1227 replies to this topic

[gruntguru]

Sagan and NASA obviously did unless the video with him saying it was a fake .It's just that they had to change their minds when those Summer heatwaves in New York during the winter never happened just like those Hurricanes in the North Atlantic won't.

Nobody said "turned into a planetry inferno by a 0.038% atmospheric C02" except you.

[Vanishing Point]

No. If you read the post carefully it says that the average American car is less fuel efficient than airline travel. V12 Jags are MUCH MUCH less efficient than airline travel.


Most of the believers (myself included) believe that sensible measured are required. Gentle pressure and incentives to encourage efficient use of scant resources. Consumers can decide where they want to make savings whether by reducing air travel, road travel, buy a more efficient car, walk, use public transport, etc.

If you believe it has to be all or nothing you are a fool.

Efficient use of 'scant resources' is not the same thing as so called global warming caused by fossil fuel use creating (much) more C02 in the atmosphere than nature can scrub out.In which case it's a case of believe the garbage hypothesis and stop using the stuff or not.The so called 'scantness' of the resources is a different argument and like the global warming one you either believe it or not.I don't so you can keep the 'gentle pressure' and I'll just do as I've always done in which around 300-500 gallons of fuel use per year isn't exactly going to end the world and I don't see the neighbours all rushing out to get rid of their gas central heating either.

[Vanishing Point]

Nobody said "turned into a planetry inferno by a 0.038% atmospheric C02" except you.

0.038% is where it is now and the reference to an 'Earthlike world being turned into a planetry inferno' was based on his observations of Venus which he then used to make an example of where Earth could be heading based on his observations of Earth's CO2 levels.It's all based on an erroneous comparison with another planet that's 20,000,000 miles + closer to the sun and which probably really does have a real Greenhouse effect issue.But yeah right there's been a negligible,but steep,increase in CO2 levels on Earth.The believers are confusing that steepness in the rise with the actual amounts involved and just seem to be exatrapolating the increase as an infinite continuing rise at the same rate without any reference to previous history on the planet showing continuous cycles of increases,stabilisation and falls.Which is (one of) the differences between Earth and Venus.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 26 September 2011 - 00:37.

[gruntguru]

Efficient use of 'scant resources' is not the same thing as so called global warming caused by fossil fuel use creating (much) more C02 in the atmosphere than nature can scrub out.In which case it's a case of believe the garbage hypothesis and stop using the stuff or not. The so called 'scantness' of the resources is a different argument and like the global warming one you either believe it or not.

Kill two birds with one stone. The smart nations will start gently weaning themselves from fosil fuel reliance (Europe started long ago) and insulate themselves from snap shortages. At the same time, carbon emissions will be reduced which is at the very least a sensible precaution.

"stop using the stuff or not" Your "all or nothing" rant is pure nonsense. We know that smokers run the risk of terminal cancer, drinkers liver failure. Both are definitely a burden to the health system. Do you believe smoking and drinking should be prohibited?

I don't so you can keep the 'gentle pressure' and I'll just do as I've always done in which around 300-500 gallons of fuel use per year isn't exactly going to end the world and I don't see the neighbours all rushing out to get rid of their gas central heating either.

Exactly. Like I said - exert gentle pressure (it will come either way via price eventually) and let the consumer decide. I don't have a problem with you driving your Jag. Someone else will make the savings, another Jag owner may have to drive it less often so he can feed his kids.

[Vanishing Point]

The vast majority of coast to coast trips (that WAS my example) in the USA are already done by air.

Which probably wouldn't be the case in a scenario whereby C02 in the atmosphere caused by fossil fuel use has to be stopped.But if it's fuel economy that matters then the Greyhound Bus or the train is much more fuel efficient than planes.

[kikiturbo2]

But radioactive coal ?.I know they need to keep an eye on gases in the mines but never heard of them needing to use a radiation counter in a coal mine and when handling coal at coal fired power stations.

The only risk from Hydro would be collapsing dams,people falling in the lakes behind the dams,or water getting into contact with the power side.But the Swiss seem to think that they've got more cancer deaths there caused by the Chernobyl accident than deaths from collapsing dams,drownings,and electrocution by water getting in the works of their Hydro based power grid.

wake up and smell the roses

http://www.scientifi...n-nuclear-waste

as for dams...
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Banqiao_Dam

26000 dead just from flooding..

[Vanishing Point]

Kill two birds with one stone. The smart nations will start gently weaning themselves from fosil fuel reliance (Europe started long ago) and insulate themselves from snap shortages. At the same time, carbon emissions will be reduced which is at the very least a sensible precaution.

"stop using the stuff or not" Your "all or nothing" rant is pure nonsense. We know that smokers run the risk of terminal cancer, drinkers liver failure. Both are definitely a burden to the health system. Do you believe smoking and drinking should be prohibited?


Exactly. Like I said - exert gentle pressure (it will come either way via price eventually) and let the consumer decide. I don't have a problem with you driving your Jag. Someone else will make the savings, another Jag owner may have to drive it less often so he can feed his kids.

In the real world less choice in fuel supply will result in even higher prices for so called weaning off fossil fuels,and the CO2 savings,made by the ones,making life difficult for themselves,will be more than made up,by the ones who won't.

But if the believers really believed their own garbage,then it's obviously a case of all or nothing if they really want to balance that atmospheric CO2 figure exactly with what nature can scrub out,unless we can create a situation in which we've as much on the scrubbing side than on the input side,to stabilise any further the increase or more if we want to reduce it.

In which case there's a question mark over why it is that the believers seem to be all about controlling the use of fuel not either use it or don't use it.If it's true then it 'would' be the latter option if they really believed their own garbage theories.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 26 September 2011 - 02:08.

[Vanishing Point]

wake up and smell the roses

http://www.scientifi...n-nuclear-waste

as for dams...
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Banqiao_Dam

26000 dead just from flooding..

So that means that all staff working in coal fired power stations need the same radiation checks as those working in nuclear ones.

Obviously Chinese building standards not Swiss ones.

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland.

No one has been drowned there yet.

[gruntguru]

In the real world less choice in fuel supply will result in even higher prices for so called weaning off fossil fuels and the CO2 savings made by the ones making life difficult for themselves will be more than made up by the ones who won't.But if the believers really believed their own garbage then it's obviously a case of all or nothing if they really want to balance that atmospheric CO2 figure exactly with what nature can scrub out unless we can create a situation in which we've as much on the scrubbing side than on the input side to stabilise any further the increase or more if we want to reduce it.In which case there's a question mark over why it is that the believers seem to be all about controlling the use of fuel not either use it or don't use it.In which case it would be the latter option if they really believed their own garbage theories.

If I could just work out what you are trying to say in this garbage post with its garbage punctuation, lack of spaces at the end of every garbage sentence and circular garbage reasoning - I would do my best to give another of my garbage responses. You clearly either believe that garbage cigarettes and garbage alcohol should be banned or the notion that cigarettes cause lung cancer is another garbage theory and alcohol causing cirrosis is yet another garbage theory.

I suppose you believe in the supernatural?

[gruntguru]

So that means that all staff working in coal fired power stations need the same radiation checks as those working in nuclear ones.

No the ash goes into the air and settles in the environment and on the general population.

[Vanishing Point]

If I could just work out what you are trying to say in this garbage post with its garbage punctuation, lack of spaces at the end of every garbage sentence and circular garbage reasoning - I would do my best to give another of my garbage responses. You clearly either believe that garbage cigarettes and garbage alcohol should be banned or the notion that cigarettes cause lung cancer is another garbage theory and alcohol causing cirrosis is yet another garbage theory.

I suppose you believe in the supernatural?

It seemed clear enough.I've edited it to make it even easier.

[Vanishing Point]

No the ash goes into the air and settles in the environment and on the general population.

If it was true it would obviously need the same type of measures as were needed at Chernobyl and if the amounts of trace elements of radioactive material were 'concentrated' to dangerous levels going into the environment they'd obviously also be at dangerous levels in the power stations boilers themselves which aren't built for nuclear containment.It all seems a coincidence though how these issues only now seem to be discovered after all these years of using coal fired power stations with no safety issues concerning radiation before.

[Paul Prost]

For those of the conservative side of politics, I strongly suggest watching this video, presented to the Heartland Institute by a US Libertarian climate scientist.

Global warming is happening and it will continue to increase according to the fundamental laws of physics. The earth's emissions spectrum doesn't care if you vote left or right and CO2 will continue to absorb and re-emit energy and frequencies which correspond to the earth's peak emission wavelengths.

Those on the right who are living in denial can continue to stick their heads in the sand and let Greenpeace et al propose solutions, or they can get on board and start providing alternative solutions which embrace the free market and individual freedoms...all things which the political right hold dear.

[cheapracer]

Those on the right who are living in denial can continue to stick their heads in the sand and let Greenpeace et al propose solutions, or they can get on board and start providing alternative solutions which embrace the free market and individual freedoms...all things which the political right hold dear.

That statement doesn't allow for that you may be wrong. I listen to both sides and take it all in, like most GW radicals, you listen to one side immediately and totally dismissing any alternate views so who is it with their heads in the sand?

I have proposed an alternate view by the way, get off your computer and stop causing Co2 or do you justify that by pretending that you are saving others from themselves Sir Matyr?

[gruntguru]

I have proposed an alternate view by the way, get off your computer and stop causing Co2 or do you justify that by pretending that you are saving others from themselves Sir Matyr?

Unfortunately you belittle yourself everytime you repost that flippant piece of nonsense.

[gruntguru]

In the real world less choice in fuel supply will result in even higher prices for so called weaning off fossil fuels,and the CO2 savings,made by the ones,making life difficult for themselves,will be more than made up,by the ones who won't.

But if the believers really believed their own garbage,then it's obviously a case of all or nothing if they really want to balance that atmospheric CO2 figure exactly with what nature can scrub out,unless we can create a situation in which we've as much on the scrubbing side than on the input side,to stabilise any further the increase or more if we want to reduce it.

In which case there's a question mark over why it is that the believers seem to be all about controlling the use of fuel not either use it or don't use it.If it's true then it 'would' be the latter option if they really believed their own garbage theories.

The believers mostly just want to reduce CO2 emissions. There is no taboo on fossil fuels. Emissions could be reduced dramatically by sensible measures that cause very little inconvenience. Half the world's crude oil consumption is essential. The other half is V12 Jaguars idling in shopping centre car parks to keep the interior cool while the owner does the shopping.

[cheapracer]

Unfortunately you belittle yourself everytime you repost that flippant piece of nonsense.

Nonsense is it? Are you now using electricity or not to read this? Is that use of electricity creating Co2 output or not? These are facts provable in science you hypocrite.

This global warming thing is turning into the hottest topic of the century but do go on with the theories of climate change .... as taxing as it is.

Edited by cheapracer, 26 September 2011 - 08:15.

[kikiturbo2]

So that means that all staff working in coal fired power stations need the same radiation checks as those working in nuclear ones.

Obviously Chinese building standards not Swiss ones.

http://en.wikipedia...._in_Switzerland.

No one has been drowned there yet.

but in italy they have...

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Vajont_Dam

as for coal powered power stations... I'd much rather live near a nuclear power station than a coal one.. as a matter of fact I am living near a NE station..

[Tsarwash]

Have the deniers come one with a single bit of real science that supports their reasoning yet ?

[Spoofski]

Have the deniers come one with a single bit of real science that supports their reasoning yet ?

The onus is 100% on those making the claims and they, like most of the 'believers' here seem incapable of separating GW from AGW from catastrophic (or even detrimental) AGW from fossil fuel consumption from politics.

GW is real, clearly, if you choose the depths of any ice-age as your starting point. AGW is so very much more difficult to prove that it will remain unproven until there is a lot more high quality data over a longer timespan and neither you nor I will be around to check the results.

[Paul Prost]

The onus is 100% on those making the claims and they, like most of the 'believers' here seem incapable of separating GW from AGW from catastrophic (or even detrimental) AGW from fossil fuel consumption from politics.

Actually that's completely the opposite of the way the world works. When GM companies want to release new products, they onus is on them to prove that is safe. Likewise any new drug, vaccine or food additive has to pass stringent scientific trials before it is released onto the market.

The Fossil fuel companies want to completely invert this process. They want to continue to emit CO2 ... claiming that it is up to the scientific community to provide 100% proof that it is unsafe.

That is not how modern risk assessment of complex systems work.

GW is real, clearly, if you choose the depths of any ice-age as your starting point. AGW is so very much more difficult to prove that it will remain unproven until there is a lot more high quality data over a longer timespan and neither you nor I will be around to check the results.

It's pleasing that you acknowledge the science behind Milankovitch cycles and paleoclimate data which all show that the earth's climate is very sensitive to atmospheric CO2 levels. AGW is very easy to prove.

1) Every temperature data reconstruction over the past few decades, be it satellite data (UAH, RSS, Radio Occultation data), surface data (NASA, NOAA, Hadley, Berkeley BEST) or weather re-analysis (ECMWF) shows a warming trend that is consistent with the increasing strength of the Earth's greenhouse (i.e. more warming at the poles than at the equators, more warming in winter than summer, warming of the oceans form the top town, reduction in diurnal temperature range, warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere etc.)

2) Ground based measurements show increased strength of long-wave radiation. Satellite based measurements show reduction in long-wave emission of radiation escaping from Earth in the CO2 waveband.

3) Radioactive isotope analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that it is coming from fossil fuel sources.

So in conclusion
1) The climate is changing due to an increase in the strength of the Earth's greenhouse.
2) Satellite measurements show the increase in atmospheric absorption in the CO2 waveband.
3) Isotope analysis shows the additional atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions.

[cheapracer]

Have the deniers come one with a single bit of real science that supports their reasoning yet ?

Not denier, not denying anything it is you who is claiming Claimer but merely proves once again the use of negatives to anyone who won't get on the AGW train.

I posted this below for you and in response to you 2 pages ago besides all other evidence I have throughout this thread but the Claimer's magical glasses don't seem to see them ....

120 years? Is that all you got pal? Talk about bringing a plastic fork to a gun fight, here's 400,000 years of climate change and wtf is that 125,000 years ago??? ....



These are absolute facts about the macroscale cycling of climate on this planet and absolute proof we are in a warming'ish cycle now with rising levels of Co2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

1) The climate is changing due to an increase in the strength of the Earth's greenhouse.
2) Satellite measurements show the increase in atmospheric absorption in the CO2 waveband.
3) Isotope analysis shows the additional atmospheric CO2 is due to fossil fuel emissions.

1/ As has been cycling through Earths eternity - proven, established by science as physical fact not concensus of opinion.

2/ Satellites haven't been around for hundreds of thousands of years let alone hundreds of years, barely decades in fact to do scientific comparisons to previous time periods through that medium, elimination, constants, averages etc so the findings are voided because they are the first - even Grunt will tell you oceans temps are measured in decades (thanks for that Grunt).

3/ So 125,000 years ago someone on the planet was driving around in a big block Camaro with a 850 Holley and no cat converters - bastards.

Read the ice core drilling results above, the info is all over the net about it.

By the way, even if you didn't know before that your being on the internet was causing Co2 emissions you certainly did after my post you Earth Murderer, how can you sleep at night, think of the children for God's sake man.

Edited by cheapracer, 26 September 2011 - 11:19.

[gruntguru]

Nonsense is it? Are you now using electricity or not to read this? Is that use of electricity creating Co2 output or not?

Yes it is nonsense. Yes I am using electricity to read this. The electricity is creating CO2 emissions. Every time I eat something, I know that combustion of crude oil and coal was required to grow that food and bring it to the table.

I am not a prohibitionist. I do not believe the world should return to subsistence living. It is not possible to return to subsistence living and support 6 billion humans. I believe governments should create incentives that will produce sensible reductions in CO2 emissions. I do not believe climate change mitigation necessitates the banning of computer use - that is nonsense.

[gruntguru]

I posted this below for you and in response to you 2 pages ago besides all other evidence I have throughout this thread but the Claimer's magical glasses don't seem to see them ....

One reason nobody has responded to these charts could be that you can't read them. I think the CO2 (green) chart says ppm on the vertical axis? If so, where is the current level of 380ppm - 4 extra gridlines ABOVE the top of your chart?

[cheapracer]

One reason nobody has responded to these charts could be that you can't read them. I think the CO2 (green) chart says ppm on the vertical axis? If so, where is the current level of 380ppm - 4 extra gridlines ABOVE the top of your chart?

You still won't admit that climate macrocyling exists will you and that we are in a natural warming cycle right now.

Anyway and OH OH, looks like the foundation of science just got real shaky ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15034852

[Vanishing Point]

You still won't admit that climate macrocyling exists will you and that we are in a natural warming cycle right now.

Anyway and OH OH, looks like the foundation of science just got real shaky ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-15034852

Maybe the whole CO2 increase has really been caused by CERN charging up it's electicity storage supply over the last 'few' years just to send a sub atomic particle to Italy and back faster than the speed of light.

But not surprisingly I've never believed in the idea of red shifts and light years etc etc blah blah either.I've always thought that just like Earth's surface space is just the surface of an enormous sphere curved in a convex shape and the light we see has travelled a long way to get here because unlike humans it's not clever enough to know that the shortest distance to get somewhere on a convex curve is to go on a curved course.In which case that particle probably didn't travel as far as they thought it did because it was accelerated up to speed in a curving tube not a straight one. .

[Vanishing Point]

Yes it is nonsense. Yes I am using electricity to read this. The electricity is creating CO2 emissions. Every time I eat something, I know that combustion of crude oil and coal was required to grow that food and bring it to the table.

I am not a prohibitionist. I do not believe the world should return to subsistence living. It is not possible to return to subsistence living and support 6 billion humans. I believe governments should create incentives that will produce sensible reductions in CO2 emissions. I do not believe climate change mitigation necessitates the banning of computer use - that is nonsense.

In which case the shortfall between the amount of CO2 that's being scrubbed from the atmosphere versus the amount that's being put into it artificially,by even using a few tonnes less fossil fuels,would still be there.It's just that the rate of increase wouldn't upset the believers so much as the graph line showing the increase wouldn't be as steep.Which just means that the stabilisation point will be reached a little bit sooner at a slightly lower neglible level than the negligible level that it would anyway if we just leave the status quo in place.

One person's 'sensible reduction' is another persons return to subsistence living and vice versa.I couldn't care less because I know that the level where it all eventually stabilises isn't going to fry the planet even if I do use the computer and drive the Jag to some race events throughout the Summer seasons.However rather than cut fuel use why not look at the scrubbing side of the equation instead by stopping and then reversing de forestation levels.In which case you might even then find that rise will actually start to fall even though a bit extra is going in from a bit of fossil fuel burning.But that wouldn't allow the control freak believers to decide who burns what and when would it.

Edited by Vanishing Point, 26 September 2011 - 17:40.

[Vanishing Point]

For those of the conservative side of politics, I strongly suggest watching this video, presented to the Heartland Institute by a US Libertarian climate scientist.

Global warming is happening and it will continue to increase according to the fundamental laws of physics. The earth's emissions spectrum doesn't care if you vote left or right and CO2 will continue to absorb and re-emit energy and frequencies which correspond to the earth's peak emission wavelengths.

Those on the right who are living in denial can continue to stick their heads in the sand and let Greenpeace et al propose solutions, or they can get on board and start providing alternative solutions which embrace the free market and individual freedoms...all things which the political right hold dear.

There's a big difference between neo conservatism (Thatcher's and Reagan's lot) and Conservative or even just neutral with common sense.

http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm