Climate Change - The big hits...

Discussion in 'Renewable Energy & Energy Saving' started by Mooky55, Sep 5, 2007.

  1. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    Hi All,

    I have done some reading on Climate Change but do not claim any kind of expertise. In fact with all the arguments and counter claims, and counter counter claims.. its difficult to really have any kind of decent view.

    The problem for me is that I dont really understand what are the major contributors to global warming.

    I am not going to argue that at any point we should not be taking steps to use less fossil fuels, do less damage to the environment, decrease polution, make better use of resource and waste management through recycling but the feeling that I get is that these will have largely a very small impact on global warming (but still has profound impact on the quality of life and condition of the planet) which seems to be more of a macro problem that we are trying to deal with through micro responses.

    As I said, I do believe that we need to take many of the steps that we have or are going to continue to take but I dont entirely buy into the lets not drive our cars because we will prevent the world from overheating and the glaciers from melting.

    So, my questions are (assuming there are definitive answers):

    What greenhouse gases cause the worlds average temperatures to rise? Do we know?

    What actual contribution does man make to these figures? In what percentages and from what actions?
     
  2. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    The biggest contribution seems to be enhanced carbon dioxide exhalation caused by discussing the subject.
    But more seriously, I expect njp who often contributes here to have most of the raw information to hand even if I do disagree with him on interpretation.
     
  3. city fan

    city fan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,622
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +76
    No its the Moose..........:D

    Forget coal fired power stations, burning fossil fuels. We need to cull the moose. Their farting is going to kill us :rotfl:

    Seriously I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't also seen the following article in The Times :eek:-


    NORWAY'S MOOSE POPULATION BLAMED FOR GLOBAL WARMING


    Oh Dear! A troublesome, hard-to-control problem has arisen for the Global Warmers. Researchers from Norway's Technical University say that the national animal...the Moose...can produce 2,100 kilos of methane gas a year---equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilo car journey. This has been published in "Spiegel Online" and other media sources. What to do? What to do? Even the Global Warmers, who love rules, regulations, taxes and other restrictive measures, are hard pressed to stop the Norwegian Moose population from belching and farting 2,100 kilos of methane per moose per year. To make matters worse, methane is even worse for the earth's atmosphere than carbon dioxide. Look at Jupiter, for heavens' sake! It is cloaked in methane gas and has anyone seen any live Jupiterians??
    The belching, farting moose(plural, many times over) are just the tip of the iceberg. In a link from this alarming news article, "Speigel Online" reports that cows have the same destructive methane emissions from the same sorts of natural ruminant responses to eating their diet as the Norwegian moose(s) do. In domestic agriculture...especially those agriculturists who raise animals like cows, pigs, horses,sheep, ducks, chickens, geese, goats et.al. are causing 37% of global methane emissions....and this report says that methane gas is 23 times more potent than CO2 when it comes to the dreaded global warming.
    I wonder what happened during the well documented periods of global cooling (like the Little Ice Age). Did all the moose in Norway die off? Did people kill off their livestock for some reason? (to prevent Global Warming) I hope everyone takes note of the fact that the dinosaurs all disappeared before the earth went into an ice age.....how did dinosaur belches and farts factor into this period of Global Warming/Cooling...I forget which happened first. Anyway, animal methane production is clearly a clear and present danger to the world and its population.
    Now for the solutions. Perhaps the Global Warmers could figure out how to capture Norway's moose population and confine them to one large corral somewhere on an alpine mesa that would be large enough to confine them all. They could be fed a diet that would eliminate all the methane belches and farts but I have no clue what sort of diet that would be but I am confident that Global Warmers can figure it out. Or...they could load the moose onto an ocean freighter and bring them to Tennesee where they could somehow be hooked up to a methane fuel facility to power Al Gore's mansion and produce alternative sources of electricity, etc. Maybe some could be transported to do the same at John Edwards rather large mansion in one of the Carolina's where he had several acres of carbon credit forests clear- cut to make way for his private landing strip. Methane-powered electricity plants have endless possiblities but someone has to figure out how to NOT have the methane escape into the atmosphere. Oh well, people who fear Global Warming can be put to work on solutions.
    Now this does not solve the problem of the belching, farting livestock like cows, goats, chickens, horses, et.al. all over the world who are polluting the earth with their dangerous methane emissions. Think of India! Nobody kills cows in India and think of the air there! I am surprised there are any people left in that country but the population has not dropped as far as I know. This is a thorny problem. How are we going to get all the meat-eaters in the world convinced that they must stop eating any animal protein..or worse yet, convince hunters to no longer kill the animals they love to slaughter and eat (?) What happens if we all become Vegetarians? Cows ARE vegetarians and look at the damage they are doing. This methane pollution source seems like we are going to be unable to solve this problem. Even if we kill off all the cows and other livestock....the vegetarian diet produces even more methane than CO2 according to "Spiegel Online". Look what the moose and the cows are doing to the earth's air! We would have to eat beans and nuts for protien and think of the results of that.
    I have to stop..I have developed a bad headache just pondering this report about Moose and cows and methane. I cannot deal with it any longer. Somebody else has to take over ...and fast.
     
  4. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    Cheers Steven...

    Basically .. if we dont fly, dont drive, stop eating meat.. and dont discuss climate change... is the miniscule change in greenhouse gases going to make a gnats crotch whisker of a difference..

    I am all for saving the planet... or at least not fookin it up anymore than it is and reversing damage but I kind of got the feeling things are going to get warmer anyway.. and I just want to see a pie chart that breaks it all down?

    NJP?
     
  5. Layne RIP

    Layne RIP
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2005
    Messages:
    710
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    21
    Location:
    Chilliwack
    Ratings:
    +11
    First it's cows and then moose......... they'll be trying to cull humans next.... probably starting with my girlfriend (she could fart for England).

    I do believe there is a hell of a lot of propaganda around this at the mo..... greenhouse gases are a problem yes, but the earth has actually been heating up for a fair while... it can't be all our fault.
     
  6. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,367
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    France
    Ratings:
    +2,811
    Strategy for survival.
    Buy a house on a hill.
    Apparently that's it, there's nothing we can do:eek:

    Or maybe.........
     
  7. city fan

    city fan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,622
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +76
    How much methane does a person emit a year, out of both orrifices?

    I bet a lot, some more than others. I bet John Macririck or Jonty of Big Brother are serious hitters. :D

    Perhaps we should have a tax to offset our personal emissions!

    I'm off to start my own cork business :rotfl:
     
  8. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    I am in to renewables.. so maybe we should just connect our orifices to our gas tanks.. and become self sufficient?
     
  9. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    NJP is the sign in name of this board's resident global warming enthusiast. To be fair to him he does have access to a vast amount of relevant information. Trouble is that any information he provides only ever points one way.
     
  10. city fan

    city fan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,622
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +76
    An idea. Some would obviously get futher than others. Should send the sales of nuts and pulses through the roof, and er.......prunes? ugh :)
     
  11. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    Yeah.. some people (generally americans) will be able to sell of there excess :)
     
  12. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Hi Mooky,

    There is nothing too mysterious about all this. The IPCC publishes the current understanding as agreed by the world's climate scientists. A summary of the latest reports is here, where you will also find links to PDFs of the actual reports.

    If you want a history of the science, this is very good.
     
  13. pjclark1

    pjclark1
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,463
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    106
    Location:
    Thailand
    Ratings:
    +271
    I did it, my house is 630ft above sea level!
     
  14. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    Thats was a super confident response.. but nothing on that page attempts to try and quantify the impact of humans except to vaguely say that anthrological must be having an increased affect.

    The point is even if we double our carbon output from (some articles say) 0.1% of the worlds total natural output to 0.2% .. what frikkin difference is it going to make? Similarly if we spend 500bn dollars reducing it by 1.4 to 0.075% and its still increasing at an alarming rate due to natural and biological factors that we dont understand whats the point? its still going up.. still going to get warm and we are doing nothing really to stop it...

    Can we even do anything? my feeling is no.. and I dont get a sense from anyone that it we can.

    Basically all these reports point to the effects and not the causes, and then seek to address the effects by decreasing the smallest contributor to greenhouse gas productions (humans and fossils fuels etc) when clearly maybe just by massacring all cows, buffalo, mooses, would be millions of times more effective and acutally have some impact.

    That is what the IPCC and all other articles dont show. Where is the link and where is the link quantified between human acitivites and climate change.

    Greenhouse gases cause global warming.
    Humans generate greenhouse gases.
    Therefore humans must be to blame?

    ***?
    I dont get it. I want to help, tell me what causes 90% of greenhouse gas emmisions and lets turn it off. Dont try and convince me that humans can have some impact if we are responsible for less than 1% of emmisions. Even if we stopped everything.. we would still face 99% emmisions whcih are cinreasing for reasons no-one is saying...
     
  15. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    I don't know what your figures relate to but atmospheric CO2 has increased from about 280 PPM (0.028%) in pre-industrial times to over 380 PPM (.038%) now. We know that the "extra" is ours because of carbon isotope analysis. We also know how many tons of hydrocarbons have been burnt.

    Different effects have been projected depending on how much CO2 we carry on producing and at what level it is stabilised. Did you not see this graph?

    Clearly maybe? Millions of times more effective? Do you have any figures for that other than wild guesses?

    See above.

    Where are you getting these figures from?
     
  16. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    Sorry, so we are saying that global warming just from fossil fuel being burnt (isotope measurements you mentioned) is going to cause that projected change assuming that these numbers dont take into account CO2 from oceans being released or farming (the mosses and cows....) it could that our contribution is much much higher?

    I guess what I am saying is I dont understand how accurate or what any of these charts are actually saying and not saying....
     
  17. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    As I said, I don't know where your figures came from.

    I'm not sure what you think is happening and what you are asking. IIRC about 1/2 of our CO2 is being absorbed by the oceans and the biosphere (forests, etc.). If the oceans start becoming net releasers of CO2 then the %age in the atmosphere will increase more rapidly.

    Mosses or moose?
     
  18. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    I think there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there was previously.

    Dude, you said that the human portion of CO2 emissions is increasing. We know this by isotope studies and by measuring tons of hydrocarbons burnt.

    So, I said .. ok we measure the fossile fuels and the isotopes and we can say its increasing right?

    But organic sources cant be picked up by isotope studies surely? And are not from hydrocarbons.. so sourceslike cattle farming which releases tons of methane which I assume can be converted into a carbon equivalent, plus the CO2 released from other sources human but not fossile fuel related are not taken into account in the graph you listed?

    Is that right or wrong?

    Amd then theprojections would be conservative?

    ESPECIALLY if there are natural sources (volcanoes or the oceans releasing more CO2 due to acidity ) which are also producing CO2?



    EDIT: Not sure I was talking about Mosses... not sure he has anyting to do with it. :)
    Or do some models take everything into account?
     
  19. andykn

    andykn
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,733
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    103
    Ratings:
    +232
    Odd, that.

    A bit like all the photos of the earth from space only ever show it as round.
     
  20. MikeTV

    MikeTV
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,782
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Location:
    Ealing, London
    Ratings:
    +842
    To put it plainly, the planet has, over millions of years, established an equilibrium in terms of natural carbon emissions and carbon sinks (the "carbon cycle"). And then human industrialisation came along, and in a blink of an eye, screwed it up. The planet cannot restore the natural balance quickly enough, which is resulting in significant environmental changes and devastating consequences.
     
  21. city fan

    city fan
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2006
    Messages:
    1,622
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    51
    Location:
    Manchester
    Ratings:
    +76
    And I thought I was being flipant :eek:

    Seriously though, I'm no expert on this subject and only glean what I read from the papers etc but to me it does seem a lot of this is natural and the cost of actually trying to combat this thing outways the benefit. How much has Kyoto cost? IIRC we could have sorted out Africas water problems out for the amount spent on Kyoto

    Classic :rotfl::rotfl:
     
  22. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    Well you said "mosses" in one of your posts. You might have meant "moose" (plural of moose- big thing with antlers) or mosses (small plants that like it cool and wet). :D

    I think I see what you are getting at, but the projections try to take account of everything.

    CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide are identified as the main greenhouse gases.

    66% of anthropogenic (caused by us) CO2 emissions are from burning fossil fuels, 33% from changes in land use, mainly deforestation.

    18% of anthropogenic GHGs result from livestock rearing. Livestock accounts for 9% of total CO2, 35-40% of methane, and 64% of nitrous oxide.

    Volcanoes put out spurts of CO2 and this can be seen as blips in the records, but the total is less that 1% of what we do. The oceans currently absorb more than they release but IIRC they will start releasing it if temps reach a certain level. This is one of the "tipping points", where the warming would accelerate all on its own.

    So, this is all included. The CO2 in the graphs is the total in the atmosphere, no matter where it comes from.
     
  23. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96

    You think the world is round from photos ?

    In fact it is far from a perfect sphere but it does look like one in photos.

    Just as the photos are an imperfect representation of the earth so is the so called 'evidence' for CO2 induced warming an imperfect representation of reality.
     
  24. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The use of the word "perfect" means that you can arbitrarily make something as "far" from that as you like, but I'd say the Earth is not a bad approximation by any reasonable standard. The equatorial radius is only 0.3% greater than the polar.

    If the evidence for CO2 induced warming is as "imperfect" as that then it's pretty damn good!

    Not to say that all theories are not inherently imperfect, of course...
     
  25. Stephen Wilde

    Stephen Wilde
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,815
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +96
    The evidence for CO2 induced warming at the level being proposed is a lot less perfect than the difference between a round world and the reality but since that is a matter of opinion I do not expect you to accept it.

    And there's no need to say that there is a consensus of 'scientists' who accept it as fact. In my opinion those scientists are wrong because I do not share the confidence they have in our current grasp of what is actually going on.
     
  26. Mooky55

    Mooky55
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2006
    Messages:
    763
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    31
    Location:
    London
    Ratings:
    +30
    So nikyzf

    How do they make these measurements? And what is the consensus on the error?

    And what percentage of total greenhouse gases is anthroo carbon emmisions in equivalent carbon earth warming measures...
     
  27. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    It was your choice to bring up the comparison, not mine. :)

    So they're all wrong and you are not?

    Not that we discuss the validity of AGW theory here anymore. ;)
     
  28. nikyzf

    nikyzf
    Guest

    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0
    The thing is, you can find this stuff out in the same way that anyone else can. That way you will know where it comes from. For all you know, I could be making the figures up. :D

    If you want to get stuck in, the links I gave earlier would be a good start.
     
  29. damo_in_sale

    damo_in_sale
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    2,877
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +565
    As I've mentioned elsewhere, I recycle all of my old stuff with fire :)
     
  30. johntheexpat

    johntheexpat
    Distinguished Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,367
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    166
    Location:
    France
    Ratings:
    +2,811
    except your jokes...:hiya::hiya:
     

Share This Page

Loading...