Re: Carbon Dioxide - 381 ppm - 3.0 ppm/y
Roger Coppock
I look for such announcements here:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/new/new.html
raylopez99
Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
has that much C02 I've read.
We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
stop the growth engine called America.
Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
an ignorant follower of you?
RL
d...@dan.com
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1142293604.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
d...@dan.com
news:1142294199.2...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Thomas (a "Mass" of excrement called "Tom)--
>
> Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
> has that much C02 I've read.
It's not CO2 with regards to respiration that's the problem, loopy liar
troll. It's the warming associated with it.
> We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
> stop the growth engine called America.
>
> Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
> an ignorant follower of you?
>
> RL
Poor loopy, you've lost all touch with reality.
Roger Coppock
has that much C02 I've read."
Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
ppm CO2 easily?
Roger Coppock
levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
- 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
please.
raylopez99
I see your point--nobody wants to go outside only wearing a moonsuit.
But I was simply saying that humans can survive 800 ppm C02. It is
uncomfortable but survivable. Kind of like breathing fumes in a
crowded freeway.
As for toxicity, here is what OSHA says: "OSHA has indicated that the
lowest oxygen concentration for shift-long exposure is 19.5%,
corresponding to a carbon dioxide concentration well above 60 000 ppm
(6%). Carbon dioxide concentration, not oxygen concentration, is
limiting in such circumstances."
Not that I am advocating we go to the limit, but from 381 to 60k is a
ways to still go.
RL
George
The earth would likely cook long before it ever got to those concentrations
(60K), so what is your point?
George
Eduard Groenstein
> It's official.
>
> Unless something changes soon, we be fucked.
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
We be fucked already, so what does a few extra ppm mean in the scheme of
things?
Rather than a bad thing, it can be seen as a very good marketing
opportunity for manufacturers of low cost breathing apparatus. By way of
example, think of the profit that could be made by supplying all of New
Zealand's sheep with oxygen masks.
Roger Coppock
Ray, George, and Joe are totally lost. Let's see if
we can steer them back to the real world.
800 ppm CO2 is about 6 W/m^2 forcing, twice the total
forcing we see today from all greenhouse gases. If
the other greenhouse gases also increased as much,
the total would be about 12 W/m^2, which would be
doomsday for human civilization. Civilization is
the thing that makes homo sapiens sapiens 'human.'
So, although A human can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily,
humanS and their civilization can not.
Incidentally, a linear projection of the Mauna Loa
data projects 800 ppm in the middle of 23rd century.
Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are growing faster
than linear, so much then for Star Trek™ dreams.
Joe Jared
> Incidentally, a linear projection of the Mauna Loa
> data projects 800 ppm in the middle of 23rd century.
> Atmospheric CO2 concentrations are growing faster
> than linear, so much then for Star Trek™ dreams.
Exponentially is the appropriate terms, which means they were a tad short
sighted in their estimate. By definition, linear regression is
grossly inadequate to chart CO2 growth.
--
Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
Alastair McDonald
Try this link then.
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
and this
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Cheers, Alastair.
Alastair McDonald
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:IxoRf.31551$3N2....@newsfe14.lga...
>
> Mauna Loa is so ... year before last.
>
> http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/iadv/
Better is
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends
Cheers, Alastair.
Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
:news:1142297233....@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
:> "BBC News has learned the latest data shows CO2
:> levels now stand at 381 parts per million (ppm)
:> - 100ppm above the pre-industrial average."
:>
:> The phrase "BBC News has learned" makes it very
:> UNoffical. Let's leave the rumors to the fossil fools,
:> please.
:
:Try this link then.
I would have thought the phrase "BBC News has learned" would qualify
more as an oxymoron than as anything else.
:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/trends/co2_trend_mlo.png
:and this
:http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/projects/src/web/trends/co2_data_mlo.png
Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
the way).
What's the measure look like where people live?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Alastair McDonald
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:u0qd12ttjr0uib2eg...@4ax.com...
Much worse. That is why the measurements were done on top of a
mountain, in the middle of the ocean, near the equator, well away
from the distorting effects of man and vegetation.
There is now a chain of measuing station which confirm the Manua Loa
readings.
Cheers, Alastair.
Lloyd Parker
"raylopez99" <raylo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thomas (a "Mass" of excrement called "Tom)--
>
>Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
>has that much C02 I've read.
>
>We're "F'd" if we listen to folks like you and Dodger Crappock, and
>stop the growth engine called America.
>
>Roger--what you got against intellectuals? You want me to be like Dan,
>an ignorant follower of you?
>
>RL
>
>
From Stanford:
"GUIDELINES FOR USE OF CARBON DIOXIDE FOR RODENT EUTHANASIA "
But nobody's claiming we're going to asphixiate from the added CO2.
El Guapo
news:oYsRf.860053$xm3.237035@attbi_s21...
I think his point is that we don't have to worry too much about the air
becoming unbreathable from the amount of CO2 we are adding to the
atmosphere.
El Guapo
> El Guapo wrote
>>> concentrations (60K), so what is your point?
>>
>> I think his point is that we don't have to worry too much about the air
>> becoming unbreathable from the amount of CO2 we are adding to the
>> atmosphere.
>
> year after year after year, plus the droughts and floods and wildfires and
> all those other pesky little agricultural problems.
>
> Then the nuclear proliferation and oil blackmailing and water wars.
>
> Plus the whole overpopulation thing. Loss of habitat.
>
> Global mass extinction. Minor little problems all.
>
> Did I miss anything?
Yeah... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
George
"El Guapo" <plet...@pinatas.com> wrote in message
news:jIERf.43560$2O6....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
Umm, of course, the SO2, particulates, and cancer-causing agents in the
filth belched into the atmosphere will kill you long before the CO2
concentrations ever got high enough to choke you. But even if that were
not the case, the earth would still likely cook before CO2 concentrations
ever got high enough to smother anyone.
George
raylopez99
You are correct--that's what I meant. At least you can read, which is
better than the rest of the people here.
RL
Jo Schaper
> LOL El Guapo!
>
> You are correct--that's what I meant. At least you can read, which is
> better than the rest of the people here.
>
> RL
That would be funny except that there is an unmarried couple here who
are desperately trying to keep the home they've made together for 15
years-- one local board of aldermen has 'got religion' and are issuing
eviction notices for couples living in sin based on some law from the
1950s.
Jo
Scott Nudds
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
> What makes it "official," Thomas? Do you have a URL?
I wasn't aware that to be an "official" something, that the something had
to have a URL.
Scott Nudds
> "Humans can survive 800 ppm CO2 easily--in fact most rush hour traffic
> has that much C02 I've read."
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote
> Even for you, Ray, that is a very shallow statement.
> Hint: "What make us 'human?' Can that survive 800
> ppm CO2 easily?
The problem is that Ray is human and can survive 800 ppm of CO2 easily.
He bases his assumption that the social infrastructure that keeps him alive
will still be there to support him.
Scott Nudds
"El Guapo" <plet...@pinatas.com> wrote
Ya, we saw a lot of that during the Bush's Katrina Fiasco.
Vastly more is expected.
Scott Nudds
<d...@dan.com> wrote
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460.stm
And rising at a rate of about 1% per year.
Scott Nudds
> more as an oxymoron than as anything else.
You are thinking of AmeriKKKan newsmedia Fred. The rest of the world has
higher standards for it's mainstream broadcast media.
You will note that the BBC's report is exactly correct, while the
AmeriKKKan mainstream broadcast news media hasn't bothered reporting
anything, and the U.S. mainstream print media is busy trying to hush up news
of YET ANOTHER CASE OF MAD COW DISEASE FOUND IN THE UNITED SNAKES OF
AMERICA.
"Fred J. McCall" <fmc...@earthlink.net> wrote
> Most of us don't live on top of active volcanoes (which emit CO2, by
> the way).
>
> What's the measure look like where people live?
Pretty much the same. The atmosphere is well mixed, and no matter where
you look - and there are now something on the order of 100 monitoring
stations at varous latitudes around the earth, the average concentration of
CO2 is measured to be essentially the same.
Stupid... Stupid... McCall...
Scott Nudds
The trend does appear to be quit linear over the last 30 years - although
not earlier. Like you, I expect this to change for the worse in the not so
distant future, but I think that without evidence to the contrary, a linear
projection is best.
That puts doubling in 150 years or so.
George
"Scott Nudds" <vo...@void.com> wrote in message
news:hKNRf.137$Hk1...@read1.cgocable.net...
He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
George
rick++
the Paleozoic according to some paleo-inclusion and paleo-climate
studies.
The current era of growing at a half percent per year for at least
two centuries is pretty fast in geologic terms and eco-adapibility.
The much higher amounts in the past probably didnt happen that fast.
Joe Jared
> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
I don't think plants will complain.
George
"Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>
>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
>
> I don't think plants will complain.
How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
George
Joe Jared
This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
Coby Beck
news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:26:06 +0000, George wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>>>
>>>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
>>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
>>>
>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>
>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>
> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
Can you substantiate this please?
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Joe Jared
> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:26:06 +0000, George wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
>>>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>>
>>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>>
>> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
>> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
>
> Can you substantiate this please?
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
Coby Beck
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 00:04:21 +0000, Coby Beck wrote:
>
>> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:26:06 +0000, George wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>>>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
>>>>>> sustain
>>>>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
>>>>>> assumption.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>>>
>>> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
>>> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
>>
>> Can you substantiate this please?
>
> http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
>
Thanks!
raylopez99
He's as bad as I am, and I am an admitted troll. This gives me a tiny
iota of new respect for CB.
RL
raylopez99
anti-AGW'ers pause, can you guess what it is? "The much higher amounts
in the past probably didnt happen that fast. "
I'll tell you: PROBABLY.
That's why I say, before we stop the world, denying future generations
beneficial growth that will allow them to reach the "singularity"
faster (Google this term), and create an economic Ice Age that will
result in World War 3, I think it's reasonable to conclude that as far
as taking drastic actions on AGW...
FURTHER RESEARCH IS NEEDED.
RL
Scott Nudds
> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
That dark cancerous growth on your ass is growing faster too. Maybe you
should gamble that it's natures way of fixing your mistakes.
Scott Nudds
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
> > He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
> > such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
"Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote
> I don't think plants will complain.
Oh, I think the plants and 100,000 head of cattle that have just dies in
the Texas wildfires would complain.
The AmeriKKKan midwest is rapidly becoming a desert.
AmeriKKKa is now a net <IMPORTER> of food.
George
"Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 23:26:06 +0000, George wrote:
>
>>
>> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.03.15....@osirusoft.com...
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>>>
>>>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
>>>> sustain
>>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
>>>> assumption.
>>>
>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>
>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>
> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
Until the CO2 raises the temperature high enough to kill the plants off,
then what? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer for the Sahara desert to
remain where it is.
George
Joe Jared
Actually, I had the growth on my ass removed 25 years ago. In an ironic
twist, the removal left a scar in the shape of a cross.
Joe Jared
>>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>>
>>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>>
>> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
>> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
>
> Until the CO2 raises the temperature high enough to kill the plants off,
> then what? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer for the Sahara desert to
> remain where it is.
To date, that's not happening. In the same light that few could deny
that global warming is accelerating, nothing suggests that plant
life is doing anything other than accelerating. Granted, NASA has had a
few minor errors to contend with, such as confusion between inches and
millimeters, but the report seems to have merit.
Joe Jared
>
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>> > He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could sustain
>> > such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
>
>
> "Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote
>> I don't think plants will complain.
>
> Oh, I think the plants and 100,000 head of cattle that have just dies in
> the Texas wildfires would complain.
You forgot to mention 11 humans. The plant life will naturally recover,
and the life of cattle is usually cut short anyway and seen as t-bones,
rump roasts or on special occasions, as cow tongue. Naturally, there could
also be a loose association with many of the meteorological disasters over
the past 20 years, but still it's a small price to pay compared to the
benefits. More obvious would be a temporary increase in cost of beef due
to the sheer loss. Harsher weather than we've already seen is inevitable,
but it's temporary and will settle into calmer weather once temperatures
stabilize from north to south.
mma...@my-deja.com
> The trend does appear to be quit linear over the last 30 years - although
> not earlier. Like you, I expect this to change for the worse in the not so
> distant future, but I think that without evidence to the contrary, a linear
> projection is best.
Um, it seems increasingly likely that we're right about peak oil
production now, and more and more countries are talking about dumping
fossil fuel electrical production for nukes. Where exactly is all this
CO2 going to be coming from?
Mark
Jo Schaper
in their way for fuel.
El Guapo
>
> "El Guapo" <plet...@pinatas.com> wrote
>> Yeah... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
>
> Ya, we saw a lot of that during the Bush's Katrina Fiasco.
Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.
> Vastly more is expected.
No doubt.
El Guapo
news:121etf3...@corp.supernews.com...
> raylopez99 wrote:
>
>> LOL El Guapo!
>>
>> You are correct--that's what I meant. At least you can read, which is
>> better than the rest of the people here.
>>
>> RL
>
> That would be funny except that there is an unmarried couple here who are
> desperately trying to keep the home they've made together for 15 years--
> one local board of aldermen has 'got religion' and are issuing eviction
> notices for couples living in sin based on some law from the 1950s.
Jo, did you mean this as a reply to a different message? I don't see the
connection.
Rand Simberg
<plet...@pinatas.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
reporting turned out to be wrong.
bill
All the research that really needs to be done has been done on
this issue. There is no question that the co2 release into the
atmosphere is a 'real bad thing (tm)'
That doesn't change the fact that society doesn't run without
fossil fuels. killing the patient to cure the disease doesn't help
anything.
What needs to be done is to deploy green tech as quickly as is
economically feasible. (even if it is a little more expensive).
Windmills work (when they are not blocked by environmentalists),
nuclear works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), hydro
works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), waste-energy works
(when it is not blocked by environmentalists), there are even solar
systems that work (direct pv isn't one of them) (when it is not blocked
by environmentalists).
None of this would delay the singularity, it might even accelerate
it by stimulating research. It also will not slow global warming, we
are just going to have to live with that, but we don't need to
exacerbate it more than necessary.
Now my own personal soap-box.
I live in the US. I see the roads around me, and I see the effect
of cars on the road. I attribute ALL of that not to the car, but to
the white pickett fence. If you want a Hummer, fine, go buy one, but
DON'T DRIVE IT 50 ^$%^&* MILES A DAY. If more people were content to
live in apartments, there would be fewer roads, commutes would be
shorter, public transport would be viable, and the impact of the
automobile would be lessened greatly. Not to mention the energy
efficiency of having 1 exterior wall instead of 5.
El Guapo
news:io1Sf.863453$xm3.99034@attbi_s21...
800 ppm?
bill
> >>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that assumption.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think plants will complain.
> >>
> >> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
> >
> > 800 ppm?
>
increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
desert.
Rand Simberg
<ford_pr...@hotmail.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> > "George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote in message
Not to mention the fact that it would probably accelerate plant growth
rates (and in fact such acceleration would prevent the levels from
ever getting that high).
But don't confuse Elifritz with reality.
bill
Valid point. I read somewhere that the equalization point is
around 600 ppm. Still not a good number though.
Another interesting poing is that I keep seeing people whine about
methane. They say that it is something stupid like 40x as potent a
ghg. Methane in the atmosphere has a 5 year half-life. so in order to
keep the levels high, you have to continually release.
George
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 06:38:56 +0000, George wrote:
>
>>>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>>>
>>>> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>>>
>>> This may be true, but plant life is growing faster now. Perhaps it's
>>> natures way of fixing man's mistakes.
>>
>> Until the CO2 raises the temperature high enough to kill the plants off,
>> then what? I don't know about you, but I'd prefer for the Sahara desert
>> to
>> remain where it is.
>
> To date, that's not happening. In the same light that few could deny
> that global warming is accelerating, nothing suggests that plant
> life is doing anything other than accelerating. Granted, NASA has had a
> few minor errors to contend with, such as confusion between inches and
> millimeters, but the report seems to have merit.
Hi Joe. Umm, something like that is, in fact, happening. The Sahara is
growing at a rate of 30 miles per year. It is encroaching on the Sahel to
the south, and appears poised to cross the Mediterranean into southern
Europe.
http://www.virtualglobe.org/en/info/env/06/desert02.html
George
George
"bill" <ford_pr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142527826....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
It isn't that simple. Increased CO2 increases the temperature, which
increases the evaporation rate, which increases precipitation - in areas
where there is precipitation. Deserts (the Sahara, for instance), by and
large, aren't benefiting from such a scenario, and in fact, are growing as
we speak.
George
bill
> >> >>>> sustain
> >> >>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
> >> >>>> assumption.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I don't think plants will complain.
> >> >>
> >> >> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
> >> >
> >> > 800 ppm?
> >>
> >> 800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.
> >
> > increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
> > cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
> > desert.
>
> It isn't that simple. Increased CO2 increases the temperature, which
> increases the evaporation rate, which increases precipitation - in areas
> where there is precipitation. Deserts (the Sahara, for instance), by and
> large, aren't benefiting from such a scenario, and in fact, are growing as
> we speak.
Granted, however, as the climate regime changes, the weather
patterns will change with them and places which have traditionally not
gotten rain will begin to. in the case of the sahara, the southerly
shifting of the gulfstream will start to drop rain there instead of
europe.
In addition, the melting of the polar caps, and the attendant rise
in sea levels will further increase the global precipitation since
evaporation is a surface phenomenon.
Note: Silver linings sometimes com with pretty freaking huge
thunderstorms. I never said this would be fun, just survivable for
technological society.
Clifford
>
> raylopez99 wrote:
>> rick++--there's one word in this sentence that gives me and most other
>> anti-AGW'ers pause, can you guess what it is? "The much higher amounts
>> in the past probably didnt happen that fast. "
>>
>> I'll tell you: PROBABLY.
>>
>> That's why I say, before we stop the world, denying future generations
>> beneficial growth that will allow them to reach the "singularity"
>> faster (Google this term), and create an economic Ice Age that will
>> result in World War 3, I think it's reasonable to conclude that as far
>> as taking drastic actions on AGW...
>
> All the research that really needs to be done has been done on
> this issue. There is no question that the co2 release into the
> atmosphere is a 'real bad thing (tm)'
Why?
> That doesn't change the fact that society doesn't run without
> fossil fuels. killing the patient to cure the disease doesn't help
> anything.
> What needs to be done is to deploy green tech as quickly as is
> economically feasible. (even if it is a little more expensive).
> Windmills work (when they are not blocked by environmentalists),
> nuclear works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), hydro
> works (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), waste-energy works
> (when it is not blocked by environmentalists), there are even solar
> systems that work (direct pv isn't one of them) (when it is not blocked
> by environmentalists).
> None of this would delay the singularity, it might even accelerate
> it by stimulating research. It also will not slow global warming, we
> are just going to have to live with that, but we don't need to
> exacerbate it more than necessary.
Agree with all the above.
>
> Now my own personal soap-box.
> I live in the US. I see the roads around me, and I see the effect
> of cars on the road. I attribute ALL of that not to the car, but to
> the white pickett fence. If you want a Hummer, fine, go buy one, but
> DON'T DRIVE IT 50 ^$%^&* MILES A DAY. If more people were content to
> live in apartments, there would be fewer roads, commutes would be
> shorter, public transport would be viable, and the impact of the
> automobile would be lessened greatly. Not to mention the energy
> efficiency of having 1 exterior wall instead of 5.
Why live in an apartment when you can own your own home. It's the American
dream!
Besides, only welfare/socialist people live in apartments.
Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car! Why go
backwards and sit on a puke smelling bus?
Count me out of your utopia!
Clifford
>
bill
>
>
> "Methane has an atmospheric lifetime of 12 +/- 3 years and a GWP of 62
> over 20 years, 23 over 100 years and 7 over 500 years. The decrease in
> GWP associated with longer times is associated with the fact that the
> methane is degraded to water and CO2 by chemical reactions in the
> atmosphere."
>
> http://cosmic.lifeform.org
Okay, I was wrong by a small amount in my half-life statement, I
read it last year.
However, Your citation is also wrong. the proportion of the
methane which degrades to co2 remains in the atmosphere for milennia,
correct, but the water vapor precipitates out.
bill
Additionally, atmospheric lifetime is wildly different from
half-life.
Lloyd Parker
Half of the population isn't still displaced?
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>> Yeah... human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!
>>>>
>>>> Ya, we saw a lot of that during the Bush's Katrina Fiasco.
>>>
>>>Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.
>>
>>Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
>>reporting turned out to be wrong.
>So all those people weren't trapped in the Superdome of Convention Center?
>Half of the population isn't still displaced?
I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
words "most" and "all."
Coby Beck
news:dvc5u0$9pm$2...@leto.cc.emory.edu...
All the reports of child rapes and murders in the super dome were false.
All the reports of rampant looting and lawlessness in NOLA were wrong. The
reports of stranded people shooting at rescue helicopters were wrong. All
the general depictions of poor black people as dangerous animals were wrong.
--
Coby Beck
(remove #\Space "coby 101 @ bigpond . com")
Rand Simberg
Beck" <cb...@mercury.bc.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>> Ya, we saw a lot of that during the Bush's Katrina Fiasco.
>>>>
>>>>Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.
>>>
>>>Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
>>>reporting turned out to be wrong.
>> So all those people weren't trapped in the Superdome of Convention Center?
>> Half of the population isn't still displaced?
>
>All the reports of child rapes and murders in the super dome were false.
>All the reports of rampant looting and lawlessness in NOLA were wrong. The
>reports of stranded people shooting at rescue helicopters were wrong. All
>the general depictions of poor black people as dangerous animals were wrong.
Don't forget the cannibalism.
George
>> >> >>>> He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
>> >> >>>> sustain
>> >> >>>> such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
>> >> >>>> assumption.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I don't think plants will complain.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> How do you know? The planet has never sustained those levels.
>> >> >
>> >> > 800 ppm?
>> >>
>> >> 800 ppm will easily desertify the planet and melt all the ice.
>> >
>> > increased temperature accelerates the evaporation precipitation
>> > cycle, really, you are looking at more tropical type climates and less
>> > desert.
>>
>> It isn't that simple. Increased CO2 increases the temperature, which
>> increases the evaporation rate, which increases precipitation - in areas
>> where there is precipitation. Deserts (the Sahara, for instance), by
>> and
>> large, aren't benefiting from such a scenario, and in fact, are growing
>> as
>> we speak.
>
> Granted, however, as the climate regime changes, the weather
> patterns will change with them and places which have traditionally not
> gotten rain will begin to. in the case of the sahara, the southerly
> shifting of the gulfstream will start to drop rain there instead of
> europe.
Except that there is no indication that that is occurring. The fact is
that the Sahara and most other deserts (including those in the Southwestern
U.S.) are expanding.
> In addition, the melting of the polar caps, and the attendant rise
> in sea levels will further increase the global precipitation since
> evaporation is a surface phenomenon.
And, as we all know, water is the most potent greenhouse gas, so it will
only exacerbate the warming.
> Note: Silver linings sometimes com with pretty freaking huge
> thunderstorms. I never said this would be fun, just survivable for
> technological society.
Unsubstantiated assumption.
George
Dave Head
>Why live in an apartment when you can own your own home. It's the American
>dream!
Exacty. Pay rent for 40 years, retire, and... you still have to pay rent. Buy
your own place, and when you get it paid off, you don't have to pay rent any
more.
>Besides, only welfare/socialist people live in apartments.
You got that right. Buses suck. Sharing space with strangers sucks. Waiting
on buses sucks. Having to walk blocks because that's as close as the bus gets
to where you want to go sucks. Not having service when you want it (like 1:00
AM after the late movie) sucks. Buses suck.
>Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car!
Absolutely.
>Why go
>backwards and sit on a puke smelling bus?
Yep - most of 'em are fairly clean, but the bozo you have to sit beside may or
may not be.
>Count me out of your utopia!
Me too.
Dave Head
>Clifford
>
>>
>
Lloyd Parker
you air them. The basic facts were right -- thousands were stranded under
deplorable conditions (and some did die), hundreds of thousands had to leave,
entire neighborhoods were (and still are) destroyed.
Lloyd Parker
Then why hasn't the current level caused accelerated plant growth and kept the
level from growing?
Lloyd Parker
"Clifford" <no...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Why live in an apartment when you can own your own home. It's the American
>dream!
1. The down payment -- some are saving up for it.
2. A lot of places in the US have priced homes out of reach of the average
person there, people like teachers and cops.
3. Some don't want the hassle of getting things fixed when they break, yard
upkeep, etc.
4. Often the only affordable homes are miles (30-60 or more) from work.
>Besides, only welfare/socialist people live in apartments.
So everybody in Manhattan is a welfare person or a socialist?
>Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car!
Or don't want the hassle of commuting 30 miles each way, each day, in
rush-hour traffic, or the hassle of driving into a downtown urban area.
Again, I'd suspect most Manhattanites down own a car.
Lloyd Parker
meiza
I remember reading a study somewhere that plant growth doesn't
accelerate that much with increasing CO2 concentration. It is a factor
that can slow down global warming slightly, but not much. I don't have
references.
Also, 1-3.5 degrees C is equal to 150 to 550 kilometers of distance
towards the equator - trees can have trouble adjusting and might
get massive disease outbreaks. This has happened somewhat in northern
areas when some parasites' larvae don't die anymore since the
winters tend to be warmer than before.
Actually, I've read that human activity is causing the sixth mass
extinction as we speak.
Rand Simberg
lpa...@emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>>>>Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the
>>>>reporting turned out to be wrong.
>>>So all those people weren't trapped in the Superdome of Convention Center?
>>>Half of the population isn't still displaced?
>>
>>I didn't say it was all wrong. Go get a dictionary, and look up the
>>words "most" and "all."
>
>So what parts were right, in your view?
That there was a hurricane, with a lot of destruction, and that some
people died and many were left homeless.
George
Methane has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, but is more potent at
retaining heat in the atmosphere than is CO2. In addition, it breaks down
to CO2, and so increases the CO2 levels as well.
George
George
And then evaporates back into the atmosphere. The call it the hydrologic
cycle. It is a continuous cycle.
George
Clifford
LLLLLLoyd, Read and be enlightened!
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0530earthgreen.html
raylopez99
racist ("All the general depictions of poor black people as dangerous
animals were wrong" [trying ironically to be sarcastic, but exposing
his racism).
It's no coincidence because AGW'ers, like CB and NobodyYouKnow, are in
fact camouflaged racists, intent on stopping human growth, for such
trivial things as keeping their property values high (as if letting it
a little colour into their neighborhood would diminish property
values--it would not in fact), and maintaining their uncongested views.
Yep, this is the ugly face of the GW agenda.
RL
raylopez99
they are definitely more energy efficient. Increasing the price of
fossil fuels will indeed stimulate alternative fuels and help balance
the federal budget deficit. But I am against caving in to the Eco-Nuts
and to signing hapless Kyoto treaty.
RL
Rand Simberg
<raylo...@yahoo.com> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
>Well said Bill. I live and travel in Europe as well as the US, and
Kyoto is dead. Even the Europeans admit it.
George
"Joe Jared" <joej...@osirusoft.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.16....@osirusoft.com...
> On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:17:15 -0500, Scott Nudds wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 12:32:31 +0000, George wrote:
>>> > He also assumes that the environment in which we all live could
>>> > sustain
>>> > such levels. I don't think there is any precedent for that
>>> > assumption.
>>
>>
>>> I don't think plants will complain.
>>
>> in
>> the Texas wildfires would complain.
>
> You forgot to mention 11 humans. The plant life will naturally recover,
> and the life of cattle is usually cut short anyway and seen as t-bones,
> rump roasts or on special occasions, as cow tongue. Naturally, there
> could
> also be a loose association with many of the meteorological disasters
> over
> the past 20 years, but still it's a small price to pay compared to the
> benefits. More obvious would be a temporary increase in cost of beef due
> to the sheer loss. Harsher weather than we've already seen is
> inevitable,
> but it's temporary and will settle into calmer weather once temperatures
> stabilize from north to south.
>
> --
> Listed? You must be joking http://relays.osirusoft.com
> Pallorium V. Jared ruling http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/ruling.pdf
> http://www.oretek.com/lawsuite/
>
I'll let the Polar bears know. They'll be glad to hear it. :-)
George
Chris
These high levels may be survivable but the "escape" reflex occurs at a much
much lower level. A feeling of suffocation and the desire to escape to
"fresh air" occus at around 400 ppm and I feel like that all the time and
there is no fresh air.
My respiration frequency has increased to double previously and I feel I
cannot get my breath, I've noticed quite a lot of older people are having
the same difficulty.
I have not been diagnosed with lung disease or reduced lung area.
Some days are better than others, today it is like that, called
"oppressive".
I think the whole human race is close to suffocation.
My own opinion is that government agencies need to build nuclear powered
carbon dioxide splitters to take in atmospheric carbon dioxide and spit out
soot and oxygen.
We must all give up burning carbon based fuels and transfer to other forms
of power and a business must develop fusion power as quickly as posible. My
suggestion is in my web site at http://www.newelectricity.co.uk/
Recently a friend announced success of her fusion reactor and was quickly
captured and within a week or two she was publicly "executed" by removal of
her frontal lobe.
She had plenty of capital and was already running a succesful business and I
cannot understand why she was assaulted it seems the world is mad.
The psychiatrists said her ideas were "Sky High" and had no understanding of
her machines although she had a PhD. I mean, what has happened to the
world, don't the people in power want the stuff? She also had a plan for a
"thinking" computer (they just said "computers can't think!").
Now she just sits and stares.
--
Chris
richard schumacher
> mma...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Um, it seems increasingly likely that we're right about peak oil
> > production now, and more and more countries are talking about dumping
> > fossil fuel electrical production for nukes. Where exactly is all this
> > CO2 going to be coming from?
From coal. Some of the largest supplies are in the United States, so if
us ingenious Yankees exert our brains and moral authority we can keep a
lot of it in the ground. Burning stuff is for cavemen.
richard schumacher
Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
> You got that right. Buses suck. Sharing space with strangers sucks.
> Waiting
> on buses sucks. Having to walk blocks because that's as close as the bus
> gets
> to where you want to go sucks. Not having service when you want it (like
> 1:00
> AM after the late movie) sucks. Buses suck.
Frequently-running trains, OTOH, don't suck. Mass transit != buses.
> >Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car!
>
> Absolutely.
Hmm, then why were all those Lexuses and BMWs in the train station
parking lot this morning?
richard schumacher
"George" <geo...@wtfiswrongwithyou.com> wrote:
> Except that there is no indication that that is occurring. The fact is
> that the Sahara and most other deserts (including those in the Southwestern
> U.S.) are expanding.
For a snapshot of the desertification of the central U.S. now in
progress, see for example
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/noaas_spring_ou.html#more
rall...@att.net
richard schumacher wrote:
> In article <tqnj12hhst5dsk901...@4ax.com>,
> Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > You got that right. Buses suck. Sharing space with strangers sucks.
> > Waiting
> > on buses sucks. Having to walk blocks because that's as close as the bus
> > gets
> > to where you want to go sucks. Not having service when you want it (like
> > 1:00
> > AM after the late movie) sucks. Buses suck.
>
> Frequently-running trains, OTOH, don't suck. Mass transit != buses.
Well, partially. They are a whale of a lot better than buses, tho.
Trains, however, are never frequently-enough running, plus you have to
share space with people, which means you can't eat, smoke, listen to
your radio, CD, DVD, etc. and headphones don't count 'cuz they also
suck, etc. Trains are also slow because they stop at each station
regardless of whether you want to get off there, so the average speed
goes way down.
A train that would be faster than a car in _all_ traffic conditions,
not just rush hour, _might_ not suck so bad, but you'd still have to
share space with the likes of Colin Furgeson, the guy that shot up the
LI RR some years ago, killing people at will just 'cuz he was a
nut-case. That's harder to do to someone with some mobility like when
they're in their cars, and they just might run you down, too.
> > >Public transportation is for people that can't afford a car!
> >
> > Absolutely.
>
> Hmm, then why were all those Lexuses and BMWs in the train station
> parking lot this morning?
'Cuz traffic sucks too...
Dave Headd
Scott Nudds
"El Guapo" <plet...@pinatas.com> wrote
> Good point, Scott. "Katrina" was a classic case of mass hysteria.
I don't remember seeing anyone hysterical in reports of the disaster. But
I do remember seeing the Bush Failure telling his political appointee to
FEMA that he was doing "one heck of a good job" while bodies were rotting in
the floodwaters, and while FEMA was preventing food, medicine, and doctors
from providing aid to the victems.
Over 1 million meals ready to eat were flown in from Europe, only to have
FEMA destroy them rather than provide them as relief to the trapped city
residents.
Trucks carrying ice were divered from state to state for days by FEMA
officials until the crisis was over, at which time they were told to dump
their cargo in land fills and go home.
Tens of thousands of mobile homes were purchased by FEMA and then left
unoccupied for months, some never occupied at all.
Yes, this was a wonderful example of the failure of Republicanism and
George - "no one ever predicted the levies would fail" - Bush in
particular.
Scott Nudds
Rand Simberg" wrote
> Actually, it was a classic case of press hysteria. Most of the reporting
turned out
> to be wrong.
That's what you get when infotainment for profit replaces news reporting.