Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by mauron, 10 Apr 2007.
YAWN, since when has Australia been the world ?
What I was trying to say was that it just shows that the so called "experts" are not always right - did I hear someone shout eugenics.
Also it refers to the Southern hemisphere which is a large part of the world !
At least it was last time I looked.
Massive climate change like that which causes the ice ages is not caused by atmospheric pollutants but by periodic orbital shift in the earths orbit. Closer to the sun = hotter, further away = cooler. CO2 emissions are not the cause, they are an effect.
Here is the answer for the limitations of global climate models (they are not wrong) and why they need local climate models in order to be able to do that and even they are not often scalable enough.
These guys know the score so it will be scientifically accurate.
Not sure if this has been posted before but I thought it was interesting.
There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998
Well Dirtydog, if you had read any of the posts then that issue is dealt with. It was another lie dreampt up by the contrarians to onfuscate and confuse the general masses and politicians. That article is last year and Bob Carter is another well known Climate skeptic who has been debunked many times by people in the know.
Seems to have worked to.
question is which countries pump out the most co2?
in uk and europe we take proper steps with emissions reductions. i rekon its america with thier big engined cars pumping out the co2. and most 3rd world countries that can;t afford to make cfc free stuff.
Yes, I'm sure people living in tin shacks in a dustbowl pump out far more CO2 than massive industrialised nations like us...
USA = 20 Tonnes per head = 300 million x 20 = 6 billion tonnes
EU = 10 Tonnes per head = 450 million x 10 = 4.5 billion tonnes
CH = 04 Tonnes per head = 1.2 billion x 4 = 4.4 billion tonnes
I bleieve that this is CO2.
And all that put together amounts to total anthropogenic greenhouse gases emissions of 3.298% average. The remaining 96.702% are natural emissions of our mother planet. Which means that even if all of us stop commuting to work and heating our houses, Chinese smother half of their population so they don't breath and yanks start walking to McDonalds instead of rolling in in SUVs, the total reduction of man made emissions you can hope for makes about as much difference to the world as peeing up the wind in general direction of an ocean.
Reminds me of Pen & Teller sociological test where they made up a website (dhmo.org), sent petitioners to green rally and gathered few thousand signatures (including those from people quite high in hierarchy) on petition to ban "potentially lethal dangerous odorless colorless liquid" called Dihydrogen Monoxide (otherwise known as H2O to you and me) thus proving most of self proclaimed environmentalists have no clue what they fight for, as long as it's served with correct colours it's the fight that counts.
Which is totally irrelevant when the 96.702% (to use your numbers) are balanced by natural sinks and the 3.298% aren’t leading to the increase in atmospheric concentration of ~36% we have already seen to date.
Nope, see above.
Sure there are lots of misguided, ill-informed environmentalists. However there are also lots of well informed scientists who agree that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have significant negative impact.
Well said Clv101, the 3 % of total emissions argument is now so well used by denialists that I cannot be bothered to reply to it anymore. The rise from 280 ppm to 384 ppm is caused by humans and not be natural sources due to the unique signiture given off by fossil fuels, that is well known.
If 2007 were colder than 2006 would you see that as disproving the global warming theory, or would it be just a blip ?
What would it take to disprove it ?
As with any scientific theory - observations would be needed that disagreed. The theory would then need to be altered to bring it in line with new observations. 2007 being cooler than 2006 does not represent an observation in disagreement with the theory.
What would be sufficient to disagree with the theory?
You should (bother), maybe with a bit of luck you can serve it in such a way that it actually makes sense. I'll be glad to wind you up to start:
Let's say that 3.5 % of all CO2 emissions are caused by humans (it's less that that, but let's just say for the sake of argument it is 3.5%). Great Britain, all it's colonies and offshore "belongings" produce 2.3% of global human made CO2. So that's 0.0805% of all CO2 floating up there. 15% of those emissions in Britain are caused by private car transportation - you, me, Smith from number 8 driving to work and to shop. Let's imagine Ken Livingstone was elected PM and banned all private transport in Cuba.. pardon me.. I mean.. UK, of course. The total impact of this imaginary, unrealistic achievement on global CO2 in atmosphere would be ~0.0121%. Or, if you prefer to not offset it against farting cows and whistling whales, 0.345% of just anthropogenic CO2 emissions. In terms of statistical significance - the first number - if you could imagine one person at the very back of Glastonbury Festival crowd chewing on very oniony kebab - the difference it would make to air quality for the person on stage is roughly comparable to that number.
And as for the second number. If we stop all environmentalists in Britain from talking fluffy pink dice, the CO2 saved on the process of them spilling their rubbish all over everyone's shoes would mean we can all safely continue with our daily commute.
So you're making two points:
1) that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are insignificant - we already showed you're flat wrong there.
2) that the UK contribution to global anthropogenic CO2 emissions are insignificant so there’s no point in us doing anything – this is an irrelevant argument. The same can be said to erroneously dismiss action by any entity (broken into small enough parts) on any issue. Why should one man every vote? The fact that I personally don't emit a significant amount of global CO2 is not reason for me not to reduce my personal emissions, the fact that the UK only directly emits a few percent is not reason for not reducing national emissions. The EU is responsible for quite a large chunk of CO2 emissions – significant enough for the EU to reduce? Realistically speaking, the only way we are going to achieve global emission reductions is for most countries to reduce, the only way that is going to happen is by leadership from Europe and that means us.
That's the problem - you didn't. You are trying to wave it away. Start explaining it and let others see how patchy the whole thing is.
Well, if we vote together - we can be majority, we can do something. If we all turn back into medival times, all we can hope for is... emm.. 3.5% less CO2? Now, that is one hopeless case. But that's ok, because on the back of it Green Nuts will be flogged things like extra taxes, "organic" ideas, enforced recycling for benefit of some private corporation and of course nuclear power, which normally the Green Nuts would strongly oppose, but now most of them are glad there is something to save the planet and some fossil fuel with... you know.. the old "if you can't win with them, join them" tactics...
Yawn Von. You know that your arguments are nonsense. Climate Change is based on human emissions and that is known due to the unique signature of the carbon that is known to come from fossil fuels.
Well.. as far as arguments go.. neither "yawn" nor "end of" qualify. Climate change is caused by human emissions carrying unique signature from fossil fuels how. Tell us, show us, serve us with actual argument.
You push your entire agenda based on quoting one url, calling everyone "denilist" and operating with almost religious fundamentalizm like newspeak, if I change your random "denilist" to "infidel" and your "end of" to "ayalalalal" you are not far off from barking me orders and dressing me in orange suit. But you have very little of weight and matter to actually say on the subject. So please, if you have something to say, say it, if you are here just to scream "nonsense". You are on the green side of fence, it is up to you to present that argument. I'm not going to do it for you. So, once again - climate change is proven to be caused by human emissions carrying unique signature from fossil fuels (which is what - 0.3% of all CO2 emissions, if that?) because...
Separate names with a comma.