CO2 – Dumb question

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

True, but do chemoautotrophs make much difference to mammals like you and me? 'Chemoautotrophs are commonly found in environments where plants cannot survive, such as at the bottom of the ocean, or in acidic hot springs.'

As such they might be the only form of life not effected by climate change – so it's not all bad news!

They do fix CO2 so will have some benefit to us. However, I doubt that they will be the only form of life to survive climate change, many others will be able do as well, or will evolve to do so. Just as we have evolved to live in cooler, or warmer climates as humans.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 13:12:26:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

True, but do chemoautotrophs make much difference to mammals like you and me? 'Chemoautotrophs are commonly found in environments where plants cannot survive, such as at the bottom of the ocean, or in acidic hot springs.'

As such they might be the only form of life not effected by climate change – so it's not all bad news!

They do fix CO2 so will have some benefit to us. However, I doubt that they will be the only form of life to survive climate change, many others will be able do as well, or will evolve to do so. Just as we have evolved to live in cooler, or warmer climates as humans.

I don't disagree except I didn't say chemoautotrophs would be the only survivors, I remarked that they were not effected. All other plants and animals will be.

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:29:44:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 13:12:26:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

Life is possible because a small proportion of the sun's energy is captured by the plants and microorganisms sitting at the bottom of the food chain.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 12/08/2022 14:30:35

The Sun's energy doesn't drive all food webs. Life existed before photosynthesis evolved. Although. we are mainly familiar with food webs that rely on photoautotrophs as producers, others rely on chemoautotrophs.

Photoautotrophs use light energy to synthesise organic chemicals, chemoautotrophs use chemical energy to do it.

Edited By Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:25:33

True, but do chemoautotrophs make much difference to mammals like you and me? 'Chemoautotrophs are commonly found in environments where plants cannot survive, such as at the bottom of the ocean, or in acidic hot springs.'

As such they might be the only form of life not effected by climate change – so it's not all bad news!

They do fix CO2 so will have some benefit to us. However, I doubt that they will be the only form of life to survive climate change, many others will be able do as well, or will evolve to do so. Just as we have evolved to live in cooler, or warmer climates as humans.

I don't disagree except I didn't say chemoautotrophs would be the only survivors, I remarked that they were not effected. All other plants and animals will be.

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

It doesn't take that long for change. Variation happens constantly due to mutations, if the selection pressure is there those organisms with beneficial mutations will survive and bring about change. it is noticable in our garden that some plants are better adapted to the present conditions than others.
There have been at least 5 previous major extinction events were a large number of species didn't survive, but life soon recovered.

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

So are those people who reckon it's all down to overpopulation ready for the vortex machine, ref Logan's Run

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:37:12:

Posted by Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:04:35:

Posted by Robin on 13/08/2022 10:26:28:

It is in the nature of all creatures to breed and exceed their food supply, you can't expect people not to breed just because you don't like it. …

Which part of my conclusion " So obviously, the solution is a change in emission-producing behaviour, not a change in population numbers" did you not understand?

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

Edited By Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:05:38

But your own argument is also too simplistic, there are more people living on the planet than it can support. Normally this would not be a problem as nature would reduce the population, lack of food, increase in predators, increase in disease etc. However, we have learnt to overcome these constraints. This has had disasterous consequences for our environment and the other organisms that we share the planet with. ignoring overpopulation ignores the cause of problems.

But it is not the overall number of people causing the current CO2 problem. It is the richest 10 per cent of those people causing 52 per cent of the CO2 emissions, while the poorest 50 per cent of the population cause only 10 per cent of the emissions.

The planet is in fact currently supporting it's present population. It is just that the food is not evenly distributed, a matter of economics and logistics, compounded by increasing natural disasters arising from global warming. But you are right, it can't keep increasing forever without food and water running short etc.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Robin on 13/08/2022 12:30:56:

Posted by Hopper on 13/08/2022 12:04:35:

I'm surprised that someone who knows more about climate science than the scientists struggles with such basic reading comprehension.

Climate science isn't really science, it is all about making models that wildly overestimate the effect of CO2.

There is actually very little energy left to be had for CO2 in its absorption wavelength, so they have created a positive feedback loop based on water vapour. A runaway scenario that has never happened in the past.

To explain why it has never happened in the past, they say it is currently warmer than it has ever been before.

That seems rather unlikely.

They are digging a hole for themselves that keeps getting deeper and deeper but they can't seem to stop.

There is no arguing with willful ignorance.

[Anthony KnightsParticipant @anthonyknights16741]

When I was a lad, the population of this country was about 42 million. There was a "pie" called the country's resources, of which we all got a slice. It is now said to be 65 million (that's the ones we know about). Consequently, every body's slice of pie is now smaller, even though it's still bigger that that of third world countries.

It is an inescapable fact, that the more people there are, the less there is to go round. Be wary of making quips about "Logan's Run and Carousel" as you could be nearer to the truth than you think.

Successive governments have continuously put off doing anything about ensuring secure and reliable vital services such as water and energy for this country. The can has been continually kicked down the road in the hope the next lot will deal with it. We have now reached the end of the road and the can has fallen off the cliff at it's end. No doubt we will be shortly be getting a statement from our new Prime Minister which be loudly accompanied by the sound of slamming stable doors.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 18:26:47:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:29:44:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 13:12:26:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

…

…

…

…

…

…

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• ,Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

It doesn't take that long for change. Variation happens constantly due to mutations, if the selection pressure is there those organisms with beneficial mutations will survive and bring about change. it is noticable in our garden that some plants are better adapted to the present conditions than others.
There have been at least 5 previous major extinction events were a large number of species didn't survive, but life soon recovered.

Evolutionary change requires many generations to appear and climate change is moving much faster than that. Evolution can be seen in organisms with short life spans like viruses bacteria and fruit-flies, but animals take a lot longer. A human generation averages about 25 years, which is why there is no significant biological difference between us and the builders of Stonehenge.

Of course many lifeforms will survive climate catastrophe, it's just that I would prefer the survivors to be people rather than cockroaches.

Dave

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Posted by Anthony Knights on 14/08/2022 10:33:07:

When I was a lad, the population of this country was about 42 million. There was a "pie" called the country's resources, of which we all got a slice. It is now said to be 65 million (that's the ones we know about). Consequently, every body's slice of pie is now smaller, even though it's still bigger that that of third world countries.

It is an inescapable fact, that the more people there are, the less there is to go round. Be wary of making quips about "Logan's Run and Carousel" as you could be nearer to the truth than you think.

Successive governments have continuously put off doing anything about ensuring secure and reliable vital services such as water and energy for this country. The can has been continually kicked down the road in the hope the next lot will deal with it. We have now reached the end of the road and the can has fallen off the cliff at it's end. No doubt we will be shortly be getting a statement from our new Prime Minister which be loudly accompanied by the sound of slamming stable doors.

Spot on Mr Knights!

Tony

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 14/08/2022 11:25:12:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 18:26:47:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:29:44:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 13:12:26:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

…

…

…

…

…

…

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• ,Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

It doesn't take that long for change. Variation happens constantly due to mutations, if the selection pressure is there those organisms with beneficial mutations will survive and bring about change. it is noticable in our garden that some plants are better adapted to the present conditions than others.
There have been at least 5 previous major extinction events were a large number of species didn't survive, but life soon recovered.

Evolutionary change requires many generations to appear and climate change is moving much faster than that. Evolution can be seen in organisms with short life spans like viruses bacteria and fruit-flies, but animals take a lot longer. A human generation averages about 25 years, which is why there is no significant biological difference between us and the builders of Stonehenge.

Of course many lifeforms will survive climate catastrophe, it's just that I would prefer the survivors to be people rather than cockroaches.

Dave

A change will appear as soon as the mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial those having it are more likely to survive. It only needs one generation for this to happen, but will take longer to spread through a population.
There will be a multitude of biological differences between us and the builders of Stonehenge. despite modern technology protecting us from selection pressure we continue to evolve, perhaps even at a faster rate now than previously. You only need to look at our ability to survive COVID to see the variation in our immune response.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Out of the total amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, human activity contributes 4%, therefore, 96% of all CO2 occurs naturally.

I'm still not seeing how a concentration of CO2 at about 0.04% of the atmosphere is able to create a (rather lightweight) 'string vest' around the Earth that is able to let energy in, but not out, and without an increase in temperature of the upper atmosphere.

Besides that, the oceans hold more than 50 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, so as they warm & cool, the amount of CO2 released/absorbed into the atmosphere will change.

There are far too many variables involved for anybody to prove beyond doubt that our activity is changing the climate significantly beyond what our existance requires.

Martin.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

There will be a lot of significant assumptions and omissions in their models because it's like trying to predict the 2.30 at Kempton

I still think we pollute too much and that needs sorted

Presumably they are trying to simplify the message that an expanding global population needs to prepare for a significant reduction in resources

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Ady1 on 14/08/2022 14:01:35:

There will be a lot of significant assumptions and omissions in their models because it's like trying to predict the 2.30 at Kempton

I still think we pollute too much and that needs sorted

Presumably they are trying to simplify the message that an expanding global population needs to prepare for a significant reduction in resources

We pollute too much largely to satisfy the greed of 'big business' through the relentless campaign to make us buy products we don't need.

We're all to blame though – that's why we're referred to as 'consumers'.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 13:39:15:

Out of the total amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, human activity contributes 4%, therefore, 96% of all CO2 occurs naturally.

I'm still not seeing how a concentration of CO2 at about 0.04% of the atmosphere is able to create a (rather lightweight) 'string vest' around the Earth that is able to let energy in, but not out, and without an increase in temperature of the upper atmosphere.

…

Martin.

I gave several examples of tiny quantities making a big difference in an earlier post, so in principle at least Martin ought to admit the possibility CO² and Methane might work that way too.

An individual's failure to understand how something works does not mean the explanation is wrong. A blood test showed before any symptoms that I had cancer. The blood test is controversial because it's not 100% reliable. Tempting to hope for the best and not have the unpleasant biopsy. I went with expert opinion, and it turned out they were right, even though I don't know what caused the cancer, or how the blood test works. I took their advice on the best course of treatment too, even though I didn't understand exactly how radiation is made and focussed. I've no idea what the dose should be, or why some specific types of radiation kills cancerous cells in preference to healthy ones. Faced with a technical problem it's dangerous to be a non-believer.

Exactly how Carbon Dioxide makes the atmosphere a better insulator is perhaps hard to understand, but surely we've all been in a greenhouse? Panes of glass allow more energy in than is allowed out, and although the inside warms up, the glass doesn't get particularly hot.

Martin's non-acceptance of the mechanisms leading to global warming means he doesn't accept car-engines, radio waves or electricity either! The scientific explanation of why some materials are conductors and others insulators must also be unacceptable to Martin because they can't be explained in common sense terms either. Nonetheless, the theory works out in practice, as did E=mc²

If 'common sense' lies behind an objection to a scientific theory, then common sense is almost certainly wrong, no matter how sensible it might seem superficially. The behaviour of Carbon Dioxide exposed to solar radiation is completely outside ordinary human experience. Lay opinion is worthless because the behaviour has to be investigated and measured. Science gives us certainties like Ohms Law; common-sense failed to deliver V=IR.

Personally, I don't believe there is any such thing as common-sense, what there is of it is  actually derived from an individuals education and experience plus a whiff of intelligence. Chaps moaning about the failure of youngsters to have the common sense needed to work a tape-measure don't find common sense helps them play Grand Theft Auto on an X-box. Common sense fails immediately outside it's comfort zone whilst training, education, and scientific method don't.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 14/08/2022 14:55:27

[Mark RandParticipant @markrand96270]

Thank all the gods both above, below and amongst us that the people making internationally significant descisions concerning the reduction of anthropogenic global warming don't pay attention to some of the twaddle repeated in this thread.

Explanation of the 96% claim

Blowlamp (and others) Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.

Edited By Mark Rand on 14/08/2022 15:38:23

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Dave, I see you cut out some pertinent points I raised, but instead chose to beat about the bush and rather rudely refer to me in the third person.

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works?

Why should I believe your greenhouse/glass example, when it seems to me that your greenhouse is actually covered with chicken mesh?

Do you think changes in Solar activity have any effect on Earth's climate, and if you do, could they be responsible for any warming that may be occurring?

Martin.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Mark Rand on 14/08/2022 15:35:30:

Thank all the gods both above, below and amongst us that the people making internationally significant descisions concerning the reduction of anthropogenic global warming don't pay attention to some of the twaddle repeated in this thread.

Explanation of the 96% claim

Blowlamp (and others) Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest.

Edited By Mark Rand on 14/08/2022 15:38:23

 

Perhaps you could clarify what that 'explanation' is actually saying in relation to the 96% figure?

Meanwhile, here's a temperature chart (pink & black), vs atmospheric CO2 levels (green) in the USA, for the years shown.

They don't appear to be in lockstep to me.

 

Martin.

 

Edited By blowlamp on 14/08/2022 17:52:13

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Keith Wyles on 14/08/2022 12:36:45:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 14/08/2022 11:25:12:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 18:26:47:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:29:44:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 13:12:26:

Posted by SillyOldDuffer on 13/08/2022 13:00:16:

Posted by Keith Wyles on 13/08/2022 12:24:36:

…

…

…

…

…

…

Not happy with evolution as the answer if it can be avoided:

• It does nothing for us or our grand-children!
• ,Takes about 100,000 years to alter a species, and climate change is faster than that.
• Evolution does not guarantee a species will survive. For one reason or another 90% of all previous species are extinct after failing to adapt to a change.

Dave

It doesn't take that long for change. Variation happens constantly due to mutations, if the selection pressure is there those organisms with beneficial mutations will survive and bring about change. it is noticable in our garden that some plants are better adapted to the present conditions than others.
There have been at least 5 previous major extinction events were a large number of species didn't survive, but life soon recovered.

Evolutionary change requires many generations to appear and climate change is moving much faster than that. Evolution can be seen in organisms with short life spans like viruses bacteria and fruit-flies, but animals take a lot longer. A human generation averages about 25 years, which is why there is no significant biological difference between us and the builders of Stonehenge.

Of course many lifeforms will survive climate catastrophe, it's just that I would prefer the survivors to be people rather than cockroaches.

Dave

A change will appear as soon as the mutation occurs, and if it is beneficial those having it are more likely to survive. It only needs one generation for this to happen, but will take longer to spread through a population.
There will be a multitude of biological differences between us and the builders of Stonehenge. despite modern technology protecting us from selection pressure we continue to evolve, perhaps even at a faster rate now than previously. You only need to look at our ability to survive COVID to see the variation in our immune response.

There will be a multitude of biological differences between us and the builders of Stonehenge. despite modern technology protecting us from selection pressure we continue to evolve, perhaps even at a faster rate now than previously.

I think I may take exception to that statement. As you correctly point out we are technologically buffered from a good deal of selection pressure which is a posh way of saying that bad genes die out fast only with technology that increasingly ceases to be the case. Type 1 diabetes is easily survivable past reproduction age now wereas is was not 100 years ago. Mutation will continue and, with increased pollutants, likely at a higher rate. However the selection pressure for 'better' genotypes is buffered by our technologies. The result is a population more genetically diverse and less able to cope as a whole. This by the way is really not an argument for eugenics but we have to recognise that as a race we are rapidly distancing ourselves from the biology that produced us. We have at this time the technology to alter our genetic code both in the individual and at a more fundemental germ line level which in the first instance would affect just the indiviidual andin the secon all his or her progeny. We have already dominated the process of evolution and the challenge to us and future generations is how do we wisely handle the job ourselves.

regards Martin

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 16:53:18:

Dave, I see you cut out some pertinent points I raised, but instead chose to beat about the bush and rather rudely refer to me in the third person.

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works?

Why should I believe your greenhouse/glass example, when it seems to me that your greenhouse is actually covered with chicken mesh?

Do you think changes in Solar activity have any effect on Earth's climate, and if you do, could they be responsible for any warming that may be occurring?

 

Martin.

Ironically, the way Carbon Dioxide interacts with energy in the atmosphere is a resonance effect, and it seems my answers aren't being tuned into either. Have a look at my earlier posts; I think I've already answered your questions.  I'm not beating about the bush, just trying to explain.

Part of the problem is the difficulty of explaining effects outside the range of human experience. The behaviour of a Carbon Dioxide molecule in the atmosphere isn't something we can touch or feel. I can only suggest analogies – things a bit like what's happening, but not exact replicas. A recipe for miscommunication.

I'll try again:

1. The sun shines on the earth
2. Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon are all transparent, i.e. not resonant with, the energy frequencies arriving from the sun, so they allow energy to arrive and leave equally well.
3. Water vapour, Methane and Carbon Dioxide are resonant with heat frequencies, so they are not transparent.  Heat is retained by them.
4. When solar radiation hits the surface a proportion of the energy is converted into heat resonant with Water vapour, Methane, and Carbon Dioxide, The energy is absorbed by those molecules, which cool by warming up the adjacent Nitrogen, Oxygen, and Argon.  Heat is retained again.
5. In the past it was thought the oceans would dissolve all the Carbon Dioxide produced by humans, but measurements show the sea only captures about half causing the amount of CO2 in the air to grow.  Both have been measured.
6. Water vapour is not guilty of global warming because the amount in the air stays much the same. It's balanced because water is removed from the atmosphere by rain and snow.
7. The warmer atmosphere created by greenhouse gases acts as a blanket, keeping heat closer to the surface for longer than before. Land and sea both absorb and re-radiate heat like giant firebricks.

Few more examples of large effects from small quantities:

• Although the atmosphere only contains about 0.03% CO2, most plant life is built by photosynthesising it, therefore Martin and I are the result of eating plants or animals that ate plants. The tiny amount of CO2 in the air allows us to have this debate on the internet and the rest of the world to read our deliberations! Tiny proportion massive effect, As 0.03% CO2 in the air is responsible for all animal and plant life, which Martin's small proportion argument says is unlikely, I suggest increasing it slightly could also cause havoc.  It certainly can't be said a small quantity of Carbon Dioxide in the air is insignificant.
• No RF energy can penetrate a mesh of chicken wire surrounding a Radio Transmitter. See Faraday cage.
• Nasty hot day here until a few clouds turned up and created some shade. Clouds being made of water vapour are so flimsy that aeroplanes fly through them without noticing, yet these clouds stopped most of the sun's heat reaching my part of England. Although I cooled down, the sun's heat is still there – it's warmed the air. Someone else will be be getting wind, rain and perhaps thunder. Water vapour may only be about 1% of the atmosphere, but we've all seen it in action!

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 14/08/2022 18:46:53

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 14/08/2022 18:51:38

[Ebenezer GoodParticipant @ebenezergood76202]

The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily, even the ex head of Green peace had become fed up with it and released a YouTube video.

[RobinParticipant @robin]

The end has been nigh since I was a nipper with the Cuban missile crisis. Then it was Strontium 90 in our instant coffee, asteroid impact, floods, combustible nuclear reactors, pesticides, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, stagnation of the gulf stream, toasty UV rays pouring down through holes in the ozone layer, the list goes on.

Surely there must be a limit to our credibility? We can't go on believing every unproven crack pot idea the media choose to throw at us.

Can we?

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 16:53:18:

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works…….

The increase is from 280 ppm in pre industrial days to 421 ppm now. This is an increase of 50%. I've no idea where Martin's 0.0016% comes from.

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:47

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:29:21

[RobinParticipant @robin]

Posted by duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:18:

The increase is from 280 ppm in pre industrial days to 421 ppm now. This is an increase of 50%. I've no idea where Martin's 0.0016% comes from.

The effect is logarithmic so an increased concentration from 200ppm to 400ppm will have the same effect as 400ppm to 800ppm. That's a lot of CO2.

Of course, an increase from 100ppm to 200ppm would have no appreciable effect on us at all, because we would all be dead

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:18:

Posted by blowlamp on 14/08/2022 16:53:18:

Why don't you just explain to us hard-of-thinking types how a roughly 0.0016% increase in CO2 level (due to human activities) is proven to be the cause of a change in the Earth's climate and how this "hard to understand" concept works…….

The increase is from 280 ppm in pre industrial days to 421 ppm now. This is an increase of 50%. I've no idea where Martin's 0.0016% comes from.

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:28:47

Edited By duncan webster on 14/08/2022 23:29:21

CO2 is present at ~ 0.04% in the atmosphere, human activity is said to have increased CO2 levels by 4% of that amount. Therefore, 4% of 0.04% means human activity has increased the CO2 level in the atmosphere by 0.0016%.

How do you know the ppm increase in CO2 is purely because of industrial activity and not caused by other factors as well?

Martin.

[HopperParticipant @hopper]

Posted by Ebenezer Good on 14/08/2022 19:58:53:

The problem with this it's become media fodder, the cries of 'doom' ring out daily, even the ex head of Green peace had become fed up with it and released a YouTube video.

We are not discussing media coverage. We are discussing the science.

[Author]

Posts