Man-made global warming.... biggest myth of this century

They have a multitude of alternatives to reduce emissions and waste - as does the West.

The only reason why they aren't enacted is because it initially costs money, and reduces profits of a select few.

And so we continue in our throw away culture which paradoxically costs more in the long term environmentally and economically.

Why not use the oppurtunity that is presented by the growth of these nations to instill more environmentally sound practices in their culutre and industry - thus driving costs down both economically and environmentally.

We don't do either of these because its cheaper and easier to maintain the status quo and line the pockets of the ever growing wealthy few - inefficient power stations cost less to run in the short term but are vastly unprofitable in the long term and cost even more when they have to be brought into line - so why not apply efficieny in the first place - learn from out mistakes?

But back to the question you keep avoiding Joe..

Unsustainable human development on scales never seen before (forget gloabl warming - I'm talking basic resources) resulting in potential humanitrarian catastrophe because in Brids words 'they have no alternative' due to some perverted sense of guilty conscience that happily allows us to remain in our consumer driven, disposable led lives..

vs

A managed regualted approach which allows the neccesary development with strategies in place to maintain a balance between resources available and economic need.

Either way human greed and ignorance will always prevail so the debate is pretty irrelevant. How sad.


Joe - Look up 'development planning system' to see how regulation post development is quite possible.

Maybe a picture from NASA will help you top understand the basic principles of an equilibrium

As you can see from data that has some actual numbers attached to it, the ocean is absorbing more than it is releasing, helping to offset man made CO2 by around a half, though its capacity to remain doing so is by no means certain.

Clearly this decimates your argument and leaves you looking rather foolish.



link http://science.hq.nasa.gov/oceans/system/carbon.html

As sea temperatures rise, so does the ability of the ocean to absorb Co2, this rise subsequently triggers Methane from deep ocean deposits to be released into the atmosphere which is significantly and directly more threatening to human life than Co2...

I read that its ability to absorb carbon would decrease with increasing temperatures.

Either way this is exactly why we need to cut down our carbon emissions, to prevent a vicious cycle occurring

The only major imbalance in the diagram is man made CO2.

Where do you live?

We'd survive, but theres no way we'd have the quality of life we enjoy now. You're happy to fight nature when there are forest fires, when it floods etc etc. This isn't even fighting nature - it's reducing our damaging influence on it.

That's bad luck for my argument

I've toyed with the idea of buying one, but mooring fees are usually ridiculous (in London anyway).

ouch, typo

I meant temp increase / ability to absorb decrease / methane release increase - basic chemistry really...

Little venice

it is my belief that for these nations to become sustainable they must be allowed to create the wealth that can generate that sustainability.

these nations cannot develop on our hand-outs. they are already playing catch-up in the global economy, why handicap them further?

you talk about becoming sustainable, however it is unlikey that these developing countries once they reach developed levels similar to ourselves will continue to have birth trends like they do now - all evidence suggests that in developed countries birth rates are falling. the population explosion will likely plateau once we reach a fully developed world.

everyone deserves the chance to experience the things you mention such as clean water - and they will only reach the developing world on mass by empowering those countries to develop.

that is not to say they should not be given encouragement to use new technologies, but by no means should we, or do we have the right to, restrict their development.

Andy squirm all you like but the carbon levels clearly follow the temprature:





The data from the ice core clearly has an 800 year lag, every ice core survey produces this same lag.... As oceans warm up they emit more CO2 and as they cool down they absorb more.

You attempted to explain this in your intial post, but didn't realise the 800 year lag is constant... not just at the beginning,

Current CO2 models also are in agreement with icecores...CO2 follows the temprature... You can cite as many scientists as you like - but until you address this key issue... you're merely peddling propoganda.

CO2 follows temprature.

Ours maybe running out but theres plenty more to drill around the world. and We only stopped digging coal cos it cost too much to dig up, that doesn't mean we've run out. If need be we could start digging again in the future.

Lets say we do conserve some of the fossil fuels, whats going to happen when they eventually run out? You lot are saying we cant count on a new energy source being created, so basically were fucked anyway.

Like someone posted earlier, the main worry is overcrowding! If you stop this then you'll also solve the problem of low fossil fuels.

At least you've finally abandoned your confused witterings about the ocean - there might be hope that I can explain this to you yet and dispel some of you confusions.

The above diagram demonstrates very clearly where the carbon is coming from - the current rise in atmospheric carbon is due to human activity.

I don't see any evidence of a lag on those graphs - I drew in some lines on the peaks to see, but they appeared to pretty mcuh coincide with the other peaks.

I agree that temperature increases oceanic CO2 release, I've said so throughout. Where you got it wrong was in terms of the scale - you said it was many times man made output, wheras I've demonstrated that in the current cycle it is actually absorbing more and man made gases are BY FAR the biggest contributor to rising atmospheric CO2 levels that exacerbate rising temperature. Action is warranted to reduce man made CO2 release, therefore, in order to avoid further temeprature increases that might reduce the oceans ability to absrob co2.

andy to that scale 1 pxl = 1000 years

your lines are 2000 years thick.