Yet another nail in the coffin of life on earth

[kenneal - lagger]

From the Powerswitch Daily an article on the finding of more gas and possibly oil off Cyprus. Not a word about how this will affect the carbon balance of the planet and it's reported as generally a good thing for Europe as it will enable us/them to forego reliance on Russian supplies. And this reporting is from the Grauniad!

[emordnilap]

I see these articles all the time, though mainly in relation to oil. Most people seem to be oblivious or at the very least, exhibit cognitive dissonance.

The usual thing with gas is “it’s a cleaner energy source� or the risible “it’s transition fuel�. Yeah, let’s transition to fighting over the last and dirtiest fuels before worrying about, you know, species.

[vtsnowedin]

I see these articles all the time, though mainly in relation to oil. Most people seem to be oblivious or at the very least, exhibit cognitive dissonance.

The usual thing with gas is “it’s a cleaner energy source� or the risible “it’s transition fuel�. Yeah, let’s transition to fighting over the last and dirtiest fuels before worrying about, you know, species.

Well if you have the goal of reducing CO2 emissions while at the same time keeping the lights on switching from a coal fired boiler to one fired by natural gas yields a 49% reduction in CO2 for MBTU burned. That is a big first step and should not be sneezed at.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=73&t=11

[emordnilap]

First! This is additional CO2 we’re allowing a handful of idiots to dig up.

[vtsnowedin]

First! This is additional CO2 we’re allowing a handful of idiots to dig up.

No it is the base we have been digging up and burning for two centuries. You can't just stop using fossil fuels without killing billions that depend on the energy they provide.

[woodburner]

Could someone explain (without the usual personal insults) why we need to reduce CO2? It has never driven temperature increase, it has always lagged temperature increases, and there have been plenty of times in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher than today, not necessarily at the same time.

Plants grow better with more CO2, a physiological benefit which allows them to grow more while using less water.

Some reading.

[eatyourveg]

Could someone explain (without the usual personal insults) why we need to reduce CO2? It has never driven temperature increase, it has always lagged temperature increases, and there have been plenty of times in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher than today, not necessarily at the same time.

Plants grow better with more CO2, a physiological benefit which allows them to grow more while using less water.

Some reading.

It may be you have posted on the wrong website, pretty sure this is where you meant to go http://thefuckingidiotsclub.co.uk/id2.html

[adam2]

It is generally accepted that adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase temperatures.
I appreciate that you may hold a different view, but you are in a small and dwindling minority regarding this.

In ancient times carbon dioxide levels were much higher than now and temperatures were also higher.
This did indeed encourage plant growth, and it is generally accepted that ancient dense forests are the source of todays fossil fuels.

By burning such fossil fuels, we are returning to the atmosphere carbon dioxide that has been locked away for millions of years.
This seems likely to increase temperatures to those prevailing millions of years ago.
Such conditions would be fine for promoting the growth of dense forests, and presumably also be beneficial to SOME wildlife that favours such habitats.

Higher temperatures would be inimical to modern technological civilization, many regions would become too hot for human life without mechanical cooling.
Many other regions, including much agricultural land, and many of the worlds largest cities, would be underwater due to the melting of polar ice.

[BritDownUnder]

I have read somewhere that even if the high CO2 levels of the past aeons returned (and I think high CO2 levels are returning, Keeling curve etc) the dense forest growth that 'could' return would NOT lead to coal being formed again. This is due to the fact that there are now species of bacteria that break down the lignin in the wood as it is being stratified in the ground and would release the carbon (presumably as CO2 or methane) before it becomes coal.

100 million years ago these bacteria did not exist and hence the coal formed before the lignin was bacterially decomposed.

Unfortunately it does look like the fossil fuels of today are a one-shot phenomenon that will not be reformed sometime in the future.

[woodburner]

Could someone explain (without the usual personal insults) why we need to reduce CO2? It has never driven temperature increase, it has always lagged temperature increases, and there have been plenty of times in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher than today, not necessarily at the same time.

Plants grow better with more CO2, a physiological benefit which allows them to grow more while using less water.

Some reading.

It may be you have posted on the wrong website, pretty sure this is where you meant to go http://thefuckingidiotsclub.co.uk/id2.html

So I see you are someone with nothing useful to say, I’m sure the others here with similar minds will welcome your input.

[woodburner]

It is generally accepted that adding extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase temperatures.
I appreciate that you may hold a different view, but you are in a small and dwindling minority regarding this.

In ancient times carbon dioxide levels were much higher than now and temperatures were also higher.
This did indeed encourage plant growth, and it is generally accepted that ancient dense forests are the source of todays fossil fuels.

By burning such fossil fuels, we are returning to the atmosphere carbon dioxide that has been locked away for millions of years.
This seems likely to increase temperatures to those prevailing millions of years ago.
Such conditions would be fine for promoting the growth of dense forests, and presumably also be beneficial to SOME wildlife that favours such habitats.

Higher temperatures would be inimical to modern technological civilization, many regions would become too hot for human life without mechanical cooling.
Many other regions, including much agricultural land, and many of the worlds largest cities, would be underwater due to the melting of polar ice.

A “dwindling minority�?

Your posts are generally respectable, and respectful, but to make a statement like that where can I find figures supporting it?

The CO2 is 400ppm or thereabouts, and in the late 1800s was about 280ppm. Some estimates indicate the increase would be the result of a rise of about 1ºC for such an increase. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will make plants grow better, and this is done commercially by burning propane and feeding the cooled gasses into greenhouses. So the plants will be taking up the CO2. A negative feedback influence. Unfortunately most of the current “consensus� tries to suggest we are in a runaway situation, with poitive feedback. There were also times when the temperatures were a lot colder, and not that long ago. Seems the sun had something to do with it.

Reminds me about the expectation that life was quickly going to get worse from 2012 onwards as the oil peak was reached. While the UK and otherwestern governments are agreeing to scratching around to make miniscule reductions in CO2, China and India are laughing their heads off building a few power stations a month powered by coal. Not the UK, it converts Drax to wood, highly processed and shipped from the other side of the atlantic. There’s a lot of thinking going on, but it’s not joined up. So much for “concensus� thinking.

“If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.�
-Adolf Hitler�

[woodburner]

I have read somewhere that even if the high CO2 levels of the past aeons returned (and I think high CO2 levels are returning, Keeling curve etc) the dense forest growth that 'could' return would NOT lead to coal being formed again. This is due to the fact that there are now species of bacteria that break down the lignin in the wood as it is being stratified in the ground and would release the carbon (presumably as CO2 or methane) before it becomes coal.

100 million years ago these bacteria did not exist and hence the coal formed before the lignin was bacterially decomposed.

Unfortunately it does look like the fossil fuels of today are a one-shot phenomenon that will not be reformed sometime in the future.

I understood it was fungi that decompose the wood. However, we only have a theory as to how the coal was formed, and plenty of theories about various subjects have fallen in the past.

[kenneal - lagger]

Could someone explain (without the usual personal insults) why we need to reduce CO2? It has never driven temperature increase, it has always lagged temperature increases, and there have been plenty of times in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher than today, not necessarily at the same time.

Plants grow better with more CO2, a physiological benefit which allows them to grow more while using less water.

Some reading.

It may be you have posted on the wrong website, pretty sure this is where you meant to go http://thefuckingidiotsclub.co.uk/id2.html

Thanks, EYV. couldn't agree more.

On a more serious note, CO2 has indeed lagged temperature change in the past because the temperature change was initiated by the Malankovich cycles of the earth's orbit, precession and tilt. As the temperature changed plant life increased or decreased and CO2 rose or fell in one of many feed back loops.

The problem now is that the CO2 increase is wildly out of sinc with what it should be in those cycles and we are unlikely to ever have an ice age again. As a result the earth is likely to turn into another Venus if CO2 keeps rising and other positive feedbacks kick in, such as massive methane releases form the Arctic tundra. Venus rotates around the sun as the moon rotates around the earth, with one side always pointed to the object it is rotating around. It should therefore have a very hot side and a very cold side. Because of the heavy blanket of CO2 cloaking Venus it is very hot all over.

The Chinese are cutting back on their fossil fuel programs and are building out renewables at a faster rate than the rest of the world put together. They have to keep the population happy by keeping their development going but are aware that climate change is a major problem which is why they have signed up to the Paris Agreement.

Plants in a protected environment such as a green house will certainly grow quicker with more CO2 but all plants require water and the correct temperature range to grow and many require insects to help them reproduce. If the water supply and temperature range change rapidly because of climate change those plants will die out before they can spread to a new more favourable climate zone. Also if the temperatures are not at the correct level at the correct time of year the insects which pollinate the plants will not be available, the plants will not seed and will die out. I am sure that anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see the problems with more CO2 causing the climate to change is a greater problem than can be compensated for by additional plant growth from the additional CO.

In ancient times carbon dioxide levels were much higher than now and temperatures were also higher.
This did indeed encourage plant growth, and it is generally accepted that ancient dense forests are the source of todays fossil fuels.

By burning such fossil fuels, we are returning to the atmosphere carbon dioxide that has been locked away for millions of years.
This seems likely to increase temperatures to those prevailing millions of years ago.
Such conditions would be fine for promoting the growth of dense forests, and presumably also be beneficial to SOME wildlife that favours such habitats.

Although CO2 levels in the past have been as high as today or even higher the earth's temperature might not have been so high as today's CO2 levels would cause because of the differences in the earth's rotation around the sun - Malankovith cycles again.

Unlike Peal Oil theory the science on Climate Change is reinforcing itself year on year with every new discovery.

This is all explained by people who actually know what they are talking about at www.skepticalscience.com and www.realclimate.org. Alternatively you can listen to the above ranting of a conspiracy theorist who knows nothing about real science and gets his "information" from politicians, newsreaders and journalists funded by fossil fuel companies.

[BritDownUnder]

I understood it was fungi that decompose the wood. However, we only have a theory as to how the coal was formed, and plenty of theories about various subjects have fallen in the past.

I think you are correct about the fungi and not bacteria. I am happy to believe the theory that wood turns into coal by being covered by layers of sediment and eventually forms coal. As far as I know there is not any other theory on how it formed. I understand that graphite not coal has been formed by volcanic lava trapping tree trunks before they got chance to burn in air. As an interesting but not very relevant aside here is a very interesting museum in the Lake District that tells you all about how graphite was mined there first for cannon ball moulds and then for pencils.

[eatyourveg]

Could someone explain (without the usual personal insults) why we need to reduce CO2? It has never driven temperature increase, it has always lagged temperature increases, and there have been plenty of times in the past when temperature and CO2 were higher than today, not necessarily at the same time.

Plants grow better with more CO2, a physiological benefit which allows them to grow more while using less water.

Some reading.

It may be you have posted on the wrong website, pretty sure this is where you meant to go http://thefuckingidiotsclub.co.uk/id2.html

So I see you are someone with nothing useful to say, I’m sure the others here with similar minds will welcome your input.

The reason's to avoid arguing with idiots all pretty much boil down to the same reasons - you both look stupid and the idiot enjoys it. So, you carry on arguing that black is white and white is black, I'll simply agree with you whilst rolling eyes. I have a friend who like you disappeared down to the rabbit hole some time ago. He is firmly of the opinion that the world is being taken over by women who have had sex changes and are bent on world domination in their new form. That's his opinion for real. There is nothing to be done about it. It's straightforward batshit. As is climate change denial and it's causes.