[Bored chemist]

All depends where you draw the "pre-industrial" line,

Not strongly.
Any time before about 1850 and since the Norman conquest will do pretty much as well as any other.
https://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=IkpaWtyRIsfJgAaL4qKQDg&q=CO2+concentrations+vs+time+millennium&oq=CO2+concentrations+vs+time+millennium&gs_l=psy-ab.3...110830.113034.0.113437.11.11.0.0.0.0.91.894.11.11.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.fLisriJxOos#imgrc=u7TC8ui9JpS2bM:
Why do you pretend otherwise?

[alancalverd]

No pretence. I just wonder how the coal and peat bogs got there in the first place. Something to do with chemistry, possibly.

By the time of the Norman conquest, vast tracts of natural forest and scrub had been cleared of anything that might absorb significant amounts of CO2, and replaced by grazing herds of humans and other CO2-emitting species.

[Bored chemist]

By the time of the Norman conquest, vast tracts of natural forest and scrub had been cleared of anything that might absorb significant amounts of CO2, and replaced by grazing herds of humans and other CO2-emitting species.

And the CO2 levels stayed pretty much the same as shown in the graph I cited.
That's not a real shock- the population density of humans was tiny and our impact was small. Also, as you should understand there were lots of plants growing and animals eating them in an effectively closed cycle.
We were just a particular sort of animal so we didn't really make a difference.
It didn't matter much if we burned timber either.

I just wonder how the coal and peat bogs got there in the first place.

They got there slowly and they are being released quickly.
I find it hard to believe that you didn't already know that.
Were you being deliberately obtuse?

[alancalverd]

You may recall the principle of conservation of mass. In order for a tree to sequester a ton of carbon, there must be a ton of carbon in the atmosphere. It doesn't matter how long it took to lay down the coal deposits: all the CO2 must have been present in the atmosphere before the first tree grew, because there is no other significant source.

I have no doubt that it is being released more quickly now than in recent times. What interests me is what the condition of the planet will be when all the fossil carbon has been released, and it seems that the answer must lie somewhere in geological history because the planet has been there before.

If you are concerned about anthropogenic emissions, the only way to reduce them without sacrificing people's desire to eat, breathe, and enjoy a comfortable life, is to reduce the number of people and/or the number of animals that they eat.

[Bored chemist]

and it seems that the answer must lie somewhere in geological history because the planet has been there before.

Yes and no.
It's entirely possible that the CO2 concentration would return to a level that happened deep in Earth's history.
But humans wren't trying to survive back then.
It's also important to recognise that, over timescales that long - a million years or so- the Sun is changing.
Unfortunately, we can't rely on the Sun cooling to exactly offset the damage that we have done to the atmosphere.

If you are concerned about anthropogenic emissions, the only way to reduce them without sacrificing people's desire to eat, breathe, and enjoy a comfortable life, is to reduce the number of people and/or the number of animals that they eat.

Or invest in renewable and cut waste.

[alancalverd]

Problem there is that renewables won't sustain the present population at anything like an acceptable standard of living.

UK energy consumption is around 5 kW per capita Higher in USA, Canada, Australia, Scandinavia and what's left of the Middle East, but 5 kW is probably the mean aspirational value for the entire world. Unfortunately current world consumption is less than 1.5 kW per capita and there aren't many places with as much wind and tide as the UK.

And always worth reviewing "damage to the atmosphere". Increased CO2 has led to increased crop yields. Increased winter temperatures have allowed the creaking British transport system to survive well past its sell-by date (though I gather the flash modern Hitachi trains don't like sun, rain, wind or snow, and the drivers aren't keen on fog). Where's the bad?

[Bored chemist]

there aren't many places with as much wind and tide as the UK.

There are many with more sunshine.
A dozen  square metres of sunlight provides more than 5KW of raw power. If these people aspire to ownership of a vehicle, then a garage roof over it would be enough space for about half the solar panels.

Increased winter temperatures have allowed the creaking British transport system to survive well past its sell-by date

Through what mechanism?
Though there's a fair chance that global warming will drop local winter temps in the UK.

Where's the bad?

To me that sounds a bit like sh1tting in the middle of your lawn and calling it "fertiliser".

[alancalverd]

5kW of electricity for a few hours a day is great: you can run a washing machine and a vacuum cleaner for as long as the sun shines overhead. My one truly offgrid friend, despite a garage full of batteries, goes to bed at sunset and relies on a wood stove for anything approaching comfort. He is gradually clearing his 10 acres of woodland as a result.

You are probably too young to remember "the wrong kind of snow" paralysing Southern Railways. I recall Oxfordshire villages being cut off by snow so the buses couldn't run for weeks - a problem brilliantly solved by Mrs Thatcher getting rid of the buses - and heroic newsreels of gallant Yorkshiremen digging the Flying Scotsman out of a drift.Then we had a few summers when all the talk was about the next ice age, railway lines buckled, and motorways melted.

Fortunately this was all in the days of free love and marijuana, so nobody really cared.

As for recycling human feces as fertiliser, raw pee and poo accounts for a fair percentage of many non-European crops, whilst the stuff that comes from urban sewage farms is much beloved of organic and conventional farmers and market gardeners - it's less smelly than pigshit so better under glass. The best salad lunch you will ever eat will be at the open day of your local treatment works! Personally I have no need to crap on the lawn: Sophie does a fine job, several times a day.

[jeffreyH]

When you are standing having a heated argument on the railway line it is often easy to miss the oncoming train.

[Bored chemist]

You are probably too young to remember "the wrong kind of snow"

Yes, I remember the wrong kind of snow I think you may have forgotten the curcial part of the story.
The reason it was the "wrong kind" is that the type of snow was unusual- (IIRC it was dry  fine powder).
But that's the point; the train companies had been berated for having trains that stopped when it snowed. They had invested a lot of money in "snow proofing" the engines.
And they also invested a lot of advertising in telling people about this.
And then the "wrong kind of snow" turned up and they got stuck.

But here's the important bits
They only made those investments because the trains always had got stuck in snow- no change there
and, since then they have got stuck less often- not because the winters are snow-free, but because they made those investments in snow-proofing trains and, since we usually get the "right sort of snow", they work.
It's not got anything to do with climat change.

Fortunately this was all in the days of free love and marijuana, so nobody really cared.

The "wrong sort of snow" fell in 1991; you might have been doing marijuana and free love, but society had broadly given it up 10  or 20 years earlier.

raw pee and poo accounts for a fair percentage of many non-European crops,

Not for long. The sodium levels are generally too high. You can do it if nobody  is eating a Western, salt filled diet.

[alancalverd]

Can't stop the train, but might as well enjoy the discussion.

I have explained, many times, how the train can be re-routed at no cost and make life more comfortable for everyone, but I'm told the passengers won't like it because nobody else can make money out of their doing nothing.

[alancalverd]

since then they have got stuck less often- not because the winters are snow-free, but because they made those investments in snow-proofing trains

Of all people, BC, I would have thought you the least likely to believe in magical nonsequiturs! Fact is that snow on rails has been replaced by wind blowing down overhead lines (come on, mate, you're supposed to agree with the warmists!). Such is the march of technology. Or was, until Hitachi brought their delicate tropical trains to the chilly East Coast.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:43:10

    raw pee and poo accounts for a fair percentage of many non-European crops,

Not for long. The sodium levels are generally too high. You can do it if nobody  is eating a Western, salt filled diet.
Modify message

Aha! Geology speaks! 40,000 years is "not for long". Now that's my kind of argument.

[jeffreyH]

I think the amount of CO2 used in keeping Trump's hair in place could easily be curtailed. Since he is also  pedal to the metal in the engine compartment maybe he should be ejected from the train altogether. As he falls the flapping of his unfastened hair could waft the excess CO2 safely off into space. Ready to suffocate the unfortunates who travel to his proposed moon base.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: alancalverd on Today at 15:43:10

    raw pee and poo accounts for a fair percentage of many non-European crops,

Not for long. The sodium levels are generally too high. You can do it if nobody  is eating a Western, salt filled diet.
Modify message

Aha! Geology speaks! 40,000 years is "not for long". Now that's my kind of argument.

You are now misrepresenting something said in reply to something irrelevant.

If you show me somewhere that people have piddled for 40,000 years, I will show you somewhere that the soil is too salty for plants. (Particularly if they have been eating an over-salted Western diet for 40,000 years).

The point, as you well know, was that someone sh1tting on the lawn doesn't improve it and someone filling the air with CO2 also doesn't improve that.

[puppypower]

Why would you want to prevent global warming? I lived in many parts of the USA, from the Northeast to Florida. I currently live in the north, but enjoyed the climate ofTennessee  the most. It had long summers and some winter, with a little bit of snow. Tennessee gave about two extra months of pool weather compared to the north, but about many months less compared to Florida.

Global warming, if it pans out, would allow me to stay in the north, which is nice, while enjoying the climate of southern living. I would not mind if the winters were shorter and the summers, longer. Longer summers would means all the trees, plants and grass of the north would stay green for an extra 2 month per year, allowing the same number of plants to absorb more 20-40% more CO2. The system is designed to be self regulating.

If you look at the plot; below, of the earth's surface temperature and CO2 concentration over the past billion years, there is not always a direct correlation between a CO2 increase and a temperature increase. Often the correlation between CO2 and temperature goes in the opposite direction. High CO2 often cools the earth.

For example, look at the left side of the graph, the CO2 was near it all time recorded high, yet the temperature seemed to ignore this, and got cooler at the CO2 peak. We should call the earth a liar, since the experts know better.

Look from about 146 million years ago to about 45 million years ago, as the CO2 dropped over this time span of 100 million years, the temperate kept on going up; WTF. That is not supposed to happen in a greenhouse.

What this tells me is the current global warming analysis, used to spook people, is not well enough understood. The politicians and money changers may well create a larger problem, since the experts don't seen to know how this thing works based on how the earth has done this in the past. What allows both directions?
 


I heard of a study based on the impact of solar particles on the nucleation of water vapor to make clouds. In other words, the sun can play a role in the induction of clouds. Over clouding by the sun, will shade and then cool the earth. Therefore, the CO2 impact, can at times, get lost in the shuffle.

[Bored chemist]

Why would you want to prevent global warming?

There are 8 pages of answers to that here
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=69994.0
so it doesn't make sense to rehash it in this thread.

[alancalverd]

If you show me somewhere that people have piddled for 40,000 years, I will show you somewhere that the soil is too salty for plants. (Particularly if they have been eating an over-salted Western diet for 40,000 years).

India. But of course they haven't eaten a western diet. Nor, unlike every other mammal, do they excrete excess sodium, I guess.

Competitive tomato growers swear by human urine. I used to deal with a factory that had the most amazing tomato trees growing in the car park, thanks to a cracked soil pipe. But the Romans only brought toms to Britain about 2000 years ago, and the Victorian pipe was about 100 years old, so the fact that they were growing on pure pee and poo can be ignored.

[Bored chemist]

If you show me somewhere that people have piddled for 40,000 years, I will show you somewhere that the soil is too salty for plants. (Particularly if they have been eating an over-salted Western diet for 40,000 years).

India. But of course they haven't eaten a western diet. Nor, unlike every other mammal, do they excrete excess sodium, I guess.

Competitive tomato growers swear by human urine. I used to deal with a factory that had the most amazing tomato trees growing in the car park, thanks to a cracked soil pipe. But the Romans only brought toms to Britain about 2000 years ago, and the Victorian pipe was about 100 years old, so the fact that they were growing on pure pee and poo can be ignored.

India is a bit big.
That's incredible
You found a car park where it doesn't rain and a drain fed from a toilet that's used, but never flushed with clean water.
Or you talk trash. I guess others will make up their own minds.

Meanwhile, back at the point, do you think turds are generally considered to improve the lawn?

[alancalverd]

Meanwhile, back at the point, do you think turds are generally considered to improve the lawn?

I'm talking about food crops, not vanity patches and sports pitches! Though I remember having to play rugby early in the season when the summer dressing of minced pigshit hadn't all dispersed from the school fields.....very character-building, stuff of empire, etc..