FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is climate change real ?
Is climate change real ?
Jump to: Newest in thread
Observations taken globally for over 100 years have shown a rise in temperatures. A link to a rise in industrialisation has been postulated as one of the reasons for the rise.
Historically the planet has seen both increases and decreases in temperature but the prevalent theory is that the current increase is linked directly to the activities of man.
Whether people believe or disbelieve the theories the evidence presented in terms of weather related problems will likely become more apparent in the coming years. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By *lan157Man 12 weeks ago
a village near Haywards Heath in East Sussex |
It may well be real but stopping it is another matter. Climates have changed throughout the history of the earth . This change is probably an impact of our human existence but after we humans are destroyed the earth will recover. For that reason I think " save the planet " is a bit of a simplistic slogan. I suppose those that say it mean keep it like it used to be before we industrialised the countries outside Europe. Whilst I think " think globally act locally " has merit it won't stop it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
The climate definitely changes. But so does the weather. Some see rain and blame co2 emissions. Some see the lack of rain and blame co2 emissions. It’s seems to some, no matter what happens it’s our fault. That can’t be true.
People disagree with how much the change is affected by modern civilisation. I think it has some impact but it’s all but impossible to prove because we have no way of knowing what would have happened had we not had the Industrial Revolution.
I see some scientists say we’re heading for another ice age and some saying temperatures are rising. They have been forecasting rising sea levels for decades but the levels have been pretty constant.
Then there’s the whole “what can we do about it” debate.
For us to achieve net zero is forecast to cost around 5 trillion quid. The best case scenario is we save 1% of the total of global emissions but in reality we’re only moving much of that 1% elsewhere.
Figures for so called green energy are skewed by not including all variables and factors. Some reports have said electric cars for example, actually produce more co2 than a modern diesel once every factor is included in the calculations. The head of Toyota has also stated this.
But at the same time, fossil fuels will run out eventually so we must investigate alternatives.
There’s obvious things that should be done such as solar panels on every house and warehouse. But Miliband would rather cover farmland.
I think it’s got very emotional for some people. They just ignore logic and shout superlatives. Shouting “I want clear air for my kids” is quite pathetic. Like there’s actually people who want dirty air for their kids.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By simple observation I'd have to say absolutely it is."
If your simple observation is that it has rained a lot in the UK so far this year, that might be a bit too simplistic.
If you've actually looked a bit deeper and determined the underlying trend of global temperatures, then it's clear that the climate is changing. The questions then become
1. What problems will this cause?
2. Can we do anything to 'fix' things?
3. Is it better to adapt to the problems, or implement the fixes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By simple observation I'd have to say absolutely it is.
If your simple observation is that it has rained a lot in the UK so far this year, that might be a bit too simplistic.
"
If the hypothesis is that the earth is warming up then increased rainfall is exactly what you would predict in the UK. Warmer air holds more moisture. More moisture will fall as increased levels rainfall when it is released. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Climate change was a good way of screwing money out of people by making them fell guilty.
However, we are getting wise to the ways of political leaders who have no real intention of 'saving the planet'.
Did dinosaurs or ammonites feel guilty during former periods of global warming? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think people forget it’s how much Co2 is being released into the atmosphere over a short period of time.
The last time this amount was released over a short period of time, was when the super volcanoes were erupting.
If you release vast quantities of energy into the surrounding environment, the environment will become unstable. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By simple observation I'd have to say absolutely it is."
"If your simple observation is that it has rained a lot in the UK so far this year, that might be a bit too simplistic."
"If the hypothesis is that the earth is warming up then increased rainfall is exactly what you would predict in the UK. Warmer air holds more moisture. More moisture will fall as increased levels rainfall when it is released."
Again, that's far too simplistic. The current rainy spell is mostly due to the Jet Stream being rather more south than usual this year, which funnels Westerly winds towards the UK.
And the idea that warmer air holds more moisture is correct, but that wouldn't cause more rainfall by itself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *AJMLKTV/TS 12 weeks ago
Burley |
I'm a climate change scientist. Please send me lots of money and I'll write you a long and complicated report, full of supposition and faux science. My findings will agree with whatever you're paying me to say and I promise I'll get the issue sorted within the next 500 years or so.   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I'm a climate change scientist. Please send me lots of money and I'll write you a long and complicated report, full of supposition and faux science. My findings will agree with whatever you're paying me to say and I promise I'll get the issue sorted within the next 500 years or so. "
Bit like the ‘experts’ the fossil fuel companies used to deny that their activities were going to cause climate change, whilst burying the real evidence that they were culpable |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Rain aside the increasing European fires
‘In 2025, Combined burnt area between 1 January – 21 August exceeded 1 million hectares within European Union countries—marking the highest total in over two decades, since the start of joint digital record keeping ‘. (Wiki) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ydaz70Man 12 weeks ago
Rotherham /newquay |
Honestly who cares I've lived in a mining village all my life burning coal breathing it in but no I can't have a log burner as in a smokeless zone I'll be dead anyway if and a big if anything changes |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Honestly who cares I've lived in a mining village all my life burning coal breathing it in but no I can't have a log burner as in a smokeless zone I'll be dead anyway if and a big if anything changes "
Good for you… |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I suppose the only answer I can give for myself, and I'm not skilled or researched in this field, is this.
.
1. If it is real, then it affects me and I best do something about it.
.
2. If it is not real, then I need not do anything.
.
One of those statements is real, but I do not know which one.
.
If I choose 2, but 1 proves to be correct, then I'm in trouble and did nothing. That's on me.
.
If I chose 1, but 2 proves to be correct, then whilst I expended effort unnecessarily, nothing untoward occurred to me.
.
If I chose 1 and it does prove to be correct, then my actions may have averted disaster or reduced it.
.
I think, therefore, action is better than none at all. Yes it's a gamble, but 1 is the more logical choice in my mind.
.
(This is known as Pascal's Wager. "If the cost of acting is lower than the potential cost of being wrong by not acting, action is rational.").
.
I know however, some might say the cost of action is high. I'd argue even if the cost of action is high, the potential cost of unchecked climate impact is orders of magnitude higher, which puts us out of Pascal's Wager territory and in to catastrophic risk management.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If I choose 2, but 1 proves to be correct, then I'm in trouble and did nothing. That's on me.
.
If I chose 1, but 2 proves to be correct, then whilst I expended effort unnecessarily, nothing untoward occurred to me.
.
If I chose 1 and it does prove to be correct, then my actions may have averted disaster or reduced it.
.
I think, therefore, action is better than none at all. Yes it's a gamble, but 1 is the more logical choice in my mind."
You've forgotten to include option 3 - what if it is real, but we don't understand the mechanisms, and the thing you choose to do actually makes things worse. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I believe the earth has natural cycles and in our arrogance we believe that we are more important, these natural changes will obviously affect us.
But the science is real and we have definitely contributed to global warming and assisting the process.
Poisoning the air and the oceans, destroying natural habitats, we are plague on the planet one day it will push back to eradicate us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think people forget it’s how much Co2 is being released into the atmosphere over a short period of time.
The last time this amount was released over a short period of time, was when the super volcanoes were erupting.
If you release vast quantities of energy into the surrounding environment, the environment will become unstable."
There have been times in history when Co2 levels have been many many times higher then they are now. The planet was actually more greener then it is today as well. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By simple observation I'd have to say absolutely it is.
If your simple observation is that it has rained a lot in the UK so far this year, that might be a bit too simplistic.
If the hypothesis is that the earth is warming up then increased rainfall is exactly what you would predict in the UK. Warmer air holds more moisture. More moisture will fall as increased levels rainfall when it is released.
Again, that's far too simplistic. The current rainy spell is mostly due to the Jet Stream being rather more south than usual this year, which funnels Westerly winds towards the UK.
And the idea that warmer air holds more moisture is correct, but that wouldn't cause more rainfall by itself."
Way to simplistic and very short sighted. The more likely impact to the UK would be that the gulf stream would move due to salinity changes in the ocean.
This in turn would a much colder and less wetter place.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"By simple observation I'd have to say absolutely it is.
If your simple observation is that it has rained a lot in the UK so far this year, that might be a bit too simplistic.
If you've actually looked a bit deeper and determined the underlying trend of global temperatures, then it's clear that the climate is changing. The questions then become
1. What problems will this cause?
2. Can we do anything to 'fix' things?
3. Is it better to adapt to the problems, or implement the fixes?"
Simple observation was in spending 6 months of 2024 travelling and experiencing extreme heat, extreme rain and extreme winds in places i'd visited between frequently more than 20 years ago when weather was not so extreme.
But yes, looking out the living room window it's still apparent
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Sorry missed a few questions
Can we do anything
No idea, it's beyond my understanding
Can we adapt
Grow gills and live underwater in what are now coastal areas (US East coast) or wear special suits to survive and work in 45-50⁰ heat (Melbourne before Christmas)
I suppose the yanks could combine the problems and move from the east coast inland where it might be dry but extra hot.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I think people forget it’s how much Co2 is being released into the atmosphere over a short period of time.
The last time this amount was released over a short period of time, was when the super volcanoes were erupting.
If you release vast quantities of energy into the surrounding environment, the environment will become unstable.
There have been times in history when Co2 levels have been many many times higher then they are now. The planet was actually more greener then it is today as well."
Did Humans live then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It’s very difficult to judge. The temperature on the planet passes through cycles which are long and slow. We also know that the earth has had much, much higher CO2 levels in its history and life requires CO2. Climate science only uses a snapshot of modern data. Global warming has become the tool of globalist authoritarians who fly everywhere in private jets. I’m not denying that we have a problem. Pollution is one of the greatest ongoing threats to lifespan in our age and is largely ignored. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
8bn people, and to feed them
10bn by 2070/80
UN says 50% increase in food production by end of the century, agriculture already 25% of global carbon footprint
The 2bn extra people are likely to be borne into emerging economies, those aspiring to western living standards and consumption.
I doubt we’ve seen anything yet |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple 12 weeks ago
near enough |
"It’s very difficult to judge. The temperature on the planet passes through cycles which are long and slow. We also know that the earth has had much, much higher CO2 levels in its history and life requires CO2. Climate science only uses a snapshot of modern data. Global warming has become the tool of globalist authoritarians who fly everywhere in private jets. I’m not denying that we have a problem. Pollution is one of the greatest ongoing threats to lifespan in our age and is largely ignored."
Indeed the planet has and will go through long slow climate changes and most likely civilisation as we know it will cease to exist.
However, the current changes are rapid and widespread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"8bn people, and to feed them
10bn by 2070/80
UN says 50% increase in food production by end of the century, agriculture already 25% of global carbon footprint
The 2bn extra people are likely to be borne into emerging economies, those aspiring to western living standards and consumption.
I doubt we’ve seen anything yet "
I think there’s a stat floating about that states, by 2050, 1 in 13 people born in the world, will be born in Nigeria.
Happy to be corrected on this though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"8bn people, and to feed them
10bn by 2070/80
UN says 50% increase in food production by end of the century, agriculture already 25% of global carbon footprint
The 2bn extra people are likely to be borne into emerging economies, those aspiring to western living standards and consumption.
I doubt we’ve seen anything yet
I think there’s a stat floating about that states, by 2050, 1 in 13 people born in the world, will be born in Nigeria.
Happy to be corrected on this though."
I can imagine how that stat could be possible. It would rely on other African countries not having equally high birth rates. That’s before we consider births around the rest of the world in the equation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
Many of the most alarmist predictions have already been disproved- the coral reefs, polar bears, etc. Sadly climate change fanatics have done as much damage as deniers - the truth as always somewhere in between. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
“Although climate change will have serious consequences – particularly for people in the poorest countries – it will not lead to humanity’s demise. People will be able to live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.”
Bill Gates recently. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible."
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing."
Actually burning of fossil fuels is inarguably the bigger generation of CO², the permafrost will also contribute but isn't the single highest contribution.
Where did you find that data ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible."
The problem is it’s impossible to prove a negative.
It’s also impossible to prove what would have happened had we not started burning fossil fuels. One can hypothesise based on data recorded before and how the curve increased etc. but there is no split test data. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The problem is it’s impossible to prove a negative.
It’s also impossible to prove what would have happened had we not started burning fossil fuels. One can hypothesise based on data recorded before and how the curve increased etc. but there is no split test data. "
All the evidence points in one direction.
You either follow the evidence and try to do something about it, regardless of cost (which will only get higher the longer you leave it) or you bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The problem is it’s impossible to prove a negative.
It’s also impossible to prove what would have happened had we not started burning fossil fuels. One can hypothesise based on data recorded before and how the curve increased etc. but there is no split test data.
All the evidence points in one direction.
You either follow the evidence and try to do something about it, regardless of cost (which will only get higher the longer you leave it) or you bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away "
There is a strong body of evidence, I agree. But there is also conflicting evidence, such as the Antarctic ice levels increasing.
You say regardless of cost but I disagree. The spend has to have a benefit. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe the estimated cost of net zero is 5-6 trillion quid. And much of that cost is just transplanting our contribution elsewhere.
But even if we got rid of our 1% that would have zero impact if the other 200+ countries combined output increases by 1%.
It’s a global issue but there’s not global action.
And the biggest issue is many of the so called “renewables” (stupid term but let’s run with it) are not as green as they make out.
Spending countless billions on carbon capture that’s powered by gas fired power stations where the gas is transported half was around the world in diesel ships…. All while chopping down the rain forest to grow food for an ever increasing global population that’s using more and more energy.
It’s about as sensible as trying to dig a hole in water with toilet tissue. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"You either follow the evidence and try to do something about it, regardless of cost (which will only get higher the longer you leave it) or you bury your head in the sand and hope it goes away"
"There is a strong body of evidence, I agree. But there is also conflicting evidence, such as the Antarctic ice levels increasing.
You say regardless of cost but I disagree. The spend has to have a benefit. As I said earlier in the thread, I believe the estimated cost of net zero is 5-6 trillion quid. And much of that cost is just transplanting our contribution elsewhere."
This is the key thing. A big chunk of the net zero push is in "carbon offsetting", which just means paying other people to do our emissions for us. It'll cost a fortune, and it'll give no benefit to the environment.
Net zero isn't 'doing something about it', it's just hiding your emissions out of sight and then patting yourself on the back for being so virtuous. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible."
Why do you assume that extra Co2 is only a negative? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
Why do you assume that extra Co2 is only a negative?"
I don’t assume.
I follow the science until it’s proved wrong.
Meanwhile…
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/
Other sources are available.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
Why do you assume that extra Co2 is only a negative?
I don’t assume.
I follow the science until it’s proved wrong.
Meanwhile…
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/
Other sources are available.
"
That doesn't address my point. More Co2 promotes plant growth and a warmer climate Will enable more plants to be grown in more locations, if soil fertility and water supplies are managed. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
Why do you assume that extra Co2 is only a negative?
I don’t assume.
I follow the science until it’s proved wrong.
Meanwhile…
https://royalsociety.org/news-resources/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-8/
Other sources are available.
That doesn't address my point. More Co2 promotes plant growth and a warmer climate Will enable more plants to be grown in more locations, if soil fertility and water supplies are managed."
Warming the climate is bad.
Global temperatures increasing
Destruction of natural habitats
Migration increasing
Costs of adapting to temperature increases only going up. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 12 weeks ago
|
Can someone tell me what the global temperature should be?
We know it’s warming, but how do we know it’s not just heading back to the right temperature and it was too cold before? Didn’t we not long come out of an ice age in planetary terms? That sounds like it was too cold.
And that ice age certainly wasn’t caused by humans, nor did it end because of anything we did.
Wasn’t it a lot warmer when the dinosaurs roamed the earth? Then it went cold because of the asteroid strike but not sure we should count that period.
And why do we have to cut down rainforests to hold a climate convention? Can’t it be held somewhere where they don’t have to chop down the planets lungs? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing.
Actually burning of fossil fuels is inarguably the bigger generation of CO², the permafrost will also contribute but isn't the single highest contribution.
Where did you find that data ?"
You’re right. The melting permafrosts and ice are probably the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses alongside cows, not CO2 alone. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing.
Actually burning of fossil fuels is inarguably the bigger generation of CO², the permafrost will also contribute but isn't the single highest contribution.
Where did you find that data ?
You’re right. The melting permafrosts and ice are probably the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses alongside cows, not CO2 alone."
And why is the Permafrost and ice melting? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing.
Actually burning of fossil fuels is inarguably the bigger generation of CO², the permafrost will also contribute but isn't the single highest contribution.
Where did you find that data ?
You’re right. The melting permafrosts and ice are probably the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses alongside cows, not CO2 alone.
And why is the Permafrost and ice melting?"
I already stated in a paragraph above “This melting could be caused by humans, geological cycles or both.” |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"If humans aren’t responsible, where is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere coming from?
The scientists that prove humans aren’t responsible for Climate Change will win the Nobel Prize, and countless other awards. This doesn’t look likely due to the overwhelming evidence that we are responsible.
The largest source of the increased CO2 (along with methane) is released from melting glaciers and permafrost. Ice from the Antarctic melting in to the sea may cause a reduction of CO2 sequester in to seawater. This melting could be caused by humans, by geological cycles or both. Fortunately the greatest consumers of CO2 on the planet are algae which photosynthesise when they bloom. Most are diatoms and snow algae which are released by melting Antarctic ice. Nature is a beautiful thing.
Actually burning of fossil fuels is inarguably the bigger generation of CO², the permafrost will also contribute but isn't the single highest contribution.
Where did you find that data ?
You’re right. The melting permafrosts and ice are probably the biggest contributor to greenhouse gasses alongside cows, not CO2 alone.
And why is the Permafrost and ice melting?
I already stated in a paragraph above “This melting could be caused by humans, geological cycles or both.”"
Burning fossil fuels 🤷♂️ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
