CO2 – Dumb question

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Robin –

Very witty – though have you mixed up the two phases of an ice-age?

The interglacial is the warm period between the cold glacial ones, over many tens of thousands of years; so we do not want it the present interglacial warming even more…..

As for our species calling itself H. "sapiensis"…. one must wonder why, sometimes, looking around the world.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

In a previous interglacial we had crocodiles and hippopotami in what is now Trafalgar Square. They found the bones while digging the foundations.

The Ice Age ends when the poles become ice free.

We have got used to sea levels being where they are but there is no right or wrong level, it's a lucky dip.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. Historically the atmosphere was very different. The evolution of photosynthetic organisms resulted in a huge rise in the oxygen content of the atmosphere. As a result those organisms had to protect themselves from the toxic oxygen. They either evolved to survive in an oxic atmosphere, occupied anoxic niches or died out. Life and the planet will survive, but many organisms will die out.
It really annoys me everytime I hear / see someone say that raising CO2 levels will destroy the planet – I am amused by their lack of understanding.

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. And some guy in his armchair Googling around for a few minutes knows more about it than they do. Who'd a thunk it? Those silly scientists.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 10/08/2022 22:56:24:

Interesting you chose 30 years of scientific support Dave. Just after the last panic of a coming ice age as enthusiastically supported by climate experts writing to Presidents, was falling out of favour.

There never was any kind of scientific consensus, or even widespread belief, that an ice age was coming. It was some conjecture by a very few scientists for a short period of time, which was blown out of proportion in the media. The majority scientific view was concern over global warming.

From Wikipedia **LINK**

Global cooling was a conjecture, especially during the 1970s, of imminent cooling of the Earth culminating in a period of extensive glaciation, due to the cooling effects of aerosols or orbital forcing. Some press reports in the 1970s speculated about continued cooling; these did not accurately reflect the scientific literature of the time, which was generally more concerned with warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect.^[1]

Edited By Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:19:27

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Perhaps the armchair scientists should Google Dunning Kruger effect.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Grindstone Cowboy on 10/08/2022 16:25:37:

Whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer? And was (is, if it's still around) it a bad or a good thing as regards global warming?

Rob

Governments worldwide banned CFC flurocarbons in refrigerants and propellants and as a result the ozone hole has gotten smaller and is most likely to disappear all together fairly soon.

The problem caused by the hole in the ozone layer was not global warming but a wide slew of problems caused by the excessive UV radiation the growing hole was allowing through to the earths surface. This caused much higher rates of skin cancer, cataracts, reduced plant and crop growths, animal growth, marine ecosystem damage etc etc that would have made the planet uninhabitable by 2050.

So it was a great example of how rapid government action averted a worldwide environmental disaster.

More info here **LINK**

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Aaah the Dunning Kruger Effect Duncan. The argument ending sneer whose use implies an appeal to authority superiority in the user ,often reinforcing the reality of the effect.

Uncharacteristically Hopper seems to fall under the spell of a PhD conferring divine wisdom.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

All this talk makes me wonder how we're ever going to colonise Mars.

Even if we manage to create a perfect atmosphere there, someone will have forgotten to take the toilet rolls.

Martin.

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. Historically the atmosphere was very different. The evolution of photosynthetic organisms resulted in a huge rise in the oxygen content of the atmosphere. As a result those organisms had to protect themselves from the toxic oxygen. They either evolved to survive in an oxic atmosphere, occupied anoxic niches or died out. Life and the planet will survive, but many organisms will die out.
It really annoys me everytime I hear / see someone say that raising CO2 levels will destroy the planet – I am amused by their lack of understanding.

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. And some guy in his armchair Googling around for a few minutes knows more about it than they do. Who'd a thunk it? Those silly scientists.

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong. the planet has changed since its initial creation, as has the life. Life on the planet will change, which might mean the end of human life, but life will continue to evolve and survive as it always has done. The planet will continue to exist..

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The points about ice-ages ought make us consider that the world is relatively cool at present. Although we are in (probably) a warm interglacial, just be glad none of us will ever see the results of the end of the Ice-Age completely.

The arguments really revolve around human activity disturbing a natural event that, albeit with small perturbations lasting no more than a few centuries at a time, would otherwise be a long-term, fairly stable conditions in human-historical terms.

In other words, the Earth would be expected to warm further – the previous interglacial brought sea-level some 10 metres or more above present – but much more slowly. Wildlife was able to adjust to this, and so were our ancestors when their drift Northwards was blocked by Arctic conditions. The South of England was not glaciated, but was Arctic tundra.

Our far-descendants faced with whatever happens, will find it far harder to adjust to a changing climate, especially if changing at an artificially-rapid rate, than our Palaeolithic ancestors and their Neanderthal cousins would have done. (Though we don't exactly know just what did happen to bring about the entire demise of the latter species, beyond hypothesised absorption into our own by breeding.)

.

Mars?

Regarding colonising Mars, I still think that of science-fiction and Musk bank-balance realms – delete the less-credible. The planet cannot support life, especially our own. Who on Earth would want to live on Mars?

It is a cold desert under a very thin atmosphere of mainly carbon-dioxide; and even if colonised in something like Antarctic-research scale and purposes the attempts would be faced with gigantic problems starting with the sheer travelling-time and isolation of the trip each way.

Let alone of support there and for the return trip

Even assuming it would be possible to return from a planet of similar mass to Earth, so a trip there is not just a one-way ride to Eternity with a stop at Mars Services……..

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

If a Roman galley came up the Forth today he would still be able to park it in the Roman boat pens at Cramond at high tide,

2000 years late maybe, but no significant change from back in the day

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 13:36:24:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. …

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. …

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong…

Of course they're wrong if one wishes to be pedantic – the planet is a lump of matter that's likely to be here for at least several hundred million years.

Not the point though. I don't care about the planet, it's the people who live on it who matter. I suggest there's no practical difference between destroying the planet and destroying the environment. Humans may be incapable of destroying the planet but changing the environment needed to support life as we know it is making rapid progress.

Dave

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Nigel Graham 2 on 11/08/2022 13:50:48:

.

Mars?

Regarding colonising Mars, I still think that of science-fiction and Musk bank-balance realms – delete the less-credible. The planet cannot support life, especially our own. Who on Earth would want to live on Mars?

It is a cold desert under a very thin atmosphere of mainly carbon-dioxide; and even if colonised in something like Antarctic-research scale and purposes the attempts would be faced with gigantic problems starting with the sheer travelling-time and isolation of the trip each way.

Let alone of support there and for the return trip

Even assuming it would be possible to return from a planet of similar mass to Earth, so a trip there is not just a one-way ride to Eternity with a stop at Mars Services……..

Yes, Mars.

Don't you remember all the experts explaining it in the news? I'm sure they were the same people that are now informing us about CO2 & climate change.

Martin.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/08/2022 14:38:15:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 13:36:24:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. …

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. …

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong…

Of course they're wrong if one wishes to be pedantic – the planet is a lump of matter that's likely to be here for at least several hundred million years.

Not the point though. I don't care about the planet, it's the people who live on it who matter. I suggest there's no practical difference between destroying the planet and destroying the environment. Humans may be incapable of destroying the planet but changing the environment needed to support life as we know it is making rapid progress.

Dave

You seem to forget how insignificant humans are to the planet. Nature will do what nature will do. Humans are merely another one of its experiments, regardless of how precious we think we are.

Martin.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

If we can get off-planet then we become speshul

Until then it's beam-me-up-scotty

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

But in the mean time, us insignificant humans on our one habitable planet are still working quite hard at making it uninhabitable for many of the lifeforms that currently make it their home.

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/08/2022 14:38:15:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 13:36:24:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. …

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. …

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong…

Of course they're wrong if one wishes to be pedantic – the planet is a lump of matter that's likely to be here for at least several hundred million years.

Not the point though. I don't care about the planet, it's the people who live on it who matter. I suggest there's no practical difference between destroying the planet and destroying the environment. Humans may be incapable of destroying the planet but changing the environment needed to support life as we know it is making rapid progress.

Dave

Isn't one of the problems that people care about themselves and not the planet. the 2 are interlinked. The planet, our environment and life in general has always been in a state of flux. Probably the best thing that we could do for the continuation of our species would be to rapidly reduce our numbers, but this is not going to happen. There may be an end in sight for us that no one has seen so far. I doubt that our ancestor cousins foresaw that we would outbreed them, although they to a large extent still exist in our DNA. Possibly in the future our species won't exist, but our DNA, or much of it, might. It is what DNA does, survive.
saying that our planet will survive any rise in temperature is being factual, not pedantic. Although maybe its future isn't as long as we might imagine, we don't really know. But the one thing that we can be sure of is that it will change.

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/08/2022 14:38:15:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 13:36:24:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. …

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. …

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong…

Of course they're wrong if one wishes to be pedantic – the planet is a lump of matter that's likely to be here for at least several hundred million years.

Not the point though. I don't care about the planet, it's the people who live on it who matter. I suggest there's no practical difference between destroying the planet and destroying the environment. Humans may be incapable of destroying the planet but changing the environment needed to support life as we know it is making rapid progress.

Dave

Isn't one of the problems that people care about themselves and not the planet. the 2 are interlinked. The planet, our environment and life in general has always been in a state of flux. Probably the best thing that we could do for the continuation of our species would be to rapidly reduce our numbers, but this is not going to happen. There may be an end in sight for us that no one has seen so far. I doubt that our ancestor cousins foresaw that we would outbreed them, although they to a large extent still exist in our DNA. Possibly in the future our species won't exist, but our DNA, or much of it, might. It is what DNA does, survive.
saying that our planet will survive any rise in temperature is being factual, not pedantic. Although maybe its future isn't as long as we might imagine, we don't really know. But the one thing that we can be sure of is that it will change.

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 18:05:31:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 11/08/2022 14:38:15:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 11/08/2022 13:36:24:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 11:12:22:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 10/08/2022 17:25:59:

Raised CO2 levels and rising temperatures will not destroy the planet. …

Gee, all those thousands of scientists who did their PhDs in climate science and related fields and then spent decades scientifically examining the problem were wrong. …

Speaking as a biochemist who doesn't need to use google for this, yes if they think that CO2 will "destroy" the planet they are wrong…

Of course they're wrong if one wishes to be pedantic – the planet is a lump of matter that's likely to be here for at least several hundred million years.

Not the point though. I don't care about the planet, it's the people who live on it who matter. I suggest there's no practical difference between destroying the planet and destroying the environment. Humans may be incapable of destroying the planet but changing the environment needed to support life as we know it is making rapid progress.

Dave

Isn't one of the problems that people care about themselves and not the planet. the 2 are interlinked. The planet, our environment and life in general has always been in a state of flux. Probably the best thing that we could do for the continuation of our species would be to rapidly reduce our numbers, but this is not going to happen. There may be an end in sight for us that no one has seen so far. I doubt that our ancestor cousins foresaw that we would outbreed them, although they to a large extent still exist in our DNA. Possibly in the future our species won't exist, but our DNA, or much of it, might. It is what DNA does, survive.
saying that our planet will survive any rise in temperature is being factual, not pedantic. Although maybe its future isn't as long as we might imagine, we don't really know. But the one thing that we can be sure of is that it will change.

"Isn't one of the problems that people care about themselves and not the planet.?"

I think it would be more accurate to say they care about themselves and not their grandchildren.

regards Martin

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Mark Rand on 11/08/2022 17:25:31:

But in the mean time, us insignificant humans on our one habitable planet are still working quite hard at making it uninhabitable for many of the lifeforms that currently make it their home.

Strangely, some people believe that to be their right and never consider the consequences.

[Master of noneParticipant @masterofnone]

Conserving the planet is not just about principles and science but also about economics. A design solution for insulation in a building is affected by the prevailing interest rates more than just the energy to be saved vs the energy costs of the manufacture and installation of the materials. High interest rates wil discourage investment in energy saving measures as the future returns must be subject to greater discount. Hence the accountants can have significant influence in investment decisions unless regulation forces the pace.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Paul Rhodes on 11/08/2022 12:27:35:

Aaah the Dunning Kruger Effect Duncan. The argument ending sneer whose use implies an appeal to authority superiority in the user ,often reinforcing the reality of the effect.

Uncharacteristically Hopper seems to fall under the spell of a PhD conferring divine wisdom.

An appeal to authority is a perfectly valid argument when the authority is accepted as an expert(s) in the field and has presented a valid array of data, evidence and reasoning to support their assertion, as Dunning and Kruger have done.

You are confusing it with an appeal to false authority, which would be, for example, citing Albert Einstein on a matter of religion, an area in which he was no kind of expert.

So perhaps you don't know quite as much about appeals to authority as you thought you did. A classic case of the Dunning Kruger effect.

[Paul RhodesParticipant @paulrhodes20292]

Sorry Hopper you seem not to understood my point.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 22:33:59:

An appeal to authority is a perfectly valid argument when the authority is accepted as an expert(s) in the field and has presented a valid array of data, evidence and reasoning to support their assertion, as Dunning and Kruger have done.

Richard Feynman tells us, "It doesn't matter who you are, how clever you are, how beautiful your idea is, if it disagrees with nature, with experiment, then it is wrong.

Climate experts have made many predictions and not one has passed this test so they are wrong.

Simples

Robin

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Posted by Robin on 11/08/2022 23:37:20:

Posted by Hopper on 11/08/2022 22:33:59:

An appeal to authority is a perfectly valid argument when the authority is accepted as an expert(s) in the field and has presented a valid array of data, evidence and reasoning to support their assertion, as Dunning and Kruger have done.

Richard Feynman tells us, "It doesn't matter who you are, how clever you are, how beautiful your idea is, if it disagrees with nature, with experiment, then it is wrong.

Climate experts have made many predictions and not one has passed this test so they are wrong.

Simples

Robin

s/not one has/almost all have/

s/wrong/right/

There. Fixed that for you.

[Author]

Posts