geological matters is The British Geological Survey. They have produced a document entitled Volcanic Contributions to the Global Carbon Cycle

The document's Summary says:

Present day geological emissions of CO2 include both volcanic emissions (both passive, from volcanoes in repose, and those related directly to eruptive activity) and non-volcanic - direct emissions from the Earth's crust and lithosphere. The contribution to the present day atmospheric CO2 loading from volcanic emissions is, however, relatively insignificant, and it has been estimated that subaerial volcanism releases around 300 Mt/yr CO2, equivalent to just 1% of anthropogenic emissions.

 

[NT]

It's a complex area and there are scientific experts on both sides of the debate so people can pick and choose their sources to support more or less what they want to believe.

yes, and this always has to be borne in mind when dealing with controversies.

One could argue that there are more experts in favour of one theory, but there are plenty of historical precedents where the apparently maverick scientist has turned out to be correct, in the face of 'popular' scientific opinion.

Wouldnt life be easier and simpler if one could determine truth by a simple majority vote?

A lot of things would be different.


NT

 

[NT]

That's a very optimistic description imho. The reality is that there is evidence that CO2 levels follow temperature, not precede them. If what you say were really true, we'd be acting on it. It isn't, and we're not.

Neither optimistic nor pessimistic - just a statement of the fact that CO2 levels are rising,

CO2 levels rising is a fact, sure

that the rise is caused by human activity

quite likely but debated, not an established fact

and that this will lead to global warming.

not remotely fact-like. Just one opinion, and not one that entirely lines up with the facts.

Your contrarian view really has about as much basis as the 9/11 and other conspiracy theorists'.

That is not a fact and logic based argument, just more classic opinion manipulation tactics. Just call me unconvinced!


NT

 

[NT]

That Channel 4 programme was just a bunch of lies.

Ah, well now we're all totally convinced.


NT

 

[skier-hughes]

How come the Government claims to be green when they don't give any help to childless couples but give money willy nilly to families, the more children you have the more money you get, but surely if they were truely green and humans are destroying the earth they ought to be helping those who help the world by remaining childless?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[alison]

why the smilies?

 

[skier-hughes]

Well it was meant as tongue in cheek, so I was emphasising that... though if everyone is so sure humans are the major cause, surely rather than stopping those alive from flying we should be stopping them from breeding.

 

[Lime]

Well it was meant as tongue in cheek, so I was emphasising that... though if everyone is so sure humans are the major cause, surely rather than stopping those alive from flying we should be stopping them from breeding.

Is this an obscure reference to the "mile high club"?

 

[biffvernon]

Actually Graham, it seems it's the grown ups that are the problem, not the unborn But removing all the grow ups from the planet has it's drawbacks. We just have to stop the wrecking.

What worries me is why someone like NT, who when discussing electrical wiring is clearly a man to be trusted, refuses to accept that anthropogenic global warming is an established fact. He denies it in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence but without giving any reasons of his own.

NT's attitude, repeated millions of times, is what prevents politicians taking the necessary actions. How do we move from this deadly position in which so many people deny the truth?

 

[Pford75]

I'm afraid that I sit on the 'unconvinced' side of the debate....I've hesitated in posting to this thread because as suspected, it invokes passionate debate on both sides, and the unbelievers are often subject to personal attacks, threats etc.

I thought it might be helpful to include some reference from respected 'disbelievers'.

The article "There is no consensus on global warming" was written by Richard S Lindzen - He is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT

http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Lindzen/no_consensus.html

 

[Pford75]

Article discussing whether global warming is attributable to human activity http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Why_has_global_warming.pdf

 

[Pford75]

The first “Summary for Policymakers” statement on the
man-made increase of CO2, is a cornerstone of the IPCC report, and of the global warming edifice. This statement is a manipulation and a half-truth. It is true that CO2 is “the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas,” but a much more important greenhouse factor is the water naturally present in the atmosphere, which contributes some 95% to the total greenhouse effect.

This basic fact is not mentioned at all.

Also not mentioned is the fact that 97% of the total annual emission of CO2 into the atmosphere comes from natural emissions of the land and sea; human beings add a mere 3%. This man-made 3% is responsible for a tiny fraction of the total greengreenhouse gas, probably close to 0.12%.

Propositions of changing, or rather destroying, the global energy system because of this tiny human contribution, in face of the large short-term
and long-term natural fluctuations of atmospheric CO2, are utterly irresponsible.

Not my comments....part of a paper written by Prof. Jaworowski in EIR and a scientific challenge to the IPCC paper. Read it here http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2007/2007_10-19/2007-11/pdf/38_711_science.pdf

 

[Pford75]

A complete list of things caused by global warming http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Before the onslaught begins....I think my main point is that I am unconvinced...not 'never to be convinced'. What really frustrates me is that the debate is presented as "finished", "overwhelming" & "conclusive". I don't believe it is any of these things, yet those of us who wish to engage in rational discussion are painted as raving loonies usually of a far right persuasion.

Another point to consider....in my business travels, I spend most of my time in 'Emerging Markets' - Africa, Middle East, Eastern Europe, Russia/CIS, Asia & Latin America...these countries are depending upon fossil fuels to drive basic human living standards and quality of life. By the end of 2010, it is predicted that the CO2 output of China alone will exceed the whole of Europe.....it's unrealistic and selfish to expect them to remain without many of the comforts we enjoy....but it completely dwarves any attempts from us to reduce our emissions.

As someone posted earlier....does this mean we do nothing? Of course not - but my reasoning behind conservation are ones of finite natural resources & cost mainly.

 

[skier-hughes]

Actually Graham, it seems it's the grown ups that are the problem, not the unborn But removing all the grow ups from the planet has it's drawbacks. We just have to stop the wrecking.

My point being that the unborn are tomorrows wreckers, slow down the rate of human growth and you slow down the need for extra emmissions.
Not just in the way of energy useage, but if we have less children there is then less need for extra housing, we keep the countryside and trees which negate co2 emmissions.
Also less food would need to be provided so all those cows giving off methane could be reduced.

No need to cull the living, just cut back on the growth rate.

I expect I'm like the majority, beleive soemthing is happening, don't have the inclination to read all those amazing facts to get to the real truth, so do what I can to ensure my one child has a decent place to grow up in.

Graham

 

[Nemesis]

Re cows - you don't have to eat 'em.

Re population - willy nilly might be the way forward.

Re period properties and 'social backlashes' against their perceived energy inefficiency:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6129912.stm

The picture with that article however seems to be more Elizabeth II than any other era.

 

[skier-hughes]

More people mean more food source, so more cows are bred to feed the growing population... if you didn't eat those cows then the gases given off would only increase. Of course you don't have to eat cows, but I'm just taking a mean view of how many people eat cows now as to would if we had 50% extra population.

Why would a massive population growth be useful in reducing greehouse gases?

 

[skier-hughes]

Forgot the last one.
Interesting article... mind you I'm not surprised modern buildings leak so much air, you need air broicks for this, that, window vents???????

 

[Nemesis]

You don't have to eat cows, you don't have to keep breeding 'em.There are alternatives. Fewer cows mean less methane.

Re willy nilly - think about it. It could be a method of birth control...

Here's another expanded version of that article, interesting final paragraph regarding Victorian homes and plaster:

http://www.cieh.org/ehn/news/2006/november/articles/tudor_buildings_%E2%80%98most_energy-efficient%E2%80%99.htm

 

[skier-hughes]

willy nilly - I'm still half asleep - very good