quote:

Originally posted by et al:
When we run out we will consume less. My 1.0 L car consumes less than my old 3.0 L TT. My Mrs emits much less CO2 than me and I'm probably doing a Kg a day, if I eat less will I emit less? The resultant reduction in girth will require some new pants and they will have to be manufactired and offset some of my girth reduced carbon foot print. OK a long way of saying it is of little consequence how we work things out apart from it creates cost which I say would be better put into alternative sources of energy.

What an individual does has little consequence. But an a community of millions and tens of millions, the impact can be great.

good luck on your weight loss...

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: So the warming trend we are seeing is happening for no particular reason.

Might be natural - might be man made

might be c02, might be methane, might be contrails.

Doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because the oil will run out long before we ever find out.

Your explanation of GW is it might be this, it might be that.

And you're so confident we will run out of fossil fuel before we destroy the planet?

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

quote:

but not how much - or whether contrails affect weather more than co2

Huh, there's plenty of literature out there.

Then what do they say?

how much is contrails vs how much is greenhouse gas?

Why don't you read it?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: And you're so confident we will run out of fossil fuel before we destroy the planet?

here's the gag - if we pretend we are - we will engineer solutioins that will recycle carbon and reduce emissions.

we win either way

what practical benefit will more research on climate give us?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: Why don't you read it?

Don't have time.

the answer i am looking for is a figure between 0% and 100%

noone has quoted it yet - so i am assuming noone knows.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: And you're so confident we will run out of fossil fuel before we destroy the planet?

here's the gag - if we pretend we are - we will engineer solutioins that will recycle carbon and reduce emissions.

we win either way

what practical benefit will more research on climate give us?

Perhaps a greater understanding of our climate so we can predict with greater accuracy? People would love to know if would rain this time next year, matches don't have to called off, shuttle launches can be scheduled with certainty, insurance companies can plan better etc etc, basically, lots of things.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas: Why don't you read it?

Don't have time.

the answer i am looking for is a figure between 0% and 100%

noone has quoted it yet - so i am assuming noone knows.

...and other people do... have time to look for information for you...

Nor VERY useful is it in the face of dwindling fossil fuel supplies.

Is *any* of that half as useful as a battery that could power a motorbike?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
...and other people do... have time to look for information for you...

I take it you don't actually have an idea what the relative figure is, and noone else does either?

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:

quote:

Originally posted by pwg:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
But part of the solution is for us to consume less. Turning off a light will not reduce emission much but 1000,000 lights will.

what emissions are these and where from?

The coal/oil powered stations that are connected to the grid...

arent they all pretty much going out of commission in the next few years to be replaced by nuclear ones? tied in with renewables like wind/sea sources of energy, our emissions would be minimal.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:

quote:

Originally posted by heujas:
...and other people do... have time to look for information for you...

I take it you don't actually have an idea what the relative figure is, and noone else does either?

I don't keep information like that in my head, why don't yoiu go through Real Climate's website eh?

Cos i don't believe there is a figure

So i could spend a thousand hours and not find it.

You can search forever for things that are not there.

If you are a climate scientist - you can even get funding to look.

quote:

Originally posted by MadWorld:
Despite all the rhetoric - and having looked at all the available evidence - I can still see NOTHING that proves removing even half of man made CO2 will solve GW problems.

All the available evidence? In the past 10 years about 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles relating to global warming have been published. They are all available.

Can you point us to some evidence that says we can "save the planet" with anything less than a 75% overall reductuion?

(IE 50% reduction in man's 50:50 share of the increases)

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:
All the available evidence? In the past 10 years about 10,000 peer-reviewed scientific articles relating to global warming have been published. They are all available.

Could you summarise? The thing is we are overwhelmed, it's there if you look. As I have said the burden of proof is on the new idea backers? You give me the definitive nature article that shows anything but someones ideas.

I'm sorry for all those who missed me I took an ethanol break.

quote:

Originally posted by et al:

I read somewhere that CO2 is not a major player in global warming, that it actually followed GW as a correlate after the heating and ice measures could not be used as they were an inaccurate measure? I don't want to discuss these just now but just as a warning of where I am likely to look next.

The reason why in the past rises in CO2 followed rises in temperature is to do with positive feedback: a rise in temperature (caused perhaps by an orbital shift) causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere which in turn causes the temperature to rise futher, and so on, meaning that what would otherwise have been small shifts in temperature are magnified.

I suggest you have a look here: CO2 doesn't lead, it lags

Looking at that graph - maybe a little warming will help protect us from that massive drop in temp that lies before us naturally!

quote:

Originally posted by legjoints:

quote:

Originally posted by et al:

I read somewhere that CO2 is not a major player in global warming, that it actually followed GW as a correlate after the heating and ice measures could not be used as they were an inaccurate measure? I don't want to discuss these just now but just as a warning of where I am likely to look next.

The reason why in the past rises in CO2 followed rises in temperature is to do with positive feedback: a rise in temperature (caused perhaps by an orbital shift) causes CO2 to be released into the atmosphere which in turn causes the temperature to rise futher, and so on, meaning that what would otherwise have been small shifts in temperature are magnified.

I suggest you have a look here: CO2 doesn't lead, it lags

The article again clouds the issue, someone has put forward a plausible explanation (CO2 being given up by heating seas) and we know the measurement is contaminated in the ice samples.

Nevermind we 'agree', now stop spending and taxing unless you want to actually solve a problem rather than fully understand it.

Again, looking at the graph - what causes the massive global cooling and co2 decline?

quote:

Originally posted by et al:
I'm sorry for all those who missed me I took an ethanol break.

was it shaken or stirred?

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
Looking at that graph - maybe a little warming will help protect us from that massive drop in temp that lies before us naturally!

That graph (if you're looking at the one I think you are) is over pretty large time scales, so we may have to wait thousands of years before the cooling comes.

The increase in temperature and CO2 we're seeing now is happenning very very quickly, and that's one of the things that is most worrying about it. CO2 from 280ppm to 380ppm in 150 years. Many climatologists reckon that if we can stabilize CO2 at 500ppm by 2050 then the changes will be manageable, but above that level of CO2 we're really going into very dangerous territory, risking potentially devastating non-linear shifts in climate.

I imagine the oil isn't going to last 150 years - so that's that problem sorted out.

Now - can we get to the IMPORTANT bit?

HOW are we going to replace the oil with a bio/renewable source?

A kilo of sawdust is chemically no different than a kilo of ethanol.

All we need to do is work out how to crack cellulose into simpler starches.

quote:

Originally posted by Bioethanol:
Again, looking at the graph - what causes the massive global cooling and co2 decline?

I'm not sure. I guess there are many possibilities. Over these large time scales I think orbital forcing is the one they talk about the most. There are many things that can influence temperature, but when you go through them you see that none of those things that have changed the temperature in the past have occurred in the past century, at least not with the magnitude necessary to produce the obseverd warming. That leaves man made CO2 emissions as by far the best explanation, the one best fitting the observations.

(Perhaps if we don't cut our emissions we could fire off all our nuclear missiles in the direction of the sun, thus blasting earth into a new cooler orbit? Deal with nuclear proliferation and global warming in one go.)