Climate change: ‘Clear and unequivocal’ emergency, say 11,000 scientists.

Here we go with the real drivel on this board, it clearly never occurred to you that 100% conversion of Oxygen in each breath would be an unbelievably remarkable feat, to quote you 'exhaled breath generally doesn't' absolute bull!

Every time we exhale about 16% of the gas exhaled by volume is Oxygen, about 4 % is CO2, that CO2 portion is the result of metabolic processes in your body the rest of your exhalation is mostly the inert nitrogen.

And you didn't even read your own link as it points out that this is a part of a net equilibrium where we contribute zero net gain to global CO2, human beings and all forms of life ultimately live on solar power, photosynthesis is at the root of it, without the photosynthesis of plants and phytoplankton life any more complex than bacteria would not exist.

The reason the earth has a high level of free oxygen in the first place is the result of oxygenic photosynthesis in cyanobacteria which occurred a couple of billion years ago and persisted for a very long period of time building up the oxygen percentage in the earths atmosphere, under the current ecosystem most of the worlds oxygen comes from the oceans

By your logic it is impossible for anyone to draw attention to climate change as apart from a very small number of people isolated in the few remaining jungles of the world every last one of us depends on technology.

You demand that in order to even discuss or raise the topic that a person has to forego all technology, by inference no one anywhere can discuss the subject without being a hypocrite according to you.

Word playing, point scoring, moron.

That was an interesting link Chris, I disagree that he is going against the mainstream science he acknowledges it pretty much fully but he makes the specific points about desertification, he has his critics but it was a very interesting talk.

I agree that it looks like his suggestions could be well worth implementing just simply in terms of better land management and yes it would fix (remove from the atmosphere) a great deal of CO2 but there are significant concerns that this would be more than offset by the much increased methane generation by the increase in livestock. Also fixation of CO2 is a dynamic thing and vegetation coverage is cyclic in most parts of the world, rotting vegetation releases methane and CO2 and methane while it is a gas that does break down in the atmosphere it is also more than 20 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its greenhouse effect.

The embedded links on this page are worth a read https://blog.ted.com/allan-savorys-...nd-reverse-climate-change-criticisms-updates/

Regards spending money on reducing emissions, that's a laudable goal in itself, the conversion efficiency of a power plant is superior to the total conversion efficiency of a fossil fuel distribution network even when the power plant is consuming fossil fuels itself, electric vehicles are simply more efficient and more importantly the fossil fuels are a finite irreplaceable resource, oil is far too important a resource as a chemical feedstock for materials for us to be burning it.

At least at some point a coal or gas fired power plant can be replaced by something less polluting but if we don't even try to get off fossil fuels they will run out, if we burned all of the carbon that 'could' be extracted from the ground then even Allan Savory's ideas would not be enough.

Climate change is as he himself says a product of a growing world population, right now the only we can support that population is through fossil fuels which will one day ceases to exist.

Correct but the market decides who gets paid for what and one can notionally say I bought my power from Bulb so I paid for mine through a renewables company.

As a planet we haven't even started reducing dependence on hydrocarbons.

We have 3 cubic miles of oil equivalent per annum to replace, we have barely a tenth of a cubic mile of oil equivalent in renewables, we've hardly even started.

The equivalent of 3 Cubic miles of oil would do it, that would be pretty much the definition of Carbon neutral although even then the concrete would still be a really big problem.

We use about 1 point something cubic miles of oil (CMO) a year, the other two CMO are gas, coal and Nuclear and the renewables, a CMO is a unit of energy the world uses upwards of 15 TW continuously that's what's required to sustain our current population and our current level of technology.

Electric cars or electric anything in the current environment simply shifts the burning from one place to another even the construction of Nuclear stations has a significant carbon cost at this point in time.

You have to replace all transport, all heating, cooling, lighting all communications, all of industry any transformative process which takes some input and outputs something else.

You have to do all of that replace all of that energy generation to be carbon neutral and we have barely started.