On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 16:47:38 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Tuesday, 23 August 2016 12:39:21 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 12:48:58 AM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Monday, 22 August 2016 23:34:50 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 6:01:41 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, 20 August 2016 16:43:03 UTC+3, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I am far more interested in finding out what actually causes weather.

The sun.
HTH.

Col

And carbon dioxide.


If the sun died tomorrow C02 would have no effect whatsoever or do you disagree ?

If the sun died tomorrow then the time for the Earth to become a snowball earth would depend on how much co2 was in the atmosphere. The Sun dies every day everywhere on Earth, and CO2 decides where the snowline lies. Think about it!

So the more C02 the better, so what are you moaning about. Think about it.

You can have too much of a good thing. We had the perfect amount of CO2. Things can only get worse.

In article ,
says...
You can have too much of a good thing. We had the perfect amount of CO2. Things can only get worse.


How do you know it was the /perfect/ amount? In terms of both bio-mass
and bio-diversity, life on planet Earth has always faired better during
periods of high CO2 concentration.

Almost all the fossil fuels which we are consuming just now were laid
down during the Carboniferous. An epoch of higher CO2 concentrations
that is marked in the fossil record as being one of the most productive
epochs the planet has ever seen.

As long as CO2 levels are stable, just about any level is good. Further,
within limits, higher is probably better. The worst case is when CO2
levels are not stable, and unfortunately that is the path on which we
appear to have taken our first steps.


--
Alan LeHun

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:40:34 AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
You can have too much of a good thing. We had the perfect amount of CO2.. Things can only get worse.


How do you know it was the /perfect/ amount? In terms of both bio-mass
and bio-diversity, life on planet Earth has always faired better during
periods of high CO2 concentration.

Almost all the fossil fuels which we are consuming just now were laid
down during the Carboniferous. An epoch of higher CO2 concentrations
that is marked in the fossil record as being one of the most productive
epochs the planet has ever seen.

As long as CO2 levels are stable, just about any level is good. Further,
within limits, higher is probably better. The worst case is when CO2
levels are not stable, and unfortunately that is the path on which we
appear to have taken our first steps.


--
Alan LeHun

We had the perfect amount of CO2 for the emergence of civilisation, and we have adapted our agriculture to match the current level of CO2 and the environment (weather) it produces. By increasing CO2 we are moving into uncharted territory. Actually it is not uncharted. It is the type which was perfectly adapted to the dinosaurs.

Cheers, Alastair.

On Wednesday, 24 August 2016 12:16:52 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 11:40:34 AM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:
In article ,
says...
You can have too much of a good thing. We had the perfect amount of CO2. Things can only get worse.


How do you know it was the /perfect/ amount? In terms of both bio-mass
and bio-diversity, life on planet Earth has always faired better during
periods of high CO2 concentration.

Almost all the fossil fuels which we are consuming just now were laid
down during the Carboniferous. An epoch of higher CO2 concentrations
that is marked in the fossil record as being one of the most productive
epochs the planet has ever seen.

As long as CO2 levels are stable, just about any level is good. Further,
within limits, higher is probably better. The worst case is when CO2
levels are not stable, and unfortunately that is the path on which we
appear to have taken our first steps.


--
Alan LeHun

We had the perfect amount of CO2 for the emergence of civilisation, and we have adapted our agriculture to match the current level of CO2 and the environment (weather) it produces. By increasing CO2 we are moving into uncharted territory. Actually it is not uncharted. It is the type which was perfectly adapted to the dinosaurs.

Cheers, Alastair.


Alastair I think you have a very distorted view of the human condition. During the last period of glaciation the c02 levels were down to 180ppm and then pre industrial revolution from the end of that last period of glaciation about 270ppm. In that ten thousand odd years life hasn't been exactly picture perfect for humanity has it. Ironically for you the lofty comfortable lifestyle level from which you bemoan the passing of the idea co2 level was only afforded and made possible precisely because of the use of fossil fuels and looking at some of the thread contents today we have plenty of old fossils well fuelled up using this group.

"Alastair" wrote in message
...

Actually it is not uncharted. It is the type which was perfectly adapted to
the dinosaurs.

Hmmm. Unless the dinosaurs were technologically much more advanced than we
often assume (and, if so, they've certainly hidden the fact quite well,
though David Icke might argue otherwise), I suspect that it was the
dinosaurs that were well adapted to the prevailing climate, rather than vice
versa.

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:33:51 PM UTC+1, JohnD wrote:
"Alastair" wrote in message
...

Actually it is not uncharted. It is the type which was perfectly adapted to
the dinosaurs.

Hmmm. Unless the dinosaurs were technologically much more advanced than we
often assume (and, if so, they've certainly hidden the fact quite well,
though David Icke might argue otherwise), I suspect that it was the
dinosaurs that were well adapted to the prevailing climate, rather than vice
versa.

Yes, and we are well adapted to a climate produced by 280 ppm of CO2, as is our agricultural systems, and our infrastructure. At the time of the dinosaurs central north American continent was under the sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Interior_Seaway

In article ,
says...
We had the perfect amount of CO2 for the emergence of civilisation, and we have adapted our agriculture to match the current level of CO2 and the environment (weather) it produces


Agreed. My point is that at a different stable level of CO2, we would
adapt to that also, and we may well find it more congenial.

It is the period of change and adaption that would be potentially
painful, not the resulting conditions once they had settled down.



--
Alan LeHun

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 1:15:56 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

Alastair I think you have a very distorted view of the human condition.
During the last period of glaciation the c02 levels were down to 180ppm and then pre industrial revolution from the end of that last period of glaciation about 270ppm. In that ten thousand odd years life hasn't been exactly picture perfect for humanity has it. Ironically for you the lofty comfortable lifestyle level from which you bemoan the passing of the idea co2 level was only afforded and made possible precisely because of the use of fossil fuels and looking at some of the thread contents today we have plenty of old fossils well fuelled up using this group.

Lawrence, during the Holocene, the lst 10,000 years, life for the few who moved from subsistence farming into city life has been a great improvement. Why should they move otherwise?

But there are still billions of subsidence farmers in China, India, Africa and throughout the world who do not have the comfortable life style that you and your fellow old fossils enjoy. Yet you are quite happy to burn every drop of fossil fuel just to maintain your life/es of luxury, leaving none for the descendants of those poor families or even your own. Moreover, you are wreaking the environment by causing widespread wildfires:

http://www.fire.ca.gov/general/firemaps
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pict...-Portugal.html

floods:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-2...-camps/7779284
http://www.theadvocate.com/louisiana...229b90b79.html

and droughts

http://ca.water.usgs.gov/data/drought/
http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/cl...ears-487878483

I don't think I have a distorted view of the human condition. It is you who needs to remove your rose coloured glasses. :-(



, floods

On Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC+1, Alan LeHun wrote:

Agreed. My point is that at a different stable level of CO2, we would
adapt to that also, and we may well find it more congenial.

It is the period of change and adaption that would be potentially
painful, not the resulting conditions once they had settled down.

Yes, but all we and our kids can look forward to is the period of change and adaption.

Eventually, when the global population has been decimated, then it will be possible for them to live sustainable lives. I would rather avoid that happening by living more frugally now.

Cheers, Alastair.