Britain's Rivers to Run Dry?

[corydoras]

i acknowledge that were interfering with co2 merely by deforestation but co2 in the atmosphere actually contributes to global cooling .

Please explain to me how the anthropomorphic emission of 30 billion tons of CO2 per year 'actually contributes to global cooling'?

[chesters1]

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]

 

because co2 reflects infra red ,it also is heavier than air so most sinks rather than rises ,it also has a beneficial effect on ozone.

"current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible." seeing as it was falling then we dont know what the natural content is ,certainly life flourished in far higher concentrations infact life on earth is negligible now to when it was higher so i can presume more is good.

 

or using scare tactics "we need more co2 life is becoming extinct due to its thinness" taking into consideration there was far more living things ,in far more guises when it was higher compared to now.if scientists can pick and choose their base lines i'm sure i can!

Edited October 7, 2008 by chesters1

[poledark]

That's a shame Richard, I see your smiling face every time I read one of your posts.

 

Interesting that, I do seem to "see" the faces of the posters I know

 

 

I can only imagine Chesters.............................

 

Den

[chesters1]

its usually got an amused smile on it Den

[Andy Macfarlane]

How can Nations agree on a solution when some don't even see a problem?

 

That basically sums up my feelings on the matter in it's complete entirety. It's almost poetic.

[chesters1]

the problem is people are making problems out of things that historically occur naturally.

lets say our climate is 5 ,in the past its been 1 and 10 ,if it goes to 6 it doesn't matter

Edited October 7, 2008 by chesters1

[tiddlertamer]

I started writing a long reply to this but do you know what? Its not worth the effort. What is the point a banging ones head against a brickwall.

 

This nonsense is indicative of the gradual downturn of this forum. Sorry Elton I've had enough, please could you delete my account?

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

 

Yes it is. It is worth the effort. Bashing your head against a brick wall can be a touch painful. But using the power of your intellect to reflect on the issues we all face, us anglers, but also our families, friends and people across the globe, is important. Some people, if not all, will learn and change their mind following debate. The environment and angling are inextricably linked. I love fishing as it is one of the best barometers of how mankind treats the environment, as well as an incredibly unique way of really and truly getting in touch with nature... making contact, we hope, with the fish of our dreams...

Edited October 8, 2008 by tiddlertamer

[corydoras]

Five hundred million years ago carbon dioxide was 20 times more prevalent than today, decreasing to 4-5 times during the Jurassic period and then maintained a slow decline until the industrial revolution, with a particularly swift reduction occurring 49 million years ago.[20][21]

You should read your citations before you cut and paste from Wikipedia Chesters. [20] [21]

500 million years ago the conditions on the planet were not only not conducive to human life, the first vertebrates had just begun to evolve and it was not until around 140 million years later that the first vertebrates began to colonise the land. Your little factoid from Wikipedia proves nothing, and the sources you site do not support your position.

 

because co2 reflects infra red

You are making the error of assuming that CO2 reacts to all wavelengths of infra red radiation equally, but this is not the case. It is true that CO2 does reflect some of the sun's infra-red emissions back into space, however the longer wavelength infra-red radiation that is reflected from the earth back into the atmosphere is ABSORBED by CO2, thus contributing to the warming of the atmosphere and the earth.

 

,it also is heavier than air so most sinks rather than rises

If you had studied 'O' level physics or chemistry in that Scottish school you went to then you would appreciate that this is just nonsense, I'm sorry this is not intended as an attack against the person, but this in not even climatology, just basic schoolboy chemistry and physics. Despite the fact that a molecule of CO2 is heavier than a molecule of oxygen or nitrogen, the effect of gravity on gases is minuscule. Gases DIFFUSE. This is caused by a phenomenon known as 'Brownian Motion'. If your hypotheses were true then there would be no aerobic life forms at all on the surface of the planet, the atmosphere would have settled out into some kind of atmospheric layer cake aeons ago.

 

,it also has a beneficial effect on ozone.

It might and then again it might not, but this is hardly a good rational argument for us to not to reduce our CO2 emissions.

 

"current levels of CO2 are approximately 100 ppmv higher than during immediately pre-industrial times, when direct human influence was negligible." seeing as it was falling then we dont know what the natural content is ,certainly life flourished in far higher concentrations infact life on earth is negligible now to when it was higher so i can presume more is good.

 

or using scare tactics "we need more co2 life is becoming extinct due to its thinness" taking into consideration there was far more living things ,in far more guises when it was higher compared to now.if scientists can pick and choose their base lines i'm sure i can!

I am not sure exactly what argument or hypothesis you are making here so I am not sure how I can repudiate it. Please elucidate.

[Guest tigger]

I started writing a long reply to this but do you know what? Its not worth the effort. What is the point a banging ones head against a brickwall.

 

This nonsense is indicative of the gradual downturn of this forum. Sorry Elton I've had enough, please could you delete my account?

 

Thanks,

 

Rich

 

 

 

 

 

Bye bye now

Edited October 8, 2008 by tigger

[gozzer]

Wow! This thread has really warmed up since I was last on it.

 

First I hope you don't leave Richard, I've only just had the pleasure of 'talking' to you.

 

I'll sum the thread up as I see it so far.

 

We all seem to agree that the world is warming.

There seems to be several 'camps' on here, with different degrees of belief in how much man contributes to the 'problem'.

I'm not sure myself of the extent of mans involvement, but the way the World as a whole is reacting does make me wonder.

If we are facing, (as some would put it) 'the greatest catastrophe mankind has so far faced', then why aren't the world leaders doing more about it?

If it was a war we are facing, we would be immobilising armies.

If it was an epidemic we would be trying to vaccinate on a large scale.

If it was a disaster in some part of the world, we would be sending in aid.

But what are we doing?

Still churning out 'gas guzzling' motors.

Still filling our homes with every electrical device we can.

Still driving 'for 'pleasure'.

Still flying to our holidays.

Still 'wasting' water and other resources at an alarming rate.

 

It's easy to see why no Government would legislate against any of the above. They would be attacked on all sides. First by the big companies that produce these products, and by the electorate, who just wouldn't vote them in on those policies. Plus the fact that some are making big money from 'climate change'.

How many of those that believe conclusively that man is to blame, have changed their lifestyle a significant amount?

How many have stopped say, driving for pleasure? (remember a 200/300 mile round trip to catch fish is not essential for your survival).

How many refuse to go on foreign holidays because of the effect on the climate?

How many have non essential electrical devices in their homes, several TVs, dishwashers, several PCs, etc?

How many refuse to eat goods that have travelled around the world to get here?

The list could go on. I doubt that many have changed their lifestyle to a great extent.

 

If the Global Climate change is going to be the biggest challenge we have ever faced, and they believe that man is the major contributor. Then surely it's hypocritical to carry on living that life style. But we still do, (even those that believe man is 100% to blame).

 

If we try to make the changes believed necessary to slow down or even stop what is happening, then the effects on the world could be just as catastrophic.

The western world in particular could practically grind to a halt, with massive unemployment and all the civil unrest that goes with it. The population would not take kindly to the loss of the perceived 'freedoms of choice' we have now.

 

These are the reasons that I don't 'worry' about it, because I don't believe that the world and it's people will/can change enough (in the relatively short time apparently needed) to make a difference.

 

John.