mkpdavies

[quote="Besoeker"]What this means is that as CO2 is added to the atmosphere, if it has any impact at all, at a certain point there is absolutly NO impact as there can be no more absorption then what the system can handle.

Exponential would suggest that the impact will increase to an ever larger degree, forever more.

So you could have the atmosphere 100% made of co2, but the temperature wouldn't be higher because of that, as it reached it's optimum heat retention levels at 0.04% (for example).

Most voodoo supporters then talk about feedback mechanisms and basically look for excuses for why co2 would effect them instead to increase the temperature. None of that is proven in anyway.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Besoeker

Here are a couple of exponential curves which don't. Being the engineer that you are, you will no doubt recognise them instantly.

Clippo

In my opinion Soddball, decline to take part in the program. If there's anyone half clever on the other side, or the interviewer asks even the slightest probing questions, you'll be made to look a right pratt !!!

Basically, 95+% of the world's scientists in all disciplines, (& probably 99+% of the Climate Science community), and all the world's governments agree that GW is real, and is caused by upsurges of 'greenhouse' gases, particularly CO2, which in turn have been released by mankind’s activities. As I've said in many other previous posts on this topic, this debate was settled a decade or more ago.

The only reason it still rumbles on is because 10-15 years ago, large US oil companies and other US businesses with vested interests panicked & started a campaign to try to weaken the data provided by the pro GW'ers. Most, but not all of these businesses quickly saw the truth & dropped out of the intellectual opposition. The biggest one left was Exxon (aka Esso). Of course this also was a fantastic chance for the conspiracy theorists in that most conspiracy-psychotic country to leap on the bandwagon with Creationists, Evangelists and other extreme religious groups (which that said country also breeds profusely), & so on who can’t even agree on geological science & evolution since Darwin.

It is ironic therefore that I, a GW believer, have been accused of being party to some either Communist, EU, or even Fascist plot, (my accusers can’t seem to quite agree exactly), to con the world that this is a takeover by an elite. David Icke’s green lizards haven’t been suggested yet but no doubt some kink hereabouts will suggest it soon. The irony is, from my point of view, that my accusers are really the conspirators or dupes, having been completely taken in by the Exxons of this world or are actively part of that conspiracy.
The recent Stern report also re-opened divisions. For what is really was, it was generally accepted as a thorough piece of work allowing for the uncertainty of some of its’ base data. His conclusion was simply that by spending now about 1% of GDP, this country would save up to 20% of GDP due to GW negative effects on business in 50-100 years. Of course, the fact that it was requested by new labour, & before it was even issued Millibrand started saying taxation must play apart in this, put people’s guard up and devalued the whole exercise as labour spin.

As usual, in this thread, links to extremely dubious websites have been regurgitated by the anti’s, and even C-Steam propagates the David Bellamy myth – he retracted years ago after being conned by believing duff information – last seen in Northumberland gibbering gruffly & unintelligibly through his badger beard.

If you want a balanced overview of climate change, simply go to Wikipedia & type global warming or climate change in.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

GW sceptics main arguments come down to a few basic points,
1) the Earth has cycled through hot & cold over it’s whole history (which is not disputed by anyone I think), but when CO2 has been much higher than now.
The ‘believers’ response is that using this one CO2 level argument is far to simplistic. There are numerous other factors, too detailed to expound here, to be taken into account. As I said to another on another thread – read a good Geology book!
2). The current warm up is due to increasing radiance from the Sun.
The believers response to this that it has been studied extensively over the last few decades and the conclusion is that whilst it has had an effect, it is a third or less of the effect attributed to mankind released CO2. See the Wikipedia like on solar radiation I posted elsewhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_v...Global_warming

3) Mankind’s CO2 emissions are piffling compared to natural emissions e.g. volcanoes.
This is really a load of old b*****ks. I could attempt a detailed calculation to debunk this for you based on simple chemical/physics principles but I don’t have time, space or will here to explain more. I don’t think you can read it all online but the latest or previous issue of the Ecologist dealt with this in passing. If you can get to WH Smiths, you might be able to read the whole (18p) article, basically about Stern, but includes the volume of CO2 emitted by mankind. It’s HUGE!

So, to specific points :-

The UK contributes to about 2% of worldwide CO2 man made emissions

Greenhouse gases – Again go to Wikipedia but basically CO2, Methane (200 times worse that CO2 but tiddly amount in atmosphere until methane hydrates melt), Nitrogen oxides – (even worse than methane but again even much less in atmos). Water vapour is another greenhouse gas but ‘works’ in a different way – sort of has its’ own negative feedback factor built in - aka clouds ! There are others, SO2 included but by cleaning up fuels these are much reduced.

UK pollution creators – probably, in order, electricity/ power generation, business / domestic heating, transport. I have no actual figures. However, if you may be able to get something from DEFRA website.

Sustainable & ‘alternative’ sources - Besoeker & I (although I accept he may not necessarily be a GW CO2 ‘believer’), have pretty well demolished the ‘alternative’ technology rants of extreme environmentalists, and there is only one practical solution for us – nuclear power.

mkpdavies

I think this is more of what the article was getting at.





www.2dcurves.com/exponential/exponentialee.html

Clippo

Before I could edit my last post, mpkdavies jumped in.

All I wanted to add was that anti-GW arguments :-

4) anti - CO2 GW believers say it is a worldwide conspiracy to oppress the masses !!! I joke not !!

mkpdavies

Yes the power elites have never done such a thing have they.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Besoeker

Yes, I'm sure it was.
But you get my point.

Unionist

How nice of Clippo to summarise the arguments of GW sceptics for us. The words "straw" and "man" come to mind.

I am much more interested in the courses of action being urged upon us. For example, even if we assume the GW thesis is correct - and there is plenty of room for doubt here, except among the true believers - what are the costs and benefits of trying to reverse or moderate global warming compared to the costs and benefits of adapting to it?

Also, does it make sense to implement measures in Europe that are not followed by the rest of the world?

Are the effects of GW as they are claimed, or could some regions of the world actually benefit?

Can we deny developing countries the right to enjoy the prosperity that we have enjoyed?

Et cetera ad infinitum.

The case of the believers must rest on there being no room for doubt since it is potentially a costly mistake if we get it wrong. Before you inhibit our freedoms and destroy the economy, the onus is on you to show that both the science and the economics are right.

I might accept evidence that has been subject to systematic review, where the methodology is transparent and able to be replicated, but peer review does not impress me since so much rubbish gets through academic journals. I am also particularly unimpressed by bodies such as the IPCC which seem to cherry pick to support their case.

As for Stern, anyone citing that as evidence loses all credibility in my book.

All we have seen here is the citing of the establishment back slappers with everything else rubbished as 'dubious sources'. If I were a betting man I might put some of my money with the dubious sources right now because this smug GW lobby that wishes to destroy our way of life simply moves the goalposts when it is found out.

Hockey sticks, anyone?

Hartlepool

Nice one Unionist,its freezing here again,whats it like at your end today?

Unionist

Yes, freezing here too. Seems to be the start of a new ice age if you ask me. :wink: