quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

This is excellent news. I'd love to know we can stop worrying about GW.

You need to publish your proof that CO2 in its current concentration cannot possibly affect temperature. The sooner the scientific community take this onboard the better.

Care to show us the relevant equations, along with revised global temperature projections?

Let's answer your questions, first.


1. Are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere?
...yes
2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
...yes
3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere?
...CO2 has multiple properties. It works like a two-way mirror. It lets some in, reflects some back, reflects back some IR radiation from the ground, gets absorbed by the ocean and other natural processes---Is its high purpose(assigned by God?)to be a greenhouse gas? I don't think so.
4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world?
No. There are forcings and equalibriums to be considered. We need to check it out decade at a time. There is no rush--at least not on my part.
5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
Who knows?? A lot of people would benefit either way.

6. Is there any justification for opposition to the mechanics of climate change?
Yes and NO---Which or Who's "mechanics" are you talking about? The one that gives correct prediction for the next 100 years? We don't know that one yet, do we?

quote:

Originally posted by phlipper:

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

This is excellent news. I'd love to know we can stop worrying about GW.

You need to publish your proof that CO2 in its current concentration cannot possibly affect temperature. The sooner the scientific community take this onboard the better.

Care to show us the relevant equations, along with revised global temperature projections?

Let's answer your questions, first.


1. Are humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere?
...yes
2. Is CO2 a greenhouse gas?
...yes
3. Is the purpose of greenhouse gases to trap heat produced by the sun in our atmosphere?
...CO2 has multiple properties. It works like a two-way mirror. It lets some in, reflects some back, reflects back some IR radiation from the ground, gets absorbed by the ocean and other natural processes---Is its high purpose(assigned by God?)to be a greenhouse gas? I don't think so.
4. Even with other factors at play, is it reasonable to assume more greenhouse gases will increase the temperature of the world?
No. There are forcings and equalibriums to be considered. We need to check it out decade at a time. There is no rush--at least not on my part.
5. Is the warming of the world by a couple of degrees celsius likely to have negative consequences overall?
Who knows?? A lot of people would benefit either way.

6. Is there any justification for opposition to the mechanics of climate change?
Yes and NO---Which or Who's "mechanics" are you talking about? The one that gives correct prediction for the next 100 years? We don't know that one yet, do we?

It was nice of you to answer True Cynic's questions. (We happened to join this forum at about the same time, so I can understand your confusion.)

All the same, the world of science awaits your devastating revision of the role of CO2 in the atmosphere.

quote:

Originally posted by MindCrime:

quote:

Originally posted by Seskinreay:
There was a program tonight regarding the extinction of the Tiger through corrupt regimes in India. I'm for the Tigers. Mankind is a cancer on the planet, if our (uncontroled/uncontrolable) actions lead to our demise so be it.

I think I probably agree with you about the tigers. But I dunno, when I think about it, it does seem kinda psychopathic (no offense intended).

quote:

BTW did you see the Ethical Man debate on Newsnight tonight. It emerged that even if everybody in Britain took all the steps required to save 200 tonnes of CO2 pa it would delay climate change by 7 hours according to the models. So what is the point?

True. I don't really hold with ignorance being bliss, though. I think it's probably important that people understand that it's going to happen and why, even if there's nothing that we can do about it.

Psychopathic? As in the "Axe Man of New Orleans"? No. There is a side of me that would enjoy the "Revenge of Gaia" however - we're about due a damn good thrashing I reckon, and if it is true that busting a gut for the next 100 years while only delay the inevitable by 7 hours, why not stop getting into a tizz about GW and enjoy running headlong, lemming like, for the precipice?

quote:

It emerged that even if everybody in Britain took all the steps required to save 200 tonnes of CO2 pa it would delay climate change by 7 hours according to the models.

I suspect that figure must have been 200kg since a) 200 tonnes is many times a single person's use and b) 200 tonnes times 60 million people is a pretty sizeable proportion of annual anthropogenic CO2 output (20 Gigatonnes CO2).

200kg times 60 million people works out to a saving of about half-an-hour per year according to a quick back of the envelope calculation.

200kg is of course a pittance - about 75 litres of petrol (less than two tankfuls of a typical medium car).

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:

quote:

It emerged that even if everybody in Britain took all the steps required to save 200 tonnes of CO2 pa it would delay climate change by 7 hours according to the models.

I suspect that figure must have been 200kg since a) 200 tonnes is many times a single person's use and b) 200 tonnes times 60 million people is a pretty sizeable proportion of annual anthropogenic CO2 output (20 Gigatonnes CO2).

200kg times 60 million people works out to a saving of about half-an-hour per year according to a quick back of the envelope calculation.

200kg is of course a pittance - about 75 litres of petrol (less than two tankfuls of a typical medium car).

Steve, I've tried to get the quote verbatim from the newsnight website but no can do. I don't remember exactly what the footprint saving was - I guess its the target that is being touted by government?

The guy concerned was Prof Bjorn Lomborg. A previous interview with Jeremy Paxman is interesting http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/archive/2002184.stm

He must be a nutter of course because he is a lone voice in the wildeness. What do you think?

Also from last nights debate, David Milliband was squaring efforts to combat GW with plans to expand air travel! The reductions from individual efforts enable this. Nice one!!

Seskinreay,

I do not know much about Lomborg, though he seems to be good at generating publicity for himself. His Wikipedia profile makes quite interesting reading - I read it a couple of weeks ago, and I read it again just now, and the contents have changed quite a lot in between times!

I read an article recently that said the average "carbon footprint" was 13000kg of CO2 (13 tonnes).

Annual anthropogenic global output is 20,000 million tonnes CO2. If the delay is 7 hours per year, a .08% reduction is required (7 hours divided by (365*24)), or 15 million tonnes per year.

This works out at .25 tonnes per UK person - 250kg - so my first calculation was a bit wrong.

I read an article recently that said the average "carbon footprint" was 13000kg of CO2 (13 tonnes). So this works out as just a 2 percent reduction.

I think the Energy Savings Trust are demanding a 20% reduction at the moment - I don't tend to watch adverts so I don't know the details. This saving would add up to 70 hours (3 days) per year or a month per decade. If the Americans and Europeans all did it, that amounts to about a year per decade.

Incidentally, I just checked my own carbon footprint, and on the site I used there was the inane comment that

quote:

Environmentalists believe that to stop global warming every person needs to reduce their emissions to roughly 2,500 kg per year.

grrrr....!

Milliband for Prime Minister!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Steve_M:
Seskinreay,


Milliband for Prime Minister!!!

The boy shows promise !!

this story came on as breaking news last night

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4803460.stm

can anyone explain why content in described as PPM and emissions
are described in TONNES or this the old supermarket trick to make relevant figures hard to compare. When the figures on co2 in the atmosphere are broken down in percentages the are below zero(0.0381%)
but if we are talking about my personal carbon emissions then bluntly put, it weighs more than my car (p.a.)
In my experience, if you have to about with statistics like this, its because you're either a politician or you're trying to blow something out of all proportion in order to secure funding and to introduce the only big percentages you'll see in this forum,I think the split is 50/50 (%)

what exactly is a trigger word?

No Steve, but sometimes I'am guilty of letting Anglo-saxon slip into my English

close your eyes, give me your hand darlin do you feel my heart beating do you understand?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
You need to publish your proof that CO2 in its current concentration cannot possibly affect temperature. The sooner the scientific community take this onboard the better.

Care to show us the relevant equations, along with revised global temperature projections?

It is my hunch. I will leave proofs to the PHD's. It is my hunch because CO2 is a tiny part of air. When doubled, it is still tiny. If, indeed, man made CO2 brings the average global up a few degrees in the next 100 years, I don't care. There are worse problems to worry about like nuclear annihilation, malaria, liberals, socialists, and communists. Before you go criticizing hunches, mine are usually correct. I'm not the brightest candle on the cake but, on background, I did major in physics. When proven wrong, I stand corrected. I will await the science. Unlike others, I believe GW issues are still light years away from being settled.

quote:

can anyone explain why content in described as PPM and emissions
are described in TONNES or this the old supermarket trick to make relevant figures hard to compare. When the figures on co2 in the atmosphere are broken down in percentages the are below zero(0.0381%)

Well, there is about 2.5 thousand billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere, but that figure is virtually impossible to measure accurately. Concentration (parts per million) is easier to measure and easier to quote. Of course it can lead to people making the irrational assumption that just because the amount is measured in parts per million, it must be irrelevant.

The weight in tonnes of personal emissions is given so you can compare your usage with the average, and can, if you like, make judgements as to the effectiveness of different ways of reducing personal usage.

It does get a little difficult when figures are sometimes given by weight of carbon, and sometimes by CO2 (because the latter includes the weight of the O2, 12kg of "Carbon" is equivalent to 44kg of CO2). In someways the weight of carbon may make more sense to the average person, because it is hard to explain how 1 litre of petrol (about 0.85kg of petrol) gives rise to about 2.5kg of CO2.

quote:

Originally posted by phlipper:

It is my hunch. I will leave proofs to the PHD's. It is my hunch because CO2 is a tiny part of air. When doubled, it is still tiny.

The majority of PhDs in this field say that it really does make a difference, based on basic, long established, physics. They have estimated a range of probable results, with the proviso that that these are highly probable, not 100% certain.

quote:

If, indeed, man made CO2 brings the average global up a few degrees in the next 100 years, I don't care.

Really? Remember that these are global temperatures, not local variations. Even if we ignore the effects of sea-level rise and its direct effect on us, the change in the Earth's ecosystem is not something we should be so cavalier about. Does the phrase "Lifeboat Earth" mean anything to you?

quote:

There are worse problems to worry about like nuclear annihilation, malaria, liberals, socialists, and communists.

Post 1989, surely even right-wing paranoiacs can forget most of those?

Malaria is, indeed, a major cause of death. Are you saying that it will a greater problem if global temperatures increase (denied by one of Durkin's experts BTW)? If so, shouldn't we help to limit temperature rise rather than deal with the consequences? Prevention vs. Cure?

quote:

Before you go criticizing hunches, mine are usually correct. I'm not the brightest candle on the cake but, on background, I did major in physics. When proven wrong, I stand corrected. I will await the science. Unlike others, I believe GW issues are still light years away from being settled.

We all have hunches, but we tend to remember the ones we got right and forget the ones we got wrong. Do you have some examples of your hunches that went against the (educated) consensus and were correct?

The problem with GW is: can we afford to wait until it is certain? The consensus is that it is highly probable already, and that each delay in addressing the issue not only worsens the outcome but also increase the measures we (may) need to take.

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:
The problem with GW is: can we afford to wait until it is certain?

Of course not. Now that we (ie the Western countries) have advanced economies, we must prevent the third world having them too. Now that we (ie the middle classes) have flown around the world to exotic locations, we must prevent the oiks doing the same. NOW.

quote:

________________________________________________________
jl(..) work
Of course not. Now that we (ie the Western countries) have advanced economies, we must prevent the third world having them too. Now that we (ie the middle classes) have flown around the world to exotic locations, we must prevent the oiks doing the same. NOW.

______________________________________________________________
Classic! Sooo Spot-on.
______________________________________________________________
quote: Jello Biafra
KILL THE POOR [/quote]
______________________________________________________________

Been cruising Al Gores wonderful creation(the internet) looking for an answer and couldn't find one so I thought I'd ask you guys
(thoughs of you who know how co2 works as a global warming gas should know this one)
how much of the worlds surface is the wrong colour?
and if its the same small percentage as co2 in the atmoshere
why don't we just paint it a different one?

quote:

Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

We all have hunches, but we tend to remember the ones we got right and forget the ones we got wrong. Do you have some examples of your hunches that went against the (educated) consensus and were correct?

The "Coming Ice Age" theories immediately come to mind(I hugely doubted that one). "Silicon breast implants cause maladies" theories.(Silicon is totally inert. I knew it was lawyer driven--convince a jury, you win.) Cell phones cause cancer theories. EM waves so close to our brains!(Mine must be totally baked, by now). DDT causes Death!! Well, not using it surely has. You can eat and bath in DDT but kills mosquitos better than anything else on the market. Thank God African countries have started using it again.(It does not make egg shells thinner causing bird extinction.) You can alway tell by the cast of characters parading in the "Great Social Concerns of Our Times" marches, what is real and what is trumped up political or lawyer driven attacts on western civilization. Liberals and Socialists hate prosperous, productive, and moral societies. Then there is the peanuts/black mold scares. The list goes on and on and on and on.

quote:
Originally posted by TrueSceptic:

We all have hunches, but we tend to remember the ones we got right and forget the ones we got wrong. Do you have some examples of your hunches that went against the (educated) consensus and were correct?


The "Coming Ice Age" theories immediately come to mind(I hugely doubted that one). "Silicon breast implants cause maladies" theories.(Silicon is totally inert. I knew it was lawyer driven--convince a jury, you win.) Cell phones cause cancer theories. EM waves so close to our brains!(Mine must be totally baked, by now). DDT causes Death!! Well, not using it surely has. You can eat and bath in DDT but kills mosquitos better than anything else on the market. Thank God African countries have started using it again.(It does not make egg shells thinner causing bird extinction.) You can alway tell by the cast of characters parading in the "Great Social Concerns of Our Times" marches, what is real and what is trumped up political or lawyer driven attacts on western civilization. Liberals and Socialists hate prosperous, productive, and moral societies. Then there is the peanuts/black mold scares. The list goes on and on and on and on.

Posts: 48[/quote]

The earth is flat too phlipper I that didn't seem right at the time. infact wasn't a lone man excomunicated for disagreeing with that one?quite famous too, cant think of his name.

quote:

Originally posted by mufcdiver:

The earth is flat too phlipper I that didn't seem right at the time. infact wasn't a lone man excomunicated for disagreeing with that one?quite famous too, cant think of his name.

Galileo?

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by mufcdiver:

The earth is flat too phlipper I that didn't seem right at the time. infact wasn't a lone man excomunicated for disagreeing with that one?quite famous too, cant think of his name.


Galileo?

Bingo!!!

Cancer Inhalation Health Benchmark (IHB)
A cancer IHB is a concentration in ambient air, at or below which a chemical or defined mixture of chemicals is unlikely to cause an adverse health effect to the general public when exposure occurs daily throughout a person's lifetime. Cancer IHBs are based on unit risk values and the judgment that 1 additional chance in 100,000 of getting cancer in a lifetime is acceptable. For implementation purposes, cancer IHBs are typically compared to an annual average concentration of a chemical or defined mixtur