Electric Car Drivel

[JohnW2]

Has anyone actually determined what is the optimum level of CO2 ? Too little CO2 is a source of concern for plants that rely on CO2 to grow.

Indeed - and, as I implied, sub-optimal levels of atmospheric CO2 would, via the effect on plants etc., have an impact on atmospheric oxygen levels, which could affect animals, which, in turn, could reduce further the amount of CO2 available to plants etc., resulting in a downward spiral for all forms of life. As I wrote:

Maybe. Of course, if we somehow managed to get atmospheric CO2 levels too low, atmospheric oxygen would suffer, and maybe there would then be a mass extinction of virtually all forms of life

However, as for 'what is the optimum', as I have said, the natural processes for regulating CO2 levels (biological, geological, oceanic etc.) are so adaptable that it is by no means a certainty that human activity which pours CO2 into the atmosphere would, alone, result in significant increases in atmospheric CO2 levels. It could therefore be that some other change, unknown or poorly understood (maybe similar to those which have resulted in CO2 in the distant past, long before human activity was a relevant factor), is facilitating atmospheric CO2 increases in response to human CO2 production.

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

I suspect the oil industry isn't worried about the global warming theory, because they know it'll be business as usual for quite a few years. Tankers need diesel, and planes need petrol, and no one's going to convert them till they get scrapped; ships 60 years, planes maybe 20. And as it only takes 15 container ships to produce as much CO2 as all the worlds cars, then I think there's got o be politics involved somewhere to bias everything against car users.

Unlike BAS, most of us here aren't down playing the man made global warming argument, we're just keeping an open mind over it. It's called thinking for yourself, not denying the arguments. As I've already said, I do as much as the climate change enthusiasts do - if not more - so I can't be knocked for not not going along with the argments, only the conclusions.

 

[JohnW2]

Unlike BAS, most of us here aren't down playing the man made global warming argument, we're just keeping an open mind over it.

I'm a bit confused by that statement, and wonder if you wrote what you really meant!

Whatever else one can say about BAS's position, I would have thought that "down-playing the man-made global warming argument" is about the last thing he could be accused of doing - he seems to be totally convinced about it, and says uncomplimentary things about 'open mindedness' which casts doubts on his convictions!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

Yes John I meant what I wrote, so I suspect you misunderstood the comment; it was a general open ended statment. BAS has made his mind up about global warming being man made, and won't see that we are just arguing for a more realistic approach to the situation; but reading everyone elses comments, it suggest that we may well agree with him, but can see the error of shutting down the discussion, and the poor science behind wahat can only be construed as an assumption, elbeit a very credible one.

Or have I misunderstood your position on the matter.

 

[JohnW2]

Yes John I meant what I wrote, so I suspect you misunderstood the comment; it was a general open ended statment. BAS has made his mind up about global warming being man made, and won't see that we are just arguing for a more realistic approach to the situation ....

I don't disagree with that, but I'm still confused by what your previously wrote. "Unlike BAS, most of us here aren't down playing the man made global warming argument ... " surely means that BAS has been "downplaying the man-made global warming argument" - whereas the reality is that he seems to be completely convinced by the argument.

... but reading everyone elses comments, it suggest that we may well agree with him, but can see the error of shutting down the discussion, and the poor science behind wahat can only be construed as an assumption, elbeit a very credible one.

I'm again rather confused. Are you suggesting that most of the rest of us involved in this discussion actually agree with BAS (with regard to his conviction about the man-made global warning) - which surely is not the case?

Or have I misunderstood your position on the matter.

I think I've made my position very clear. As you say, the argument that global warming is predominantly the result of human activities is a perfectly credible one, but there are so many other factors (many unknown or poorly understood) that one can't be certain of that, and, more generally, can't be certain about how big a role those human activities play in terms of the big picture.

What I am fairly sure about, and the reason I have been plugging the 'natural regulatory mechanisms', is that to presume that mankind pouring CO2 into the atmosphere will inevitably result in significant rises in atmospheric CO2 levels (and consequential climatic effects) is probably rather naive (or 'unscientific' if you wish).

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

Sorry John, but one of us is being obtuse, and I don't think it's me.

When I comment "UNLIKE BAS,", that means that BAS is not like the rest of us. Everything the that we post, indicate that we may well agree with many of his assertions, but haven't closed our minds to the unequivocal position that he takes.

 

[JohnW2]

Sorry John, but one of us is being obtuse, and I don't think it's me.

We may have to disagree about that, since I'm still confused! As you say ...

When I comment "UNLIKE BAS,", that means that BAS is not like the rest of us.

... which is quite clear. However, after the "Unlike BAS, ...", that sentence continues "... most of us here aren't down playing the man made global warming argument ... ". If most of us are not downplaying that argument, and BAS is "not like [in that respect] the rest of us", then that surely means that BAS is down-playing the argument - which isn't the case.

I think we agree about the situation (and about the difference between BAS and most of the rest of us in relation to this matter), it's just your words I don't really understand!

Kind Regards, John

 

[Doggit]

I give up.

 

[Doggit]

A climate scientist, is he, this friend of yours?

SHE, did her doctorate on weather systems, so whilst not a climatologists, is competent enough to comment.

 

[JohnW2]

I give up.

Me, too, but don't worry - as I said, the important thing is ...

I think we agree about the situation (and about the difference between BAS and most of the rest of us in relation to this matter), it's just your words I don't really understand!

Kind Regards, John

 

[mikeey84]

that to presume that mankind pouring CO2 into the atmosphere will inevitably result in significant rises in atmospheric CO2 levels (and consequential climatic effects) is probably rather naive (or 'unscientific' if you wish).

There is quite clear evidence of a massive spike in global CO2 levels following the industrial revolution. This can be shown to be not the result of volcanic activity or any other natural phenomenon, thereby attributable to man (and woman)

 

[Doggit]

Exactly my point; everything that doesn't fit into the renewables agenda, gets ignored. And look at how much of the rain forests have been cut down; they are the lungs of the planet, yet we're destroying them.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

And as it only takes 15 container ships to produce as much CO2 as all the worlds cars, then I think there's got o be politics involved somewhere to bias everything against car users.

There you go again.

Please explain how so many different countries and so many different national and international scientific bodies have managed to create this vast conspiracy, and kept it a secret. Feel free to cite other examples of such fantastic organisational ability.

And please explain why they would be doing this. (HINT: - "there's got to be politics involved somewhere" is not an explanation).

Unlike BAS, most of us here aren't down playing the man made global warming argument, we're just keeping an open mind over it.

Jolly good.

Are you also keeping an open mind about the world being flat, and the Nazis not having murdered 6M Jews?

It's called thinking for yourself,

Please explain what qualifications and experience you have in climate science, so that we can judge how valuable your thinking on the topic is likely to be.

not denying the arguments.

Denying is precisely what you are doing.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

says uncomplimentary things about 'open mindedness' which casts doubts on his convictions!

I look forward to you saying complimentary things about people who say the world is flat and people who say that the Nazis did not murder 6M Jews.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

BAS has made his mind up about global warming being man made

Tens of thousands of experts are the ones who have done that. The number of true experts who disagree is vanishingly small - most of the people who disagree are not experts, as well you know.

What I am doing is not being either so arrogant or so stupid as to think that all those people must be wrong.

and won't see that we are just arguing for a more realistic approach to the situation

Between 1991 and 2012 there were 13,950 peer-reviewed articles on climate change. 24 rejected ACC.

And you think that to be realistic you have to conclude that 24 is as significant a number as 13,926?

the poor science behind wahat can only be construed as an assumption

You are completely unqualified to label anything poor science, as you are the living walking embodiment of non-scientific, non-evidential ignorance.