The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Christel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 5:15 pm Would be nice if someone could explain that 3% indeed?

When you think that CO2 only makes up .04% of the atmosphere and IF man is responsible for 3% of that .04% - it's really not much at all.

I don't think we can argue with the fact that climate has changed over the last 150 years, but it has always changed and always will. There are short cycles and long cycles effecting our planet. Solar activity is cyclic with short cycles of 11 and 22 years and has a direct effect on our climate. Our magnetic pole shifts all the time

The El Nino events in the southern oceans cause real short term climate change - they have been occurring for thousands of years. The scientist can't predict when they will appear, how long they will last or how severe they will be. The earth's orbit round the sun is not circular, it's on a 2,000 year cycle. Vikings settled East and West Greenland 1,000 years ago. Romans cultivated Vinyards in Britain 1,500 years ago.

On the other hand - if your life's work is funded by research into climate change, you need to keep the cash coming in.

The climate is undoubtedly changing, but are we responsible for it? It has been continuously changing for the past 4.5bn years. Any attempt on our part to bring about a change, or to prevent it changing, is like trying to nail jelly to a wall.
It's just another excuse to raise taxes and impose controls over the population for no reason other than that they can.

"The Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the green ideological start point) was 280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021 was 410ppm."

Hmm, so as a climate change sceptic, if you want to show that the increase in CO2 is *not due to man's industrialisation of the planet, then the ice cores from before 1850 would do that ...

There would be evidence that C02 levels have gone up and down over millennia, or at least as far back as we can look using ice cores.

So do they ?

Professor David Bellamy was ostracised for saying that any rise in CO2 would stimulate plant growth, more vegetation would produce more oxygen and the whole system would maintain equilibrium and oscillate over long cycles.

1066 wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 10:48 pm Professor David Bellamy was ostracised for saying that any rise in CO2 would stimulate plant growth, more vegetation would produce more oxygen and the whole system would maintain equilibrium and oscillate over long cycles.

Others are saying that the CO2 produced by man is too much for nature to cope with, hence the build up.

It is telling that one gets different information depending on which source one looks at.

Individual wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 9:56 pm "The Atmospheric CO2 levels in 1850 (beginning of the Industrial Revolution and the green ideological start point) was 280ppm (parts per million atmospheric content) (Vostok Ice Core).
Atmospheric CO2 level in 2021 was 410ppm."

Hmm, so as a climate change sceptic, if you want to show that the increase in CO2 is *not due to man's industrialisation of the planet, then the ice cores from before 1850 would do that ...

There would be evidence that C02 levels have gone up and down over millennia, or at least as far back as we can look using ice cores.

So do they ?

From what I can find, online levels are pretty much stable up until the Industrial Revolution where it starts to go up. Even if you take different sources into consideration it looks like the levels were stable.

We have at the moment various groups of people terrified (yes, terrified) about the future. That is why they block the traffic and various other stunts. I do wonder if they have been fed exaggerations and wrong sources of information in order to believe our planet is heading towards an "irreversible climate breakdown"...the last three words taken from an activist blocking Commercial Road yesterday.

Some work from the Royal Society in 2020 - https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/ ... uestion-7/

From this there have been times in our history with higher levels of CO2, it's just that in recent times (say the last million years) the levels have been relatively low. Are we influencing these changes? Yes, personally I think that is a given given the speed of change in the last couple of hundred years. Will it self correct again? That is a different question. It certainly has in the past, but then we haven't been around to cut down all the trees and eat everything. As a species though would we survive this current event? Mass extinctions have happened before and will most likely happen again. Perhaps a 1-2 degrees C would be tolerable with a 'minor' impact on us (however keep in mind that some people seem to think that if they cannot get their new boing every year then the world is coming to an end). A 10 degree C rise along with a 60m sea level rise, would be a dramatic impact and likely have a huge effect on us as a species. Would life in general survive? Yes, I think that is pretty likely, given how it has clung on in the past.

It is not just about CO2 levels per se but the planets ability to deal with it.

Alongside increasing emissions etc there is the global destruction of the natural environment which helps deals with such things.

That is the other side of the Co2 increasing that combined with the willful destruction of our natural environment that is exacerbating the emissions problem.

At no time in our history has there been such destruction and loss of nature on a global scale, this is the elephant in the room when it comes to understanding and dealing with the complexity of global warming.

Christel wrote: ↑Sun Oct 30, 2022 11:06 am Preach and tax...yeah, there is something there, however who benefits?

Usually governments by introducing taxes for the latest scaremongering