14 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's a non starter of an argument.
CO2 makes up about .03% of the atmosphere. So if it goes from (as an example) .027% up to .03% the greenies start screeching "OMG OMG CO2 has gone up by 10%"...The other way of looking at it is that CO2 has gone up .003%.
Try telling the residents of Bhopal that MIC is "harmless" (obviously using your version of the word here), because it was only a tiny part of the atmosphere after the disaster.
Its lethal in doses as low as 22 ppm (0.000022% ), causing damage at doses as low as 0.4 ppm (0.0000004% ). But, in your world, it's "harmless" because the concentrations are so low, but it could kill you.
Looking at it your way, its only gone up 0.000022%, so it's nothing to worry about. 🙄 The fact we've gone from non-lethal atmosphere to lethal atmosphere is unimportant, when looking at the maths, wajoma style.
D
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by WajomaYou must be referring to the negative effects of legislation on the economy argument, which is a red herring straight away.
What is the reason most often cited for the US and Australia not signing up to the piece of toilet paper (I cry for the trees) called Kyoto.
i.e. what is the reason besides mans effect on global climate is unproven.
How are these negative effects on the economy going to manifest themselves? Especially if all countries sign up.
D
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by RagnorakMy understanding is that countries which do not meet their emission target would have to buy "emission credits" from less developed coutries. So some countries would experience negative effects, but others would not.
How are these negative effects on the economy going to manifest themselves? Especially if all countries sign up.
It does not seem likely that Canada will meet it's target, but the current goverment may withdraw from the agreement rather than fork over the cash.
14 Oct 06
1 edit
Posted for allIn January 1998, a collaborative ice-drilling project between Russia, the United States, and France at the Russian Vostok station in East Antarctica yielded the deepest ice core ever recovered, reaching a depth of 3,623 m(over 2.2 miles deep). These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present extending through four climate cycles(the last three glacial terminations) and doubling the length of the historical record.
Climate change- continued...
Study the past if you would define the future.
-Confucius
The the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv ::
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/Antarctic_ICD1.jpg
Because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether greenhouse trace gas concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously!
And now for your enjoyment... the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) estimate ::
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/IPCC_estimate.jpg
Holy ....!
(Note: since 1999 the temperature has actually decreased)
Originally posted by Esoteric
The ice on the caps are melting ALOT quicker than ever before.
"Ever before"- since the 1970's- yes, on a large time scale, no.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
The fact we've gone from non-lethal atmosphere to lethal atmosphere...
Our atmosphere is lethal?
Originally posted by richjohnson
My understanding is that countries which do not meet their emission target would have to buy "emission credits" from less developed coutries. So some countries would experience negative effects, but others would not.
Nail on the head! International emission-trading is global economic affirmative action.
Originally posted by Wajoma
...The other way of looking at it is that CO2 has gone up .003%
Well put.
Note: Only when inhaled in concentrations greater than 5% by volume, is CO2 immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans. Exhaled air contains approximately 4.5%. An average person's respiration generates approximately 450 liters (roughly 900 grams) of carbon dioxide per day, but I'm not going to stop breathing.
14 Oct 06
This is all very irrelevant for this thread.
The thing is that there are people willing to use legislation to FORBID any expression of disagreement with a current of though. That is indefensable.
Legislators should stay away from history or science. It's not for them to decide on the truth values of such propositions, even if they have to make decisions based on those propositions.
14 Oct 06
2 edits
Originally posted by xsYou can quite clearly see at the bottom of that diagram that the figure comes from a report from 1995.
And now for your enjoyment... the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) estimate ::
http://xs307.xs.to/xs307/06416/IPCC_estimate.jpg
Holy ....!
(Note: since 1999 the temperature has actually decreased)
Edit: possibly.................
Edit2: maybe you could tell us exactly where you got that figure?
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by PalynkaAfter a quick read, I couldn't find that in the original poster's linked article. Could you quote the relevant lines?
The thing is that there are people willing to use legislation to FORBID any expression of disagreement with a current of though. That is indefensable.
Having searched the web, I couldn't find the Australian columnist accused by O'Neill of equating Global warming denial to Holocaust denial? Does anybody have a link to the article which Brendan O'Neill refers to?
D
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by RagnorakI'll bite:
After a quick read, I couldn't find that in the original poster's linked article. Could you quote the relevant lines?
Having searched the web, I couldn't find the Australian columnist accused by O'Neill of equating Global warming denial to Holocaust denial? Does anybody have a link to the article which Brendan O'Neill refers to?
D
One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence.
Having searched the web, I couldn't find the Australian columnist accused by O'Neill of equating Global warming denial to Holocaust denial? Does anybody have a link to the article which Brendan O'Neill refers to?
If it's false, the point is probably moot, but you didn't seem to react negatively to the prospect. Would you agree with such a proposal?
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by xsOkay. Anyway my point was that your 'note that temperature went down after 1999' isn't really informative. It went up after the following year. Take a look at the five year running mean:
Happily
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/23.htm
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif
14 Oct 06
1 edit
Originally posted by PalynkaOf course not.
I'll bite:
One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence.
you didn't seem to react negatively to the prospect. Would you agree with such a proposal?
But it appears the climate change deniers are resorting to dirty tricks campaigns.
Why would I respond negatively to a non-event? Even if one australian columnist compared global warming denial to holocaust denial, I don't see why I should get excited about it. Der Schwarzer has painted a picture of the whole global warming theorists based on this one person's (possible) opinion.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough there is at least 1 global warming denier who is a paedophile. Would it be fair for me then to say that all global warming deniers are paedophiles? It's faulty logic, and a red herring.
D
14 Oct 06
Originally posted by xsOur atmosphere is lethal with just a 0.000022% change in the levels of MIC. The point that wajoma makes (0.003% change being insignificant due to its tinyness), which you applaud him for, is a non-point and completely disingenuous.
Originally posted by Ragnorak
[b]The fact we've gone from non-lethal atmosphere to lethal atmosphere...
Our atmosphere is lethal?
Originally posted by Wajoma
...The other way of looking at it is that CO2 has gone up .003%
Well put. [/b]
You're a mostly smart fellow, I fail to believe that you truthfully took my post to mean that the atmosphere is currently lethal.
D