quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I clearly don't know it all, Roger58. If I was aborting the question, it was only because you were failing to answer it in a seemly manner.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I wasn't asking for your help Roger. I was just interested to know why you thought that an increase in CO2 wasn't a problem. Human nature is indeed important in this - but not in the way in which you are trying to imply!

Lucibee - I have tried to answer your question as best as I can. If my answers are unsatisfactory to you - or if they are not the answers you wanted - then it might be the quality of your question that needs to be examined. That your question keeps undergoing subtle shifts (from 'alarm' to 'worry' to 'problem') suggests this is the case. Your question to me now stands at 'Is an increase in CO2 a problem?'

So an answer depends on what you mean by 'problem'. [...] So your question becomes 'Is an increase in CO2 an obstacle?'

[...]

Now we can say: if an increase in CO2 is an obstacle - what is it an obstacle to? That is... what do humans do that an increase in CO2 is an obstacle to?

[...] If this is the case, your question becomes 'is the oil-industry an obstacle?'

[...] if the oil-industry is an obstacle - what is it an obstacle to? That is... what do humans do that the oil-industry is an obstacle to?

[...]

And your question can now be coherently presented as: 'Is human nature an obstacle to my wishing?'

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

The original question sounded clear enough to me so why don't you just answer it instead of turning it into something that was never asked?

quote:

Also, I wasn't just asking Roger58 - it was directed at all those who feel that the IPCC are trying to hoodwink them.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Lucibee,

quote:

Also, I wasn't just asking Roger58 - it was directed at all those who feel that the IPCC are trying to hoodwink them.

here's the essence of your question I believe.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
I'm still waiting to hear why JL and Roger etc feel there is no cause for alarm that the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are higher than at any time in the last 600,000 years, and that this increase seems to be preceding the increase in temperature.

There is a hypothesis that anthropic CO2 will cause disastrous climate change to the severe detriment of life on this planet. There is evidence of events that indicate we may be in a transition to a state where these predictions come true eg melting of glaciers, increasing average global temperature.

I feel, like some other humans, a need to probe the hypothesis to the best of our ability to be able to satisfy myself that the predictions are reasonable. If you view that as alarm on my part then I'm alarmed by the hypothesis.

If, as the next 10 years pass, it becomes clear that the hypothesis remains valid then governments will use existing and developing technologies to counteract the long term consequences. So humanity will continue to develop and improve standards of living for all on this planet, as has been happening since the industrial revolution ie manage this planet. Hence, I am not alarmed that the predictions will actually happen.

Additionally as you'll see from my other postings, I am not convinced by the AGW hypothesis.

quote:

Som, your a sticking plaster advocate then, rather than a fix the problem at root cause man?

Thats an option, I suppose, but for how long can this approach be sustained? 100 200 years?

quote:

As Roger58 pointed out, the oil industry sustains pretty much everything we do today but only for so long as the oil lasts and the consequences of the resultant oil based pollution is becoming increasingly obvious.

quote:

Still, I'll wager the government expedite the new Thames Barrier in the face of todays east coast flooding alerts. It would not take too much sea level rise to have pushed the latest surge over the top don't you think.

quote:

Do you mean that if GW does turn out to be catastrophic, then there is not much we can do whether it is AGW or not? And if there is something we can do, governments are going to do it anyway so there is no point in worrying?

quote:

I suppose my concern, and probably those of others, is that these warnings were being made at least a few decades ago, and at each point along the way there have been those who have said, "oh, we'll just wait another 10 years to confirm that the data we have now are really correct". Unfortunately, with the passing years, data and models change, and inaction grows on inaction, so if that attitude prevails I don't see governments actually doing much until they reach a point when they really have to do something - at which point it might be a little late.

quote:

My feeling is that Lovelock may well be right, and that anything we do now may well be too late - so maybe there isn't much point in getting worried about it - but still a need to prepare for what might be to come...(whatever that might be!).

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
The original question sounded clear enough to me so why don't you just answer it instead of turning it into something that was never asked?

quote:

Originally posted by Son of Mulder:
Seskinreay

quote:

Som, your a sticking plaster advocate then, rather than a fix the problem at root cause man?

Thats an option, I suppose, but for how long can this approach be sustained? 100 200 years?

I'll use sticking plaster and leave you to amputate your arm.

quote:

Originally posted by Roger58:

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
The original question sounded clear enough to me so why don't you just answer it instead of turning it into something that was never asked?

Lucibee asked what my thinking was on the question: 'Is an increase in CO2 a problem?' Here is my thinking - which rationalises the question in order to find its answer:
Is human-nature-caused CO2 a problem? >>
Is human-nature-caused CO2 an obstacle? >>
Is human-nature-caused CO2 an obstacle to human-nature? >>
Is human-nature an obstacle to human-nature?

Answer: No - it is an impossibility.

quote:

If they go up to 450 ppm or 500 ppm what do you think the effects will be on the earth's climate?

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
I have no idea what you're talking about. You've just listed a load of meaningless questions and haven't answered anything, let alone the question asked. Is an increase in CO2 a problem? Yes or no? CO2 levels are currently over 380 ppm. If they go up to 450 ppm or 500 ppm what do you think the effects will be on the earth's climate?

quote:

How many tonnes of fossil fuel would we have to burn to get it up to 500ppm(Co2)?

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:

If there's a lag (which there seems to be), then we've already burnt it some time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:

If there's a lag (which there seems to be), then we've already burnt it some time ago.

There's not really a lag between burning hydrocarbons and the CO2 going into the atmosphere. The lag is only in the mixing, which is fairly rapid.

In fact, we have already put enough CO2 into the atmosphere to reach 500 PPM. What's been happening is that some of it has been absorbed by the oceans and by the biosphere. The ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 is temperature-dependent, reducing as temperatures rise, so it is quite difficult to calculate how long it will take the atmosphere to reach 500 PPM, even if we produced CO2 at a constant rate.

Just bear in mind that we have gone from 280 to 380 since the 1830s, and about half of that has been within the last 40.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by Roger58:

It's not my problem

quote:

Originally posted by Lucibee:
OK - I'll rephrase:

If there's a sink (which there seems to be), then we've already burnt enough some time ago.

Lag, sink, same difference methinks!