Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Astronomically-related chat

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Cliff »

Dear Steve (T)
Thanks for your comments and interesting "Economist" article reference.
I've read it through quickly - but really need to read it again to take things in properly.
My first impression makes me feel justified in sticking to my continuing stance of sitting on the fence - even though others might say if we sit on the fence too long, it'll be too late.
I long ago decided "people" are messing up the earth - but Climate Change-Global Warming aren't the only problems. Apart from anything else there are far too many people wanting to eat and drink MY food and water.
Best wishes from Cliff
M54
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: Cambs
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by M54 »

Apart from anything else there are far too many people wanting to eat and drink MY food and water.
That is the problem: They (whoever) think you want to eat their food and drink their water.
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by brian livesey »

Rest assured that population isn't the problem. It's the inadequacy of present day economics that's to blame. People go hungery in "developed" countries as well as poor ones, where vast amounts of food goes uneaten: can't pay, can't have - it's as simple as that.
It's been estimated that our lush planet can feed 12 billion people without messing up the environment.
I'm guessing that future reorganised society would want to tap the vast amount of solar energy that bathes our planet. :D
brian
Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Cliff »

Dear Brian
I assume that you might be speaking with forked tongue.
If not then I have to say I totally disagree with you.
On a recent TV discussion programme a wag said (possibly quite correctly) that all the World's current human population could stand on the Isle of Man at anyone time - although he did say possibly not very comfortably.
Arguably the World could stand a much bigger population than it currently has.
Funnily enough I might be happy with that if at the same time the UK's population could be reduced to about 35 million people (of course it would need to be a decent mix of people - not all old men).
Motor cars may not be critical to our existence but being a popular device for many humans (especially many of us in the UK) I'll use motor cars to illustrate one example of what I think is a bigger problem.
I recall in the 1960's the M62 motorway being haled as a new all weather route across the Pennines. Now half a century later a fairly short spell of snow and M62 becomes a night mare. Of course I suppose the real problem isn't the snowfall - it's too many cars (and other motor vehicles) clogging up the motorway resulting in us duck-egg drivers crashing causing jams that block the motorway and then even the snow-ploughs crash from time to time.
I suppose looking at the matter philosophically - so what there a few deaths and frustrating delays but sooner or later most drivers and passengers get home.
However, that's only one of the problems caused by excessive human population.
If everyone (or at least everyone except a modest number of the World's elite) could be penned up like battery hens, then There's no doubt in my mind that the World could hold an immense population - but imagine the existence of the vast proportion of that population.
Ironically although the World's population has apparently increased about three fold since i was born, in that same period the UK's population has increased at a lesser percentage rate. The problem is that the UK - Geat Britain or whatever we call it is small so us British are fairly cramped together.
England is the worst of course, Wales, N ireland better, Scotland particularly ther Highlands even better.
Yes, the World (earth) will almost certainly continue to exist for quite a long time no what us humans do.
Getting rid of motor vehicles might help a bit, even if everyone drove electric powered cars that wouldn't stop traffic congestion. Futuristic computerised driving systems might help or make things even worse ?
How much damage humans do to Earth is debatable but an excessive human population could make their lives similar to ants and cockroaches.
Can you imagine everybody living underground in huge tunnels housing particle coliders ?
A few of the lucky elite might be living at ground level doing astronomy in quiet countryside dark sky parks.
Best wishes from Cliff
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by brian livesey »

Please don't misunderstand me about population, Cliff. I'm not suggesting that we should go for a population of 12 billion, only to say that this amount of mouths can be comfortably fed, using present-day technology in a sensible way.
As regards the problems caused by car ownership, nobody is obliged to buy a car. I've never had one and never will have one because the social and environmental costs are too high.
I prefer a bicycle and cramped, smelly, public transport, which is in dire need of improvement.
brian
Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Cliff »

Dear Brian
I admire you for cycling. In my youth I was an enthusistic cyclist and in the 50s on holidays I toured the west side of England and Wales, before taking up hill walking. I haven't ridden a bike at all for twenty years now and even if I could wouldn't want to anymore because of the scary excessive traffic on our roads. I do not enjoy motor car driving now as much as in my dafter days, but a car gives me access to the counryside and in particular the Pennines so at least I can enjoy the scenery fairly often. There is no doubt in my mind that motor cars cause quite a lot of pollution. My ecologically friendly opinion is - let me have my car and get rid of everyone elses. At the same time get rid of all the Pennine windturbines which mess up my views.
I've recently read (in New Scientist) that there has been a glitch in earth temperature increases in the last decade - apparently the increase has been less than even the lower end of climate change forecasts suggest. The experts disagree but apparently their consensus is the recent glitch is temporary (although their reasoning that it is related to the peculiar movement of the oceans and antarctic seems a bit uncertain). However, the feeling seems to be that if the current glitch continues downward trending for another 5 more years climate change models might have to be modified (or current models ditched completely ???).
I'm still a fence sitter with regards to earth climate change. Even accepting CO2 is a problem, I don't think it is the only problem us earthlings have got.
Right or wrong climate change will be a good area for providing government taxation and entrepeneurs are likely to make killings.
I recall reading something in "Popular Astronomy" relating to climate change, CO2 problems and referring to Venus.
I couldn't be sure about the point being made because as I see it, though similar in size to earth, Venus probably never had a human population and possibly no life of any sort either creating any of its CO2 or other planet warming products. Certainly Venus seems to have had volcanic activity at one time on another.
I note that you mention that on earth human pollution is causing\creating more CO2 than all earth's volcanoes do (?).
A friend suggests that if that is true (?) if all the farm annimals\cattle humans currently need could be got rid of then methane\CO2 emissisions might be reduced significantly (?).
Best wishes from Cliff
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by brian livesey »

Just to correct the point about human activity producing more CO2 than all of earth's volcanoes. I didn't actually say this Cliff, so you might have got it from someone else.
Human generated CO2 is only additional to that produced by volcanism.
brian
Eclipse
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Costa Blanca, Spain 37.963N 0.738W
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Eclipse »

Whenever I meet a global warming panicker, I always ask what is the most important greenhouse gas?! None of them have got it right yet.
Coronado PST with SME-40 double stack H@ filter
Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Cliff »

Dear Brian et al(L)
Brian -
I just re-read your earlier posts and accept that you didn't exactly say what I thought.
I may have got confused with what someone elsewhere mentioned recently plus you saying :-
"Volcanoes pour huge amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere as part of the the carbon cycle that's essential to life, but human activity is adding Co2 to the atmosphere at a faster rate than natural processes can absorb it "

How good are humans estimates of who contributes what to the so-called carbon cycle.
Yes, I accept humans are messing things up and there is need to do something about it - but exactly what is less clear to me.
The clean air acts of many years back now have been a good thing.
I've heard from somewhere that ending cattle farming would reduce CO2 increases a lot. some even suggest stopping aircraft flights completely would reduce earth atmospheric temperature by the same amount it has increased in the last century.
The industrial Revolution undoubtedly resulted in many pollution problems (including CO2).
I've heard so-called economists on TV recommending it is needed to increase Britains population to get us out of the current economic mire.
Eclipse -
However, I don't feel quite as strongly about "global pannickers" as you seem to be. Since I think it makes sense to conserve earth's resources as good as we reasonably can, I think it sensible to listen to pretty well anything people think about climate change\global warming issues (even if i don't always agree with them)
Best wishes from Cliff
PS and of course it's conceivable that some carbon capture methods might do more harm than not capturing at all ?.
Best wishes from Cliff
Eclipse
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:44 pm
Location: Costa Blanca, Spain 37.963N 0.738W
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Eclipse »

brian livesey wrote: I'm no expert, but is water vapour really a "gas"?
Yes water vapour is quite gaseous.
Coronado PST with SME-40 double stack H@ filter
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by brian livesey »

Isn't it the case that water vapour in itself presents no problem in respect of global warming? That the problem lies with other gases that raise temperatures and increase the rate of water evaporation?
We have a parallel here with the methane cathrates just under the seabed. They'll only start to boil off when greenhouse gases raise the temperature of the sea to a critical point.
brian
Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Earth Climate Change CO2 matters

Post by Cliff »

Dear al(L)
A summary of Fred Pearc'es "the Anthropoenes Ancient Unfolding" Scientist 4th May - a geological epoch defined by human presence.
A first guess might be after the start of the Industrial Revolution, but studies suggest possibly since farming or when humans set fires to bush when hunting might be the start of the Anthroocenene Age.
By 5000 years ago humans possibly transformed 1\5 of Europe's & Asia's land contrasting with ideas that such transformation only occurred 100 years ago.
(( some claim 8000 years ago individual humans emittitted ONE tonne of CO2 annually compared with THREE tonne now.
Of course now there are many more humans - 6 billion plus, compared to 200 million or whatever 8000 years back, when humans produced 600 million tonnes of Co2 a year compared with 18 thousand million ie 30 x as much now))
Other studies suggest clearances of forests and transforming grassland possibly raised atmospheric CO2 by 20 to 30 parts per million a 10 percent CO2 rise over what CO2 levewls might have been - said to be small compared with current emissions 120 parts per million.
However there are apparently reasons for thinking\questioning some common environmental assumptions - some virgin rainforests are recovering from damaging clearances of long ago. Possibly 20,000 tears back Eurasian realised they were over-hunting game and learned to increase food supplies by boiling ang roasting !
If the above is true ie modern humans individually produce 3x what the "ancient ancestors" did, but bear in mind some present day humans may create little or no nothing more than the ancients but other present day humans (probably the more affluent nations) create much more than our fair share !?!
Best wishes from Cliff
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Earth Climate Change CO2 matters

Post by brian livesey »

Interesting stuff Cliff, but wouldn't it be better, as Paul ( Sutherland ) pointed out, to consign global warming issues to the original big global warming site that we've built up?

(Edit: Done - Joe)
brian
brian livesey
Posts: 5490
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by brian livesey »

Thanks Joe.
brian
Cliff
Posts: 6624
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Re: Climate Change - Global Warming CC-GW PART 1

Post by Cliff »

Dear Brian
I'm sorry if I wrongly accused you with regards comments about Volcanoes Versus Humans regarding CO2 but I have found some of your comments a bit confusing eg that the world can feed 12 billion but you don't advocate there should be such a large population. I would also mention that when Paul understandably expressed concern about my intial"triple" posting I did try to explain my (perhaps rather pathetic) reasons for doing that. I agree it is better my "three issues" go togetherand this has now been done (no thanks for me for doing that of course).
With regards atmospheric water vapour being relatively harmless. Yes, although from time to time I have expressed concerns about contrails wrecking astronomical observations (including sending letters and contrail photos to Astronomy Now) I might be inclined to think water vapour might be relatively harmless as well. However, a "New Scientist" magazine article maybe 2 months back (sorry I didn't record the magazine date) said that some research suggests that a significant amount of heat radiated out from the earth is actually reflected back down to Earth (effectively increasing earth atmospheric temperatures - global warming. Someone having calculated that if contrails could be elliminated the supposed resultant more efficient radiation of heat away from earth would reduce global warming by the 0.8 degrees C caused in recent years.
If true contrails cause more trouble than the aviation industry has claimed for many years.
Best wishes from Cliff
Post Reply